Pathways to Operationalise: Umbria Region Case (Italy)

  • Elena PedeEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Geography book series (BRIEFSGEOGRAPHY)


This chapter unpacks the experience of the Italian region Umbria in facing seismic risk, according to the notion of resilience. This provides how resilience has been variously imagined, shaped and transformed in terms of discourses, values and actions in a practical experience. Umbria is one of the most seismic areas in the centre of the country. After the 1997 earthquake, the authorities started a long-term process, firstly, of re-thinking the response activities of civil protection, and, subsequently, of how the territory relates to a natural hazard in term of capacities of resilience. The reshape started with an organisational innovation aimed at improving the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Over the years, it has caused the growth of social interaction of involved actors and has led to the reorganisation of governance structures and institutions accordingly to make them more responsive and relevant in the PPRR chain. The results are not limited to civil protection and the response phase, but also affect other sectors, in particular spatial planning. Finally, the call for resilience has also involved the community that, on one hand, wants to be more informed and, on the other, has become part of the response system.


Umbria Italy Emergency management Knowledge system Explicit and tacit knowledge Learning process 


  1. Alexander D (2018a) Civil protection in Italy-coping with multiple disasters. Contemp Ital Polit 10:393–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander DE (2018b) L’Aquila, central Italy, and the “disaster cycle”, 2009–2017. Disaster Prev Manag Int JGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) Organizational learning; a theory of action perspective. Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  4. Bedini MA, Bronzini F (2018) The post-earthquake experience in Italy. Difficulties and the possibility of planning the resurgence of the territories affected by earthquakes. Land Use Policy 78:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bignami DF (2010) Protezione civile e riduzione del rischio disastri. Metodi e strumenti di governo della sicurezza territoriale e ambientale. Maggioli EditoreGoogle Scholar
  6. Bramerini F (2013) Una strategia di prevenzione del rischio sismico per gli insediamenti. Urban Doss 130:5–7Google Scholar
  7. Campos Venuti G (2014) Terremoti, Urbanistica e Territorio. 154:53–68Google Scholar
  8. Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F et al (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corradi E, Fabietti V (2017) La ricostruzione come metodo, Cosa insegna la storia recente degli eventi sismici in Italia. Urban Inf 272:773–777Google Scholar
  10. D’Amico A, Currà E (2018) Urban resilience in the historical centres of Italian cities and towns. Strategies of preventative planning. TECHNE-J Technol Archit Environ 257–268Google Scholar
  11. Davoudi S, Zaucha J, Brooks E (2016) Evolutionary resilience and complex lagoon systems. Integr Environ Assess Manag 12:711–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Giovanni G (2016) Cities at risk: status of Italian planning system in reducing seismic and hydrogeological risks. Tema J Land Use Mobil Environ 9:43–62Google Scholar
  13. Dolce M (2013) Politiche di prevenzione del rischio sismico a scala nazionale. Urban Doss 130:3–4Google Scholar
  14. Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (2003) The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Blackwell Pub., MaldenGoogle Scholar
  15. Fabietti V (2013) Dalla CLE alla SUM: i contenuti urbanistici della protezione dai rischi. Urban Doss 130:38–39Google Scholar
  16. Galuzzi P (2014) I rischi e la cura. Urbanistica 154:4–7Google Scholar
  17. ISPRA (2018) Dissesto Idrogeologico in Italia: pericolosità e indicatori di rischio. RomaGoogle Scholar
  18. Janin Rivolin U (2008) Conforming and performing planning systems in Europe: an unbearable cohabitation. Plan Pract Res 23:167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kapucu N (2012) Disaster and emergency management systems in urban areas. Cities 29:S41–S49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhlicke C, Steinführer A (2013) Searching for resilience or building social capacities for flood risks? Plan Theory Pract 14:103–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mela A, Mugnano S, Olori D (2017) Territori vulnerabili: verso una nuova sociologia dei disastri italiana. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  22. Meloni B (ed) (2015) Aree Interne e progetti d’area. Rosenberg & SellierGoogle Scholar
  23. Menoni S (2014) Urbanistica e rischio sismico: appunti per uno stato dell’arte a livello internazionale. 154:74–82Google Scholar
  24. Menoni S (2017) Ricostruzione post-sisma nel Centro Italia: la sintesi urbanistica tra esigenze sociali, aspetti ambientali e fisici, la prevenzione dei rischi. Urban Inf 272:763–767Google Scholar
  25. Nonaka I (2008) The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review PressGoogle Scholar
  26. OECD (2010) OECD reviews of risk management policies: Italy 2010. OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  27. Oliva F (2014) La difficile ricostruzione dell’Aquila. Urbanistica 154:39–52Google Scholar
  28. Olivieri M (2004) Dalla prevenzione edilizia alla prevenzione urbanistica. Urban, Quad, p 44Google Scholar
  29. Olivieri M (2013) Dalla SUM alla CLE: strategie a confronto per la sicurezza degli insediamenti. Urban Doss 130:34–37Google Scholar
  30. Paleari S (2018) Natural disasters in Italy: do we invest enough in risk prevention and mitigation? Int J Environ Stud 75:673–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pearce L (2003) Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: how to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28:211–228. Scholar
  32. Polanyi M (2009) The tacit dimension. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Prenger-Berninghoff K, Cortes VJ, Sprague T et al (2014) The connection between long-term and short-term risk management strategies for flood and landslide hazards: examples from land-use planning and emergency management in four European case studies. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:3261–3278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schon DA (1982) Some of what a planner knows a case study of knowing-in-practice. J Am Plann Assoc 48:351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wenger E (2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 7:225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zaucha J, Davoudi S, Slob A et al (2016) State-of-the-lagoon reports as vehicles of cross-disciplinary integration. Integr Environ Assess Manag 12:690–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and PlanningPolitecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations