Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity, and Transformative Capacity Preliminary Characterization in a “Multi-Hazard” Resilience Perspective: The Soccavo District Case Study (City of Naples, Italy)

Abstract

An innovative methodology for characterizing Coping Capacity (CC), Adaptive Capacity (AC), and Transformative Capacity (TC) resilience determinants in a multi-hazard territorial context is applied to the Soccavo district (Naples, Italy), located in the Campi Flegrei caldera and exposed to volcanic eruptions, ground deformations (bradyseism), earthquakes, geomorphological processes (landslides, rock falls, erosion), and climate change-related hazards (heat waves, pluvial floods). The method allowed for the identification of the CC, AC, and TC parameters that can be easily converted into qualitative–quantitative variables. Among all parameters, the method focused on multi-stakeholder and civil society engagement, which is representative of TC and variable relating to the risk perception and awareness, the urban space perception, or the people’s ability to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes within resilient development pathways. Therefore, qualitative tools such as collaborative mapping and co-design processes, pertaining to the urban planning and design fields, and quantitative tools such as surveys, from the social science field, were harmonized and combined to collect and analyze data on these site-specific topics. Considering people’s priorities and needs, the study was useful to define shared sustainable and resilient solutions in order to holistically integrate Disaster Risk Reduction/Climate Change Adaptation urban planning and design approaches and simultaneously deliver social, environmental, and economic co-benefits.

1. Introduction

The tangible and intangible impacts of disaster risks in cities are often exacerbated by the high concentration of population and economic activities [1], by the rapid aging of buildings and infrastructures, which increases their vulnerability to geophysical hazards (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, etc.), and by profound alterations of ecosystems that aggravate the intensity of weather extremes (e.g., heat waves, droughts, floods, etc. [2]).

The conventionally siloed approach to single hazards—driven by the distance between the “risk science” community, historically linked to geophysical hazards research, and the “environmental science” community, that contributed to build a solid body of knowledge around climate change and related hazards—has so far hindered a coherent and harmonized multi-risk framework able to translate science into practice and orient urban governance towards holistic resilience approaches. This is based on a comprehensive understanding of potential impacts and possible pathways to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA), addressing the complex socio-ecological-technical nature of urban systems. A significant step towards the integration of methodologies and tools developed by both communities was introduced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5, [3]), within which the risk/impact assessment framework shifted from a “vulnerability-oriented” to a “risk-based” approach (Figure 1). The latter coincides with the conventional approach originally defined in risk science and theory of decisions [4,5,6] and widely applied in the field of hazard/impact assessment of geophysical hazards. Regarding climate change-related risks, this radical shift has the potential advantage of grounding climate action in understanding the magnitude and frequency of impacts and accounting for major uncertainties inherent to the climate crisis [7]. However, as noted by [7], adaptation policies are largely not defined as a direct response to risks identified and/or climate scenarios developed, showing that appropriately translating risk knowledge into policy action remains a challenge.

The COP27 agreement about “Loss and Damage” funding highlights how the quantification of tangible and intangible impacts, both at a national and local scale, is an urgent priority now that a global consensus about the weight of anthropogenic drivers of climate change has been finally reached and many countries are already facing the severe consequences of global warming. Determining the observed (and future) impacts of natural hazards and their cascading effects on interconnected urban infrastructure systems requires robust risk-based assessment approaches able to deliver quantitative indicators that can inform urban resilience policies and integrated DRR and CCA pathways. By expanding the recent IPCC definition of “climate resilient urban development” [9,10]—understood as a solutions framework that successfully combines strategies to deal with climate risks (adaptation) with actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) that result in improvements for nature’s and people’s well-being in connection with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—a “multi-hazard resilient urban development” should then consider integrated strategies responding to both geophysical and climate change-related hazards—thus holistically linking DRR and CCA—while simultaneously tackling GHG emissions reduction and SDGs achievement. Furthermore, such an “expanded” framework should also seek the integration of the Sendai Framework principles [11] in climate adaptation planning, considering potential synergies across DRR and CCA measures concerning the full Disaster Risk Management (DRM) cycle [12], thus linking the risk/impact assessment and the resilience assessment framework.

In this context, identifying evidence-based metrics to assess resilience is indeed a complex challenge due to the qualitative nature of many relevant indicators commonly used and the difficulty of integrating them into a fully quantitative analysis. On the other side, resilience indicators related to governance structures and policy actions in place, as well as organizational aspects of institutions and communities that result in increased awareness and a better-coordinated response to disaster risks and slow-onset changes, should be carefully included in the framework to capture the complex socio-ecological-technical systemic nature of resilience thinking applied to cities [13,14,15,16,17,18].

Many comprehensive “resilience assessment frameworks” do exist (e.g., [19,20,21,22]), but most of them lack integrability with quantitative methods, having been developed in coherence with the conventional “vulnerability-based” or “policy-oriented” framework [7] rather than with a robust “risk-based” approach.

Reconciling the two approaches requires identifying a core set of indicators/parameters encompassing the variety of physical, functional, social, and organizational aspects that concur in assessing resilience from a holistic perspective and defining methods to support their integration within multi-risk/impact assessment quantitative methods and tools.

The assessment framework of “multi-hazard resilient urban development” should then be able to measure at the same time the ability to reduce impact from extreme events, the reduction of GHG emissions concerning slow-onset climate crisis trends, and the ability to concurrently achieve SDGs, thus linking the benefits arising from avoided damage and losses to the social, economic, and environmental co-benefits of multi-hazard resilient actions in cities.

As widely shown by [16], the resilient transformation of cities is a multidisciplinary, multidimensional, and multitemporal challenge and a unique opportunity to bridge the “forecasting” approach typical of climate science and risk studies with the holistic “visioning & backcasting” perspective of urban planning and design. In this context, the project is the materialization of a future urban vision, where mid- to long-term strategies for adaptation and mitigation of risks need to be synergized with short-term social, economic, and environmental co-benefits aimed at tackling specific urban regeneration needs by assessing and prioritizing design alternatives, thus shaping and phasing the preferable and feasible scenarios [23].

