Flood risk management is increasingly recognized as a crucial component of sustainable territorial governance worldwide, particularly in contexts such as the Lombardy Region (northern Italy), where extensive urban development and the effects of climate change exacerbate hydrological hazards. However, the strategic prioritization of flood mitigation investments remains challenging due to institutional, technical, and methodological gaps. In Italy, existing national and regional evaluation systems often struggle to effectively distinguish among project proposals or to integrate broader sustainability criteria and stakeholder values into decision-making processes. This doctoral research was developed in close collaboration with the Lombardy Region, which acted as the primary institutional partner and stakeholder throughout the study. The main objective was to create a structured, transparent, and operationally feasible decision-support framework for the evaluation and prioritization of structural flood risk mitigation projects, capable of overcoming the limitations of current practices and supporting evidence-based, sustainable investment choices. The proposed methodology relies on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), allowing for the systematic integration of technical, economic, environmental, and social dimensions into the project evaluation process. A key innovation of this research lies in its participatory approach, which involved regional stakeholders in defining evaluation objectives, structuring decision criteria, and determining weighting schemes, ensuring methodological transparency and institutional relevance. Two specific evaluation procedures were developed. Procedure 1 focuses on feasibility-level assessments of new structural interventions. It integrates quantitative analyses, primarily based on hydraulic modelling, to estimate both risk reduction and cost-effectiveness. These are complemented by qualitative evaluations addressing environmental and social impacts. Procedure 2 focuses on maintenance interventions, relying primarily on qualitative assessments due to the frequent absence of hydraulic modelling in such projects. Both procedures adopt a modular, stepwise structure that supports a gradual and transparent merit classification of projects, enabling progressive exclusion or prioritization based on defined thresholds and decision rules. The framework was successfully applied to representative case studies, demonstrating its technical feasibility and its potential to improve the objectivity, consistency, and traceability of project assessments, as well as to provide a structured merit classification supporting transparent prioritization. While the methodology is already operational under current conditions, future work will focus on calibrating key parameters using broader datasets and expanding stakeholder engagement to include additional institutions involved in flood risk governance. Ultimately, this research contributes a robust and adaptable decision-support tool designed to guide transparent, sustainable, and impact-oriented allocation of public resources in flood risk mitigation, with potential transferability to other regional and national contexts worldwide.
La gestione del rischio di alluvioni è sempre più centrale nella governance sostenibile del territorio, soprattutto in contesti come la Lombardia, dove la forte urbanizzazione e gli effetti dei cambiamenti climatici aggravano il dissesto idrogeologico. Identificare gli interventi prioritari per la mitigazione del rischio resta tuttavia complesso, a causa di limiti istituzionali, tecnici e metodologici. In Italia, i sistemi di valutazione nazionali e regionali spesso non riescono a distinguere efficacemente tra le proposte progettuali, né a integrare criteri di sostenibilità e valori degli stakeholder nei processi decisionali. Questa ricerca di dottorato, sviluppata in stretta collaborazione con la Regione Lombardia, partner istituzionale e principale stakeholder, ha avuto l’obiettivo di costruire una metodologia di supporto alle decisioni strutturata, trasparente e applicabile operativamente. L’intento è superare le criticità delle pratiche attuali e promuovere scelte d’investimento basate su evidenze e orientate alla sostenibilità. La metodologia proposta si basa sull’Analisi Multi-criteri, che consente di integrare in modo sistematico dimensioni tecniche, economiche, ambientali e sociali nella valutazione dei progetti. Un aspetto innovativo è l’approccio partecipativo: gli attori regionali sono stati coinvolti nella definizione degli obiettivi, nella strutturazione dei criteri e nell’attribuzione dei pesi, garantendo trasparenza e coerenza istituzionale. Sono state sviluppate due procedure di valutazione: la Procedura 1, per nuove opere strutturali, combina analisi quantitative basate su modellazione idraulica per stimare la riduzione attesa del rischio e l’efficienza economica dell’intervento, con valutazioni qualitative degli impatti ambientali e sociali; la Procedura 2, dedicata agli interventi di manutenzione, si fonda principalmente su valutazioni qualitative, data la frequente assenza di studi idraulici specifici. Entrambe le procedure adottano una struttura modulare e progressiva, che consente una classificazione trasparente e graduale dei progetti (o, se necessario, la loro esclusione) sulla base di soglie e regole predefinite. L’applicazione a casi di studio rappresentativi ha dimostrato la fattibilità tecnica del quadro metodologico e il suo potenziale nel rendere le valutazioni più oggettive, coerenti e tracciabili, fornendo una base meritocratica per la selezione degli interventi. Sebbene già operativa, la metodologia potrà essere ulteriormente raffinata attraverso la calibrazione dei parametri su dataset più ampi e l’ampliamento del coinvolgimento istituzionale. In prospettiva, offre uno strumento di supporto decisionale robusto e adattabile, pensato per orientare la distribuzione delle risorse pubbliche in modo più trasparente, sostenibile ed efficace nella mitigazione del rischio di alluvioni, con potenziale trasferibilità ad altri contesti regionali e nazionali.
