Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
On January 2005, the World Conference on Disaster Reduction adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action 20052025:
Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters [UN-ISDR (United Nations, International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction), Disaster Risk and Sustainable Development: understanding the links between development, environment
and natural hazards leading to disasters, World Summit on Sustainable Development, AugustSeptember 2002, Johannesburg,
2002]. This white paper seeks to promote an effective integration of disaster risk considerations into sustainable
development policies, planning and programming at all levels [UN-ISDR (United Nations, International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction), Disaster Risk and Sustainable Development: understanding the links between development, environment
and natural hazards leading to disasters, World Summit on Sustainable Development, AugustSeptember 2002, Johannesburg,
2002. p. 1] outlining a strategic and systematic approach to reduce vulnerabilities and risks to hazards.
The current paper discusses each aspect of the Hyogo approach in relation to the Italian experience. Italy represents an
interesting case because of its multiple hazard environment, and the fact that it has developed an integrated approach to risk
reduction planning. Strengths and weaknesses of the Italian way of dealing with risk are identied, and compared with the
theoretical processes suggested by the framework. Implementation of selected key actions in Italy has helped identify a series
of obstacles to progress, further dening the gap that still exists between theoretical framework and actual practise.
The various activities constituting risk management (viz., assessment, prevention, mitigation, monitoring, early
warning, preparedness) are here considered in a comprehensive framework wherein each phase is connected to the others.
The paper focuses on natural hazards, which are more frequent in Italy (landslides, oods, earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, natural soil erosion). The main results include:
A new process for dealing with risk, using the framework for guidance, is identied. We track the reasons for Italy
gradually adopting this process in dealing with her vulnerabilities to natural hazards.
Those factors that appear to interfere with an integrated approach to risk management are identied as a function of
selected experiences.
Guidelines for analysing vulnerabilities to disaster in a multi-hazard, integrated context are proposed.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Natural hazards; Risk management; Vulnerability; Land use
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
93
ARTICLE IN PRESS
94
Hazard is dened here as: A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or
injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. Hazards can include latent conditions that may
represent future threats and can have different origins: natural (geological, hydrometeorological and biological) or induced by human
processes (environmental degradation and technological hazards) [7, p. 46].
2
Vulnerability is here dened as: The conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes,
which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards [7, p. 46].
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
95
know-how in an effort to reduce loss from disasters [5]. In 1994, IDNDR organized the First World
Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction where, the Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer
World [9] was conceived. This document, focusing on the importance of socio-economic vulnerability in
disaster risk analysis, emphasized the crucial role of human action in reducing the vulnerability of societies to
natural hazards and related technological and environmental disasters.
During its decade, IDNDR achieved important results in moving us from a culture of reaction to one of
prevention, and in forging vital links amongst the political, scientic, and technological communities. When
IDNDR ended in 1999, a successor body was created to carry on its work: the International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (ISDR) [5].
ISDR aims at building disaster resilient communities by promoting increased awareness of the importance
of disaster reduction as an integral component of sustainable development, with the goal of reducing human,
social, economic and environmental losses due to natural hazards and related technological and
environmental disasters [14].
In 2005, ISDR promoted another World Conference on Disaster Reduction where the Hyogo Framework
for Action was adopted. This document is aimed at promoting an effective integration of disaster risk
considerations into sustainable development policies, planning and programming at all levels [8, p. 1].
Beginning with a review of progresses made in implementing the Yokohama Strategy, the Conference
identied specic gaps that are the basis for their new position paper, organized into ve key areas:
governance, organizational, legal and policy framework; risk assessment, monitoring and early warning;
knowledge management and education; reducing underlying risk factors; and preparing for effective response
and recovery [8].
2.3. National policies
The world appears to be divided into two when considering the impact of natural disasters over time. As can
be seen from Table 1, such disasters seem to have different effects on rst world countries (FWCs) vs. those
that are considered less developed countries (LDCs). In particular, natural disasters in the former create more
economic loss, while in the latter the principal consequence is injuries and fatalities. It is reasonable, of course,
to explain this phenomenon in terms nations wealth, where the more afuent can afford more effective efforts
to research and organize for the mitigation of natural disasters.
In FWCs, then, the importance of each aspect of risk management is better recognized, with relevant
issues addressed: from hazard assessment to risk evaluation, from mitigation policy to monitoring at all levels,
from early warning to preparedness. Nevertheless, these elements are generally not considered systematically,
as a part of a comprehensive framework [5].
For example, the United States and Japan both have extensively investigated the issue of controlling
damage from earthquakes. The State of California has set up a multi-dimensional risk reduction strategy that
considers building codes; land use planning at the local level; an in-depth and detailed risk assessment; and
increasing public awareness [16,17]. Despite such efforts, the absence of federal and/or state coordination, and
the sizeable responsibility left to local governments (viz., counties and municipalities) in identifying and
addressing seismic risks, have resulted in substantial differences in strategy across regions. For example,
seismic hazard data have generally not affected decisions on location, type or intensity of land uses [18].
In 2000, the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA 2000), reinforced the importance of planning for
disasters. DMA 2000 increased the level of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds available to
states that developed a comprehensive, enhanced plan for disaster mitigation.
Further to this, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a series of handbooks
to promote state and local mitigation planning based on a multi-hazard approach to natural risk assessment
[1921]. The objective was to enhance a systemic process of risk mitigation by emphasizing the link between
hazard mitigation and spatial planning [13]. The suggested planning process consists of four phases [21].
