=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper82
|storemode=property
|title=A Semiotic Approach to the Landscape Accounting and Assessment. An Application to the Urban-Coastal Areas
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper82.pdf
|volume=Vol-2030
|authors=Salvatore Giuffrida,Maria Rosa Trovato
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/GiuffridaT17
}}
==A Semiotic Approach to the Landscape Accounting and Assessment. An Application to the Urban-Coastal Areas==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper82.pdf
A Semiotic Approach to the Landscape Accounting and
Assessment. An Application to the Urban-Coastal Areas
Salvatore Giuffrida1, Maria Rosa Trovato2
1,2
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Italy, e-mail:
1
sgiuffrida@dica.unict.it;2mrtrovato@dica.unict.it
Abstract.One of the most relevant issues of planning in the most landscape
valuable locations, especially along the coastal ones, is to define the
assessment support to be performed in order to balance the preservation of the
main landscape aspects, and the local economic development. By referring to
the case of the water front of Syracuse (Italy), this contribution aims at
defining a semiotic pattern of accounting and assessment concerning the main
topics of the Sustainable Development Plan currently in force. The assessment
process takes into account the connection of the multiple thematic layers
grouping the different functional/symbolic land units that are characterised by
a semantic link, within an assessment pattern working as a syntactic field, by
highlighting the inner interactions between them. In fact, the main concern of
the pattern, is to outline the axiological layout of this landscape unit by making
the “facts of nature” and the “narrations of culture” worth together.
Keywords: Landscape unit; semantic pattern; syntactic pattern; qualitative
assessment; landscape assessment
1 Introduction
The water front of Syracuse is a unitary landscape identity comprising the Islet of
Ortigia, the old town of Syracuse, and the peninsula of The Maddalena; they face
each other closing the large inlet of the “Porto Grande” (big harbor) of Syracuse and
represent, as a whole, the fair integration between culture and nature.
Due to this complexity and uniqueness, some concerns arise about the foreseeable,
and partly in progress, structural and irreversible transformations, which the wide
economic opportunities encourage. In order to arrange individual pressures (interests)
and collective instances (values) of resilience (Davoudi, 2012; Folke, 2006),
assessment typically supports the heuristic process of transforming observations into
valuations and valuations into decisions (Blanksona and Greenb, 1991; Giuffrida,
2017). This process needs a robust approach based on a shared recognition and
accounting of the landscape units (Tieskens K. F. et al., 2017), in order to reduce the
uncertainty of the non-structured observations (Dandy N. et al., 2011) Tempesta and
Vecchiato, 2015; Haara A. et al., 2017) and especially in order to lead back to unity
the cultural, physical and perceptive landscape components (Zagaria C. et al., 2017).
696
The planning tools regulating the improvement processes are the Master Plan, the
Detailed Ortigia’s Masterplan, the Sustainable Development Plan (SDP). Some of the
supposed changes of the coastline – the extension of the port area, for the mooring of
two cruises at the Sant’ Antonio pier, the enlargement and commercial exploitation
of the Foro Italico dock, etc. – arise some concerns claiming the definition of the
landscape quality in this area. As a consequence, the northern part of the old town,
the one located in mainland, is expected to record a significant real estate market as
well as Ortigia, due to its uniqueness from the landscape, symbolic and architectural
value (Giuffrida et al. 2014; Gabrielli et al. 2016). In the Plemmirio park area no
transformation is supposed, exceptforthe accessibility and accommodation.
Referring to theprescriptions of the SDP, we propose a general landscape
assessment pattern referring to the identification of “natural structures, technological
infrastructures and cultural superstructures” (Rizzo, 1999).
2 Materials. The Landscape Context and the SDP of Syracuse
The peninsula of Maddalena, located South of the city of Syracuse at the closing
end of the large area of the “Porto Grande” (big harbour), is a calcareousMiocene
plateau of tectonic Horst origin, extending up to 50 m above sea level, and lowering
slowly toward the sea as far as the edge cliffs, with a coastline characterised by a
various and discontinuous morphologic structures: from Capo Castelluccio to Punta
Traversa it isfeatured by short beach strips, with a shallow and uniform sea bottom in
some parts, and very deep in some other parts; from Punta Taverna point to Capo
Murro di Porco cape, it is high and bevelled, with important geologic features (caves,
cavities, siphons, abrasion pools, deep networks ofcarsick origin conduits),
archaeology features, like the prehistoric site Grotta Pellegrina, and the bronze age
Punta della Mola necropolis, anthropologic features such as the six Latomie, linked
to the ancient and no longer existing Plemmyrion sub-urban district, or the extensive
underground tunnels of Punta Mola, used as anti-aircraft base during the second
world war, the network of the dry stone masonry walls of the local agriculture
tradition, the “masserie” (old farmyards) and the Barone Beneventano del Bosco
villa.
Many archaeological finds have been discovered here, and they are safeguarded in
the Paolo Orsi museum in Syracuse. In the area between Punta Castelluccio point and
Caladelle Rive Bianche bay some phenomena of erosion and collapsing of the cliff
occurred, with rock crops sliding to the sea, and the danger of further subsidence.
The central and southern areas of the peninsula are characterised by an intense
holiday homes and farmyards building activity; moreover, it has a footpath and road
network on dirt or stone ground, that may be redeveloped for tourism or leisure
purpose (fig. 1). The SIC called “Saline di Siracusa e fiume Ciane” – ITA 090006 is
located South of the estuary of the rivers Anapo and Ciane; the one called “Capo
Murro di Porco, Penisola della Maddalena e Grotta Pellegrino” - ITA090008
(79/409/CEE e 92/43/CEE directives) is located in the eastern side of the Maddalena
peninsula; here, the Natural Reserve of Plemmirio (1435 ha) was established by
Decree of the Ministry of the Environment on 15/09/2004.
697
Fig. 1. Landscape systems and landscape units.
The urban and monumental scenario of Ortigia and Maniace Castle – that is the
architectural background in front of which the natural contest of Plemmirio increase
its landscape value – works as counterpoint to the naturalistic dimension of the
Maddalena. A heterogeneous set of landscape units in conflict is located alongside
the coastline between them: the Pantanelli industrial area progressive dismantling,
extending from the seaplane base to the estuary area of Ciane and Anapo rivers; the
Anapo-Ciane Oriented Natural Reserve, comprising the EU interest site of the
“Pantanidelle Saline” South of the estuary of the two rivers; the southern part of the
gulf (via Lido Saraceno – via La Maddalena), dotted by sprawling cottages,
extending along the system of promontories and small bays between Punta Faro and
Punta Castelluccio, where large hotel is located. The eastern coastline of the
peninsula, extending from Punta Mola to Capo Murro di Porco, is preserved free of
constructions in an average 350-meter width belt.
698
The Strategic Sustainable Plan (SSP) (2006) includes five Strategic Projects:
SP 4: Urban Center and the Research and Environmental Education Centre within
the former Enel buildings to be renovated;
SP 5: improvement of the Pantanelli water front, supposing the removal of some
inappropriate buildings, roads, pavements, furniture and street lighting;
SP 6-7: cycling lanes, the first from Ortigiato the Anapo-Ciane Reserve; from
Anapo-Ciane Reserve to the Maddalena peninsula.
SP 8: Maddalena Natural Park, a 236 hectare area extending from Castelluccio
Cape to Milocca Cape, including the CommunitarianInterestSite ITA A090008
“Capo Murro di Porco, Penisola Maddalena e Grotta Pellegrino”.
3 Methods
As a landscape unity, this area works as a semantic chain, i.e. a set of semantic units
(signs) interpreting each other, so that the modification in significance of a single
item affects the significance of the most similar or close ones.
This textual structure is characterised by tensions due to the typically consonant or
dissonant, constructive or destructive, convergent or divergent signs. These tensions
can be assessed by referring to many criteria of structural (natural), infrastructural
(technological), super-structural(cultural) type.
The proposed model establishes:
- semantic relations, defining the internal consistency of signifier (LU) and
significance(valuation)based on causal or intentional correspondences;
- syntactic relations, defining the external consistency of LUs, based on
motivational and conventional correspondences.
semantic9module syntactic9module project9module calculation results
4969urban9center6crea
1 coastal/geomorph
5 cultural6symbolic
6969cycling9lane91
7969cycling9lane92
8969nature9park
5969water9front
characteristics
modifications
assessments
interactions
2 vegetation
4 residential
valuations
3 functional
impacts
weights
systems
1 coastal/geomorph 1
2 vegetation 2
3 functional 3
4 residential 4
5 cultural6symbolic 5
interaction9rates
Fig. 2. General valuation pattern scheme
The pattern works as a set of impact coaxial matrixes composed of the Lus in rows
and some blocks of columns: the syntactic and semantic modules, the set of actions,
and the calculations-results one. The semantic module associates a value to each LU
according to the well-known method of the value functions. The syntactic module
699
links the signs to each other, individuating the (positive/negative) interactions
between the values of the Lus.
The model is composed of the vector of the valuations the 52 Lus: an impact
matrix with 15 columns (5 actions x 3 impact types) and 52 rows; an interactive
matrix with 52x52 elements that quantifies the influences between the Lus (fig. 2)
3.1 Semantic Module
The semantic module defines the relation between the LUs as described by their
characters (indicators) and their values. The module:
- identifies the Lus as potential impact bearers (extension𝐸, importanceI,
700dentifies) grouped in five systems (Blackstone and Greenb, 1991): 1. Coastal-
geomorphologic, 2. Vegetation, 3. Functional, 4. Residential, 5.
Cultural(Davoudi, 2012; Folke 2006; Gunderson et al. 2010);
- attributesof a weighing system w, where 𝑤!! , 𝑤!! and 𝑤!! are the weights of
𝐿𝑈! − 𝑡ℎ, for 𝐸, I, andR criteria and such that !,!,!
! 𝑤! = 1;
- 700dentifies value for each 𝐿𝑈! − 𝑡ℎfunction of 𝐸!"! , 𝐼!"! and 𝑅!"! in a
dimensionless scale ranging from 1 to 5;
- defines “the level of axiological participation” for 𝐿𝑈! − 𝑡ℎ, namely 𝑝! ,
where𝑝! = 𝐸!"! 𝑤!! + 𝐼!"! 𝑤!! + 𝑅!"! 𝑤!! ;
- characterises of Lus in regarding its belonging to the natural structures𝑆! , to the
technological infrastructures 𝐼! and to the cultural superstructures and 𝑆𝑆! ;
- identifies of a weighing system t , where 𝑡!! , 𝑡!! and 𝑡!!! are the weights of
! ! !
! ! !!
𝐿𝑈! − 𝑡ℎ, for𝑆! , 𝐼! and 𝑆𝑆! criteriaand such that ! ! ! ! 𝑡! = 1;
- identifies a value for each𝑢! − 𝑡ℎfunction of 𝑆!! , 𝐼!! and 𝑆𝑆!! in a dimensionless
scale ranging from 1 to 5;
- evaluates𝑉! the value for each Lus by the formula𝑉! = !!!! 𝑢! 𝑝! 𝑡! , and where 𝑛 is
their number. This value is modified by the actions included in the plan, as
explained in paragraph 5.2.
3.2 Syntactic Modul
The syntactic module formalises the horizontal relations, (communication), binding
between themselves several signs, LUs, representing the axiological interactions
activated by the foreseen modifications. It is the last passage of the whole valuation,
and reanalyses the judgments assigned to the single components, considering their
complementarity with all the others; therefore, it provides a different valuation
according to the type of connection and the entity assigned to it. It is articulated in
three activities, the first organizational, the second instrumental, the third of
verification.
Individuation of the interactions. The organizational activity consists of the
description of the interactions between the landscape units, starting from their
aggregations in systems (Weinstoerffer andGirardin, 2000) in one double entry
matrix where the LUs are put in line and in column. The cells contain a-dimensional
700
scores, x!" (from 0 to 2), that quantify the syntactic connections between the different
systems by means of the description of the interactions between each LUs component
of one system and those of another one. When there is no interaction the coefficient
will be 1, if the i unit has a positive impact on the j unit the multiplier will be > 1,
and in the opposite case it will be < 1.
Connection with the semantic model. The instrumental activity consists in the
definition and choice of the most suitable algorithm to take into account the relations
described by the coefficients. In the present case the model of the Interactive Matrix
proposed by F. Rizzo (1989, 2003) was chosen. In this case the connection between
the system of the interactions and the values placed on the main diagonal of the
matrix, 𝑥!" 𝑖 = 𝑗 , called levels of action of the criteria, is provided 𝑏𝑦 𝑣! = ! 𝑥!" ,
where v! is the “total level of action of the criterion”, and therefore, in this case, the
semantic value of the landscape unit, which is influenced by the interactions with all
the other ones.
