Reducing Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Areas: Moving from Good Practices to Tailored Roadmaps
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Phase 1: Methodology for Good Practice Identification and Description
- Practice name: what the GP deals with;
- Main objectives;
- Detailed description: the content of the document is described in more detail (i.e., maximum 100 words);
- Status: information about the validity of the GP (i.e., ongoing, completed);
- Target groups: specific segments of the population that are interested in the GP (i.e., public authorities, sectorial agencies, education/training, professional fields, general public);
- Reference to cultural heritage: whether the document, in any of its parts, explicitly mentions the cultural heritage or refers to it;
- SWOT analysis: a framework for identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the GP;
- Country: where the GP is adopted;
- Reference documents: reference to the documents included in the comparison matrix [1];
- Territorial scale: level at which the GP is in force (i.e., national/regional/municipal);
- Promoter: entity responsible for the adoption of the GP.
2.2. Phase 2: Materials and Methods for Good Practice Replicability and Scalability Assessment
- The potential of replicability of the practice, which expresses the possibility to implement the GP in their territory, by also considering any modifications or barriers required. The rating system ranges from 1 to 3*, where “1” means the replication is considered not possible at all; “2” corresponds to a possible replication; “3” is associated with a very likely probability of replication; and “3*” is assigned in a case in which the potential of replicability is very likely, as, indeed, a very similar practice is already in place;
- The potential of scalability, which expresses the scalability of the GP within the case study from 1 to 3. When assessing the potential of scalability of a GP available at the municipal level, the potential of application at the national level should be rated with “1” if not possible or “2” if possible, but the regional scale seems also appropriate, while “3” is assigned if the document is already applied at the national level, and this is considered the most suitable scale of application.
2.3. Phase 3: Materials and Methods for Roadmap Design and Development
- Identification of the gaps in the current policy and planning framework;
- Identification of barriers that prevent the improvement of the policy framework;
- Identification of the solutions to improve resilience;
- Identification of responsible entities, stakeholders, and funds;
- Selection of the monitoring strategies.
3. Results
3.1. Good Practice Identification and Description
3.1.1. Seismic Norms
3.1.2. Building Regulations
3.1.3. Urban Planning Regulations
3.1.4. Seismic Incentive Frameworks
3.1.5. Post-Earthquake Planning
3.1.6. Insurance Against Earthquakes
3.1.7. Comparative Analysis Between Different Topics
3.2. Good Practice Replicability and Scalability
3.2.1. Scalability and Replicability Assessment in Albania
3.2.2. Scalability and Replicability Assessment in Croatia
3.2.3. Scalability and Replicability Assessment in Greece
3.2.4. Scalability and Replicability Assessment in Italy
3.2.5. Scalability and Replicability Assessment in Serbia
3.2.6. Scalability and Replicability Assessment in Slovenia
3.3. Roadmaps
3.3.1. Step 1—Identification of the Gaps in the Policy and Planning Framework
3.3.2. Step 2—Identification of Barriers That Prevent the Improvement of the Policy Framework
3.3.3. Step 3—Identification of Possible Solutions to Improve Resilience
3.3.4. Step 4—Identification of Responsible Entities, Stakeholders, and Funds
3.3.5. Step 5—Selection of the Monitoring Strategies
4. Discussion
4.1. Albania
4.2. Croatia
4.3. Greece
4.4. Italy
4.5. Serbia
4.6. Slovenia
4.7. Trend Analysis Across Countries
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
ADRION | Adriatic–Ionian (Region) |
GPs | Good Practices |
SMEs | Small and Medium Enterprises |
NGOs | Non-Governmental Organizations |
CLE | Emergency Limit Condition |
MS | Seismic Microzonation |
Appendix A
Topic | Albania (AL) | Croatia (HR) | Greece (GR) | Italy (IT) | Serbia (RS) | Slovenia (SI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seismic norms | a | Scientific Council of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy | Croatian Standards Institute | Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Works, Ministry of Climate Change and Civil Protection, Greek Organization of Antiseismic Protection (OASP) | Italian state | Institute for Standardization of Serbia (ISS), Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of European Integration | Slovenian Institute for Standardization |
b | National and IPA funds | Government and EU funds | Public Investment Program, EU funds, private funds via public–private sector cooperation programs | EU funds and state resources | Government funds | Government and EU funds | |
