evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Preventive relocation of households at high hydrogeological risk in Piemonte (Italy)

Italy · See the Italy profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

52 households
Buyouts completed (2009-2024 (as of April 2024))
5347715.51 EUR
Total cost of buyout scheme (2009-2024)
900000 EUR
Annual regional budget allocation (per year)

Details

Maturity
Established
Region (NUTS)
ITC1
Keywords
hydrogeological risk, economic compensation, economic incentives, landslides, Avalanches, relocation

Context

Piemonte, located in North-west Italy, is the second largest region in the country and home to around 7% of the Italian population. It is characterised by a complex geomorphology, which includes mountains over 43% of its territory (Alps and Appennines), hilly areas and floodplains ( Fedato et al. 2023 ). Around 6% of its territory is at high or very high risk of landslides and around 8% at medium risk of floods. These risks affect the areas of 95% of the municipalities in the region ( ISPRA, 2021 ). The Po River, which is the longest in Italy, springs from the Cottian Alps in the province of Cuneo in the south-west side of Piemonte. The Po river basin is particularly vulnerable to floods and more will be under future climate conditions ( Vezzoli et al. 2015 ). Recent studies by the Piemonte regional environmental agency have outlined changes in the regional climate for the period 1981-2010 ( ARPA Piemonte, 2020a ), as well as future scenarios until the end of the century ( ARPA Piemonte, 2020b ). Climate change in Piemonte shows more pronounced trends than the global average, particularly at high altitudes. In addition to the increase in temperatures, considerable variations have been observed in the rainfall regime. Those are increasingly concentrated in time, giving rise to extreme phenomena and resulting in drought periods, flood events, soil erosion and consequent risks of landslides ( Regione Piemonte, 2022 ).

Objectives

Costs According to the Italian Environmental Code, incentives for relocation are provided through resources generated by State fees on the use of public water. The Region allocates 900 000 EUR each year in the regional budget for relocation interventions. As relocated households are not asked to contribute, the whole cost is on taxpayers. From 2009 to 2024, the total cost of the buyout scheme amounted to 5 347 715.51 EUR. It includes purchasing costs (transfers to households, € 4 730 918.7 EUR - spent) and demolition costs (€ 1 116 868.66 EUR spent and pledged). Benefits Relocation increases the safety of people. It allows those that are directly targeted by the measure to move permanently away from high-risk areas (direct beneficiaries). It also reduces the risk of those leaving downstream/downhill through the removal of exposed buildings (indirect beneficiaries). The Piemonte Region motivates this relocation policy in terms of cost-effectiveness and saving of public money. Moving people away from high-risk areas involves lower investments than protecting a small number of residents at risk or continuously providing ex post compensations to those affected. However, no formal cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken.