The rst involves organizing resources and mobilizing the community. The second focuses on risk
assessment, which is followed by the design and implementation of mitigation strategies. The last phase
discusses how to implement the plan, monitor progress, and evaluate strategy effectiveness, including process
feedback.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
96
Table 1
The twenty greatest disasters by number of deaths and total damage (US$)
Twenty greatest disasters by number of deaths
Year
Disaster type
Country
No. deaths
Year
Disaster type
Country
2004
2005
2003
2001
2004
2004
2003
2004
2005
2005
2005
2000
2005
2002
2001
2005
2004
2000
2001
2000
Tsunami
Earthquake
Earthquake
Earthquake
Hurricane Jeanne
Flood
Earthquake
Tropical storm Winnie
Hurricane Stan
Hurricane Katrina
Earthquake
Flood
Flood
Earthquake
Flood
Earthquake
Flood
Flood
Earthquake
Flood
South-east Asia
Pakistan
Iran Islam Rep
India
Haiti
Haiti
Algeria
Philippines
Guatemala
United States
India
India
India
Afghanistan
Algeria
Indonesia
India
India
El Salvador
Mozambique
226,435
73,338
26,796
20,005
2754
2665
2266
1619
1513
1322
1309
1290
1200
1000
921
915
900
884
844
800
2005
2004
2002
2004
2000
2004
2004
2004
2000
2004
2001
2005
2000
2003
2005
2003
2003
2003
2003
2004
Hurricane Katrina
Earthquake
Flood
Tsunami
Flood
Hurricane Jeanne
Hurricane Charley
Hurricane Ivan
Typhoon
Typhoon
Hurricane Allison
Hurricane Rita
Flood
Typhoon
Earthquake
Earthquake
Hurricane
Tornado
Flood
Hurricane Frances
United States
Japan
Germany
South-east Asia
Japan
United States
United States
United States
Korea Dem P Rep
Japan
United States
United States
United Kingdom
Korea Rep
Pakistan
Algeria
United States
United States
China P Rep
United States
125,000,000
28,000,000
11,700,000
7,710,800
7,440,000
7,000,000
6,800,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
5,900,000
5,500,000
5,000,000
5,000,000
5,000,000
5,000,000
4,830,000
4,400,000
A more comprehensive approach to risk reduction has been made in Japan by identifying systematic
relationships between seismic risk, spatial planning, and emergency plans, with an emphasis on consequences
related to seismic risk: res, landslides, energy blackouts, and communication breakdowns [22].
Lessons from the Kobe earthquake have been fundamental to the current Japanese approach [22] to risk
assessment. In the Kobe event, virtually all difculties of a major emergency in a densely inhabited area were
realized. Damage involved not only buildings, but supply and communication networks, which created their
own risks soon after the earthquake. Two kilometres of an elevated roadway collapsed, the main rail network
was damaged, including the high-speed bullet train, while many res broke out in different areas of the
city as a result of gas leaks. Rescue efforts were hindered by severe trafc congestion which lasted for several
days [23].
The Kobe earthquake raised consciousness in that more than buildings are vulnerable to natural
catastrophes: people in their daily lives are thus vulnerable when using underground mass transportation
systems, shopping in pubic arcades, etc. [22]. The experience of Kobe led directly to a re-design in Tokyo of a
system of rebreaks, consisting of roads, railways, waterways and greenways at least 16 m wide, that would
prevent a re from spreading to adjacent blocks and simultaneously serve as escape routes and emergency
transport routes for rescue services [22].
More recently were the historic Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the US during 2005. These events
have led to a new phase of disaster planning that includes identifying and better managing spaces,
roads, and infrastructures that are needed for emergency services, evacuation, etc. These events exposed
the difculties involved in evacuating hundreds of thousands of residents from harms way on very
short notice. Katrina and Rita thus highlighted, yet one more time, the importance of social factors in
reducing national vulnerability to natural disasters. This is particularly true for a nations poor and
disadvantaged.
In this regard, links between poverty and vulnerability have received special attention in Latin America,
where poverty and ignorance can lead to precarious human settlements in dangerous areas. This is the case in
virtually every Latin American capital city [24]!
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
97
In Europe, each country has its own risk specicity depending on more frequent hazards. For
example, in England, studies of oods are particularly well developed [25]. In fact, oods are the most
important natural hazard facing all European countries. Following the catastrophic oods along the
Danube and Elbe rivers in 2002, the European Union (EU) promoted development of a common ood
policy [25].
From a European perspective, both Italy and France have developed a wider and more comprehensive
approach to risk management within a multi-hazard environment.
For our purposes, Italy represents a particularly interesting case as it is threatened by a variety of natural
hazards, from volcanic eruption to earthquake to ooding. The frequent and signicant disasters resulting
from this environment have driven the Italian government, scientists, and society in general to devote
signicant resources to nding more effective risk reduction strategies.
In order to provide an account of the Italian way of dealing with risk, it is necessary to rst describe key
tools designed to deal with issues of risk as mandated by Italian law. In Section 3, three tools will be briey
described: a sectoral plan termed3 the watershed plan; a comprehensive spatial plan4 referred to as the
provincial territorial plan (PTP); and a civil protection plan, called the programmes for risk assessment and
prevention.
3. The Italian approach
3.1. Basic concepts, laws and tools
As noted above, Italy is a country at risk to a variety of natural disasters: oods, landslides, earthquakes,
and volcanic eruptions are among the more frequent dangers [26]. It is estimated, for example, that
nearly 70% of Italian municipalities are susceptible to hydrogeologic (oods and landslides) risk [27].
Further, much of the country is threatened by earthquakes as Italy sits on one of the most seismogenetic
areas of the Mediterranean Sea [28]. Further to this, there are several active volcanoes in the south of the
country, including Vesuvio, Campi Flegrei, Etna and Stromboli. In particular, Vesuvio rises over a highly
populated area (about 600,000 inhabitants), and is thus considered one of the most dangerous volcanoes in the
world.
As might be expected, there are areas of Italy threatened by multiple natural hazards [29]. In these areas the
possibility of an increase of dangerousness due to interaction among different hazards has been displayed
more than once. For example, the Irpinia earthquake in 1980 resulted in a series of destructive landslides [30].
The landslides added to the earthquake damage while also hampering rescue efforts. As a result, 2 days after
the original event, some mountain villages had still not received any assistance [31].
As a result of existing conditions, the need for a multi-hazard approach to risk management in Italy is well
known. This notwithstanding, the Italian strategy for risk reduction has long considered individual rather than
multiple hazard types. Indeed, until recently, risk and hazard have been considered synonyms [32].
During the 1980s, a new concept of risk arose in Italy, with more emphasis on prevention and the
relationships amongst hazards, as well as between hazards and human activity. After the Irpinia earthquake, a
National Law (741/81) was enacted introducing seismic risk prevention in urban planning. It is now
considered a rst step towards a new culture of prevention, which emphasizes the role of spatial planning in
natural risk mitigation.
These developments inspired Law 183/89 (Rules for organizational and functional setting of ground
protection) which constitutes the rst step toward a multi-hazard, more integrated approach to natural risk.
This act introduced watershed plans (art. 3, L. 183/89) as a tool to cope with environmental deterioration
resulting from the interaction of water and soil; viz., landslides, oods, natural erosion, subsidence, and
avalanches.
