=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1152/paper12
|storemode=property
|title=Rete Natura 2000 Reviewed Through Territorial GIS Zoning
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1152/paper12.pdf
|volume=Vol-1152
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/RiccioliAA11
}}
==Rete Natura 2000 Reviewed Through Territorial GIS Zoning==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1152/paper12.pdf
Rete Natura 2000 Reviewed Through Territorial GIS
Zoning
Francesco Riccioli1, Jean Pierre El Asmar2, Toufic El Asmar3
Abstract The province of Grosseto in the region of Tuscany, Italy, is among
the areas in Europe included in the “Rete Natura 2000” (network Natura 2000)
EU directive 92/93 CEE “Habitat”, for its peculiar site characteristics. Due to
intensive human activities through territorial colonization, it is very difficult to
find uncontaminated natural areas. This work analyses the area of Grosseto
adopting and adapting the Recreation-Opportunity-Spectrum (ROS) North
American Methodology to classify the territory based on human presence and
related activity. It includes both natural protected environment and the
immediate surrounding colonized milieu. The results of the analysis will allow
developing a framework of reference for the rehabilitation projects and for
improved territorial management.
Keywords Sustainable development, ROS, colonized territory, protected
habitat
1 Introduction
The EU directive 92/43 CEE “Habitat”, entitled “Rete Natura 2000” (network Natura
2000), in Europe aims at the protection of Biodiversity through the preservation of
natural and semi-natural habitat, of the flora, and of wildlife. The project consisted in
the creation of natural protected areas (Regione Toscana, 2009). The areas were
selected based on the presence of particularly rare species and habitats or on the
community interest from the scientific and natural points of view. Such activity was
entrusted to the National Agency for New Technologies, Energies, and Sustainable
Economic Development (ENEA). ENEA analyzed and located the sites with
appropriate characteristics to be included in the project Rete Natura 2000 (Natura
2000 network). Accordingly, each Italian region joined the directive through the
implementation of regional laws; i.e. Tuscany implemented Regional Law 6 April
2000, n. 56 (Regulations for the conservation and protection of natural and semi-
natural habitats, flora and fauna) "Norme per la conservazione e la tutela degli
1
University of Florence – Department of Agricultural and Forest Economics, Engineering,
Sciences and Technologies; francesco.riccioli@unifi.it
2
Notre Dame University – Faculty of Architecture Art and Design; jasmar@ndu.edu.lb
3
University of Florence – Department of Agricultural and Forest Economics, Engineering,
Sciences and Technologies; toufic.elasmar@gmail.com
141
habitat naturali e seminaturali, della flora e della fauna selvatiche". This law allows
identifying areas of particular natural value: such as the sites of community
importance (SIC) as per above mentioned habitat Directive, and special protection
zones (ZPS), that were established by the Directive on the conservation of wild birds
(Regione Toscana, 2009).
Human activities play a fundamental role for the preservation of biodiversity,
directly and indirectly. We live in a hugely colonized territory, in which it is difficult
to find uncontaminated natural spaces. The aim of this work is to analyze the
territory where such areas were formed taking into consideration the immediate
environment.
The directive requires the Member States, and in the case of Italy the Regions too, an
obligatory result: safeguarding the areas in a satisfactory conservation state, and
promoting further plans, programs and projects. The projects should not be
necessarily connected to the safeguard of the site but should have an implication on
the preservation of natural habitat (the sites of community importance SIC should be
subjected to impact assessment approved in Italy as per article 5 of the D.P.R. n.
357/97; Presidential Decree).
The conservation objectives of the sites under project Rete Natura 2000 are defined
by management plans (if existing): concerning the SICs the reference is represented
by D.M. 3/9/20024 (Ministerial decree) - guidelines for the management of the sites
Rete Natura 2000, and in the acts being established for the designation of the special
conservation zones (ZSC). Concerning the ZPS the paper refers to the managerial
recommendations included in the D.M. 17/10/20075 - Minimum uniform criteria for
the definition of conservation measures relative to ZCSs and ZPSs (Regione Toscana
2009).
In the standards, each protected area is described (section 3.2). In the sub-section,
entitled vulnerability, the area’s health condition is considered. However, the
approach is very general and is only limited to listing the possible causes of
disturbance such as fire risks, the excessive presence of ungulates and coast erosion
(Regione Toscana 2009).
The aim of this work is to deepen the acquaintance with these areas. This will be
done by broadening the investigation to include the evaluation of the protected areas.
These areas are considered at risk due to their proximity to heavily populated parts,
and to their distance from safe ones. The case study consists of the whole province of
Grosseto in the region of Tuscany. A zoning plan was developed in Grosseto based
on the Recreation-Opportunity-Spectrum (ROS) North American methodology
(Clark and Stankey 1978; Driver, 1990; Blocker et al., 1995). The plan divided the
territory according to the intensity of human colonization. This plan will allow
successively, analyzing the percentage of protected areas within hugely colonized
ones, and the areas located within natural environments.
4
D.M. 3/9/2002 Guidelines for the management of Natura 2000 sites
5
D.M. 17/10/2007 Minimum uniform criteria for the definition of conservation measures
related to the Special Conservation Zones (ZSC) and Special Protection Zones (ZPS)
142
2 Territorial Zoning Through The Application Of The ROS
Methodology
The Recreation-Opportunity-Spectrum (ROS) is a North American methodology
developed in the 70’s aiming at classifying the territory (Canadian) based on the
human presence and related human activities. The method is concerned essentially
with the territorial land use and orography (geomorphology).
The aim is to create a ‘zoning’ plan, to be used successively in the territorial
planning, or for strategic urban planning solutions. The methodology was formalized
in 1982 through a ministerial decree, in which standards were defined to underpin
operation phases. The standards were evaluated and amended in 1996, and a second
draft was developed. The ROS was developed in British Columbia and later adopted
in the United States. In 1998, procedures to unify the standards started.
The ROS considers the following three factors:
· Accessibility
· Degree of naturalness
· Degree of colonization
Different variables are defined to quantify these factors: the distance between roads,
and the width of the area, allowing to define the accessibility, the presence/absence
of human beings, the presence of accessible roads (pathways for vehicles), and the
presence of human activities, to evaluate the degree of naturalness and the degree of
colonization.
Based on the quantification of the three factors, the ROS provides a classification of
the territory by its subdivision into six categories with increasing levels of
colonization:
1. Natural;
2. Semi-natural and no vehicular access;
3. Semi-natural with vehicular access;
4. Semi-natural rural;
5. Rural;
6. Urban.
The Ministry of Forests (British Columbia), Forest Practices Branch for the RCI
1998, defines natural, the areas extending beyond 5000 hectares, 8 Km distant from
roads, lacking any human activity, where it is possible to experience direct contact
with natural environment, and where meeting other human being is almost
impossible. The definition of Urban is the direct opposite of the latter (Clark and
Stankey 1978; Driver, 1990; Blocker et al., 1995).
This methodology has resulted useful to define zoning standards. However, it was
adapted to fit the characteristics of the Italian peninsula, geographically different
from the British Columbia territory, and the variables considered inapplicable to the
Italian territory were disregarded.
143
3 The Case Study: Rete Natura 2000 Areas In The Province Of
Grosseto Subdivided In ROS Categories
3.1 ROS Classification Of Grosseto Province
The difference in population density between the case study and the North American
reality is an essential factor to consider in applying the ROS methodology. The
Canadian population density is significantly lower than the Italian population
density. In Canada, the extreme climatic conditions in certain areas affect the
presence, not only of human activities, but also of human beings on the territory
(Clark and Stankey 1978; Driver, 1990; Blocker et al., 1995). This is certainly not
the case in Italy.
To minimize such difference the province of Grosseto was selected as a case study.
Grosseto (highlighted with the red circle in figure 1) presents the lowest population
density in the region of Tuscany; 50 dwellers per Kilometer square, for 227.500
dwellers over a surface of 4.504 Kilometer square. Grosseto occupies the entire
southern extremity of Tuscany. The Province of Grosseto currently includes 28
municipalities, including the capital town Grosseto.
Figure 1 – Province of Grosseto (highlighted with a red circle)
144
A ROS zoning model was developed based exclusively on three variables, reflecting
the three typical factors of the ROS. The distance from roads is one of the variables
chosen concerning the degree of accessibility. Land-use is the variable related to the
degree of naturalness, and the distance from urban centers is the variable for degree
of colonization. The three variables were uploaded in the Territorial Information
System (SIT), using the following cartographic sources:
1. Road Traffic: the linear geometric components of the regional road network
and communications promoted by the Tuscany Region in 2003.
2. Land-use: the CorineLand-Cover land-use map of year 2000 developed
within the “CorineLand-Cover” project according to the European
regulation on Geographic Information (ENV 12657).
3. Inhabited Centers: the dataset prepared by the Italian National Institute of
Statistics (ISTAT), containing the polygons that identify the centers, the
inhabited nucleus, and the spread6 houses surveyed during the 14th general
census of the population in 2001.
Typical operations and applications of the SIT were undertaken (essentially
overlaying and buffering), and the case study has been subdivided into three zones,
defined as follows:
Urban Areas (Au)
Urban areas are the areas in which colonization of the natural environment is
maximum; the land-use in these areas is prevalently urban and urban streets:
· Su – Artificial Surfaces
· Ca – Inhabited Centers
· Stu– Urban Streets
Formula 1 synthesizes the definition of the urban area at the map level. The whole
“urban area” (Au) is defined by the territorial j-units belonging to the respective
artificial surfaces (Su) and corresponding, within the Corine Land-Cover, to the
urbanized zones of residential land-use, the industrial zones, the commercial and
infrastructural zones, the mining areas, the construction sites, to landfills and
abandoned land, the green spaces, and artificial non-agricultural land (European
6
ISTAT Definitions:
- An inhabited center is an aggregation of contiguous or close vicinity houses with
interjecting streets, squares or similar, or however by interruptions, characterized by the
presence of public services (…) in order to prove there exists an organized and properly
managed social structure.
- An inhabited nucleus identifies the inhabited locations, lacking community public spaces,
characterizing inhabited centers. It is composed of attached houses or house in close
vicinity, with a minimum of five families and interjecting roads, trails, open spaces,
barns, vegetable gardens (…), provided the interval between two houses is not above
thirty meters and not anyway below the distance between the nucleus and the closest
among spread houses.
- Scattered Houses are those distributed in the municipal territory, and which, distance
does not allow the constitution of at least an inhabited nucleus.
145
Commission, 1994). Furthermore, urban centers not included in the latter category
(Ca) and urban streets (the streets that are of the latter category (Stu)), belong to the
urban area.
Au = {Aj| Aj Î Su È Ca È Stu} (1)
Where
Au = urban area
Aj = analyzed territorial j-unit
Su = artificial surfaces
Ca = inhabited centers
Stu = urban street = (St Ç Su) È (St Ç Ca)
Rural (anthropic) areas (Aa)
Colonized areas, include the parts close to urban centers, and all the non-urban areas
in the vicinity of inhabited centers, as well as the roads and adjacent non-urban areas:
· Sa - Agricultural surfaces outside urban areas
· Cabuffer - Buffer areas around inhabited centers (but outside these
centers)
· Sta – Rural streets; i.e. all streets excluding urban streets.
· Stabuffer - Buffer areas around rural streets excluding the ones inside
urban areas.
Formula 2 synthesizes the definition of rural area (area with medium human
presence). The group “large area with medium human presence” (Aa) is given by the
territorial J-units belonging to the agricultural surfaces located in the urban areas
(Sa). These areas correspond, in the official Corine Land Cover, to the arable lands,
under permanent crops, the meadows (permanent grassland), and heterogeneous
agricultural areas (European Commission, 1994). Furthermore, the areas in the
vicinity and outside the urban centers (Cabuffer), the rural streets (Sta), and the areas
next to the rural streets and outside the urban areas (Stabuffer), are also considered
belonging to the large area with medium human presence.
Aa = {Aj| Aj Î [Sa \ (Sa Ç Au)] È [Cabuffer \ (Cabuffer Ç Au)] È Sta È [Stabuffer \
(Stabuffer Ç Au)]} (2)
Where
Aa = rural area
Aj = Analyzed territorial J-unit
Au = Urban area
Sa = Agricultural surfaces outside urban areas
Cabuffer = Areas included 500 meters around the municipal main town and 1 Km
around the provincial main town
146
Sta = Rural streets = St \ Stu
Stabuffer = Areas included 500 meters around the streets.
Natural areas (low human presence) (An)
Include all the areas excluded in the precedent groups: mainly the rural natural areas,
and non urban areas distant from inhabited centers and roads’ network:
· Sn – Remaining part of the territory: all the natural surfaces outside
urban areas and outside the rural areas.
Finally, the large area with minimal human presence is synthesized in formula 3. In
formula 3 the group “large area with minimal human presence: i.e. the rest of the
territory” (An) is represented by the territorial J-units belonging to the rest of the
territory. In other worlds, this includes all the surfaces outside the urban areas, and
the rural areas. These areas correspond, in the official Corine Land Cover, to the
wooded areas, the areas with shrubs, the open areas with sparse or no vegetation, to
wetlands and water bodies (European Commission, 1994).
