Building code economic performance under variable wind risk

  • Kevin M. SimmonsEmail author
  • Jeffrey Czajkowski
  • James M. Done
Original Article


As losses from natural disasters steadily increase, communities search for ways to increase resilience. Northern Australia strengthened their wind codes in 1980 after Tropical Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin and recommendations from engineers in Queensland, Australia suggest further enhancements. Florida, United States Of America (US) also enacted stronger building codes after the devastation brought by Hurricane Andrew as a way to limit future windstorm losses. This study uses the case study of Florida to develop understanding of the economic effectiveness of wind-enhanced building codes across regions of varying wind risk. Realized insured loss data are used to examine the effect of the Florida Building Code (FBC) on windstorm losses. Further, we analyze the effectiveness of the FBC in different regions within the state. We find that overall the FBC passes a benefit/cost test with the exception of the use of a higher cost option for impact protection. Our results suggest that wind code changes in other regions, such as those recommended for the Australian wind code, would also be cost-effective. Finally, potential changes in wind speed from hurricanes due to climate change increase the cost-effectiveness of actions that mitigate the damage from wind storms.


Benefit/cost Building codes 



The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Insurance Services Office, the Florida Department of Emergency Management, and Florida International University for the data and research support. The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation.


  1. Applied Research Associates, Inc. (2002). Florida building code cost and loss reduction benefit comparison studyGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE. (2013). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-10. 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191Google Scholar
  3. Crompton RP, McAneney KJ (2008) Normalised Australian insured losses from meteorological hazards: 1967–2006. Environ Sci Pol 11(5):371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Czajkowski J, Done J (2014) As the wind blows? Understanding hurricane damages at the local level through a case study analysis. Wea. Clim. Soc 6(2):202–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dehring CA, Halek M (2013) Coastal building codes and hurricane damage. Land Econ 89(4):597–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon R (2009). Florida building commission presentation. Available at -
  7. Done JM, Owens B (2017) Tropical cyclones. In: Mitchell-Wallace K, Jones M, Hillier J, Foote M (eds) Natural catastrophe risk management and modelling: a practitioner’s guide. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  8. Done JM, Holland GJ, Bruyère CL, Leung LR, Suzuki-Parker A (2015) Modeling high-impact weather and climate: lessons from a tropical cyclone perspective. Clim Chang 129(3–4):381–395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emanuel K (2011) Global warming effects on U.S. hurricane damage. Wea Clim Soc 3:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Englehardt JD, Peng C (1996) A Bayesian benefit-risk model applied to the South Florida Building Code. Risk Anal 16(1):81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Florida Catastrophic Storm Risk Management Center, 2013. The State of Florida’s Property Insurance Market 2nd Annual Report Released January 2013 for the Florida Legislature. Available from
  12. Frank WM, Young GS (2007) The interannual variability of tropical cyclones. Mon Wea Rev 135:3587–3598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geoscience Australia (2018) Accessed March 6, 2018
  14. Ginger J, Henderson D, Edwards M, and Holmes J (2010). Housing damage in windstorms and mitigation for Australia: 1-18, Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene W (2003) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallegate S (2007) The use of synthetic hurricane tracks in risk analysis and climate change damage assessment. J Appl Met Clim 46:1956–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamid SS, Pinelli J-P, Chen S-C, Gurley K (2011) Catastrophe model-based assessment of hurricane risk and estimates of potential insured losses for the state of Florida. Nat Hazards Rev 12(4):171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heckman J (1976) The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Ann Econ Soc Meas 5(4):475–492Google Scholar
  19. Heckman J (1979) Sample selection as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) (2004). Hurricane Charley executive summary. Available at (last accessed, February 10, 2016)
  21. Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) (2015). New IBHS report rates building codes in 18 coastal states. Available at (last accessed, February 10, 2016).
  22. Jain V 2010: The role of wind duration in damage estimation. AIR Currents, 4 pp. [Available online at–The-Role-of-Wind-Duration-in-Damage-Estimation/
  23. Laprise R, de Elía R, Caya D, Biner S, Lucas-Picher P, Diaconescu EP, Leduc M, Alexandru A, Separovic L (2008) Challenging some tenets of regional climate modeling. Meteorog Atmos Phys 100(1–4):3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mendelsohn R, Emanuel K, Chonabayashi S, Bakkensen L (2012) The impact of climate change on global tropical cyclone damage. Nature Clim Change 2:205–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mesinger F et al (2006) North American regional reanalysis. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 87:343–360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NARR 2015: National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Weather Service/NOAA/U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005, updated monthly. NCEP North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR). Research Data Archive at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Computational and Information Systems Laboratory. Accessed 22 May 2015
  27. Pielke RAJ (2007) Future economic damage from tropical cyclones: sensitivities to societal and climate changes. Philos Trans R Soc 365:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simmons KM, Kruse JB (2000) Market value and perceived risk: empirical results, J of Economics, Vol 26, No 1, Summer 2000Google Scholar
  29. Simmons KM, Kovacs P, Kopp G (2015) Tornado damage mitigation: benefit/cost analysis of enhanced building codes in Oklahoma, Wea. Clim. Soc, April, 2015Google Scholar
  30. Simmons KM, Czajkowski J, Done J (2018) Economic effectiveness of implementing a statewide building code: the case of Florida. Land Economics forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  31. Stewart MG (2015) Risk and economic viability of housing climate adaptation strategies for wind hazards in Southeast Australia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 20(4):601–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stewart MG, Wang X, and Willgoose GR (2012) Direct and indirect cost and benefit assessment of climate adaptation strategies for extreme wind events in Queensland, CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  33. Stewart MG, Wang X, and Willgoose GR (2014) Indirect and direct cost and benefit assessment of climate adaptation strategies for extreme wind events in Queensland, Nat. Hazards Rev., Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2014.Google Scholar
  34. Tye MR, Stephenson DB, Holland GJ, Katz RW (2014) A Weibull approach for improving climate model projections of tropical cyclone wind-speed distributions. J Clim 27:6119–6133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walsh KJE, McBride JL, Klotzbach PJ, Balachandran S, Camargo SJ, Holland G, Knutson TR, Kossin JP, Lee TC, Sobel A, Sugi M (2016) Tropical cyclones and climate change. WIREs Climate Change 7:65–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhai AR, Jiang JH (2014) Dependence of US hurricane economic loss on maximum wind speed and storm size. Environmental Res Letters 9(6):064019CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin M. Simmons
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jeffrey Czajkowski
    • 3
  • James M. Done
    • 4
  1. 1.Austin College and National Institute for Risk and ResilienceShermanUSA
  2. 2.University of OklahomaNormanUSA
  3. 3.Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes CenterUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.National Center for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations