Bio-Energy Connectivity And Ecosystem Services. An Assessment by Pandora 3.0 Model for Land Use Decision Making

(1)

Smart City

planning far energy, transportation

an d sustainability of the urban system

(2)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

SMART CITY

PLANNING FOR ENERGY, TRANSPORTATION AND

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE URBAN SYSTEM

Special Issue, June 2014

Published by

Laboratory of Land Use Mobility and Environment

DICEA - Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering

University of Naples "Federico II"

TeMA is realised by CAB - Center for Libraries at “Federico II” University of Naples using Open Journal System

Editor-in-chief: Rocco Papa

print ISSN 1970-9889 | on line ISSN 1970-9870

Lycence: Cancelleria del Tribunale di Napoli, n° 6 of 29/01/2008

Editorial correspondence

Laboratory of Land Use Mobility and Environment

DICEA - Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering

University of Naples "Federico II"

Piazzale Tecchio, 80

80125 Naples

web: www.tema.unina.it

(3)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

TeMA. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment offers researches, applications and contributions with a unified approach to planning and mobility and publishes original inter-disciplinary papers on the interaction of transport, land use and environment. Domains include engineering, planning, modeling, behavior, economics, geography, regional science, sociology, architecture and design, network science, and complex systems.

The Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes (ANVUR) classified TeMA as scientific journals in the Areas 08. TeMA has also received the Sparc Europe Seal for Open Access Journals released by Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC Europe) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). TeMA is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License and is blind peer reviewed at least by two referees selected among high-profile scientists by their competences. TeMA has been published since 2007 and is indexed in the main bibliographical databases and it is present in the catalogues of hundreds of academic and research libraries worldwide.

EDITOR

-

IN

-

CHIEF

Rocco Papa, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy

E

DITORIAL

A

DVISORY

B

OARD

Luca Bertolini, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Netherlands

Virgilio Bettini, Università Iuav di Venezia, Italy

Dino Borri, Politecnico di Bari, Italy

Enrique Calderon, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

Roberto Camagni, Politecnico di Milano, Italy

Robert Leonardi, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom

Raffaella Nanetti, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs, United States

Agostino Nuzzolo, Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata, Italy

Rocco Papa, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy

E

DITORS

Agostino Nuzzolo, Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata, Italy

Enrique Calderon, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

Luca Bertolini, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Netherlands

Romano Fistola, Dept. of Engineering - University of Sannio - Italy, Italy

Adriana Galderisi, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy

Carmela Gargiulo, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy

Giuseppe Mazzeo, CNR - Istituto per gli Studi sulle Società del Mediterraneo, Italy

E

DITORIAL SECRETARY

Rosaria Battarra, CNR - Istituto per gli Studi sulle Società del Mediterraneo, Italy

Andrea Ceudech, TeMALab, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy

Rosa Anna La Rocca, TeMALab, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy

Enrica Papa, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

(4)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

This special issue of TeMA collects the papers presented at the 8th International Conference INPUT 2014 which will take place in Naples from 4th to 6th June. The Conference focuses on one of the central topics within the urban studies debate and combines, in a new perspective, researches concerning the relationship between innovation and management of city changing.

C

ONFERENCE

C

OMMITTEE

Dino Borri, Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy

Arnaldo Cecchini, University of Sassari, Italy

Romano Fistola, University of Sannio, Italy

Lilli Gargiulo, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Giuseppe B. Las Casas, University of Basilicata, Italy

Agostino Nuzzolo, University of Rome, Italy

Rocco Papa, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Giovanni Rabino, Polytechnic University of Milan, Italy

Maurizio Tira, University of Brescia, Italy

Corrado Zoppi, University of Cagliari, Italy

S

CIENTIFIC

C

OMMITTEE

Emanuela Abis, University of Cagliari, Italy

Nicola Bellini, Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna Pisa, Italy

