ABSTRACT This article explores decision‐making processes in crisis situations by proposing an interpretive framework grounded in multiple criteria of rationality. Crises, characterized by uncertainty, urgency, and ethical dilemmas, require critical choices that go beyond standard procedures. To investigate the dynamics that unfold in crisis decision‐making, the study examines the management of the 2023 floods in Ravenna, focusing on the controversial decision to deliberately inundate certain agricultural areas in order to protect the historic city center. Adopting a multi‐perspective thinking approach, the article develops three alternative interpretations of the same decision, showing how different forms of rationality often coexist in practice. The empirical analysis is based on semi‐structured interviews with key actors, complemented by official documents and media reports. The findings reveal the complexity and ambiguity that characterize decision‐making in crisis situations, in which multiple criteria of rationality intertwine rather than exclude one another.
D'Angelo et al. (Sun,) studied this question.