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

Hazard and risk models in civil protection activities: use and perspectives in Italy

PDF
  • Daniela Di Bucci
Daniela Di Bucci
Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Italia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/techne-20471

Published 2026-07-29

Keywords

  • Hazard and Risk models,
  • Multi‑Risk Assessment,
  • Disaster Risk Management,
  • Civil Protection

How to Cite

Di Bucci, D. (2026). Hazard and risk models in civil protection activities: use and perspectives in Italy. TECHNE - Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, (31), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.36253/techne-20471

Copyright (c) 2026 Daniela Di Bucci

Creative Commons License

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

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

The Italian civil protection system is a comprehensive multi-level framework aimed at protecting people, property and the environment from natural and anthropogenic hazards. Hazard and risk models are essential for all phases of risk management. They guide preparedness and prevention policies, such as plans and structural retrofit programmes. They also underpin emergency management through early warning systems, real time monitoring, rapid damage assessments, and probabilistic models that support civil protection decision-making. In recovery phases, they inform reconstruction priorities and enable “build back better” strategies. An increasingly important role is played by multi-risk approaches. Risk perception and communication, as well as the emerging challenges posed by climate change, deserve special attention. Future priorities also include improved multi-risk assessment, integration of social vulnerability, and the use of artificial intelligence in hazard and risk modelling to enhance evidence-based decisions in disaster risk management.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Bebbington M., Barsotti S., Marzocchi W., Tadini A., Widiwijayanti C., Wright H. (2025), “Forecasting During Volcanic Crises”, EarthArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31223/X5243J.
  2. Cugliari L., Cerase A., Amato A. (2022), “Tsunami risk perception, a state-of-the-art review with a focus in the NEAM region”, FEART, Vol. 10. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2022.995536 ISSN=2296-6463.
  3. Di Bucci D., Savadori L. (2018), “Defining the acceptable level of risk for civil protection purposes: a behavioral perspective on the decision process”, Nat. Haz., Vol. 90 n. 1, pp. 293-324. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3046-5.
  4. Dolce M., Di Bucci D. (2015), “Civil Protection Achievements and Critical Issues in Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research”, in: A. Ansal (Ed), Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Vol. 2. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16964-4_2.
  5. Dolce M., Miozzo A., Di Bucci D., Alessandrini L., Bastia S., Bertuccioli P., Bilotta D., Ciolli S., De Siervo G., Fabi D., Madeo L., Panunzi E., Silvestri V. (2020), Civil Protection in Italy. Basic Training in Civil Protection. Civil Protection Department. 229 pp. ISBN: 9791281195011. Available at: https://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/it/pubblicazione/civil-protection-italy-basic-training-civil-protection.
  6. Dolce M., Speranza E., De Martino G., Conte C., Giordano F. (2021), “The implementation of the Italian National Seismic Prevention Plan: A focus on the seismic upgrading of critical buildings”, IJDRR, Vol. 62, p. 102391. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102391.
  7. Guidoboni E., Ferrari G., Mariotti D., Comastri A., Tarabusi G., Sgattoni G., Valensise G. (2018), CFTI5Med, Catalogo dei Forti Terremoti in Italia (461 a.C.-1997) e nell’area Mediterranea (760 a.C.-1500), INGV. Available at: https://doi.org/10.6092/ingv.it-cfti5
  8. Legislative Decree 49 (2010), Implementation of Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks (Floods Directive). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 23.02.2010.
  9. Legislative Decree 1 (2018), Civil Protection Code (Codice della Protezione Civile). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 2.01.2018.
  10. Mafuko Nyandwi B., Kervyn M., Habiyaremye F.M., Kervyn F., Michellier C. (2023), “Differences in volcanic risk perception among Goma’s population before the Nyiragongo eruption of May 2021, Virunga volcanic province (DR Congo)”, Nat. Haz. Earth Syst. Sci., Vol. 23, pp. 933-953. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-933-2023.
  11. NTC (2018), Decreto ministeriale 17.01.2018. Aggiornamento delle «Norme tecniche per le costruzioni». (18A00716) GU Serie Generale n.42 del 20-02-2018 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 8.
  12. Oliveira C.S., De Almeida B., Di Bucci D., Dolce M., Havekes H., Kemp V., Simonet C., Thorvaldsdottir S., Twigg J., Williams R. (2017), “Recovery and avoiding risk creation”. in: Poljanšek K., Marín Ferrer M., De Groeve T., Clark I. (Eds), Science for disaster risk management 2017: knowing better and losing less. Chapter 5.3. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2788/842809.
  13. Pielke R.A. Jr (2012), The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110.
  14. Reichenbach P., Rossi M., Malamud B., Mihir M., Guzzetti F. (2018), “A review of statistically-based landslide susceptibility models”, Earth-Science Rev., Vol. 180, pp. 60-91. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.03.001.
  15. Savadori L., Ronzani P., Sillari G., Di Bucci D., Dolce M. (2022), “Communicating seismic risk information: The effect of risk comparisons on risk perception sensitivity”, FComm, Vol. 7, p. 743172. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.743172.
  16. Stalhandske Z., Steinmann C.B., Meiler S., Sauer I.J., Vogt T., Bresch D.N., Kropf C.M. (2024), “Global multi-hazard risk assessment in a changing climate”, Sci. Rep, Vol. 14, p. 5875. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55775-2.
  17. Trigila A., Lastoria B., Iadanza C., Bussettini M., Mariani S., D’Ascola F., Salmeri A., Cassese M.L., Pesarino V., Di Paola G., Romeo S., Rischia I., Dessì B., Spizzichino D., Licata V., Gallozzi P.L. (2025), Dissesto idrogeologico in Italia: pericolosità e indicatori di rischio - 2024. ISPRA, Rapporti 415/2025. Available at: https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files2025/pubblicazioni/rapporti/rapporto_ispra_dissesto_idrogeologico_ed2024_web.pdf.
  18. Zschau, J. (2017), “Where are we with multihazards, multirisks assessment capacities?”, in: Poljansek, K., Marin Ferrer, M., De Groeve, T., Clark, I. (Eds.), Science for disaster risk management 2017: knowing better and losing less, European Union, pp. 98-115. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2788/688605.