3
Sectoral plans are designed to face specic issues in a given area; for example a watershed plan is concerned with the problem of hydrogeologic risk.
4
Comprehensive spatial plans deal with the spatial and/or physical structure and development of an administrative area, viz., the spatial
distribution of land use: infrastructure, settlement, nature conservation areas, etc.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
98
Watershed plans follow a systemic approach that recognizes the interactions between geological and
hydrological phenomena within a specic geographic area: the watershed.5 The need for a single tool to deal
with different hazards is due to the existence of clear relationships among these hazards within the same
watershed. In particular, watershed plans should localize and quantify current and potential sources of
hydro-geological risk, and identify appropriate measures for its mitigation. The latter should include both
infrastructural works and actions aimed at protecting or restoring the natural environment while enhancing
rational use of resources through bonds, incentives, management actions, prevention, and monitoring actions
(Law 183/89 and the subsequent Decree of Prime Minister of 23 March 1990).
Special authorities (e.g., Watershed Authority6) were created to manage the problem and to draw up
watershed plans.
Social or economic issues were not directly considered by watershed plans, but they represented a rst step
toward a multi-hazard, integrated strategy. Spatial planning and environmental and land use policies were
thus introduced to risk mitigation planning.
A stronger link between these entities was subsequently proposed in PTPs.
PTPs are comprehensive spatial plans that dene the distribution of land use within the territory
of a province.7 In terms of risk, they should offer a more complete framework of hazards threatening a
provincial territory, and for identifying effective mitigation and prevention measures (Law 142/90). They thus
represent a key link between regional development strategy and the detailed land-use planning of
municipalities.
PTPs manage a territory generally smaller than a watershed and deal with a wider range of objectives:
rational utilization of areas, cultural identity protection, territorial development, environmental protection
and valorization, etc. In practise, watershed plans manage the more technical aspects of hydro-geological risk:
from risk assessment to identifying mitigation actions. PTPs consider the technical elements of watershed
plans and then convert them into spatial planning actions, e.g., land use regulations in hazardous areas,
implementation of measures to mitigate risk. Furthermore, PTPs consider natural and man made hazards
beyond the purely hydro-geologic.
A third important tool to manage risk in Italy is the Programmes for Risk Assessment and Prevention
(PRAPs) a civil protection plan. Considering both natural and man-made hazards, their main objectives
are: risk assessment, hazard monitoring, structuring organizational civil protection measures, disseminating information concerned with risk types and behavioural rules for dealing with such risks in cases
of emergency. Compared with the previous two tools described above, PRAPs are more focused
on the organization of hazard monitoring and emergency preparedness. These plan elements are generally
drawn up by the regions and provinces. In theory, selected best practise PRAPs could be made part
of PTPs.
In summary, then, watershed plans, PTPs and PRAPs are, at this time, the principal tools available to Italy
for spatial and emergency planning at the regional level. They thus provide rules and guidelines for how
municipal plans should deal with relevant hazards. Further, as noted above, all three take a multi-hazard
perspective/integrated vision in developing risk reduction strategies.
3.2. The effectiveness of a multi-hazard perspective and integrated vision of risk reduction
As developed above, a multi-risk approach to disaster planning in Italy is generally considered useful,
if not necessary. Further, there are tools designed to deal with the various risks types found in the
country. Nevertheless, current planning frameworks for organizing such work are not considered sufciently
effective.
In particular, we nd at least ve problems with existing and past Italian disaster planning efforts.
5
Watershed, according to Law 183/1989, can be dened as the area from which rainwater or water coming from the thaw of snow and
glaciers, owing on the surface, gathers in a watercourse directly or through tributaries, and which can be ooded by the waters of the
same watercourse, including its mouth and the coastline (art. 1).
6
Law 183/1989 identies three Watershed Authority typologies: national; interregional, and regional.
7
Italy is administratively subdivided into 20 regions; each region is organized into several provinces (103 in total), each of which
manages several municipalities.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
99
3.2.1. Interactions between and amongst different hazards are generally not considered
PTPs produce risk maps that collect and merge information obtained by other agencies (mainly, Watershed
Authorities). Hazard maps are simple overlays of at-risk areas. However, interactions between and amongst
the various hazards (hazard chains) are not generally considered [33].
3.2.2. Effective integration of existing policies to reduce risk remains minimal
In Italy, risk is increasingly considered a function of the interaction of many factors, e.g., economic, social,
and local planning characteristics [34]. Thus, to effectively face risk, a variety of actions should be taken,
including suitable land use and management. Indeed, within Italy, risk reduction strategies should be directly
integrated into spatial planning at both the regional and local levels (Law 183/89, Law 142/90, Law 741/80).
Unfortunately, there has been, to this point, minimal integration of economic and social considerations in
Italian risk reduction efforts. We believe, however, that this situation can be improved with our proposed
integration of such efforts into the spatial planning function.
3.2.3. A gap remains between understanding and practise
The practical Italian experience is not yet a multi-sectoral approach since, for one thing, differences between
various branches of science are still very deep. Spatial planners and geologists, for example, use language and
techniques so different that it can be difcult to simply understand one another [35] in terms of using maps
produced by different groups.
3.2.4. There is a significant gap between our understanding of hazards facing populations and interventions
needed to prevent or mitigate risk
Geological studies, for example, are, or at least should be, an integral part of urban master plans. However,
the lack of specic guidelines for translating geological ndings into practical planning rules (e.g., compatible
land use/degree of transformation) has often made useless such studies. Often, they become perfunctory
attachments to master plans [36].
3.2.5. Different stakes in land use negatively impact the implementation of risk reduction policies
Decisions that relate to land-use generally involve a good number of people with varying concerns that, not
surprisingly, can result in conict [37]. When the issue is risk reduction, the main clash is likely to involve
security measures that forbid selected construction plans/projects, thus confronting the interests of
landowners. Such conicts give rise to a fundamental question, which has yet to nd an acceptable answer
in Italy: how does one dene and identify thresholds of risk acceptability [23]?
A demonstration of these ve points is now provided. We consider the making of hydro-geological risk
maps, and show how, in practise, the Italian approach, far from being multi-sectoral, is, instead, dangerously
fragmented.
3.3. The hydro-geological risk mapping experience
The project outlined by Law 183/89watershed plans for hydro-geological risk prevention and
mitigationwas complex and ambitious. So complex, in fact, that 10 years later, in 1998, when a succession
of landslides hit the small town of Sarno and other three surrounding villages, not a single completed
watershed plan existed in all of Italy; and, even more surprising, many areas of the country still had no hydrogeological risk maps [29].
Indeed, the Sarno disaster made clear the poor level of understanding authorities had of hazardous
situations across the whole of Italy [29].
As a result, Law 267/98 was enacted that, together with criteria for indemnifying victims (a normal legal
issue following disasters), obliged that, in approximately one year, Watershed Authorities were to draw up the
transitional watershed plan. It would involve identication of areas at risk of ooding, landslides, and
avalanches; including perimeters of the most dangerous locations where safeguard measures must be
implemented (Law 267/98).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
100
A subsequent Decree (Prime Minister Decree 29/9/1998 Guideline and coordination rules to identify
criteria related to tasks dened by art. 1, 1 and 2 subsections, of Law Decree 180/98) provided criteria and
methods to be used in risk mapping. The aim was to have homogeneous and comparable maps for all of Italy,
so that spatial planners could use them for land use denition.
In this regard, while watershed plans target a dened geographical unit (the watershed), spatial plans, at the
regional or provincial level, seek to manage administrative areas that often do not correspond to a single
watershed. Sometimes, for instance, a provincial area belongs to four or more watersheds, so that, in order to
construct a complete picture of risk level in the province, it is necessary to merge maps produced by different
authorities. Coordination is thus an essential prerequisite to obtaining comparable maps, and transferring risk
zoning information to land use planners.
The need to construct such plans in a very short time required a speedy methodology, capable of providing
quick evaluation using immediately available data. The methodology was thus to include a vulnerability
assessment, wherein two separate risk maps (hydraulic, and landslide and avalanche) were created by
overlaying a single hazard map and the settlements, human activities and environmental heritage map, with
the latter containing key elements exposed to risk. In order to generate homogeneous maps, the methodology
dened ood hazard classes to be mapped; elements to be considered for vulnerability assessment; and risk
classes, depending on potential damage to both the population and human activity.
Efforts to achieve such coordination faced the following challenging conditions: absence of specic, precise
denitions regarding the technical characteristics and the reference parameters required for the nal product
[meaning] that the basic information produced and the risk area surveys are subjective and unhomogeneous
[7, p. 258].
Other issues emerged. First, there was the problem of scale as there was not a xed one for risk maps (only a
generic at least 1:25,000). Further, maps were drawn using a wide variety of scales, ranging from 1:2000 to
1:25,000 [7]. Comparing same area maps with such different levels of detail can surely be difcult, if not
misleading. There was, in addition, the problem of similar maps being drawn up by different authorities. Thus,
while national authorities generally follow legends and denitions dened by decree, regional authorities often
assume different interpretations of those same legends.
Furthermore, hazard experts and spatial planners employ different methods to dene the dimensions of
areas in their maps. Identifying a zone in a spatial plan, for example, involves establishing a series of rules that
are legally binding. The zone must therefore be dened to guarantee the certitude of rights to owners.
On the other hand, planners generally identify spaces by specifying boundaries recognizable by owners: lot
borders are privileged as other administrative limits, and often include natural limits such as level lines and
river edges. Geologists use still other criteria, derived from soil characteristics, for delimiting spaces. For a
spatial planner, it is therefore difcult to interpret areas delimited by geologists, reproduce them in a spatial
plan, ascribe them rules regarding land use, and then suggest possibilities for effective change.
Thus, maps constructed to reect the risks of landslides and oods, even within the same watershed, have
been drawn up by experts from different elds. And, as one might expect, such mappings have never been fully
integrated, in Italy, to study possible interaction effects between landslides and ooding. Clearly, this suggests
the importance of studying the relationships between the two, viz., as hazard chains.
Adding to these difculties has been the clash of interests often present in questions regarding risk [38]. In
fact, the extensive series of constraints described has created real difculty to exactly dene those areas most at
risk from the aforementioned natural hazards. Watershed authorities have been aware of these limitations, so
that in every transitional plan a provision exists for municipalities to modify hazard zone perimeters in
deference to future geological and hydrological surveys. However, once a legal bind is imposed, it is very
difcult to lift, especially if it is justied by hazards that can threaten human life, as there could be serious
consequences in the event of a mistake.
Each watershed authority has thus adopted one of the following two approaches to the situation:
(1) an extensive (and defensive) delimitation giving municipalities signicant power to modify their prespecied perimeters; or
(2) a delimitation that identies only those areas at obvious and signicant risk, leaving to municipalities the
task of specifying other, less clearly dangerous, locations.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
101
This case experience highlights the myriad of difculties that has worked against a more integrated planning
effort in Italy. Indeed, to this day, most of the maps in use are single hazard; with the more systematic/
integrative watershed plans approach, legal as it may be, largely disregarded. The only maps that currently
cover most of Italy in a reliable fashion are the hydro-geological risk maps provided by transitional watershed
plans [39].
4. A new pattern of risk management
The Hyogo Framework for Action is articulated in the form of ve priority actions, each of which includes
activities in a variety of sectors, and related to various topics. In analysing the framework carefully, a newly
proposed pattern of risk management emerges.
This pattern suggests a linear sequence of risk reduction activitiesbeginning with assessment, followed by
prevention and mitigation, and concluding with preparedness and emergency response. However, further
analysis nds a more complex process as there are feedback loops that focus on reinforcement and the new
role of monitoring. These ows are visually portrayed by the author in Fig. 1, and discussed below in some
detail.
Risk reduction is an ongoing process that focuses on more than risk assessment and structural measures to
contain hazards. Indeed, strategies designed to reduce risk should, as seen earlier, consider actions aimed at
the entire disaster sequence: before, during, and following dangerous events.
Monitoring then has a double role: on one hand, tracking the evolution of hazards in order to design early
warning systems, while, at the same time, following the progress of risk reduction efforts seeking prevention
and mitigation. Preparedness is the ultimate objective of such early warning and mitigation activities.
In the following sections, each of these activities will be analysed with reference to existing Italian practise.
The objective is to outline how Italian risk management efforts t with suggested guidelines, as developed
above, thus identifying practise strengths and weaknesses.
Analysing all the phases of risk management, and the way they have, or have not, been implemented in Italy
is useful in order to identify those factors that appear to interfere with an integrated approach, and to sketch
out an agenda (Sections 5 and 6) of the main topics on which research and policy efforts should be focused
going forward.
4.1. Risk assessment
Despite the many issues discussed above, there are, in Italy today, important tools and practices designed to
address all phases of risk reduction; from risk assessment, to risk management, to, nally, emergency
preparedness. We now consider each of these phases in order.
In terms of risk assessment, we have previously discussed Italian efforts to take a multi-hazard approach.
Increasing attention has also been given to vulnerability assessment, where vulnerability is dened as the
capability of a building or structure to withstand hazardous events, as well as a factor in dealing with urban
design, and the social and economic condition of a population.
The importance of vulnerability assessment has been recognized, even at the prescriptive level, by some
regional laws.8 Nevertheless, while, in practise, many authors have attempted to dene vulnerability (e.g.,
[2,23,38,4042]), and construct method for its evaluation, it remains the case that, except for buildings and
similar structures, there is no agreement on a best method.
The literature nds a number of dimensions underlying the concept of vulnerability (e.g.,
[2,3,23,24,38,4043]). In response to this circumstance, we propose the classication of vulnerability outlined
in Table 2, which may be used to build a grid for its evaluation.
Of course, physical vulnerability is a function of the type of hazard; indeed, each type requires distinct
structural and environmental characteristics in order to reduce/control risk [35]. For example, in responding to
a seismic hazard, it is important to have open spaces available in the urban environment, while controlling a
8
The Regions Emilia Romagna (Regional Act 35/84) and Marche (Regional Act 33/84) have enacted regional laws that consider the
issue of vulnerability in risk assessment.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
102
Table 2
Different aspects of vulnerability
Physical vulnerability
Functional vulnerability
Objects
Meaning
Evaluation parameters
Single buildings
Susceptibility of buildings to
damage by a hazardous event
Networks
Urban tissue
Public facilities
Characteristics of economic
resources; existence of a
diversied economic tissue;
degree of population wellness
(ability to guarantee adequate
maintenance of buildings and
urban context)
Number and composition of
population: age, gender, degree of
self-sufciency; per capita
income; education; awareness of
hazards
Organization
Socio-economic vulnerability
Economic context
Social context
Political vulnerability
Institutional context
Reinforced structures,
autonomous energy generators,
water tanks, etc.
Existence of tested procedures to
be activated in emergency
situations; existence of emergency
plans; protocols for information
exchange through new
technologies; capability to receive
information
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
103
chemical hazard requires the existence of closed/completely sealed spaces. In a multi-risk approach, it is
obviously important to consider both these considerations.
Efforts required to deal with the other forms of vulnerability listed in Table 2 are less dependant on the
hazards source.
The last aspect of vulnerability, involving political considerations, requires one to deal with signicant
differences in the attention given to risk across Italys regions. Thus, some regions have developed more
effective policies, programmes, and funding appropriations than others.
4.2. Risk prevention and mitigation
Disaster reduction involves measures designed to avoid (prevention) or limit (mitigation and preparedness)
the adverse impact of natural hazards and related environmental and technological disasters [3]. A total
fullment of prevention, with a complete removal of hazards is unrealistic. A more practical path should thus
involve risk mitigation in attempts to reduce key aspects of vulnerability. We suggest this approach since
Italian strategy towards risk prevention and mitigation is largely based on risk reduction policy that deals with
the organization and management of territory, with special reference to land use planning, while measures to
reduce social vulnerability generally involve little more than campaigns to awaken public opinion regarding
hazardous situations [46].
Importantly, many Regional Planning Acts require the identication of measures for mitigation within
regional or provincial territorial plans.9 These include: (1) actions for existing settlements safety, viz.,
infrastructural efforts to prevent hazards, restructuring and reinforcing of buildings, and relocation of
settlements when all other efforts are not possible; and (2) land use discipline that is in harmony with natural
dynamics for those areas that are free of buildings and similar structures.
The most interesting actions for hydro-geological risk prevention involve the identication of suitable land
uses for areas without buildings, and the best ways to use natural resources. Such areas include those that
are largely agricultural, natural (e.g., mountain and lake areas), have a deteriorated environment; and fringe
areas near urban sites, or transportation infrastructures.
Importantly, the use of no building areas, e.g., agriculturally, for mass tourism, recreational purposes,
mining, etc., can involve dangerous situations [6], and may be so dened in formal planning efforts. For
example, when considering selected agricultural areas, some provincial territorial plans dene farming
typology, working methods (mechanical means on steep areas; biocidal and chemical fertilizer use), and
agricultural soil transformations (terracing, embankments, etc.) that are appropriate for areas at risk.
It appears that, for spatial planners, the most difcult task involves the transition from environment and
risk knowledge to suitable land use actions [32]. An attempt to link these two has been made in Tuscany and
Lombardia where Regional Acts10 seek to connect land use and existing hazard conditions. The underlying
analysis must be based on feasibility maps, worked out through the overlay of hazard and land use maps
provided by master plans, and ascribing different feasibility classes to different situations. These classes for
Tuscany provide rules mainly for new buildings, while in Lombardia they include prescriptions for existing
structures, as well as hazard monitoring and emergency planning. The feasibility classes of the Tuscany and
Lombardia regions are compared in Table 3.
An interesting improvement of this method has been put forth in the PTP of the Province of Grosseto11 [47].
This plan further develops the methodology set up by Tuscany Region, introducing two relevant innovations:
it connects different hazards, and distinguishes feasibilities for different typologies of land use. In particular,
the plan takes into account landslides, erosion, earthquakes, oods and aquifer pollution. Possible land uses
are divided into ve macro-categories, as shown in Table 4. Hazard classes and land uses are related through
crossing matrixes. For example, Table 5 is the matrix for land use new constructionsbuildings (A1 in
Table 4); referring to an area that has scored 2 for geological hazard, 3 for ood hazard and 4 for aquifer
9
In particular, the following Regions: Lazio (Regional Act 38/99); Umbria (Regional Act 28/95); Basilicata (Regional Act 23/99);
Calabria (Regional Act 19/02); Campania (Regional Act 16/04); Emilia Romagna (Regional Act 13/00).
10
Regional Act 21/84 of Tuscany, and Regional Act 41/97 of Lombardia.
11
Grosseto is one of nine Provinces of the Tuscany Region.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
104
Table 3
Feasibility classes in the Tuscany and Lombardia Regions
Tuscany Region (Regional Act 21/84Regional
Guidelines 12 February 1985)
Feasibility 1
Feasibility 2
Feasibility 3
Feasibility 4
pollution. The resulting feasibility class is three, which represents the maximum score in the area for those
hazards considered. Each feasibility class includes both general and specic rules for each type of hazard.