Analysis of sensitivity and of scenario. The verification activity includes: analyses
of sensitivity, concerning the variation of the interactions, performed through a
multiplier that modifies them, in order to individuate the LUs that are more
influenced by the system effect; scenario analyses, consisting in the implementation
of the different “axiological strategies” through the variation of the λ! weights
associated to the different landscape units and integrating those calculated in the
semantic analysis. The λ! weights have a higher project intentionality, and are utilised
in the phase of choice between options, participating in the calculation of the “total
assessment level”, 𝑉 = ! 𝑣! 𝜆! .
3.3 Regulatory Aspects
The synthesis of the two modules converging to the proposed model (SSM), fulfils in
the framework of the European and national legislation, as follows:
- according to the European Landscape Convention (ELC) (2000), art. 131 of L.D.
no. 42, Italian Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape (2004), art. 1a of L. no 9.
(2006); art. 3 of L. D. no. 157 (2006); art. 2.1.a) of L.D. no. 63 (2008) the SSM:
1. defines a landscape complex as a semantic field, i.e. a set of signs linked to
each other by consistent and resilient communicative relations;
2. evaluates the landscape complex by integrating the signification-value of the
individual (natural/human) items that make up it, within an internal and
external communication-values system;
3. allows us to: a) appreciate the value of the different combinations of LUs; b)
identify the differences between the individual evaluations; c) provide the
valuation of the landscape complex as a whole;
- according to the ELC (2000)and the L. n. 9/2006, the SSM:
1. supports public administrators in implementing general principles, strategies
and guidelines by means of scenario analysis (art. 1.b);
2. supports valuators in outlining sustainable development patterns inasmuch
as it allows them to recognise the most sensitive and resilient items that can
be differently affected by the actions (art. 1e);
701
3. supports decision making in identifying strategies for an efficient land
government by integrating the values of the single items(ib.);
4. takes into account natural, rural, urban and peri-urban spaces, terrestrial
landscapes, inland and marine waters – typically: 1. Coastal-
geomorphologic systems, 2. Vegetation, 3. Functional areas, 4. Residential
settlements, 5. Cultural/symbolic units – by distinguishing the LUs as
exceptional, of daily life and degraded (art. 2):
5. promotes the conservation, management and planning of landscapes (art. 3);
6. promotes global objectives according to the principle of subsidiarity, taking
into account the European Charter of Local Self-Government (art. 4)
7. promotes the legal recognition of the landscape as an essential component of
the context of people’s lives, an expression of the diversity of their common
cultural and natural heritage, and the foundation of their identity (art. 5a);
8. supports the analysis and implementation of policies for protection,
management and landscape planning through the adoption of the specific
measures referred to in art. 6 of the ELC (art. 5b);
9. supports the integration of the landscape into the planning land, urban,
cultural, environmental, agricultural, social and economic policies (art. 5d);
10. fosters the implementation of: Awareness, Education, Identification and
Evaluation, Landscape Quality Objectives, Application (art. 6).
4 Implementation and Results
4.1 Semantic Module
The value map given by the semantic analysis highlights a heterogeneous framework
of the landscape disunity due to the juxtaposition of excellence and decay. The
valuation model highlights the highest quality areas and the criticalities, their
absolute or intrinsic value, and the relative or extrinsic value they acquire by the
different records of weighing and scoring.
702
landscape?units
systems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
coastal 3,3 3,4 2,4 2,2 1,5 0,9 1,1 2,3 2,0 4,3 4,2 3,5 2,3
vegetation 0,0 0,0 2,2 0,0 2,2 1,7 0,9 4,1 1,0 1,6 1,2 0,6 0,6
functional 3,2 4,1 4,1 2,6 2,6 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,3 1,5 0,7 0,4 0,4
residential 2,2 3,7 4,4 4,4 3,7 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,6 2,3 1,0 1,0 1,6
symbolic 0,0 4,7 2,6 3,7 3,4 0,9 0,9 3,8 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2
coastal? vegeta@on? func@onal? residen@al? symbolic?
