Search

In order to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of land use planning and emergency panning policies and strategies in EU, the Italian regulations and guidelines are used as example to discuss the distance between the European and national regulation and the disaster management and post-disaster procedures, that together with the land use planning are often conceived for a Municipal scale. Both anthropic and natural risks are dealt with in the emergency planning, but risk information derive from very diverse sources, with different levels of detail – from the risk assessment of major risk plants to the representation of risks provided by sectorial plans, each one focused on a single type of risk (i.e. flood, seismic, fire…). Emergency plans should aim at correlating the various risk evaluations, thus being able to provide a comprehensive emergency programme, both for people and territorial safety, but indeed the land use is often regulated by a completely different legislation and designing system. This lack of linkage between the procedures for Emergency and for Land Use Planning makes the emergency management less effective towards the achievement of a real safety of territories, as proved by recent disastrous events in the European territory. In order to solve these critical issues, the paper aims at providing hints on how to achieve a different approach both in land use and emergency planning, conceiving risk assessment as part of an integrated process composed by many important and interrelated phases, not only post-disaster emergency, but also structural interventions for the long-term prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of land use planning and emergency panning policies and strategies in EU, the Italian regulations and guidelines are used as example to discuss the distance between the European and national regulation and the disaster management and post-disaster procedures, that together with the land use planning are often conceived for a Municipal scale. Both anthropic and natural risks are dealt with in the emergency planning, but risk information derive from very diverse sources, with different levels of detail – from the risk assessment of major risk plants to the representation of risks provided by sectorial plans, each one focused on a single type of risk (i.e. flood, seismic, fire…). Emergency plans should aim at correlating the various risk evaluations, thus being able to provide a comprehensive emergency programme, both for people and territorial safety, but indeed the land use is often regulated by a completely different legislation and designing system. This lack of linkage between the procedures for Emergency and for Land Use Planning makes the emergency management less effective towards the achievement of a real safety of territories, as proved by recent disastrous events in the European territory. In order to solve these critical issues, the paper aims at providing hints on how to achieve a different approach both in land use and emergency planning, conceiving risk assessment as part of an integrated process composed by many important and interrelated phases, not only post-disaster emergency, but also structural interventions for the long-term prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• NaTech accidental events. • Territorial planning in the incidence of Climate change. • Awareness and Preparedness of urban and local planners. • Decision support system for the benefit of local authorities. The present paper aims at verifying the awareness and preparedness of urban and local planners to cope with NaTech risk, together with the availability of dedicated tools. Since most of the natural events that can trigger technological hazards are influenced by climate change (i.e. flood, heavy rains, storms, etc.), NaTech risk is expected to be strongly increasing in the next years. However, dedicated NaTech planning actions and methods or tools to support them are still rarely available. The requirements of European Adaptation Strategy for Climate were examined considering the issues posed by the Seveso III Directive in terms of NaTech, focusing on the strategies adopted in the European countries, and in particular in Italy. Based on such analysis, a 'NaTech tool' dedicated to local planners was developed. Practical and easy to use methods and procedures were proposed in order to allow the use of the method by the local authorities, in the absence of sectorial experts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]