IMRA_final_Chiascio

Integrate, Consolidate and Disseminate

European Flood Risk Management Research

2nd ERA-NET CRUE Research Funding Initiative

Flood resilient communities – managing the consequences of flooding Del. IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a– Final report on Chiascio case study results

IMRA – Integrative flood risk governance approach for improvement of risk awareness and increased public participation Patrizia Grifoni, Tiziana Guzzo, Alessia D’Andrea (IRPPS-CNR) Carlo Ferranti, Paola Malvati, Valentina Vitale, Silvio Bagnini, Giovanni Fangucci (AB Tevere) Katja Firus (T6 Società Cooperativa)

Co-ordinator: John Goudie (Defra) Project Contract No: ERAC-CT-2004-515742 Project website: www.crue-eranet.net

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Table of contents 1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

2

INVENTORY OF TRUE FLOOD RISK AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS (STEP 1) ................................................................................................. 3 2.1 INVENTORY OF POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE SETTINGS ....................... 3 2.2 INVENTORY OF DATA ........................................................................ 4 2.2.1 Existing data .......................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Existing maps ......................................................................... 4 2.2.3 Methodology used for developing the maps................................ 5 2.2.4 Existing plans ....................................................................... 11 2.3 MAIN FINDINGS.............................................................................. 11 2.3.1 Relevance of true flood risk .................................................... 11 2.3.2 Economic damage potential.................................................... 15 2.3.3 Population at risk .................................................................. 15 2.3.4 Social milieu groups in the Chiascio river basin......................... 15

3

SURVEY ON RISK PERCEPTION AND FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT ........ 17 3.1 REASONS FOR SELECTED SURVEY METHOD....................................... 17 3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURVEY ........................................................ 18 3.3 RESULTS OF FIRST SURVEY ............................................................. 20 3.4 THE SECOND SURVEY: CHANGE OF RISK PERCEPTION IN THE CHIASCIO RIVER BASIN AFTER THE IMRA CASE STUDY ACTIVITIES..... 25

4

SELF ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING RISK GOVERNANCE PROCESS (STEP 3)............................................................................................... 28 4.1 REASONS FOR SELECTION OF INDICATORS....................................... 28 4.2 RESULTS OF SELF ASSESSMENT....................................................... 28 4.3 FEEDBACK ON SELF ASSESSMENT .................................................... 35

5

STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS (STEP 4)................................................. 36 5.1 FIRST WORKSHOP .......................................................................... 36 5.1.1 Aim of the first workshop ....................................................... 36 5.1.2 Represented stakeholders ...................................................... 37 i

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

5.1.3 Details of workshop ............................................................... 38 5.1.4 Main results of workshop ....................................................... 39 5.2 SECOND WORKSHOP....................................................................... 40 6

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY (STEP 5)................................................ 40 6.1 ELEMENTS OF STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION STRATEGY ................ 41 6.2 ELEMENTS OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION STRATEGY ........................... 42 6.2.1 Lectures in schools ................................................................ 43 6.2.2 School competition ................................................................ 45 6.2.3 Final public event and exhibition ............................................. 47 6.2.4 Printed brochure ................................................................... 49 6.2.5 Media work........................................................................... 49

7

CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 50 7.1 LESSONS LEARNED ......................................................................... 50 7.2 PROBLEMS, HINDRANCES AND CHANCES OF A PARTICIPATION PROCESS IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT ........................................... 51

REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 54 ANNEXES ANNEX I: INTERVIEW WITH LOCAL ADMINISTRATION TECHNICIANS IN THE CHIASCIO AREA ANNEX II: THE FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE WIDE PUBLIC IN THE CHIASCIO AREA ANNEX III: THE SECOND QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE WIDE PUBLIC IN THE CHIASCIO AREA

Tables Table 1: Municipalities and number of inhabitants of the Chiascio river basin ....... 18 Table 2: Comparison of results of first and second phase questionnaires on knowledge about flood risks ............................................................ 27

ii

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Figures Figure 1: The Chiascio river sub-basin (Tevere River Basin Authority) ................... 1 Figure 2: Simulation of flood with different flood return periods (Tevere River Basin Authority) ............................................................................... 7 Figure 3: Hazard zones for Chiascio river (Tevere River Basin Authority) ............... 9 Figure 4: Risk map for Chiascio river (Tevere River Basin Authority) ................... 11 Figure 5: Rainfall recorded by the monitoring network in real-time (Hydrographic Office of the Umbria region) ....................................... 13 Figure 6: Trend of the levels and flow recorded in the monitoring section in Chiascio river basin (Hydrographic Office of the Umbria region)........... 14 Figure 7: Press reviews on flood event from 11 and December 2008 (Corriere dell’Umbria) ................................................................................... 15 Figure 8: Sinus groups for Umbria (Source: publisuisse) ................................... 17 Figure 9: Respondents for employment field (own elaboration) .......................... 22 Figure 10: Involvement in terms of risk perception level respect to the field of employment (own elaboration)..................................................... 22 Figure 11: Preferred tools for receiving information on flood risk (own elaboration) ................................................................................... 23 Figure 12: Willingness to participate in a public meeting (own elaboration) ......... 24 Figure 13: Favourite channels to receive information about flood risks ................ 26 Figure 14: Authorities recommended to give information on flood risks ............... 26 Figure 15: Stakeholder workshop 15 April 2010 – Bastia Umbria – Town hall....... 38 Figure 16: Stakeholder workshop 15 April 2010 – Bastia Umbria – Invitation card .............................................................................................. 38 Figure 17: Public hearing on new PAI 27 May 2010 – Assisi – Invitation card....... 41 Figure 18: Public hearing on new PAI 27 May 2010 – Assisi – Programme ........... 42 Figure 19: Public hearing on new PAI 27 May 2010 – Assisi – Photos .................. 42 Figure 20: MONOPAI game............................................................................. 44 Figure 21: Pictures of school lectures .............................................................. 45 Figure 22: Examples from the works produced during the students competition ................................................................................... 46 Figure 23: Final public event 6 June 2011 – Assisi – Invitation card .................... 47 Figure 24: Photos of final event ...................................................................... 47 Figure 25: Certificate of participation at the schools competition, and students receiving certification......................................................... 48 Figure 26: Exhibition during the final event in Assisi ......................................... 48 Figure 27: Cover page of brochure .................................................................. 49 Figure 28: Articles in local newspapers ............................................................ 49

iii

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

1 Introduction The Chiascio river originates from the Apennine ridges at an altitude of about 850 m asl and after 95 km it flows into the Tevere river (see Figure 1). The Chiascio river basin is delimited by mountains which reach a height of over 1000 m asl, characterized by calcareous and very permeable rocks. Groundwater circulation feeds some perennial springs that originate short watercourses with significant flows also in the dry season.

Figure 1: The Chiascio river sub-basin (Tevere River Basin Authority)

In the middle part of the Chiascio river, the main geological formation is flysch.

The soil has low permeability due to the marly component of the terrain and consequently there is a marked torrential surface circulation. The northern portion of the Northern Umbrian Valley, which comprises one of the most important alluvial aquifers of the river basin, is located in the final stretch of the river.

The artificial lake in Valfabbrica, created along the Chiascio river, has a potential capacity of about 150 m3. The main urban agglomerates are represented by the urban settlements of Gubbio and Gualdo Tadino in the intra-Apennine valleys and Bastia and Santa Maria degli Angeli in the Umbria valley.

The Eugubina valley and the northern Umbrian valley are characterized by intense agricultural activities. Productive activities are concentrated in the three main valley areas. In the Umbria valley industrial areas develop along the main lines of communication of the municipalities of Bastia and Assisi. The main productive sectors are metal processing and manufacturing, foodstuffs, tobacco, and textile industry. The mainly industrial productive agglomerates are located in the Eugubina valley area. The main productive sectors are metal processing and manufacturing, cement production, lime and chalk, ceramics.

1

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

The hydraulic risk in Chiascio river basin In August 2002, the Tevere River Basin Authority laid out a plan for the prevention and protection from hydrogeological risk (Hydrogeological Setting Plan - PAI) which was definitively approved in April 2006. The maps of the plan are legally binding and above urban planning level. The criteria and methods used by the Tevere River Basin Authority were used more or less homogeneously also by all the other national river basin authorities - that are the mapping authorities because they were defined by a Decree of the President of the Republic. This guaranteed a homogeneous application on a national scale.

The implementation of the maps is the result of a collaboration between the Regions (in our case the Umbria region) which are part of the river basin and which represent local level stakeholders, and the Tevere River Basin Authority which provides the methodologies and maintains a river basin scale vision and approach. However, the Tevere River Basin Authority is responsible for the plan and the maps and it has the institutional task of updating the river basin plan and the related maps.

The main problems concern updating territorial data, regarding both natural territories and areas subject to anthropogenic pressures and; about relationships with local communities the main problems concern the public participation, and – above all - sharing of the norms that regulate floodable areas.

As we said before, the problem of hydraulic risk in our area (Chiascio river basin) was already addressed by the hydrological setting plan, but the question concerning civil protection and including preparedness, flood forecasts and early warning systems are separated – according to Italian law – from river basin planning and are placed under the jurisdiction of the Civil Protection Department (central and local levels). In fact, in 2005, the Province of Perugia, the Umbria Region, the Prefecture and the municipalities of Perugia, Assisi, Bastia Umbra, Valfabbrica and the Mountain Community of Mount Subasio organised the first exercise on a "hydraulic scenario" in the territory of the River Chiascio. The areas of the event were included in areas at risk R3 - R4 identified in flood maps of the Tevere River Basin Authority.

The challenge for the future is to increase awareness of local populations and share examples of virtuous behaviour. The public participation in defining the rules of the territories at risk absolutely contributes to the land management, giving rise to land-use provisions, as binding instruments to regulate private and public behaviour in order not to make the risk situations worse, or to create new ones. Public participation is, however, a long-term process in which individuals, institutions and associations are responsible to make a contribution in risk prevention and management. This is why one of the guidelines for the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategies provides a useful reference for the next steps concerning public participation; the path defined by the guideline could also be used for the process of public participation that we face in our area of study.

2

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

2 Inventory of true flood risk and institutional settings (Step 1) 2.1 Inventory of political-administrative settings Italy is a democratic republic with a central government. The laws are made by the parliament at the central level. However it is divided into 21 regions who have that authority to make laws but only inside the laws’ national framework and in agreement with the national state. Each region is divided into municipalities.

Following the constitutional reform of 2001, the general legislative power belongs to the State and the Regions, on an equal footing, and jurisdiction is conferred on subjects.

The competence to legislation can be: 

exclusive of the State;



residual (exclusive) of the Regions;



both of State and Regions.

The Italian Constitution defines the subject belonging to each institution.

About soil protection we have to remember that environment, ecosystem and cultural heritage are exclusive competences of the State while territorial government is a competence belonging both to the Regions and the State.

Then we have provinces and municipalities for the local level that serve a predominantly administrative function.

In addition to the elected bodies (national parliament, regions, provinces and municipalities) there are in Italy several public agencies or authorities dealing with water management.

Main characteristics of the organisational structure: 

Parliament and government: the first makes national environmental law (in Italy we have a single decree which collects all the environmental laws Legislative Decree 152/2006); the second implements the environmental policy;



Department for civil protection: it has a national level and local level in the territory of the regions. It has the responsibility for emergency and actions in real time;



Regions: responsibility – inter alia - for general planning, for specific planning such as, parks, agriculture etc;



Provinces: intermediate level between municipalities and region - responsibility – inter alia - for hydraulic maintenance, concessions and permits for water discharges;



Municipalities: responsibility – inter alia - for urban planning and local civil protection;



ATO (Optimal territorial area – public body): responsibility for waste water treatment and water supply in the territory of the Province;



River basin authority (now District of central Appennino – public body): responsibility for risk management plan (Flood directive) and for river basin management plan (Water Framework Directive).

3

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

In the case study of the Chiascio we have in particular the following administrative actors: 

Municipalities (Bastia, Gubbio, Bettona, Torgiano): responsibility for urban spatial planning and for civil protection plan at the local level;



Province (Perugia) – intermediate level between municipalities and region: responsibility for water management;



ATO (Optimal territorial area): responsibility for waste water treatment and water supply in the territory of the Province (Perugia);



Region (Umbria): responsibility for specific planning such as parks, agriculture etc.;



Tevere River Basin Authority (District of central Appennino): responsibility for risk management plan (Flood directive) and for river basin management plan (Water Framework Directive);



Department for civil protection at the local level in the territory of the region with the responsibility for emergency and action in real time.

2.2 Inventory of data 2.2.1 Existing data The Tevere River basis authority uses the following data sources: 

Hydrology (hydrological yearbooks – climatic and hydrological characteristics of the river basin, maximum intensity rainfall);



Soil topography (traditional topographic relief, digital elevation models and digital ortho photographical images on a 1:10 000 scale);



Land use of floodable areas (from image processing and statistical data from ISTAT (National Institute of Statistics) censuses from 1991);



Municipal, regional and province level urban development plans;



Dike databases (dike managers’ maintenance and working conditions documents).

2.2.2 Existing maps A - Flood plain map Each national and regional river basin authority elaborates its flood maps covering the entire national territory according to specific directives issued from a central level in order to guarantee homogeneity. The Tevere River Basin Authority’s experience is described below and, with the exception of a few differences, it is substantially similar to that of the other river basin Authorities in Italy.

The flood maps are elaborated by the Tevere River Basin Authority on a 1:10 000 scale for the complete Tevere river’s main hydrographic network. The Regions develop the maps for the rivers of the secondary hydrographic network according to criteria and methods set by the national river basin authority. The maps contain the limits reached by the flood waters in three return periods of 50, 200 and 500 years. They are elaborated on the basis of topographic soil models and elaborations of steady and unsteady state mathematical models. The maps do not

4

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

contain the water levels of the cross-sections. However, they are indicated in tables, together with the water velocity.

B - Flood hazard maps Flood hazard maps are developed in relation to the objectives of the hydrogeological setting in the following river areas: 





Area A – hydrogeological setting objectives 

to guarantee the free outflow of 50-year return period flood waters;



to allow the free expansion of flood waters in the riverbed, respecting the natural river dynamics;



to guarantee the protection and recovery of the natural riverbed components functional to controlling environmental upheavals (riparian vegetation, morphology).

Area B – hydrogeological setting objectives 

to guarantee that the natural flood expansion areas are maintained;



to control anthropogenic pressures;



to guarantee the recovery and protection of the historical and environmental heritage.

Area C – hydrogeological setting objectives 

to assure a sufficient level of safety to the population settled in the area, the assets and the venues by means of civil defence Plans.

C - Flood risk maps Flood risk maps are developed on a 1:10 000 scale for all the rivers of the main and secondary hydrographic networks of the Tevere river basin. Regarding the main hydrographic network, the maps contain the delimitation of the assets exposed to flood risk (see river areas described in point A1b): the exposed assets (therefore considered as areas at risk) are divided into 4 levels of risk from R1 to R4 according to the vulnerability of the exposed assets and to the intensity of the flood event.

Regarding the secondary hydrographic network, the river areas have not yet been identified, therefore the delimitations in the risk maps are based on historical case records of precedent flood events or flood events notified by the local authorities.

D - Flood damage maps Flood damage maps have not been designed.

2.2.3 Methodology used for developing the maps A - Flood plain map The delimitation of floodable areas (flood plain maps) in the main hydrographic network was carried out through the following steps: 1. Hydrological analysis; 2. Definition of project flows for different return periods; 3. Topographic relief of cross-sections spaced at 200/400 meters; 5

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

4. One-dimensional stationary hydraulic simulation; 5. Comparison with the Digital Terrain Model (DTM); 6. Calculation of water surface and topography overlay; 7. Identification and delimitation of floodable areas.

