The ineffective plan. On the quality of emergency planning

Journal title TERRITORIO
Author/s Mattia Bertin, Gianfranco Pozzer, Domenico Patassini, Francesco Musco
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2021/99 Language Italian
Pages 13 P. 136-148 File size 751 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2021-099019
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 designs an exploratory path aimed at assessing the state of emergency planning in Italy. Umbria Region, recently affected by seismic events, is considered as a case study. The exploration focuses on the relationship between drafting and design quality of the plans, risk assessment and responsive strategies. Based on a multivariate analysis, specific classes of plans are identified, which, although different in terms of document quality, reveal common limits in response capabilities. The conclusions discuss the opportunity to rethink the emergency plan in relation to urban planning and operational risk management, as suggested by the new Civil Protection Act (2018).

Keywords: emergency planning; urban planning; evaluation

  1. Ahrems J., Rudolph P.M., 2006, «The Importance of Governance in Risk Reduction and Disaster Management». Journal of Contingencies and Cri- sis Management, 14, 4: 206-220.
  2. Benzécri J., 1970, «Problème et méthode de la taxinomie». Revue de statistique appliquée, 18, 4: 73-98.
  3. Benzécri J., 1973a, La Taxinomie. Paris: Dunod Benzécri J., 1973b, L’Analyse des données. L’Analyse des correspondances. Paris: Dunod.
  4. Benzécri J., 1977, «Histoire et préhistoire de l’analyse des données. Partie V. L’analyse des correspondances». Cahiers de l’analyse des données, 2, 1: 9-40.
  5. Benzécri J., 1983, «Analyse de l’inertie intraclasse par l’analyse d’un table- au de contingence». Cahiers de l’analyse des données, 8, 3 : 351-358. Benzécri J., 1992, Correspondence Analysis Handbook. New York: Dekker.
  6. Bertin M., 2018, Per esser pronti. Ripensare la gestione dell’emergenza in città. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  7. Blakely E., 2012, My Storm. Managing the Recovery of New Orleans in the Wake of Katrina. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Comfort K. L., 2007, «Crisis Management in Hindsight: Cognition, Com-
  8. munication, Coordination, and Control». Public Administration Review, 67, s1: 189-197.
  9. Crozier M., 1978, Il fenomeno burocratico: il significato della burocrazia nelle organizzazioni moderne. Milano: Etas.
  10. Diday E., 1971, «Une nouvelle méthode en classification automatique et reconnaissance des formes: la méthode des nuées dynamiques». Revue de statistique appliquée, 19, 2: 19-33.
  11. Diday E., 1972, Nouvelles méthodes et nouveaux concepts en classification automatique etreconnaissance des formes. Thèse de doctorat d’état, Université de Paris vi.
  12. Diday E., 1989, Data Analysis, Learning Symbolic and Numeric Knowledge. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
  13. Ferraro G., 1994, «De te fabula narratur. Exercises in Reading Plans». Planning Theory, 10-11: 205-236.
  14. Galanti E., 1997, «Il Metodo Augustus». dpc-informa-Periodico informativo del Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, 4: 1-34.
  15. Galderisi A., 2004, Città e terremoti. Metodi e tecniche per la mitigazione del rischio sismico. Roma: Gangemi.
  16. Griguolo S., Palermo P.C., 1984, a cura di, Nuovi problemi e nuovi metodi di analisi territoriale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  17. Griguolo S., 2008, Addati per Windows. Un pacchetto per l’analisi esplo- rativa dei dati, Versione 6.0, Guida all’uso, -- addawin_site/Manuale_Addawin.pdf (accesso: 2022.01.14).
  18. Khakee A., 2000, «Reading Plans as an Exercise in Evaluation». Evaluation, 6, 2: 119-136. DOI: 10.1177/F13563890022209172
  19. Lewis D., Mioch J., 2005, «Urban Vulnerability and Good Governance». Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 13, 2: 50-53.
  20. Lindell M.K., 2013, «Recovery and Reconstruction After Disaster». In: Bobrowsky P.T. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards. Dordrecht: Springer, 812-824.
  21. Luhmann N., 2005, Organizzazione e decisione. Milano: Mondadori. Mandelbaum S. J., 1990, «Reading Plans». japa-Journal of American Planning Association, 56, 3: 350-356.
  22. Medd W., Marvin S., 2005, «From the Politics of Urgency to the Gover- nance of Preparedness: A Research Agenda on Urban Vulnerability». Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 13, 2: 44-49.
  23. Menoni S., 2013, «Emergency Planning». In: Bobrowsky P.T. (ed.), En- cyclopedia of Natural Hazards. Dordrecht: Springer, 276-280.
  24. Paba G., 2010, Corpi urbani: differenze, interazioni, politiche. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  25. Palermo P.C., 1983, Modelli di analisi territoriale. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Patassini D., 2006, a cura di, Esperienze di valutazione urbana, Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  26. Patassini D., 2019, Protocolli valutativi nella pianificazione urbana e territoriale. Venezia: Iuav.
  27. Tett A., Wolfe J.M., 1991, «Discourse Analysis and City Plans». Journal of Planning Education and Research, 10, 3: 195-200. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X9101000306
  28. White G.F., Kates R.W., Burton I., 2001, «Knowing Better and Losing Even More: The Use of Knowledge in Hazards Management». Environmental Hazards, 3, 3-4: 81-92. DOI: 10.1016/S1464-2867(01)00021-3.

Mattia Bertin, Gianfranco Pozzer, Domenico Patassini, Francesco Musco, Il piano inefficace. Sulla qualità della pianificazione emergenziale in "TERRITORIO" 99/2021, pp 136-148, DOI: 10.3280/TR2021-099019