Earthquake Hazard Impact and Urban Planning—Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Work

  • Maria Bostenaru DanEmail author
  • Iuliana Armaş
  • Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor
  • Alessia Cerqua
  • Cristina Olga Gociman
  • Agostino Goretti
Part of the Environmental Hazards book series (ENHA)


This book, which is the second volume in a new series “Environmental hazards”, addresses a topic very much neglected in current research: the role of urban planning in earthquake disaster management. It is not a book about earthquake engineering issues but rather about management issues. Social sciences and arts are often disregarded in earthquake disaster management, the focus being mostly on technical aspects. But the study of the impact is important in order to facilitate appropriate implementation through transferring research knowledge to decision makers. The work is aimed at both junior and senior researchers creating the basis for new university curriculum, as there are very few courses in this field. The volume is organised in four sections, addressing the ‘reaction’ side of earthquake disaster management: vulnerability, planning, risk assessment and reconstruction. Each section addresses issues for decision makers, some at the level of participatory planning, as well as the role of specialists from urban planning, geography, engineering and seismology/earth sciences, while technical sciences include civil engineering and remote sensing/geo-information. We present the current state of the art in approaching the problems, the current challenges for further research and issue recommendations based on the results of current research. The work aims to reach a balance between dealing with existing heritage and new planning, because even in the twenty-first century new planning has to rely on lessons from the past. Another balance is reached between dealing with the technical and the humanities/social sciences approach, as reflected in the topic and the research methodology adopted. Case studies are emphasized, mostly from Italy and Romania, two countries that have experienced different types of earthquakes.


Urban morphology Urban system GIS Participatory planning Heritage habitat Restructuring Economics 


  1. Bostenaru Dan M (2001) Calculation of costs for seismic rehabilitation of historical buildings. In: Brebbia CA, Corz A (eds) Earthquake resistant engineering structures III. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 515–524Google Scholar
  2. Bostenaru Dan M (2004) Multi-criteria decision model for retrofitting existing buildings. Nat Hazards Earth Sys Sci 4(4):485–499Google Scholar
  3. Bostenaru Dan M (2006) Wirtschaftlichkeit und Umsetzbarkeit von Gebäudeverstärkungsmaßnahmen zur Erdbebenertüchtigung, 1st edition, Shaker Verlag, AachenGoogle Scholar
  4. Bostenaru Dan M (2010) The earthquakes and the Tsunami of 1755 and 2004—historic accidents? Bulletin of the Polytechnic Institute of Jassy—CONSTRUCTIONS. ARCHITECTURE Section, Tomme: LVI (LX) | Fascicle: 3:107–120Google Scholar
  5. Bostenaru Dan M (2011a) The session series on ‘Natural Hazards’. Impact on Urban Areas and Infrastructure’. Rev environ sci biotech 10(1):9–24. doi: 10.1007/s11157-011-9231-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bostenaru Dan M (2011b) The past: space and time. J Appl Eng Sci 1(14) 3 2011, pp 149–157Google Scholar
  7. Bostenaru Dan M (2012) Water ambivalence or natural hazards’ impact on riverine urban areas. In: Sârbu C, Popa A (eds) Development opportunities for areas related to Danube river and Danube Delta. Editura Universitară “Ion Mincu”, Bucharest, p 112–121Google Scholar
  8. Caterino N, Iervolino I, Manfredi, G, Cosenza, E (2006) Multi-criteria decision making for seismic retrofitting of an underdesigned rc structure. First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 3–8 September 2006Google Scholar
  9. Caterino N, Iervolino I, Occhiuzzi A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2007) Dissipazione passiva nella selezione dell’intervento di adeguamento sismico di un edificio in c.a. mediante analisi decisionale, L’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia–XII Convegno Nazionale dell’ANIDIS, Pisa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  10. Caterino N, Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2009) Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofitting, Computer-Aided Civil Infrastructure Eng 24:432–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowen DJ (1988) GIS versus CAD versus DBMS: what are the differences? Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 54:1551–1555Google Scholar
  12. ESRI (2001) ArcGIS 9. What is ArcGIS? Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California. Environmental Systems Research Institute Press, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. ESRI (2011) What is GIS? Accessed 2 Oct 2011
  14. Gociman CO (2006) Managementul reducerii riscului la dezastre: strategii de arhitectură şi urbanism. Editura Universitară “Ion Mincu”, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  15. Goethe JW (1891) Schriften zur Naturwissenschaft — Zur MorphologieGoogle Scholar
  16. Ioniţă A, Moise E (2001) Bilingual English-Romanian GIS & TIC dictionary. Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Romanian Academy, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  17. Iosub F (2008) Evolution of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) [in Romanian]. Accessed 2 Oct 2011
  18. Jensen JR (2000) Remote sensing of the environment. An earth resource perspective. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  19. Kappos AJ, Dimitrakopoulos EG (2008) Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of buildings based on cost-benefit and life-cycle cost analysis, with the aid of fragility curves. Nat Hazards 45(1):33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Pitilakis K (1998) Development of seismic risk scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards 17:177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kappos A, Lekidis V, Panagopoulos G, Sous I, Theodulidis N, Karakostas C, Anastasiadis T, Salonikios T, Margaris B (2007) Analytical estimation of economic loss for buildings in the area struck by the 1999 Athens earthquake and comparison with statistical repair costs. Earthquake Spectra 23(2):333–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lekidis VA, Karakostas CZ, Sous II, Anastasiadis A, Kappos A, Panagopoulos G (2005) Evaluation of economic loss for structures in the area struck by the 7/9/1999 Athens earthquake and comparison with actual repair costs. In: Brebbia CA, Beskos DE, Manolis GD, Spyrakos CC (eds) Earthquake resistant engineering structures V, pp 301–312Google Scholar
  23. Letham G (2007) ESRI, Arc/Info, ArcGIS, ArcView… 25 years in the making—a time line. Accessed 2 Oct 2011
  24. Lynch K (1960) The image of cities, MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Masure P, Lutoff C (2003) Methodology of Urban System Exposure (USE). Assessment to natural disasters, report, European commissionGoogle Scholar
  26. Zikas T, Gehbauer F (2007) Decision process and optimisation rules for seismic retrofit programs. In: SFB 461 (ed) Proceedings of the international symposium on strong Vrancea earthquakes and risk mitigation. Bucharest, Romania, p 472–484Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Bostenaru Dan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Iuliana Armaş
    • 2
  • Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor
    • 1
    • 3
  • Alessia Cerqua
    • 4
  • Cristina Olga Gociman
    • 6
  • Agostino Goretti
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Urban and Landscape Design“Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and UrbanismBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Faculty of GeographyUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania
  3. 3.National Institute for Research and Development in ConstructionsUrbanism and Sustainable Spatial Development URBAN-INCERCBucharestRomania
  4. 4.International Society of BiourbanismRomeItaly
  5. 5.Civil Protection DepartmentSeismic and Volcanic Risk OfficeRomeItaly
  6. 6.Department of Doctoral Studies“Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and UrbanismBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations