The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2044-1266.htm

A risk-reduction framework for A DRR

framework for
urban cultural heritage: urban cultural
heritage
a comparative study on Italian
historic centres 499
Francesca Giuliani Received 9 July 2020
Revised 11 October 2020
Department of Energy, Systems, Territory and Construction Engineering, Accepted 2 December 2020
University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
Rosa Grazia De Paoli
Faculty of Architecture, University of Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy, and
Enrica Di Miceli
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Unicusano University, Rome, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present and validate a large-scale methodology for risk assessment
and management in cultural heritage sites, taking into account their specific tangible or intangible values.
Emphasis is given to historic centres that are key resources in building resilience to disasters but are also
highly vulnerable due to several factors, such as the characteristics of the built environment, the community
and social life, the lack of risk awareness and maintenance and finally the poor regulatory framework for their
management and valorisation.
Design/methodology/approach – The multi-step procedure starts from the assessment of the attributes of
cultural heritage in order to identify priorities and address the analysis. Then, it evaluates the primary and
secondary hazards in the area, the vulnerabilities and threats of the site and the impacts of the chain of events.
Finally, it allows for calibrating a site-specific set of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery measures.
Findings – The application to two case studies in the Italian peninsula, the historic centres of San Gimignano
and Reggio Calabria, allows for identifying research gaps and practical opportunities towards the adoption of
common guidelines for the selection of safety measures.
Originality/value – By providing a qualitative assessment of risks, the research points out the potentialities
of the methodology in the disaster risk management of cultural heritage due to its capacity to be comprehensive
and inclusive towards disciplines and professionals.
Keywords Cultural heritage, Disaster risk reduction, Resilience, Vulnerability, Historic urban landscape,
World heritage, Management, Disasters
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Italy is a country that preserves a century-old artistical and historical tradition, which is also
recognised by the great number of assets listed as national heritage or world heritage sites
(WHSs). The last decades have been characterised by a growing awareness of the necessity to