Mariolina Besio Dominici, University of Genoa, Italy

Ivan Blecic, University of Sassari, Italy

Dino Borri, Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy

Grazia Brunetta, Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy

Roberto Busi, University of Brescia, Italy

Domenico Camarda, Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy

Michele Campagna, University of Cagliari, Italy

Arnaldo Cecchini, University of Sassari, Italy

Donatella Cialdea, University of Molise, Italy

Valerio Cutini, University of Pisa, Italy, Italy

Luciano De Bonis, University of Molise, Italy

Andrea De Montis, University of Sassari, Italy

Filippo de Rossi, University of Sannio (Dean of the University of Sannio), Italy

Lidia Diappi, Polytechnic University of Milan, Italy

Isidoro Fasolino, University of Salerno, Italy

Mariano Gallo, University of Sannio, Italy

Lilli Gargiulo, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Roberto Gerundo, University of Salerno, Italy

Paolo La Greca, University of Catania, Italy

Giuseppe B. Las Casas, University of Basilicata, Italy

Robert Laurini, University of Lyon, France

Antonio Leone, Tuscia University, Italy

Anna Loffredo,Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna Pisa, Italy

Silvana Lombardo, University of Pisa, Italy

Giovanni Maciocco, University of Sassari, Italy

Giulio Maternini, University of Brescia, Italy

(5)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

Francesco Domenico Moccia, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Bruno Montella, University of Naples “Federico II” (Director of DICEA), Italy

Beniamino Murgante, University of Basilicata, Italy

Agostino Nuzzolo, University of Rome, Italy

Sylvie Occelli, IRES Turin, Italy

Rocco Papa, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Maria Paradiso, University of Sannio, Italy

Domenico Patassini, IUAV, Venice, Italy

Michele Pezzagno, University of Brescia, Italy

Fulvia Pinto, Polytechnic University of Milan, Italy

Giovanni Rabino, Polytechnic University of Milan, Italy

Giuseppe Roccasalva, Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy

Bernardino Romano, University of L’Aquila, Italy

Francesco Russo, Mediterranean University Reggio Calabria, Italy

Michelangelo Russo, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Ferdinando Semboloni, University of Firenze, Italy

Agata Spaziante, Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy

Michela Tiboni, University of Brescia, Italy

Maurizio Tira, University of Brescia, Italy

Simona Tondelli, University of Bologna, Italy

Umberto Villano,University of Sannio (Director of DING), Italy

Ignazio Vinci, University of Palermo, Italy

Corrado Zoppi, University of Cagliari, Italy

L

OCAL

S

CIENTIFIC

C

OMMITTEE

Rosaria Battarra, ISSM, National Research Council, Italy

Romano Fistola, DING, University of Sannio, Italy

Lilli Gargiulo, DICEA, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Adriana Galderisi, DICEA, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Rosa Anna La Rocca, DICEA, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Giuseppe Mazzeo, ISSM, National Research Council, Italy

Enrica Papa, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

L

OCAL

A

DMINISTRATIVE

T

EAM

Gennaro Angiello, TeMA Lab, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Gerardo Carpentieri, TeMA Lab, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Stefano Franco, TeMA Lab, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Laura Russo, TeMA Lab, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

Floriana Zucaro, TeMA Lab, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

(6)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE INPUT 2014

SMART CITY. PLANNING FOR ENERGY, TRANSPORTATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE

URBAN SYSTEM

This special issue of TeMA collects the papers presented at the Eighth International Conference INPUT, 2014, titled "Smart City. Planning for energy, transportation and sustainability of the urban system" that takes place in Naples from 4 to 6 of June 2014.

INPUT (Innovation in Urban Planning and Territorial) consists of an informal group/network of academic researchers Italians and foreigners working in several areas related to urban and territorial planning. Starting from the first conference, held in Venice in 1999, INPUT has represented an opportunity to reflect on the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as key planning support tools. The theme of the eighth conference focuses on one of the most topical debate of urban studies that combines , in a new perspective, researches concerning the relationship between innovation (technological, methodological, of process etc..) and the management of the changes of the city. The Smart City is also currently the most investigated subject by TeMA that with this number is intended to provide a broad overview of the research activities currently in place in Italy and a number of European countries. Naples, with its tradition of studies in this particular research field, represents the best place to review progress on what is being done and try to identify some structural elements of a planning approach.

Furthermore the conference has represented the ideal space of mind comparison and ideas exchanging about a number of topics like: planning support systems, models to geo-design, qualitative cognitive models and formal ontologies, smart mobility and urban transport, Visualization and spatial perception in urban planning innovative processes for urban regeneration, smart city and smart citizen, the Smart Energy Master project, urban entropy and evaluation in urban planning, etc..

