Abstract

According to the idea of safety structures as systemic, we developed a framework that emphasizes how the engagement of all relevant social agents could play an active role in the whole safety performance. The hypothesis of this paper is that a systemic approach should imply a precise shift of perspective from a unit of analysis embedded in a general environment, with mutual effects on a given safety performance, to a general analysis of a system where interdependent agents affect system performance. Through the lens of organizational field theory, safety performance is intended as the sum of the activities of multi-agents oriented by normative and cultural principles set out at the societal level, specifically within the urban area boundaries. In doing so, the analysis describes the key agents and their activities according to four different safety stages: Prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. Institutional logics, distinguished as formal and informal, help to explain the behaviors and connections among agents. With the idea that a locally placed, organizational field reflects its peculiarity, we used four Italian towns located in two different areas of Campania, which live under the constant risk of a volcanic eruption, as examples. The results show how safety structures systems are contextual, characterized by locally embedded formal and informal rules, but not necessarily mutually aimed at orienting key agents to improve the safety performance. This contribution aims to support empirical analyses, natural experiments as well as qualitative studies to compare urban areas designed as safety-organizational fields from a multidisciplinary perspective. At the same time, we indicate some policy suggestions by emphasizing differences among organizational fields.

Highlights

  • Safety as a system is becoming an increasingly prominent topic both in political arenas as well as for scholars

  • The analysis describes the key agents and their activities according to four different safety stages: Prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery

  • With the idea that a locally placed, organizational field reflects its peculiarity, we used four Italian towns located in two different areas of Campania, which live under the constant risk of a volcanic eruption, as examples

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Safety as a system is becoming an increasingly prominent topic both in political arenas as well as for scholars. We develop a framework for the configurational analysis of urban areas, viewed as a safety-specific organizational field, by evaluating the kind of involvement and interconnections of the agents This is crucial for two essential reasons: 1) It helps in contextualizing the organizational field as a specific dimension with its own political, social, and economic factors; and 2) it mirrors how much institutional logics orient the agents’ behaviors in sharing a common objective that the safety performance expresses. This contribution aims to support the empirical analyses, natural experiments as well as qualitative studies to compare urban areas designed as safety-organizational fields. We set out the article as follows: Section 1 is the introduction; Section 2 is a brief review of the organizational field; Section 3 describes key agents related to the town as an organizational field; Section 4 is about institutional logics; Section 5 discusses some examples of safety as an organizational field in the particular case of a volcanic hazard; and Section 6 presents some conclusions

Organizational Fields Characteristics
Key Agents
Professional and Environmental Organizations
Construction Firms
Citizens
Safety Institutional Logics
The Volcanic Area of Naples
Planning of Prevention
Planning of Preparedness and Response
Place-Specific Characteristics
Rulings on structural violations and 2 demolitions
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call