Priorità negli interventi post-terremoto

Journal title TERRITORIO
Author/s Maria Angela Bedini, Fabio Bronzini
Publishing Year 2021 Issue 2021/96
Language English Pages 10 P. 127-136 File size 963 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2021-096012
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The paper first examines the three components that summarize the fundamental structure of seismic risk: hazard, exposure, vulnerability (and urban vulnerability). Based on the three components considered, the study highlights the positive elements and strategic errors committed and to explains the paradigm shift necessary to overcome the prevailing focus of interventions on the installation of new temporary wooden houses. With reference to the negative and positive aspects found in experiences, the aim of the study is the proposal of improvement solutions and new rules to guide the post-earthquake phase. The research findings identify the need to plan the postearthquake phase in advance and to consider it a priority over the emergency phase.

Keywords: earthquake: the Italian experience; priority post-earthquake interventions; strategies for risk protection and rebirth

  1. Abbasi H.A., 2017, «Productive Landscape». Procedia Environmental Sciences, 37: 131-140.
  2. Alexander D., 2013, Planning for Post-Disaster Reconstruction. -- www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/papers2004/Paper%20-%20Alexander%20D.pdf (access: 2020.03.21).
  3. Anzalone M., 2008, L’Urbanistica dell’Emergenza. Progettare la flessibilità degli spazi urbani. Florence: Publisher Alinea.
  4. Atun F., Menoni S., 2014, «Vulnerability to earthquake in Istanbul: an application of the ENSURE methodology». A|Z ITU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 11, 1: 99-116.
  5. Bedini M.A., Bronzini F., 2016, «The New Territories of Urban Planning. The Issue of the Fringe Areas and Settlements». Land Use Policy, 57: 130-138.
  6. Bedini M.A., Marinelli G., 2017, «The productive landscape as a driver for economic recovery. Diffused settlements and synergies between the agricultural-rural environment and the urban grid». In: Aa. Vv. (eds.), Changes. Responsibility and tools for urban planning at the service of the Country. Rome-Milan: Planum Publisher, 196-201.
  7. Bernard C., Dufour A., 2005, «L’agriculture périurbaine: des raprésentations sociales très contrastées dans les coteaux du Lyonnais». In: Fleury A. (ed.), «Multifonctionnalité de l’agriculture périurbaine. Vers una agriculture du project urbain». Les Cahiers de la Multifonctionnalité, 8: 59-69, inra, cemagref, cirad.
  8. Bronzini F., Bedini M.A., 2015, «L’abbraccio città-campagna». Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, 112: 60-76. Milano: FrancoAngeli. DOI: 10.3280/ASUR2015-112004
  9. Bronzini F., 2017, «Ricostruzione post-terremoto. Traiettorie preliminari per la rigenerazione urbana nei territori del cratere sismico 2016».
  10. Buttarelli G., Ortu L., 2008, «‘Norba, Ninfa, Cora, Tres Tabernae’, un’esperienza di progettazione integrata territoriale nel basso Lazio: problemi e prospettive». In: inu Lazio, Agricoltura e governo del territorio.. trent’anni dopo [Agriculture and governance of the Territory.. thirty years later], Rome, 29 September.-- www.inu.it/blog/politiche_agricole/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/buttarelli_ortu.pdf.
  11. Campos Venuti G., 1980, «Non è possibile una economia indifferente al territorio». Rinascita, 48.
  12. Campos Venuti G., 2010, Città senza cultura. Intervista sull’urbanistica. Rome-Bari: Laterza.
  13. Campos Venuti G., 2012, Amministrare l’urbanistica oggi. Rome: inu Publisher.
  14. Campos Venuti G., 2016, «Terremoti, urbanistica e territorio». Urbanistica, 154: 53-58.
  15. Clementi A., Di Venosa M., 2012, eds., Pianificare la ricostruzione. Sette esperienze dall’Abruzzo. Venice: Marsilio.