The conference INPUT Naples 2014 were sent 84 papers, through a computerized procedure using the website www.input2014.it . The papers were subjected to a series of monitoring and control operations. The first fundamental phase saw the submission of the papers to reviewers. To enable a blind procedure the papers have been checked in advance, in order to eliminate any reference to the authors. The review was carried out on a form set up by the local scientific committee. The review forms received were sent to the authors who have adapted the papers, in a more or less extensive way, on the base of the received comments. At this point (third stage), the new version of the paper was subjected to control for to standardize the content to the layout required for the publication within TeMA. In parallel, the Local Scientific Committee, along with the Editorial Board of the magazine, has provided to the technical operation on the site TeMA (insertion of data for the indexing and insertion of pdf version of the papers). In the light of the time’s shortness and of the high number of contributions the Local Scientific Committee decided to publish the papers by applying some simplifies compared with the normal procedures used by TeMA. Specifically:

− Each paper was equipped with cover, TeMA Editorial Advisory Board, INPUT Scientific Committee, introductory page of INPUT 2014 and summary;

− Summary and sorting of the papers are in alphabetical order, based on the surname of the first author; − Each paper is indexed with own DOI codex which can be found in the electronic version on TeMA website

(7)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

SMART CITY

PLANNING FOR ENERGY, TRANSPORTATION AND

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE URBAN SYSTEM

Special Issue, June 2014

1. The Plan in Addressing the Post Shock Conflicts 2009-2014.

A First Balance Sheet of the Reconstruction of L’Aquila

1-13

Fabio Andreassi, Pierluigi Properzi

2. Assessment on the Expansion of Basic Sanitation Infrastructure.

In the Metropolitan Area of Belo Horizonte - 2000/2010

15-26

Grazielle Anjos Carvalho

3. Temporary Dwelling of Social Housing in Turin.

New Responses to Housing Discomfort

27-37

Giulia Baù, Luisa Ingaramo

4. Smart Communities. Social Innovation at the Service of the Smart Cities

39-51

Massimiliano Bencardino, Ilaria Greco

5. Online Citizen Reporting on Urban Maintenance:

A Collection, Evaluation and Decision Support System

53-63

Ivan Blečić, Dario Canu, Arnaldo Cecchini, Giuseppe Andrea Trunfio

6. Walkability Explorer. An Evaluation and Design Support Tool for Walkability

65-76

Ivan Blečić, Arnaldo Cecchini, Tanja Congiu, Giovanna Fancello, Giuseppe Andrea Trunfio

