IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i24p7025-d295709.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towns as Safety Organizational Fields: An Institutional Framework in Times of Emergency

Author

Listed:
  • Roberta Troisi

    (Department of Political and Comunication Science, University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy)

  • Gaetano Alfano

    (Department of Political and Comunication Science, University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberta Troisi & Gaetano Alfano, 2019. "Towns as Safety Organizational Fields: An Institutional Framework in Times of Emergency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7025-:d:295709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7025/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7025/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geert Hofstede, 1994. "Management Scientists Are Human," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 4-13, January.
    2. Max Boholm & Niklas Möller & Sven Ove Hansson, 2016. "The Concepts of Risk, Safety, and Security: Applications in Everyday Language," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 320-338, February.
    3. Paul Pierce & Francesca Ricciardi & Alessandro Zardini, 2017. "Smart Cities as Organizational Fields: A Framework for Mapping Sustainability-Enabling Configurations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Julie Battilana & Bernard Leca & Eva Boxenbaum, 2009. "How actors change institutions : Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship," Post-Print hal-00576509, HAL.
    5. Joseph L. Arvai, 2003. "Using Risk Communication to Disclose the Outcome of a Participatory Decision‐Making Process: Effects on the Perceived Acceptability of Risk‐Policy Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 281-289, April.
    6. Patricia M. Hillebrandt & Jacqueline Cannon & Peter Lansley, 1995. "The Construction Company in and out of Recession," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-24195-8, September.
    7. Williams, Robin & Edge, David, 1996. "The social shaping of technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 865-899, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dorota Brzezińska & Paul Bryant, 2020. "Risk Index Method–A Tool for Sustainable, Holistic Building Fire Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Shariffa Grace S. Torres & Kent Rover C. Pagas & Carl Justine C. Dinurog & Edmar R. Daniel & Jose F. Cuevas Jr., 2023. "Coping Strategies and Self-Actualization among the Rehabilitated Drug-Users: A Case Study," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(6), pages 1212-1227, June.
    3. Antonio Nesticò & Pierfrancesco Fiore & Emanuela D’Andria, 2020. "Enhancement of Small Towns in Inland Areas. A Novel Indicators Dataset to Evaluate Sustainable Plans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Paolo Castaldo & Tatiana Ferrentino, 2020. "Seismic Reliability-Based Design Approach for Base-Isolated Systems in Different Sites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Rachele Grosso & Umberto Mecca & Giuseppe Moglia & Francesco Prizzon & Manuela Rebaudengo, 2020. "Collecting Built Environment Information Using UAVs: Time and Applicability in Building Inspection Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Roberta Troisi & Livia Arena, 2022. "Organizational Aspects of Sustainable Infrastructure Safety Planning by Means of Alert Maps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Roberta Ingaramo & Luca Pascale, 2020. "An Interpretative Matrix for an Adaptive Design Approach. Italian School Infrastructure: Safety and Social Restoration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-22, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    2. Modell, Sven & Yang, ChunLei, 2018. "Financialisation as a strategic action field: An historically informed field study of governance reforms in Chinese state-owned enterprises," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 41-59.
    3. Elizabeth J. Altman & Frank Nagle & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Innovating Without Information Constraints: Organizations, Communities, and Innovation When Information Costs Approach Zero," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-043, Harvard Business School, revised Sep 2014.
    4. Pandza, Krsto & Ellwood, Paul, 2013. "Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1112-1125.
    5. Elert, Niklas & Henrekson, Magnus, 2017. "Entrepreneurship and Institutions: A Bidirectional Relationship," Working Paper Series 1153, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 05 May 2017.
    6. Yeung, Matthew C.H. & Ramasamy, Bala & Chen, Junsong & Paliwoda, Stan, 2013. "Customer satisfaction and consumer expenditure in selected European countries," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 406-416.
    7. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    8. Benjamin Cole & Preeta Banerjee, 2013. "Morally Contentious Technology-Field Intersections: The Case of Biotechnology in the United States," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 555-574, July.
    9. repec:dgr:rugsom:98b27 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Victoria Johnson & Walter W. Powell, 2015. "Poisedness and Propagation: Organizational Emergence and the Transformation of Civic Order in 19th-Century New York City," NBER Working Papers 21011, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Kurikka, Heli & Grillitsch, Markus, 2020. "Resilience in the periphery: What an agency perspective can bring to the table," Papers in Innovation Studies 2020/7, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    12. Y. Sekou Bermiss & Benjamin L. Hallen & Rory McDonald & Emily C. Pahnke, 2017. "Entrepreneurial beacons: The Yale endowment, run‐ups, and the growth of venture capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 545-565, March.
    13. Geels, Frank W., 2006. "The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840-1930): The dynamics of regime transformation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1069-1082, September.
    14. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    15. Elbasha, Tamim & Avetisyan, Emma, 2018. "A framework to study strategizing activities at the field level: The example of CSR rating agencies," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 38-46.
    16. Roberta Ingaramo & Luca Pascale, 2020. "An Interpretative Matrix for an Adaptive Design Approach. Italian School Infrastructure: Safety and Social Restoration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-22, October.
    17. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    18. Maxim Voronov & Mary Ann Glynn & Klaus Weber, 2022. "Under the Radar: Institutional Drift and Non‐Strategic Institutional Change," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 819-842, May.
    19. Bjorn Remneland Wikhamn & Alexander Styhre, 2019. "Open Innovation Groundwork," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(02), pages 1-29, January.
    20. Arshed, Norin, 2017. "The origins of policy ideas: The importance of think tanks in the enterprise policy process in the UK," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 74-83.
    21. Gruber, Mario, 2020. "An evolutionary perspective on adoption-diffusion theory," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 535-541.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7025-:d:295709. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.