© Francesca Giuliani, Rosa Grazia De Paoli and Enrica Di Miceli. Published by Emerald Publishing
Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone
may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and
Journal of Cultural Heritage
non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full Management and Sustainable
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Development
Vol. 11 No. 4, 2021
The authors wish to acknowledge the professors and organisers of the UNESCO Chair Programme pp. 499-515
on Cultural Heritage and Risk Management, 13th International Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk Emerald Publishing Limited
2044-1266
Management of Cultural Heritage, year 2018. DOI 10.1108/JCHMSD-07-2020-0099
JCHMSD safeguard and promote cultural heritage (CH), both tangible and intangible, located in hazard-
11,4 prone areas (Paolini et al., 2012; UNISDR, 2015; ICCROM, 2010, 2016; Stanton-Geddes and Soz,
2017). Emblematic examples of hazards impacting Italian WHSs are the flood in Florence
(1966), the seasonal water level rising in Venice and the erosion of the Palatine Hill in Rome
caused by heavy rainfalls (De Paoli et al., 2020).
The occurrence of disasters and the subsequent damage to CH highlight that further work
is still necessary to achieve the “preventive conservation” theorised by Brandi (1977) and
500 later elaborated by Giovanni Urbani as “programmed conservation” (MiBACT and ICR,
1976). Key moments for the development of preventive conservation in Italy have been the
Franceschini Commission (1964) and the pilot plan for the programmed conservation of
cultural heritage in Umbria (1976). The first one extended the legislative notion of CH to a
wider range of cultural assets and positively revised the funding mechanisms for heritage
protection (Pallottino, 1987). Instead, the second aimed at understanding and managing risk
of movable and immovable CH in a pilot area, thus assessing the vulnerabilities and exposure
to several deterioration factors. As discussed by Lambert (2010), the proposal failed in the
implementation phase due to political and administrative issues. However, an important step
towards attaining programmed conservation is the “Risk Map of CH”, which was developed
by the Central Institute for Restoration (ICR) during the 1990s (Baldi et al., 1987). Today, the
Risk Map has been adopted by “Vincoli in Rete” that is a geographical information system
(GIS) containing information on the distribution of Italian CH, their state of conservation and
potential indicator-based risk. Unfortunately, the system appears to be weak if proper
planning is missing, and the main drawbacks are primarily linked to: (1) the punctual analysis
of the individual CH units; (2) the limited range of risk-related indicators that provide an
uncertain estimation and (3) the lack of attention to historical urban landscapes, such as
historic centres, whose large-scale protection requires to include diverse source of data (e.g.
urban planning) and cooperating with local and regional authorities. As such, the
automaticity of risk calculation, however sophisticated it may be, cannot replace a
conscious planning, the outcome of which is the result of a discriminating evaluation on data.
In spite of these efforts, the effects of the latest economic crisis and the consequent lack of
funds affected the construction sector and significantly contributed to neglecting the
conservation and maintenance of CH (ICOMOS, 2005; EP, 2007). This is even more relevant in
historic centres where the great vulnerability and exposure to natural and human-induced
hazards is causing their isolation and, often, their decline. In these areas, physical
vulnerabilities are sided by socio-economic and socio-cultural vulnerabilities. The first ones
are commonly related the lack of hazard-resistant design and the aging of buildings, while the
others depend on the economy and the unique significance of the place to local people. In fact,
most of the historic centres are under heritage protection law in Italy on account of their
landscape value, intended as their capacity to witness territorial adaptation of human
habitats and to host traditional activities (MiBACT, 2004). Therefore, it is necessary to adopt
of a wider perspective and consider the great tangible and intangible losses caused by
hazards affecting a greater number of historical settlements. In this regard, the 2009 and the
2016 earthquakes in Central Italy damaged and destroyed several urban centres, such as
L’Aquila, Amatrice, Arquata del Tronto and Visso (Fragomeli et al., 2018). Their recovery is
still challenging due to the loss of social cohesion, cultural assets and urban fabric.
The need to adopt a holistic approach in territorial planning has been a crucial topic for
environmental researchers ever since the publication of the pioneering studies of McHarg
(1969). The author suggested to design with, rather than against, nature in order to produce
compatible transformations with little negative impact. Conversely, urbanisation took place
without considering the environmental features of the territory, such as landscape values or
hazard factors (seismic zones, areas in hydrogeological instability), hence inducing or
increasing risks. A critical reflection on the topic began in the 1980s, after the Irpinia
earthquake, when researchers introduced the concept of “urban vulnerability” and stressed the A DRR
need for integrating land-use compatibility and risk reduction strategies in the ordinary spatial framework for
planning. Damage occurred to the whole historical urban landscape in historic centres, not only
in single monumental buildings, collections and artworks. Starting from this awareness, the
urban cultural
Minimum Urban Structure (SUM) has been proposed and adopted (Calabria Reg. Law heritage
n. 19/2002; Umbria Reg. Law n. 11/2005) with the objective to ensure the safety and recovery of
the urban system (Fabietti, 1999). It is a methodological tool that analyses the vulnerability of a
number of sub-systems corresponding to the main urban functions, such as the historical 501
memory and identity, economic and productive and emergency systems. Although the SUM
has the merit of having integrated the recovery of different sub-systems into a single
methodology, it does not account for the stakeholders involved in the process and their
management. Moreover, it does not provide suggestions on how to perform the vulnerability
assessments, which is indeed a central problem when dealing with tangible and intangible CH.
In the last decades, the difficult post-earthquake reconstructions in Central Italy fostered
the development of a national programmatic framework aimed at reducing the disaster risk
on CH through a legislative approach. Although useful, regulations have often generated
operational confusion and resulted in excessive bureaucratization overtime (Di Giovanni,
2016). Furthermore, the lack of a shared linguistic and procedural code among disciplines
hindered the implementation of non-sectoral, effective intervention tools like risk
management plans and projects. Efforts implemented by the Ministry for Cultural
Heritage have seen the development of regional databases based on national guidelines,
such as the Information System for Seismic Risk Assessment (SIVARS). The procedure
allows for estimating the physical vulnerability of monumental buildings by means of three
assessment levels, ranging from simplified to detailed investigations (PCM, 2011). The first-
level approach (LV1) is based on simplified mechanical models for a qualitative investigation;
the second one (LV2) consists in the evaluation of local collapse mechanisms by a kinematic
analysis and the third one (LV3) encompasses global analyses of the whole building based on
structural models. First-level approaches are suitable for territorial evaluations, but their
implementation is difficult for historic centres. In fact, the high numbers of units and the
presence of complex aggregates is critical due to the non-uniform and non-detailed
knowledge of buildings. The need to improve the culture of prevention throughout the
country in a structural way – and not only intervene in the emergency phase – has
encouraged the foundation of the Casa Italia Department in April 2017. Among its activities,
the Department promoted the creation of a large-scale institutional database to monitor the
quality of the natural and built environment. A key output of the project is the Risk Map of
Italian Municipalities (www.istat.it/it/mappa-rischi) that provides maps, data and indicators
for the capillary identification of different risks at a territorial level (PCM and SMCI, 2017).
Hence, the repository is useful to collect initial large-scale data, but it is not specifically
targeted on CH assets. Despite the large number of actions promoted in the past years, only a
limited number of research initiatives regarding historic centres have attempted to combine
risk analysis, risk management, heritage studies and urban planning (Giuliani et al., 2020;
Cutini et al., 2019; De Paoli, 2010).
Given this heterogeneous framework, this paper suggests a trans-disciplinary
methodology capable to tackle the issue of preserving Italian historic centres and to foster
their disaster risk management (DRM) and reduction (DRR). The concept stems from the
proposals for the management of CH at risk developed by researchers and international
bodies, such as UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOM and ICOMOS/ ICORP (Paolini et al., 2012; Jigyasu
and Vanicka, 2013). Emphasis is given not only to the material integrity of each heritage, but
most of all to the preservation of its significance for the community. This aspect is embodied
by the notion of “value” which is central in this work. In fact, the necessity to limit the loss of
value determines a values-centred DRM of heritage assets that is linked to conservation
JCHMSD decision-making providing criteria for risk prioritization. The methodology has been applied
11,4 to two sample historic centres in Italy, Reggio Calabria (Calabria) and San Gimignano
(Tuscany).

2. Methodology
According to literature, the DRM is a cyclical process consisting of three phases: before,
502 during and after a disaster (Alexander, 2002), corresponding to prevention, emergency and
recovery procedures, respectively. When dealing with CH, prevention activities are the most
important since they allow for limiting or avoiding the loss of integrity and authenticity
(UNESCO, 2008). In the pre-disaster phase, the main actions concern the evaluation of risk in
the site, the identification of a set of strategical measures and multi-level policies for risk
mitigation and the improvement of preparedness of both communities and public services
(Stanton-Geddes et al., 2017; Jha et al., 2013).
An integrated approach to disaster risk management of CH considers the possibilities of
multiple hazards occurring in parallel or as result of interactions between various natural and
human-induced events (Kappes et al., 2012; Alexander, 2001). With reference to the built
environment, risk is commonly evaluated as a mathematical probability that is a function of
three main factors: hazard, vulnerability and exposure (Alexander, 2001; Covello and
Mumpower, 1985; Di Miceli et al., 2017). The complexity of a disaster situation is influenced by
the combination of those three measures: hazards on the site can be either natural or human-
induced; vulnerabilities are associated to the susceptibility to damaging and are categorised
in physical, functional, socio-economic and political (Michalski and Pedersoli, 2016); exposure
refers to all the human and material elements present in hazard zones that are thereby subject
to potential losses. Literature on CH mainly refers to physical vulnerabilities that measure the
liability to damage of buildings and infrastructures at different scales (national, territorial,
urban, building) (Calvi et al., 2006; Giuliani et al., 2020). However, greater attention should also
be given to the evaluation of socio-cultural values of CH, both tangible and intangible
(EC, 2018), whose importance is fundamental for planning any intervention that fosters its
capacity and resilience.
In this study, the assessment of risk is based on a qualitative procedure that allow for
conducting a rapid characterisation and focusing on the management of the CH site
(Michalski and Pedersoli, 2016). By including expert-based evaluations, it is possible to
encourage the cooperation between risk analysists and heritage conservation practitioners.
Furthermore, the quantification of losses or potential damage is commonly affected by
uncertainties that may hinder the effective implementation of DRR actions (Alexander, 2001).
In detail, the methodological approach for the resilience-oriented management of the two
historic centres comprises the following steps (Figure 1):

Figure 1.
Methodological steps
for the analysis and
management of risks in
CH sites
 (1) Multi-level CH site analysis; A DRR
(2) Value assessment and identification of the specific attributes of CH; framework for
(3) Identification of hazards, vulnerabilities and impacts with reference to the set of
urban cultural
exposed attributes; heritage
(4) Definition of a reference multi-hazard risk scenario;
(5) Intervention planning for DRR and monitoring at all stages. 503
The first step of the methodology consists of a context analysis to characterize the site at the
territorial and urban scales. The basic information that should be collected can be
summarized in: (1) location and identification; (2) context analysis including topography,
accessibility, services; (3) physical characteristics of the site, ranging from territorial to
building features; (4) infrastructure and services, such as sewage, drainage, water supply,
electricity, roads or visitor facilities. Moreover, the legal restrictions in the area, historical and
constructive data should be incorporated into the investigation, combining different
disciplines in order to base scenarios on realistic conditions.
The second step focuses on the CH and its values, starting from an in-depth analysis of the
specific attributes of the site that contribute to its authenticity (Boccardi, 2019). According to
the Venice Charter (1964) and the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994), the latter is intended
as the “ability of heritage to convey the importance of its cultural significance” (UNESCO,
2004). The Nara Document recognizes that multiple aspects of authenticity include “form and
design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and
setting, spirit and feeling and other internal and external factors”. The Nara Grid developed
by Van Balen (Van Balen, 2008) can be adopted in risk studies for the definition of the most
relevant attributes of the site. An attribute is intended as any well-defined part of the site with
peculiar heritage value. Particularly, the grid evaluates two sets of features for each site: the
“aspects” that are classified as in the Nara Document; and then the “dimensions”, namely the
artistic, historic, social and scientific dimension.
The characterisation of hazards and the definition of threats and vulnerabilities for the
risk scenarios are part of the third step. Firstly, the identification of the primary hazard on a
site is associated to one or more secondary ones, according to a multi-hazard approach. In this
phase, geological and hydrogeological maps of the site are key materials, as well as micro-
zonation hazard maps reporting specific areas that are prone to various hazards (such as
earthquakes, floods, cyclones etc). Moreover, information on past events and the complete
history of natural and human-induced disasters are fundamental.
A single reference worst-case scenario or a set of critically selected scenarios can be
developed starting from the analyses conducted in the previous steps. Scenarios are targeted
on the attributes, and interventions are calibrated on the impact of the event on each attribute.
In this way, the Nara Grid provides a prioritization criterion for the DRR strategy.
As part of the fifth step, risk mitigation measures are classified in three groups:
(1) strategical and institutional, including the funding, education and networking activities;
(2) technical, which are structural, non-structural or material measures; (3) management and
planning, referring to organisational regulations or procedures to implement over time.
Mitigation measures are selected starting from the comprehensive review conducted by
Bosher et al. (2019) who offer suggestions to address the challenges related to the DRM of CH.
Nonetheless, the set of measures proposed in this paper derives from the investigation of risk
scenarios and is thus specific for Italian historic centres, eventually opening up possibilities to
further develop local needs and agendas.
A case study approach has been applied to validate the methodology, considering two
Italian historic centres. After the definition of site-specific measures for each case study, the
JCHMSD research examines and compares the two strategies in order to identify practical guidelines to
11,4 inform future policies. Finally, the stakeholder analysis aims at identifying the heritage-
related and planning actors of the decision-making process with the objective to guarantee
the effective implementation of DRR measures. This process presupposes the involvement of
individuals and organizations that have the right of decision and can play a role in the
preservation of the attributes of the CH (Council of Europe, 2005).
504
3. Reggio Calabria and San Gimignano as case studies
This section presents the results of the investigation regarding two case studies: the historic
centre of Reggio Calabria in the Southern Italy and the historic centre of San Gimignano in
Central Italy. Each case study is analysed separately from stage 1–5, while a unitary
discussion on the outcomes is proposed in order to provide preliminary guidelines. In this
way, a comprehensive framework for DRR planning is hereby suggested for historic centres,
pushing the body of knowledge forward.

3.1 Historic centre of Reggio Calabria

Reggio Calabria is the most populated and ancient city in the region, with archaeological
traces of the II millennium BC and the first urban core dating back to the foundation of the
Greek colony in the VIII century BC. The history of the city has been influenced by several
seismic events that damaged most of the urban fabric. In fact, it is located in an area with high
seismic hazard, along a system of active faults that follows the southern Apennines and
reaches the eastern Sicily through the Strait of Messina. These faults originated several
catastrophic earthquakes that hit Calabria overtime. After the 1783 earthquake (8 MCS), the
reconstruction followed seismic-resistant design codes and plans based on the “chess board”
planning rule. It introduced a design composed of rectilinear and perpendicular roads,
squared open areas, markets along the longitudinal roads, buildings with a regular and right-
angle plant. Furthermore, regulations aimed at (1) fixing the maximum height of buildings
according to the width of nearby roads and to the number of citizens, (2) designing regular
facades with small, lightweight balconies distant from the corners; (3) promoting the use of
wooden elements or bricks and mortar load bearing walls. Further regulations have been
adopted after the earthquake and tsunami of 8 December 1908 that caused the loss of many
built-up areas within the historic centre.
The historic centre of Reggio Calabria has been completely rebuilt after the earthquake
but still preserves many original cultural assets, such as the archeological site, the Aragonese
castle (15th century), several Art Nouveau buildings (first half of the 20th century), the
Palazzo della Provincia (1920), Palazzo San Giorgio (1921), Villa Genoese Zerbi (1925), the
Church of the Ottimates (records of the Byzantine–Norman period), the National
Archaeological “Magna Grecia” Museum. The latter hosts one of the most important
collections from Magna Graecia and the Bronzes of Riace (5th century BC). Other than
tangible assets, the site is extremely important for the local community, and intangible values
are associated to the closeness to the Strait of Messina Landscape and to the presence of
traditional festivals, e.g. Madonna della Consolazione (Plate 1).
The main hazards in the area are earthquakes, tsunamis and fires, as emerges from the
century-old history of Reggio Calabria. Despite having suffered many earthquakes and
disasters, the historic centre still presents a complex vulnerability framework (Figure 2).
Social factors are determined by the lack of awareness in citizens and emergency drills, even
within civil protection actors. Besides, physical vulnerabilities derive from the unmanaged,
continuous modification of buildings neglecting earthquake-proof rules and national laws.
The uncontrolled alteration of buildings and urbanisation has not been sided by the
corresponding development of roads and infrastructures, determining inefficiency in the
 A DRR
framework for
urban cultural
heritage

505

Plate 1.
Definition of attributes
for the historic centre of
Reggio Calabria

Figure 2.
Characterisation of risk
factors for the historic
centre of Reggio
Calabria

waste collection systems, poor and incoherent urban mobility system, lack of public green
areas and poor quality of urban fabric, both public and private. Nowadays, entire districts
exceed the permitted heights and distance between buildings, with narrow roads and
saturation of open spaces (De Paoli, 2012). From the economic point of view, the Calabria
Region is among the last in Italy for per capita income, a low industrialization level and a very
high youth unemployment rate. This weak economy of the Calabria Region is even more
JCHMSD critical in the light of the financial crisis that affected the entire country in the last decade.
11,4 Any hazardous event would impact on this vulnerable situation in which little attention is
given to the CH assets.
The worst-case risk scenario of Reggio Calabria considers the occurrence of an earthquake
of 7.5 of magnitude originated in the fault in the Ionian See of Strait of Messina, the same of
1908 and an induced tsunami affecting the whole coastal area. The waves of the tsunami are
estimated to be 13 m high; hence the whole coastal area is hit. Additionally, the breakage of
506 pipelines causes fires in many areas. The earthquake and the tsunami are estimated to
damage 90% of the historical buildings and to obstruct all the roads. Most of the CH
attributes are hit by the events, particularly the Magna Grecia Museum and the Aragonese
Castle, as well as the Art Nouveau buildings along the main road. Open-air archaeological
sites are irreversibly damaged. The most damaged area is, therefore, the central part of the
historic centre where most of the cultural attributes are concentrated.
Currently, risk reduction measures on CH assets in the area are limited and ineffective.
The Civil Protection plan contains measures for the emergency management and the
coordination of relief services, but it neglects the role of citizens and their awareness on risks.
Hence, multi-level information campaigns should be introduced to raise awareness on a wider
set of stakeholders, from local governmental officers to residents and reference communities.
Due to the presence of schools and administrative activities into the historic centre, attention
should be devoted to critical facilities and their accessibility for daily users, namely workers
and students. The relocation of activities can be an option in the most dangerous cases.
Further measures can be introduced with the specific objective to reduce the impact of
earthquakes and tsunamis on CH assets and people along the coastal line. In this case, early
warning systems are deemed to be effective solutions to limit damage within potentially
flooded areas. It is also critical to ensure that modifications and new developments do not
increase the vulnerability and exposure of people to risks. The “chess board” configuration of
the historic centre should be preserved since it provides lower levels of urban vulnerability to
earthquakes. In parallel, retrofitting interventions on historical constructions should be
encouraged, with priority given to mansions and palaces.

3.2 Historic centre of San Gimignano

The historic centre of San Gimignano is located in Tuscany, and it is listed as a UNESCO
World Heritage Site since 1990 thanks to its capacity to retain the medieval atmosphere and
appearance. The declaration states that “the Historic Centre of San Gimignano is a cultural
site of exceptional value, since it has treasured its architectural homogeneity and its original
urban layout. The buildings within the town’s double wall provide a shining example of
medieval architecture with influences of Florentine, Sienese, and Pisan styles from the 12th to
the 14th century.” Moreover, the historic centre is under National conservation order, and
interventions are subject to prior authorisation of the Office for Cultural Heritage
(MiBACT, 2004).
The main attributes of the historic centre are: towers, squares, churches, historical walls
and gates, Rocca di Montestaffoli, via Francigena, monuments and heritage-listed buildings.
The evaluation of the attributes of cultural heritage represents a valid tool to prioritize the
objectives of the analysis, addressing the risk characterisation and management. In fact, the
scenario area has been selected on the basis of the attributes’ ranking, by focusing on the area
with the most important church in San Gimignano, the collegiata or cathedral, with the
nearby squares and the Rocca di Montestaffoli (Plate 2).
Nowadays, the town is vulnerable to disasters and prone to several hazards. Besides, the
effects of increasing tourism and the related pressure on modifications to the traditional use
of buildings pose relevant conservation and safety issues. Since the town is built on a
 A DRR
framework for
urban cultural
heritage