7. Diachronic Analysis of Parking Usage: The Case Study of Brescia

77-85

Riccardo Bonotti, Silvia Rossetti, Michela Tiboni, Maurizio Tira

8. Crowdsourcing. A Citizen Participation Challenge

87-96

Júnia Borges, Camila Zyngier

9. Spatial Perception and Cognition Review.

Considering Geotechnologies as Urban Planning Strategy

97-108

(8)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

10. Dilemmas in the Analysis of Technological Change. A Cognitive Approach

to Understand Innovation and Change in the Water Sector

109-127

Dino Borri, Laura Grassini

11. Learning and Sharing Technology in Informal Contexts.

A Multiagent-Based Ontological Approach

129-140

Dino Borri, Domenico Camarda, Laura Grassini, Mauro Patano

12. Smartness and Italian Cities. A Cluster Analysis

141-152

Flavio Boscacci, Ila Maltese, Ilaria Mariotti

13. Beyond Defining the Smart City.

Meeting Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches in the Middle

153-164

Jonas Breuer, Nils Walravens, Pieter Ballon

14. Resilience Through Ecological Network

165-173

Grazia Brunetta, Angioletta Voghera

15. ITS System to Manage Parking Supply:

Considerations on Application to the “Ring” in the City of Brescia

175-186

Susanna Bulferetti, Francesca Ferrari, Stefano Riccardi

16. Formal Ontologies and Uncertainty. In Geographical Knowledge

187-198

Matteo Caglioni, Giovanni Fusco

17. Geodesign From Theory to Practice:

In the Search for Geodesign Principles in Italian Planning Regulations

199-210

Michele Campagna, Elisabetta Anna Di Cesare

18. Geodesign from Theory to Practice:

From Metaplanning to 2nd Generation of Planning Support Systems

211-221

Michele Campagna

19. The Energy Networks Landscape.

Impacts on Rural Land in the Molise Region

223-234

Donatella Cialdea, Alessandra Maccarone

20. Marginality Phenomena and New Uses on the Agricultural Land.

Diachronic and Spatial Analyses of the Molise Coastal Area

235-245

Donatella Cialdea, Luigi Mastronardi

21. Spatial Analysis of Urban Squares. ‘Siccome Umbellico al corpo dell’uomo’

247-258

(9)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

22. Co-Creative, Re-Generative Smart Cities.

Smart Cities and Planning in a Living Lab Perspective 2

259-270

Luciano De Bonis, Grazia Concilio, Eugenio Leanza, Jesse Marsh, Ferdinando Trapani

23. The Model of Voronoi's Polygons and Density:

Diagnosis of Spatial Distribution of Education Services of EJA

in Divinópolis, Minas Gerais, Brazil

271-283

Diogo De Castro Guadalupe, Ana Clara Mourão Moura

24. Rural Architectural Intensification: A Multidisciplinar Planning Tool

285-295

Roberto De Lotto, Tiziano Cattaneo, Cecilia Morelli Di Popolo, Sara Morettini,

Susanna Sturla, Elisabetta Venco

25. Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks.

Part A. A Rural System in Nuoro, Sardinia

297-307

Andrea De Montis, Maria Antonietta Bardi, Amedeo Ganciu, Antonio Ledda,

Simone Caschili, Maurizio Mulas, Leonarda Dessena, Giuseppe Modica,

Luigi Laudari, Carmelo Riccardo Fichera

26. Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks.