Flood events characterized by 50, 100, 200 and 500 year return periods were used to identify areas with flood risk.

50-year return period floods, though characterized by the highest probability of occurring compared to other flood events, are however considered significant and cannot be neglected. Areas characterized by Tr = 50 floods represent the “river pertinent area”.

In the hazard classification, rare centennial events with return periods comprised between 100 and 200 years are defined as having a “moderate flooding probability”. The Tevere River Basin Authority decided to simulate both of the moderate probability interval flood events (100 and 200 year return period) taking into account the following considerations: First of all it was considered necessary to gain further and more detailed knowledge on the areas near the river pertinent areas, where it is likely to find human settlements or urban areas undergoing economic and social development.

Furthermore, the normative trend of the last years of using more and more frequently 200-year return period events rather than 100-year return period events for centennial events was taken into consideration.

Finally, flood events with return periods comprised between 300-500 years return period are considered as exceptional, extremely rare and extraordinarily intense events. The identification and delimitation of such areas is important in view of flood warning systems and civil defence plans. Therefore, considering the presumably minimum difference in terms of flow and water levels between 300 and 500-years return period floods, the Tevere River Basin Authority decided to simulate 500-years return period flood events in order to delimit an sufficient area for the application of civil defence actions.

For every single river stretch of the main hydrographic network the flood peak flow corresponding to 50, 100, 200 and 500 year return periods were derived (see Figure 2).

After the hydraulic modelling stage, for each cross-section the water level reached by the propagation of the different flood peak values was obtained.

After the hydraulic model was completed, the water level reached by the propagation of different peak flood flow waves was obtained for each crosssection.

Then, the water surface and the digital terrain model were overlaid. The overlay required software refining procedures, image processing and manual corrections.

In the end, the limit of floodable areas was reconstructed for each recurrence interval by continuous curves along the main hydrographic network’s river stretches.

By means of the delimitation of floodable areas obtained by hydraulic simulations, the land surrounding the main hydrographic network’s principal watercourse was classified according to the greater or smaller probability of being flooded during a 6

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

flood event. On the basis of equal probability of the areas delimited by the same recurrence interval, the land taken into consideration was subdivided into three areas: the first area adjacent to the watercourse comprised within the limits of 200-years return period events; a second area comprised between the precedent borders and the limits of 200-year return period floods; the third area comprised between the latter limits and the limits of 500-year return period floods. Within each of these belts of land each point is characterized by a certain hydraulic risk and well-defined level of probability.

Figure 2: Simulation of flood with different flood return periods (Tevere River Basin Authority)

TR 50 diretta/indiretta

TR 500 diretta/indiretta

TR 200 diretta/indiretta

I MODELLI IDRAULICI PER L A SIMULAZIONE DELLE ONDE DI PIENA: •

TR 50 PIENA ORDINARIA

• TR 200 PIENA STRAORDINARIA • TR 500 PIENA ECCEZIONALE RESTITUISCONO LE FASCE DI PERICOLOSITA’ IDRAULICA CHE COSTITUISCONO LA BASE PER L’INDIVIDUAZIONE DELLE ZONE DI RISCHIO

B - Flood hazard maps Flood hazard maps were created according to the following steps: 1. Distinction of areas at hydraulic risk for direct or indirect floods; 2. Identification of marginal areas from a hydraulic risk point of view; 3. Identification of three areas (area A, area B and area C) where the activities of soil transformation are aimed at the achievement of the foreseen hydrogeological setting objectives (Figure 3).

The detailed topographic and anthropogenic knowledge of the territory allowed to differentiate areas at hydraulic risk for “direct” floods, when the invasion of flood waters participates “directly” to the movement from upstream to downstream and 7

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

areas at hydraulic risk for “indirect” floods, which are occupied by flood water due to hydraulic connections such as road or railway underpasses or communication lines, in other terms due to overflowing through ditches, drainage canals or even secondary tributaries. In areas subject to “indirect” flooding, the movement of the flood waters from upstream to downstream is practically zero and with the exception of the areas near the interconnections that caused the flooding, the waters are standing. For the purpose of the identification and delimitation of areas at flood risk, the distinction between “direct” and “indirect” areas was useful to assess possible effects on the territory, presumably more serious in the “direct” type than the “indirect” type. However, there may be cases when the interconnections or overflowing trigger hydraulic processes are to be considered as transversal flood wave propagations, right-angled in respect to the onedimensional model used.

In the next step, “marginal” areas from the point of view of vulnerability and risk were delimited within the areas showing the same degree of hydraulic hazard. The criterion adopted was to consider first of all the water depth characterizing e given area and the respective value of the flow velocity, as it is not sufficient to only consider static elements given by the water depth, as it was generally done in other experiences.

The method that was set up allowed to “cut out” marginal areas at the borders of the areas defined by 50-year return periods and 200-year return periods. The methodology is based on an experimental study that produced a series of curves on the U-h plane, water velocity-depth plane, representing conditions of equal value of the total pressure (hydrostatic, function of h and dynamic, function of U) on elements subject to the action of a current. The lowest curve of the diagram defines, in particular, the region where the risk condition, in terms of human life safety, is acceptable also for children and handicapped people.

This methodology is not only scientifically sound and reliable from an operational point of view regarding the delimitation of marginal areas, but it is also fully in line with the flood risk map’s main principal, which considers human safety as the main element to assess risk.

The practical delimitation of the marginal areas was carried out assessing for each cross-section the values of U and h that the HEC-RAS calculation code offers for the main riverbed and flood bed areas, comparing them with the limit-curve of the diagram below: the condition of marginal area was assumed where the representative point P (U, h) falls within an area of safety for human lives.

Finally, three hazard areas where soil transformation activities are aimed at the achievement of hydrogeological setting objectives were identified: Area A is characterized by a maximum hazard and is defined by the limit of direct floodable areas of 50-year return period reference floods. Due to its vicinity to the watercourse, the evident hydraulic interconnections and the presence of fauna and flora habitats peculiar to the river ecosystem, area A is considered a river pertinent area. For Area A, the Hydrogeological Setting Plan (Piano di Assetto Idrogeologico, PAI) requires the possibility of free outflow of water from the watercourses and from the reference floods. Therefore further settlements, other than those already existing and delimited as areas at risk, are not considered compatible with the hydrogeological setting objectives of the area.

8

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Area B is comprised between the limits of direct and indirect Tr 50 and Tr 200 flood areas. Also indirect and marginal areas of Tr 50 floods are included in Area B. Since one of the objectives of Area B is to preserve the volume capacity of the artificial lakes, indirect Tr 200 floods are included. The objectives for Area B are: 

to guarantee that the natural flood expansion areas are maintained;



to control anthropogenic pressures;



to guarantee the recovery and protection of the historical and environmental heritage.

Area C comprises the portions of floodable territory between Tr 200 and Tr 500 floods and Tr 200 marginal floods. The objective for Area C is: 

to assure a sufficient level of safety to the population settled in the area, the assets and the venues by means of civil defence Plans.

Figure 3: Hazard zones for Chiascio river (Tevere River Basin Authority)

Legenda Legenda

Rosso Rosso== fascia fasciaAA Giallo Giallo==fascia fasciaBB Verde = Fascia Verde = FasciaCC

ALLE FASCE DI PERICOLOSITA’ CORRISPONDE UNA FASCIA DI ASSETTO CHE DISCIPLINA LE ATTIVITA’ COMPATIBILI AL SUO INTERNO

C - Flood risk maps

Flood risk maps were elaborated for the entire territory of the Tevere river basin using the Varnes relation (R= P x V x K), interpreted with the support of the complex and articulated framework of data available at the Tevere River Basin Authority. The probability was defined as a function of the recurrence interval (1/Tr); the estimated recurrence intervals and flows are considered as conventional and objective values used to simulate flood events and the hydraulic simulation’s results define hazard in an area independently from its use.

The quantitative value of an asset exposed to risk depends on a number of parameters considered as a whole. The vulnerability of an asset depends on its capacity to resist to a calamitous flood event in relation to the intensity of the 9

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

specific event. In order to assess vulnerability from a quantitative point of view it is therefore necessary to know the structural and building characteristics of the asset, as well as its level of efficiency, and the characteristics of the calamitous flood event, such as the flood wave propagation velocity and the water depth in relation to different return periods and to the soil modelling.

The concept of vulnerability of an asset, according to the definition given above, is extremely precise, but due to the complexity of the assets that have been identified, it can only be determined hypothetically and it is not applicable in practice to the entire 17 000 km2 of the river basin.

Considering the impossibility of assessing the economic value and the vulnerability of all the different typologies of assets exposed to flood risk, the river basin subplan, the so-called Hydrogeological Setting Plan (Piano di Assetto Idrogeologico, PAI) considers the possibility of human loss in relation to the specific use of the assets distributed on the territories at risk as an element to assess the value and vulnerability of the exposed assets. The assessment is articulated in four levels of sensitivity: VERY HIGH, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW. Risk R was redefined on the basis of two factors, sensitivity and probability, that though not corresponding to the definition of vulnerability given by the Varnes formula, interpret it on the basis of the knowledge that is available.

The risk class was attributed to the assets by overlaying thematic layers. 50, 200 and 500 year recurrence interval floodable areas were overlaid to the digital images. Then, land use and municipal urban planning forecasts articulated according to the typologies of assets were overlaid on these territories, although risk areas were not delimited in areas subject to urban development planning.

The land use coverage overlay with the other thematic layers showing the limits of the floodable areas allowed attributing a risk class to each exposed asset in relation to its specific use and hazard level: Assets exposed to R4 risk fall within the most hazardous floodable areas, Tr = 50 and are characterized by a high level of sensitivity; Assets exposed to R3 risk are characterized, like those belonging to the R4 risk class, by very high sensitivity in relation to their specific use, but they are included in the floodable area between Tr 50 and Tr 200 or in indirect or marginal flood areas; Assets exposed to R2 risk show very high or high sensitivity in relation to their use, but they are included in floodable areas between Tr 200 and Tr 500 or in Tr 200 indirect floodable areas or marginal areas; Assets exposed to R1 risk are characterized by low sensitivity because their specific uses imply a low probability of human loss or because they fall within areas characterized by long recurrence intervals: in these cases risk coincides with hazard.

D - Flood damage maps Flood damage maps have not been produced because we needed a serious economic analysis to carry out an assessment of damage on people, assets and environment. As we said before we have not produced studies about economics and this is in our next future project.

10

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

2.2.4 Existing plans In August 2002, the Tevere River Basin Authority laid out a plan for the prevention and protection from hydrogeological risk, the Hydrogeological Setting Plan (Piano di Assetto Idrogeologico, PAI) which was definitively approved in April 2006. The maps of the plan are legally binding and above urban planning level.

The criteria and methods used by the Tevere River Basin Authority – were used more or less homogeneously also by all the other national river basin authorities that are the mapping authorities - because they were defined by a Decree of the President of the Republic. This guaranteed a homogeneous application on a national scale.

The Municipality of Bastia, Torgiano and Assisi in the Chiascio case study area laid out civil protection plans in which information for rescue teams (soccorritori) and population (popolazione) is defined.

2.3 Main findings 2.3.1 Relevance of true flood risk As described above, there is a flood risk in the Chiascio river basin. This becomes evident also in the following figure Figure 4: Risk map for Chiascio river (Tevere River Basin Authority)

Red:

zone R4

Blue:

zone R3

Green: zone R2

Whenever there is a river flood, the functional centre of Civil protection in the Umbria Region draws a report of the event itself where it is possible to derive the relevance of true flood risk.

On the web site www.cfr.umbria.it it is possible to find the reports on the events occurring on the river floods of Chiascio in January 2010, in December 2008, in September 2007 and November 2005.

11

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

On the same site are published graphs, tables and the maps produced from data acquired in real time (hydrometers, and thermometers rainfall), which must be considered exclusively for use in the field of technical standards.

The hydro-meteorological data are made available by the official Hydrographic Office of the Umbria region.

In general, during every flood event there are constant contacts between the technical services of the Province (Traffic, Provincial Police and Civil protection) and other institutions responsible for hydraulic risk, especially the decentralized Functional Center for civil protection: it takes care to constantly update weather forecasting in the short term, considering the evolution of phenomena by both hydrological and hydraulic models that have predicted both maximum levels to be reached that their evolution.

In the following one flood event is described as an example. Other examples can be found in the inventory produced for Step 1.

Flood event of December 2008 On days 4 to 16 December 2008, the whole Tevere river basin was affected by heavy rainfall, which caused flooding, mudslides and landslides leading Umbria region institutions to ask the national government the recognition of the “ state of emergency “for Umbria. The rainfall event was marked, over nearly two weeks, by three distinct phases of precipitation, during which it was recorded, in the medium-high basin of the river Tevere, about 40 mm of rain in 48 hours with peaks of 142 mm (station rainfall of Ripalvella). The event has caused the rise in water levels of most of the watercourses in the basin of the Tevere River, causing flooding in several locations. In addition there have been over 100 landslides across the region of Umbria. This report aims to analyze the uniqueness of the event, and in particular the following aspects: 

Hydro-meteorological data recorded during the event and statistical characterization of observed rainfall and flow;



Action taken by the reservoirs for the lamination of the flood;



Ground effects occurred (floods, landslides and mudslides); - Role of the Decentalized Functional Center for Civil protection of the Umbria region in the management of the event.

RAINFALLS ANALYSIS The rainfall event lasted about 12 days, during which it’s possible to recognize three distinct phases of precipitation: 

From December 4 2008 (9:00 a.m.) to December 8 2008 (00:00)



From December 9 2008 (8:00 p.m) to December 14 2008 (3.00 p.m.)



From December 14, 2008 (3:00 p.m.) to 16 December 2008 (12:00.p.m)

12

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Figure 5: Rainfall recorded by the monitoring network in real-time (Hydrographic Office of the Umbria region)

For the activities of the Decentralised Functional Centres, you can see real-time data of all the hydro-meteorological stations present in the same catchment area, although related to networks of neighbouring regions. Umbria region shares much of the data recorded in its monitoring network with other regions and with the department of civil protection. The data are used for early warning in case of risk of flooding. Table 2, however, shows the values of average cumulative rainfall ranges for the main sub – basins of Upper-Middle Tevere. Regarding Umbria region, the accumulated rainfall for the entire event presented values above 100 mm for almost the whole region, while the highest values occurred in the southwestern region particularly in the territory of Orvieto, where, by way of example, monitoring stations Orvieto and Ripalvella recorded cumulative rainfall exceeding 250 mm for the entire event and in the area of Chiascio river almost all the monitoring sections exceeded hydrometric high threshold.

HYDROMETRIC ANALYSIS The meteoric event occurred in period 4 to 16 December 2008 caused the rise in water levels of most rivers of the High-Middle Tevere basin, causing flooding in several locations.

13

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Figure 6: Trend of the levels and flow recorded in the monitoring section in Chiascio river basin (Hydrographic Office of the Umbria region)

In the figure above the trends in the levels and in the flow of Chiascio - Topino are represented. From the analysis of this table we can observe that in correspondence of all hydrometric sections where were defined the hydrometric thresholds, the observed levels have exceeded the threshold of attention, especially for the sections of Tevere, Chiascio and Topino rivers; levels also exceeded the alert threshold, corresponding to a condition of high criticality. In Table 8 and Table 9 are summarized the results for some hydrometric sections of Tevere, Chiascio and Topino: for these sections were calculated return periods of peak flow observed: the calculations show values of Return time not exceeding 5 to 10 years.

GROUND EFFECTS As documented by the activities of Functional centre for civil protection and by the local press during the event, several areas of the Umbria region have been subject to phenomena of flooding. The areas most affected were: 

Upper Tevere: Trestina, La Bruna, Pierantonio;



Middle Tevere: Deruta Forgiano Todi

Addition, there have been localized erosion, particularly along the Paglia river.