The Urban Planning and Urban Design working group [24] of the Urban Climate Change Research Network (UCCRN) has defined in its Second Assessment Report on Climate Change and Cities [25] a Climate Resilient Design Process aimed at integrating mitigation and adaptation actions within interventions of new development, urban regeneration, and building retrofitting. It consists of a 4-step operational framework to support the planning and design process, in order to connect priorities for urban transformation as identified by both local stakeholders and communities with strategies and measures to support climate resilience concerning the expected impact of weather extremes (i.e., heat waves and floods) and slow-onset changes (i.e., variation of seasonal energy needs).

The CO-FRAME_NA project (Comprehensive Multi-hazard and Multi-risk Framework Napoli), built on this operational framework, was an opportunity to identify urban resilience pathways [26] from a multi-hazard perspective, focusing on the so-called resilience determinants: (a) Coping Capacity (CC), (b) Adaptive Capacity (AC), and (c) Transformative Capacity (TC). Starting from the assumption that the resilience of a system (e.g., an urban system) consists of its capacity to persist in the current state of functioning while facing disturbance, to adapt itself to future changes, and to radically transform itself, enhancing its functioning (in a sustainable way) when a crisis occurs [3,27,28,29,30], first of all, a set of representative parameters of the CC, AC, and TC that can be easily converted into qualitative–quantitative urban resilience variables was identified. Secondly, this work tried to demonstrate how the implementation of collaborative planning and design processes involving local stakeholders and communities, further expanded through harmonized social research tools, can suggest crucial information on risk perception and awareness [31,32], on urban space perception, and on people’s ability to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes [24,25] at the local level in a multi-hazard resilient development perspective, with the aim of defining the TC as accurately as possible (Figure 2). Indeed, identifying shared sustainable and optimal solutions in terms of social, environmental, and economic co-benefits—the identification of suitable measures always needs to be supported by the use of quantitative risk/impact simulation procedures [2,23,26,33,34,35,36]—remarked on the idea that adapting and mitigating one or more risks/impacts means not only being preventive (i.e., CC) and pro-active (i.e., AC) but also participatory in decision-making processes (i.e., TC), thus bringing into play individual background, values, capabilities, and choices.

Therefore, the Soccavo district (City of Naples, Italy), which is affected by geophysical (e.g., volcanic eruptions and earthquakes) and climate change-related hazards (e.g., heat waves and pluvial floods), was chosen as an ideal case study for preliminary characterizing Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity, and Transformative Capacity from a multi-hazard resilience perspective.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Identifying Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity, and Transformative Capacity Parameters

With the aim of defining in a qualitative–quantitative way the urban resilience of a multi-hazard territorial context [37,38,39,40], the key concepts of Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity, and Transformative Capacity were taken into account, representing the so-called resilience determinants. As widely described by [27], these capacities can be defined according to specific criteria such as people’s response to risks (i.e., ex-ante or ex-post activities/actions), the time horizon of people’s activities/actions (i.e., short-term or medium-term), the degree of changes within social structures, and outcomes related to people’s CC, AC, and TC capacities.

The Coping Capacity concerns all measures that people, organizations, and/or systems use to “cope with” sudden adverse conditions, allowing them to absorb impacts and react ex-post. This capacity manifests itself immediately, acting in the short term with all available resources to restore the current level of people’s well-being [3,27,30,41,42,43]. Therefore, a well-structured Civil Protection Plan, an efficient early warning system, or available economic resources to support the emergency phase (e.g., essential goods, medical care, emergency temporary accommodations) are some of the aspects that define the “reactive” side of resilience [28,29]. Instead, adaptive capacity concerns all measures that people use in advance to anticipate future drastic changes before they become disastrous, learning from the past and preparing themselves ex ante. This capacity manifests itself gradually, acting in the long-term with a strategy based on incremental changes to guarantee people’s future well-being [3,27,30,41,42,43,44]. So, the “adaptive” side of resilience is defined, for example, by the predisposition of Urban Regeneration Plans and/or Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation Plans and Programs, multi-stakeholder collaborative agreements, or dissemination programs on risks and any possible related DRR/CCA measure [28,29]. Finally, the Transformative Capacity concerns the people’s ability and possibility to both access assets/funds and participate in decision-making processes in order to define shared sustainable measures to prevent future adverse conditions (ex-ante) and radically transform the community’s functioning. This capacity manifests itself gradually, as does the AC, but acts in the long term to enhance both current and future people’s well-being [27,42,43] through, for example, strategic multi-stakeholder and civil society engagement programs along the whole Disaster Risk Management (DRM) cycle. The “transformative” side of resilience, which can be expressed using dedicated operational tools (e.g., collaborative mapping and co-design processes, serious games, surveys, interviews) within structured participatory processes—the tools represent a discriminant between the AC and TC—allows investigating some key-aspects such as multi-risk perception and awareness of local communities [31,32,45] derived from the people’s experience with risks and their risk knowledge. This is from the predisposition to “live with” risks, and/or from the proper behavior to be adopted in case of emergency, and by people’s perception of urban space and their ability to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes, identifying priorities, needs, and possibly shared solutions [24,25].

The CC, AC, and TC parameters (

Table 1. A review of the Coping Capacity and Adaptive Capacity possible parameters, divided into three main macro-categories and usable for the CC and AC characterization. The “x” means that the parameter is useful to define the respective resilience determinant.

Parameter		Resilience Determinants
		Coping Capacity	Adaptive Capacity
Assets (financial capital)	Per capita GDP	x	x
	Access to credit (e.g., banks, other institutions, etc.)		x
	Tax relief (e.g., bonus)		x
	Assigned budget for: Urban Regeneration Plans, Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation Plans and Programs, DRR/CCA measures		x
	Assigned budget for emergency measures	x
Governance	Sectorial legislation/regulation		x
	Urban Regeneration Plans		x
	Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation Plans and Programs		x
	Civil Protection Plan	x
	Multi-stakeholder collaborative agreements	x	x
Technologies and Instruments	Monitoring networks and Early warning systems	x	x
	Dissemination programs		x

and

Table 2. The main Transformative Capacity parameter usable for the TC characterization in terms of Urban space perception, Bottom-up urban regeneration/transformation, and Multi-risk perception and awareness by people. The “x” means that the parameter is useful to define the respective resilience determinant.

Parameter		Resilience Determinants
		Transformative Capacity
Governance	Multi-stakeholder and civil society engagement (e.g., structured participatory process)	x
	(a) Urban space perception and Bottom-up urban regeneration/transformation Priorities; Needs; Shared solutions. (b) Multi-risk perception and awareness (socio-cognitive constructs) Experience with risks; Risk knowledge; Predisposition to “live with” risks; Behavior adopted in case of emergency.

