Environmental Science & Policy 56 (2016) 8088

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science & Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Environmental disasters, migration and displacement. Insights

and developments from LAquilas case
Elena Ambrosetti a,*, Enza Roberta Petrillo b
a
Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Methods and Models for Economics, Territory and Finance, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, Rome, Italy
b
EuroSapienza Research Center, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This paper analyses the environmentally-induced migration and displacement resulting from LAquilas
Received 13 July 2015 earthquake of 2009. After a general critical overview of the social science literature on this topic, the
Received in revised form 2 November 2015 main changes in the migration system are analysed looking at the roots and trajectories of the forced
Accepted 3 November 2015
human displacement that followed the earthquake, and reecting on the challenges related to post-
Available online 23 November 2015
earthquake demographic movements and post-disaster resettlement. Through the analysis of the pre
disaster (20022008) and recovery period (20092013) data, this paper offers a general model of how
Keywords:
environmental disaster might affect migration and displacement and suggests the main challenges
Environmental disaster
related to the post-disaster governance. Relying on ISTAT data on internal migration in Italy this paper
Migration
Displacement argues that the post-seismic recovery period is characterized by a strong increase of out-ows from
Migration system LAquila to other provinces, within the Abruzzo region and outside it, in particular toward the closest
Vulnerability regions (Latium, Campania).
LAquila 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction phenomenon of the environmentally induced displacement,

The relevance of environmentally induced migration and
displacement, including those resulting from disasters and natural
hazards, have increasingly drawn attention from academia and
policy makers (Mayer, 2013). The reasons behind this increasing
attention are included and not limited to the growing envir-
onmentalization that has characterized both social science and the
public debate in the past three decades, a period marked by a huge
number of environmental global disasters that can be narrow
down into three main elds:
- natural disasters (such as the 2004 South-east Asian tsunami, the
2009 LAquila earthquake, the 2012 Hurricane Sandy in the
United States);
- human induced disasters (such as the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear
disaster in the former USSR and the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India);
- and mixed disasters (such as the 2005 Hurricane Katrina that
resulted in ooding when the levee collapsed in New Orleans).
These events have entailed a wide range of social, economic and
demographic consequences, especially as concerns the rising
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: elena.ambrosetti@uniroma1.it (E. Ambrosetti),
enzaroberta.petrillo@uniroma1.it (E.R. Petrillo).
namely, the rapid, unforeseen option of last resort for those
affected by an environmental hazard.
According to the Norwegian Refugee Council in 2008, about
36 million people had to ee because of natural disasters, more than
16 million in 2009 and nally about 42 million in 2010 (Yenotani,
2011). Over the last decade, at least ten key disasters had a
signicant long-term impact on the dynamics of long-lasting
displacement. According to the estimates of international organiza-
tions, more than 1.7 million people were forced to displace following
the Asiatic tsunami of December 2004. In August 2005, as a result of
the Hurricane Katrina over the Gulf of Mexico, over 300,000 people
were resettled, while the disaster caused losses estimated at over
86 billion dollars. In February 2010 more than 1.5 million people
have been displaced in the aftermath of destructive 8.8 magnitude
earthquake in Chile. The 2011s earthquake in Haiti has deprived
more than 1 million residents of homes. Furthermore, Japans March
2011 earthquake, with its 9 magnitude and accompanying tsunami
wave, had a signicant impact on the dynamics of internal migration
for Japanese nationals. According to the United Nations, 590,000
were evacuated or displaced because of the quake and tsunami
disaster, including more than 100,000 children (Terminski, 2012).
These gures, not only have increased the attention span on the
environmentally-induced population movements, but also have
kicked off the debate, exacerbating the divisions among the
scientic and political community. Although a general scientic

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.002
1462-9011/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E. Ambrosetti, E.R. Petrillo / Environmental Science & Policy 56 (2016) 8088
consensus on global environmental change exists, the degree to
which it will generate displacements and migration is still
debated: the alarmist perspective, often championed by environ-
mental scholars, the media and civil society, claims that
environmental disruptions, among which the impacts of climate
change in particular, will induce massive population displace-
ments. And, on the contrary, the sceptical perspective, voiced by
migration scholars, insists that migration is multi-causal by nature,
and that environmental drivers should not be set apart from other
migration drivers (Gemenne, 2011: 225).
Looking at the lacunas that typify the ongoing researches on
environmental migration, Oliver-Smith goes more in depth, observ-
ing that the increasing number of critics mainly concerns the
contingent nature of prediction of environmental impacts, the vast
disparities in predictions of numbers of people to be affected, the
elusive nature of denitional issues, the difcult question of causation
and the overall complexity of society-nature relations (Oliver-Smith,
2009: 9). The same criticality is also stressed by Piguet and Laczko,
who suggest to take into account that migrants who move for
environmental reasons, are also likely to fall into many different
categories, and not all migration linked to environmental change can
be described as forced migration (Piguet and Laczko, 2014: 2).
The need to go beyond the mono-dimensional denition of
environmental migrants, has been also endorsed by the annual
Foresight Report, according to which the environmental change
will affect migration now and in the future, specially through its
inuence on a range of economic, social and political drivers which
themselves affect migration (2011: 9). On these bases, many
empirical works and researches (see, for instance, Gemenne et al.,
2013) have in fact demonstrated that while forced displacement is
one of the most important and visible consequences of the
environmental disasters, a great part of the environmental
population movements tend to be the result of a multi-causal
relationship between environmental political, economic, social
and cultural dimensions.
Against this background, through this research we try to expand
and integrate the existent, available literature regarding the post-
disaster mobility. Differently from the wide literature that analyses
the role played by environmental disasters in shaping population
movements in under-developed countries, this paper sheds light
on a case-study occurred in an industrialized country, Italy, looking
at the forced displacement that followed the earthquake of
LAquila in 2009 and the challenges related to post-earthquake
resettlement. As a novelty, we examine the mobility effects of
natural disasters capturing specically the diachronic and
territorial dimensions that have characterized the mobility
patterns after LAquila 2008s earthquake. From the theoretical
point of view, we extend the analysis of LAquila post-disaster
displacement building on two main literatures: the Migration
System Theory and the Disaster Risk Vulnerability.
The analysis of the displacement roots and trajectories is done
thanks to the analysis of demographic data on internal migration in
Italy collected in the years 20022013 by ISTAT (Italian National
Institute of Statistics). It reviews the main pre and post disaster
mobility tendencies, with the aim to understand how the natural
disaster shaped them.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we discuss the
theoretical framework behind our analysis. In Section 3, we describe
the main patterns of LAquilas case-study before and after the
earthquake. In Section 4 we address our empirical strategy, the data
and the variables. In Section 5, we conclude summing up our results.
2. The theoretical framework
Since the seventies, social research into the causation of the
disaster-related displacement, began to involve multi-scalar and
81
system analysis with an emphasis on the interaction across
multiple spatial-temporal scales. This approach called for a
rethinking of disasters from political economic perspective,
based on the high correlation between disaster predisposition,
low local income and under-development, and leaded to the
conclusion that the root causes of disasters lay more in society
than in nature.
Moving from this background, in this paper, we use the
migration system theory to understand how the population of
LAquila province has changed after the 2009s earthquake.
Accordingly, this section links insights from the review to classic
migration system theory in addition to the theoretical conceptions
of disaster risk vulnerability. As an analytic choice, we do not
attempt to understand post-disaster mobility by merely focusing
on migration; instead, we examine the entire social system at play.
While we acknowledge that any migration process is distinct and
lies outside the specic evolution of each social context, here we
claim that we can usefully examine local migration system as an
unique, emergent social entity that also shape the specic post-
disaster mobility.
More in detail, taking into account the approach launched
during the 70s by Mabogunje (1970) this analysis investigates two
introductory questions about population movements:
- How did the migration system change after LAquilas earth-
quake?
- and as recently investigated in the case of Hurrican Katrine
were the most important sources for population recovery after
the disaster also the most important destinations for migrants
before the disaster? (Fussell et al., 2014: 306).
Usually the literature on the mobility patterns following the
environmental disasters have underestimated the importance of
migration systems in shaping the post-disaster population
dynamics. Additionally, even when used, migration system has
been used as a taken-for-granted concept which needs further
explanation especially in the context of post-disaster mobility. As
observed, the social sciences have generated numerous theories
to explain various aspects of migration, drawing on different
disciplinary perspectives and underlying models (Bakewell, 2010:
1691). In this section, we argue that migration system theory can
be a good instrument to understand the mobility patterns
following an environmental disaster.
Many scholars have undertaken detailed surveys of the
migration system. The categorization of migration system
theories proposed by Bakewell (2012), offers a clear recognition
of the main paradigms that have been dened since the 70s.
According to this author, the earliest appearance of the term
migration system in the literature is given by the rise of the
embedded functionalist form where the migration system is
presented as a self-regulating apparatus within a wider social
system. Such systems are qualied by the nature of the operating
logic: for example, the labour migration system or the guest-
worker system.
A second typology of the migration system theory is the
functionalist form addressed by the geographer Mabogunje
(1970). In his view, migration system is conceived as a self-
perpetuating and regular pattern of exchanges between specic
territorial contexts: in other words, a set of material and immaterial
relationships that develop across time and space. In Mabogunjes
words, within the systems framework, attention is focused not only
on the migrant but also on the various institutions (sub-systems)
and the social, economic, and other relationships (adjustment
mechanisms) which are an integral part of the process of the
migrants transformation (Mabogunje, 1970:5). This conceptuali-
zation of the problem emphasizes the systemic dimension of the
82 E. Ambrosetti, E.R. Petrillo / Environmental Science & Policy 56 (2016) 8088
migration as it enables a consideration of mobility (even the post-
disasters one) no longer as a linear, uni-directional, push-and-pull,
cause-effect movement but as a circular, interdependent, progres-
sively complex, and self-modifying system in which the effect of
changes in one part can be traced through the whole of the system
(Mabogunje, 1970: 16).
Building on this approach we look at LAquilas case as a
complex of interacting elements, together with their attributes
and relationships (Mabogunje, 1970: 4). In other words, we
explicitly investigate if migration can be considered as a process
with feedback mechanisms that challenge the patterns of post-
disaster displacement. Therefore, just moving from the denition
of a migration system as a set of places linked by ows and
counter ows of people, goods, services, and information, which
tend to facilitate further exchange, including migration, between
the places (De Haas, 2009: 4).
Have, pre-existing ties measured trough mobility trends
encouraged post-seismic people mobility along certain pathways
and discouraging it along others? May these ties represent the
continuation of a standardized and pre-existing process? Accord-
ingly, on the base of the migration system theory above cited, can
post-seismic population movements be interpreted as a self-
perpetuating and regular pattern of exchanges between localities
in LAquilas province?
Of course, the consequences of a distress such as an
earthquake cannot be understood by making universal assump-
tions about communities as on its own phenomena with
characteristics that are independent of the territorial context
in which they are found. On these basis we study LAquilas post-
disaster displacement also referring to its specic territorial
disaster vulnerability, with vulnerability dened as the
characteristics of a person or group in terms of their capacity
to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a
hazard (Hunter, 2005: 283). In the literature, disaster vulnera-
bility has many different characterizations, depending on the
research orientation and perspective (Duckers et al., 2015: 86).
Here, we agree to the denition of disaster vulnerability as the
characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or
asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a
hazard.1 Disaster vulnerability concept is also relevant for its
intrinsic multidimensionality as it varies spatially, over time and
among different social groups. These elements, according to
Alexander (2012), concur to make vulnerability a dynamic
concept, which can only be understood in relation to its causes
and consequences.
In LAquilas case, as in other hazard cases, the post-disaster
displacement is acted upon by the specic territorial vulnerability
as well as cultural socio-economic systems physical hazards, and
historical factors. The ensemble of the context and consequences of
these elements is what determines the form, entity and size of the
post-disaster displacement. In other words, we argue that
vulnerability is crucial because it allows to go in the depth in
the understanding of disasters, recognizing that disasters, and,
therefore, the related population displacement are not caused by a
single agent but by the complex interaction of both environmental
and social features and forces.
Of course, the patterns of displacement following the hazard
can vary across space and time. Hunter (2005:275), as instance,
observes, how migration as a demographic process can be
associated with environmental hazards in several ways. On the
one hand, proximate environmental hazards might inuence
residential decision-making by shaping the desirability of particu-
lar locales. In this case, we might consider environmental hazards
1
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, UNISDR
Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, UNISDR, Geneva, 2009.
as factors shaping migration. On the other hand, migration can
represent an exacerbating force with regard to environmental
hazards as a result of increasing population density in vulnerable
locales.
For similar reasons, we believe that disasters do not affect all
individuals, households and communities equally, and environ-
mental hazard is not faced in the same way everywhere and by
everyone (Piguet, 2010; Kerry Smith et al., 2006). Events that are
rooted in nature such as earthquakes or tsunami, if they are of
identical intensity, can produce diverse outcomes according to
the characteristics of the communities and of the territory
where they take place. Many authors have argued that also
signicant with regard to the social and economic context of
environmental hazards is social variation in vulnerability
(Mohajervatan et al., 2015; Kerry Smith et al., 2006; Girard
and Peacock, 1997; Blaikie et al., 1994). Even in developed
contexts, most vulnerable are those households at the base of
the socio-economic scale. The availability of income and wealth
largely inuence the economic capacity of households to
relocate, thus economic circumstances of the households largely
affect their way to respond to natural disasters (Kerry Smith
et al., 2006). On these bases, Oliver-Smith argues that a full
understanding of environmental change and its effects, such as
population displacement, requires reframing nature-society
relations from a duality to a mutuality, positing that nature
and society are inseparable, each implicated in the life of the
other, each contributing to the resilience and vulnerability of the
other (Oliver-Smith, 2004). In this perspective, the same
concepts of evacuation, displacement, resettlement, as well as
forced migration (Oliver-Smith, 2004) represent different ways
of reaction, which entail different mobility implications.
3. LAquilas case
Italy is one of the most earthquake-prone countries in the world
(Telesca, 2010). The LAquila earthquake of April 6, 2009 killed
309 people, and destroyed a large part of the built environment, as
well as essential infrastructure networks (OECD, 2009). The
earthquake and the resulting relief and recovery operations have
changed the city irreversibly: an estimated 10,00015,000
buildings were damaged or destroyed (Liel et al., 2013). The
earthquake beat an economy experiencing harsh demographic
and structural economic challenges. In the last ten years,
according to OECD (OECD, 2009), economic growth in the
Province of LAquila had slowed. Its per capita GDP is now
 E. Ambrosetti, E.R. Petrillo / Environmental Science & Policy 56 (2016) 8088
around 80% of the national average and below the regional
average.
The reconstruction programme regarding LAquila and the so
called earthquake crater,2 has been planned by the Central
Government through three Laws. The Law 77/2009 was the rst