c | Academia, Technical Chamber | Universities, design professionals, decision-makers | Greek Organization of Antiseismic Protection (OASP) | Practitioners, boards of engineers and architects, ministries | National public authority (Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of European Integration); higher education and research (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects); practitioners (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects) | National public authority (Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Ministry of Culture); training centers (Slovenian Chamber of Engineers); higher education and research (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects); practitioners (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects) | |
Building regulations | a | Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Urban Development | Croatian Standards Institute, government | Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Works, Ministry of Climate Change and Civil Protection | Municipalities | Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Culture | Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning |
b | National and IPA funds | Government and EU funds | Public Investment Program, EU funds, private funds via public–private sector cooperation programs | State resources | Government funds | Government and EU funds | |
c | Structural Engineers and Architects | Universities, design professionals, decision-makers | Greek Organization of Antiseismic Protection (OASP), universities | Practitioners, civil servants, urban planners, universities, citizens | National public authority (Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of European Integration); higher education and research (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects); practitioners (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects, urban planners) | National public authority (Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Ministry of Culture); training centers (Slovenian Chamber of Engineers); higher education and research (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects); practitioners (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects, urban planners) | |
Urban planning regulations | a | Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Urban Development | Ministry of Urban Planning | Ministry of Environment, local region, local municipality | Municipalities | Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Culture | Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning |
b | National and IPA funds | Government and EU funds | Public Investment Program, EU funds, private funds via public–private sector cooperation programs | State resources | Government funds | Government and EU funds | |
c | Engineers, architects, administration employees, etc. | Universities, design professionals, decision-makers, civil society organizations | Other municipalities, Technical Chamber of Greece—Local Section | Practitioners, civil servants, urban planners, universities, citizens | National public authority (Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of European Integration); higher education and research (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects); practitioners (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects, urban planners) | National public authority (Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Ministry of Culture); training centers (Slovenian Chamber of Engineers); higher education and research (Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects); practitioners (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects, urban planners) | |
Seismic incentive framework | a | Assembly of the Republic of Albania | Ministry of Urban Planning, universities, Civil Protection Services | Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Works, Ministry of Development, Ministry of Climate Change and Civil Protection, Greek Organization of Antiseismic Protection (OASP) | Italian state, regional and local authorities | Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Finance, Republic Directorate for Property of the Republic of Serbia | Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Ministry of Defence |
b | National and IPA funds | Government and EU funds | Public Investment Program, EU funds, private funds via public–private sector cooperation programs | State resources | Government funds | Government and EU funds | |
c | Government, Ministry of Civil Protection, Council of Ministers, Ministries, National Agency of Civil Protection, municipalities | Universities, design professionals, decision-makers, civil society organizations | Greek Organization of Antiseismic Protection (OASP), Technical Chamber of Greece—Local Section, local municipalities | Civil Protection, public authorities, practitioners, citizens | Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Finance, Republic Directorate for Property of the Republic of Serbia, occupational safety authority, architects, civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects, property owners | Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning; Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Culture, municipalities, Faculty of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering, research institutes, Slovenian Chamber of Engineers, education/training centers and schools, urban planners, civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects, property owners | |
Post-earthquake planning | a | Assembly of the Republic of Albania | Ministry of Urban Planning, universities, Civil Protection Services | Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Works, Ministry of Climate Change and Civil Protection, OASP, local municipalities, local regions | Civil Protection | Ministry of Interior, Republic Directorate for Property of the Republic of Serbia | Ministry of Defence |
b | National and IPA funds | Government and EU funds | Public Investment Program, EU funds, private funds via public–private sector cooperation programs | EU funds and state resources | Government funds | Government and EU funds | |
c | Government, Ministry of Civil Protection, Council of Ministers, ministries, National Agency of Civil Protection, municipalities | Universities, design professionals | OASP, municipalities, local regions | State, regions, provinces, municipalities, NGOs, rescue units, citizens | National public authority (Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Interior, Republic Directorate for Property of the Republic of Serbia); higher education and research (occupational safety authority, civil engineering); practitioners (civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects, urban planners); general public (property owners) | Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Culture, Faculty of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering, education/training centers and schools, enterprises, SME, urban planners, civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects, property owners | |
Insurance against earthquakes | a | Private insurance companies | Government, banks | Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Works, Ministry of Development, Ministry of Climate Change and Civil Protection | Insurance companies | Ministry of Finance, Republic Directorate for Property of the Republic of Servia, banking sector | Government |
b | Insurances funds, national funds | Government resources, EU funds, and bank loans | Private funds | Private investments of insurance companies | Government funds | Government and EU funds | |
c | Ministry of Finance and Economy, owners of vulnerable historic buildings, municipalities, etc. | Government, ministries, city stakeholders, decision-makers | Union of Insurance Consultants | Policymakers, Insurance Supervisory Authority (IVASS), practitioners, citizens, banks | National public authority (Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Republic Directorate for Property of the Republic of Serbia, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Finance); insurance companies; higher education and research; practitioners (urban planners, civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects); general public (property owners) | National public authority (Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Finance); higher education and research; enterprises (insurance companies); practitioners (urban planners, civil engineers, restaurateurs, architects); general public (property owners) |
References
- Triller, P.; Santangelo, A.; Marzani, G.; Kreslin, M. Towards Harmonised Reduction of Seismic Vulnerability: 2 Analyzing Norms and Incentives in the Adriatic-Ionian Region 3; Zenodo: Geneva, Switzerland, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jimenez, M.-J.; Giardini, D.; Grünthal, G. The ESC-SESAME Unified Hazard Model for the European-Mediterranean Region. EMSC/CSEM Newsl. 2023, 19, 2–4. [Google Scholar]
- Faccenna, C.; Becker, T.W.; Auer, L.; Billi, A.; Boschi, L.; Brun, J.P.; Capitanio, F.A.; Funiciello, F.; Horvàth, F.; Jolivet, L.; et al. Mantle Dynamics in the Mediterranean. Rev. Geophys. 2014, 52, 283–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dollani, A.; Lerario, A.; Maiellaro, N. Sustaining Cultural and Natural Heritage in Albania. Sustainability 2016, 8, 792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obad Šćitaroci, M.; Obad Šćitaroci, B.B.; Mrđa, A. (Eds.) Cultural Urban Heritage. Development, Learning and Landscape Strategies; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 978-3-030-10612-6. [Google Scholar]
- Marinelli, G.; Domenella, L.; Galasso, M.; Rotondo, F. Planning Seismic Inner Areas in Central Italy. TeMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2022, 1, 195–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzani, G.; Santangelo, A.; Tondelli, S. Action Plans for Enhancing Resilience of Adriatic and Ionian Historic Urban Centres. Evidence from ADRISEISMIC Project. Urban. Inf. 2022, 306, 517–519. [Google Scholar]
