GNGTS 2019 - Atti del 38° Convegno Nazionale

346 GNGTS 2019 S essione 2.2 response and the long-term recovery phase, 4) influences from exogenous factors (governance and organizational capacity) during the temporal scale of interest. Once setting the theoretical framework, and established the resilience dimensions to be assessed in each of these phases, the next step is to develop a set of common indicators, one for each resilience dimension, and then test the model in different case studies at different scales during all the phases described above. The purpose will be to establish the limit thresholds for defining the transition from a specific ULC to a different one and to provide a better understanding on what are the strategic functions and the assessment criteria that allow an urban system to reach an improved ULC (what can be defined as ULC target). After the experimentation on a significant sample of case studies, an attempt to fit the resilience dimensions and the strategic urban functions related to them into a possible hierarchy will be conducted. Yet, in order to reach the purpose, a deeper literature investigation and an empirical trans-disciplinary approach are needed. The ambition at the end of the research is to provide the basis for a virtuous process able to guide urban systems in the identification of specific planning actions for seismic risk mitigation, based on: analysis of the initial condition, definition of the target ULC target, assessment of the initial condition with reference to the specific target, planning and implementation of programmes and actions to reach ULC target and reduce seismic risk. To sum-up: in relation to resilience theories, the ULC scheme introduces on one hand the concept of threshold (i.e. measurement); on the other the definition of more specific goals with respect to the various definitions of resilience. Further research steps are: a) detailed definition of the conceptual structure in terms of detection and measurability (indicators); b) experimentation in pilot case studies, with continuous feedback processes for adjusting the goals. Acknowledgement. This research was supported by the Italian Civil Protection Department within the project “Contratto concernente l’affidamento di servizi per il programma per il supporto al rafforzamento della Governance in materia di riduzione del rischio sismico e vulcanico ai fini di protezione civile nell’ambito del PON Governance e Capacità Istituzionale 2014-2020 - CIG6980737E65”. Authors would like to thank Fabrizio Bramerini, Sergio Table 1 - Urban Resilience Dimensions. Elaboration by the authors PEOPLES Framework (Cimellaro et al. , 2016) P - Population and demographics E- ecosystem and environment O-organized governmental services P- Physical infrastructure L- Life and community competence E- Economic development S- Social cultural capital Recovery Support function (FEMA, 2011) Community planning and capacity building Natural and cultural resources Infrastructure systems Housing Economic recovery support function Health and social services City Resilience Framework (Rockefeller Foundation, Arup group, 2015) Leadership and strategy Infrastructure and ecosystems Health and Wellbeing Economy and society TOSE Framework (Bruneau et al. , 2003) T-Technical O-Organization E-Economic S-Social Disaster Resilience Of Place (Cutter et al. , 2008) Community Capital Institutional Infrastructure Economic Social