An = {Aj| Aj Ï (Au È Aa)} (3)
Where
An = natural area: i.e. the rest of the territory
Aj = Analyzed territorial J-unit
Au = Urban area
Aa = Rural area
Figure 2 shows results.
147
Figure 2 - ROS zoning map of the province of Grosseto
450.000 hectares of the entire province were analyzed and categorized, among which
10.170 (about 2% of the total provincial area) resulted belonging to the urban area,
approximately 284.000 (63% of the whole) belonging to inhabited territories, and
beyond 160.000 (35% of the whole) belonging to the natural areas.
3.2 Rete Natura 2000 Areas
The sites of community importance (SCI) are locations that contribute significantly
to maintaining or restoring a natural habitat type or species in a satisfactory
condition of preservation.
Each protected SCI of the Rete Natura 2000 is described in a standard form (updated
in 2008) that is divided according to the following 5 points:
1. Site identification: the area’s name is described, its code, and date of
revision (updating);
2. Site location: the name of the region and province is indicated with related
codes, surface areas, longitude, latitude, and altitude;
3. Ecological information: codes and habitat coverage are filled-in;
4. Species: the presence of species such as birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish,
invertebrates, and plants is described.
5. Site description: the characteristics, the quality, the vulnerability, as well as
the historical documentation (areas’ maps) are identified (Regione Toscana
2009).
Among the Mediterranean and continental bio-geographic areas of Tuscany, 127 SIC
are identified for a total of 305.378,96 ha .
148
The Italian Ministry of Environment and Territorial Preservation designate the SIC
as Special Zones of Conservation (SZC), within a maximum period of six years, by a
decree adopted in agreement with each concerned autonomous region and province.
The SZC are effectively SIC over which conservation measures necessary for the
maintenance and recovery are applied by the institutions within 6 month. These
maintenance measures should secure a satisfactory state of the natural habitats and/or
populations of species for which the site is designated.
The special protection zones (ZPS) are foreseen and regulated by the community
Directive 79/409 “Uccelli” (birds) (amended and replaced by Dir. 2009/147/CE).
The aim of the ZPS is the conservation of all species of birds living naturally in the
wildness. This aim can be fulfilled by protecting wild birds as well as their natural
habitat. The ZPS are automatically included in the Natura 2000 network. The ZPS in
Tuscany are 61, and cover a land surface of 192.645,26 ha. Among which 61.209,26
ha are water surfaces (these are extensions of ZPS in the ocean and related to the
islands of Capraia, Gorgona, Pianosa, Montecristo e Giannutri). In contrast with the
SIC, subject to the successive designation as ZSC, the ZPS maintain the same
designation.
In the province of Grosseto approximately 73.100 ha belong to the Rete Natura 2000,
16% of the total province area. These are spread in 40 protected areas belonging to
the all the Mediterranean bio-geographic region. Table 1 details the first ten
protected areas in a decreasing order.
Table 1 - Protected areas in the province of Grosseto (Authors adaptations on
Regione Toscana 1996 data sheet)
ID Name Hectares
1 Alto corso del Fiume Fiora 7102,12
2 Monte Labbro e alta valle dell'Albegna 6298,71
3 Boschi delle Colline di Capalbio 6024,30
4 Val di Farma 5962,01
5 Monte d'Alma 5842,05
6 Monte Argentario, Isolotto di Porto Ercole e Argentarola 5672,58
7 Monte Leoni 5113,01
8 Monti dell'Uccellina 4439,54
9 Cono vulcanico del Monte Amiata 4343,10
10 Laguna di Orbetello 3694,05
The above areas are geo-referenced and layered over the ROS classification
previously developed in figure 2. Figure 3 shows related results while Table 2
summarizes protected areas and municipal surfaces.
149
Figure 3 – Areas included in Rete Natura 2000 in the province of Grosseto
Table 2 – Protected areas and municipal surfaces
Municipal Surface % over % over
MUNICIPALITY protected Municipal total
area
areas area protected
areas
Grosseto 47611,30 9193,83 19% 13%
Roccastrada 28502,54 6585,75 23% 9%
Capalbio 18835,20 6048,19 32% 8%
Orbetello 22781,04 5873,35 26% 8%
Monte Argentario 6035,50 5651,89 94% 8%
Scarlino 8850,39 4442,36 50% 6%
Arcidosso 9417,14 3249,16 35% 4%
Manciano 37383,76 3104,73 8% 4%
Roccalbegna 12609,65 3088,48 24% 4%
Santa Fiora 6279,62 2956,84 47% 4%
Giglio Island 2449,80 2523,66 103% 3%
Sorano 17463,87 2331,61 13% 3%
Magliano in 24993,00 2259,78 9% 3%
Toscana
Castell’azzara 6453,79 2051,58 32% 3%
Massa Marritima 28191,00 1867,56 7% 3%
150
Pitigliano 10228,32 1821,69 18% 2%
Campagnatico 16271,57 1497,82 9% 2%
Gavorrano 16641,76 1464,93 9% 2%
Civitella Paganico 19184,22 1425,62 7% 2%
Semproniano 8160,92 1186,69 15% 2%
Castel Del Piano 6880,18 1152,87 17% 2%
Montieri 10899,46 986,54 9% 1%
Seggiano 4928,70 840,05 17% 1%
Cast. Della Pescaia 20888,72 792,37 4% 1%
Scansano 27148,84 374,30 1% 1%
Follonica 4796,84 319,44 7% 0%
Cigniano 10130,86 0,00 0% 0%
Monterotondo 16382,22 0,00 0% 0%
Marittimo
Total 450400,20 73091,09 16% 100%
Taking into consideration the zoning developed through the ROS methodology,
approximately 27.087 ha of 73.101 ha of protected areas (37% of the total) are
located in highly inhabited territory, while the remaining 46.003 ha (63% of the total)
are natural areas (figure 4 and table 3).
Figure 4 – Areas of Rete Natura 2000 in the province of Grosseto divided based on
ROS categories
151
Table 3 – Protected areas subdivided according to ROS categories
MUNICIPALITYY Rural Natural Total %Rural %Nat.
Scansano 290,39 83,92 374,30 78% 22%
Sorrano 1672,51 659,09 2331,61 72% 28%
Manciano 1880,60 1224,13 3104,73 61% 39%
Semproniano 686,12 500,57 1186,69 58% 42%
Pitigliano 947,67 878,02 1821,69 52% 48%
Monte Argentario 2891,02 2760,87 5651,89 51% 49%
Roccalbegna 1522,61 1565,88 3088,48 49% 51%
Capalbio 2935,61 3112,58 6048,19 49% 51%
Orbetello 2594,91 3278,45 5873,35 44% 56%
Archidosso 1384,13 1865,02 3249,16 43% 57%
Grosseto 3323,75 5870,07 9193,83 36% 64%
Castell’azzara 718,51 1333,07 2051,58 35% 65%
Castiglione Della 269,16 523,21 792,37 34% 66%
Pescaia
Magliano In 752,08 1507,70 2259,78 33% 67%
Toscana
Giglio Island 799,27 1724,39 2523,66 32% 68%
Santa Fiora 931,85 2024,98 2956,84 32% 68%
Massa Marittima 555,32 1312,24 1867,56 30% 70%
Seggiano 239,00 601,05 840,05 28% 72%
Civitella Paganico 382,36 1043,26 1425,62 27% 73%
Scarlino 926,27 3516,09 4442,36 21% 79%
Roccastrada 942,37 5643,38 6585,75 14% 86%
Gavorrano 205,86 1259,06 1464,93 14% 86%
Motieri 125,76 860,78 986,54 13% 87%
Castel Del Piano 87.62 1065,25 1152,87 8% 92%
Campagnatico 27,17 1470,65 1497,82 2% 98%
Follonica 0,00 319,44 319,44 0% 100%
Cinigiano 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 0%
Monterotondo 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 0%
Marittimo
Total 27087,93 46003,16 73091,09 37% 63%
4 Conclusions
Rete Natura 2000 sites are areas in which Member States should secure the
preservation or, if necessary, the restoration of habitat and species, in a satisfactory
state of conservation. The main problem of these areas is the fact that they are
generally subject to huge pressure due to human activity. Based upon the Habitat
directive (art.1) the same state of satisfactory conservation is defined for habitat and
for species.
The habitat natural distribution range can be stable or increasing; the structure and
specific functions necessary for its long-term maintenance are defined and may
continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and the conservation status of typical
species is satisfactory. Concerning the species, when the trends of the populations
indicate that the species continues and may persist to be viable, the natural range is
152
not in decline or may decline in the foreseeable future, and a sufficiently large habitat
exists and probably continue to exist in order for its population survives for a long
term.
Each instrument, relatively to its related scale of representation, gives very important
information: management plans of SIC and ZPS allow a detailed knowledge of
physical, biological, socio-economic, and environmental heritage characteristics.