Part B. A Rural System in Nuoro, Sardinia

309-320

Andrea De Montis, Maria Antonietta Bardi, Amedeo Ganciu, Antonio Ledda,

Simone Caschili, Maurizio Mulas, Leonarda Dessena, Giuseppe Modica,

Luigi Laudari, Carmelo Riccardo Fichera

27. Sea Guidelines. A Comparative Analysis: First Outcomes

321-330

Andrea De Montis, Antonio Ledda, Simone Caschili, Amedeo Ganciu, Mario Barra,

Gianluca Cocco, Agnese Marcus

28. Energy And Environment in Urban Regeneration.

Studies for a Method of Analysis of Urban Periphery

331-339

Paolo De Pascali, Valentina Alberti, Daniela De Ioris, Michele Reginaldi

29. Achieving Smart Energy Planning Objectives.

The Approach of the Transform Project

341-351

Ilaria Delponte

30. From a Smart City to a Smart Up-Country.

The New City-Territory of L’Aquila

353-364

Donato Di Ludovico, Pierluigi Properzi, Fabio Graziosi

31. Geovisualization Tool on Urban Quality.

Interactive Tool for Urban Planning

365-375

(10)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

32. Visual Impact in the Urban Environment.

The Case of Out-of-Scale Buildings

377-388

Enrico Fabrizio, Gabriele Garnero

33. Smart Dialogue for Smart Citizens:

Assertive Approaches for Strategic Planning

389-401

Isidoro Fasolino, Maria Veronica Izzo

34. Digital Social Networks and Urban Spaces

403-415

Pablo Vieira Florentino, Maria Célia Furtado Rocha, Gilberto Corso Pereira

35. Social Media Geographic Information in Tourism Planning

417-430

Roberta Floris, Michele Campagna

36. Re-Use/Re-Cycle Territories:

A Retroactive Conceptualisation for East Naples

431-440

Enrico Formato, Michelangelo Russo

37. Urban Land Uses and Smart Mobility

441-452

Mauro Francini, Annunziata Palermo, Maria Francesca Viapiana

38. The Design of Signalised Intersections at Area Level.

Models and Methods

453-464

Mariano Gallo, Giuseppina De Luca, Luca D’acierno

39. Piano dei Servizi. Proposal for Contents and Guidelines

465-476

Roberto Gerundo, Gabriella Graziuso

40. Social Housing in Urban Regeneration.

Regeneration Heritage Existing Building: Methods and Strategies

477-486

Maria Antonia Giannino, Ferdinando Orabona

41. Using GIS to Record and Analyse Historical Urban Areas

487-497

Maria Giannopoulou, Athanasios P. Vavatsikos,

Konstantinos Lykostratis, Anastasia Roukouni

42. Network Screening for Smarter Road Sites: A Regional Case

499-509

Attila Grieco, Chiara Montaldo, Sylvie Occelli, Silvia Tarditi

43. Li-Fi for a Digital Urban Infrastructure:

A Novel Technology for the Smart City

511-522

Corrado Iannucci, Fabrizio Pini

44. Open Spaces and Urban Ecosystem Services.

Cooling Effect towards Urban Planning in South American Cities

523-534

(11)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

45. From RLP to SLP: Two Different Approaches to Landscape Planning

535-543

Federica Isola, Cheti Pira

46. Revitalization and its Impact on Public.

Space Organization A Case Study of Manchester in UK,

Lyon in France and Łódź in Poland

545-556

Jarosław Kazimierczak

47. Geodesign for Urban Ecosystem Services

557-565

Daniele La Rosa

48. An Ontology of Implementation Plans of Historic Centers:

A Case Study Concerning Sardinia, Italy

567-579

Sabrina Lai, Corrado Zoppi

49. Open Data for Territorial Specialization Assessment.

Territorial Specialization in Attracting Local Development Funds:

