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.

Earthquakes are one of the most catastrophic natural phenomena. After an earthquake, earthquake reconnaissance enables effective recovery by collecting data on building damage and other impacts. This paper aims to identify state-of-the-art data sources for building damage assessment and provide guidance for more efficient data collection. We have reviewed 39 articles that indicate the sources used by different authors to collect data related to damage and post-disaster recovery progress after earthquakes between 2014 and 2021. The current data collection methods have been grouped into seven categories: fieldwork or ground surveys, omnidirectional imagery (OD), terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), remote sensing (RS), crowdsourcing platforms, social media (SM) and closed-circuit television videos (CCTV). The selection of a particular data source or collection technique for earthquake reconnaissance includes different criteria depending on what questions are to be answered by these data. We conclude that modern reconnaissance missions cannot rely on a single data source. Different data sources should complement each other, validate collected data or systematically quantify the damage. The recent increase in the number of crowdsourcing and SM platforms used to source earthquake reconnaissance data demonstrates that this is likely to become an increasingly important data source.

A number of indices have been developed for measuring vulnerability to disasters, but little attention has been paid to recovery indices. Post-disaster periods are usually divided into four phases. The terms established by the United Nations Development Programme for post-disaster phases—relief, early recovery, recovery, and development—are used in this article. This research examines the hypothesis that the boundaries between post-disaster recovery phases are fuzzy and should be defined by the progress achieved in the recovery process, rather than by the amount of time elapsed since the event. The methodology employed involved four steps: fieldwork, mapping, identification of indicators, and assessment. The case study area was the city of L’Aquila in the Abruzzo region of central Italy, which was struck by an earthquake in April 2009. For each phase of the recovery process in L’Aquila a score was calculated based on the progress observed in 2016, 7 years after the earthquake. The highest score went to the early recovery phase (14 points), followed by the recovery phase (13 points), the development phase (12 points), and the relief phase (4 points). The results demonstrate the possibility of defining post-disaster recovery phases in an affected area based on measuring achievements through indicators rather than defining recovery phases in terms of elapsed time after a disaster.