), widely described in the scientific literature [28,43,46,47,48] and identified here through expert judgment, were divided into three macro-categories that are representative of conditions for which people, organizations, and/or systems can be resilient despite being in a multi-hazard condition. The parameters in the “Assets” macro-category (Table 1) are: per capita GDP (€/year), linked to the well-being average degree of a population from a country, compared to the well-being average degree of the population from another country; access to credit, relating to the possibility for someone to request a loan through formal (e.g., banks, collective credit guarantee consortia, etc.) or informal (e.g., family members, friends, etc.) means; tax relief, concerning the possibility of having tax deductions from the State (e.g., the “Ecobonus” for building energy retrofitting and “Sismabonus” for building structure retrofitting against seismic risk, [49]; “Superbonus” for combined building energy and structure retrofitting, [50]); assigned budget for Urban Regeneration Plans, Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation Plans and Programs, and DRR/CCA measures, concerning the availability of public economic resources intended for the implementation of planning tools in a multi-hazard territorial management perspective; assigned budget for dedicated emergency measures, linked to the availability of public economic resources intended for the implementation of emergency tools, also in this case in a multi-hazard emergency management perspective. Instead, the parameters in the “Governance” macro-category (Table 1 and Table 2) are: sectoral legislation/regulation, relating to the availability of a legislative framework in the field of urban and regional planning and design, which allows regulating timing, procedures, and actions; Urban Regeneration Plans and Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation Plans and Programs, concerning the existence of plans and programs for multi-hazard territorial management; Civil Protection Plans, concerning the existence of operational procedures for multi-hazard emergency management at local, regional and national level; multi-stakeholder collaboration agreements, linked to the willingness to include all parties involved (public and private) in decision-making and implementation of territorial management policies; multi-stakeholder and civil society engagement (e.g., structured participatory processes), linked to the willingness to involve them within a shared risk governance framework. The latter allows the analysis of a series of key aspects that, depending on their combination, lead to a different degree of resilience: on one side, the multi-risk perception and awareness of local communities (a socio-cognitive construct [31,32,45]), related to people’s experience with risks and their risk knowledge, predisposition to “live with” risks [40], and/or proper behavior in case of emergency; on the other side, the people’s perception of urban space and their ability to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes, related to the community’s priorities, needs, and preliminary shared solutions [24,25]. The parameters in the “Technologies/Instruments and Structures” macro-category (Table 1) are: monitoring networks and early warning systems, relating to the provision of technological instruments for forecasting, preparing, and responding from a civil protection perspective; dissemination programs, concerning the possibility of creating informative support tools with the aim of informing people about local geo-environmental risks, multi-hazard territorial and emergency management policies, and sustainable and resilient planning practices.

As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, some parameters are mainly linked with Coping Capacity and/or Adaptive Capacity, while others are linked with Transformative Capacity. Many parameters, such as the possibility of taking advantage of tax breaks, the approval of Urban Regeneration Plans and/or Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation Plans and Programs (containing DRR/CCA measures), or even the presence of local Civil Protection Plans, have a binary response [46] since they exist or do not exist in the analyzed area. However, other parameters such as multi-stakeholder and civil society engagement, which is linked to risk perception and awareness, urban space perception, and/or people’s ability to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes, have highly variable responses related to many factors (e.g., direct experience with hazardous events, knowledge background and access to information, daily life needs, etc.) that in this work were investigated through collaborative planning and design tools and social research tools.

2.2. Test Site Overview

The proposed methodology was tested in the Soccavo district, which, together with Pianura, comprises the 9th Municipality of the City of Naples (Campania Region, Italy). With an overall population of 45,315 inhabitants distributed over 5.11 km² [51], Soccavo borders the Arenella district to the N-NE, the Vomero one to the E, the Fuorigrotta district to the S-SE-SW, and the Pianura one to the W-NW, administratively. Located in a flat area at 90 m a.s.l., corresponding to one of the craters of the Campi Flegrei caldera, Soccavo is surrounded by the Camaldoli Park hill and Vomero hill, which define its geographical boundaries to the N-NE, respectively [52,53] (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

The whole urbanization is mainly located in the northern macro-sector enclosed by Via dell’Epomeo, an urban road in the middle of the district from E to W, and by Raccordo Soccavo (properly named Asse Viario Pigna-Soccavo-Pianura), an extra-urban beltway below the Camaldoli Park. In the northern macro-sector, rural permanences and persistences [37] of the ancient Casale Soccavo (i.e., historical nucleus characterized by cottages spread out on the area [53]) are still visible close to the secondary road named Via Bottazzi-Via Risorgimento from W to E, through the urban morpho-typology (Figure 4). From the second half of the 19th Century, the massive urban expansion, preannounced by the construction of Via dell’Epomeo in 1957, gradually saturated most of the district, including the southern macro-sector up to Fuorigrotta. In the southern macro-sector, there are two public housing neighborhoods, Rione Traiano and Complesso Soccavo-Canzanella, built from the end of ’50 to the second half of ’60 and envisaged in the INA-Casa program by the Italian State to provide housing for low-income families. Both neighborhoods, characterized by reinforced concrete multi-story buildings distributed on wide avenues (e.g., Viale Traiano) and surrounded by broad open spaces for collective uses, currently lack public services (e.g., equipped parks, sports facilities, offices, and commercial areas) despite being designed with the idea of creating green and livable self-sufficient neighborhoods [52,54]. Due to non-compliance with the urban plan provisions, the southern macro-sector of Soccavo shows a fragmented urban composition and widespread abandonment of public green areas. Moreover, the urban and extra-urban road systems are incomplete and malfunctioning, increasing the isolation of the entire district, with strong consequences from a social point of view. Although Soccavo is crossed by the W-E Circumflegrea railway line, which links Montesanto train station (city center, Municipality of Naples) to Torregaveta (Municipality of Monte di Procida), and by the NE-S A56 Tangenziale highway, which links Napoli-Capodichino airport to the Municipality of Pozzuoli, it needs an urgent reconfiguration of public transport to optimize the use of the pre-existing road system, a reorganization of the urban road network by providing for cycle-pedestrian pathways, and a reconfiguration of vehicular mobility to reduce traffic (Figure 4).