14

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

PRESS REVIEW The following are just two of the numerous reports in the news on local flood event.

Figure 7: Press reviews on flood event from 11 and December 2008 (Corriere dell’Umbria)

2.3.2 Economic damage potential We did not assess economic damage. the assets exposed been carried out. analysis.

the vulnerability of the assets so as to derive the expected Until now an analytical assessment of the economic value of to risk, that would be lost in case of a flood event, has not yet It is necessary to carry out a cost-benefit and economic

2.3.3 Population at risk In Chiascio case study there are about 8.000 people at risk. Official data on the inhabitants (data validated and certified) are collected by ISTAT (national institute of statistics) in the decennial census and annual population movements. There are different types of people surveyed but the most representative and used is “residents�. Data are available not only at municipal scale, but if detailed investigations are needed, even at scale of census section (corresponding more or less to a block).

2.3.4 Social milieu groups in the Chiascio river basin The area of the Chiasio river basin case study can be regarded representative for the whole Umbria region in regard to the social milieu. Therefore the study on the social milieus was based on an analysis of the whole region.

In Umbria, the ratio land-population is below the national average, in fact the population density is 1,4% against the 2,8% of the national value.

As in almost all highland areas there is the tendency to abandon the high mountainous and hilly areas and to move to cities located in plain areas, or to emigrate to other regions or abroad.

The ISTAT 2009 yearbook (ISTAT, 2009) shows that the population of the Umbria region in 2008 had the following characteristics: 15

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

The inhabitants for age classes in 2008 in Umbria are: 12,8% for 0-14 years, 64,1% for 15-64 years, 23,1% over 65 years.

It is evident that, in accordance with the national trend, mostly adults and elderly people live the Umbria region. The qualification for the population from 15 years old and above living in the region has the following percentage: •

Ph.D. degree: 11,1%

•

High school graduation: 30,3%

•

Professional qualification: 6,0%

•

Middle School graduation: 26,6%

•

Primary School graduation: 26,0%

The ISTAT 2008 regional yearbook (ISTAT 2008) shows that the economy of the Umbria region is characterised that 72,7% of companies are concentrated in the services sector, 27,4% in the trade sector and 22,5% in other business services.

The average dimension of companies consists of 5,6 people for the industry (specifically 8,2 for the industry in a strict sense and 3,3 for the building enterprises) and 2,8 for services.

Companies with only one employee are 55,4%; they employ 15,6% of the total number of employees. 39,4% of companies have from 2 to 9 employees; they employ a percentage of 37,3% of workers. Companies with more than 20 employees are 1,8% of the total, and they employ 34,5% of the total number of employees.

In 2006 the activity rate of the population in Umbria with an age from 15 to 64 years was equal to 66,3%. In 2006, the employment rate of people from 15 to 64 years was equal to the 62,9%, while the unemployment rate was equal to 5,1% of the working force.

Only 3,6% of workers are employed in the agricultural field, while industry field absorbs 32,1% of the total employment (28,6% of employees in industry is employed in the buildings) and the services field 64,3%.

Umbria has a number of voters equal to 717.640 units. The centre-left party candidate was the winning candidate in the last regional elections (March 2010) with 58,89% of valid votes.

On this basis the sinus for the for Umbria is highlighted in red (see Figure 8).

16

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Figure 8: Sinus groups for Umbria (Source: publisuisse)

3 Survey on risk perception and flood risk management The survey on risk perception and management - in the Chiascio basin for the Italian case study - has been carried out in order to provide a picture of how stakeholders and citizens perceive the risk of flooding and how the perception changed after the implementation of various communication measures. The survey is mainly based on two methods: phone interviews with five stakeholders and a questionnaire addressed to the population in the case study area. The interviews allowed the identification of key questions of the public administration in regard to planning, intervention and prevention of flood risk and the level of stakeholders’ knowledge and participation. Starting from these interviews all the questions in the questionnaire for citizens have been selected and edited, also considering the general lines defined in accordance with all IMRA case studies.

It was decided to administer the defined questionnaire in two phases, one at the beginning and one after the conclusion of communication activities in the case study area. The first phase began in May 2010 until June 2010. The second phase was from May 2011 to July 2011. The collected data have been analysed using SPSS. Below you find the description of the reasons for the selected survey method. The questions contained in the interview and in the two questionnaire can be found in Annex I, II and III. The subsequent chapters contain a general discussion and a macro analysis of the collected information.

3.1 Reasons for selected survey method The survey has been conducted in two steps, the first step (as previously described) using the method of interviews and the second using questionnaires.

The interview method was chosen because it allowed us, in the first phase of the project, to establish a face to face contact with stakeholders and to quickly outline an initial status in the case study in terms of measures for flood risk management and perception, as well as public participation and coordination between the various stakeholders, as perceived by the involved ones.

This allowed also to develop more accurately, and within the framework agreed with partners from the different countries and case studies involved in the IMRA 17

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

project, the questionnaire for the citizens. The questionnaire was chosen as method for a replicable qualitative analysis and as a mean to reach the people of the Chiascio river basin for analysing their perception of flood risk, their participation and involvement with initiatives on flood risk as well as the change of perception before and after specific communication measures implemented during the IMRA project. The questionnaire was designed for citizens.

The need to analyse the effects of the IMRA project actions has suggested us to use the questionnaire as a more standardised instrument in respect to interviews, as questionnaires generally produce comparable results.

The following sections describe the interviews and the questionnaire with their results.

3.2 Development of the survey IRPPS was responsible for the survey activity. In collaboration with the IMRA partners AB Tevere and T6, and supported by “Geologia senza Frontiere onlus”, it has coordinated the definition, administration and implementation of the interviews and of the questionnaire.

The interviews have involved five stakeholders. In particular they were technicians of local administrations such as Municipalities or Provinces or Region and technicians of Civil Protection.

The cooperation with local authorities (Municipalities), Civil Protection, some schools and some voluntary associations was a fundamental feature for the survey result, and in particular for the distribution of the questionnaires.

In particular, in the primary schools, the teachers were asked to assign the students to the task of “interviewing their parents and grand-parents”; in the middle and secondary schools the teachers asked to the students directly to fill in the questionnaire.

The questionnaires have also been distributed in various offices of the local council open to the public, as well as during public events (with the support of civil protection) and some voluntary and environmental associations. There was the possibility to fill the questionnaire either online or on paper. Very few questionnaires were filled in online in the first questionnaire round.

The questionnaires have been distributed in the whole area of the Chiascio river basin. Table 1 shows the involved municipalities with their number of inhabitants.

Municipality Assisi Bastia Bettona Torgiano Valfabbrica

Number of inhabitants 26946 21600 3780 5400 3541

Total

60.000

Table 1: Municipalities and number of inhabitants of the Chiascio river basin

As the territory of the municipality of Assisi is only partially affected by the Chiascio river, the total population involved is about 40.000 inhabitants.

In the first round 2.000 questionnaires have been distributed from April to July 2010. 400 were distributed in the second phase from May to July 2011).

18

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

The second phase mainly aimed to obtain comparable results to evaluate the project activities impact. In the Italian case study area, disseminating the questionnaires two times has been preferred to the three times described in the project due to the large territory the case study involved and the high housing dispersion. In fact, disseminating the questionnaires three times could have required too much time, producing some problems in the citizens’ perception towards the various administrations. This could not be realised in the framework of the projects’ running time.

Each dissemination phase was composed of printing, distribution, collection and analysis.

The first phase questionnaire consisted of 9 sections: Section 1. It collected some general information about responder (qualifications, employment).

Section 2. It collected information about the responders’ experience about flood risk.

Section 3. It collected information about the responders’ knowledge on flood risk (the knowledge of the phenomenon in an objective manner).

Section 4. It considered the responders perception of risk of floods in the municipality where s/he lives (an evaluation is asked and therefore a measure of the flood risk perception).

Section 5. People were requested to give information about the communication of the risk as well as mitigation and evacuation plans (information about the manner and actors involved in the communication, the manner and actors that citizens hope will be involved in the communication plan about the risk, and about the –known- existence of measures of prevention, mitigation and intervention).

Section 6. It collected information about the availability of the people to modify their housing status.

Section 7. It collected information about awareness and preparedness respect to the potential flood events (to express an evaluation on the preparation level of stakeholders about possible catastrophic event related to the flood risk, and to suggest potential initiatives to take for limiting damages caused by possible alluvial events).

Section 8. The level of knowledge of rules and planning of the risk areas in the municipality (knowledge about rules and sharing of liabilities that are imposed by the rules) was asked.

Section 9. Participants were asked to evaluate the level of information about flood risks (information level about flood risk and possibility of citizens to take part).

Some simplifications were done in the second questionnaire. In fact it was shorter, even if the comparability of results was guaranteed by questions related to the evolution of risk perception. Moreover, a question at the beginning of the second administrated questionnaire indicated if the responder was involved also in the first administrated questionnaire or not. This was necessary, because we did not know personal data of responders due to the privacy law in Italy.

19

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

3.3 Results of first survey Below are described the results of the interviews and the results produced by a macro analysis of the data collected by the questionnaires.

Interviews The following issues resulted relevant in the interviews with local administration technicians: -

In particular, their perception of flood risk in the Chiascio area is that it is a medium/high risk area.

-

Possible consequences of a flood event can be heavy in economic terms, as the flooding of some areas can produce loss of crops in areas with high agricultural vocation.

-

Then there is a high risk for all those settlements that have been constructed in the proximity of the riverbed.

-

In the local administration the technicians’ opinion about the citizens’ flood risk perception as well as the citizens’ risk knowledge is that it is medium/low.

-

On the side of prevention, local administrations have budget constraints and limitations which leads to inactivity for prevention, particularly at the municipality level.

-

The consequence of the budget limitation, combined with the need to stimulate and to improve the different organizations and institutions cooperation and coordination, is that the regional Civil Protection frequently has more an alert function than a prevention one.

-

On contingency planning - at local government level - there is a plan where civil protection has identified assembly points and possible locations for tents.

-

There is a flood warning system experienced in December 2009, and it works.

-

The Municipality has an important role (even if the province is sovereign in hierarchical terms), but the municipality has a more direct contact with the citizens.

-

Local Administrations have the awareness of the importance of communication with citizens. In particular, a technician of a Municipality has stated that: “The flood of 2005 has highlighted the importance of a good communication.

Methods used for communication are the direct communication with citizens, but also the regional television news, which daily provides information and critical expectations, the national television news and the press for rare events.”

-

The interviewees highlighted that it would be important to explain in a simple and strict manner what are the limits and implications of risk maps. Awareness campaigns in schools would be important too. Seminars could be useful for this purpose. A lot of these kinds of action are currently carried out for free and on the base of voluntary work. Aa financial support could be useful, in particular

by Europe, and the budget for these actions could be provided at the European level.

-

Plans for improving citizens’ participation have not been implemented so far.

20

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

-

The interviewers highlighted the essential role of training processes for institutional figures within the institutions to promote dialogue between institutions and, between institutions and the public, also for identifying the issues that should be addressed and how, in order to have a higher preparation level of the institutional figures respect to the citizens’ needs, requests and participatory behaviour.

-

In the opinion of stakeholders specific territorial actions such as for example the definition of flow expansion areas can be important, but they do not represent the solution for avoiding flooding.

-

At regional level there exists a portal for prevention actions for supporting decision making of all the actors of the regional Civil Protection system, in case of flood events.

-

Moreover, the region and the basin authority have improved the flow expansion areas, and hydraulic defence works have been implemented.

-

The interviewed stakeholders at municipality level said that they do not know actions in other territories respect to the area the municipality refers to, for making safe the Chiascio area from flooding. This could imply lack of information, as well as lack of actions.

-

The stakeholders have identified associations of fishermen, who live directly on the river, for implementing useful actions in the Chiascio area.

Questionnaire As mentioned above, interviews have been carried out with the stakeholders in the Chiascio basin for the Italian case study, in order to provide a picture of how they perceive the risk of flooding, and compare it to how this risk is perceived by the citizens. Additionally the interviews allowed the identification of key questions of the public administration in regard to planning and intervention and prevention of flood risk and the level of knowledge and participation. Starting from these interviews all the questions in the questionnaire for citizens then have been selected and edited. It was decided to disseminate the defined questionnaire in two phases. The first phase began in May 2010 until June 2010. A macro analysis has been made on the questionnaires.

The questionnaire was filled in by 195 persons, of these 58,6% were females and 38,2% male; their ages are concentrated between 35 and 60 years. Respondents have a high average level of education. In fact 43,5% of the total has a high school diploma, 24,7% primary middle school and 21% have a degree and only 5,4% have the elementary school. Moreover for the elementary school, data make evident that responders were students of the primary middle schools.

For the most part, respondents are: employed in the services field (22,6%), housewives (16,4%) and employed in the industry field (10,8%), employed in the agriculture field (4,6%) and the others respondents are employed in other fields.

21

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Figure 9: Respondents for employment field (own elaboration)

When asked about their involvement (in terms of concern or risk perception) of the flooding hazards in their municipality, respondents replied that they get involved: just a little 28,2%, moderate 27,2%, 27,2% not at all, very much 13,3%, fully 6,7%; in general males are more involved than females and most of those who say they feel more involved are those with a higher degree.

In respect to the field of employment, the most involved seem to be those working in education (teachers) who claim to be very involved, followed by housewives, employees in the industry and professionals who claim to be quite involved.

Figure 10: Involvement in terms of risk perception level respect to the field of employment (own elaboration)

This macro analysis has been particularly focused on some sections of the questionnaire as we have been firstly interested in investigating knowledge of the 22

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

flood phenomenon (section 3), communication, mitigation and evacuation plan (section 5), the degree of knowledge of legislation and planning in the municipality at risk (section 8) and information received about the risks (section 9).

The answers related with the section on the knowledge of the flood phenomenon have highlighted on all questions (16 to 20) a very poor knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon, regardless of age and qualification.

Although with a low percentage, knowledge of the phenomenon increases with increasing degree. An interesting point comes from people with an age over 61 years: unlike the other respondents, they say they know both the extent of areas subject to danger of flooding in their town, and the location of areas at risk of flooding. This can be correlated with the experience gained from similar past events and the historical memory the older people have, or they believe to have.

This is true even for the field of employment: in fact retired persons, together with freelancers (the latter are for the most part geologists) are those who have greater knowledge of issues related with this phenomenon.

The section on a communication, mitigation and evacuation plan, has highlighted that 80% of respondents had never received any information on flood hazards in their municipalities and only 15,9% of respondents have searched information autonomously, in particular those with a high degree and those that work as freelancers. A positive issue consists of the fact that as many as 71,8% of respondents would like to receive information on flood risk, highlighting that this factor is widely believed to be relevant. Tools set up to receive information were: Internet (chosen by 18,3% of respondents), through leaflets or brochures (chosen by 17,9% of respondents), through a public meeting (chosen by 17,6% of respondents), television (chosen by 16,5% of respondents), printing (chosen by 15% of respondents).

Figure 11: Preferred tools for receiving information on flood risk (own elaboration)

According to the respondents information about the risk of flooding should be provided by: Municipal administration (33,2% of respondents), Civil Protection (30,1% of respondents), Regional Administration (11,1% of respondents), Mountain communities (9,8% of respondents).

23

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

When asked: "Are there measures for flood management or flood protection works in your municipality?" 65,6% of respondents claimed they do not know, but they are interested in receiving this information, in particular through newspapers, radio and TV, flyers, Internet.

Also with regard to the civil protection plan and procedures to be followed in case of emergency caused by a flood, 75,9% of respondents claimed to know it.

The question about participation as a Civil Protection volunteer, Fire Service or other groups of volunteers have provided a negative response for 76,4% of respondents, and a positive response for 12,3%. In particular retired persons (83,3% of pensioners) claim that they or someone in their family were volunteers of Civil Protection, Fire Service or other group of volunteers.

