We examine the role of business interruption (BI) insurance in business recovery following the Christchurch earthquake in 2011. First, we ask whether BI insurance increases the likelihood of business survival in the immediate (3-6 months) aftermath of a disaster. We find positive but statistically insignificant evidence that those firms that had incurred damage, but were covered by BI insurance, had higher likelihood of survival post-quake compared with those firms that did not have any insurance. For the medium-term (2-3 years) survival of firms, our results show a more explicit role for insurance. Firms with BI insurance experience increased productivity and improved performance following a catastrophe. Furthermore, we find that those organisations that receive prompt and full payments of their claims have a better recovery than those that had protracted or inadequate claims payments, but this difference between the two groups is not statistically significant. We find no statistically significant evidence that the latter group (inadequate payment) did any better than those organisations that had damage but no insurance coverage. In general, our analysis indicates the importance not only of adequate insurance coverage, but also of an insurance system that delivers prompt claim payments.
This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in 'The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice'. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-017-0067-y. The following terms of use apply: https://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/publication-policies/aam-terms-of-use.
This dissertation addresses several fundamental and applied aspects of ground motion selection for seismic response analyses. In particular, the following topics are addressed: the theory and application of ground motion selection for scenario earthquake ruptures; the consideration of causal parameter bounds in ground motion selection; ground motion selection in the near-fault region where directivity effect is significant; and methodologies for epistemic uncertainty consideration and propagation in the context of ground motion selection and seismic performance assessment. The paragraphs below outline each contribution in more detail. A scenario-based ground motion selection method is presented which considers the joint distribution of multiple intensity measure (IM) types based on the generalised conditional intensity measure (GCIM) methodology (Bradley, 2010b, 2012c). The ground motion selection algorithm is based on generating realisations of the considered IM distributions for a specific rupture scenario and then finding the prospective ground motions which best fit the realisations using an optimal amplitude scaling factor. In addition, using different rupture scenarios and site conditions, two important aspects of the GCIM methodology are scrutinised: (i) different weight vectors for the various IMs considered; and (ii) quantifying the importance of replicate selections for ensembles with different numbers of desired ground motions. As an application of the developed scenario-based ground motion selection method, ground motion ensembles are selected to represent several major earthquake scenarios in New Zealand that pose a significant seismic hazard, namely, Alpine, Hope and Porters Pass ruptures for Christchurch city; and Wellington, Ohariu, and Wairarapa ruptures for Wellington city. A rigorous basis is developed, and sensitivity analyses performed, for the consideration of bounds on causal parameters (e.g., magnitude, source-to-site distance, and site condition) for ground motion selection. The effect of causal parameter bound selection on both the number of available prospective ground motions from an initial empirical as-recorded database, and the statistical properties of IMs of selected ground motions are examined. It is also demonstrated that using causal parameter bounds is not a reliable approach to implicitly account for ground motion duration and cumulative effects when selection is based on only spectral acceleration (SA) ordinates. Specific causal parameter bounding criteria are recommended for general use as a ‘default’ bounding criterion with possible adjustments from the analyst based on problem-specific preferences. An approach is presented to consider the forward directivity effects in seismic hazard analysis, which does not separate the hazard calculations for pulse-like and non-pulse-like ground motions. Also, the ability of ground motion selection methods to appropriately select records containing forward directivity pulse motions in the near-fault region is examined. Particular attention is given to ground motion selection which is explicitly based on ground motion IMs, including SA, duration, and cumulative measures; rather than a focus on implicit parameters (i.e., distance, and pulse or non-pulse classifications) that are conventionally used to heuristically distinguish between the near-fault and far-field records. No ad hoc criteria, in terms of the number of directivity ground motions and their pulse periods, are enforced for selecting pulse-like records. Example applications are presented with different rupture characteristics, source-to-site geometry, and site conditions. It is advocated that the selection of ground motions in the near-fault region based on IM properties alone is preferred to that in which the proportion of pulse-like motions and their pulse periods are specified a priori as strict criteria for ground motion selection. Three methods are presented to propagate the effect of seismic hazard and ground motion selection epistemic uncertainties to seismic performance metrics. These methods differ in their level of rigor considered to propagate the epistemic uncertainty in the conditional distribution of IMs utilised in ground motion selection, selected ground motion ensembles, and the number of nonlinear response history analyses performed to obtain the distribution of engineering demand parameters. These methods are compared for an example site where it is observed that, for seismic demand levels below the collapse limit, epistemic uncertainty in ground motion selection is a smaller uncertainty contributor relative to the uncertainty in the seismic hazard itself. In contrast, uncertainty in ground motion selection process increases the uncertainty in the seismic demand hazard for near-collapse demand levels.