The Soccavo district is exposed to several geo-environmental hazards such as volcanic eruptions, ground deformations (bradyseism), earthquakes (tectonic or volcano-tectonic), geomorphological processes (e.g., landslides, rock falls, erosion), and climate change-related ones (e.g., heat waves, pluvial floods).

According to the Campi Flegrei National Civil Protection Plan (Piano Nazionale di Potezione Civile Campi Flegrei, [55]), together with many other western districts of Naples (i.e., Chiaiano, Arenella, Vomero, Chiaia, Posillipo, Fuorigrotta, Bagnoli, and Pianura), Soccavo is located within the Red Zone (i.e., high risk) that has to be rapidly evacuated if an eruption is approaching [56], considering that pyroclastic density currents have a destructive impact on exposed elements due to the high temperature and velocity [57,58,59]. The bradyseismic phenomenon, peculiar to the Campi Flegrei, consists of ground uplift and subsidence due to the variation of the volcano’s magmatic and hydrothermal systems [60,61,62]. This, in turn, produces seismicity with epicentres mainly located around the area of maximum uplift (i.e., Rione Terra, the historical city center of Pozzuoli), but whose effects can also be perceived in the peripheral areas of the caldera [63]. The hilly side of Soccavo, close to the Camaldoli hermitage and above the Frankish Tower to the NE, is mainly affected by rock falls and erosive phenomena due to the steep slopes and the natural retreat of tuffaceous ridges [64,65,66,67], with serious damage to the boundary wall of the hermitage itself (Figure 4).

Like many other urban areas in Mediterranean Europe, the City of Naples has already faced significant climatic variation compared to the “historical” reference period of 1971–2000. The last few years have shown a considerable increase in minimum and maximum temperatures, which are associated with more frequent episodes of heat waves (e.g., late July/early August 2020, late July/early August 2021, early July 2022, etc.), while seasonal precipitation patterns have shown an increasingly marked alteration between periods of drought and extreme events (e.g., heavy rainfall in a few hours) causing episodes of flooding with serious damage to goods and services, especially in urban areas (e.g., early December 2020, early October 2021, late September 2022, first and second half of November 2022, etc.). Climate change-related risk/impact scenario analyses (i.e., heat waves and pluvial floods) for the City of Naples, produced by the PLINIVS-LUPT Study Centre of the University of Naples “Federico II” within the CLARITY project (Horizon Europe 2020, [68]) and used for updating the Municipal Urban Plan (PUC—Piano Urbanistico Comunale, [69]) and developing the Ponticelli Urban Regeneration Programme (PRU—Programma di Rigenerazione Urbana, [70]) with the aims of drawing up the new Action Plan for Sustainable Energy and Climate (PAESC—Piano d’Azione per l’Energia Sostenibile ed il Clima, [71]), confirm these trends for future scenarios (i.e., 2041–2070 and 2071–2100) in detail.

For these reasons, Soccavo is an optimal case study to identify suitable urban resilience pathways, starting from the characterization of Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity, and Transformative Capacity in a territorial context affected by several geo-environmental hazards.

2.3. Analyzing Main Key Aspects of Multi-Stakeholder and Civil Society Engagement

As previously defined, in order to evaluate people’s multi-risk perception and awareness, their perception of urban space, and their ability to activate bottom-up urban regeneration/transformation processes concerning the “transformative” side of resilience, different operational tools were used for collecting information and data in the Soccavo district (City of Naples, Italy): the collaborative mapping and co-design processes (qualitative) on one side, and the survey (quantitative) on the other. If the first and second ones pertain to the field of urban planning and design [26,72,73,74,75], the third one pertains to all those disciplines mainly focused on social research [76]. The combination of these operational tools allowed for the analysis, from different but complementary perspectives, of both risk perception and awareness within a multi-hazard territorial context and people’s perception of urban space in daily life. At the same time, taking into account the ability to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes, the collaborative mapping and co-design actions, together with surveys, also allowed defining integrated design measures of DRR and CCA [2,12,23,26,33,34,35,36] based on community priorities, needs, and preliminary shared solutions. Therefore, tools were combined within a harmonized framework, organized into six main steps: (1) community building; (2) multi-risk collaborative mapping process; (3) multi-risk co-design process; (4) multi-risk survey; (5) data synthesis; and (6) Transformative Capacity characterization (Figure 2 and Figure 5).

The multi-stakeholder and civil society engagement, developed in the context of the CO-FRAME_NA project and concretely implemented in the headquarter of “Na.Gio.Ja” Youth Centre (Centro Giovanile “Na.Gio.Ja”, [77]) through a four-hour workshop, was organized by PLINIVS-LUPT Study Centre in collaboration with the UCCRN [78] and the CPRS Popular Committee for the Rebirth of Soccavo (Comitato Popolare per la Rinascita di Soccavo, [79]). Although the headquarters was conceived as a space for children and teenagers of the district, it fulfills many other valuable functions (e.g., sports center, cultural hub for art/theatre/cinema/music, study room, vegetable garden, and social garden considering the availability of external open spaces) thanks to the self-organization of its inhabitants. The process was structured to be as open as possible, without limits of age, gender, or status.

2.3.1. Community Building

The first step, defined as community building, consisted of interaction (Figure 5a) with inhabitants of Soccavo, with the aim of: (a) describing the main goals and activities of the workshop; (b) defining concepts as geophysical and climate change-related hazards, multi-risk, DRR/CCA measures, and participatory urban regeneration/transformation; (c) overviewing the multidisciplinary research activities carried out by the PLINIVS-LUPT Study Centre, which is also a Centre of Competence for Civil Protection.

For a fruitful interaction with the local community, the main goals of the workshop were explained to the inhabitants involved (except risk perception and awareness, the explanation of which could have invalidated or compromised the answer to the survey) in an attempt to build a space of collaboration and mutual exchange:

• Identification of potentials and criticalities (as strengths and weaknesses) in Soccavo, that can be useful for planning and design purposes;
• Identification of shared solutions for sustainable and resilient urban regeneration/transformation in a multi-hazard territorial context;
• Collection of additional peculiar information concerning the direct experience of inhabitants with one or more risks;
• Identification of local actors and definition of possible collaborative networks for future interactions.