This methodology, we believe, represents a rst step towards improved integration between hazard data,
risk maps, and planning actions in Italy. The result should be more meaningful land use planning rules in the
future.
4.3. Preparedness, evaluation, and monitoring
Preparedness should be considered a key part of mitigation measures [8]. In Italy, it is the duty of civil
protection structures to draw up emergency plans identifying spaces, equipment, and resources to be used
during emergencies. It is important to note that civil protection plans are not spatial plans, and often are
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
105
Table 4
Land use classes
New constructions
Networks
Special project
A1
A2
A3
A4
C1
C2
C3
C4
E1 Dump sites
E2 Mineral extraction sites
Buildings
Recovery
Constructions for no pollutant uids
Constructions for pollutant uids
Strategic equipment
Green areas
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
D1 Green areas
D2 Agricultural areas
Source: http://www.provincia.grosseto.it/territorio/ptc.htm.
Table 5
The crossing matrix for land use New constructionsbuildings
A1 New constructionsbuildings
Hazard classes
Feasibility classes
Geological hazard
1
Flood hazard
3
Acquiferous pollution
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
2
3
4
Source: http://www.provincia.grosseto.it/territorio/ptc.htm.
completely unrelated to spatial plans. Only recently have some Regional Planning Acts12 introduced a direct
link between spatial planning (which must include long-term mitigation activities), and civil protection plans,
with an orientation toward emergency preparedness.
For example, the Regional Planning Act of Region Calabria (no. 19/02) states that PTPs must identify
spaces to be used during emergencies. Some good examples include PTPs that have both identied road
networks to be used during emergencies, and dened those actions needed to render them sufciently resilient
to hazards [48].
On these last two pointsidentication of safe areas and road networks for emergency usecoordination
between spatial and civil protection plans is clearly necessary [49]. In terms of safe areas, spatial plans should
dene suitable peace time uses that would allow for effective use during emergencies. Spatial plans can thus
improve their effectiveness in identifying and maintaining emergency road networks. This is the case as they
are responsible for designing and managing the physical factors needed in emergency situations, viz., nature
and number of facilities and their locations, levels of service accessibility, and location of settlements [50].
In other regions, no binding relationships between spatial planning and civil protection efforts have yet been
devised. In these cases, such coordination generally depends on internal organization of administration
services, and the appropriate distribution of competencies among ofces within each province. In some
12
In particular, the following regions: Lazio (Regional Act 38/99); Basilicata (Regional Act 23/99); Calabria (Regional Act 19/02); and
Emilia Romagna (Regional Act 13/00).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
106
provinces, these activities could be better coordinated if assigned to the same service, under the political rule of
a single councillor.
4.3.1. Evaluation and monitoring: the broken ring
As noted earlier, evaluation and monitoring is a signicant weakness of the Italian approach to developing
risk reduction strategies. Few, if any, reference methods or procedures have thus been dened to track the
progress of policies and planning in this arena. Some Regional Planning Acts do introduce specic procedures
for the evaluation and monitoring of territorial conditions, but they are not specically related to risk. The most
recent such acts actually do refer to the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) directive 2001/42/EC, which
includes risk evaluation; however, to this point, there are no specic procedures, or indicator systems, in place.
Despite these conditions, some progress has been made in terms of hazard monitoring. In particular, volcanic
hazards are now being followed, but early warning system is still not available. So, while important, monitoring,
in its current form, does not directly contribute to risk reduction efforts in Italy [51]. As an example, monitoring
of Vesuvio, the most dangerous volcano in the country, is linked to an evacuation plan that should involve at
least 600,000 people. Unfortunately, the plan would be difcult to implement due to the large number of people
to be evacuated, the insufcient nature of the local transportation network, and uncertainty about volcanic
warning signs, which can last a few days, weeks, or months; or even disappear after some time [51].
Clearly, for Italy, the substantial absence of monitoring of plans and programmes makes for a weaker
dynamic and iterative component of its risk management efforts. If there is insufcient feedback, it is
obviously difcult to learn from past failures, and incrementally improve the process.
5. Weaknesses in Italian risk management strategy and their policy implication
Many strategic problems have been identied from our review of current risk management efforts in Italy.
In particular, we found:
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
107
This national framework should recognize, and account for, those regional experiences described in the
current paper. The model should be conceived in cooperation with local governments to ensure that it can be
easily implemented in a wide range of contexts.
5.2. Fragmentation of competencies
The fragmentation of competencies in the Italian management of risk is essentially the result of a system
lled with legal fragmentation. Tasks that should be coordinated are thus developed independently by
different agencies. Information exchange among different institutions is often difcult with a signicant lack
of shared terminology and techniques.
This situation has resulted in a variety of problems, including:
Plans involving contiguous areas that may provide different interpretations and severity assessments of the
same problem. As shown above, this is the case with hydro-geological risk maps, which are the main source
of information for such hazards in constructing PTPs.
Plans involving different aspects of risk management in the same territory are often poorly coordinated.
For example, civil protection and spatial plans may contain different directives to the population for the
same area(s).
It is often difcult for spatial planners to understand and appreciate the results of hazard assessments. This
is generally due to a lack of xed thresholds that help dene the acceptability of specic hazard-based
actions.
Given these circumstances, the notion of fragmentation, in the Italian sense, can be viewed as the
conjunction of different ways of thinking, and, thus, understanding/viewing a given situation. These ways of
understanding, each one considered proper, have, until now, been seen as related but separate, thus creating
invisible boundaries that are difcult to overcome.
It is thus necessary to encourage the use of similar approaches to risk assessment. This may be achieved by
dening, in some detail, how to assess risk, while broadening the vulnerability classes to be considered, along
the guidelines suggested in Table 2.
5.3. Issues of measurement in risk management
Earlier (in Section 4), we identied a series key measurement problems that impact virtually all phases of
risk management in Italy, including:
(1) How to measure risk assessment (and, in particular, vulnerability assessment)?
(2) How to measure/identify risk acceptability thresholds in supporting decision-makers?
(3) What indicators can be applied to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures?
This list can be taken as a suggested research agenda. In fact, these are key topics on which there are
unresolved issues at the conceptual level. These concerns go beyond the Italian understanding of risk: they
continue unanswered at the international level, suggesting that the international community should become
more involved.