The same data was also obtained when asked if the responder knows who is responsible for emergency management and who supports the flood defences in the municipality.

The section on knowledge of legislation concerning flood risk in the municipality underline that 67,2% of respondents do not know it, 15,1% partially know it, 8,1 have a good knowledge level, 1,1% completely know it and, 0,5% do not have any knowledge concerning flood risk. People with a higher qualification also have a higher knowledge of flood risk, but the percentage is low also in this case. In fact, only 27,5% of graduates claim to know a bit of legislation compared with 55% declaring not to know. The knowledge level does not vary even with respect to the field of employment.

In the section on information received about the risks and participation, only 9,7% of respondents (especially males) claim to have participated in workshops, discussions or meetings on flood risks, while 56,4% do not express an opinion, and 23,6% said there was never any meeting. A similar situation is observed for the answers about training simulations for emergencies: only 6,2% of respondents took part, and 52,8% did not know anything about them.

Finally, about the willingness to participate in a public meeting to be informed about the risk of flooding, 51,3% are willing to participate, 37,4% are undecided and, only 6,7% is not interested in participating.

Figure 12: Willingness to participate in a public meeting (own elaboration)

24

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

The most available to participate are males and those who have a medium / high qualification.

3.4 The second survey: Change of risk perception in the Chiascio river basin after the IMRA case study activities The second questionnaire has been simplified, leaving however unchanged the questions considered relevant for comparative purposes. As neither the first nor the second questionnaire reached the complete population, the respondents of the second questionnaire were been asked if they have already answered to the first questionnaire.

The total of respondents to the second questionnaire was 87 people, of these 86% are female and 14% are male. The average age of respondents was between 30 and 60 years. The main field of employment was found to be housewives and services. Regarding education, 44% of respondents has a high school diploma and only 17% has a degree.

80% of respondents to the questionnaire had already participated to the first questionnaire.

The involvement on flood risk is high, 42% in fact, feel himself very engaged on this issue.

With respect to the knowledge of the floods phenomenon (Section 2) there is a positive trend. The communication actions of the project have had positive effects on the people. A high level of participation in these actions was observed in particular when they involved schools. Teachers and students were spokesperson to their families of things learned about flood risk, increasing individual and collective awareness. They administrated the two questionnaires of the IMRA project to their families and their friends. Furthermore, also Civil Protection and volunteers organizations helped us in the questionnaires administration. As actions were mainly implemented in the schools, where communication actions were carried out, a direct or indirect influence of these actions can be assumed on the results of the questionnaires. In particular, the second questionnaire results underline that the knowledge and people flood awareness is considerably increased after the communication actions.

In fact, in the first questionnaire, only the 29% of respondents claim to know the extent of areas subject to danger of flooding in their municipality versus 51% of respondents of the second questionnaire. Also knowledge about the location of areas at risk of flooding in their municipality, seems to be increased, in fact, 53% of respondents declares to be aware versus 31% of the previous questionnaire.

Moreover, 62% of respondents think that climate change may affect on extent of areas subject to flooding in their community because they can influence the system of rivers at the local level.

These data demonstrate that awareness has increased among citizens and the knowledge of these phenomena after the awareness activities carried out during the project. In the first questionnaire, in fact, these issues were in part known only by the older people, who had direct experience of these phenomena.

The section (4) of the questionnaire related to communication activities. It showed a great interest in being informed of the flood risk in their community. Favourite channels to receive these information are: during a public meeting (chosen by 25

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

34% of the respondents), through leaflets or brochures (23%), press (23%), television (20%). The public meeting is the main channel chosen, compared to the answers given in the previous survey in which instead the main channel was the Internet.

Figure 13: Favourite channels to receive information about flood risks

How would like to receive information on flood risk?

Leaflet or brochures

During a public meeting

Poster in public places

Internet

Television

Radio

Press

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

The authorities recommended to give information on flood risks were: the Municipal Administration (77% of respondents) and the Civil Protection (61% of respondents).

Figure 14: Authorities recommended to give information on flood risks

Who should be provide information on flooding risk?

Civil Protection

Media

Scientists

State Administration

Regional Administration

Mountain communities

Municipal Administration

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

With respect to the knowledge about the civil protection plan, 30% of respondents stated to know the procedures to be followed in case of emergency of flood risks, while the 70% do not know them. Moreover, only 17.5% of respondents know who is the responsible for emergency management in case of flood risks in their municipality.

There is still few knowledge about the legislation on flood risks: 58% of respondents do not know it, 18% just a little and the 24% enough. It is clear that although the knowledge about the issues of flood risks has increased, there is still 26

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

a need for constant information to the population, even on more technical issues, such as regulations and risk management.

Section (5) of the questionnaire, which concerns the awareness and grooming for a possible flood risk event, underlines a positive growing of confidence in the public institutions. In fact, the respondents considered the following subjects prepared to face a future flood risk: Municipality Administration, Territorial association in a mountain region, the Regional Administration and the State Administration; moreover they consider well prepared the Civil Protection.

Personal preparation to deal with future floods seems to be good: 45% of respondents stated to be prepared, 14% very prepared and 41% unprepared. The previous survey underlined a strong distrust of these institutions in their ability to deal with these events. It seems clear that the activities carried out in the schools had a positive impact on the awareness of students and families.

Summarising the results we can say that the population is more informed after the communication activities of the IMRA project than before. Moreover, the participation in the two events organised in Bastia Umbra (April 15, 2010 with local stakeholders) and the public meeting in Assisi (May 27, 2010) was evaluated as important. Both events were considered good opportunities to exchange information with the governing body and with other actors (such as environmental groups, Civil Protection volunteers, schools, etc.) about the flood risk issue.

Before the communication activities of the project, 80% of respondents to the first questionnaire said that they never received any information about flood risks in their own municipality. In the 2nd questionnaire, 61% of the respondents (who are also those who had answered the first questionnaire) stated to have more knowledge on the management of flood risk.

QUESTION

FIRST PHASE QUESTIONNAIRE

SECOND PHASE QUESTIONNAIRE

Knowledge about the extent of areas subject to danger of flooding

YES = 29%

YES= 51%

Knowledge about the location of areas at risk of flooding

YES= 31%

YES = 53%

Knowledge about the legislation on flood risks

NO = 67%

NO = 58%

JUST A LITTLE = 15%

JUST A LITTLE = 18%

Table 2: Comparison of results of first and second phase questionnaires on knowledge about flood risks

27

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

4 Self assessment of existing risk governance process (Step 3) Step 3 assesses the existing management systems applying the risk governance assessment and monitoring tool developed in the IMRA Del. 1.2, adapting the key performance indicators to the special characteristics of flood risks and the legal, administrative and physical environments of the Chiascio case study. The addressee of the self-assessment in the Chiascio case study is the Tevere River Basin Authority, being the implementing authority for the flood directive as described above.

4.1 Reasons for selection of indicators In a first step, indicators of risk governance principles and additional indicators in regard to flood risk were chosen (including the description of the indicator and the identification of the measuring values) based on the indicators of the IMRA concept and some adaptations done by TUDO for the German case study. This was done by all project partners. The Tevere River Basin Authority, being the relevant stakeholder, was the main addressee of the assessment. The chosen indicators are: -

Principles (1) Objectives (2) Trust (3) Accountability principle (internal) (4) Accountability principle (external) (5) Justification (6) Representation (7) Access to information (8)

-

Tolerance of process and outcome (9) Dialogue (10) Financial resources (11) Staff resources (12) Roles (13) Co-ordination (14) Co-operation (15)

4.2 Results of self assessment The assessment was carried out twice during the project. The first one was implemented in September 2010 and the second one in June 2011 (after the conclusion of information and communication activities in the Chiascio case study area).

First assessment The first assessment started on 25 June 2010 in the Tevere River Basin Authority premises. The indicators were presented, identified and discussed. The description of the risk governance concept as well as Step 3 of Del. 1.2 were translated into Italian in order to allow a wide discussion within the Tevere River Basin Authority.

A preliminary assessment was made, but has to be discussed with more people in the organisation. It was finalised during an internal meeting on 23 September 2010 and presented to the other Italian IMRA partners on 24 September.

The evaluation was the following:

28

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

PRINCIPI Parole chiave Domanda chiave

(1) Principi Quali sono i principi che guidano l’organizzazione?

Obiettivo

Definizione dei principi di base e di un sistema di obiettivi coerenti

Indicatore

Grado di operatività dei principi che guidano l’organizzazione

Descrizione dell’indicatore

L'aspetto principale di questo indicatore è la questione di come gestire i rischi esistenti. Sono chiaramente definiti? Quali sono le azioni destinate (ad esempio in materia di resilienza)? I principi di base sono condivisi da tutti i gruppi coinvolti?

I principi di base possono essere formulati sulla base di una "dichiarazione di missione".

L'indicatore è realizzato se un accordo sui principi è stabilito.

Valutazione:

 Commenti:

Rosso

= nessun principio di base è definito

Arancio

= Il processo per la definizione dei principi di base è iniziato

Giallo

= tutti i principi sono stati definiti

Verde

= La discussione sul sistema degli obiettivi è iniziato

Blu

= I principi sono operativi attraverso un sistema di obiettivi coerente che è in continuo monitoraggio e adattamento

I PRINCIPI GENERALI SONO CONTENUTI NELLA LEGGE 183/1989 CHE HA ISTITUITO IL NOSTRO ENTE. ANCHE GLI OBIETTIVI SONO STABILITI NELLA LEGGE ISTITUTIVA E NEI REGOLAMENTI E SONO ALLA BASE DI OGNI ATTO DI PIANIFICAZIONE DELL’ENTE

Parole chiave Domanda chiave

(2) Obiettivi Quali sono gli obiettivi concreti di protezione per i soggetti di tutela?

Obiettivo

Definizione e accordo sugli obiettivi di protezione e oggetti di protezione

Indicatore

Grado di definizione e accettazione degli obiettivi e oggetti di protezione

Descrizione dell’indicatore

L'indicatore è realizzato se un accordo è fatto sugli obiettivi e gli oggetti di protezione.

Valutazione:



Rosso

= Obiettivi di protezione e oggetti di protezione non definiti

Arancio

= Il processo di definizione / discussione è iniziato sugli obiettivi di protezione e oggetti di protezione

Giallo

= tutti gli obiettivi di protezione e oggetti di protezione sono stati definiti

Verde

= La validità degli obiettivi è definito e i processi per le loro realizzazioni sono stati messi in atto

Blu

= Gli obiettivi di protezione vengono monitorati regolarmente e adattati rispettivamente, se necessario

Commenti:

Parole chiave Domanda chiave

(3) Fiducia Quanta attenzione viene prestata ad un clima di reciproca fiducia e rispetto?

Obiettivo

Tra tutti gli organi decisionali, e tra il pubblico e gli organi decisionali c'è un clima di reciproca fiducia e rispetto.

Indicatore

Grado di fiducia reciproca e di rispetto

Descrizione dell’indicatore

Valutazione:

L'aspetto principale di questo indicatore è la questione se le misure necessarie sono state definite e attuate per creare un clima di reciproca fiducia e rispetto. Parole chiave: competenza, equità ed efficienza.



Rosso

= Il tema della "fiducia" non è considerato

Giallo

= La fiducia è discussa caso per caso

Blu

= La fiducia è sistematicamente discussa - e, se necessario / possibile - misurata

Commenti:

29

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

PROCEDURA Parole chiave Domanda chiave

(4) La responsabilità all’interno dell’organizzazione Fino a che punto è definita la responsabilità (per il processo, il rischio specifico) ad ogni livello all'interno dell’organizzazione?

Obiettivo

Ogni collaboratore all'interno dell'istituzione conosce la propria responsabilità / competenza e agisce di conseguenza

Indicatore

Definizione delle responsabilità / competenze

Descrizione dell’indicatore

L'indicatore mostra se e in quale misura le competenze / responsabilità sono chiaramente definite

Valutazione:



Rosso

= Competenze / responsabilità non sono definite

Arancio

= Il processo di discussione sulla definizione delle responsabilità / competenze è iniziato

Giallo

= Competenze e responsabilità sono state definite

Verde

= Competenze e responsabilità sono state attuati

Blu

= Competenze e responsabilità vengono monitorate continuamente e adattate se necessario

Commenti:

Parole chiave Domanda chiave

(5) La responsabilità verso l’esterno Fino a che punto è definita la responsabilità (per il processo, il rischio specifico) tra i soggetti delle diverse istituzioni ad ogni livello?

Obiettivo

Ogni soggetto conosce la propria responsabilità / competenza e agisce di conseguenza

Indicatore

Definizione delle responsabilità / competenze

Descrizione dell’indicatore

Valutazione:

Commenti:

Parole chiave Domanda chiave Obiettivo Indicatore Descrizione dell’indicatore

Valutazione:

L'indicatore mostra se e in quale misura le competenze / responsabilità sono chiaramente definite



Rosso

= Competenze / responsabilità non sono definite

Arancio

= Il processo di discussione sulla definizione delle responsabilità / competenze è iniziato

Giallo

= Competenze e responsabilità sono state definite

Verde

= Competenze e responsabilità sono state attuate

Blu

= Competenze e responsabilità vengono monitorate continuamente e adattate se necessario

IL SISTEMA DELLE COMPETENZE E’ ATTUALMENTE IN ITALIA IN CORSO DI REVISIONE MEDIANTE UN DECRTETO LEGISLATIVO (TESTO UNICO SULL’AMBIENTE)

(6) Motivazione/Giustificazione Fino a che punto le attività per la gestione dei rischi sono motivate / giustificate Motivazione / giustificazione delle attività per la gestione dei rischi Definizione e comprensione dei motivi / giustificazione per la gestione dei rischi L'aspetto principale di questo indicatore è la ragione per cui la necessità di agire esiste per quanto riguarda i rischi? Perché la gente dovrebbe accettare una restrizione della proprie decisioni da regolamenti e norme?

Rosso = nessuna motivazione / giustificazione Arancio = Il processo di discussione su motivazione / giustificazione è iniziato Giallo = La motivazione / giustificazione per la gestione dei rischi esiste  Verde = La motivazione / giustificazione è una parte delle misure vincolanti Blu = Le motivazioni / giustificazioni sono riesaminate continuamente e ove necessario, adeguate

Commenti:

30

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

STAKEHOLDER Domanda chiave

In che misura tutti i gruppi sociali e le loro aspettative sono note?

Obiettivo

Identificazione di tutti i gruppi sociali e delle loro aspettative

Indicatore

Livello di conoscenza di tutti i gruppi e delle loro aspettative

Descrizione dell’indicatore

L'aspetto principale di questo indicatore è sulla questione se tutti i gruppi sociali e le loro aspettative sono note, così che nessun gruppo è rimasto fuori. I soggetti interessati che non sono stati presi in considerazione, possono interferire con il processo di governance del rischio e ci possono essere conflitti.

Rosso

= I gruppi sociali e le loro aspettative non sono noti

Arancio = Il processo della la loro identificazione è iniziato (p.e. attraverso il metodo di analisi di interessi) Valutazione:



Giallo

= I gruppi sociali sono noti

Verde

= Le aspettative dei gruppi sociali sono note (analisi di interesse è completo)

Blu

= è stato introdotto un monitoraggio continuo delle aspettative

Commenti:

Parole chiave Domanda chiave

(8) Accesso alle informazioni Quanto le informazioni sono accessibili ai gruppi sociali?

Obiettivo

Accesso per tutti i gruppi sociali alle informazioni in materia

Indicatore

Grado di disponibilità e chiarezza delle informazioni rilevanti per i gruppi sociali

Descrizione dell’indicatore

Anche se una disponibilità costante di informazioni, ad esempio su Internet, può essere organizzata, ciò non garantisce che i gruppi sociali li ricevono o che sono in grado di comprenderli. L'obiettivo principale di questo indicatore è quello di rendere l'accesso all'informazione per tutti i gruppi sociali attivi, ad esempio, attraverso riunioni periodiche in un processo di dialogo per comprendere e permettere così un flusso di comunicazione in entrambe le direzioni.

Va preso in considerazione che un coinvolgimento di gruppi sociali può anche avere effetti negativi. Di conseguenza la selezione delle informazioni messe a disposizione è una questione importante.

Rosso

=Le informazioni rilevanti sui rischi e la loro disponibilità non sono noti / accessibili

Arancio = La discussione sulla mediazione di informazioni sul rischio è cominciata Valutazione:

Commenti:

Parole chiave Domanda chiave Obiettivo Indicatore Descrizione dell’indicatore

Valutazione:



Giallo

= Le linee guida sulla politica di informazione sono definite e accessibili (incluso la definizione dei diritti di accesso

Verde

= Le linee guide sulla politica di informazione sono applicate

Blu

= Il controllo continuo di qualità (comprensibilità e disponibilità delle informazioni)

NON ESISTONO LINEE GUIDA CONTENUTE IN UN DOCUMENTO UFFICIALE MA L’ACCESSO ALLA INFORMAZIONI E’ GARANTITO SECONDO MODALITA’ STABILITE ED E’ IN CONTINUO SVILUPPO

(9) Tolleranza del processo e dei suoi risultati Fino a che punto i gruppi sociali tollerano o accettano il processo di governance del rischio e dei suoi risultati?

Tutti i gruppi sociali tollerano / accettano il processo di risk governance e i suoi risultati Grado di tolleranza / accettazione da parte dei gruppi sociali La tolleranza e l'accettazione del processo e dei suoi risultati si verificano quando è possibile stabilire / generare un clima di fiducia e rispetto reciproci.

Rosso = La tolleranza / accettazione del processo e dei suoi risultati sono ignorati Arancio = La discussione sulla creazione di tolleranza / accettazione è iniziata Giallo = I criteri per la misurazione della tolleranza / accettazione sono stati definiti Verde = La misura della tolleranza / accettazione è una parte del processo La mancanza di tolleranza / accettazione porta a rivedere il processo e / o i suoi  Blu =risultati

Commenti:

31

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

Parole chiave Domanda chiave

(10) Dialogo In che misura è guidato un dialogo costruttivo con i gruppi sociali interessati? (Parole chiave: ascolto e comprensione reciproca)

Obiettivo

Istituzione di un processo di dialogo (la comunicazione bidirezionale)

Indicatore

Qualità del dialogo (mono o bidirezionale)

Descrizione dell’indicatore

31 August 2011

L'obiettivo principale di questo indicatore è quello di catturare la qualità del dialogo con le parti interessate.

Rosso

= Non c’è dialogo con i gruppi sociali

Arancio = La discussione in merito all'avvio e sviluppo di un processo di dialogo è iniziata Valutazione:



Giallo

= Gli interessi e le aspettative nei confronti del processo di discussione sono noti

Verde

= Il concetto del dialogo è accettato dai partecipanti (ad esempio gli accordi sugli obiettivi, responsabilità, competenze)

Blu

= I processi di discussione sono integrati nel processo di governance del rischio e sono monitorati in modo coerente

Commenti:

RISORSE Parole chiave Domanda chiave

(11) Risorse finanziarie In che misura le risorse finanziarie sono in conformità con i requisiti del processo di definizione della governance del rischio?

Obiettivo

Messa a disposizione delle risorse finanziarie sufficienti per il successo del processo di governance del rischio

Indicatore

Livello di implementazione di un concetto finanziario

Descrizione dell’indicatore

I concetti e le idee per la riuscita del processo di governance del rischio e le risorse finanziarie disponibili devono essere coordinate.

Rosso

 Valutazione:

= I costi e benefici del processo di governance del rischio non sono monetizzati

Arancio = Il calcolo dei costi e dei benefici è avviato Giallo

= La relazione tra costi e benefici è trasparente

Verde

= Il finanziamento è possibile

Blu

= La disponibilità di fondi è sufficiente, la necessità è costantemente riesaminata e adattata, se necessario

Commenti:

Parole chiave Domanda chiave Obiettivo Indicatore Descrizione dell’indicatore

Valutazione:

(12) Risorse umane Quanto corrispondono le risorse umane (qualificazione e numero di persone) ai requisiti del processo di definizione della governance del rischio?

Messa a disposizione delle risorse umane sufficienti per il successo del processo di governance del rischio Livello di realizzazione di un concetto per le risorse umane I concetti e le idee per la riuscita del processo di governance del rischio e le risorse umane disponibili sono coordinate.

Rosso = Nessuna considerazione di un concetto per le risorse umane Arancio = Il concetto per le risorse umane necessarie è iniziato  Giallo = Qualità e competenze delle risorse umane sono definite (piano) Verde = La procedura di selezione è effettuata Blu = adeguate risorse umane sono disponibili e sono continuamente riviste e corrette, se necessario

Commenti:

32

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

ESPERTI Parole chiave Domanda chiave

(13) Ruolo Quanto il ruolo degli esperti esterni è definito?

Obiettivo

Se esperti esterni sono coinvolti, il loro ruolo dovrebbe essere definito nel processo decisionale

Indicatore

Grado di definizione e coordinamento del ruolo degli esperti esterni

Descrizione dell’indicatore

L'aspetto principale di questo indicatore è sulla questione se il ruolo dell’esperto esterno è definito.

Una definizione potrebbe essere, ad esempio: gli esperti danno una valutazione scientifica , non possono rispondere a domande che riguardano l'accettazione del rischio o prendere decisioni di carattere politico. E 'importante soprattutto COME il ruolo degli esperti è definito.

Valutazione:



Rosso

= Ruolo degli esperti esterni non definito.

Arancio

= Definizione dei temi e della necessità di esperti esterni (p.e. un accompagnamento scientifico/di ricerca, un consulente per la comunicazione, un valutatore)

Giallo

= Possibili esperti conosciuti di nome

Verde

= Approvazione dal parte dei partecipanti al processo relativo al ruolo dell’ esperto e della persona nominata

Blu

= LA competenza esterna è integrata nel processo di risk governance (incluso il controllo della sua qualità e efficacia)

Commenti:

INDICATORI SPECIFICI PER LA COLLABORAZIONE CON ALTRI ENTI DECISIONALI Parole chiave Domanda chiave

(14) Coordination In che misura i piani delle importanti istanze decisionali sono coordinate?

Obiettivo

Realizzazione di un concetto per il coordinamento delle attività

Indicatore

Livello di coordinamento delle attività

Descrizione dell’indicatore

La soluzione di certi problemi di pianificazione è di solito effettuata con la partecipazione di vari attori, che sono interessati a implementare i propri progetti. Per affrontare questo e evitare le inefficienze (doppio lavoro, divario) esiste la necessità di coordinare i progetti dei singoli attori relativi all’obiettivo

Valutazione:

 Commenti:

Parole chiave Domanda chiave Obiettivo Indicatore Descrizione dell’indicatore

Valutazione:

Rosso

= Nessuna considerazione di un coordinamento con le attività di altri attori coinvolti

Arancio

= Attività previste da altri attori identificate

Giallo

= Sviluppo di un concetto per il coordinamento di attività pianificate di vari attori

Verde

= L'accordo su un piano di coordinamento delle attività previste

Blu

= Il piano di coordinamento delle attività previste è attuato

IL COORDINAMENTO TRA LE COMPETENZE E’ IN CORSO DI REVISIONE (VEDI NOTA INDICATORE N.5)

(15) Cooperazione Fino a che punto sono coordinati i processi decisionali da parte del responsabile decisore?

Definizione e accordo per quanto riguarda le responsabilità dei decisori Livello di definizione e accordo per quanto riguarda le responsabilità dei decisori Spesso la competenza per compiti specifici o aree di attività (come ad esempio la protezione dalle inondazioni) sono distribuite su di diversi attori (istituzioni), che, in generale, seguono i propri obiettivi.

Questo indicatore misura l’accordo dei relativi responsabili delle decisioni su obiettivi comuni. La cooperazione va al di là del coordinamento che è strettamente limitata a un accordo su progetti di partner autonomi che non sono legati contrattualmente a un obiettivo comune.

Rosso = Nessuna considerazione per la frammentazione delle competenze tra gli organi decisionali  Arancio = Frammentazione delle competenze identificate Giallo = Sviluppo di un concetto per la cooperazione degli organi decisionali coinvolti Verde = L'accordo su un approccio cooperativo per i decisori Blu = Attuazione del concetto di collaborazione da parte dei decisori coinvolti

Commenti:

33

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

The results show that the AB Tevere has already achieved some important, steps (blue or green) in the following areas: - Principles (1) - Objectives (2) - Accountability principle (internal) (4) - Justification (6) - Representation (7) - Tolerance of process and outcome (9) - Dialogue (10) - Roles (13) - Co-ordination (14) According to the further results the list of priorities for the improvement of the risk governance process are the following: high priority (orange): - Financial resources (11) - Co-operation (15)

medium priority (yellow): - Trust (3) - Accountability principle (external) (5) - Access to information (8) - Staff resources (12)

Second assessment One year after the initial assessment, it was possible to look back to the work carried out for the implementation of IMRA concept remembering that it concerned only a small part of the whole Tevere river basin.

In fact Italian case study – Chiascio river basin- may not be representative of the complex management of flood risk all over the Tevere river basin and, still less, all over Italian country.

For this reason the second self –assessment by Tevere river basin authority covers only some of the indicators proposed, and should be considered valid only for the municipalities that belong to the Chiascio river basin

However, this does not diminish the value of the method that can be exported at a larger scale.

Here are the changed values of some of the indicators according to the following legend:  

FIRST ASSESSMENT SECOND ASSESSMENT

FROM YELLOW TO BLUE Parole chiave Domanda chiave Obiettivo Indicatore Descrizione dell’indicatore Valutazione:

(3) Fiducia Quanta attenzione viene prestata ad un clima di reciproca fiducia e rispetto?

Tra tutti gli organi decisionali, e tra il pubblico e gli organi decisionali c'è un clima di reciproca fiducia e rispetto.

Grado di fiducia reciproca e di rispetto L'aspetto principale di questo indicatore è la questione se le misure necessarie sono state definite e attuate per creare un clima di reciproca fiducia e rispetto. Parole chiave: competenza, equità ed efficienza.

Rosso = Il tema della "fiducia" non è considerato  Giallo = La fiducia è discussa caso per caso

 Commenti:

Blu = La fiducia è sistematicamente discussa - e, se necessario / possibile - misurata Thanks to recurring meetings, stakeholder and wider public have seen the Tever river basin authority (public body managing the flood risk) as an ally and they implemented the principle of subsidiarity.

34

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

FROM YELLOW TO GREEN Parole chiave Domanda chiave Obiettivo Indicatore

Descrizione dell’indicatore

Valutazione:

Commenti:

(8) Accesso alle informazioni Quanto le informazioni sono accessibili ai gruppi sociali?

Accesso per tutti i gruppi sociali alle informazioni in materia Grado di disponibilità e chiarezza delle informazioni rilevanti per i gruppi sociali Anche se una disponibilità costante di informazioni, ad esempio su Internet, può essere organizzata, ciò non garantisce che i gruppi sociali li ricevono o che sono in grado di comprenderli. L'obiettivo principale di questo indicatore è quello di rendere l'accesso all'informazione per tutti i gruppi sociali attivi, ad esempio, attraverso riunioni periodiche in un processo di dialogo per comprendere e permettere così un flusso di comunicazione in entrambe le direzioni.

Va preso in considerazione che un coinvolgimento di gruppi sociali può anche avere effetti negativi. Di conseguenza la selezione delle informazioni messe a disposizione è una questione importante.

Rosso =Le informazioni rilevanti sui rischi e la loro disponibilità non sono noti / accessibili Arancio = La discussione sulla mediazione di informazioni sul rischio è cominciata Le linee guida sulla politica di informazione sono definite e accessibili (incluso la  Giallo =definizione dei diritti di accesso Verde = Le linee guide sulla politica di informazione sono applicate  Blu = Il controllo continuo di qualità (comprensibilità e disponibilità delle informazioni) Information and communication policy was completely implemented in the case study area.

FROM GREEN TO BLUE Parole chiave Domanda chiave Obiettivo Indicatore Descrizione dell’indicatore

Valutazione:

Commenti:

(10) Dialogo In che misura è guidato un dialogo costruttivo con i gruppi sociali interessati? (Parole chiave: ascolto e comprensione reciproca) Istituzione di un processo di dialogo (la comunicazione bidirezionale) Qualità del dialogo (mono o bidirezionale) L'obiettivo principale di questo indicatore è quello di catturare la qualità del dialogo con le parti interessate.

Rosso = Non c’è dialogo con i gruppi sociali Arancio = La discussione in merito all'avvio e sviluppo di un processo di dialogo è iniziata Giallo = Gli interessi e le aspettative nei confronti del processo di discussione sono noti Verde = Il concetto del dialogo è accettato dai partecipanti (ad esempio gli accordi sugli  obiettivi, responsabilità, competenze) = I processi di discussione sono integrati nel processo di governance del rischio e sono  Blu monitorati in modo coerente The local population involved in IMRA project asked for a greater involvement and in the local context they can also help Tevere river basin authority in managing flood risk.

FROM ORANGE TO GREEN Parole chiave Domanda chiave Obiettivo Indicatore Descrizione dell’indicatore

Valutazione:

(15) Cooperazione Fino a che punto sono coordinati i processi decisionali da parte del responsabile decisore?

Definizione e accordo per quanto riguarda le responsabilità dei decisori Livello di definizione e accordo per quanto riguarda le responsabilità dei decisori Spesso la competenza per compiti specifici o aree di attività (come ad esempio la protezione dalle inondazioni) sono distribuite su di diversi attori (istituzioni), che, in generale, seguono i propri obiettivi.

Questo indicatore misura l’accordo dei relativi responsabili delle decisioni su obiettivi comuni. La cooperazione va al di là del coordinamento che è strettamente limitata a un accordo su progetti di partner autonomi che non sono legati contrattualmente a un obiettivo comune.

Rosso = Nessuna considerazione per la frammentazione delle competenze tra gli organi decisionali



Arancio Giallo

= Frammentazione delle competenze identificate = Sviluppo di un concetto per la cooperazione degli organi decisionali coinvolti

 Commenti:

Verde = L'accordo su un approccio cooperativo per i decisori Blu = Attuazione del concetto di collaborazione da parte dei decisori coinvolti Now, at the local level, all the public and private actors recognize and legitimize each other. It’s reached an agreement for cooperation.

4.3 Feedback on self assessment The way to assess the effectiveness of the river basin Authority’s actions by means of indicators is new for us.

We found the indicators fully representative of the central issues of our public body and also the graduation of the measure (from red to blue) can allow us free 35

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

to decide in what level place our action. This method represents for us a way to give an order to assessments and reviews that we have already made about our function and that we experience every day since about 20 years ago when the Authority was established by national law.

Besides it is useful to remember that River basin Authorities in Italy are public bodies instituted by law so that the main indicators such as “principles, trust, coordination, cooperation, responsibility and skills” are concepts defined by low.

However, there are some functions and tools we can improve depending by the new responsibility that Flood Directive 2007/60 EC give us about risk management plan and especially about public participation.

So we can summarize the following items: 

An assessment with indicators seems a good way to analyse the performance of the organisation, as it provides a clear structure;



It is a new way of monitoring in the administration. It seems that this kind of benchmarking and monitoring processes are more common in the Northern part of Europe;



Only discussing the indicators and the values highlight some issues that were previously not taken into consideration;



It is an interesting tool to apply and the Tevere River Basin Authority is looking forward to experience it during the IMRA project.

5 Stakeholder workshops (Step 4) The IMRA concept requires two regional workshops, one at the beginning and one at the end of the participation process.

5.1 First workshop 5.1.1 Aim of the first workshop For the organization of stakeholder workshops were distinguished two levels. The first level concerned institutional stakeholders and the second the wider public.

First level: involving institutional stakeholders According to the scheduled activities, in February 2010 was held the first meeting with institutional stakeholders of the municipalities whose territories are affected by the flooding of the river Chiascio.

The meeting took place on 25 February 2010 in the municipality of Bastia Umbra that hosted the meeting in the town hall. The local administrators (political and technical levels) of the municipalities of Bastia Umbra, Bettona, Torgiano, Assisi and the Water Resources department of the Umbria Region were represented. In total there were app. 20 participants.

The aims of the workshop were: 

To introduce the IMRA project and the Italian case study;



To explain the relationship between the European Directive 2007/60/EC and the existing Hydrogeological setting Plan (PAI);



To introduce information, methods, results and the update the Hydrogeological setting Plan (PAI); 36

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011



To discuss with local stakeholders how to improve their perception and awareness of existing hydraulic risk within their territories in order to support the political and administrative decisions in the areas of case study;



To propose an active involvement / information of stakeholders and the public;

and for the future:



To reorganise, where possible, the hydraulic risk management processes through the application of Methodology IMRA";



To produce good practice that could motivate other administrative structures to apply the methodology;



To develop and publish, at the end of the project, a manual on methodology and experiences.

Second level: involving the wider group of stakeholders On the basis of the results of the meeting with the institutional stakeholders, a second meeting was organised in April 2010 where a wider group of stakeholders was invited: institutional stakeholders (the same group as in the first meeting), local associations, volunteers of rescue teams and civil protection, managers of schools, operating structures in the field of public health, environmental and territorial control, representatives from environmental NGOs. It took place again in the town hall of Bastia Umbra on 15 April 2010.

The aims of the workshop were: 

To improve the exchange between public authorities and population on flood risk;



To introduce the IMRA questionnaire;



To introduce planned communication and information activities to develop together with the local community and especially with school;



To raise a discussion on issues such as:



How to really involve public in the process of setting up flood risk management plans from the early beginning?



Has the perception of risk played a role in the management of flood risk by the public authorities? And how we can best utilise the result for the future?



How could risk awareness not only be achieved, but then kept for a long time?

5.1.2 Represented stakeholders The response and participation of local stakeholders was good and certainly superior to the expectations: 40 persons were counted to be present, in addition to the guests. The workshop was also attended by some teachers of local schools and their presence has been very important for the fifth phase of the case study (Communication strategy) in which is requested the involvement of school-age population.

37

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Figure 15: Stakeholder workshop 15 April 2010 – Bastia Umbria – Town hall

5.1.3 Details of workshop With the support of the participants of the 1st meeting, potential participants were identified and invited by email and letter.

Figure 16: Stakeholder workshop 15 April 2010 – Bastia Umbria – Invitation card

38

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

The programme of the workshop was as follows:

5.1.4 Main results of workshop The workshop discussed the main questions as outlined in the project proposal.

Although a big part of the workshop was dedicated to presentations in regard to the project and the flood risk in the Chiascio river basin, an interesting and fruitful discussion took place.

City administrators repeated that, for them, the issue of risk perception is a very sensitive and delicate issue, and they believe that increasing participation could make their town "virtuous" and therefore makes it able to attract more economic resources.

The workshop revealed the following results:  Public participation has really to be taken serious and integrated in plans by authorities in order to motivate people to participate; 

Collection of ideas of communication activities (Design competition in elementary schools; competition for multimedia product and photos on flood risk in secondary schools - with preliminary introduction of topic by experts);



Organisation of distribution and collection of questionnaires.

The town of Assisi was willing to collaborate in the organization of a subsequent meeting on the project, focusing on the problems of Assisi and Valfabbrica, whose 39

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

territories are the most affected by flooding along the river Chiascio which will be the first activity of Step 5, the communication strategy (see below).

It was decided to use the next meeting of Assisi to present to the concerned local communities the new perimeters of floodable areas developed by updating the hydrological setting plan (PAI).

5.2 Second workshop The main aim of the second workshop was to present the final results of the case study activities together with relevant stakeholders in order to validate the results. It was at the same time the final public event of the communication activities of Step 5. Therefore the event will be described in detail at in chapter 6.

The response and participation of local stakeholders was less than at the first workshop. The main reason was probably that the final event took place briefly after local elections where the local municipalities were in reorganisation.

However, the head of the civil protection of the municipality of Assisi and the main technician in charge of flood risk as well as representatives of the Region of Umbria attended.

6 Communication strategy (Step 5) A tailored made communication is indispensable in order to raise the awareness of the given flood risk, but also to interest stakeholders and the general public in participating actively in the process as requested by the Floods Directive. In Italy there is the particular situation that flood risk management plans (Hydrogeological Setting Plan, PAI) are already in place and approved (with the possibility for the general public to make observations on the final draft). This is also the case for the Chiascio river basin. This means that communication activities will be focused more to the aspect of information and communication to stakeholders and the general public and not much on participation processes for the development of the plans. However, an update of the Hydrogeological Setting Plan (PAI) of the Chiascio river is under way with the inclusion of new areas.

The communication strategy identified therefore three main target groups: 

Involve stakeholders in the observation of the updated plan;



Inform the general public; and



Reach affected people, living or working in flood risk areas.

When identifying the communication activities, the following points of the IMRA group discussions were taken into consideration: 

Make people feel concerned: they must understand that flood risk is something that really is relevant for them and not just an administrative exercise;



manpower/money as limited resources; effectivity of measures;



before – after: different perceptions to the topic before or after an event;



evaluation of communication material: question which material really improves risk perception;



involve people emotionally (positively!), e. g. by involving witnesses, but: do not make people afraid but raise awareness;



close to people/key persons: involve interested people into the process and develop strategy in close cooperation to stakeholders and public;

40

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

6.1 Elements of stakeholder communication strategy The goals of the communication strategy for stakeholders were defined as follows: 

Inform technicians and politicians of the municipalities as well as the organised public (e.g. environmental NGOs, voluntary civil protection organisations) in the Chiascio river basin on the Hydrogeological Setting Plan (PAI) of the area and its impact. This should remind them on the risk and the importance of the plan;



Involve technicians and politicians of the municipalities as well as the organised public (e.g. environmental NGOs, voluntary civil protection organisations) from the municipalities of the areas which are newly included in the Hydrogeological Setting Plan (PAI), the municipalities of Assisi and Valfabbrica.

Activities The stakeholder workshop described in the previous chapter was an activity in regard to the first goal. A second workshop is planned.

Regarding the second goal, a public hearing was organised on the 27 May 2010 in Assisi.

Public hearing on 27 May 2010 in Assisi During the stakeholder workshop on 15 April, the representative of the Municipality of Assisi (responsible for civil protection) was highly interested in organising a public hearing in Assisi on the update of the Hydrogeological Setting Plan (PAI). It was decided that an expert public from the two concerned municipalities (Assisi and Valfabbrica) would be invited: representatives of the local parliament and the city administrations; technicians, civil protection voluntary organisations, environmental and cultural NGOs, directors of schools and the university. App. 40 people attended the meeting which took place in the premises of the university.

Figure 17: Public hearing on new PAI 27 May 2010 – Assisi – Invitation card

The hearing started with several presentations on the new Hydrogeological Setting Plan (PAI) and its legal impact on territorial planning. After this there were several statements from participants with a following discussion.

41

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Figure 18: Public hearing on new PAI 27 May 2010 – Assisi – Programme

Figure 19: Public hearing on new PAI 27 May 2010 – Assisi – Photos

6.2 Elements of public communication strategy The main goal for the communication strategy for the general public was to raise awareness on the flood risk of the Chiascio river. This was of high importance as the last flood dates from the 1960ies and people feel safe due to a dam that was constructed after the flood.

42

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

The following activities were planned: 

Lectures in schools. An interactive lecture on flood risk management, including a group game and a video, was prepared by the project partners. Students of primary and secondary schools were invited to participate.



School competition. Students participating in the previously described activity were asked to prepare a work on the flood risk (management) of the Chiascio river (e.g. draw pictures, produce a video or a website etc.). Every participating school should receive a small award;



Final public event and exhibition: The results of the case study were presented in a public event. The work prepared by the school students presented in an accompanying exhibition;



Printed brochure on case study activities and results of school project and work for the general public.

Activities were accompanied by articles / service in the local media.

6.2.1 Lectures in schools Aim of the school lectures was to provide information on flood risk, stimulating a participatory behaviour and producing capacity building respect to the flood risk in the area where the students live.

In a first step, both primary schools and secondary schools in the area of the Chiascio river basin were invited and four schools decided to participate: Primary schools: -

Istituto Comprensivo Assisi 2, Municipality of Assisi,

-

Istituto Comprensivo La Meridiana, Municipality of Bettona,

-

Istituto Comprensivo S. Benedetto, Municipality of Valfabbrica.

Secondary schools: -

Convitto Nazionale, Municipality of Assisi

In total 186 students were involved.

The Italian partners of the IMRA project defined the schedule for the 2 hours of planned work in each school. It was approved by the involved teachers. The two main used tools were a video, introducing the problem of flood risk and an interactive group game, called MONOPAI (in reference to the abbreviation of the Italian name of the Hydrogeological Setting Plan, PAI).

43

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Figure 20: MONOPAI game

Italian partners of the IMRA project designed and produced the necessary material, in collaboration with an NGO specialised in geology and education (Geologie senza Frontiere onlus).

The main feature of the MONOPAI interactive group game was that a group of students had to allocate a defined number of various types of infrastructure (schools, houses, agricultural areas, train station, hospitals etc) on a stylised flood risk map. In addition the group had to write down the reasons for their choices and present them to the whole group. The Italian IMRA partners produced the kit with all necessary material for the game (risk map, small pictures representing the various infrastructure, legends, description of game, paper, glue) as well as the video.

The video was focused on the case study, also involving testimonies of people who lived the flood experience in the Chiascio area. It is published on the IMRA website.

During the two-hour meetings in each school (always two classes were participating together in one lecture), a flood risk expert made a brief oral 44

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

introduction on the topic. Then the video was shown to provide students with background information. After that followed the MONOPAI game, where students worked in groups up to 8 people. Each group presented their results of to the whole group, explaining their decisions. A discussion concluded the meeting. As a follow-up each teacher received a CD with the results of the game of their class, photos, the material of the MONOPAI game and the video. They can use them beyond of the project. All participating students were invited to a concluding final public event of the case study.

Figure 21: Pictures of school lectures

6.2.2 School competition The school competition was closely linked to the school lectures described before.

The main aim was to build-up risk awareness in the younger generations and encourage a participatory approach to risk management, using their creativity.

Participants of the school competition were all students that attended the school lectures (only one of the initially involved classes did not participate at the competition). This means that they had already some basic knowledge on flood risk management and the particular situation of the Chiascio river basin.

Rules of the competition were defined by the IMRA project team: due to the different features of the involved schools, students were asked to produce a collective work which required their discussion and conceptualization of flood risk.

The competition was launched in ten classes, always at the end of the school lecture. All participants were informed that they had two to three months for producing their contribution.

Results presented included paintings, brochures, power-point presentations and maps of their area of the Chiascio basin (see figures below).

45

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Figure 22: Examples from the works produced during the students competition

All contributions were presented in an exhibition during a public event on flood risk and each participating school received an award (in this case a financial 46

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

contribution for educational materials) and a certificate (see next chapter). In addition all contributions were included in a booklet on the Italian IMRA case study which was distributed at the final event as well as on the IMRA project website.

6.2.3 Final public event and exhibition A public event and accompanying exhibition concluded the public communication activities as well as the stakeholder involvement. It took place on 6 June 2011 in the theatre of the Istituto Comprensivo Assisi 2 in the city of Assisi. All participants of the first regional workshop, the public hearing and the activities in the schools were invited by email and letter.

Figure 23: Final public event 6 June 2011 – Assisi – Invitation card

The programme of the event was as follows: App. 100 people attended the event. The head of civil protection of the municipality of Assisi reflected on the case study activities and underlined the importance of information and participation on flood risk. This was confirmed by the representative of the Region of Umbria and the Tevere River Basin Authority. The final version (including a section on the work in the schools) of the video was shown.

Figure 24: Photos of final event

47

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

At the end of the event, the schools received an award and a certificate for their participation in the school competition.

Figure 25: Certificate of participation at the schools competition, and students receiving certification

An exhibition accompanied the event. It showed the whole work of the case study activities in the Chiascio region, including general information on the flood risk and flood risk management, contributions of the schools for the competition, results (flood risk management maps) and photos of the MONOPAI game, photos of the various events with stakeholders.

Figure 26: Exhibition during the final event in Assisi

48

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

6.2.4 Printed brochure A brochure, describing the activities of the IMRA project, the case study in the Chiascio river basin and the work of the students was produced for the final event and distributed to all participants. A number of copies were given to the stakeholders for a wider distribution in the area in order to continue information activities.

Figure 27: Cover page of brochure

6.2.5 Media work A number of media articles were published during the case study activities. The project partners prepared two press releases, one on the launch of the first questionnaire and the second one on the final public event. The articles in local newspapers contribute to the information on flood risk management.

Figure 28: Articles in local newspapers

49

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

7 Conclusions At the end of the IMRA case study, the Italian project team collected and summarised some conclusions, which we divided in two aspects: “lessons learned” of the project and “problems, hindrances and hindrances of a participation process in flood risk management”.

7.1 Lessons learned Some important aspects from the implementation of the IMRA project in the case study area of the Chiascio river basin are: 

The presentation of the topic of flood risk in general contributes already to an awareness raising of the importance of the topic, especially at the stakeholders in the public administration. This became obvious from the several meetings;



Key people who have a particular interest in the topic (as e.g. the technician of the municipality of Assisi or some teachers in schools) are of high importance to promote any activity and involvement;



Participation has a large range of possibilities for activities. In Italy participation of stakeholders in the form of “Conferenze programmatiche” is a common practice (and legally binding) for the acceptance of the Hydrogeological Setting Plan (PAI). The Conference, attended by the Region, the Provinces and the concerned municipalities, together with the River Basin Authority, expresses an opinion on the draft plan with particular reference to the integration of content on a local scale and provides the necessary hydrogeological requirements and planning measures.

The River Basin Authority publishes and makes the adopted plan available for consultation and for observation to the general public, and gives the public a minimum period of six months for submission of written comments. These will be evaluated - accepted or rejected- before the final approval. At the moment the active participation during the “development” of the plan it is still not relevant, as the plans are all in place.

The involvement of the general public in the set-up of plans is a new concept and this was an important outcome of the stakeholder workshops implemented during the IMRA case study. In fact, as required by European Directive 2007/60/EC, the active participation must be something more than an information campaign, should have the objective of improving the quality and applicability of these results and may have a dynamic assessment and management of flood risks, influencing the decision-making process differently than it is now (that is, in retrospect).

The new Flood risk management Plan for the Tevere district, which derives from the implementation of Directive 2007/60, must be drafted by December 2015. The new Plan should follow a defined process of active participation in its entire planning path and this also will be based on the indications resulting from the experience of research and testing methodologies for involving stakeholders in the sub-basin of the Chiascio river during the IMRA project.



During the IMRA project we decided to address the school population trying to convey “the message” to people considered more receptive and using them 50

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

vehicles to forward the information to their families. In this activity we have observed that young people do not know their territory.