- Paton, D.; Johnston, D. Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach; Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd.: Springfiled, IL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sutanta, H.; Rajabifard, A.; Bishop, I.D. Integrating Spatial Planning and Disaster Risk Reduction at the Local Level in the Context of Spatially Enabled Government; Leuven University Press: Leuven, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Brunetta, G.; Salata, S. Mapping Urban Resilience for Spatial Planning-A First Attempt to Measure the Vulnerability of the System. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Datola, G. Implementing Urban Resilience in Urban Planning: A Comprehensive Framework for Urban Resilience Evaluation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 98, 104821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Predari, G.; Stefanini, L.; Marinković, M.; Stepinac, M.; Brzev, S. Adriseismic Methodology for Expeditious Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. Buildings 2023, 13, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldassarre, B.; Conticelli, E.; Santangelo, A. Planning for More Resilient and Safer Cities: A New Methodology for Seismic Risk Assessment at the Urban Scale, Applied to a Case Study in Italy. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veselý, A. Theory and Methodology of Best Practice Research: A Critical Review of the Current State. Cent. Eur. J. Public Policy 2011, 5, 98–117. [Google Scholar]
- Durrant, L.J.; Vadher, A.N.; Sarač, M.; Başoğlu, D.; Teller, J. Using Organigraphs to Map Disaster Risk Management Governance in the Field of Cultural Heritage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munene, M.B.; Swartling, Å.G.; Thomalla, F. The Sendai Framework: A Catalyst for the Transformation of Disaster Risk Reduction through Adaptive Governance? SEI Discussion Brief; Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Santangelo, A.; Melandri, E.; Marzani, G.; Tondelli, S.; Ugolini, A. Enhancing Resilience of Cultural Heritage in Historical Areas: A Collection of Good Practices. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosa, A.; Santangelo, A.; Tondelli, S. Investigating the Integration of Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management into Urban Planning Tools. The Ravenna Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkes, F.; Ross, H. Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EN 1998-1: 2004; Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
- Galić, J.; Vukić, H.; Andrić, D.; Stepinac, L. Manual—Techniques for the Repair and Strengthening of Masonry Buildings. Available online: https://www.arhitekt.hr/files/radovi/privitak/348/ZA%20DIGITALNU%20OBJAVU%20_%2020200706%20_%20TEHNIKE0.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
- Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization of Greece (EPPO). KAN.EPE—Code of Structural Interventions. 2017. Available online: https://ecpfe.oasp.gr/sites/default/files/files/full.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
- Organization for the Seismic Planning and Protection (OASP). Guidelines for Assessment and Structural Interventions on Masonry Buildings; OASP: Athens, Greece, 2021.
- DPCM 9/02/2011; Evaluation and Reduction of Seismic Risk of Cultural Heritage in Accordance with NTC 2008. Presidency of the Council of Ministers: Rome, Italy, 2011.
- Regional Government of Emilia-Romagna. Regional Law No. 19/2008—Norms for the Reduction of Seismic Risk; Official Gazette of the Region of Emilia-Romagna: Bologna, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Regional Government of Emilia-Romagna. D.G.R. n. 2272/2016—List of Interventions Without Relevance for Public Safety and Non-Substantial Variants; Official Gazette of the Emilia-Romagna Region: Bologna, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Greek Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change. Ministry Decision No. 37691/2007: Geological Suitability Studies of Rocks for the Implementation of General Town Plans; Greek Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change: Athens, Greece, 2007.
- Regional Government of Emilia-Romagna. Regional Law No. 24/2017—Regional Regulation on Land Protection and Use; Official Gazette of the Emilia-Romagna Region: Bologna, Italy, 2017.
- FEK 2943/B-2023; Seismic Inspection of Public Buildings and Critical Infrastructure. Government of Greece: Athens, Greece, 2023.
- Italian Parliament. Law No. 77/2020—Conversion of Decree-Law No. 34/2020 (Relaunch Decree), Including the Introduction of Superbonus 110% for Energy Efficiency and Seismic Risk Reduction; General Series No. 181; Official Gazette of the Italian Republic: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport. Decree No. 58/2017—Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings; Official Gazette of the Italian Republic: Rome, Italy, 2017; Volume 173.
- Italian Department of Civil Protection. “I Don’t Take Risks”—National Awareness Campaign for Risk Prevention and Preparedness. Available online: https://eventi.protezionecivile.gov.it/en/i-dontt-take-risks/ (accessed on 16 April 2025).
- Municipality of Bologna. Volumetric Incentives for Seismic Retrofitting Interventions, Building Regulations of Bologna Municipality; Municipality of Bologna: Bologna, Italy, 2017.
- National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology & National Department of Civil Protection. EDURISK—Increasing Knowledge and Awareness of Seismic Risk in Schools. Available online: http://www.edurisk.it/ (accessed on 16 April 2025).
- Civil Protection Department; EUCENTRE Foundation; ReLUIS. “Secure +”—Online Tool to Raise Awareness on Seismic Risk of Italian Municipalities. Available online: https://www.sicuropiu.it/index.xhtml (accessed on 16 April 2025).
- Administration of the Republic of Slovenia for Civil Protection and Disaster Relief. POTROG Applications. Available online: http://potrog2.vokas.si/ (accessed on 16 April 2025).
- Greek Ministry of Climate Crisis and Civil Protection. General Civil Protection Plan “Engelados”, Law 4662/2020; Government Gazette (ΦΕΚ) 27A/7-2-2020; Greek Ministry of Climate Crisis and Civil Protection: Athens, Greece, 2020.
- General Secretariat for Civil Protection. Guidelines for the Planning and Implementation of Civil Protection Exercises; Prot. No. 532/23-01-2020; General Secretariat for Civil Protection: Athens, Greece, 2020.
- Italian Parliament. National Plan for the Prevention of Seismic Risk; Law No. 77/2009; Italian Parliament: Rome, Italy, 2009.
- Republic of Slovenia. Resolution on Strengthening Earthquake Safety by 2050 “BEAT THE EARTHQUAKE” (ReKPV50); No. 3592; Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2023.
Topic | GP Code | Title | Country |
---|---|---|---|
Seismic norms | GP1 | Eurocode 8 [20] | All |
GP2 | Manual for Seismic Retrofitting of the Existing Masonry Buildings [21] | Croatia | |
GP3 | KAN.EPE—Code of interventions [22] | Greece | |
GP4 | Guidelines for Assessment and Structural Interventions on Masonry Buildings [23] | Greece | |
GP5 | DPCM 9/02/2011—Evaluation and reduction of seismic risk for cultural heritage [24] | Italy | |
GP6 | Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No. 19/2008 for the reduction of seismic risk [25] | Italy | |
GP7 | D.G.R. n. 2272/2016 List of interventions without relevance for public safety and non-substantial variants [26] | Italy | |
Urban planning | GP8 | Geological Suitability Studies—Ministries’ Decision 37691/2007 [27] | Greece |
GP9a | Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No. 24/2017: analysis of the local seismic risk as part of the Urban Plan Baseline Framework [28] | Italy | |
GP9b | Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No. 24/2017: Emergency Limit Condition (CLE) part of the Urban Plan Baseline Framework [28] | Italy | |
GP9c | Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No. 24/2017: Seismic Microzonation (MS) foreseen in the Urban Planning Baseline Framework [28] | Italy | |
Seismic incentive frameworks | GP10 | FEK 2943/B-2023—Seismic Inspection of Public Buildings Framework for Pre-Earthquake Monitoring of Public Utility Buildings [29] | Greece |
GP11 | Sismabonus—Law No. 77/2020 [30] | Italy | |
GP12 | D.M. No. 58/2017—Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings [31] | Italy | |
GP13 | “I Don’t Take Risks”—National Awareness Campaign for Risk Prevention and Preparedness [32] | Italy | |
GP14 | Volumetric Incentives for Seismic Retrofitting Interventions [33] | Italy | |
GP15 | “EDURISK”—Increasing Knowledge and Awareness of Seismic Risk in Schools [34] | Italy | |
GP16 | “Secure +”—Online Tool to Raise Awareness on Seismic Risk of Italian Municipalities [35] | Italy | |
GP17 | POTROG Applications [36] | Slovenia | |
Post-earthquake planning | GP18 | General Civil Protection Plan—“Engelados” [37] | Greece |
GP19 | Guidelines for Planning and Execution of Civil Protection Exercises [38] | Greece | |
GP20 | National Seismic Risk Rescue Program DPCM 14/01/2014 [39] | Italy | |
GP21 | Resolution on Strengthening Earthquake Resilience by 2050 “Beat the earthquake” (ReKPV50) [40] | Slovenia |
Albania | Croatia | Greece | Italy | Serbia | Slovenia | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Topic | GP Number | R | S | R | S | R | S | R | S | R | S | R | S |
Seismic norms | GP1 | ||||||||||||
GP2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3* | 3 | 3* | 3 | 3* | 3 | |||
GP3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3* | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||
GP4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3* | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||
GP5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||
GP6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||
GP7 | 2 | 3 | 1 | n.a. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||
Urban planning regulation | GP8 | 2 | 1 | 3* | 3 | 3* | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||
GP9a | 3 | 2 | 3* | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3* | 3 | |||
GP9b | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3* | 3 | |||
GP9c | 1 | 1 | 3* | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||
Seismic incentive frameworks | GP10 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | ||
