Giuliani, F; De Falco, A; Cutini, V and Di Sivo, M (2021) A simplified methodology for risk analysis of historic centers: The world heritage site of san gimignano, Italy. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 12(3), pp. 336-354. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: Worldwide, natural hazards are affecting urban cultural heritage and World Heritage Sites, exacerbating other environmental and human-induced threats deriving from deterioration, uncontrolled urbanization and unsustainable tourism. This paper aims to develop a disaster risk analysis in Italian historic centers because they are complex large-scale systems that are cultural and economic resources for the country, as well as fragile areas. Design/methodology/approach: A heritage-oriented qualitative methodology for risk assessment is proposed based upon the formalization of risk as a function of hazard, vulnerability and exposure, taking into account the values of cultural heritage assets. Findings: This work provides a contribution to the body of knowledge in the Italian context of disaster risk mitigation on World Heritage Sites, opening for further research on the monitoring and maintenance of the tangible heritage assets. The application to the site of San Gimignano proves the effectiveness of the methodology for proposing preventive measures and actions that ensure the preservation of cultural values and a safer built environment. Originality/value: The application of a value-based simplified approach to risk analysis is a novelty for historic centers that are listed as World Heritage Sites.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cultural heritage; disaster risk reduction; historic centers; resilience; vulnerability; world heritage |
| Index terms: | disaster risk, deterioration, natural hazard, mitigation, Italy, vulnerability, methodology, tourism, disaster risk reduction, body of knowledge, risk analysis, exposure, urbanization, built environment, effectiveness, monitoring, risk assessment |
| Subjects: | control systems, urban planning, knowledge management, material degradation and durability, public and environmental health, research methods, performance management, Geography, financial risk, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Governance, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Construction Materials, Information Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Site Management, Urban Studies, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here