No. 31 (2026): Risks and built environment: From knowledge to project
Research and Experimentation

Digital knowledge-based tools for a proactive approach to climate-risk management in urban design

PDF
  • Martina Di Palma,
  • Marina Rigillo
Martina Di Palma
Dipartimento di Architettura, Università Federico II di Napoli, Italia
Marina Rigillo
Dipartimento di Architettura, Università Federico II di Napoli, Italia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/techne-18695

Published 2026-07-29

Keywords

  • Proactive approach,
  • Knowledge-based approaches,
  • Information technologies,
  • Climate Risk,
  • Decision-Support Systems

How to Cite

Di Palma, M., & Rigillo, M. (2026). Digital knowledge-based tools for a proactive approach to climate-risk management in urban design. TECHNE - Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, (31), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.36253/techne-18695

Copyright (c) 2026 Martina Di Palma, Marina Rigillo

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This research addresses climate-risk management in urban design with a focus on knowledge-based digital information systems. These tools are examined for their impact on design decision making as means of knowledge that enable designers to integrate mitigation and adaptation strategies already in early meta-design phases, adopting a proactive and site-specific approach. Through a scoping review, the paper selects twenty information tools documented in the literature and compares them according to the criteria of interoperability, accessibility, and usability as defined by ISO standards. The comparative assessment of the tools makes it possible to evaluate their functional contribution to the phases of knowledge production, mapping, and monitoring that characterise environmental urban design.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S. and Winthrop, R. (2013), “A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 5, pp. 27-39. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004
  2. Bologna, R. and Torricelli, M.C. (2021), Romano Del Nord. Teoria e prassi del progetto di architettura, Firenze University Press, Firenze.
  3. Boumans, R., Roman, J., Altman, I. and Kaufman, L. (2015), “The Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES): Simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 12, pp. 30-41. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.004
  4. Ciribini, G. (1990), La normativa dell’impatto ambientale: Piano di fattibilità, Alinea, Firenze.
  5. Di Palma, M., Rigillo, M. and Leone, M.F. (2024), “Remote sensing technologies for mapping ecosystem services: An analytical approach for urban green infrastructure”, Sustainability, Vol. 16, n. 14, 6220. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16146220
  6. Dumitru, A. and Wendling, L. (Eds.) (2021), Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: A Handbook for Practitioners, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/244577 (Accessed on 02/02/2025)
  7. European Commission (2013), Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES): An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, European Commission, Brussels. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf (Accessed on 15/05/2024)
  8. European Commission (2021), Forging a Climate-Resilient Europe – The New EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (COM/2021/82 final), European Commission, Brussels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0082 (Accessed on 15/05/2024)
  9. European Commission (2021), Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: A Handbook for Practitioners, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/244577 (Accessed on 02/02/2025)
  10. European Commission and European Environment Agency (2022), Climate-ADAPT Strategy 2022-2024: Sharing Knowledge for a Climate-Resilient Europe, European Commission and European Environment Agency, Brussels. Available at: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/about/climate-adapt-strategy (Accessed on 15/05/2024)
  11. Gangemi, V. (1991), Architettura e tecnologia appropriata, Franco Angeli, Milano.
  12. Grêt-Regamey, A., Altwegg, J., Sirén, E.A., van Strien, M.J. and Weibel, B. (2017), “Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning — A spatial decision support tool”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 167, pp. 206-219. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.003
  13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2022),
  14. “Executive summary”,in Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., Okem, A. and Rama, B. (Eds.),Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-33. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.001
  15. ISO (2014), ISO 19101-1:2014 Geographic Information – Reference Model – Part 1: Fundamentals, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
  16. ISO (2018), ISO 9241-11:2018 Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction – Part 11: Usability: Definitions and Concepts, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
  17. ISO/IEC (2023), ISO/IEC 25010:2023 Systems and Software Engineering – Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – Product Quality Model, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
  18. Losasso, M., Lucarelli, M.T., Rigillo, M. and Valente, R. (Eds.) (2020), Adattarsi al clima che cambia. Innovare la conoscenza per il progetto ambientale, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna.
  19. McIntosh, B.S., Voinov, A., Jetter, A., Kolagani, N., Rizzoli, A.E., White, L., … and Jakeman, A.J. (2011), “Environmental decision support systems (EDSS) development – Challenges and best practices”, Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 26, n. 12, pp. 1389-1402. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.09.009
  20. Mulligan, M. (2015),Co$ting Nature: A Policy Support System for Ecosystem Services Assessment,King’s College London. Available at: https://www.policysupport.org/costingnature (Accessed on 15/05/2024)
  21. Mussinelli, E. and Tartaglia, A. (2021), “Organising knowledge according to site-specific criteria”,in Bologna, R., Losasso, M., Mussinelli, E. and Tucci, F. (Eds.), Dai distretti urbani agli eco-distretti / From Urban Districts to Eco-Districts, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna.
  22. Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E. and Stevens, J.C. (2006), “Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States”, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol. 4, n. 3-4, pp. 115-123. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007
  23. Ochoa, V. and Urbina-Cardona, N. (2017), “Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 26, pp. 155-169. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.011
  24. Parikka, J. (2023), Operational Images: From the Visual to the Invisual, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
  25. Peh, K.S.-H., Balmford, A., Field, R.H., Lamb, A., Birch, J.C., Bradbury, R.B. et al. (2013), “TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 5, pp. e51-e57. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.003
  26. Sharp, R., Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A.D., Wood, S.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. (2018), InVEST 3.6 User’s Guide, The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund. Available at: https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest (Accessed on 15/05/2024)
  27. Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M. and Semmens, D.J. (2011), “A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services”, Applied Geography, Vol. 31, n. 2, pp. 748-760. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002
  28. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) (2009), UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, UNDRR. Available at: https://www.undrr.org/publication/2009-unisdr-terminology-disaster-risk-reduction (Accessed on 18/10/2022)
  29. Villa, F., Bagstad, K.J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G.W., Portela, R., Honzák, M. and Batker, D. (2014), “A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 9, n. 3, e91001. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091001
  30. Wrisberg, N., Udo de Haes, H.A. and Triebswetter, U. (Eds.) (2002), Analytical Tools for Environmental Design and Management in a Systems Perspective: The Combined Use of Analytical Tools, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
  31. Zulian, G., Polce, C. and Maes, J. (2014), “ESTIMAP: A GIS-based model to map ecosystem services in the European Union”, Annali di Botanica, Vol. 4, pp. 1-7. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4462/annbotrm-11807

Most read articles by the same author(s)