Evidently, new generations have lived - for various reasons of social order much of their time at home (television, computer, afraid of their parents etc.) and they have not developed a relationship with their own land. We learned that there is a great need to re-build this bond and a research project as IMRA with interactive lessons in schools can help to achieve this goal. 

In order to implement the communication strategy, IMRA project partners went into the classrooms together with the students and could observe that young people show a clear inclination to multimedia communication. Therefore, if you want a good feedback by the new generation, it is necessary to use digital supports, videos, interviews and different tools, avoiding books and other conventional means.



A survey on risk perception and management has been carried out to provide a picture of the stakeholders and citizens flood risk perception and how the perception changed after the implementation of the communication measures.

The survey results underlined that the communication actions of the project had positive effects on the people; these actions mainly involved schools, volunteers organizations and Civil Protection. Teachers and students were spokesperson to their families of things learned about flood risk, increasing individual and collective awareness. They administrated the two questionnaires of the IMRA project to their families and their friends. Furthermore also Civil Protection and volunteers organizations helped us in the questionnaires administration. A qualitative analysis from the survey underlines that the knowledge and people flood risk awareness was considerably increased after the communication actions.



Older people are the historical memory of their territory: only they can tell the ancient stories of the river Chiascio because they have been living an intense relationship with it. As a consequence it is necessary to promote the relationship between the old and new generations because the elderly can transfer their knowledge helping to raise awareness and flood risk perception and we learnt that the younger generation is interested to listen to those stories.

7.2 Problems, hindrances and chances of a participation process in flood risk management Already during the very first meeting with the representatives of the concerned municipalities it became clear that the case study area is huge and that their interests and pressing topics are very diverse. In fact the case study area with a largely distributed population. This means that many actors to be contacted and activated which costs a lot of effort of the IMRA project team.

Another aspect that was mentioned several times in the report is that the flood risk management plan of the Chiascio river basin is already defined and approved.

Therefore public participation is more on perception and awareness, less on active participation in its definition. This was is reflected in the communication activities that the IMRA project team planned and implemented.

Moreover it is necessary to better focus on the role of urban planning in the areas prone to floods.

51

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

A planning activity can be considered a preventive action, an activity in deferred time, whose goal is to preserve the rivers’ living space. This means that some parts of the territory could (should) be submerged during a flood: in Italy we call these areas “Hazard river zones” in our Hydrological setting plan (Piano di Assetto Idrogeologico – PAI). These areas have to remain free from human settlements and could be involved in a renaturation process.

Side note: This issue highlights another problem in relationship between Civil Protection Department activities and river basin planning: in fact in Italy it would be necessary to better integrate planning and civil protection as it has been realised already in other European countries.

Therefore the hazard zones allow to better control water depth and water velocity in case of flood. But what can be done if these hazard zones are assigned for new settlements by urban planning? If private interests converge on these areas?

This is a typical case of conflict between the so-called needs of socio-economic developments (most of the time buildings, factories, housing) and environmental protection: this should be solved by means of public policy and we know that nowadays public policy needs public participation.

For this reason, as said before, it is necessary to convey the message that it is more convenient (and, in the end, more efficient in terms of social and economic costs) for a resilient community to sacrifice some rights of ownership than to pay huge costs due to the destruction caused by a flood.

As a side effect of the previous point we observed, during our public meetings in the Chiascio river municipalities, two different and often opposite sides: the first representing environmental NGOs, (and in general a “green” point of view) and the second representing an economic model based on big developments of territorial infrastructures.

The aim of a participation process, inter alia, is to show the different solutions at the technical level trying to value the best scenario in relation to the different aspects: environmental, economic, social and so on. Therefore the role of a neutral facilitator and mediator is essential, working in close collaboration with the scientific experts and engineers.

There are different techniques for giving a measure or a weight to each of the considered aspects (e.g. from multi-criteria analysis to cluster analysis etc.). The goal is to elaborate a range of possible solutions and to create a common vision and, possibly agreement or at least informed understanding, among the population prone to risk of flooding. In general we observed that the more a country is based on participatory democracy, the more it is possible to create a common vision and avoid conflicts about land development. However we are aware that a specific institutional budget would be necessary in order to implement such a process.

In order to enhance this concept and to give also an operative significance to the IMRA project, we should transform the IMRA handbook “Planning and implementing communication and public participation processes in flood risk management” a sort of guideline in our risk management plan, such as a real annex to the plan that will be endorsed. Each water authority should use it to prepare its participation process.

52

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Finally, we perceived a problem about the timing of the surveys: in fact, the observation after the actions carried out and the administration of a new questionnaire and the evaluation of effects can require a longer time period for a more precise quantitative estimation of the effects of actions. For this purpose it is necessary to establish precisely when to administer the questionnaire during the research: in other words there must be enough time to observe the effects deriving by the measures chosen; besides, in general, a lot of reminders are required in order to obtain the expected feedback.

53

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

References Mark Fleischhauer, Therese Stickler, Stefan Greiving, Sylvia Wanczura (2010) “Del. 1.2 IMRA concept for participatory flood risk management aiming at the improvement of risk awareness and increased public participation“ ISTAT (2008) “Annuario Statistico Regionale dell’Umbria”, ISBN: 978-88-458-1590-4, Cod. SIGED: 1F012008012000005 ISTAT (2009) “Annuario Statistico Italiano”, Cod. ISBN: 978-88-458-1618-5, Cod. SIGED: 1G012009000000005

Publisuisse (2009) “Die Sinus-Milieus International”, available at: http://www.publisuisse.ch/de/research/zielgruppen/psychografisch/sinus_milie us_international.cfm Tevere River Basin Authority, University of Perugia (2000) “Flood maps for main network in Tevere river basin” Tevere River Basin Authority (2006) “Hydrological setting plan” Umbria region, Tevere River Basin Authority, CNR – IRPI Perugia (2005) “Flood maps for secondary network in Tevere river basin”

54

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Annexes

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Annex I: Interview with local administration technicians in the Chiascio area 1. In your opinion, what is the flood risk level in this area?

2. In your opinion, what could be the possible consequences of a flood event?

3. In your opinion, how and how much do people perceive flood risk in this area?

4. In your opinion, what is citizens’ information, knowledge and awareness about this topic?

5. What are the prevention measures that you implement to face these risks?

6. What are the emergency plans that you implement to face these risks?

7. Which communication tools do you use to inform population about potential risks and the implemented measures to face them?

8. How did population react?

9. Which additional tools should be used to communicate information about flood risk to citizens?

10. In your opinion, how much citizens are informed about the flood risk management and the defence measures?

11. Do you think it is necessary to show the boundaries of the areas subject to flood risk with awareness campaigns, oriented, for instance, towards the students of the Chiascio area?

12. If the answer is yes, what are the funds that should be used to support this activity?

13. In your opinion, how is it possible to enhance the public awareness (for instance of scholars)?

14. Do you have resources and tools to create awareness? If they are not available, where could you find them?

15. Does a warning system for flood alert exist in the areas of your municipality affected by flood risk?

16. If the answer is no, do you consider this warning system a priority action?

17. Which role do you think your institution has in the management of the flood risk?

18. Have you ever implemented activities to encourage participation and involvement of citizens in the decision making process?

19. Which results did you get? (What the participation of citizens was?)

20. Do you know the actions and emergency plans implemented by other local administrators/operators/ civil protection involved in similar issues in your or in other territories?

21. If you know these actions, how do you consider these activities?

22. How do you think the dialogue among institutions and between these and the public could be improved?

23. Which problems / issues related to management of the flood risk should be dealt and how?

24. Do you know damages for settlement in risk areas during the last flood risks?

25. Are planned defence hydraulic systems of existing settlements within areas classified as very high flood risk areas?

26. In your opinion the free wandering river is sufficient to prevent and limit the flood risk and promote the natural flow of flood water?

27. Do you know implemented in other territories that have or could have effects on your territory?

28. How public institutions hierarchically over Municipalities can support the local administrations in the implementation of actions to prevent the flood risk?

29. Which other figure, institution, or organization do you think is useful to involve in this project (through questionnaires, events, etc)?

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Annex II: The first questionnaire for the wide public in the Chiascio area

Integrate, Consolidate and Disseminate European Flood Risk Management Research

2° Bando ERA-Net CRUE Research Funding Initiative

Direttiva europea 2007/60 CE “Alluvioni”: progetto IMRA per migliorare la consapevolezza del rischio e la partecipazione pubblica Progetto finanziato da: Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA) Ministero Federale dell’Agricultura, delle Foreste, dell’Ambiente e della Gestione dell’acqua (BMLFUW), Austria Ministero Federale dell’Educazione & Ricerca (BMBF), Germania

Presentazione Questionario IMRA Il progetto IMRA (Integrative flood risk governance approach) è un progetto europeo sulla gestione del rischio idraulico finanziato nell’ambito della 2nd ERA-Net CRUE Research Funding iniztiative.

Il progetto ha lo scopo di sviluppare la consapevolezza del rischio e la partecipazione della cittadinanza e dei portatori di interessi. Il piano di lavoro del progetto prevede tre casi di studio in tre diverse aree, uno in Germania, uno in Austria e uno in Italia, con lo scopo di studiare il processo decisionale e partecipativo relativo alla pianificazione e all’attuazione dei piani di prevenzione e di governance del rischio idraulico e di stimolare la partecipazione e l’adozione di buone pratiche che costituiscano un punto di riferimento a livello europeo.

Come caso di studio italiano è stato scelta la valle del Chiascio.

A questo scopo l’Istituto di Ricerche sulla Popolazione e le Politiche Sociali del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, l’Autorità di Bacino del Tevere e la T6 Ecosystems S.r.l. hanno predisposto il questionario in allegato, finalizzato a raccogliere informazioni sulla percezione del rischio idraulico nella valle del Chiascio.

I dati raccolti con il Questionario saranno trattati in modo da garantire rigorosamente l’ANONIMATO e le conoscenze così attinte saranno utilizzate ai soli scopi scientifici del progetto.

Se volete compilare il questionario utilizzando Internet, potete connettervi al sito

http://www.imra.cnr.it/index.php/it/casi-di-studio/chiascio e cliccare sul link: Compila il questionario Per chi successivamente fosse interessato a ricevere informazioni sui risultati dell’indagine, potrà connettersi al sito http://www.imra.cnr.it/index.php/it/casi-di-studio/chiascio.

Il questionario, dopo essere stato compilato, dovrebbe essere restituito entro il 20 maggio 2010.

Grazie per la collaborazione Per ogni altra informazione inviare una e-mail all’attenzione di Patrizia Grifoni a: imra.imra@irpps.cnr.it

PROGETTO IMRA Progetto europeo per la sperimentazione - sul caso di studio del bacino del basso Chiascio – dei processi partecipativi previsti dall’art. 14 della Direttiva Europea 2007/60/CE sulla gestione dei rischi di alluvione.

QUESTIONARIO Comune

Località

Data

Sezione 1. Prima, abbiamo bisogno di conoscere alcune informazioni generali su di te 1.Sesso: Età

Maschio

Femmina

anni

2.Quale è il tuo settore di occupazione?

A.

Agricoltura

B.

Industria

C.

Studente

D.

Disoccupato

E.

Casalinga/casalingo

F.

Servizi, specificare quali

G.

Pensionato, specificare la precedente occupazione

H.

Altro, specificare

3.Quale è il tuo titolo di studio?

A.

Scuola elementare

B.

Scuola media

C.

Scuola superiore

D.

Laurea

E.

Altro, specificare

4.Quante persone vivono nella tua casa includendo te?

A. Totale

B. Anziani (più di 65 anni)

C. Adulti (18-65 anni)

D. Bambini e ragazzi (meno di 18 anni)

5.Da quanto tempo vivi in questo comune?

6.In quale tipo di abitazione vivi?

A.

Appartamento al piano semi interrato

B.

Appartamento al piano terra

C.

Appartamento al primo piano o più alto

D.

Altro, specificare

anni

7.Da quante generazioni la tua famiglia vive in questo comune?

anni

Sezione 2. La tua esperienza con il pericolo di alluvioni Il pericolo di alluvione è un fenomeno naturale che può avere effetti negativi sull’ambiente o sulla società. Così come frane, terremoti, incendi, valanghe, cadute di massi etc etc 8.Quanto ti senti coinvolto quando pensi ai pericoli di alluvione nel tuo comune?

Niente affatto

Solo un po’

1

Abbastanza

2

3

Molto

Completamente

4

5

9.Hai mai vissuto l’esperienza del pericolo di alluvione?

A.

Si, ma non ho subito alcun danno

B.

Si e ne sono stato direttamente colpito

C.

No, ma so che ce ne sono state alcune in questo comune

D.

No, e non ho mai sentito che ce ne siano state in questo comune

Se si, per favore specifica brevemente quando, dove, e cosa è accaduto e se ci sono stati danni

10. La tua casa, il tuo appartamento o la tua proprietà sono mai state allagate ?

A.

No, mai

B.

Si, una volta

C.

Si, più di una volta

D.

Non so

11. Siete stati mai evacuati, tu, la tua famiglia o le tue attività durante un’alluvione?

A.

Si

B.

No

C.

Non so

12. Vi siete mai sentiti, tu o qualche membro della tua famiglia, in serio pericolo durante una alluvione?

A.

Si

B.

No

C.

Non so

13. Come descriveresti l’impatto economico dei danni provocati dall’ultima alluvione sui tuoi beni ?

A.

Molto serio

B.

Serio

C.

Piccolo

D.

Quasi irrilevante

E.

Non so

14.

Sei a conoscenza di eventuali fondi pubblici stanziati per il risarcimento dei danni dell’ultima alluvione nel tuo comune? Se sì: A.

Meno di 100 mila euro

B.

Tra 100 - 500 mila euro

C.

Tra 1 - 50 Milioni

D.

Più di 50 milioni

E.

Non so

15.

Ritieni che le misure di prevenzione possono comportare un risparmio economico per la tua comunità?

A.

Si

B.

No C.

Non so

Sezione 3. Conoscenza del fenomeno alluvione 16. Conosci l’estensione delle aree soggette al pericolo di inondazione nel tuo comune? (pericolo di inondazione = probabilità che si verifichi una inondazione) A. 17.

A. 18.

Si

B.

No

Se si, sai come sono state delimitate?

Si

B.

No

Conosci la localizzazione delle aree a rischio di inondazione nel tuo comune?

(rischio di inondazione = entità del danno atteso su persone e beni in relazione al verificarsi di una inondazione) A. 19.

A.

Si

B.

No

Se sì, sai come sono state delimitate?

Si

B.

No

20.

I cambiamenti climatici possono influire sulla estensione delle aree soggette ad alluvione nel tuo comune?

A.

No, perché agiscono a livello globale

B.

Si, perché possono influenzare il regime dei fiumi a livello locale

C.

Non so

Sezione 4. Possibili inondazioni nel tuo comune 21. Vivi in un’area a rischio di alluvione?

A.

Si

B.

No

C.

Non so

22. Con quale frequenza credi che la tua casa, il tuo appartamento o le tue proprietà possano essere allagati? Diresti A.

Minore di 1 anno

B.

Tra 1 e 5 anni

C.

Tra 5 e 20 anni

D.

Tra 20 e 100 anni

E.

Superiore a 100 anni

F.

Non so

23. In relazione ad una possibile alluvione, per ognuna delle seguenti affermazioni, con quale probabilità tu pensi che…?

Non probabile a. Ci sarà una alluvione in questo comunità nel prossimo anno b. Il mio comune sarà colpito negativamente dalla prossima alluvione c. Tu (o la tua famiglia) sarete danneggiati dalla prossima alluvione d. La tua casa e le tue proprietà subiranno danni a causa della prossima alluvione e. I servizi essenziali ( reti dei trasporti, elettricità, acqua…) subiranno danni a causa della prossima alluvione

Probabil Molto e probabile

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Sezione 5. Comunicazione, mitigazione e piano di evacuazione 24. Hai mai ricevuto informazioni sui pericoli di alluvione nel tuo comune ?