one approved on June 24th 2009. It included measures to build
housing units in order to ensure adequate accommodation for
people whose homes were destroyed or declared not habitable.
Other actions aimed at develop a set of urgent measures for
property damage restoration, including university buildings and
the Conservatory of Music, as well as state-owned property or the
property of ecclesiastical institutions recognized of common
historical and artistic interest. Special measures for families,
workers and commerce were also provided; suspension for
businesses of any penalties related to tax non-compliance; non-
computability, for the purposes of the denition of income from
employment.
The Law for the reconstruction of LAquila (Chapter X bis of the
Law 134/2012 converting Decree Law 83/2012) established the
end of the state of emergency in LAquila and in the other towns
affected by the earthquake, and the establishment of the Special
Ofce for the reconstruction of LAquila. This Law delimited the
area of the so called crater, and stated the priorities for the
reconstruction of LAquila, xing specic requisites to resettle the
people affected to their own houses, to renovate housing, to
recover the socio-economic system of the area, and to plan
interventions for the historical centre renovation. Additionally,
special measures in the elds of economy and employment were
taken.
Finally, Law no. 71/2013, authorized the Mayor of the City of
LAquila to use the accommodation of the C.A.S.E. (House Estate
Seismically Sustainable and Environment-Friendly) and the MAP
(House Estate Seismically Sustainable and Environment-Friendly)
for additional allocations. Other regulations and decrees aimed to
the application of these three main laws.
Constructed between June 2009 and February 2010, the C.A.S.E
buildings are located in 19 areas around the municipality of
LAquila and consist of 185 seismically isolated buildings, with
4600 rent-free and fully furnished apartments designed to house
up to 15,000 residents who have a house destroyed by the
earthquake or declared unt for use after the inspection. They are
permanent constructions built with two criteria:
- Technological innovation and energy saving;
- Protection against earthquakes.
As observed (Liel et al., 2013: 3) the C.A.S.E. structures have a
greater air of permanence than previous post-disaster construc-
tion, in the sense that they are not trailers or other types of
provisional construction. Nevertheless, it is not intended that
residents will live there indenitely and they may eventually be
repurposed as dormitories for university students.
Additionally, 8500 people were accommodated in another place
in LAquila and surrounding communities in homes known as
M.A.P, temporary housing units for people with destroyed or
uninhabitable homes. In addition the population affected by the
earthquake who could not benet of these two housing
programmes was provided either of special economic contribu-
tions, or of special renting tariffs and temporary housing outside
the city of LAquila (hotels, residences, etc.).
How many people were eligible by the new housing
programme? In April 2009, immediately after the earthquake
2
As dened by the Decree of the Deputy Commissioner No. 3 of 16.4.2009, the
area of the so called crater comprises a total of 57 municipalities in LAquila,
Teramo and Pescara provinces.
83
48,810 people could have beneted from the programme.
Specically, almost half of them could have proted from
special economic contributions designed to support the auton-
omous search of a new habitation. About 18,000 people were
settled in the C.A.S.E. and MAP housing and the remaining
3600 were accommodated in temporary housing outside the city
of LAquila. Over the last ve years, the housing situation of the
population affected by the earthquake has improved a lot: at the
beginning of March 2014,3 11,776 people were living in the
C.A.S.E. project housing, 2468 in the MAP project housing,
4276 were receiving the special economic contribution for
housing, and 478 were renting at special rates. While the
situation of the public housing has overall improved over the
years, a range of aspects delineates a more complex scenario. A
recent study (Liel et al., 2013) demonstrates that a bulk part of
the affected citizens perceived that the national Civil Protection
Organization in charge of the housing projects, managed all the
planning activity without any local input. While C.A.S.E. was
good for individual people, several local leaders expressed
signicant concerns about the implementation and funding of
C.A.S.E. project. In particular, local leaders described the C.A.S.E.
accommodations as inadequate in number, too far away from
the original city centre and too much like dormitories. According
to Liels study, while residents had been assured that they would
be provided with housing near their original homes, this did not
happen, and project implementation was perceived as having
contributed to the further disruption of community. These
concerns were also stressed by a Special Report issued by the
European Parliament (2013), that has identied a range of
problems in relation to the CASE and MAP housing. These
include poor quality building material,4 problems related to
water pipelines, humidity, broken walls, broken oors, sewers
and the nishing, and nally but not less paradoxically safety
issues with the seismic isolators: according to the Aquila
Prosecutor, 200 of the installed seismic isolators in the CASE
houses are defective.
4. Methodology and data
In this section we aim at analyze LAquilas migration system
before and after the earthquake through the analysis of ISTAT
data of Population Registers, in order to shed light on whether
and how the 2009s earthquake has been capable of altering
LAquilas migration system, looking in detail at the size of
migration ows into and out of the province and the sources and
destinations of those ows. In doing that we assume that
migration system can connect communities and people over
space in trans-local communities especially in the phase of post-
disaster recovery.
Different elements seem to conrm our hypothesis. Primarily,
the fact that sudden-onset environmental disasters usually result
in short-term and short-distance migrations (Laczko and Agha-
zarm, 2009). This suggests to investigate whether and how
LAquilas residents would have displaced at the provincial level,
to which they were already connected before the earthquake.
Secondarily, moving from the fact that various scholars (McLeman
and Smit, 2006; Fussell et al., 2014) have observed that disasters
3
Data furnished by the Municipality of LAquila: http://www.comune.laquila.
gov.it/pagina492_statistiche-su-assistenza-e-ricostruzione.html.
4
Some MAPs have been evacuated following the Aquila Prosectors orders stating
that the houses in question are characterized by deciencies" and are "dangerous
and unhealthy. The entire Cansatessa MAP was evacuated (54 families) following
the Aquila Prosecutors order. In addition, 34 families have been evacuated from the
Arischia MAP and 15 families have been evacuated in the Tempera MAP. The
Pagliare di Sassa CASE caught re due to a faulty electrical system and because it
was constructed with ammable materials.
84 E. Ambrosetti, E.R. Petrillo / Environmental Science & Policy 56 (2016) 8088

