GRUPPO NAZIONALE PER LA DIFESA DAI TERREMOTI

Evaluation of the projects 2000-2002

 

Proposal Title (n° 3)

Revision of the seismic risk of the residential patrimony at a national scale.

 

Project coordinator  

Paolo Gasperini

 

Comments on the proposal

To quote from a reviewer “this is a monster project” that counts 71 participants from 6 units and requires 43 1/4 man-years of support to basically recycle already available data. The only new data acquisition proposed is in task 9A where the authors propose to install a geodetic network with grid size 50 km from Umbria to Calabria. We would be very surprised if such a network did not exist already. The general opinion of the reviewers is that this proposal is weak in innovation and does not clearly define what is going to be done. Many of the tasks described in the project are the regular business of Observatories, for instance the determination of Wood Anderson magnitudes is not really a research activity, it is something that should have been done on a regular basis by the Observatories. Similarly Task 2A proposes to make a catalogue of seismicity and seismic phases, again a task of an Observatory not a research project.  Another weak point is that we do not see how all this work will be co-ordinated and how the different groups will interact. This is an important issue because since the data is already available, one could ask why it has not been already exploited?

 

Comments on the proponent team

The team is composed of almost 71 researchers from different units and a sizeable group of new researchers to be hired. It is extremely difficult to pass a judgement on the quality of the team given its sheer size. The abilities stretch from geology to earthquake dynamics and from history of earthquakes to estimation of seismic magnitudes by empirical methods. Actually, this is the strong and interesting point of this proposal, many very well known scientists participate in it.

 

Comments on the budget

There is no justification for the budget. Just an extensive list of expenses for every group of participants. There is nothing else to say.

More than 1000 ML are devoted to personnel under contracts and fellowships. This is unreasonable if we do not know what are these people going to do.

Final evaluation of the panel

This is a huge project that would need to be split into reasonable units that can be managed and evaluated properly.  It is an interesting suggestion to put earthquake dynamics together with seismic history and GPS networks, but this is not going to work unless a common and well defined objective is set up. Clearly this project must be split and brought back to sizeable units that we can evaluate properly.  Tasks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are those that we consider new and innovative and could make two nice projects, one on structure and tectonics, the other on seismic sources. Task 1 and 2 are not real research projects, they are part of the regular task of the groups that propose them. Task 10 and 11 are broad definitions with little contents. Task 10 should be part of 9 and 11 is the goal of the whole GNDT. The panel is proposing to finance the second semester of 2000 with a reduced budget of 100 ml of lires and to resubmit a new revised proposal .