By applying building anti-seismic regulations, Italy's typical seismic events could cause drastically fewer casualties and less damage across the country
A few weeks on from the devastating earthquake that struck central Italy, affecting Amatrice and the surrounding area, the government is slowly beginning to think about long-term reconstruction. This tragedy adds to a long list of disasters caused by repeated seismic events that have struck Italian territory over the past century, and an inevitable question arises: is it possible to reduce the scale of the disasters caused by building collapses during earthquakes? Experts offer many answers, but they all converge on one unavoidable conclusion: the prevention and securing of buildings, and community resilience education, represent the first and most decisive factor in reducing the damage caused by so-called natural disasters.
Italy, by virtue of its geographical position and configuration, has always been subject to seismic activity and the aftershocks that follow. As noted in a 2013 article by the National Research Council, the first seismic regulation in Europe was issued following the disastrous earthquake of 1793 by the Bourbon dynasty, which drew up an appropriate building code and developed an interesting and effective construction system to prevent collapses caused by seismic shocks.
Fortunately, Italian anti-seismic legislation has evolved since then; however, the most recent regulations date back to 2008, and over these past few years — unfortunately marked by so many disasters — the need for a stronger, more structured legal framework has become apparent, and above all the need for a national anti-seismic maintenance and prevention plan has emerged. The plan would serve as a guiding framework for making the right decisions quickly, so as to facilitate rapid reconstruction, as stressed by the commission of university lecturers, technicians and researchers who drafted an appeal to Italy's "political class" in the wake of the Amatrice tragedy.
"The urgency after an earthquake is to act quickly, but one should act with judgement" (Fabrizio Curcio, head of the Civil Protection department)
Italy lacks a framework law that, in the aftermath of disasters, sets out guidelines on how to assist the population, suspend tax obligations, support the restart of business activity and the reconstruction of buildings. And yet earthquakes, landslides and floods are anything but rare events in a country as hydrogeologically fragile as ours.
Every time, everything has to start from scratch, as the mayor of L'Aquila, Massimo Cialente, makes clear — a man who is still dealing with the consequences of the earthquake today, more than seven years on. "After every disaster, the government has to legislate on what it is the state's responsibility to rebuild and what is not. This not only lengthens the timescales but also creates first-class and second-class disasters."
Mario Tozzi, geologist and well-known science communicator, also weighs in on the extent of the damage: "Poorly built houses and unrestored historic centres — that is the 'typical Italian earthquake'. It is not the earthquake that kills, but the poorly built house, lacking ordinary maintenance and thoughtful restoration," and he continues: "The issue in Italy is always the same: we are a hilly and mountainous country, and therefore a seismic one, but we refuse to acknowledge it and keep on living in old, poorly maintained buildings. The truth is that a magnitude-6 earthquake should not cause this level of destruction. In practice, a major state investment in securing buildings — and above all historic centres — is needed."
"It is not the earthquake that kills, but the poorly built house, lacking ordinary maintenance and thoughtful restoration" (Mario Tozzi, geologist)
Among the very first anti-seismic regulations are Law 1086/1971, governing reinforced and prestressed concrete structures and steel structures, and Law 64/1974, laying down provisions for construction with specific requirements for seismic zones. As a result, all buildings constructed before those dates may be deficient in this regard, meaning that in the event of renovation it would be advisable to assess and strengthen their structures. The regulation that currently governs anti-seismic design is the ministerial decree of 14 January 2008, technical standards for construction (NTC08), which is currently under review.
Seismic regulation is one of two prevention instruments, alongside seismic classification, and serves to lay down criteria for constructing structures in a way that reduces damage in the event of an earthquake. Before the 1970s, regulation was entirely absent and municipalities were only classified as seismic after an event had already occurred. The first turning point came in 1974 with Law no. 64, which set out the first guidelines for building construction, as well as technical and scientific criteria for designating an area as seismic. The law was, however, far from precise, and many areas remained outside the classification for a long time — until 2002, when a devastating seismic event struck Molise. From that point on, all areas were classified and hazard levels for the various zones were also established.