These data, in turn, feed into higher-level plans that coordinate and allow for a
holistic understanding and therefore a proper management of the territory. However,
the emerging framework of action focuses exclusively on the state of the protected
areas leaving out the territory surrounding them (at least regarding Italy). The
elevated degree of human activity impinges on, though indirectly, the maintenance of
the minimal biodiversity characteristics. The aim of this work is to focus the
attention on the surrounding territory by promoting a zoning for a case study
(province of Grosseto) in order to identify possible critical protected areas beyond
their inherent state of health. The north-American Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
(ROS) method was adapted and the territory was subdivided in three areas according
to the degree of human activity. The three areas where then used to understand where
to place the Rete Natura 2000 areas.
The overall 450.000 ha of the entire province were classified through the ROS and
subdivided into urban territory (2%), inhabited-rural areas (63%), and natural (35%).
This zoning was the starting point for the successive analysis of the 40 protected
areas of the Rete Natura 2000 covering approximately 73.101 ha. (46.003 ha or 63%
of which are natural areas, and the remaining 27.087 ha equivalent to 37% fall in
highly inhabited territories. Grosseto embraces the major areas of Rete Natura 2000
with approximately 9.193 ha equivalent to 13% of the total protected areas (73.101
ha). It is followed by Roccastrada with 6.585 ha (equivalent to 9% of the whole
protected areas), and by Capalbio with 6.048 ha (equivalent to 8% of the whole
protected areas). Examining, however, the extension of the protected areas in relation
to the total municipal area, the municipality of Monte Argentario has a protected
surface of 94% of the municipal territory (5651 ha of a total 6036), followed by the
municipality of Scarlino (4442 ha of a total 8850), equivalent to 50%.
Among these, the areas considered “safer” (highlighted in dark green in figure 4),
because of their significant distance from heavily populated ones, are those located in
the municipality of Campagnatico (1470 ha of a total 1496 equivalent to 98% of the
entire protected area), followed by those of Castel del Piano (1065 ha of a total 1152
equivalent to 92%), and those of the municipality of Montieri (860 ha of 986
equivalent to 87% of the total protected area). In contrast, the protected areas
presenting higher threats (rural areas highlighted in light green in figure 4) are
mainly concentrated in the municipality of Scansano (290 ha of a total of 374
equivalent to 78%), followed by the town of Sorano including 72% ha of its
protected areas located in heavily populated areas (1672 ha of a total 2331) and the
municipality of Manciano with 1880 ha of a total 3104 ha (61%).
It is recommended that the effort of the administrative institution be focused on these
areas suffering from huge human presence and activity.
Against a backdrop of increasing environmental policies aimed at safeguarding the
environment, the importance given to the Rural Development Plans in the guidelines
of the Common Agricultural Policy presenting a clear example (European
153
Commission, 2011), it is of fundamental importance to develop an instrument
capable of guiding the public decision-maker towards correct planning choices able
to perceive any environmental emergencies.
In fact the aim of this work is to propose a territorial management methodology able
to widen the scope of the management plans of the SIC and ZPS, that currently are
evaluated through impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment, to
include all the areas around the protected areas.
154
Reference Cited
1. Blocker L. et all, (1995), Landscape Aesthetics (AH 701,l) , Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum (Appendix F) , Publisher USDA Forest Service.
2. Clark R., Stankey G., (1978), The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: a
framework for planning and research General Technical report, PNWN, 98,
Seattle.
3. Driver B.L., (1990), Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: basic concepts and use
in land management planning, University of Waterloo and Environment
Canada, Parks.
4. European Commission (1994) CORINE land Cover Technical Guide. EUR
12585 EN, OPOCE Luxembourg. Online available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/landscape/ch3.htm [Accessed March 7,
2011].
5. European Commission (2011) "Health Check" of the Common Agricultural
Policy. Online available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/healthcheck/index_en.htm [Accessed July 7,
2011].
6. ISTAT (2001), V Censimento Generale dell’Agricoltura , ISTAT, Roma
7. Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch for the RIC (1998), Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum Procedures and Standards Manual, Online available
from: http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/culture/ros/index.htm [Accessed
14th October, 2010].
8. Regione Toscana, 2009 - Biodiversità Rete natura 2000 - Disponibile on line a
http://www.regione.toscana.it/regione/export/RT/sito-
RT/Contenuti/sezioni/ambiente_territorio/biodiversita/visualizza_asset.html_87
9555705.html [Ultimo accesso 13 ottobre 2010].
155