ARTICLE IN PRESS

Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111

www.elsevier.com/locate/seps

A new pattern of risk management: The Hyogo Framework for

Action and Italian practise
Marialuce Stanganelli
Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Earth Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, piazzale Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy
Available online 23 January 2007

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

Tel.: +39 081 7682315; fax:+39 0817682309.

E-mail address: stangane@unina.it.

0038-0121/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.seps.2006.10.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111 93

1. Key objectives and the proposed methodology

The key aim of this study is to investigate the Italian experience in risk reduction and assess its congruence
with the main points presented by the most recent World Conference on Disaster Reduction (held in Hyogo,
Japan, January 2005) in terms of the Hyogo Framework for Action.
The Italian experience can be regarded as an actual experimental laboratory on risk reduction policies since
its territory is threatened by a variety of dangerous phenomena, especially natural disasters. Italy has
attempted to implement, within its policies, the three principles proposed by the Hyogo Framework: a multi-
hazard perspective; an integrated vision of the problem; the involvement of all policies and planning strategies
acting on territory.
Nevertheless, in Italy, the implementation of some key actions has highlighted a number of real obstacles,
further marking the gap that exists between theoretical framework and practise. The obstacles and their
origins will be identied and discussed in the current paper, with possible intervention strategies suggested.
Additional objectives of our research here include identication of: differences between patterns promoted
by the Framework and those arising from investigation of Italian practise; factors impeding policies for risk
reduction; selected hints for improving current risk reduction policies.
To begin, we rst identify and describe details of a new pattern of risk management based on the Hyogo
Framework. In doing so, we consider the various activities of risk management (assessment, prevention,
mitigation, monitoring, early warning, preparedness) in a comprehensive framework where each phase is
connected to all others. Further, there is feedback between and amongst the phases in order to guarantee a
continuous updating of the process (see Fig. 1).
Special attention will be given here to monitoring as a direct link is considered between risk prevention and
mitigation and preparedness. This is a connexion not always assumed to exist in the international literature,
but it has particular importance in Italy where the urban structure of historical cities makes it very difcult to
manage emergency situations [1,2].
We note that our view is a multi-dimensional one in taking account of key social, political, spatial, and
natural matters. In doing so, we hope, as noted above, to identify those factors essential to effective risk
reduction strategies. Valid estimates will thus be needed of a regions vulnerability to disaster within a multi-
hazard and integrated context.

Fig. 1. Risk management process (Source: authors construct).

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
94 M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111

2. An integrated and multi-risk approach to risk management

2.1. From emergency to risk management

In recent decades, natural catastrophes have caused an increasing number of casualties and huge damage to
human settlements, economic and social structures. It has been estimated that, during last 40 years, economic
losses have increased almost 10-fold [3]. Such a circumstance can only be partly ascribed to the strengthening
of extreme meteorological events due to climate change [4] as there is no evidence of other phenomena
intensifying, e.g., earthquakes or volcanic eruptions [5].
We thus suggest studying current development patterns that heighten the vulnerability of human societies
through changing demographic, technological and social conditions, unplanned urbanization, development
within high-risk zones, under-development, and environmental degradation [6].
These concerns have led us to focus on the link between hazard sources and elements of the human
environment. Indeed, vulnerability to disasters is a function of human action and behaviour. (y) It is
determined by a combination of several factors, including awareness of hazard, the condition of human
settlements and infrastructure, public policy and administration, the wealth of a given society and organized
abilities in all elds of disaster and risk management [3, p. 5].
Since risk mitigation and prevention should thus involve both hazard1 (when possible) and vulnerability2
reduction, it is of concern to all sectors of society [3,8]. It should include actions that go from the choice of
suitable land uses to strategies for poverty reduction; from the setting up of legal frameworks on risk
management to the development of abilities in emergency planning [5].
The very mind-set that many natural hazards (such as extreme meteorological events, earthquakes,
tsunamis, volcanic eruptions) will never be eliminated from our lives underscores the importance of strategies
designed to reduce our vulnerability. This has led to the development of approaches that look beyond the
hazard and resulting emergency, and onto risk management [9], including such aspects as:

 prior to a hazardous event, through assessment, prevention, mitigation and monitoring;

 during an event, through early warning systems and emergency preparedness; and
 following a disaster, through reconstruction, and onto raising the resilience of communities to future
extreme events.