Franco Barberi, former under-secretary of Civil Protection, considers it "paradoxical that neither governments nor parliaments have been able to draw lessons from the Friulian model, and that improvised, uncoordinated measures have been put in place each time." As highlighted by various experts in the field, the exemplary reconstruction of Marche and Umbria following the 1997 earthquake could serve as a model for a proposed national framework law on disasters.
Building an earthquake-proof house costs 10–15 per cent more than a standard one, but making buildings seismically safe is essential if casualties and structural damage during calamitous events such as earthquakes are to be avoided. When carrying out significant renovation work on a building, it is important to check which seismic zone it falls in: whether high seismic risk (zone 1 and zone 2), medium (zone 3) or low (zone 4). The main material typically used is reinforced concrete; it must be properly mixed and, above all, have adequate stainless steel reinforcement — something that is often underestimated as a cost-saving measure. Walls must have a minimum thickness of 15 cm, and the maximum height of a building varies according to seismic risk; in zone 1 (high risk), for example, buildings should not exceed two storeys. The roof should be truss-framed, capable of withstanding tremors and preventing the total collapse that a conventional pitched roof would cause.
As regards the guidelines for the classification of buildings, the situation is still being defined but is expected to see the light of day shortly. These criteria have been drawn up directly by the Istituto di Ingegneria sismica italiana (Isi) and are intended to provide a clear and precise framework for the investments needed to make the existing building stock safe. The guidelines will include six classes, ranging from the letter A to the letter F, indicating the level of risk to which a building is exposed and how it responds to a seismic event. It will then be up to the government to reach a definitive decision: the executive is free to decide whether these guidelines will become binding or will simply remain a voluntary tool.
If effective preventive action were taken at the level of both construction and community education, and if buildings (and rebuilding works) were carried out properly, without leaving room for cheap and approximate interventions, the future could certainly change. Unfortunately, Italians' ingrained habits of cutting corners and doing things by halves are difficult to change, but fortunately there has been no shortage of good reconstruction examples in Italy, demonstrating that the system can work very well when properly managed.
Sound judgement on the part of clients and honesty on the part of builders did indeed characterise the reconstruction in Umbria (1997), for example, where 15 years on, 99 per cent of rebuilding work had been completed. Friuli (1976) was no different, so much so that people even speak of a "Friulian model" for reconstruction. In these models, the key to making the work succeed was the leading role played by mayors and local administrations, who brought honest transparency and very broad participation from both local and national communities. Less bureaucracy gave local administrations the strength to get their towns back on their feet.
"Umbria, and the reconstruction work carried out here, are proof that it is possible to do things well in Italy, without waste, scandal or inefficiency. And this is possible when there are local administrations that function and know how to work alongside their citizens."
(Franco Gabrielli, former head of the Civil Protection Department)
We are still a long way from Japan's levitating houses designed to prevent earthquake damage, but excellent, more achievable prevention systems and sustainable reconstruction methods already exist, such as timber-frame houses. A heightened awareness of sustainable post-earthquake reconstruction already exists too. In 2012, a manifesto for sustainable reconstruction was drawn up following the earthquake that had struck central Italy, with the aim of bringing transparency to the processes and of rebuilding not only the physical fabric of buildings but the social fabric as well.
"It is possible to rebuild carefully and effectively, as has already happened in many cases in Italy, but all too often people prefer to highlight scandals and waste, as though ours were a country populated solely by thieves, bunglers and incompetents." (Newspapers of the L'Espresso group, 31 August 2016)
When the works of human ingenuity are overwhelmed by the power of nature and everything is razed to the ground, we lay the blame on nature. Yet we bear a heavy ethical responsibility for this whole mess, and when our buildings collapse, we are the ones accountable. Fortunately, by applying the right laws, civic common sense, and the Italian craftsmanship that sets us apart, we undoubtedly have the ability to change things for the better — reducing the worst collapses and the impact of earthquakes on our lives and those of our fellow citizens.