Rating classes
Environment
Territorial distribution of the rating
| Rating class | ND - Unavailable | F - Fallible | P - Poor | P+ - Weak | PP - Satisfactory | PP+ - Good | PPP - Very Good | PPP+ - Excellent | ND - Unavailable | F - Fallible | P - Poor | P+ - Weak | PP - Satisfactory | PP+ - Good | PPP - Very Good | PPP+ - Excellent | ND - Unavailable | F - Fallible | P - Poor | P+ - Weak | PP - Satisfactory | PP+ - Good | PPP - Very Good | PPP+ - Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Center | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||
| South | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 1 |
| P - Poor | 3 |
| P+ - Weak | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good | 6 |
| PPP - Very Good | 1 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 1 |
Benchmark score
Benchmark
P.A. Bolzano
P.A. Bolzano
94/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
55/100
Worst score
Liguria
Liguria
18/100
Public Administrations Ranking
| Public Administration | Score | Rating class |
|---|---|---|
| P.A. Bolzano | 94 | 7 | PPP+ - Excellent |
| P.A. Trento | 81 | 6 | PPP - Very Good |
| Basilicata | 76 | 5 | PP+ - Good |
| Molise | 76 | 5 | PP+ - Good |
| Abruzzo | 70 | 5 | PP+ - Good |
| Calabria | 69 | 5 | PP+ - Good |
| Valle d'Aosta | 65 | 5 | PP+ - Good |
| Sardegna | 64 | 5 | PP+ - Good |
| Sicilia | 56 | 4 | PP - Satisfactory |
| Piemonte | 53 | 4 | PP - Satisfactory |
| Lazio | 52 | 4 | PP - Satisfactory |
| Umbria | 50 | 4 | PP - Satisfactory |
| Friuli-Venezia Giulia | 48 | 3 | P+ - Weak |
| Toscana | 45 | 3 | P+ - Weak |
| Marche | 44 | 3 | P+ - Weak |
| Campania | 42 | 3 | P+ - Weak |
| Puglia | 42 | 3 | P+ - Weak |
| Lombardia | 37 | 2 | P - Poor |
| Veneto | 37 | 2 | P - Poor |
| Emilia-Romagna | 31 | 2 | P - Poor |
| Liguria | 18 | 1 | F - Fallible |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 83.3 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 2.7 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 0.2 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 1.3 | 14 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 2.8 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 1.6 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 2.0 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 180.7 | 14 |
|
High |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 83.3 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 3.7 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 0.5 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 20.9 | 7 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 3.7 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 2.9 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 0.8 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 113.2 | 14 |
|
High |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 60.0 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 3.2 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 4.0 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 26.0 | 7 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 3.2 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 5.8 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 0.7 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 96.3 | 14 |
|
High |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 33.3 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 3.9 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 0.3 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 90.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 3.9 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 6.5 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 1.4 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 89.2 | 14 |
|
High |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 77.8 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 5.0 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 0.6 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 34.4 | 7 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 5.0 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 5.8 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 6.1 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 51.0 | 14 |
|
High |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 80.0 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 5.0 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 0.6 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 40.3 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 5.0 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 4.5 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 4.0 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 79.2 | 14 |
|
High |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 33.3 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 2.1 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 0.7 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 39.5 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 2.2 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 12.1 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 10.2 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 297.2 | 14 |
|
High |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 37.5 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 3.3 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 12.4 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 22.4 | 7 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 3.3 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 1.4 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 7.1 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 34.2 | 7 |
|
Medium |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 68.2 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 6.5 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 3.2 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 58.5 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 6.5 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 1.1 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 0.1 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 27.2 | 1 |
|
Low |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 88.6 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 6.7 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 42.6 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 12.0 | 14 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 6.7 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 1.6 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 4.8 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 41.8 | 7 |
|
Medium |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 71.4 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 8.1 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 4.2 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 20.2 | 7 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 8.1 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 1.6 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 3.5 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 15.6 | 1 |
|
Low |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 76.2 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 5.3 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 0.8 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 41.1 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 5.3 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 1.9 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 6.3 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 45.1 | 7 |
|
Medium |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 89.3 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 8.0 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 19.2 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 7.8 | 14 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 8.0 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 0.4 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 7.3 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 29.4 | 7 |
|
Medium |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 76.5 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 6.2 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 5.0 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 33.8 | 7 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 6.2 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 3.8 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 26.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 39.4 | 7 |
|
Medium |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 76.5 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 6.9 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 0.1 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 42.8 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 6.9 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 2.1 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 4.3 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 26.7 | 1 |
|
Low |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 77.4 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 10.4 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 5.6 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 1.3 | 14 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 10.3 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 5.3 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 4.6 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 27.9 | 7 |
|
Medium |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 92.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 8.1 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 9.3 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 36.0 | 7 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 8.1 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 1.3 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 2.7 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 48.5 | 7 |
|
Medium |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 97.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 12.1 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 7.8 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 4.2 | 14 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 12.1 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 0.5 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 4.4 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 24.0 | 1 |
|
Low |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 100.0 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 11.9 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 1.7 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 14.4 | 14 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 11.9 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 0.1 | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 9.5 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 25.0 | 1 |
|
Low |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 89.4 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 8.9 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 1.6 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 9.4 | 14 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 8.9 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 2.2 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 63.7 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 19.7 | 1 |
|
Low |
Indicators of the macro-indicator - Environment
| Indicator name | Value | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | 84.6 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Land consumption | 7.2 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | 5.3 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | 36.9 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | 7.2 | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | 5.8 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | 17.5 | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | 8.5 | 1 |
|
Low |