After an overview of volcanic (i.e., ash fall and pyroclastic density currents), seismic, pluvial floods, and heat wave impact scenarios on people, buildings, and infrastructures (i.e., roads) in the Phlegrean area, already carried out by the PLINIVS-LUPT Study Center throughout consolidated numerical models [2,23,34,36,80,81], preliminary information (Figures S1 and S2) was disseminated for starting the multi-risk collaborative mapping and co-design processes.

2.3.2. Multi-Risk Collaborative Mapping and Co-Design Processes

One of the most commonly used tools in participatory urban regeneration/transformation is collaborative mapping. In Soccavo’s experience, this tool was influenced by pre-existing methodologies developed by interdisciplinary collectives of professionals focused on public space participatory design and international research groups engaged in DRR/CCA strategy building from a socio-ecological-technical resilience perspective.

The collaborative mapping process envisaged the organization of proper materials, consisting of: a contemporary orthophoto of the area (Google Earth Pro 2022) with the localization of headquarters of local stakeholders (e.g., associations, neighborhood committees, self-managed spaces, etc.), existing public services (i.e., public offices, schools and universities, libraries, parks, local farmer markets, sport facilities, medical-health facilities, police stations, metro/train stops), and main roads which define the spatial and functional organization of the district (in terms of distribution of public and private spaces, functions, and barriers); colored stickers, with icons representing possible strengths (i.e., other libraries, parks, local farmer markets, sports facilities, medical-health facilities; shopping areas, outdoor or indoor social places, and covered equipped areas) and weaknesses (i.e., particularly hot areas in the summer season, particularly cold areas in the winter season, areas at pluvial flooding risk, areas at fire risk, abandoned buildings, abandoned areas, barriers, waste accumulation, traffic, and crime); sticky notes to map community priorities and urban transformation objectives.

Starting from the already consolidated methodologies by the UCCRN Urban Planning and Design working group [24,25,26,74,75], the choice of representative icons for public services, strengths, and weaknesses was made by simplifying the categories (number and typology), avoiding conceptual redundancy, and facilitating both the mapping process and data synthesis.

Participants were divided into four numerically homogeneous working groups (6 people per group) that were assisted by a facilitator for the entire process. Each working group was asked to map the strengths and weaknesses of the district as accurately as possible according to their past and present daily life experiences—this also meant going into the matter of people’s urban space perception as well as into the matter of their ability to activate bottom-up urban regeneration/transformation processes (Figure 5b,c). If the location was not sufficient to characterize the potential or critical issues of the area, the working group was encouraged to use explanatory sticky notes with further specifics.

The multi-risk co-design process, carried out after the multi-risk collaborative mapping one, involved the organization of a sort of “brainstorming sheet”, divided into sections describing four “desirable” resilient city visions (namely zero-carbon city, green-blue city, 15 min city, and circular city). Concerning the brainstorming on structural and non-structural district strengths and weaknesses, each group was asked to express needs/desires/perspectives and propose preliminary solutions for the improvement of public space. Therefore, the inputs were framed into four sections to start developing shared guidelines for a sustainable and resilient urban development strategy in a multi-hazard territorial context.

2.3.3. Multi-Risk Survey

To analyze risk perception and awareness in Soccavo, multi-risk surveys were carried out for a sample as large as possible, in this case without limits of age, gender, and status. At first, some topic questions were used for organizing the survey structure:

• What degree of geo-environmental risk perception and awareness do the inhabitants of Soccavo have? What degree of specific risk perception (e.g., volcanic, seismic, climate change-related, etc.)?
• If they perceive one or more risks within the district, what frequency do they associate with each of them? Where do they eventually localize the related natural events?
• What knowledge do they have of geo-environmental risks, and where did they find the information about them?
• How would they deal with an emergency condition?
• What is the predisposition of inhabitants to make structural and energy retrofits to their houses? What improvements do they think are needed for the public space?

The survey, which was made up of 19 questions (4 with open answers, and 15 with closed answers), was organized into three sections concerning: (a) general information about the inhabitant to whom the survey was addressed (questions 1–7), (b) knowledge about risk, geo-environmental risks perceived within the district, direct experiences with the risk, and proper behavior in the emergency phase (questions 8–16), and (c) energy and/or structural interventions needed in the district and their prioritization (questions 17–19).

The multi-risk survey was carried out on 22 inhabitants who voluntarily participated in the experience (Figure 5d). Although the survey sample was small for scientific representativeness, it was crucial for evaluating the workshop’s feasibility in terms of procedure, timing needed, and quality/quantity of data collected.

The answers were mainly organized to extrapolate all the information that could be useful for a preliminary qualitative–quantitative data synthesis on risk perception and awareness. Secondarily, it was also possible to extrapolate information on people’s perception of urban space and their ability to activate bottom-up urban regeneration/transformation, integrating what was already collected through the previous three steps. For this purpose, completeness of answers, use of specific terms (technical-scientific), and ability to associate the type of natural event with the knowledge background were considered.

3. Preliminary Results

Since multi-stakeholder and civil society engagement was identified as a representative TC parameter, this work primarily focused on some of those key aspects (i.e., multi-risk perception and awareness of local communities, people’s perception of urban space, people’s ability to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes) that, if analyzed through dedicated operational tools such as community building, collaborative mapping processes, co-design processes, and surveys, can be crucial for identifying sustainable and effective DRR/CCA measures from a multi-hazard resilient development perspective. Depending on how deeply participatory urban regeneration/transformation processes go into the evaluation of socio-cognitive constructs and relationships between a community and its daily urban space, it is possible to characterize more or less accurately the “transformative” side of urban resilience, thus influencing the choice of suitable measures. Therefore, preliminary qualitative–quantitative results of the Soccavo workshop are reported as follows.

3.1. Multi-Risk Collaborative Mapping and Co-Design Processes

The multi-risk collaborative mapping process (Figure 6 and Figure S3) demonstrated how the inhabitants involved have a homogeneous view of Soccavo, accurately describing both the hilly side of the district, with the Camaldoli Park, and the lowland bounded by the main urban and extra-urban roads.

According to people’s daily life experiences, the stickers were mostly located in the macro-sector enclosed by Via dell’Epomeo, A56 Tangenziale, and NW-S Via Vicinale Cupa Cintia (Figure 4 and Figure 6), stressing the main weaknesses:

• Many areas were perceived as particularly hot in the summer season, such as primary (e.g., Raccordo di Soccavo and Viale Traiano) and secondary (e.g., Via Adriano) roads, and large public or private adjacent areas (e.g., within Rione Traiano), characterized by impermeable surfaces and poor vegetation;
• Areas nearby underpasses (e.g., Via Giustiniano and Via Cassiodoro close to Tangenziale A56, the Circumflegrea railway line, and Raccordo di Soccavo), primary (e.g., Raccordo di Soccavo, Viale Traiano, and Via Vicinale Cupa Cintia) and secondary (e.g., Via Adriano, Via Risorgimento, and Via Pigna) roads, and large public and private adjacent areas (e.g., within Rione Traiano) are usually affected by frequent pluvial floods due to extremes;
• The Camaldoli Park hill is often affected by wildfires (mostly arson) and, according to the inhabitants involved, by landslides in the North-western side of the district;
• Many abandoned and/or ruined buildings are recognized as potentially useful for public or private purposes within the district;
• Many public or private green areas, located in the Southern macro-sector of Soccavo, are underused or abandoned and represent one of the major criticalities perceived by the inhabitants involved;
• Primary roads (e.g., Viale Traiano) are perceived as physical barriers in the urban landscape, isolating some key sectors (e.g., Rione Traiano);
• Most of the primary roads (e.g., Via dell’Epomeo, Via Provinciale Montagna Spaccata, Via Vicinale Cupa Cintia, and Via Giustiniano) and secondary roads (e.g., Via Antonio Pio) are particularly busy during rush hour and heavy rainfalls;
• Many areas in the Southern macro-sector, along secondary or local roads, are poorly maintained and often affected by micro-criminality (e.g., uneven roads, rubbish along the roads).

At the same time, inhabitants emphasized the strengths of the district with the aim of enhancing them through shared resilient urban regeneration actions (Figure 4 and Figure 6):

• Social places for culture and leisure (indoors and outdoors), sports facilities, and covered equipped areas, which should be located close to or within the large pre-existent urban green areas of the Southern macro-sector, are needed;
• Public or private commercial areas (e.g., shops, farmer markets, supermarkets) and medical health centers, located along the primary (e.g., Via dell’Epomeo) and secondary (e.g., Via Risorgimento and Via Adriano) roads, should be improved;
• Urban green areas, mainly located in the Northern hilly side and Southern macro-sector (e.g., Rione Traiano) of the Soccavo district, should be increased or regenerated in terms of semi-permeable/permeable surfaces, green mobility infrastructures (pedestrian, cycle, and trekking paths), and services.

The multi-risk co-design process (Figure 7 and Figure S3), carried out after the collaborative mapping, allowed inhabitants to develop suitable design ideas relating to urban strengths and weaknesses and also to demonstrate their ability to activate bottom-up urban regeneration/transformation at the local level. Geo-environmental risks (i.e., heat waves and pluvial floods in the lowlands, landslides on the hilly side) had a key role, influencing many proposals during the workshop.

The majority of proposals pertain to “green-blue city” and “15 min city” visions. Concerning the “green-blue city” vision, inhabitants expressed the need to increase and improve urban green areas (e.g., parks, trees along roads, ornamental greenery, etc.) that are poorly maintained or abandoned. This kind of action would allow for managing herbaceous, shrubby, and/or tree species, replacing those that cannot be recovered, and planting new ones. Therefore, inhabitants involved would have new open spaces and benefit from the effect of vegetation in terms of adaptation (e.g., reduction of the urban heat island effect thanks to the temperature lowering by the foliage, which shade and absorb solar radiation through evapotranspiration; regulation of the rainwater outflow through evapotranspiration, absorption by the root system, and retention by the foliage), mitigation of climate change-related risks (e.g., reduction of CO₂ emissions), and improvement of air quality. Furthermore, enhancing the vegetation on the hilly side of the Soccavo district would stabilize slopes and reduce surface erosion [82] as interacting risks [83,84,85].

The increase of urban green areas has necessarily led to their re-functionalization, providing for equipped public parks, urban vegetable gardens, picnic areas, and dog areas. Given the inefficiency of the sewage system in cases of heavy rainfall, maintenance of the sewer system is extremely recommended, as is the replacement of pre-existing road surfaces with semi-permeable/permeable materials to increase water absorption.

Concerning the “15 min city” vision, inhabitants expressed the need to increase services to the community, both indoors and outdoors. In addition to the re-functionalization of urban green areas, they proposed to create local farmer markets that could sell products from the urban vegetable gardens, from a newly didactic farm, and also from a new production center for transformed food (local food supply chain). Further social places for culture and leisure (e.g., libraries, art centers, theaters, cinemas, street art areas, etc.) were proposed together with the enhancement of the pre-existent ones (i.e., Centro Polifunzionale). Inhabitants made many suggestions about urban and extra-urban infrastructure networks: on the one hand, they need new and more efficient connections with other districts and close municipalities; on the other, they need to enhance and increase the cycle-pedestrian paths for sustainable use of urban spaces.

Regarding the “zero-carbon city” vision, inhabitants reiterated the importance of enhancing connections through an efficient public transport system (including new stops along primary and secondary roads) and cycle-pedestrian paths, as well as the will to install solar panels for energy production from renewable sources on public buildings.

Finally, regarding the “circular city” vision, no consistent proposals were made, except for the “food supply chain” at the local level.

3.2. Multi-Risk Survey

The survey was submitted to 22 inhabitants (12 men and 10 women), most of whom were over 45 years old. The sample consisted of individuals with varying education levels, including those with a primary school diploma, a secondary school diploma, and a graduation diploma. Participants represented a wide range of occupations, such as students, researchers/professors, public employees, freelancers, dealers, farmers, workmen, and the unemployed.

Within the district, the sample perceives several geo-environmental risks linked to the frequency of occurrence of the events on a scale from 1 to 5 (1: low; 2: moderate-low; 3: moderate; 4: moderate-high; 5: high): a large part of participants identify earthquakes with a frequency of occurrence between low and moderate-low, bradyseisms with a moderate-low frequency, pluvial floods with a frequency between moderate and moderate-high, both landslides and heat waves with a frequency between moderate-low and moderate, and both wildfires and wind gusts with a moderate frequency; instead, a small part of participants identify volcanic eruptions with a low frequency. Furthermore, the sample also believes that pluvial floods, which are considered the most frequent event, could have an impact on exposed people with moderate/moderate-high severity on a scale from 1 to 5 (1: low; 2: moderate-low; 3: moderate; 4: moderate-high; 5: high). Most inhabitants involved in the survey declared they found information about risks on the Internet or by word of mouth (e.g., friends, relatives).

In addition, a consistent part of the sample declared having direct experience with one or more hazardous events, specifically pluvial floods, heat waves, earthquakes, and wildfires. Few people faced bradyseism, landslides, and gusts of wind, while nobody faced volcanic eruptions.

Among participants, many feel very or quite safe thanks to large public spaces and wide roads that allow for rescue in case of dangerous natural events. On the contrary, few who feel unsafe relate this insecurity to the under-sizing of roads for escape and to the fact that Soccavo district is located in the middle of Campi Flegrei caldera. Concerning the emergency phase, most of the sample would try to save themselves and their families first, some would also save their neighbors, and many others would seek an expert and/or a public official and follow the instructions provided. Only half of the sample declared to be informed about the proper behavior required during an emergency, receiving information through word of mouth (e.g., friends, relatives), information campaigns, and training courses. Almost all of the sample involved in the survey is unaware of the National Civil Protection Plan of Campi Flegrei.

Finally, most of the participants would be willing to invest in the energy and/or structural retrofitting of their own house if there was the opportunity. Instead, in the case of investment in building adaptive measures by the municipality, schools should be given top priority, followed by houses, hospitals, and offices.

4. Discussion

The present research aimed at defining a methodology for preliminary characterization of urban resilience determinants such as Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity, and Transformative Capacity [3,27,28,29,30,41,42,43,44] in a multi-hazard territorial context being Soccavo district (City of Naples, Italy), affected by geophysical (e.g., volcanic eruptions and earthquakes) and climate change-related hazards (e.g., heat waves and pluvial floods). Among CC, AC, and TC qualitative–quantitative parameters, this work primarily focused on multi-stakeholder and civil society engagement since it drastically varies relating to site-specific aspects such as people’s risk perception and awareness [31,32], people’s perception of urban spaces, or their ability to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes [24,25] from a multi-hazard resilient development perspective.

Therefore, the proposed methodology tried to holistically combine different harmonized tools for data collection and analysis (Figure 2 and Figure 5): (1) the collaborative mapping process and (2) the co-design process, which are qualitative tools and pertain to the urban planning and design fields; and (3) the survey, which is a quantitative tool and concerns social research. Starting from people’s priorities and needs, this approach was useful not only for identifying shared sustainable solutions that aimed at social, environmental, and economic co-benefits but also for integrating DRR/CCA approaches.

Although not statistically significant, this study shows that the collaborative mapping process was crucial because it allowed identifying urban space strengths and weaknesses perceived by people while paying attention to the consequences of geophysical hazards (focusing on earthquakes and volcanic eruptions) and climate change-related hazards (focusing on pluvial floods and heat waves) on the built environment at the same time (Figure 6). The co-design process contributed to defining preliminary solutions for a shared regeneration/transformation strategy, which brings together zero-carbon, green-blue, 15 min, and circular city visions in a comprehensive resilient city model, taking into account the shortage of Soccavo in terms of available public and private services and also the community’s desire to overcome any possible discomforts directly related to the effects of natural events on people’s daily lives (Figure 7). Therefore, this process showed the ability of the inhabitants to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes within the district. The survey, which was carried out using the herein-proposed survey model, primarily allowed for collecting information on socio-cognitive constructs focusing on people’s direct experiences with risk and their risk knowledge, predisposition to “live with” risk, and/or proper behavior in case of emergency.

The methodology results showed that many areas, characterized by paved impermeable surfaces and/or poor vegetation, mainly located in the Southern macro-sector and along primary roads (e.g., large public and private adjacent areas, parking areas, etc.) of Soccavo, were perceived by the sample as particularly hot in the summer season. Furthermore, some areas nearby underpasses, which are often affected by pluvial floods in cases of heavy rainfall due to impermeabilization and sewage system inefficiency, were perceived as vulnerable, thus strongly influencing the livability of the area. In this regard, first of all, the sample suggested the increase and improvement of pre-existing urban green areas (e.g., parks, trees along roads, and/or ornamental greenery), which would reduce the urban heat island effect thanks to the foliage that shades and absorbs solar radiation (“green-blue city” vision). Indeed, the vegetation would also regulate the water drainage through the root system’s absorption and evapotranspiration processes (“green-blue city” vision). Secondly, the sample proposed replacing the pre-existing pavement with sustainable semi-permeable or permeable materials and maintaining the sewage system to reduce the runoff of rainwater (“green-blue city” vision).

Through the proposed methodology, it was possible to identify all those areas affected by landslides and/or erosion phenomena, mainly located on the hilly side of Soccavo near Camaldoli Park and perceived by inhabitants as a risk factor. According to inhabitants, these areas are also impacted by wildfires, especially in the summer season, compromising trekking paths, endemic vegetation, and slope stability in case of heavy rainfall. Therefore, the introduction of herbaceous, shrubby, and/or tree vegetation could stabilize, consolidate, and protect the hilly side (“green-blue city” vision).

The results of this research, albeit preliminary, allowed the inhabitants to highlight the state of abandonment of several urban green areas and buildings, mainly located in the Southern macro-sector of Soccavo, that are potentially usable for public and private purposes. According to the sample, both green areas and buildings should be enhanced from a multi-functional perspective, paying attention to people’s priorities (e.g., sports facilities, social places intended for culture and leisure, medical health services, and commercial areas with shops and local farmer markets; “15 min city” vision). The methodology also showed that primary infrastructures are perceived as physical barriers, isolating important key sectors within the district. At the same time, the green mobility infrastructure is particularly lacking. In this regard, the reconfiguration of urban and extra-urban public transport (e.g., new lines, new bus/train stops) and the increase of cycle-pedestrian paths were proposed by inhabitants in order to improve interconnection (“15 min city” vision), reduce vehicular traffic, and thus decrease CO₂ emissions (“zero-carbon city” vision).