80000 600
70000 400
60000 Natural increase
200
50000
0 Net migraon
40000 Total populaon
Foreign populaon -200
30000 Net migraon
Italian populaon -400 (internal)
20000
10000 Net migraon
-600
(internaonal)
0 -800
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Fig. 1. Resident population in LAquila by citizenship, 20022013. Fig. 2. Natural increase and net migration (internal and international) in LAquila,
Source: http://demo.istat.it. 20012012.
Source: http://demo.istat.it.

Table 1
Flow sizes of migrants to LAquila and from LAquila (annual average in each period) and risk of migrating to LAquila province and from LAquila province.

Out-ties or ows In-ties or ows

Pre-disaster Recovery %Change Pre-disaster Recovery %Change

Flow size
All regions 2790.0 3373.2 20.9 2629.9 2806.0 6.7
Same region provinces 482.7 744.4 54.2 308 367.8 19.2
Other regions provinces 2307.3 2628.8 13.9 2.321 2438.2 5.0

Risk of migration D D
All regions 0.939 1.132 0.194 0.028 0.032 0.004
Same region provinces 0.162 0.250 0.088 0.031 0.036 0.005
Other regions provinces 0.776 0.882 0.106 0.004 0.004 0.000
Source: Authors elaboration on ISTAT (online dataset).

can also present attractive opportunities to new migrants that
should be attracted by the economic investments associated to the
reconstruction or the recovery funds issued by private or public
donors, we also scrutinize whether, how and why new migrants
have originated in places tied to the disaster-affected region after
the disaster.
To answer our research questions we start our analysis
providing an assessment of the main trends of population growth
in the city of LAquila and in the craters towns. Secondly, we
describe the migration system calculating ows to LAquila
province from all other Italian regions and from provinces of the
same region (Abruzzo) and then ows from LAquila province to all
other Italian regions and to provinces of the same region. Thirdly,
using the methodology adopted by Fussell et al. (2014) we
calculate the risk of county-to-county migration controlling for
population size. For both analysis, we consider as pre-disaster
period the timeframe 20022008 and the as post-disaster period
the timeframe 20092013.
4.1. Results
From the data of Fig. 1 a general decrease of the total
population resident in LAquila starting from the year 2008 is
evident. The decrease of the total population is mainly due to the
Italian component. Conversely, the foreign population resident in
LAquila has grown during the whole period analyzed. Its
proportion on the total population resident has passed from
2.2% in 2002 to 5.2% in 2013. Fig. 2 shows the trends in the main
components of population growth for the period 20012012.
Natural increase has been negative for the whole period with the
exception of the year 2001 and 2003 that recorded a slowly
positive increase.
To analyze net migration we differentiate internal and
international components. Internal net migration has been
negative since 2003: however, since 2009 the pace of decline
has increased; international net migration has been positive for the
whole period considered, recording a slight decrease in the pace of
growth in the period 20092011. In conclusion, our rst data
analysis shows that no massive population movement occurred
after the earthquake of April 2009.
As a second and third step of our analysis, we calculated
ows to LAquila province from all other Italian regions and from
provinces of the same region (Abruzzo) and then ows from
LAquila province to all other Italian regions and to provinces of
the same region. Lastly, we calculated the risk of province-to-
province migration controlling for population size. This analysis
goal is the description of the migration system of the LAquila
province in the periods pre and post-disaster. Results are
presented in Table 1: we notice that after the earthquake the
ow size to all the other regions and to provinces of the same
region, has increased: the overall percent change in out-ows
from LAquila was 21%. Taking into account the regional
dimension of out-ows, we found that in the recovery period
a change of 54% in the ows from LAquila to provinces of the
same region. However, ows from LAquila to provinces of the
same region are smaller in size of the ows directed to other
regions (744 vs 2629). In-ows to LAquila has increased by 19%
from the pre-disaster to the recovery period. Overall, we found
7% change between pre-disaster and recovery in-ows to
LAquila province.
In conclusion, the recovery period is characterized by a strong
increase of out-ows from LAquila to other provinces, within the
Abruzzo region and outside the Abruzzo region. As far as in-ow to
LAquila are concerned, in the post-disaster period we have found a
slight increase in the in-ows to LAquila region. Internal net
migration rate is therefore negative because of the increase in the
out-ows has been more important than the increase on the in-
ows to LAquila. Coming to the analysis of migration probabilities,
 E. Ambrosetti, E.R. Petrillo / Environmental Science & Policy 56 (2016) 8088 85

Table 2
Flow sizes of migrants to LAquila and from LAquila (annual average in each period), change (%) between the two periods and differences between in-ow in recovery and out-
ow in pre-disaster period.

Flow size Out-ties or ows In-ties or ows D inow (recovery)-out

ow (pre-disaster)
Pre-disaster Recovery %Change Pre-disaster Recovery %Change

All regions 2790 3373 20.9 2630 2806 6.7 16

Piemonte 78 76 3.4 53 51 3.3 27.3
Valle dAosta 3 4 27.3 4 1 68.9 1.9
Lombardia 206 216 5.0 113 125 10.3 80.8
Trentino Alto Adige 29 41 41.4 13 11 16.9 18.2
Veneto 118 86 26.7 51 58 14.0 59.8
Friuli Venezia Giulia 37 27 28.1 24 22 9.7 15.2
Liguria 25 26 4.8 16 18 16.0 6.6
Emilia Romagna 167 146 12.3 61 80 29.6 87.3
Toscana 92 96 3.8 54 60 10.7 32.3
Umbria 60 50 17.5 33 55 66.2 5.5
Marche 124 129 4.4 51 78 52.9 45.7
Lazio 1029 1281 24.5 1226 1063 13.2 34.5
Campania 149 196 31.7 307 516 67.8 367.1
Molise 35 36 1.3 44 42 4.9 6.9
Basilicata 9 19 102.5 14 13 3.8 3.9
Puglia 74 83 12.0 122 113 7.5 38.7
Calabria 22 32 40.9 42 40 5.4 17.2
Sicilia 38 53 38.4 63 71 13.3 33.1
Sardegna 25 28 10.1 27 22 17.9 3.0
Abruzzo 483 744 54.2 308 368 19.2 114.9
Source: Authors elaboration on ISTAT (online dataset).

which has the advantage of being adjusted by population size, we
obtain a positive increase of the probability to migrate from
LAquila to provinces of the same region and to the provinces of
other regions in the recovery period. Compared to the pre-disaster
period, the probability to migrate from LAquila to provinces of
other regions is slightly higher than the probability to migrate from
LAquila to provinces of the same region. Conversely, the
probability to migrate to LAquila from provinces of the same
region in the recovery period did not increase compared to the
period preceding the earthquake. As far intra-regional mobility is
concerned, the probability to migrate to LAquila increase was
almost zero.
In order to scrutinize whether, how and why new migrants
have originated in places tied to the disaster-affected region

Fig. 3. Differences between migration probability in the pre-disaster and recovery period-outows from LAquila province to other regions and provinces.
Source: Authors elaboration on ISTAT (online dataset).
86 E. Ambrosetti, E.R. Petrillo / Environmental Science & Policy 56 (2016) 8088

Fig. 4. Differences between migration probability in the pre-disaster and recovery period-inows to LAquila province to other regions and provinces.
Source: Authors elaboration on ISTAT (online dataset).

Fig. 5. Differences between migration probability in the recovery period (inows) and pre-disaster (out-ows)from and to LAquila province.
Source: Authors elaboration on ISTAT (online dataset).