2.2. International background

The notion that disasters are related to hazard sources as well as to other characteristics of a society dates
back to the 1970s with Barry Turners pioneering work Man-made disaster [10]. Turner analysed a large
number of technological disasters focusing on their pre-conditions and relationships within the organizational
system to which they belonged. The analysis suggests that technological disasters are a consequence of
technical faults, as well as the failure of societal systems that include technical, social, organizational and
institutional factors [11].
Application of this view to studies of natural disasters has been facilitated by acceptance of the paradigm of
sustainability, introduced in 1987 [12]. Disaster resistance has thus been recognized as part of the process to
build a sustainable communityone that provides a high quality of life for current and future generations [6].
In this way, the risk of disasters is fundamentally linked to environmental problems and unresolved issues
(such as the effective use of open spaces) essential for sustainable development [13].
More recently, the 1990s were designated as the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster
Reduction (UN-IDNDR). The goal was to promote international links between scientic and engineering
1
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
96 M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111

Table 1
The twenty greatest disasters by number of deaths and total damage (US$)

Twenty greatest disasters by number of deaths Twenty greatest disasters by total damage

Year Disaster type Country No. deaths Year Disaster type Country Total dam US$

2004 Tsunami South-east Asia 226,435 2005 Hurricane Katrina United States 125,000,000
2005 Earthquake Pakistan 73,338 2004 Earthquake Japan 28,000,000
2003 Earthquake Iran Islam Rep 26,796 2002 Flood Germany 11,700,000
2001 Earthquake India 20,005 2004 Tsunami South-east Asia 7,710,800
2004 Hurricane Jeanne Haiti 2754 2000 Flood Japan 7,440,000
2004 Flood Haiti 2665 2004 Hurricane Jeanne United States 7,000,000
2003 Earthquake Algeria 2266 2004 Hurricane Charley United States 6,800,000
2004 Tropical storm Winnie Philippines 1619 2004 Hurricane Ivan United States 6,000,000
2005 Hurricane Stan Guatemala 1513 2000 Typhoon Korea Dem P Rep 6,000,000
2005 Hurricane Katrina United States 1322 2004 Typhoon Japan 6,000,000
2005 Earthquake India 1309 2001 Hurricane Allison United States 6,000,000
2000 Flood India 1290 2005 Hurricane Rita United States 6,000,000
2005 Flood India 1200 2000 Flood United Kingdom 5,900,000
2002 Earthquake Afghanistan 1000 2003 Typhoon Korea Rep 5,500,000
2001 Flood Algeria 921 2005 Earthquake Pakistan 5,000,000
2005 Earthquake Indonesia 915 2003 Earthquake Algeria 5,000,000
2004 Flood India 900 2003 Hurricane United States 5,000,000
2000 Flood India 884 2003 Tornado United States 5,000,000
2001 Earthquake El Salvador 844 2003 Flood China P Rep 4,830,000
2000 Flood Mozambique 800 2004 Hurricane Frances United States 4,400,000

Source: International Emergency Disasters Database, EM-Dat [15].

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 hydro-
geologic 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 M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111

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, dissemi-
nating 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 hydro-
geological 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 M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111

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 pre-
specied 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.

102
Table 2
Different aspects of vulnerability
Physical vulnerability
Functional vulnerability
Socio-economic vulnerability
Political vulnerability
Source: Authors construct.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111
Objects Meaning
Single buildings Susceptibility of buildings to
damage by a hazardous event
Networks Susceptibility of water, gas and
power networks, and
communication and transport
lines to damage by a hazardous
event [43]
Urban tissue Susceptibility of urban buildings
and streets to damage by a
hazardous event through
adjacency; relationship with
surrounding vulnerable elements
[40,44]
Public facilities Presence, accessibility and quality
(in terms of effectiveness, number
of essential services supplied,
capacity, etc.) of strategic public
facilities such as schools, clinics,
hospitals, disaster warning and
management centres [42,45]
Capacity of such facilities to be
autonomous and remain
functional in disaster situations
[35,38,41]
Organization Ability of a society to coordinate
and control different activities in
emergency situations [23]
Economic context Vulnerability of the community
economic structure both in terms
of propensity of economic
resources to be damaged by
hazardous events, and the
structures vitality and liveliness
[7,42]
Social context Vulnerability of the social
structure of a population
physically (i.e., majority of
elderly, disabled, children etc.),
and economically and culturally
[24]
Institutional context Vulnerability due to the lack of a
legal framework and institutional
programmes to deal with the
problem of risk; absence of
funding to implement risk
reduction research, and studies on
hazard monitoring systems [3,8]
Evaluation parameters
Carrying structure, height,
materials, state of maintenance,
etc.
Physical characteristics
(materials, junctions, etc.)
strength of critical elements of the
networks (bridges, tunnels,
viaducts, etc.) location (i.e.
overhead electric lines) state of
maintenance, etc.
Block of buildings with common
partition; presence of vulnerable
elements (towers, high-tension
pylons, jutting elements);
presence of open spaces and safe
shelters, etc.
E.G., Hospitals: number of
hospitals, number of beds,
primary health care services
provided, localization out of
dangerous areas, accessibility by
safe roads
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
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
Laws dealing with risk;
appropriate programmes and
research efforts
 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 M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111

Table 3
Feasibility classes in the Tuscany and Lombardia Regions

Tuscany Region (Regional Act 21/84Regional Lombardia Region (Regional Act 41/97)
Guidelines 12 February 1985)