A.

Si

B.

No

25. Se hai risposto si alla precedente domanda per favore specifica a. Come hai ricevuto le informazioni: A.

Membri della famiglia

B.

Vicini o amici

C.

Stampa

D.

Radio

E.

Televisione

F.

Internet

G.

Manifesti in spazi pubblici

H.

Durante un incontro pubblico

I.

Volantini o brochures

J.

Altro, specificare

b. Hai cercato tu le informazioni?

A.

Si

B.

No

26. Vorresti ricevere nuove informazioni sul pericolo di alluvione?

A.

Si

B.

No

27. Se hai risposto si alla domanda precedente, specifica in che modo vorresti ricevere queste nuove informazioni? (E’ possibile dare più risposte) A.

Stampa

B.

Radio

C.

Televisione

D.

Internet

E.

Poster nei luoghi pubblici

F.

Durante un incontro pubblico

G.

Volantini o brochures

H.

Altro, specificare

28. Chi ritieni dovrebbe fornire informazioni sul pericolo di inondazione? (E’ possibile dare più risposte) A.

Amministrazione comunale

B.

Comunità montane

C.

Amministrazione Regionale

D.

Amministrazioni statali

E.

Scienziati (tecnici)

F.

Media (giornalisti)

G.

Protezione Civile

H.

Altro, specificare

29. Esistono misure per la gestione delle inondazioni o opere di difesa dalle inondazioni nel tuo comune?

A.

Si

B.

No

C.

Non so

30.

Se si, ritieni che siano efficaci?

A.

Si

B.

No

C.

Non so

31. In che modo vorresti ricevere informazioni sulla gestione delle alluvioni e sulle misure di difesa nel tuo comune?

A.

Stampa

B.

Radio/TV

C.

Volantini

D.

Internet

E.

E-Mail

F.

Numero verde

G.

Sorvegliante idraulico

H.

Gruppi locali di volontariato

I.

Durante un incontro pubblico

J.

K. L.

Non voglio ricevere informazioni

Di persona da un rappresentante della Autorità ambientale nazionale o locale Altro, specificare

32. Conosci il piano di protezione civile e le procedure da seguire in caso di emergenza causata da una inondazione?

A.

Si

B.

No

33. Sei mai stato, tu o qualcuno della tua famiglia, volontario della Protezione Civile, dei Vigili del Fuoco o di altro gruppo di volontari?

A.

Si

B.

No

Non so

se sì specifica quale gruppo 34. Secondo te quale è il modo migliore per dare l’allarme di pericolo di inondazione nel tuo comune?

A.

Radio

B.

Segnale acustico, come sirena o altoparlante

C.

Televisione

D.

Internet

E.

SMS sul telefonino

F.

Una persona che da l’allarme porta a porta

G.

Telefonata (telefono fisso)

H.

Altro, specificare

35. Se si verifica una inondazione nel tuo comune, sai chi è il responsabile della gestione dell’ emergenza?

A.

Si

B.

No

C.

Non so

se sì, specifica chi tra: A.

Amministrazione comunale

B.

Comunità Montana

C.

Amministrazione Regionale

D.

Amministrazioni statali

E.

Vicinato

F.

Tu o la tua famiglia

G.

Protezione Civile

H.

Altro, specificare

36. Sai chi sostiene i costi per la difesa dalle inondazioni nel tuo comune?

A.

Si

B.

No

se sì, specifica chi tra: (SELEZIONA QUELLO CHE RITIENI PERTINENTE) A.

I singoli che si trovano in aree a rischio di inondazione

B.

C. Governo centrale /regionale assicurazione

D.

E.

Gestori delle dighe

F.

G.

Non lo so

Autorità locali Compagnie

di

Altri

Sezione 6. Disponibilità a modificare la propria situazione abitativa

37. Se vivi in un’area a rischio di inondazione, hai mai considerato l’idea di spostarti a causa del rischio di inondazione?

A.

Si

B.

No

C.

Non so

38.

Perché non ti sei spostato?

A.

Rischio di piena basso

B.

Difficoltà a vendere casa

C.

Motivi personali (età avanzata, lavoro etc.)

D.

Bel quartiere

E.

Non so

F.

Altro, specificare

Sezione 7. Consapevolezza e preparazione ad un possibile evento di piena 39. Come pensi che i seguenti soggetti siano preparati per affrontare una futura inondazione?

Non preparati

Preparati

Molto ben preparati

a. Amministrazione comunale

1

2

3

b. Comunità Montana

1

2

3

c. Amministrazione Regionale

1

2

3

d. Amminitrazioni statali e. Protezione civile f. Media (giornalisti)

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

g. Tu o la tua famiglia

1

2

3

40. Quali iniziative hai intrapreso per prepararti per l’alluvione e per limitarne i potenziali danni? (SELEZIONA TUTTO QUELLO CHE RITIENI PERTINENTE) A.

Sto verificando l’assicurazione dell’abitazione

B.

Ho previsto misure di emergenza

C.

Sto controllando come vengono dati gli allarmi

D.

Sto valutando la resistenza alla piena della mia abitazione

E.

Altre iniziative

F.

Non ho intrapreso iniziative

G.

Non so

41. Sei disposto a considerare la possibilità di ulteriori investimenti nella tua casa/appartamento per ridurre l'impatto di eventuali danni provocati dalle inondazioni (materiale impermeabile su piani interrati, espansione soffitta, ecc)?

A.

Sì

B.

No

C.

Non so

Sezione 8. Normativa e pianificazione del territorio a rischio nel comune

42. Conosci l’attuale normativa sul pericolo di inondazione nel tuo territorio?

No 1

Un po’ 2

Abbastanza 3

Molto 4

Si, del tutto 5

43. Quanto sei d’accordo su quello che la normativa dovrebbe prescrivere: Completamente in disaccordo

a. Forzare le istituzioni ad informare sul rischio di inondazione nel loro territorio b. Forzare le istituzioni a predisporre un piano di intervento in caso di emergenza c. Essere più restrittiva sulla urbanizzazione e sullo sviluppo del territorio in zone classificate come ad alto rischio d. Essere più severi con chiunque intraprenda attività che aumentino il livello di rischio di inondazione e. Altro, specificare…….

D’accordo

Completamente d’accordo

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Sezione 9. Informazioni ricevute riguardo ai rischi 44. Si è mai tenuto qualche workshop, riunione o discussione sui rischi di alluvione in questo comune?

A.

Si, e ho partecipato

B.

Si, ma non ho partecipato

C.

No, non c’è mai stato

D.

Non so

45. Sai se c’è mai stata qualche esercitazione (per la preparazione e la evacuazione in caso di emergenza) in questo comune?

A.

Si, e ho partecipato

B.

Si, ma non ho partecipato

C.

No, non c’è mai stato

D.

Non so

46. Stiamo preparando un incontro pubblico nel tuo comune per informare la popolazione sul rischio di inondazione, parteciperai?

A.

Si

B.

No

C.

Non so

Grazie per la tua partecipazione! Hai eventuali commenti?

IMRA IV-4.1.3.3a

Final report on Italian case study results

31 August 2011

Annex III: The second questionnaire for the wide public in the Chiascio area

PROGETTO IMRA (Progetto europeo per la sperimentazione - sul caso di studio del bacino del basso Chiascio – dei processi partecipativi previsti dall’art. 14 della Direttiva Europea 2007/60/CE sulla gestione dei rischi di alluvione) Il progetto IMRA (Integrative flood risk governance approach) è un progetto europeo sulla gestione del rischio idraulico finanziato nell’ambito della 2nd ERA-Net CRUE Research Funding iniztiative.

Il piano di lavoro del progetto ha previsto tre casi di studio in tre diverse aree, uno in Germania, uno in Austria e uno in Italia, con lo scopo di studiare il processo decisionale e partecipativo relativo alla pianificazione e all’attuazione dei piani di prevenzione e di governance del rischio idraulico e di stimolare la partecipazione e l’adozione di buone pratiche che costituiscano un punto di riferimento a livello europeo. Come caso di studio italiano è stato scelta la valle del Chiascio. Già durante la prima fase del progetto è stato distribuito un questionario con lo scopo di avere un quadro sulla percezione del rischio, sul coinvolgimento e sui processi di partecipazione dei cittadini nell’area del Chiascio.

A conclusione del progetto viene ri-proposto il questionario allegato con il fine di analizzare gli effetti delle azioni del progetto IMRA sulla conoscenza, la consapevolezza del rischio idraulico e la partecipazione della cittadinanza.

I dati raccolti con il Questionario saranno trattati in modo da garantire rigorosamente l’ANONIMATO e le conoscenze così attinte saranno utilizzate ai soli scopi scientifici del progetto.

Grazie per la collaborazione

QUESTIONARIO PER IL PUBBLICO Comune

località

Hai già partecipato al primo questionario dell’anno scorso?

A.

Si

B.

No

Sezione 1. Prima, abbiamo bisogno di conoscere alcune informazioni generali su di te

1. Sesso:

2. Età

Maschio

Femmina

anni

3. Quale è il tuo settore di occupazione?

A.

Agricoltura

B.

Industria

C.

Studente

D.

Disoccupato

E.

Casalinga/casalingo

F.

Servizi, specificare quali

Page 1 of 5

Data

G.

Pensionato, specificare la precedente occupazione

H.

Altro, prego specificare

4. Quale è il tuo titolo di studio?

A.

Scuola elementare

B.

C.

Scuola superioreD.

Scuola media

Laurea

E. Altro, prego specificare

5. Quanto ti senti coinvolto quando pensi ai pericoli di alluvione nella tuo comune?

Niente affatto

Solo un po’

1

Abbastanza

2

3

Molto 4

Completamente 5

Sezione 3. Conoscenza del fenomeno alluvione 6. Conosci l’estensione delle aree soggette al pericolo di inondazione nel tuo comune? (pericolo di inondazione = probabilità che si verifichi una inondazione) A.

7.

Si

B.

No

Conosci la localizzazione delle aree a rischio di inondazione nel tuo comune?

(rischio di inondazione = entità del danno atteso su persone e beni in relazione al verificarsi di una inondazione) A.

8.

Si

B.

No

I cambiamenti climatici possono influire sulla estensione delle aree soggette ad alluvione nel tuo comune?

A.

No, perchè agiscono a livello globale

B.

Si, perché possono influenzare il regime dei fiumi a livello locale

C.

Non so

Sezione 4. Possibili inondazioni nel tuo comune 9. Vivi in un’area a rischio di alluvione?

A.

Si

B.

No C.

Non so

Sezione 5. Comunicazione, mitigazione e piano di evacuazione 10. Hai mai ricevuto informazioni sui pericoli di alluvione nel tuo comune ?

A.

Si

B.

No

11. Vorresti ricevere nuove informazioni sul pericolo di alluvione?

A.

Si

B.

No

Page 2 of 5

12. Se hai risposto si alla domanda precedente, specifica in che modo vorresti ricevere queste nuove informazioni (risposta multipla*) A.

Stampa

B.

Radio

C.

Televisione

F.

Internet

G.

Poster nei luoghi pubblici

H.

Durante un incontro pubblico

I.

Volantini o brochures

J.

Altro, specifica

13. Chi ritieni dovrebbe fornire informazioni sul pericolo di inondazione (risposta multipla*)?

A.

Amministrazione comunale

B.

Comunità montane

C.

Amministrazione Regionale

D.

Amministrazioni statali

E.

Scienziati (tecnici)

F.

Media (giornalisti)

G.

Protezione Civile

H.

Altro, specifica

14. Conosci il piano di protezione civile e le procedure da seguire in caso di emergenza causata da una inondazione?

A.

Si

B.

No

15. Se si verifica una inondazione nel tuo comune, sai chi è il responsabile della gestione dell’ emergenza?

A.

Si

B.

No C.

Non so

se si, specifica chi tra: A.

Amministrazione comunale

B.

Comunità Montana

C.

Amministrazione Regionale

D.

Amministrazioni statali

E.

Vicinato

F.

Tu o la tua famiglia

G.

Protezione Civile

H.

Altro, specifica

Sezione 7. Consapevolezza e preparazione ad un possibile evento di piena 16. Come pensi che i seguenti soggetti siano preparati per affrontare una futura inondazione ?

ALLUVIONE

Non preparati Preparati Molto ben preparati

a. Amministrazione comunale

1

2

3

b. Comunità Montana

1

2

3

Page 3 of 5

c. Amministrazione Regionale

1

2

3

d. Amminitrazioni statali

1

2

3

e. Protezione civile

1

2

3

f. Media (giornalisti)

1

2

3

g. Tu o la tua famiglia

1

2

3

17. Quali iniziative hai intrapreso per prepararti per l’ alluvione e per limitarne i potenziali danni? (SELEZIONA TUTTO QUELLO CHE RITIENI PERTINENTE) A.

Sto Verificando l’assicurazione dell’abitazione

C.

Ho previsto misure di emergenza

D.

Sto controllando come vengono dati gli allarmi

F.

Sto valutando la resistenza alla piena della mia abitazione

G.

Altre iniziative

H.

Non ho intrapreso iniziative

I.

Non so

Sezione 8. Normativa e pianificazione del territorio a rischio nel Comune 18. Conosci l’attuale normativa sul pericolo di inondazione nel tuo territorio ? SPOSTARE No

Un pò

1

2

Abbastanza 3

Molto 4

Si, del tutto 5

Sezione 9. Informazioni ricevute riguardo ai rischi

19. Il 15 aprile 2010 si è svolto un evento degli stakeholder locali a Bastia Umbria. Lei ha partecipato a questo evento?

A.

Si

B.

No

20. Se ha scelto la risposto “A” alla domanda 19, come valuta l’evento?

A.

Ho imparato tanto sul rischio alluvione del fiume Chiascio

B.

E’ stata una buona opportunità di scambio con le amministrazioni responsabili

C.

E’ stata una buona occasione per scambiare informazioni con gli altri comuni sul tema

D. E’ stata una buona occasione per scambiare informazioni con altri attori (associazioni ambientali, volontari della Protezione Civile, scuole ecc.) sul tema E.

Altro, specifica

21. Il 27 maggio 2010 si è svolto un incontro pubblico ad Assisi. Lei ha partecipato a questo evento?

A.

Si

B.

No

22. Se ha scelto la risposto “A” alla domanda 21, come valuta l’evento?

Page 4 of 5

A.

Ho imparato tanto sul rischio alluvione del fiume Chiascio

B.

E’ stata una buona opportunità di scambio con le amministrazioni responsabili

C.

E’ stata una buona occasione per scambiare informazioni con gli altri comuni sul tema

D. E’ stata una buona occasione per scambiare informazioni con altri attori (associazioni ambientali, volontari della Protezione Civile, scuole ecc.) sul tema E.

Altro, specifica

23. Dopo aver partecipato a questo progetto, pensi di aver acquisito maggiore conoscenza rispetto alla gestione del rischio alluvione?

A.

Si

B.

No

Grazie per la tua partecipazione! Hai eventuali commenti ?

IL QUESTIONARIOE’ SOMMINISTRATO AI SOLI FINI STATISTICI E NON HA ALCUN VALORE PER ALTRI SCOPI. PER TALE MOTIVO I NOMINATIVI SARANNO TRATTATI DALL’ISPRA (E NON A LIVELLO LOCALE) NEL RISPETTO DELLE NORME SULLA PRIVACY.

Se desideri essere informato circa i risultati di questa indagine o circa il progetto al quale stiamo lavorando, fornisci per favore un indirizzo postale o e-mail al quale invieremo volentieri le informazioni richieste Nome e Cognome

________________________________________________________________________

Email: Indirizzo: ___________________________________________________________________

Page 5 of 5