Messina, Italy
.svg)
This case innovation has been analysed using the Transformative Intervention Mixes (TIMs) framework. The framework maps the regulatory, economic, social‑behavioural, technological and material interventions at play, clarifying how these elements interact and what this configuration suggests about the innovation’s capacity to support transformative change.
Green and Blue Infrastructure (GBI) Re-urbanisation
Messina (Italy) – Green and Blue Infrastructures for the re-urbanisation of the city within a new Urban Plan
Urban planning and resilience; climate and multi-hazard risk reduction; ecosystem services and green-blue infrastructure
A chapter describing Messina as a ‘paradigm city’ facing intersecting climate, hydrogeological, hydraulic and seismic risks. The new Urban Plan frames an integrated interpretation of risks and proposes a dense, multi-scale network of green and blue infrastructures (GBI) based on adaptive and proactive tactics and design actions, linked to inclusive social practices and public–private collaborative processes.
City and territorial scales (municipal area including mountain catchments and numerous torrents), with links to national policy framing through the Casa Italia Mission Structure and an Action Plan informing the master plan outline.
Practical: Design of a dense GBI network to reduce exposure and vulnerability, increase permeability, recycle water, decontaminate soils, and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Political: Public planning processes (Action Plan, master plan outline) and integration of risk governance across scales, including public–private collaborative processes, shape decision-making authority and implementation pathways.
Personal: No explicit evidence in the sources.
High: The chapter positions the approach as a paradigmatic example for future policies to reduce risk exposure in Italian cities, implying transfer potential where integrated risk interpretation and multi-scale GBI networks can be embedded in planning.
Summary
Strongly evidenced tools cluster around Regulatory, Infrastructure (Hard/Soft), Biophysical Resources and Knowledge, through a risk-informed Urban Plan and Action Plan framing that centres a dense, multi-scale green and blue infrastructure network to reduce exposure and vulnerability while increasing biodiversity and ecosystem services. Technology and Knowledge are expressed through integrated risk interpretation and the proposed ‘Integrated charter of risks and susceptibility’, intended as a dynamically updated reference for redevelopment strategy. Information / Education appears as a supportive mechanism via the explicit emphasis on cultural awareness as a precondition for legitimising the shift in priorities, while Social Norms are implied through inclusive social practices and public–private collaborative processes. Financial / Market-Based tools and Choice Architecture are not evidenced as explicit instruments in the chapter. Overall, the transformative pathway is planning- and infrastructure-led, with an integrated risk lens positioning GBI as the structural frame for resilient re-urbanisation.
Implications for Intervention Mix Design (analytical reflection): The case emphasises how planning instruments and a biophysical–infrastructure network can anchor an integrated risk-reduction pathway. To broaden transformative scope (without implying current implementation), additional alignment would be needed with sustained financing and implementation governance that can carry multi-scale actions over time, and with participatory arrangements consistent with the chapter’s inclusion framing. Further alignment between technical risk tools and transparent decision-making would also be needed to maintain legitimacy as retreat, densification and redevelopment choices are operationalised.
| Tool Category | Examples | How it ENABLES (mechanisms) | How it HINDERS (barriers) | Opportunities to strengthen | Risks / caveats | Additional suggestions and resources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | New Urban Plan and preliminary outline of the new master plan aiming to reduce exposure to hydrogeological, hydraulic and seismic risks; planned progressive withdrawal from torrent/river beds and high-risk/high environmental sensitivity areas. | Planning instruments can set spatial rules for land use, retreat, and risk-sensitive redevelopment, embedding GBI as a central organising framework. | Multi-scale integration and long-term coordination requirements can slow implementation; sectoral urban policies are criticised as insufficient for the needed shift in priorities. | Maintain coherence between the Action Plan and master plan outline so retreat and densification measures align with the GBI network design described. | Regulatory retreat and densification can raise distributional conflicts if not matched with inclusive practices referenced; partial implementation could leave residual risk. | Risk-informed spatial planning tools; hazard zoning and building-safety programmes. Binding social and environmental requirements in urban planning; urban zoning frameworks. |
| Financial / Market-Based | Funding GBI first in neighbourhoods with highest social and hazard vulnerability. Reduced-cost access to public and soft mobility linking vulnerable areas. Wage-supported work for residents in creating and maintaining green–blue infrastructure. | |||||
| Information / Education | The chapter states that change must be legitimised by an adequate level of cultural awareness and not entrusted to sectoral policies; framing of integrated interpretation of risks as an opportunity to shape resilient metamorphosis. | Risk framing and cultural awareness-building can support legitimacy for shifting priorities toward GBI, retreat from high-risk zones, and integrated, multi-scale action. | If cultural awareness is insufficient, strategic shifts may lack legitimacy and be contested. | Reinforce the documented emphasis on cultural awareness by linking planning narratives to the integrated risk framework already articulated. | Awareness without material change can generate cynicism; risk communication may heighten anxiety if pathways for action are unclear. | Participatory risk communication and community planning engagement. |
| Choice Architecture | ||||||
| Social Norms | Emphasis on inclusive social practices and public–private collaborative processes as part of the GBI network and resilient metamorphosis framing. | Normalises collaboration and inclusion as expected modes of planning and implementation, supporting cross-actor coordination for multi-scale GBI strategies. | Collaboration demands time and trust; coordination across actors can be difficult in crisis contexts. | Strengthen collaborative routines implied by the chapter’s public–private framing, ensuring inclusion remains aligned with planning objectives. | Tokenistic inclusion; power imbalances in collaboration could shape priorities toward narrower interests. | Co-production and co-management models for urban resilience infrastructure. |
| Emotional Appeal | Narrative of ‘resilient metamorphosis’ and a city imagining itself ‘less pervasive’ and more focused on valorising exceptional landscape quality; framing Messina as a paradigm city facing urgent climate-related risks. | Place-based identity and urgency framing can motivate support for prioritising GBI and shifting urban development patterns. | Urgency narratives may justify rapid decisions that bypass inclusion, despite the chapter’s emphasis on inclusive practices. | Link the resilience narrative to the concrete adaptive and proactive tactics described, maintaining transparency on trade-offs. | Risk fatigue or fear-based reactions; overselling transformation potential without implementation capacity. | City resilience storytelling paired with transparent risk and equity assessment. |
| Technology | Construction of an ‘Integrated charter of risks and susceptibility to urban redevelopment’; integrated risk interpretation informing Action Plan and master plan outline; emphasis on rethinking/recycling water and decontaminating polluted soils. | Analytical and planning tools support risk-informed decision-making and enable targeting of adaptive/proactive design actions across the city and territory. | Technical complexity and data demands can delay planning and require sustained institutional capacity. | Use the charter as a dynamically updated reference, as described, to align ongoing redevelopment decisions with evolving risk and GBI priorities. | Model or data uncertainties; technocratic framing could reduce transparency for affected communities. | Urban risk mapping and decision-support systems; early-warning and monitoring tools. |
| Infrastructure (Hard/Soft) | Dense network of green and blue infrastructures starting from existing ones; strengthening public rail transport and soft mobility; increasing soil permeability through design actions. | GBI and mobility infrastructure provide multi-functional, multi-scale relations to reduce exposure/vulnerability and support ecosystem services in urban areas. | Legacy urban fabric and dispersed risk sources (e.g., numerous torrents) complicate network integration and maintenance. | Phase GBI implementation through adaptive and proactive tactics already described, integrating water, soil, mobility and green resources. | Infrastructure fragmentation; maintenance burdens and failure to sustain permeability and decontamination functions. | Nature-based solutions for urban drainage; greenway and active travel networks. |
| Biophysical Resources | Rethinking and recycling of water; preservation and increase of soil permeability; decontamination of polluted soils; increase in urban plant resources; management of torrents and river beds. | Directly targets key environmental resources and material flows to reduce hazard exposure and increase ecosystem services and biodiversity in urban areas. | High-risk and environmentally sensitive areas may require retreat, limiting certain land uses; ecological constraints can restrict design options. | Target areas of moderate risk for compatible adaptation and progressively withdraw from high-risk zones as described, preserving sensitive biophysical functions. | Ecological disturbance if interventions are poorly designed; uneven seasonal or event-driven performance under extreme conditions. | Catchment-based restoration and floodplain rehabilitation. |
| Knowledge | Integrated interpretation of multiple risks; positioning of the Action Plan within the Casa Italia Mission Structure report; emphasis on multi-scale strategies and synergic integration over time and space. | Provides a conceptual and analytical basis for aligning GBI with risk reduction, biodiversity, and ecosystem services goals within planning. | If knowledge remains at the level of framing without enforceable implementation, exposure reduction may be limited. | Translate integrated risk knowledge into prioritisation and sequencing of design actions, consistent with the chapter’s multi-scale approach. | Overconfidence in planning frameworks; underestimation of social and economic risks acknowledged alongside ecological-environmental ones. | Scenario planning and resilience assessment methods. |
| Other | Circular economy and innovative economies are referenced as part of the open network of relations; the approach links ecological-environmental, social and economic risks within a single planning perspective. | Broadens the intervention beyond hazard management to include socio-economic regeneration aligned with GBI and ecosystem services. | Cross-domain integration increases complexity and coordination needs. | Maintain the chapter’s systemic framing while implementing through place-based tactics and practices described. | Scope creep; diluted accountability across multiple objectives. | Urban circular economy programmes integrated with nature-based infrastructure. |
Note: Blank cells reflect that the documentary evidence available for this case did not contain sufficiently explicit information to address these dimensions. This absence should not be interpreted as implying that such mechanisms were irrelevant or ineffective, but simply that they were not documented within the scope of the source materials.