after the disaster we look at the mobility by region of origin and LAquila region (3 provinces in total: Pescara, Teramo and
destination (to and from LAquila) in the pre-disaster and Chieti). This analysis allows us to disentangle regional mobility
recovery period. We consider mobility to and from LAquila from as the aggregated data do not show which region has been more
every single Italian region (19) and from other provinces of important in the LAquila province migration system. Results are
 E. Ambrosetti, E.R. Petrillo / Environmental Science & Policy 56 (2016) 8088
presented in Table 2 and Figs. 35.5 Excluding the other
provinces of Abruzzo region which importance has been already
stressed in the previous analysis, we address our ndings as
follows: we found an increase in the recovery period of the
movements to Lazio region and to a lesser extent to Campania
region. Both regions are not distant from LAquila, in particular
Lazio is the rst region for the size of both in and out ows to
and from LAquila province. Outows to Lazio have increased by
24% between pre-disaster and recovery period; conversely,
inows from Lazio have decreased by 13% between the two
periods (Table 2). Migration to and from Campania has increased
respectively by 32% and 68% between pre-disaster and recovery
period. There is also a slight increase in the inows after the
disaster from two neighbouring regions: Marche (53%) and
Umbria (66%) (Table 2 and Fig. 4):
Fig. 5 presents a summary of the ndings of our migration
system analysis: it describes the differences in terms of migration
probabilities between out-ows from LAquila before the earth-
quake and in-ows to LAquila in the recovery period. Contrary to
what happened in the New Orleans county (Fussell et al., 2014)
where the top receiving counties (from New Orleans) before
hurricane Katrina became major sending counties (to New
Orleans) in the recovery period, in LAquila we found evidence
for an exacerbating situation: top receiving regions before the
earthquake were not transformed in top sending regions in the
aftermath period. LAquila province was already facing economic
difculties before the earthquake: this tragic event has exacerbat-
ed the problems and made the recovery process very long.
Migration seems to be a valid alternative to face a very complex
situation. If the recovery will not be more effective, more out-
migration is to be expected in the near future.
5. Conclusions
Looking at LAquilas case, this paper has presented a number of
initial ndings regarding the links between environmental
disasters, displacement and migration. The earthquake of
2009 has strongly affected its population, determining several
changes (and challenges) in the internal migratory and displace-
ment dynamics.
As concerns LAquilas migration system, our main ndings
demonstrate that the earthquake has strongly shaped social and
economic exchanges and population movements between the
towns of LAquilas province due the strength of pre-existing ties,
ows and relationships. We found that this peculiar background
has encouraged post-seismic people mobility along certain path-
ways discouraging it along regions outside the historical migration
system. Additionally, post-seismic population movements also
show an increase of the mobility from LAquila to Abruzzos
provinces that relies on a regular pattern of exchanges between
localities in LAquilas province. Contrary to what happened in
other contexts where the top receiving localities before natural
hazards became major sending localities (see for instance the
ndings from Fussell et al., 2014) in the recovery period, in LAquila
we found evidence for an exacerbating situation: top receiving
regions before the earthquake were not transformed in top sending
regions in the aftermath period.
Additionally, LAquilas case study gives the room for a series of
general post-disaster policy conclusions that could be taken into
account in similar contexts.
While, in January 2010, the recovery and reconstruction
leadership was ofcially transferred from the national Government
to the Abruzzo regional government, many difculties persist in
5
In Table 2 results are presented in term of population ows while in Figs. 35
they are presented through migration probabilities.
87
this new decision-making context. Despite in the rst phase of
post-seismic emergency, the national government was able to
respond rapidly, providing food, temporary shelter and permanent
seismically protected structures with temporary accommodation.
In the ongoing second phase, the institutional actions have been
worse than expected especially as concerns the management of the
reconstruction of the historical centre of the city and the related
resettlement of LAquilas inhabitants. The programmes adopted
until now have been partially successful, and, at present, a strong
feeling of dissatisfaction characterizes citizens perception about
the outcomes of post-seismic efforts.
In LAquila, until January 2010, the post-seismic reconstruction
and recovery process was entirely external-led by national
authorities whose centralized approach was primarily a technical,
rather than social one. As well showed by the study of Liel et al.,
2013 citizens saw the housing reconstruction plan as prioritized at
the expense of other decisive community activities, such as retail
and commercial structures or employment creation. In LAquilas
case, in contrast to other recent national natural disasters (see the
example of the Umbrias earthquake in 1997), any attempt at
bottom-up engagement and leadership by local and decentralized
civil and institutional actors was ineffective mainly due the
absence of a well-coordinated multi-level dialogue amongst
national, regional, urban and civil societys actors. As a conse-
quence, as rightly stigmatized by OECD the initial extraordinary
and direct response to the immediate technical needs of the local
built environment is increasingly ossifying into a permanent,
scattered and incoherent solution to the social needs of the
community (OECD, 2012:11).
In this context, the management of displacement and resettle-
ment ows of people is characterized as the worst addressed
among the post-seismic priorities. Most of the C.A.S.E. and M.A.P.
sites are located in remote neighbourhoods with poor or
insufcient access to transit and other essential services. This
displacement has strongly affected the daily life of people used to
live in the city centre and now facing the true risk of social isolation
and economic marginalization. This social fragmentation, has been
exacerbated both by the slowness of the resettlement patterns, and
by the perceived lack of reconstruction and re-development
progress. Currently, the communitys widespread perception is
that both national and local government decision-makers have
inadequately considered the social implication of the reconstruc-
tion. This sense of paralysis and helplessness (OECD, 2012) has
strongly affect the degree of condence of the population in the
institutional actors in charge of the reconstruction.
If an unexpected disaster like this suggests, in general terms, to
call the attention on the urgent need of a national plan to deal with
environmental hazard, it also calls for further research in order to
understand how the vulnerability before the event impact on post-
disaster individual and households strategies. Here, we build on
the analysis of Contreras et al. (2013), who took into consideration
the role played by disasters in exacerbating previous economic and
environmental fragilities in LAquilas case. That implies, in policy
terms that decision makers have to reshape the reconstruction
agenda, giving centrality to the diachronic social, occupational and