  16. Colarossi P., Bedini M.A., Bronzini F., 2019, «Cambio di paradigma per la costruzione di nuovi equilibri territoriali di fronte ai rischi sismici, idro-geologici e ambientali: esperienze per il Cratere Sismico del Centro Italia». In: Aa. Vv. (eds.), Confini, movimenti, luoghi. Politiche e progetti per città e territori in transizione. Rome-Milan: Planum Publisher, 1226-1232.
  17. Cappuccitti A., 2017, Integrare le vulnerabilità territoriali. Lesson held at the Master City and Territory. Innovative Strategies and Tools for Risk
  18. Protection of Territories in Crisis, Ancona, 10 June.
  19. Daly S., 2015, «Producing healthy outcomes in a rural productive space». Journal of Rural Studies, 40: 21-29.
  20. Di Ludovico D., D’Ovidio G., Santilli D., 2020, «Post-earthquake reconstruction as an opportunity for a sustainable reorganisation of transport and urban structure». Cities, 96.
  21. Donadieu P., 2005, «Dall’utopia alla realtà delle campagne urbane». Urbanistica, 128.
  22. Droz Y., Forney J., 2006, «Quelles perspectives pour les ‘Exclus du terroir’? Le cas des exploitations agricoles du Canton de Neuchâtel». Conférence/Débat à Agropolis Museum, Montpellier. -- www.museum.agropolis.fr/pages/savoirs/exclusterroir/forney_droz_2006.pdf (access: 2020.03.21).
  23. Dunn P.T., Ahn A.Y.E., Bostrom A., Vidale J.E., 2016, «Perceptions or earthquake early warnings on the U.S. West Coast». International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 20: 112-122.
  24. Edgington D.W., 2010, Reconstructing Kobe. The Geography of Crisis and Opportunity. Vancouver-Toronto: University of British Columbia Press.
  25. Franz G., 2016, «La ricostruzione in Emilia dopo il sisma del maggio 2012. Successi, limiti e incognite di un’esperienza straordinaria». Urbanistica, 154: 30-34.
  26. Frezzotti F., 2011, Il terremoto di Ancona. Cronologia del sisma del 1972 e i suoi effetti sulla politica cittadina. Ancona: Affinità Elettive Publisher.
  27. Fleury A., 2005, «La costruzione dei territori agriurbani nell’Ile-de-France». Urbanistica, 128: 20-24.
  28. Fleury A., Vidal R., 2010, L’autosuffisance agricole des villes, una vaine utopie? La vie des idées. -- www.laviedesidees.fr/IMG/pdf/20100604_villesdurables_vidal_fleury.pdf (access: 2020.03.21). Gasparini P., Manfredi G., Zschau J., 2007, eds., Earthquake early warning systems. Berlin: Springer.
  29. Giacchè G., 2014, «L’expérience des parcs agricoles en Italie et en Espagna: vers un outil de projet et de gouvernance de l’agriculture en zone périurbaine». In: Lardon S., Loudiyi S. (eds.), Agriculture urbaine et alimentation: entre politiques publiques et initiatives locales. Revue Géocarrefour, 89, 1-2: 21-30.
  30. Johnson B.B., Nakayachi K., 2017, «Examining associations between citizens’ beliefs and attitudes about uncertainty and their earthquake risk judgments, preparedness intentions, and mitigation policy support in Japan and the United States». International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22: 37-45.
  31. Jordan T., 2016, National Conference on the Dangers of Earthquakes, Long Beach, 4 May.
  32. La Greca P., 2018a, Rischi e sviluppo sostenibile. Lesson held at the Master City and Territory. Innovative Strategies and Tools for Risk Protection of Territories in Crisis, Ancona, March.
  33. La Greca P., 2018b, «Piano regolatore e rischio sismico». Catania Live, 29 December.
  34. Maraccini M., Lardon S., Loudiyi S., Giacchè G., Bonari E., 2013, «Durabilité de l’agriculture dans les territoires périurbains méditerranéens: enjeux et projets agri-urbains dans la région de Pise (Toscane, Italie)». Cahiers Agricultures, 22, 6: 517-525.
  35. Menoni S., 2016, «Urbanistica e rischio sismico: appunti per uno stato dell’arte a livello internazionale». Urbanistica, 154: 74-78.
  36. Milone P., Ventura F., 2009, I contadini del Terzo Millennio. Comportamenti, Aspettative, Proposte. Perugia: Publisher amp. Nakanishi H., Matsuo K., Black J., 2013, «Transportation planning methodologies for post-disaster recovery in regional communities: The East Japan Earthquake and tsunami 2011». Journal of Transport Geography, 31: 181-191.