GP11 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||
GP12 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3* | 3 | |||
GP13 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3* | 3 | |||
GP14 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |||
GP15 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3* | 3 | |||
GP16 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3* | 3 | |||
GP17 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |||
Post-earthquake planning | GP18 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3* | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3* | 3, 2, 1 | ||
GP19 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3* | 3, 2, 1 | |||
GP20 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3* | 3, 2, 1 | |||
GP21 | 3 | 3 | 3* | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3* | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Topic | STEP 1. Identification of the Gaps | AL | HR | GR | IT | RS | SI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seismic norms | 1.1. Is any document in force to consider the seismic risk of existing buildings? | ||||||
1.2. Is there a specific focus on the evaluation and reduction in seismic risk for cultural heritage in the actual seismic norms? | |||||||
1.3. Is the seismic norms apparatus flexible enough and efficient from a procedural point of view for the reduction in seismic risk? | |||||||
Building regulations | 2.1. Are building regulations drafted considering the seismic risk of the urban realm? | ||||||
2.2. Are building regulations taking into consideration seismic risk for the interventions on existing buildings? | |||||||
Urban planning regulations | 3.1. Are urban planning regulations drafted considering the seismic risk? | ||||||
3.2. Are the urban planning laws and tools drafted following the principles of sustainable development and protection of cultural heritage? | |||||||
3.3. Are urban planning regulations and urban planning tools drafted considering the emergency phase? | |||||||
Seismic incentive framework | 4.1. Do economic incentives for the reduction in seismic risk in buildings exist? | ||||||
4.1.1. If yes, is the amount of the incentive appropriate? | |||||||
4.1.2. If yes, are they effective? | |||||||
4.4. Do indirect incentives for raising awareness about the seismic vulnerability of the built heritage exist? | |||||||
Post-earthquake planning | 5.1. Does a disaster risk management plan exist? | ||||||
5.2. Is the preparedness phase considered in planning the emergency phase? | |||||||
5.3. Are the response and the rehabilitation after earthquake incidents planned? | |||||||
5.4. Do post-earthquake planning documents deal with cultural heritage buildings? | |||||||
Insurance against earthquakes | 6.1. Is insurance against earthquake legally binding? | ||||||
6.2. Is the amount of the premium and the conditions to stipulate the contract favorable for the owners? | |||||||
6.3. Is it convenient for the owners to stipulate insurance against earthquakes? |
Topic | STEP 2. Identification of the Barriers | AL | HR | GR | IT | RS | SI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seismic norms | Lack of political interest in the improvement | ||||||
Experts lack technical knowledge | |||||||
Lack of procedures to evaluate the seismic risk at a larger scale than one building | |||||||
Lack of detailed knowledge about the seismic risk at the territorial level | |||||||
Lack of money for the assessment of seismic risk at the macro level | |||||||
Building regulations | Lack of political interest in the improvement | ||||||
Experts lack technical knowledge | |||||||
Lack of procedures to evaluate the seismic risk at a larger scale than one building | |||||||
Lack of detailed knowledge about the seismic risk at the territorial level | |||||||
Lack of money for the assessment of seismic risk at the macro level | |||||||
Urban planning regulations | Lack of political interest in the improvement | ||||||
Experts lack technical knowledge | |||||||
Lack of procedures to evaluate the seismic risk at a larger scale than one building | |||||||
Lack of detailed knowledge about the seismic risk at the territorial level | |||||||
Lack of money for the assessment of seismic risk at the macro level | |||||||
Seismic incentive framework | Lack of political interest in the improvement | ||||||
Absence of public interest in seismic provisions | |||||||
Lack of financial support | |||||||
Absence of knowledge about the benefit available | |||||||