economic patterns. As we already stressed, similar events may
occurring in different contexts, may have different outcomes
according to the specic vulnerability experienced by the territory.
This point was also addressed by Barone and Mocetti (2014) who
found comparing two different Italian regions affected by the
earthquake, that the evolution of the economic variables variated
according to the pre-existent vulnerabilities and pre-quake
institutional weaknesses. Accordingly, future researches could
also address a comparison between LAquilas case and the more
recent earthquake of Modena in 2012 in order to shed light on how
the migration system changes are largely inuenced by the socio-
88 E. Ambrosetti, E.R. Petrillo / Environmental Science & Policy 56 (2016) 8088
economic and institutional characteristics of the two regions both
before and after the hazard.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Sapienza University of
Rome. We thank our colleagues from ISTAT who provided data
for our research. We thank the editor for assistance and for
comments that greatly improved the manuscript and the anony-
mous reviewers for their insights. We are also immensely grateful
to the colleagues meet at SIS Conference in Cagliari 2014 and AISP
Conference in Palermo 2015 for their comments on an earlier
version of the manuscript, although any errors are our own.
References
Alexander, D., 2012. Models of social vulnerability to disasters. RCCS Annu. Rev.
4,, http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/rccsar.41. Online since 01 October 2012,
connection on 19 October 2015. URL: http://rccsar.revues.org/412.
Bakewell, O., 2010. Some reections on structure and agency in migration
theory. J. Ethnic Migr. Stud. 36 (10), 16891708.
Bakewell, O., 2012. Re-launching Migration Systems IMI Working Paper No. 60,
Oxford.
Barone, G., Mocetti, S., 2014. Natural disasters, growth and institutions: a tale of
two earthquakes. J. Urban Econ. 84, 5266.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., Wisner, B., 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards,
Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge, London.
Contreras, D., Blaschke, T., Kienberger, S., Zeil, P., 2013. Spatial connectivity as a
recovery process indicator: the LAquila earthquake. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 80 (9), 17821803.
De Haas, H., 2009. Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective. IMU
Paper No. 9, available from: http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/wp/WP9%20
Migration%20and%20development%20theory%20HdH.pdf.
Duckers, M., Frerks, G., Birkmann, J., 2015. Exploring the plexus of context and
consequences: an empirical test of a theory of disaster vulnerability. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. 13, 8595.
European Parliament, October 2013. Working Document on Special Report No
24/2012 The European Union Solidarity Funds Response to the Abruzzi
Earthquake: The Relevance and Cost of Then Operations.
Foresight, 2011. Migration and Global Environmental Change, Final Project
Report. The Government Ofce for Science, London. Available from: http://
www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/migration/11-1116-migration-and-
global-environmental-change.pdf.
Fussell, E., Curtis, K.J., DeWaard, J., 2014. Recovery migration to the City of New
Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: a migration systems approach. Popul.
Environ. 35, 305322, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11111-014-0204-5.
Gemenne, F., 2011. How they became the human face of climate change. Research
and policy interactions in the birth of the environmental migration concept.
In: Piguet, E., Pe`coud, A., De Guchteneire, P. (Eds.), Migration and Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 225259.
Gemenne, F., Brucker, P., Ionesco, D., 2013. The State of Environmental Migration
2013 A review of 2012. Institut du developpement durable et des relations
internationals, Paris. Available from: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/
les/resources/SEM%202013.pdf.
Girard, C., Peacock, W.G., 1997. Ethnicity and segregation: post-hurricane
relocation. In: Peacock, W.G., Morrow, B.H., Gladwin, H. (Eds.), Hurricane
Andrew: Ethnicity. Gender and the Sociology of Disasters Routledge, New
York, NY, chapter 10, pp. 191205.
Hunter, L.M., 2005. Migrations and environmental hazards. Popul. Environ. 26
(4), 273303.
Italian National Statistical Institute online database: http://demo.istat.it.
Kerry Smith, V.K., Carbone, J.C., Pope, J.C., Hallstrom, D.G., Darden, M.E., 2006.
Adjusting to natural disasters. J. Risk Uncertain. 33 (12), 3754.
Laczko, F., Aghazarm, C., 2009. Migration, Environment, and Climate Change:
Assessing the Evidence. International Organization for Migration, Geneva.
Liel, A.B., Corotis, R.B., Camata, G., Sutton, J., Holtzman, R., Spacone, E., 2013.
Perceptions of decision-making roles and priorities affecting rebuilding
after disaster: the example of LAquila, Italy. Earthq. Spectra 29 (3),
843868.
Mabogunje, A.L., 1970. Systems approach to a theory of ruralurban migration.
Geogr. Anal. 2, 118.
Mayer, B., 2013. Constructing climate migration as a global governance issue:
essential aws in the contemporary literature. McGill Int. J. Sustain. Dev.
Law Policy 9 (1), 90117.
McLeman, R., Smit, B., 2006. Migration as an adaptation to climate change. Clim.
Change 76 (12), 3153.
Mohajervatan, A., Karnema, A., Dehghani, M., Garousi, S., Vakili, M.A., Alizad, F.,
2015. Studying the effect of natural hazards on human migration (Case
Study of Bam earthquake 2003). Int. J. Health Syst. Disaster Manage. [serial
online] 3, 2835. Available from: http://www.ijhsdm.org/text.asp?2015/3/1/
28/147147.
OECD, March 2012. Building Resilient Regions After a Natural Disaster Abruzzo
2030: On the Wings of lAquila. Issue Paper. Forum 17 March 2012.
Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, LAquila. Available from: http://www.
oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/49866886.pdf.
OECD, July 2009. LAquila Earthquake: Re-launching the Economy. http://www.
oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/43307733.pdf.
Oliver-Smith, A., 2004. Theorizing vulnerability in a globalized world: a political
ecological perspective. In: Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Hilhorst, D. (Eds.), Mapping
Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan, London, pp.
1024.
Oliver-Smith, A., 2009. Understanding Hurricane Mitch: complexity, causality,
and the political ecology of disasters. In: Ensor, M.J. (Ed.), The Legacy of
Mitch: Lessons from Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Honduras. The
University of Arizona Press, Tempe, pp. 121.
Piguet, E., 2010. Linking climate change, environmental degradation, and
migration: a methodological overview. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change
1 (4), 517524, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.54.
Piguet, E., Laczko, M. (Eds.), 2014. People on the Move in a Changing Climate.
Springer, New York.
Telesca, L., 2010. A non-extensive approach in investigating the seismicity of
LAquila area (central Italy), struck by the 6 April 2009 earthquake
(ML = 5.8). Terra Nova 22 (2), 8793.
Terminski, B., 2012. Environmentally Induced Displacement: Theoretical
Frameworks and Current Challenges. University of Lie`ge. Available from:
http://www.cedem.ulg.ac.be/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Environmentally-
Induced-Displacement-Terminski-1.pdf.
Yenotani, M., 2011. Displacement Due to Natural Hazard-Induced Disasters.
Global Estimates for 2009 and 2010. IDMC & NRC, Oslo.