507

Plate 2.
Definition of attributes
for the historic centre of
San Gimignano

limestone rocks and sandy substratum, the main geological problem concerns landslides. In
the eighties, two events damaged the Parco della Rocca and the Town Hall tower. More
recently, in April 2018, the eastern side of the historic walls abruptly collapsed due to a
landslide induced by heavy rainfalls. San Gimignano is in a seismic-prone area classified as
zone 3, and 20 earthquakes have been registered in the area since 1804. Moreover, due to
seismic amplification and local instability, landslides may be triggered by earthquakes,
causing a chain of events that can be disastrous for the historic centre. Finally, many
vernacular buildings in San Gimignano present wooden elements such as roofs, vaults, floors,
decorations. Hence, fire may be induced by earthquakes because of burning candles, ruptured
gas lines and arcing electrical wires.
Vulnerabilities are summarised in Figure 3 and are mainly associated to the historical
aggregation process of masonry buildings and to the lack of earthquake-resistant design.
Moreover, the location on the hilltop, the limited number of gates and the presence of narrow
streets contribute to creating a vulnerable built environment. Nevertheless, the main
vulnerabilities depend on social factors, such as the lack of risk preparedness and the
presence of a huge number of untrained visitors and tourists during summertime.
The risk scenario refers to churches and open spaces, that are deemed to be the most
significant due to their tangible and intangible, movable and immovable heritage value.
An earthquake of 6–7 MCS intensity strikes the historic centre during celebration of the
JCHMSD
11,4

508

Figure 3.
Characterisation of risk
factors for the historic
centre of San
Gimignano

“Ferie Messium”, a medieval festival organized in June. During the historical parade, the
narrow streets and open spaces are crowded and host stalls. Moreover, the earthquake
activates several landslides on the hill and affects historical buildings: churches and towers
are damaged, and the failure of masonry walls causes the fall of blocks. The frescoes in the
Cathedral and the collections are heavily damaged. People are in panic and have difficulties in
evacuating. At the meantime, fires spreads in the shops hosted in the first and basement
floors of the buildings and in the streets where several electrical generators are used for the
parade. Even though firefighters are onsite, the staff is not sufficient to manage the disaster
and the backup needs 25 min to arrive from the nearest Fire Station.
Although earthquakes are hardily predictable, it is possible to reduce their impact
preventing disasters as much as possible. The analysis considers the difficulties in
retrofitting the buildings of the whole historic centre due to the presence of different property
owners (municipality, church, privates) and the lack of in-depth large-scale knowledge of the
built environment. Risk mitigation can be achieved by retrofitting the buildings considered as
main heritage attributes, namely churches and towers. Given the great human exposure,
especially in peak tourism seasons, the strengthening of historical facades should be
promoted in order to limit the falling of debris, to avoid the obstruction of the narrow roads
and to guarantee a safer evacuation. In this regard, a constant monitoring of historical
buildings improves knowledge and can contribute to the safety assessment of CH. Risk
preparedness is equally important and entails the organisation of local rescue teams to
salvage CH (especially movable assets) and help vulnerable groups, such as elders and
tourists.

4. Comparison and strategic proposals for DRR

The investigations on Reggio Calabria and San Gimignano highlight the site-specific
characteristics, ranging from historical, vocational, urban, landscape and physical features of
the historic centres and their peculiarities in risk analysis. Nevertheless, the historic centres
present similarities in the risk characterisation and, most important, a common need to
improve the risk management strategies taking into account heritage values and features.
Attributes allow for decoding value of CH not only in its tangible aspects (i.e. form and design,
materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting)
but also in the intangible ones (i.e. spirit and feeling), representing the identity of local A DRR
communities. Therefore, the evaluation of attributes in the earliest phases of the process is a framework for
key issue to engage stakeholders and to establish intervention priorities in the DRR strategy.
The case studies differ in the earthquake-related secondary hazards definition due to the
urban cultural
different geography and topography of the territory. In fact, Reggio Calabria is a coastal site heritage
that might be hit by a tsunami; instead San Gimignano is located on a hilltop where landslides
and soil instability might be triggered. The history of the two centres points to several
disasters as resulting from natural hazards; however, there are a number of adverse events 509
and threats like pests, pollution and climate change that are usually not registered but can
also effect CH assets, either directly or indirectly. As such, a critical reflexion on the effects of
these hazards might be a future development, thus including additional risk scenarios and
integrating the subsequent DRR strategy.
In both the case studies, vulnerabilities are mainly determined by the following factors.
(1) Physical features, namely buildings that have not been constructed to anti-seismic
criteria or have not been retrofitted. In Reggio Calabria, illegal modifications in
load-bearing structures have been frequent even in recent decades despite the
occurrence of earthquakes had promoted an anti-seismic urban reconstruction.
Instead, in San Gimignano, vulnerabilities depend on the old-century stratification of
constructions that are organised in complex structural aggregates. Their
vulnerability strongly depends on the quality of materials and the presence of in-
plan and in-height heterogeneities.
(2) Management deficiencies associated to the lack of maintenance and monitoring of
historical buildings and architectural heritage.
(3) Urban features, such as the concentration of strategic/critical functions, the presence
of narrow roads and the lack of open spaces. In both the case studies, a number of
historical buildings still host strategic and critical functions even though their safety
is not always verified. In particular, emergency operation and coordination centres
are established within the administrative functions, such as municipality offices and
territorial prefectures. Additionally, the historic centre of Reggio Calabria hosts
several schools that are considered as critical facilities for the emergency, given the
high number of people into the building.
(4) Narrow roads are critical because they can be easily blocked and hinder the
evacuation of people. This is further compounded by the lack of open spaces that
could serve as a meeting area during the emergency, when people have limited time to
gather to safer place. Both the case studies are characterised by these vulnerable
conditions. The medieval configuration of San Gimignano is a source of authenticity
for the heritage site but also introduces critical vulnerable conditions. In fact, debris
falling from damaged towers and historical buildings can obstruct the facing narrow
and winding streets as well as cause injuries and casualties during earthquakes.
In Reggio Calabria, the chessboard plan implemented for the post-earthquake
reconstruction is generally efficient, but it tends to lose effectiveness in case of
in-height modifications and volume additions. Besides, flood prone areas have been
urbanised thus neglecting the tsunami inundation modelling into land use planning.
(5) Social issues related to the lack of risk preparedness in resident population and
capacity-building activities with key stakeholders.
Apart from these common aspects, there are site-specific issues that involve economic
vulnerabilities and exposure. Reggio Calabria is characterised by a poor social class that is
JCHMSD not interested in or cannot afford the retrofitting of properties and buildings. This issue is
11,4 amplified by a weak tax/reward regulatory framework at regional level that is not able to
stimulate recovery and retrofitting processes. Territorial and local planning in the historic
centre of Reggio Calabria has been largely ineffective and most importantly has not learnt
from past disasters. As a confirmation of this, regulations allowed for adding balconies and
floors, as well as using different materials in historical buildings. Moreover, the evolution of
the contemporary city is growing without any disaster-proof plan and is reproducing the
510 virtuous original chessboard plan that was characterised by a regular layout of straight and
perpendicular roads, open spaces and built-up areas.
San Gimignano is strongly affected by the great number of tourists, the seasonal use of
properties and the parallel abandonment by residents. These phenomena are causing
modifications to the traditional use of buildings, thus exacerbating the functional
substitution towards tertiary-sector activities. There is a relationship between these
phenomenon and risk analysis. In fact, exposure in San Gimignano is deemed to be high
because it comprises residents, tourists and visitors. Furthermore, the loss or damage to the
urban fabric would result in huge economical losses due to the concentration of activities and
jobs into the historic centre.
Despite the abovementioned site-specific issues, the comparison allows for identifying
common intervention measures and generalise a framework for DRR in historic centres. The
measures are listed in Table 1 and classified in three groups (strategic and institutional,
technical, management and planning), as described by the methodology. For each measure,
several aspects are clearly outlined, namely the involved stakeholders, administrative levels
and the estimated qualitative costs. Stakeholders can be identified within the institutional,
public and private sector. Public and institutional actors include the governmental bodies
(national, regional and local), the Cultural Heritage Office and UNESCO, the Civil Protection
system, the fire and police departments, research centres, museum boards. Instead, private
actors are local communities, private owners, parishes, interest groups, professionals,
insurance companies and organisations (e.g. ICCROM, ICOMOS, and others).
Strategic and institutional measures aim to improve risk awareness on urban cultural
heritage and risk preparedness in communities, as well as to support risk reduction in private
heritage–listed properties. This group of measures promotes a change process that fosters
the cooperation among institutional, public and private stakeholders at all levels. Costs range
from low to medium because they mainly include human resources (e.g. institutions,
voluntaries, and communities) facing a great organisational effort in managing stakeholders.
Technical measures are directed towards the built environment, with attention to single
buildings under threat. Interventions mainly concern the seismic retrofitting and the
structural reinforcement on cultural heritage. Given the large scale of the problem, priorities
are established by applying the methodology (step 2) and evaluating the attributes of the site.
Technical measures involve local governments, the cultural heritage office that monitors the
preservation of heritage values, professionals called upon to design interventions and
insurance companies. This group includes more expensive measures due to costs relating to
human resources, materials and equipment. Finally, management and planning measures
ensure the availability of resources for the DRM in the historic centres, thus acting at local
level. The group includes monitoring actions on the compliance with regulations and
standards.

5. Conclusions
The paper aims to present and validate an integrated methodology for risk characterisation
and management of CH sites. It is a qualitative data-driven approach to large-scale
investigations that involves official urban and heritage repositories, hazard maps, historical
 Hazard Measure Stakeholder Level Cost

Strategic and E, Ls, F, Include cultural heritage into the specific DRM plans, i.e. “risk management plans for historic centres” NG, RG, LC, CP, CHO Mu, HC M
institutional T
E, Ls, F, Establish, organise and train rescue committees for emergency evacuation of cultural heritage (especially LG, CP, CHO, Pa, Mb, C Re, HC, L
T movable assets) and sensitive groups (elders, tourists, children, . . .) Mu, Bu
E, Ls, F, Launch public campaigns to raise awareness about cultural heritage, risks, and incentives for DRR NG, CP, CHO, Org Na, Re, Mu M
T
E, Ls, F, Capacity building with key stakeholders (parishes, museum staff, tourist guides) CP, UNESCO, Org, Mb, Pa, Mu L
T Ig, C
E, Ls, F, Guarantee annual inspections of private cultural heritage properties to collect and update information, LG, CP, C, O Na, Re, Mu, L
T documentation, and data HC
E Promote the retrofitting of private properties by means of incentives and funds NG, RG, LG, P, C, O, I Na, Re, HC M
E, Ls, F, Establish private–public partnerships and launch fundraising campaigns for ordinary and extraordinary NG, RG, LG, CP, UNESCO, Na, Re, M L
T activities Mb, Ig, Org, C
E, F Engage communities for the drafting and adoption of special regulations for public celebrations LG, CP, CHO, FP, Ig, C Mu, HC L
Technical E Retrofit and reinforce monuments, towers, churches, and palaces LG, CHO, Pa, O, P, Mb, R, P, I Bu H
E, F Ensure the safety of non-structural elements (e.g. chimneys, decorations, lamps, etc) LG, CHO, O, Pa, P, I HC, Bu M
F Improve fire protection measures LG, FP, CHO, R, P, O, Ig Mu, Bu H
Ls, T Improve the drainage system and reinforce the retaining walls LG, CP, P Mu M
E, Ls Promote the adoption of traditional construction methods and compatible techniques LG, R, P Re, Mu M
E, Ls, F Implement regular maintenance of buildings, routes, and equipment LG, O, C, Ig, I Mu, HC, H
Bu
Management and E, Ls, F, Provide emergency kits and identify storage areas for the equipment LG, CP, FP, C Mu L
planning T
E, Ls Schedule regular monitoring of buildings and retaining walls LG, CHO, R, P Mu M
E, T Identify evacuation shelters and storage areas for CH LG, CHO, CP, Mb Mu L
F, T Implement early warning systems LG, CP, R Mu M
E, F, T Promote adaptability of uses/functions in underperforming (from the structural or emergency viewpoint) RG, LG, CP, Ig, P, I Mu, Bu M
buildings subject to relocation
F Promote regular inspections to verify the compliance with fire safety standards of commercial activities (smoke LG, CP, Mb, Pa, FP, C, Ig, I, O HC, Bu M
detectors, fire extinguishers, evacuation routes, fireproof materials)
Note(s): Earthquake 5 E; Landslide 5 Ls; Fire 5 F; Tsunami 5 T
Local government 5 LG; Regional government 5 RG; National Government 5 NG; Cultural heritage Office 5 CHO; Civil Protection 5 CP; Fire and police
department 5 FP; Communities 5 C; Interest groups 5 Ig; Professionals 5 P; Parishes 5 Pa; Owners 5 O; Museum boards 5 mb; Research centres 5 R; Insurance
companies 5 I; Organisations 5 Org
Municipality 5 Mu; Historic centre 5 HC; Region 5 Re; Nation 5 Na; Building(s) 5 Bu
Low 5 L; Medium 5 M; High 5 H
heritage
urban cultural

511
framework for

stakeholders,
measures,
hazards, intervention

and qualitative costs

A DRR

Matrix for DRR in

Table 1.

administrative levels,
historic centres:
JCHMSD knowledge and fieldwalking surveys. As such, the methodology is inclusive towards existing
11,4 databases and proposals and promotes a holistic vision to DRR planning by bridging
disciplinary gaps. In particular, it could be the missing connection between the Risk Map of
CH and the SUM, thus encouraging the application of preventive and programmed
conservation policies. In fact, the application of the proposed framework might allow for
overcoming several limitations of previous proposals. Firstly, the single-asset analysis
proposed in the Risk Map of CH is overcome by extending the field of actions to the entire
512 historic centre, which must be protected as a whole and not only in its singularities. This is
even more important when dealing with multi-hazard risk scenarios that include induced
vulnerabilities and second-order effects on the physical, environmental and socio-economical
aspects. Secondly, the clear definition of values proposed in this work could be the basis for
focusing the SUM on historic centres, thus overcoming the general concept expressed by the
“historical memory and identity” sub-system.
The procedure is divided into several steps and emphasises the multidimensional value of
the cultural assets. In particular, the second step evaluates the specific attributes of the CH
site that contribute to its authenticity, in accordance with the Nara Grid and the guidelines of
International bodies. Starting from the recognition of the value of each single asset, we can
consider the historic centre as a large-scale group of values that are precisely decoded. This
phase is certainly one of the key points of the methodology since it allows for prioritising
interventions and it guides the development of the subsequent analyses.
The following steps consist in the evaluation of hazards, vulnerabilities and exposure of
the site under investigation and therefore in the formulation of the most likely risk scenarios
on which mitigation measures are targeted. Although it is a rapid and qualitative
methodology, it has the advantage of integrating several topics in a multidisciplinary
comprehensive framework. In particular, it includes the risk evaluation based on a worst-case
scenario, up to the risk management that encompasses the selection of the most effective
prevention, preparedness, response and recovery measures.
The methodological approach was validated through its direct application to two historic
centres of the Italian peninsula, Reggio Calabria and San Gimignano. The results provide
further evidence of the necessity to conduct pre-disaster analyses and develop DRM plans to
reduce any potential impact of hazardous events on heritage sites. In spite of the specific
features of the case studies, there are a number of common issues regarding vulnerabilities
and exposure. Besides, the comparison between the DRR strategies provides the opportunity
to suggest a series of intervention practices for historic centres within a generalised model.
The proposals are guidelines serving as a trace that site managers and practitioners can
follow to reduce risks while keeping in mind the actual site-specific problems and respecting
the genius loci (places, local characteristics and identity).
The effectiveness of the procedure, however, relies on the capacity of analysts to interpret
initial data whose availability and reliability is paramount. Consequently, a positive
contribution would derive from the refinement of data and the deepening of their detail level,
for instance by conducting seismic micro-zoning studies and seismic vulnerability analyses
of structures, or by developing repositories on human exposure. This information affects the
designation of risk scenarios and the localisation of interventions but does not undermine the
validity of the procedure and the risk management guidelines. A broader range of risk
scenarios would allow for defining a more robust multi-hazard approach to DRR. However,
the overall methodology is effective thanks to its adaptability to different scales and contexts,
responding to the common need for an integrated, shared and rapid methodology for
reducing disaster risks in cultural heritage sites.
References A DRR
Alexander, D. (2001), “Natural hazards”, in Alexander, D. and Fairbridge, R. (Eds), Encyclopedia of framework for
Environmental Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 421-425.
urban cultural
Alexander, D.E. (2002), Principles of Emergency Planning and Management, Terra Publishing and heritage
Oxford University Press, Harpenden and New York.
Baldi, P., Cordaro, M. and Melucco Vaccaro, A. (1987), “Per una carta del rischio del patrimonio
culturale: obiettivi, metodi e piano pilota”, Memorabilia. Il futuro della Memoria. I. Tutela e 513
valorizzazione oggi, Vol. 1, pp. 371-389.
Boccardi, G. (2019), “Authenticity in the heritage context: a reflection beyond the Nara document”, The
Historic Environment: Policy and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-18.
Bosher, L., Kim, D., Okubo, T., Chmutina, K. and Jigyasu, R. (2019), “Dealing with multiple hazards
and threats on cultural heritage sites: an assessment of 80 case studies”, Disaster Prevention
and Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 109-128, doi: 10.1108/DPM-08-2018-0245.
Brandi, C. (1977), Teoria del Restauro, Collana Piccola Biblioteca n.318, Einaudi, Torino.
Calvi, G.M., Pinho, R., Magenes, G., Bommer, J.J., Restrepo-Velez, L.F. and Crowley, H. (2006),
“Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years”, ISET
Journal of Earthquake Technology, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 75-104.
Council of Europe (2005), Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society,
European Treaty Series, Strasbourg, Vol. 199.
Covello, V.T. and Mumpower, J. (1985), “Risk analysis and risk management: an historical
perspective”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 103-120.
Cutini, V., De Falco, A. and Giuliani, F. (2019), “Urban grid and seismic prevention a configurational
approach to the emergency management of Italian historic centres”, Proceedings of the 12th