Feasibility 1 No specific restrictions. This class includes areas
characterised by a nearly zero level of risk. It involves small
buildings in non-danger areas, or building-free areas in
dangerous areas that must be preserved (e.g., natural areas)
or re-naturalized. Local planning actions can be
implemented without specic restrictions or conditions
Feasibility 2 Only usual restrictions. This class includes areas
characterised by low levels of risk. The restrictions must be
dened at the local level and based on further surveys
No specific restrictions. This class includes areas
where surveys have not identied specic adverse
geological situations for urban development and/or
land use change
With small restrictions. This class contain areas
where localized or limited restrictive conditions to
land use change have been identied. To overcome
such conditions, it is necessary to perform further
geological-hydrogeological surveys aimed at
carrying out land improvement work that should
not negatively inuence surroundings areas

Feasibility 3 Under condition. This class includes medium-to-high risk
areas. Local planning actions can be implemented under
the following conditions: new detailed surveys are required
and necessary interventions to mitigate the hazard level
(soil improvement, drainage, particular foundation
techniques, etc.) must be carried out
Feasibility 4 Limited. This class includes areas characterised by high
levels of risk. It involves most forms of land use, but
excludes preservation and re-naturalization, in highly
hazardous areas. It may also involve highly vulnerable land
use, such as public facilities that would attract large
numbers of users or equipment. These would bring high
levels of induced hazard, e.g., dams, chemical plants, etc.,
in relatively low-level hazard areas. Detailed geological
surveys should be included in master plans for these areas.
Based on such surveys, structural actions would be needed
to increase safety in the area (ground consolidation, water
drainage, etc.), and a monitoring programme set up. The
high risk level requires specic rules for dealing with the
hazards involved, e.g., slope stability, oods, aquifer
pollution, etc.
With big restrictions. This class includes areas where
restrictions on changes in land use are substantial
where risk levels are high. To use these areas further
geological-hydrogeological surveys are required.
Additional research is required to specify suitable
land use, allowable levels of construction,
appropriate building techniques, and drainage and
safety work. Defence works must be provided for
built areas and mitigation measures must be
identied. Hazard monitoring systems should be
considered
With heavy restrictions. The high level of risk
involves heavy limitations on land use. No new
buildings, only consolidation work or hydro-
geologic arrangements are allowed in order to
increase security. This would include maintenance
and recovery efforts for existing buildings. Urban
centres, when it is not strictly necessary their
removal in safer areas, must be protected with
defence works (i.e. river banks, retaining walls,
water drainage, etc.) and hazard monitoring should
be organized. Civil protection plans should be
prepared

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 Buildings C1 Fluid or gas channels E1 Dump sites

A2 Recovery C2 Sewerage systems E2 Mineral extraction sites
A3 Constructions for no pollutant uids C3 Roads
A4 Constructions for pollutant uids C4 Energy networks

Strategic equipment Green areas

B1 Fluid or gas equipment D1 Green areas

B2 Sewer D2 Agricultural areas
B3 Roads
B4 Energy
B5 Ports
B6 Airports

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 Flood hazard Acquiferous pollution

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

X X X X 1
X X X 2
X X X X 3
X X 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 M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111

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:

 lack of a common national strategy toward risk management;

 a consequent fragmentation of surveys and actions suggested by the different instruments of the nations
institutional entities (regions, provinces, basin authorities, etc.);
 a lack of clear methodologies and tools to measure risk; and
 weaknesses in linkages across the phases/stages of risk management.

5.1. A common strategy designed to face risk

Every region in Italy structures its own risk assessment and prevention strategy, focusing on specic/local
aspects. A global/wholistic approach to the problem (from assessment to prevention, mitigation and
emergency management of relevant risks) remains to be realized. While certainly not desirable, this situation is
understandable if we consider the Italian legal framework: risk is faced mainly via sectoral plans with only a
few selected regions making it a mandatory topic to be addressed in all Planning Acts.
It would seem that a common national policy should be implemented by a new national legal framework on
risk management. It should, in particular, be able to dene a common multi-hazard, integrated strategy. Such
a national framework should include:

 the building up of a common culture of risk management;

 the reinforcement of links amongst the various activities of risk management: the coordination across the
different stages/phases is a crucial issue (see Section 5.4);
 a more effective denition of competencies and duties, and a clear identifying of principles, roles and
relationships among the relevant agencies (see Section 5.2);
 technical guidelines on risk assessment and monitoring; in particular, it is important to dene common
indicators in order to compare, at the national level, progress being made towards risk mitigation and
prevention (see Section 5.3).
 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
108 M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111

M
O
N
I
Hazard assessment T
O
R
Vulnerability assessment I
N
G
Risk assessment

Risk Prevention Risk Mitigation

Preparedness
Spatial planning

Fig. 2. Italian pattern of risk management (Source: authors construct).

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 under-
standing 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.

6.2. Directions for future research

The research community should move to develop more transparent procedures, methodologies and
guidelines in response to the real needs of local administrators (Section 5.3). Further, a more complete and
consistent set of risk indicators should be identied, including indicators that dene the successful fullment of
safety goals. Finally, guidelines for monitoring the effects of plans already in place should be studied, with
instruments developed for objective, quantitative evaluations of programme performance.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
110 M. Stanganelli / Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42 (2008) 92111

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.