Lack of data and methods to make the incentive sustainable | |||||||
Lack of awareness of seismic risk | |||||||
Lack of skills in communication of incentives from the policymakers | |||||||
Post-earthquake planning | Lack of political interest in the improvement | ||||||
Lack of cooperation and coordination among authorities | |||||||
Absence of the civil protection structure | |||||||
Insurance against earthquakes | Lack of political interest in investigating the insurance possibilities | ||||||
Government policies on reconstruction process are disincentives for stipulating insurance contracts | |||||||
Lack of knowledge about the benefits available | |||||||
Lack of data and methods to make the insurance sustainable | |||||||
Lack of awareness about seismic risk | |||||||
Lack of economic resources of insurance companies to cover expenses of a large-scale disaster | |||||||
Lack of clear benefits for the owners in having insurance against earthquakes |
Topic | STEP 3 | AL | HR | GR | IT | RS | SI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seismic norms | GP2 | ||||||
GP3 | |||||||
GP4 | |||||||
GP5 | |||||||
GP6 | |||||||
GP7 | |||||||
Urban planning regulations | GP8 | ||||||
GP9a | |||||||
GP9b | |||||||
GP9c | |||||||
Seismic incentive framework | GP10 | ||||||
GP11 | |||||||
GP12 | |||||||
GP13 | |||||||
GP14 | |||||||
GP15 | |||||||
GP16 | |||||||
GP17 | |||||||
Post-earthquake planning | GP18 | ||||||
GP19 | |||||||
GP20 | |||||||
GP21 | |||||||
Other |
Topic | STEP 5. Selection of the Monitoring Strategies | AL | HR | GR | IT | RS | SI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seismic norms | Define monitoring indicators | ||||||
Establish which agency or committee will be responsible for monitoring activities | |||||||
Other | |||||||
Building regulations | Define monitoring indicators | ||||||
Establish which agency or committee will be responsible for monitoring activities | |||||||
Other | |||||||
Urban planning regulations | Define monitoring indicators | ||||||
Establish which agency or committee will be responsible for monitoring activities | |||||||
Other | |||||||
Seismic incentive framework | Define monitoring indicators | ||||||
Establish which agency or committee will be responsible for monitoring activities | |||||||
Undertake regular reviews of the seismic incentive framework effectiveness | |||||||
Other | |||||||
Post-earthquake planning | Undertake regular activities to increase preparedness | ||||||
Test pre-disaster planning, preparation, and staff capabilities through recovery exercises | |||||||
Establish which agency or committee will be responsible for overseeing ongoing preparedness activities | |||||||
Define monitoring indicators | |||||||
Establish which agency or committee will be responsible for monitoring activities | |||||||
Other | |||||||
Insurance against earthquakes | Conduct regular assessment of the number of insurance contracts available or stipulated | ||||||
Undertake regular reviews of the insurance’s features | |||||||
Define monitoring indicators | |||||||
Establish which agency or committee will be responsible for monitoring activities | |||||||
Other |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marzani, G.; Cavalieri, B.; Santangelo, A.; Triller, P.; Kreslin, M.; Fassoulas, C.; Tondelli, S. Reducing Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Areas: Moving from Good Practices to Tailored Roadmaps. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5062. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115062
Marzani G, Cavalieri B, Santangelo A, Triller P, Kreslin M, Fassoulas C, Tondelli S. Reducing Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Areas: Moving from Good Practices to Tailored Roadmaps. Sustainability. 2025; 17(11):5062. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115062
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarzani, Giulia, Benedetta Cavalieri, Angela Santangelo, Petra Triller, Maja Kreslin, Charalampos Fassoulas, and Simona Tondelli. 2025. "Reducing Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Areas: Moving from Good Practices to Tailored Roadmaps" Sustainability 17, no. 11: 5062. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115062
APA StyleMarzani, G., Cavalieri, B., Santangelo, A., Triller, P., Kreslin, M., Fassoulas, C., & Tondelli, S. (2025). Reducing Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Areas: Moving from Good Practices to Tailored Roadmaps. Sustainability, 17(11), 5062. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115062