  37. Nerozzi B., Romani M., 2014, «Il Piano della Ricostruzione: un nuovo approccio disciplinare e metodologico». Inforum, 45: 12-15, Emilia-Romagna Region.
  38. Nigro G., Razzio F., 2007, Il territorio rinnovato. Uno sguardo urbanistico sulla ricostruzione post-sismica in Umbria 1997–2007. Perugia: 4 M Publisher, vol. 4, Umbria Region.
  39. Nimis G.P., 2009, Terre Mobili. Dal Belice al Friuli, dall’Umbria all’Abruzzo. Rome: Publisher Donzelli.
  40. Oliva F., Campos Venuti G., Gasparrini C., 2012, L’Aquila, ripensare per ricostruire. Rome: Inu Publisher.
  41. Oliva F., 2016, «La difficile ricostruzione dell’Aquila». Urbanistica, 154:39-48.
  42. Platt S., Drinkwater B.D., 2016, «Post-earthquake decision making in Turkey: Studies of Van and Izmir». International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 17: 220-237.
  43. Poulot M., 2007, «De la clôture patrimoniale des territoires périurbains dans l’ouest francilien». Socio-anthropologie, 19.
  44. psn Strategic National Plan for Rural Development (art. 11 Ec Reg. 1698/2005), 2006, Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policies, Rome.
  45. Sanfilippo E.D., La Greca P., 1995, eds., Piano e progetto nelle aree a rischio sismico - Planning and Design in seismic risk areas. Rome: Gangemi.
  46. Schwab J.C., 2014, ed., «Planning for post-disaster recovery: next generation ». In: PAS Report 576. Chicago-New York: American Planning Association.
  47. Tira M., 2017, Pianificazione urbanistica e mitigazione del rischio. Lesson held at the Master City and Territory. Innovative Strategies and Tools for Risk Protection of Territories in Crisis, Camerino, July.
  48. Torquati B., Giacchè G., Venanzi S., 2015, «Economic Analysis of the Traditional Cultural Vineyard Landscapes in Italy». Journal of Rural Studies, 39: 122-132.
  49. Vidal R., Fleury A., 2009, «Aménager les relations entre la ville et l’agriculture, de nouveaux enjeux territoriaux et une nouvelle approche ‘agriurbaniste’». Revue Urbia, 8: 127-142, Institut de Géographie de Lausanne.
  50. Wu J.Y., Lindell M.K., 2004, «Housing Reconstruction After Two Major Earthquakes: The 1994 Northridge Earthquake in the United States and the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake in Taiwan». Disasters, 28, 1: 63-81.
  51. Zasada I., Häfner K., Schaller L., Van Zanten B.T., Lefevre M., Malak-Rawlikowska A., Nikolov D., Rodriguez-Entrena M., Manrique R., Ungaro F., Zavallon M.I., Delattre L., Piorr A., Kantelhardt J., Verburg P.H., Viaggi D., 2017, «A conceptual model to integrate the regional context in landscape policy, management and contribution to rural development: Literature review and European case study evidence». Geoforum, 82: 1-12.
  52. Urbanistica Informazioni, 272, special issue: 964-970. Roma: inu publisher.
  53. Isola M., Zanelli M., 2015, «La prospettiva dei Piani Organici per la rigenerazione dei centri storici colpiti dal sisma». Inforum, 48: 13-16, Emilia-Romagna Region.
  54. Güzey Ö., 2016, «The last round in restructuring the city: Urban regeneration becomes a state policy of disaster prevention in Turkey». Cities, 50: 40-53.
  55. Huck A., Monstadt J., Driessen P., 2020, «Building urban and infrastructure resilience through connectivity: An institutional perspective on disaster risk management in Christchurch, New Zealand». Cities, 98.

  • New Metropolitan Perspectives Maria Angela Bedini, Fabio Bronzini, pp.594 (ISBN:978-3-031-06824-9)
  • Beyond the limits of the city. Ten Commandments for protection against pandemic risk Maria Angela Bedini, Fabio Bronzini, in TERRITORIO 101/2023 pp.155
    DOI: 10.3280/TR2022-101018

Maria Angela Bedini, Fabio Bronzini, Priority in post-earthquake intervention in "TERRITORIO" 96/2021, pp 127-136, DOI: 10.3280/TR2021-096012