A multi-criteria decision framework for flood risk mitigation planning in the Lombardy Region
Gallazzi, Alice
2024/2025
Abstract
Flood risk management is increasingly recognized as a crucial component of sustainable territorial governance worldwide, particularly in contexts such as the Lombardy Region (northern Italy), where extensive urban development and the effects of climate change exacerbate hydrological hazards. However, the strategic prioritization of flood mitigation investments remains challenging due to institutional, technical, and methodological gaps. In Italy, existing national and regional evaluation systems often struggle to effectively distinguish among project proposals or to integrate broader sustainability criteria and stakeholder values into decision-making processes. This doctoral research was developed in close collaboration with the Lombardy Region, which acted as the primary institutional partner and stakeholder throughout the study. The main objective was to create a structured, transparent, and operationally feasible decision-support framework for the evaluation and prioritization of structural flood risk mitigation projects, capable of overcoming the limitations of current practices and supporting evidence-based, sustainable investment choices. The proposed methodology relies on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), allowing for the systematic integration of technical, economic, environmental, and social dimensions into the project evaluation process. A key innovation of this research lies in its participatory approach, which involved regional stakeholders in defining evaluation objectives, structuring decision criteria, and determining weighting schemes, ensuring methodological transparency and institutional relevance. Two specific evaluation procedures were developed. Procedure 1 focuses on feasibility-level assessments of new structural interventions. It integrates quantitative analyses, primarily based on hydraulic modelling, to estimate both risk reduction and cost-effectiveness. These are complemented by qualitative evaluations addressing environmental and social impacts. Procedure 2 focuses on maintenance interventions, relying primarily on qualitative assessments due to the frequent absence of hydraulic modelling in such projects. Both procedures adopt a modular, stepwise structure that supports a gradual and transparent merit classification of projects, enabling progressive exclusion or prioritization based on defined thresholds and decision rules. The framework was successfully applied to representative case studies, demonstrating its technical feasibility and its potential to improve the objectivity, consistency, and traceability of project assessments, as well as to provide a structured merit classification supporting transparent prioritization. While the methodology is already operational under current conditions, future work will focus on calibrating key parameters using broader datasets and expanding stakeholder engagement to include additional institutions involved in flood risk governance. Ultimately, this research contributes a robust and adaptable decision-support tool designed to guide transparent, sustainable, and impact-oriented allocation of public resources in flood risk mitigation, with potential transferability to other regional and national contexts worldwide.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Dissertation_Gallazzi.pdf
accessibile in internet per tutti
Descrizione: Testo della tesi
Dimensione
4.22 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
4.22 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
|
supplementary material_literature review.xlsx
accessibile in internet per tutti
Descrizione: Approfondimento analisi di letteratura (paragrafo 2.1.1 della tesi)
Dimensione
72.51 kB
Formato
Microsoft Excel XML
|
72.51 kB | Microsoft Excel XML | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in POLITesi sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/10589/242057