5.4. Weaknesses in linkages across the phases/stages of risk management
Based on our investigation, if we refer back to Fig. 1, which highlights the new pattern for risk management
suggested by the Hyogo Framework for Action, it is now possible to say that the Italian situation only
partly corresponds to this scheme. Thus, while risk prevention and mitigation measures are mainly focused on
structural efforts, or on spatial planning actions, there is not complete integration among the necessary
activities. There are many breaks in the circles of risk management.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
108
Hazard assessment
Vulnerability assessment
Risk assessment
Risk Prevention
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
Risk Mitigation
Spatial planning
Preparedness
The rst involves the link between spatial planning and efforts towards preparedness. Then, there is the
almost complete absence of monitoring for risk mitigation measures, which undermines development of a
dynamic, iterative, evaluation process. Finally, reliable early warning systems are, at present time, generally
not available. So, the real Italian situation may be better represented by our Fig. 2.
As discussed above in some detail, while all phases of risk management exist in Italy, what is weak, or even
absent, are links among/across these phases. How the Nation moves from risk assessment to adequate
mitigation measures is not merely a rhetorical question when peoples lives are at stake because they happen to
inhabit recognized hazardous areas/regions. How, then, should Italy move from knowledge of natural
dynamics to land use rules, or from hazard monitoring to early warning and preparedness? Can preparedness
be detached from mitigation measures, as it is now? Such issues are critical as Italy seeks to create more
effective and sustainable links across its risk management activities.
5.5. Key issues to consider
Despite the existence of such gaps in risk management efforts, the Italian experience highlights some useful
elements, mainly related to the structuring of a multi-hazard approach. Most of the PTPs have thus made
attempts to consider the various types/forms of hazards affecting their territories. Further, as emphasized
earlier, they represent a rst step towards a more effective integration of hazard data and planning actions,
providing a methodology aimed at connecting relevant hazards and identifying the feasibility of selected forms
of land use.
Indeed, as suggested earlier, Italy is in a period of signicant research and experimentation to nd effective
risk management techniques, methods and tools. The most recent and interesting of such efforts involve the
drawing of detailed plans aimed at reducing seismic risk in the historical centres of two small cities within the
Province of Calabria13 [38], and the previously mentioned strategic plan for the Vesuvio area, which remains
in progress.
It has been too short a time to evaluate results of these planning efforts. In particular, evaluation is difcult
since, as noted above, there are currently few, if any, tools to measure the effectiveness of actions taken to
13
Rosarno and Melicucco. The recovery plans are part of an experimental project funded by the European Community and the National
Seismic Service to test policies and guidelines for seismic risk reduction in urban planning.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
109
reduce hazard-based risks. Recall, in fact, that realistic protection goals do not yet exist in Italy (viz., reduction
of damage potential in a given area by a specied percentage; reduction of the probability of occurrence of
certain events). Further, relevant measures of risk reduction are not currently being evaluated and monitored
(e.g., risk indicators for hazard potential; damage potential and coping capacity).
It is important not to leave these experiences, and the others developed by local governments in recent years
(and mentioned earlier in this paper), as fragments of separate patchworks. As we have shown, some actions
that are capable of dealing with issues of risk management in Italy have been developed, but without a
systemic vision. These experiences and resulting insights can clearly contribute to a newly structured National
Framework.
6. Conclusions
As we have shown, in Italy there is an urgent need for an integrated, multi-hazard and multi-sectoral
approach to risk management. Many obstacles work to retard this form of approach in practise, including
scientic boundaries, administrative/bureaucratic structures, and a clash of interests. While a multi-hazard
approach is limited to the overlaying of different hazards zoning, there is, in fact, poor attention to the
problem of hazard chains.
The current study found that fragmentation of surveys and actions provided by a variety instruments under
diverse administrations have made it difcult, at the least, to develop and coordinate all phases of a risk
management architecture. This situation is made even more challenging by the substantial absence of
programme monitoring and evaluation efforts. Implied is a need for policy improvements in conjunction with
more focused technological research and development.
6.1. Policy implications
We view the following as key policy implications of the current study:
An adequate and consistent normative framework is essential to implement risk management in Italy and
elsewhere (Section 5.1). Currently, the Italian structure is dangerously fragmented, with imbedded
vulnerabilities (Table 2). Thus, different laws exist for risk assessment, preparedness, and recovery. A legal
framework, based on aspects of the current study, i.e., that addresses relevant hazards and the various
phases of risk reduction, would clearly help with more effective integration of key activities [52].
Reformulated policies should involve less bureaucracy when coordinating risk management activities across
both agencies and regions.
A more effective approach to risk management could include improved education and training of
the risk manager. Supervising and managing risk requires interdisciplinary skills, and the understanding of complex physical and social systems. To have experts with greater comprehension of such
process could be helpful in overcoming the divergences between theory and practise currently found in
Italy.
The development of local networks with more effective communications capabilities and consensus
building abilities could make it easier to overcome existing clashes of interest. This would help negotiate
divergent attitudes between, for example, the publics well-being and private interests.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
110
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank, as a grateful author, the anonymous referees whose suggestions helped clarify selected
issues in the paper. A very special thanks goes to the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Barnett R. Parker. Intense
interactions with him have greatly improved the clarity, readability, and contents of this paper. Prof.
Petroncelli of University of Naples Federico II has also given her wisdom and support to the author.
References
[1] Russo F. Evacuazione dei sistemi urbani. Milano: Franco Angeli; 2004.
[2] Ugolini P. Rischio SismicoTutela e valorizzazione del territorio e del centro storico. Milano: Franco Angeli; 2004.
[3] UN-ISDR (United Nations, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), Disaster Risk and Sustainable Development:
understanding the links between development, environment and natural hazards leading to disasters, World Summit on Sustainable
Development, August September 2002, Johannesburg, (Also http://www.unisdr.org); 2002.
[4] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Third assessment report on climate change 2001. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 2001.
[5] Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UN-ISDR). Living with risk, a global review of
disaster reduction initiatives. UN Sales Pubblication, 2004.
[6] Burby RJ. Cooperating with nature: confronting natural hazard with land use planning. Washington, DC, USA: Joseph Henry Press;
1998.
[7] Margottini C, Casale R, editors. Natural disasters and sustainable development. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2004.