an Assessment. Procedure Based on Open Data and Open Tools

581-595

Giuseppe Las Casas, Silvana Lombardo, Beniamino Murgante,

Piergiuseppe Pontrandolfi, Francesco Scorza

50. Sustainability And Planning.

Thinking and Acting According to Thermodinamics Laws

597-606

Antonio Leone, Federica Gobattoni, Raffaele Pelorosso

51. Strategic Planning of Municipal Historic Centers.

A Case Study Concerning Sardinia, Italy

607-619

Federica Leone, Corrado Zoppi

52. A GIS Approach to Supporting Nightlife Impact Management:

The Case of Milan

621-632

Giorgio Limonta

53. Dealing with Resilience Conceptualisation. Formal Ontologies as a Tool

for Implementation of Intelligent Geographic Information Systems

633-644

Giampiero Lombardini

54. Social Media Geographic Information:

Recent Findings and Opportunities for Smart Spatial Planning

645-658

Pierangelo Massa, Michele Campagna

55. Zero Emission Mobility Systems in Cities.

Inductive Recharge System Planning in Urban Areas

659-669

(12)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

56. Urban Labelling: Resilience and Vulnerability

as Key Concepts for a Sustainable Planning

671-682

Giuseppe Mazzeo

57. Defining Smart City.

A Conceptual Framework Based on Keyword Analysis

683-694

Farnaz Mosannenzadeh, Daniele Vettorato

58. Parametric Modeling of Urban Landscape:

Decoding the Brasilia of Lucio Costa from Modernism to Present Days

695-708

Ana Clara Moura, Suellen Ribeiro, Isadora Correa, Bruno Braga

59. Smart Mediterranean Logics. Old-New Dimensions and

Transformations of Territories and Cites-Ports in Mediterranean

709-718

Emanuela Nan

60. Mapping Smart Regions. An Exploratory Approach

719-728

Sylvie Occelli, Alessandro Sciullo

61. Planning Un-Sustainable Development of Mezzogiorno.

Methods and Strategies for Planning Human Sustainable Development

729-736

Ferdinando Orabona, Maria Antonia Giannino

62. The Factors Influencing Transport Energy Consumption

in Urban Areas: a Review

737-747

Rocco Papa, Carmela Gargiulo, Gennaro Angiello

63. Integrated Urban System and Energy Consumption Model:

Residential Buildings

749-758

Rocco Papa, Carmela Gargiulo, Gerardo Carpentieri

64. Integrated Urban System and Energy Consumption Model:

Public and Singular Buildings

759-770

Rocco Papa, Carmela Gargiulo, Mario Cristiano

65. Urban Smartness Vs Urban Competitiveness:

A Comparison of Italian Cities Rankings

771-782

Rocco Papa, Carmela Gargiulo, Stefano Franco, Laura Russo

66. Urban Systems and Energy Consumptions: A Critical Approach

783-792

Rocco Papa, Carmela Gargiulo, Floriana Zucaro

67. Climate Change and Energy Sustainability.

Which Innovations in European Strategies and Plans

793-804

(13)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

68. Bio-Energy Connectivity And Ecosystem Services.

An Assessment by Pandora 3.0 Model for Land Use Decision Making

805-816

Raffaele Pelorosso, Federica Gobattoni, Francesco Geri,

Roberto Monaco, Antonio Leone

69. Entropy and the City. GHG Emissions Inventory:

a Common Baseline for the Design of Urban and Industrial Ecologies

817-828

Michele Pezzagno, Marco Rosini

70. Urban Planning and Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies

829-840

Fulvia Pinto

71. Urban Gaming Simulation for Enhancing Disaster Resilience.

A Social Learning Tool for Modern Disaster Risk Management

841-851

Sarunwit Promsaka Na Sakonnakron, Pongpisit Huyakorn, Paola Rizzi

72. Visualisation as a Model. Overview on Communication Techniques

in Transport and Urban Planning

853-862

Giovanni Rabino, Elena Masala

73. Ontologies and Methods of Qualitative Research in Urban Planning

863-869

Giovanni Rabino

74. City/Sea Searching for a New Connection.

Regeneration Proposal for Naples Waterfront Like an Harbourscape:

Comparing Three Case Studies

871-882

Michelangelo Russo, Enrico Formato

75. Sensitivity Assessment. Localization of Road Transport Infrastructures

in the Province of Lucca

883-895

Luisa Santini, Serena Pecori

76. Creating Smart Urban Landscapes.

A Multimedia Platform for Placemaking

897-907

Marichela Sepe

77. Virtual Power Plant. Environmental Technology Management Tools

of The Settlement Processes

909-920

Maurizio Sibilla

78. Ecosystem Services and Border Regions.

Case Study from Czech – Polish Borderland

921-932

Marcin Spyra

79. The Creative Side of the Reflective Planner. Updating the Schön’s Findings

933-940

(14)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and

Environment

80. Achieving People Friendly Accessibility.

Key Concepts and a Case Study Overview

941-951

Michela Tiboni, Silvia Rossetti

81. Planning Pharmacies: An Operational Method to Find the Best Location

953-963

Simona Tondelli, Stefano Fatone

82. Transportation Infrastructure Impacts Evaluation:

The Case of Egnatia Motorway in Greece

965-975

Athanasios P. Vavatsikos, Maria Giannopoulou

83. Designing Mobility in a City in Transition.

Challenges from the Case of Palermo

977-988

Ignazio Vinci, Salvatore Di Dio

84. Considerations on the Use of Visual Tools in Planning Processes:

A Brazilian Experience

989-998

Camila Zyngier, Stefano Pensa, Elena Masala

(15)

TeMA

Journal of

Land Use, Mobility and Environment

TeMA INPUT 2014

Print ISSN 1970-9889, e- ISSN 1970-9870

SPECIAL ISSUE

DOI available on the on-line version

Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution

Non Commercial License 3.0

www.tema.unina.it

Eighth International Conference INPUT

Smart City - Planning for Energy, Transportation and Sustainability

of the Urban System

Naples, 4-6 June 2014

BIO-ENERGY CONNECTIVITY

AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

AN ASSESSMENT BY PANDORA 3.0 MODEL FOR LAND USE

DECISION MAKING

RAFFAELE PELOROSSOa, FEDERICA GOBATTONIa, FRANCESCO GERIa, ROBERTO MONACOb, ANTONIO LEONEa

a DAFNE Department, Tuscia University, Italy e-mail: pelorosso@unitus.it; f.gobattoni@unitus.it; geri.francesco@gmail.com; leone@unitus.it b DIST, Politecnico di Torino, Italy e-mail: roberto.monaco@polito.it