Activities

A buyout scheme was introduced by regional regulations for residential property owners – both primary and secondary residents -whose houses are located in areas at high hydrogeological risk, as identified by relevant planning instruments. These planning instruments include the urban plans, developed at municipal level, the “hydrological system plan” ( Piano Assetto Idrologico ) of the Po River basin and the regional law 56/1977 about land use and soil preservation. They identify areas of built-up territory exposed to high geomorphological hazard and at high risk, for which no further urban use is possible. The regulation sets priority criteria for disbursing the available funds, including type of residence (primary prioritised over secondary), level of risk faced, and type of hazard (landslide and avalanches over riverine floods, whenever the former are less predictable). Households are provided with a “relocation grant” that can be used either to buy or build a new property or as a form of indemnity. The maximum grantable amount is calculated by multiplying the value of 1034 euros/m2 (which is calculated taking the maximum cost per m 2 for the construction of new subsidised social housing as defined by regional resolution) by the surface of the house to be relocated (up to 200 m 2 ). A coefficient is then applied. It depends on whether the house is used as primary or secondary residence, with primary residents getting the full amount and secondary residents 75%. If applicants opt for the indemnity, they receive 50% of the amount they would get if they chose to buy/build a new property. Regardless of the relocation grant chosen, the original property is then demolished. In order to access the relocation grant, the property owner submits an application to the municipality. The municipality, after having checked the application against the admissibility criteria, prepares a project for the demolition of the building and then forwards a relocation proposal to the Piemonte Region. The Regional authority assesses the relocation proposal by the municipality. If the proposal meets the criteria, it transfers the resources to the Municipality to cover both the relocation grant for the property owner and the demolition costs for the building at risk. In the case that the property owner is entitled to access the relocation grant but decides not to adhere to the buyout scheme, they forfeit any benefits or compensations they could receive in case of damages caused by natural disasters. As of April 2024, 52 buyouts have been implemented: 26 targeted primary residents and 25 secondary residents. With respect to the type of relocation grant chosen, 89% of primary residents opted for purchasing/building a new house against 42% of secondary residents. This can be explained by the fact that secondary residents typically own holiday houses and are therefore less in need to find a new property and more willing to accept a monetary indemnity. The regional regulation also introduces vulnerability reduction measures for those buildings that cannot be relocated because of their historical or social value or the peculiar configuration of the urban layout. As of April 2024, one vulnerability reduction measure is being implemented in the municipality of Bussoleno. In this municipality, it is impossible to construct embankments or to carry out other hydraulic works to protect against a 200-year flood. Thus, the municipality presented a project aimed at reducing the vulnerability of dwellings at risk through the replacement of existing windows and doors with watertight alternatives. The Piemonte Region has transferred 650.000 EUR to the municipality for the implementation of the measures.

Results

Costs According to the Italian Environmental Code, incentives for relocation are provided through resources generated by State fees on the use of public water. The Region allocates 900 000 EUR each year in the regional budget for relocation interventions. As relocated households are not asked to contribute, the whole cost is on taxpayers. From 2009 to 2024, the total cost of the buyout scheme amounted to 5 347 715.51 EUR. It includes purchasing costs (transfers to households, 4 730 918.7 EUR - spent) and demolition costs (1 116 868.66 EUR - spent and pledged). Benefits Relocation increases the safety of people. It allows those that are directly targeted by the measure to move permanently away from high-risk areas (direct beneficiaries). It also reduces the risk of those leaving downstream/downhill through the removal of exposed buildings (indirect beneficiaries). The Piemonte Region motivates this relocation policy in terms of cost-effectiveness and saving of public money. Moving people away from high-risk areas involves lower investments than protecting a small number of residents at risk or continuously providing ex post compensations to those affected. However, no formal cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken.

Conclusions

The following success and limiting factors emerged from the implementation of the relocation grant. Success factors: Institutional and political commitment: the preventive relocation programme in Piemonte is unique in Italy. It was devised thanks to the commitment of regional officers and council members that saw the value in starting this process; Availability of funds (900.000 EUR per year) coming from State fees on the use of public water and managed by Piemonte region; Property appraisal that incentivisess preventive relocation, as based on the values of new subsidised social housing; Sharing the problem with relevant stakeholders and allowing households at risks to undertand the problem emerged as a key element for the success of the intervention. This was shown in Villar Pellice, one of the first municipalities that adhered to the scheme. Limiting factors: Limited dedicated human and economic resources at both regional and municipal level to implement the programme; Varying levels of capacity to implement the programme across the municipalities involved, which affects both the ability to involve households at risk and the implementation timeframes; Limited awareness of the public about the risks their property face and about the possibility to resort to the relocation measure; Difficulties in reaching consensus among all property owners in apartment blocks, which is nevertheless needed to proceed with the demolition of the building at risk; Resistance from primary residents to leave their house. Considering the last point, the relatively high application to the relocation grant by secondary residents (compared to primary residents) raised some concerns about the effectiveness of the measure to reach the most exposed people. Public authorities identified several reasons why involving primary residents remains a challenge. A key reason is the emotional attachment to the property. However, the regional authority sees value in keeping a focus of the measure on secondary residents both from a cost-benefits perspective (i.e. to avoid compensation claims for incurred damages) and also in terms of risk reduction as the building should be demolished anyway. Discussions are underway on how the scheme could be improved to promote a greater involvement of primary residents.

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful