## 4 Example Application of the Prototype Decision-Making Platform  
The prototype platform has been tested by making a first application with reference to a simulated building stock: a set of 46 RC school buildings ideally and uniformly distributed over the territory of the Campania region. Deterministic data are intended to be presumed by means of visual inspection and/or original design documentation. The variability of random parameters concerning structural details and materials is expressed through probability distributions assumed from relevant literature or by expert judgment, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Input Data**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Output Data**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\bullet\)} & \(\bullet\) & Pre-intervention seismic risk for each building and for overall portfolio \\  & \(\bullet\) & Optimal budget allocation: \\  & data & \(\bigcirc\) & Type of intervention and relative cost for each building \\ \(\bullet\) & Seismic hazard & \(\bigcirc\) & Occurrence of intervention typologies in the portfolio \\ \(\bullet\) & Available budget & \(\bigcirc\) & Budget allocation for each type of intervention \\  & \(\bigcirc\) & Post-intervention seismic risk for each building and for overall portfolio \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Summary of input and output data of the decision-making tool. Figure 8: Interactive budget allocation and maps updating. Figure 7: Information portal: (**a**) building’s registration data; (**b**) portfolio main characteristics; (**c**) interactive budget allocation. distinguishing two different classes of buildings according to their year of construction (namely pre or post 1972). More details can be found in [19]. The pre-intervention seismic risk assessment and the cost-benefit seismic risk mitigation analysis were performed and the relative results provided through the web platform in a direct and graphical supported approach, thanks to the interactive user-friendly interface. The main objective and potentiality of this tool is to allocate the budget to the right place so the client should know how much they should spend on each building and what would be the best decision strategy to intervene. Hence, the final report of the decision-making process should be able to provide (i) the suggested intervention strategy for each building (demolition/reconstruction, no intervention, partial retrofitting or full retrofitting); (ii) the cost to be paid for each building according to the required retrofit option; (iii) the total cost to be invested, which must obviously be lower than the available budget; (iv) the reduced seismic risk (SRpost-int), as well as the initial risk (SRpre-int), provided to appreciate the total seismic risk mitigation achieved. Assuming an available budget equal to EUR 2.5 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\), the suggested retrofit intervention for each building, maximizing the seismic risk mitigation, is provided in Figure 9. The seismic risk distribution on the area of interest allows for a prompt and clear summary of the most vulnerable buildings in the pre-intervention condition (top map on left side) and the achievable mitigation (top map on right side) thanks to the suggested retrofit interventions (bottom map on left side). In addition, moving the cursor on the pie charts in the bottom right side of the platform provides a picture of the distribution of interventions and corresponding budget allocation (Figure 10). In this case, it appears that, for the available budget, 28.3% of buildings were subjected to interventions, with only one building needing to be demolished and rebuilt and an equal number of buildings (six) being partially and fully retrofitted. The biggest amount of the budget was spent in order to fully recover the six identified buildings, while half of this amount was required for the partial retrofit of the other six buildings. The rest of the budget (around 10%) was spent on the demolition and reconstruction of the most vulnerable building.