The majority of observations and proposals reflect survey quantitative results collected to evaluate risk perception and awareness in a multi-hazard territorial context like Soccavo. Many criticalities shared by the sample during the collaborative mapping and co-design processes (e.g., areas perceived as extremely hot in the summer season, floods, or slope instability) are directly linked to climate change-related phenomena, such as heat waves and pluvial floods, or interconnected ones, such as landslides and erosion. Among the many geo-environmental risks proposed in the survey model, heat waves and landslides were perceived by more than half of the sample with a frequency of occurrence between moderate-low and moderate, while floods were perceived by almost all of them with a higher frequency. On the contrary, as already revealed in other scientific studies [32], volcanic eruptions were poorly perceived since the local population has no historical memory of Campi Flegrei eruptions. Both bradyseisms and earthquakes were perceived by half of the sample, with a variable frequency between low and moderate-low, and are directly related to the volcanic unrest of the Campi Flegrei caldera, which is currently in a phase of uplift. Although wildfires were not initially considered a priority in this study, they were particularly perceived by people because they were very frequent in the summer season. Further confirmation of these preliminary results on risk perception in Soccavo was the direct experience that people had with one or more hazardous events: half of the sample had direct experience with pluvial floods, while no one had any with volcanic eruptions. Regarding knowledge about risks, the sample declared that they read up on the internet and newspapers. Only half of the sample declared also to be informed about the proper behavior required in case of emergency, ascribing the know-how to word of mouth rather than to official sources; in this regard, most of the sample stated they did not know the current National Civil Protection Plan of Campi Fegrei.

Concerning the possibility of carrying out adaptation measures to geo-environmental risks, which is linked both to the predisposition to “live with” risks by people (a key aspect of risk perception and awareness) and their ability to activate bottom-up transformation processes, most of the sample declared to be willing to invest in structural and/or energy retrofitting of their house if there is the opportunity. In the case of municipality investment in building adaptive measures, almost all of the sample believed that schools had absolute priority, and more than half gave priority to schools and hospitals.

The methodology adopted within this paper is affected by some limitations:

• The sample involved cannot be considered scientifically representative since it was made up of a small number of inhabitants (about 0.04% of the total population of Soccavo). The workshop did not imply any restrictions on age, gender, status, or number of participants in order to include the widest variety of people as possible. Indeed, a free event in which anyone could participate was organized. This approach to the selection of the sample may result in not reaching a sufficient number of participants and, consequently, a scarcity of collected data. Therefore, the proposed methodology requires that the entire workshop be carried out several times within the same areas;
• The workshop required from 3 to 5 h to be carried out, and this could represent a limit. Furthermore, the collaborative mapping and co-design processes usually need facilitators, whose numbers may vary in relation to the number of participants (i.e., 1 facilitator for every 6 people);
• Suitable graphic/cartographic material, which is useful to describe key concepts, goals, and activities of the workshop (e.g., geophysical and climate change-related hazards, multi-risk, DRR/CCA strategies and measures, and participatory urban regeneration), had to be produced before the activities, and this required time for processing data.

Despite limitations, the proposed methodology was particularly effective for collecting qualitative–quantitative data/information and localizing it geographically, in order to characterize resilience determinants such as CC, AC, and TC. The multi-stakeholder and civil society engagement parameter, which is representative of TC, is extremely variable since it is related to site-specific aspects such as people’s risk perception and awareness, people’s urban space perception, or their ability to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes. Therefore, it needed to be investigated using dedicated operational tools such as surveys, collaborative mapping, and co-design processes.

Applying the methodology to the Soccavo district was crucial for evaluating the whole procedure in terms of reliability, timing needed, and thus quality and quantity of data collected. If adequately modified and harmonized, the procedure can be applied to other case studies likewise affected by one or more geo-environmental hazards.

5. Conclusions

This paper proposes an innovative methodology to identify urban resilience pathways in a multi-hazard context, starting with the characterization of Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity, and Transformative Capacity resilience determinants. The method envisaged the identification of main CC, AC, and TC parameters that could be easily converted into qualitative–quantitative variables. Among all parameters, the method primarily focused on multi-stakeholder and civil society engagement, which is representative of Transformative Capacity and particularly variable, being related to site-specific aspects like people’s risk perception and awareness, people’s urban space perception, or their ability to activate bottom-up urban transformation processes from a resilient development perspective.

The proposed method was applied to the Soccavo district (City of Naples, Italy), which is an ideal case study because it is affected by geophysical (e.g., volcanic eruptions and earthquakes) and climate change-related hazards (e.g., heat waves and pluvial floods). The method tried to combine different harmonized tools, such as collaborative mapping and co-design processes, which are qualitative and pertain to urban planning and design, with the survey, which is quantitative and concerns social research, in order to collect and analyze data and information as accurately as possible. Indeed, as Transformative Capacity relates to people’s ability/possibility to participate in decision-making processes, thus defining shared sustainable and resilient solutions to prevent future adverse conditions and transform the community’s functioning along the whole Disaster Risk Management cycle, this implies an exhaustive analysis of people’s socio-cognitive constructs, of the relationships that the community has with a multi-hazard urban space, and also of the ability to activate bottom-up resilient urban transformation processes. Considering people’s priorities and needs, the method is particularly useful not only for defining shared sustainable solutions that aim at social, environmental, and economic co-benefits but also for integrating DRR/CCA approaches.

The collaborative mapping process allowed identifying urban space strengths and weaknesses perceived by inhabitants, paying attention to any possible future impact of geo-environmental hazards (focusing on volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, pluvial floods, and heat waves) on the built environment, and considering what people have already experienced. As well as overcoming the lack of public and private services within the district, the co-design process also sought shared solutions to discomfort given by the occurrence of calamitous events, thus trying to implement a comprehensive resilient city model that brings together zero-carbon, green-blue, 15 min, and circular city visions. Instead, the multi-risk survey allowed for the collection and analysis of the so-called socio-cognitive constructs, focusing on inhabitants’ direct experience with risk, risk knowledge, predisposition to “live with” risk, and/or proper behavior in case of emergency. As previously reported, the survey results reflected the observations and proposals collected during the collaborative mapping and co-design processes.

With the appropriate modifications, the proposed methodology is applicable to other case studies affected by geophysical and/or climate change-related hazards from a Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity, and Transformative Capacity quantitative assessment perspective.