Space Syntax Symposium, China, 2019, Beijing.
De Paoli, R.G. (2010), Rischio sismico e centri urbani, FrancoAngeli, Milano.
De Paoli, R.G. (2012), “Urban spaces and safety”, TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and
Environment, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 119-131.
De Paoli, R.G., Di Miceli, E. and Giuliani, F. (2020), “Disasters and Cultural Heritage: planning for
prevention, emergency management and risk reduction”, in IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, IOP Publishing, Vol. 949 No. 1, p. 012084.
Di Giovanni, G. (2016), “Cities at risk: status of Italian planning system in reducing seismic and
hydrogeological risks”, TeMA – Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, Vol. 9,
pp. 43-62.
Di Miceli, E., Monti, G., Bianco, V. and Filetici, M.G. (2017), “Assessment and improvement of the
seismic safety of the ‘Bastione Farnesiano’, in the central archeological area of Rome: a
calculation method between need to preserve and uncertainties”, International Journal of
Architectural Heritage, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 198-218.
EC (European Commission) (2018), Safeguarding Cultural Heritage from Natural and Man-Made
Disasters – A Comparative Analysis of Risk Management in the EU, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg.
EP (European Parliament) (2007), Protecting the Cultural Heritage from Natural Disaster - Study,
European Parliament, Brussels.
Fabietti, V. (1999), Vulnerabilita sismica e trasformazione dello spazio urbano, Alinea Editrice, Firenze.
Fragomeli, A., Galasco, A., Graziotti, F., Guerrini, G., Kallioras, S., Magenes, G., . . . and Marchesi, B.
(2018), “Comportamento degli edifici in muratura nella sequenza sismica dell’Italia centrale del
2016-Parte 2: Esempi di centri colpiti”, Progettazione sismica, Vol. 3, pp. 75-104.
JCHMSD Giuliani, F., De Falco, A. and Cutini, V. (2020), “The role of urban configuration during disasters.
A scenario-based methodology for the post-earthquake emergency management of Italian
11,4 historic centres”, Safety Science, Vol. 127, p. 104700, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104700.
ICCROM (2010), Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage, United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization, available at: whc.unesco.org/document/104522.
ICCROM (2016), A Guide to Risk Management of Cultural Heritage, Government of Canada, Canadian
Conservation Institute, available at: https://www.iccrom.org/wp-content/uploads/Guide-to-Risk-
514 Managment_English.pdf.
ICOMOS (2005), Heritage at Risk: ICOMOS World Report 2004/2005 on Monuments and Sites in
Danger, M€ unchen, available at: www.icomos.org/risk/2004/italy2004.pdf.
Jha, A.K., Miner, T.W. and Stanton-Geddes, Z. (2013), Building Urban Resilience: Principles, Tools, and
Practice. Directions in Development, The World Bank, Washington DC.
Jigyasu, R. and Vanicka, A. (2013), Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas:
A Training Guide, Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University (RitsDMUCH), Kyoto.
Kappes, M.S., Keiler, M., von Elverfeldt, K. and Glade, T. (2012), “Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard
risk: a review”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 1925-1958.
Lambert, S. (2010), “Italy and the history of preventive conservation”, CeROArt. Conservation,
Exposition, Restauration d’Objets d’Art (No. EGG 1).
McHarg, I.L. (1969), Design with Nature, Doubleday/Natural History Press, New York.
MiBACT (Ministero per i Beni e le Attivita Culturali e per il Turismo) (2004), Codice dei beni culturali e
del paesaggio, ai sensi dell’articolo 10 della legge 6 luglio 2002, n. 137, in Gazzetta Ufficiale n.45
del 24-2-2004 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 28.
MiBACTICR (Istituto Centrale del Restauro) (1976), Piano Pilota per la Conservazione Programmata
dei Beni Culturali in Umbria, Tecneco s.p.a., Roma.
Michalski, S. and Pedersoli, J.L. Jr (2016), The ABC Method: A Risk Management Approach to the
Preservation of Cultural Heritage, Canadian Conservation Institute (CCCI/ICC) and International
Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM),
Ottawa.
Pallottino, M. (1987), “La stagione della commissione Franceschini”, Memorabilia: il futuro della
memoria. Tutela e valorizzazione oggi, Vol. 1, pp. 7-11.
Paolini, A., Vafadari, A., Cesaro, G., Quintero, M.S., Van Balen, K. and Pinilla, O.V. (2012), Risk
Management at Heritage Sites: A Case Study of the Petra World Heritage Site, UNESCO, Paris.
PCM (Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri) (2011), Valutazione e riduzione del rischio sismico del
patrimonio culturale con riferimento alle Norme tecniche per le costruzioni di cui al decreto
del Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti del 14 gennaio 2008. Direttiva del Presidente del
Consiglio dei Ministri, Pubblicata su G.U, n. 47 del 26 febbraio 2011 – Suppl. Ordinario n. 54.
PCM (Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri) and SMCI (Struttura di Missione Casa Italia) (2017),
“Rapporto sulla promozione della sicurezza dai rischi naturali del patrimonio abitativo”,
available at: http://www.casaitalia.governo.it/media/1317/casa-italia_rapporto-online.pdf.
Stanton-Geddes, Z. and Soz, S.A. (2017), Promoting Disaster Resilient Cultural Heritage, The World
Bank, Washington DC.
UNESCO (2004), Proceedings of the International Conference on the Safeguarding of Tangible and
Intangible Cultural Heritage: Towards an Integrated Approach, UNESCO, Nara.
UNESCO (2008), “Reducing disaster risk at world heritage properties”, available at: https://whc.
unesco.org/en/disaster-risk-reduction/.
UNISDR (2015), “Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030”, available at: http://www.
wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_2015-2030.pdf (accessed
April 2015).
Van Balen, K. (2008), “The Nara grid: an evaluation scheme based on the Nara document on A DRR
authenticity”, APT Bulletin, Vol. 39 Nos 2/3, pp. 39-45.
framework for
urban cultural
Corresponding author heritage
Francesca Giuliani can be contacted at: [email protected]

515

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]