5?
4?
3?
2?
1?
0?
Fig. 3.The value map: graphical/numerical representation
The map represents the prevalence of the cultural features in Ortigia, of the
functional and environmental disvalues in the industrial and harbor area, the building
parasitism of the zone underlying the salines, the seizure of the highest quality area,
the system of inlets between Punta Castelluccio and Punta Mola; the latter closes the
large inlet of Porto Grande harbor, and faces Maniac Castle, claiming the function of
natural counterweight. Compared to this wound to the potential best combination of
the whole unity, the Reserve of Plemmirio, despite being appropriate and even
necessary, becomes a mere alibi. The value map partly indicates the forms of
axiological non-congruity of the different systems compared, and the conflicts of the
different, sometimes divergent development lines as well. A graphical/numerical
representation of it (fig. 3) may be attempted, indicating with a different colour for
each of the five systems the value (y axis) of each landscape unit (x axis) (Trovato
and Giuffrida, 2014).
4.2 Syntactic Module
The results of the interactions’ analysis highlight the value system of the landscape
complex, and allow us to assess the difference between the valuations of the single
elements and those of their combinations in unities (Giuffridaet al., 2016). Among
the examples of LUs integration, the one between ManiaceCastle and Punta
Castelluccio-Punta Mola is the most significant: considered separately they assume
respectively the residential and symbolic functions, while in the syntactic context of
the territorial unity they acquire the maximum landscape tension (geographical,
historic and symbolic), at the top of the constructive opposition “nature vs culture”.
As a consequence the building activity on Punta Castelluccio turns out
incongruous, as it attenuates this opposition. In a context in tension even punctual
modifications can break the semantic chain compromising the significance of the
703
context (Naselli et al. 2014). The comparison of the two assessments without project,
no-interaction (Vninp) and with-interaction (Vwinp) is shown in fig. 4, where all the
landscape units are displayed in the x-axis, and the valuations in the y-axis.
Fig. 4. Comparison of the with-interaction and no-interaction assessments
The graph highlights in grey the effect of the interactions as difference in terms of
landscape value: in a positive sense, an advantage of the residential and symbolic-
cultural system of the less fine areas, (47-50) that anyway are beneficiaries of a
favourable context; in a negative sense a disadvantage: of the natural,
geomorphologic and vegetation system, due to the urbanization of the coastline area
comprised between the seaplane base at the estuary of Anapo-Ciane rivers, and the
streets Sacramento-Maddalena (4-6; 9-11; 18-23); of the symbolic-cultural system of
the monumental southern area of Ortigia, as a consequence of the building activity
and of the seizure of the naturalistic system comprised between Punta Faro and Punta
Castelluccio from public use.
The sensitivity analyses concern the variation of Total Action Degree (TAD) as
effect of the variation of the weights in order to select the most influential criteria,
while the analyses of scenario concern the TAD variation regarding the modulation
of strategies, that value from time to time the natural structures, the technological
infrastructures and the cultural superstructures. The results are reported in fig. 5.
704
110C 110C
ext imp res TAD elasticity NS TI CS elasticity
1 0,3 0,0 0,7 100,25 1 1,0 0,0 2,0 108,14 imp/resC TI/CSC
2 0,3 0,2 0,5 101,10 2 1,0 0,5 1,5 104,36 min ?3,5% CS/NSC
res/extC
3 0,3 0,3 0,3 101,95 0,85% 3 1,0 1,0 1,0 101,95 med ?6,4% NS/TIC
4 0,3 0,5 0,2 102,79 4 1,0 1,5 0,5 100,92 max 0,3% ex/impC
5 0,3 0,7 0,0 103,64 5 1,0 2,0 0,0 101,27 105C 105C
6 0,7 0,3 0,0 97,81 6 2,0 1,0 0,0 101,16
7 0,5 0,3 0,2 99,88 7 1,5 1,0 0,5 100,69 min ?0,5%
8 0,3 0,3 0,3 101,95 2,12% 8 1,0 1,0 1,0 101,95 med 8,4%
9 0,2 0,3 0,5 104,01 9 0,5 1,0 1,5 104,93 max 4,5%
10 0,0 0,3 0,7 106,08 10 0,0 1,0 2,0 109,63 100C 100C
11 0,0 0,7 0,3 107,77 11 0,0 2,0 1,0 103,43
12 0,2 0,5 0,3 104,86 12 0,5 1,5 1,0 102,52 min ?0,9%
13 0,3 0,3 0,3 101,95 ?2,70% 13 1,0 1,0 1,0 101,95 med ?1,5%
14 0,5 0,2 0,3 99,03 14 1,5 0,5 1,0 101,72 max 0,1%
15 0,7 0,0 0,3 96,12 15 2,0 0,0 1,0 101,84
95C 95C
Fig. 5. Syntactic assessment module: results and sensitiveness analysis
5 Application, Results and Discussion
The implementation of the five projects, articulated in the different actions that
turn out relevant for the modification of the landscape value, produces the impacts
represented in the graph of fig. 6 that highlights the different characteristics of the 52
landscape unities as above described.
The modifications of the different actions on the landscape units are represented,
in terms of percentage value variation, by three viewpoints, the one of the impact
intensity, the one of the impact reversibility (or duration), and the one of the impact
ramification (space-time extension of the indirect forecasted or expected effects).
The combination of these assessments gives the value of the impact for each
landscape unit, calculated by taking into account the interactions (𝐼!"! ) or not (𝐼!"! ):
𝐼!"! = 𝑉!"#$! − 𝑉!"!#! ; 𝐼!"! = 𝑉!"!#! − 𝑉!"#$!
Due to the types of action, the total impact on each landscape unit is mostly
positive. The main impact concerns the actions supposed for: the area of the Urban
Center, which some positive effects are expected from, all over the S. Antonio
neighborhood, especially in terms of real estate increase in value; the area of
Plemmirio Natural Park, where both naturalistic and cultural interventions and
initiatives are envisaged. Although positive, the impacts, due to the small dimension
of the interventions, are irrelevant, and a comparison between with and without
project statuses is scarcely significant.
705
Fig. 6. Impact for each landscape unit, calculated with and without interaction
The difference between “with-interaction impact” and “no interaction impact”
valuations highlights: the negative effects of the Pantanelli industrial area on the
nearest Ciane-Anapo CIA area (18), the negative effect of the enhancement of the
Darsena area (26); the modifications needed by the improvement of some naturalistic
areas of the Park (33); the impact of the modification of the waterfront in the area of
the Foro Italico; the effect of an improvement of tourism on some natural areas (45-
47). The valuation of these areas is higher if interactions are not considered.
6 Conclusions
The proposed model works as a platform for an analysis finalised to orientate
“landscape regeneration strategies”, identifying, on the one hand, their most sensitive
elements, that are influenced negatively by the interactions, on the other hand the
most capable ones, that are influenced positively by the latter.
Basing on the performed valuation, we deduce that the actions envisaged by the
planning tools don’t deal in depth and extensively as necessary with this territorial
complex in its most peculiar aspect, the landscape one, and propose instead punctual
and linear interventions with a scarce engaging capacity, considering the inertia of a
territory whose invasive human settlements would demand, in some of its large areas,
consistent reconversion actions. As a consequence, relevant criticalities persist:
- the large Pantanelli area, apart from the semantic poverty and the syntactic
strangeness to the context, arises physical, environmental and functional necrosis;
- the increasing pressure of the large scale harbor activities in the area of S.
Antonio pier and Foro Italico;
- the building aggression in the part of the coastline suitable for bathing.
In the articulation of the valuation path, the semantic analysis allowed to start a
reflection on landscape in terms of value instead of elements, while the syntactic
analysis allowed, in extensive sense, to reason on the landscape in terms of relations,
and to consider it, therefore, as form instead of image of the territory.
706
Despite operating in the folds and shadows of a structural information
incompleteness, the model allowed to keep the process of attribution of the value
judgment in a general level useful to compare heterogeneous territorial aspects, and
to perceive the coalescence to an aim: the landscape as substance of the value of the
inhabited territory.
Acknowledgments. The paper must be equally attributed to these authors.
References
1. Blanksona, E.J. and Greenb, B. H. (1991) Use of landscape classification as an
essential prerequisite to landscape evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13,
p.149-62.
2. Dandy, N. and Van Der Wal R. (2011), Shared appreciation of woodland
landscapes by land management professionals and lay people: An exploration
through field based interactive photo-elicitation. Landscape and Urban Planning,
102, p.43-53.
3. Davoudi, S. (2012) Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? Planning
Theory Practice, 13, p.299-307.
4. Dyer, J.S. (2005) MAUT. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art
Surveys, eds J.R Figueira et al. p.265-95. Berlin: Springer.
5. Folke, C. (2006) Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological
systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, p.253-67.
6. Gabrielli, L., Giuffrida, S. and Trovato, M. R. (2016) Functions and Perspectives
of Public Real Estate in the Urban Policies: The Sustainable Development Plan of
Syracuse: In ICCSA 2016, LNCS 9789 Part IV, eds O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S.
Misra et al., p.13-28. London: Springer.
7. Giuffrida S., Giovanna Ferluga G. and Valenti A. (2014) Clustering Analysis in a
Complex Real Estate Market: The Case of Ortigia (Italy) In ICCSA 2014. LNCS
8581, Part III, eds B. Murgante et al., p.106-21. Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing.
8. Giuffrida, S., Napoli, G. and Trovato, M. R. (2016) Industrial Areas and the City:
Equalization and Compensation in a Value-Oriented Allocation Pattern. In
ICCSA 2016, LNCS 9789 Part IV, eds O. Gervasi et al., p.79-94. Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
9. Giuffrida, S. (2017) The True Value. On understanding Something. In Appraisal:
From Theory to Practice. Green Energy and Technology, eds: S. Stanghellini, P.
Morano, M. Bottero, A. Oppio, p.1-14. Cham: Springer, Cham.
10. Gunderson L.H.,Allen, G. R. and Holling, C. S. (2010) Foundations of Ecological
Resilience. Washington: Island Press.
11. Haara A., Store R. and Leskinen P. (2017), Analyzing uncertainties and
estimating priorities of landscape sensitivity based n expert opinions, Landscape
and Urban Planning, 163, p.56-66.
707
12. Ishizaka, A. and Nemery, P. (2013) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. West
Sussex: Wiley.
13. L. D. 42/2004, Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape.
14. L. 9/2006, European Landscape Convention ratification (Florence 2000).
15. L. D. 157/ 2006, “Corrective and supplementary provisions to Legislative Decree
no. 42, in relation to the landscape”.
16. L. D. n. 63/2008, “Additional Supplementary and Corrective Provisions of L. D.
n. 42/2004, in relation to the landscape”.
17. Naselli, F., Trovato, M. R. and Castello, G. (2014) An evaluation model for the
actions in supporting of the environmental and landscaping rehabilitation of the
Pasquasia’s site mining (EN). In ICCSA 2014, LNCS 8581, Part III, eds B.
Murgante et al., p.26-41. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
18. Rizzo, F. (1989) Economia del patrimonio architettonico-ambientale. Milano:
FrancoAngeli.
19. Rizzo, F. (1999) Valore e valutazioni. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
20. Rizzo, F. (2003) Il capitale sociale della città. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
21. Tempesta T. and Vecchiato D. (2015) Testing the difference between experts’
and lay people’s landscape preferences. AESTIMUM, 66, p.1-41.
22. Tieskens K. F., Schulp C. J. E., Levers C.Lieskovský J., Kuemmerle T.,Plieninger
T., and Verburg P. H. (2017), Characterizing European cultural landscapes:
Accounting for structure, management intensity and value of agricultural and
forest landscapes, Land Use Policy, 62, p. 29-39.
23. Trovato, M. R. and Giuffrida, S. (2014) A DSS to Assess and Manage the Urban
Performances in the Regeneration Plan: The Case Study of Pachino. In ICCSA
2014, LNCS 8581, Part III, eds B. Murgante et al., p.224-39. Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
24. Weinstoerffer, J. and Girardin, P. (2000) Assessment of the contribution of land
use pattern and intensity to landscape quality: use of a landscape indicator.
Ecological Modelling, 130, p. 95-109.
25. Zagaria C., Schulp C. J. E., Kizos T., Gounaridi D. and Verburg P. H. (2017)
Cultural landscapes and behavioral transformations: An agent-based model for
the simulation and discussion of alternative landscape futures in East Lesvos,
Greece. Land Use Policy, 65, p.26-44.
708