[8] UN-ISDR (United Nations, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). Hyogo framework for action 20052015:
building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. In: World conference on disaster reduction, Kobe, Japan,
January 2005.
[9] International Decade for Natural Disasters Reduction. Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a safer world. In: World
conference on natural disaster reduction, Yokohama, Japan, 1994.
[10] Turner BA, Pidgeon NF. Disastri. Torino: Edizioni di Comunita`; 2001.
[11] Gagliardi P. Presentazione alledizione italiana. In: Turner BA, Pidgeon NF, editors. Disastri. Torino: Edizioni di Comunita`; 2001.
[12] World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
[13] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Planning for a more sustainable future: the link between hazard mitigation and livability,
2002.
[14] ISDR /http://www.unisdr.orgS.
[15] EM-DAT /http://www.em-dat.netS.
[16] Burby RJ. Making plans that matter. Journal of American Planning Association 2003;69(1).
[17] Nelson AC, French SP. Plan quality and mitigation damage from natural disasters. Journal of American Planning Association
2002;68(2).
[18] Olshansky RB. Land use planning for seismic safety. Journal of American Planning Association 2001;67(2).
[19] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Rebuilding for a more sustainable future: an operational framework, 2000.
[20] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Understanding your risks, state and local mitigation planning, 2001.
[21] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Developing the mitigation plan: identifying mitigation actions and implementation
strategies, 2003.
[22] Fluchter W. Tokyo before the next earthquake. Town Planning Review 2003;74.
[23] Menoni S. Costruire la prevenzione. Bologna: Pitagora Editrice; 2005.
[24] Lewis J. Development in disaster-prone places. UK: The Cromwell Press; 1999.
[25] Dworak T, Gorlach B. Flood risk management in Europethe development of a common EU policy. International Journal of River
Basin Management 2005;3(2).
[26] Ministero dellAmbiente, Vulnerabilita` del territorio italiano ai cambiamenti climatici. Lambiente informa 1998;1(4).
[27] Ministero dellAmbiente, Classicazione dei Comuni Italiani in base al livello di attenzione per il rischio idrogeologico, 2000.
[28] Centro Nazionale delle Ricerche. Progetto Finalizzato Geodinamica. Atlas of isoseismal maps of Italian earthquakes. Bologna:
Gracoop; 1985.
[29] Ministero dellAmbiente e della Tutela del Territorio. Relazione sullo Stato dellAmbiente 2001, 2001.
[30] Centro di Specializzazione e ricerche economico-agrarie per il Mezzogiorno, Portici Universita` degli Studi di Napoli. Situazione,
problemi e prospettive dellarea piu` colpita dal terremoto del 23 November 1980. Torino: Einaudi, 1981.
[31] G. Russo e C. Staiano. Terremoto. Milano: Garzanti Editore, 1981.
[32] Besio M. Dalla carta del rischio al piano integrato della sostenibilita` del territorio. Urbanistica 2001; 117 (Roma: INU).
[33] Stanganelli M. Prevenzione e mitigazione dei rischi naturali nella pianicazione urbana e territoriale. Napoli: Giannini Editore; 2003.
[34] De Marco R. La domanda di sicurezza. Urbanistica 2001;117 (Roma: INU).
[35] Menoni S. Pianicazione e incertezza. Elementi per la valutazione e gestione dei rischi territoriali. Milano: Franco Angeli; 1997.
[36] Bramerini F. La legge 741/81 nella normativa regionale. In: Fabietti W, editor. Vulnerabilita` e trasformazione dello spazio urbano.
Bologna: Alinea 1999.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
111
[37] Bryson J, Crosby B. Leadership for the common good: tacking public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass;
1992.
[38] Caldaretti S, editor. Politiche insediative e mitigazione del rischio sismico. Unesperienza a Rosarno e Melicucco. Rubettino Editore,
Italy: Soveria Mannelli: Rubettino Editore, 2002.
[39] Ministero dellAmbiente e della Tutela del Territorio. Pianicazione Territoriale Provinciale e Rischio Idrogeologico. Previsione e
tutela, Report, gennaio 2002.
[40] Cremonini I, editor. Analisi preliminare e valutazione dellesposizione e vulnerabilita` sismica dei sistemi urbani. Regione Emilia
Romagna, Bologna, Italy, 1999.
[41] Fabietti W, editor. Linee guida per la riduzione urbanistica del rischio sismico. Il recupero dei centri storici di Rosarno e Melicucco,
(Roma: INU), 2001.
[42] Fera G., La citta` antisismica, Roma: Gangemi Editore, 1991.
[43] Regione Lombardia, IRSS. Vulnerabilita` sismica delle infrastrutture a rete in una zona campione della Regione Lombardia, Italy:
Milano: Arti Grache Vertemati, 2001.
[44] Segnalini O, editor. Metodi e strumenti per i centri storici delle Marche. Roma: Gangemi Editore, 2000.
[45] Fabietti W, editor. Vulnerabilita` e trasformazione dello spazio urbano. Italy: Bologna: Alinea, 1999.
[46] AA.VV. Linformazione preventiva alla popolazione sul rischio industriale. Linee guida. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri.
Dipartimento della protezione Civile, Roma, 1997.
[47] Provincia di Grosseto, Piano Territoriale della Provincia di Grosseto, Le Schede, Scheda 03-I problemi geologici. Grosseto, Also
/http://www.provincia.grosseto.itS; 1999.
[48] Caravaggi L. La meassa in sicurezza del territorio nel PTC di Macerata. Urbanistica 2001;117 (Roma: INU).
[49] Bahrainy H. Urban planning and design in a seismic-prone region: the case of Rasht in Northern Iran. Journal of Urban Planning
and Development 1998;124(4).
[50] Hosseini M, Shemirani LN. The role of urban planning and design in lifeline-related seismic risk mitigation. Earthquake Engineering
2003.
[51] Universita` degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Il rischio Vesuvio. Napoli: Giannini, 2003.
[52] Britton NL, Clark GJ. From response to resilience: emergency management reform in New Zealand. Natural Hazards Revue
2000;1(3).
Marialuce Stanganelli is Tenured Research Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Italy. She
holds a 5 years degree in Architecture, and a PhD in Urban Planning and Territorial Sciences, both from University of Naples Federico II.
Professor Stanganellis current research activity is focused on town planning techniques for the prevention and mitigation of natural risk.
Her research has appeared in NETCOM and a series of Italian journals and monographs.