ABSTRACT

Landscape connectivity is one of the major issues related to biodiversity conservation and to the delivery of Ecosystem Services (ES). Several models were developed to assess landscape connectivity but lack of data and mismatching scale of analysis often represent insurmountable constraints for the correct evaluation and integration of ecological connectivity into plans and assessment procedures. In this paper a procedure for ES assessment related with Habitat and Bio-Energy Landscape Connectivity (BELC) is proposed. The method is based on the connectivity measure furnished by the last version of PANDORA model and uses a modified formulation of current ES evaluation. The implementation of the model in a real case has highlighted its potential multi-scale workability. The spatial approach of the model aims at furnishing a further tool for the spread of ES and landscape ecology concepts into procedures of assessment (e.g. EIA, SEA) and land use planning at different administrative scales. KEYWORDS

Landscape connectivity, Urban planning , Environmental Assessment, Environmental modeling

(16)

R. Pelorosso, F. Gobattoni, F. Geri, R. Monaco, A. Leone. – Bio-energy connectivity and ecosystems services. An assessment by PANDORA 3.0 model for land use decision making

1 INTRODUCTION

As reported in the Charter of European Planning (ECPT- CEU 2013), a sustainable development requires the maintainance, enhancement and creation of natural resources that are within towns and cities or that provide services for them including the protection of cities from pollution and degradation, high levels of efficiency in energy production and the wise use of resources (e.g. water, air, soil).

Indeed, every land use change can induce either negative consequences or positive repercussions. Man, more than other living species, plays a fundamental role in the global health of the environment as his ability to strongly modify the landscape structure, and consequently its functionality, to reach his objectives. Examples of this capacity are the huge land cover and land use changes realized, above all in these last centuries (Foley et al., 2005; Pelorosso, Leone, & Boccia, 2009) thanks to the technology advances and the use of stoked carbon fossil sources of energy, to acquire even more goods and services from ecosystems and landscapes, generally named Ecosystem Services (ES) (Hermann, Schleifer, & Wrbka, 2011; Termorshuizen & Opdam, 2009). Among these ESs we can find provisioning services such as food, wood and water, as well as energy used by citizen and urban systems, or cultural services such as social, recreational, and touristic benefits. However, the exploitation of natural resources affects the delivery of other ESs as regulating services, such as flood and CO2 control, or supporting services, such as oxygen production, that maintain the conditions for life on Earth (MEA, 2003). In particular, urbanized areas seal soils determining several environmental consequences, e.g.: increasing of water runoff and relative pollutants transport, deterioration of ecosystems functionality, rising of green house gases, fragmentation of habitats and biodiversity reduction. These impacts and consequences can be assessed in the ES framework since it can provide “a new way to approach environmental management and to connect nature and society in research and appraisals” (Karjalainen, Marttunen, Sarkki, & Rytkönen, 2013). Indeed, policies and plans are gradually directed to supply and reinforce desired ecosystem/landscape services (Gulickx, Verburg, Stoorvogel, Kok, & Veldkamp, 2013).

Ecological landscape connectivity is an important issue often erroneously considered only in extra urban or/and protected areas planning context (Pelorosso, Gobattoni, Lauro, Monaco, & Leone, 2012). Landscape connectivity can be defined as the ability of landscape to facilitate or impede movement among habitat patches, support fluxes of energy, organisms and materials (e.g seeds, biomass, pollen, nutrients, sediments) and long-term persistence of biodiversity (Foltête, Clauzel, & Vuidel, 2012; Ng, Xie, & Yu, 2013; Saura & Pascual-Hortal, 2007). Landscape connectivity is therefore one of the major issues related to animal dispersal, population persistence and ecological functions maintenance. In particular, biodiversity represents a fundamental ecosystem property: estimations reports that a 1% change in biodiversity results in a 0.5% change in the value of all ecosystem services (Bastian, 2013).

In this view, landscape connectivity covers an important role in the definition of ecosystem services value of a single patch of the landscape mosaic; indeed, habitat patches, with the same size and characteristics at different locations, may provide different ecosystem services due to their different connectivity within the landscape. Moreover, a well connected landscape increases the resilience of the social ecological systems allowing them to overcome sudden changes (e.g climate changes, wildfires) by persistence, adaptation and transformation processes (Zurlini et al., 2014). Indeed, several methods, indices, approaches and models have been developed regarding landscape connectivity and fragmentation issues (e.g. Luque, Saura, & Fortin, 2012; Saura & Pascual-Hortal, 2007). Moreover, recent papers have focused on the importance of the integration of landscape connectivity measures into the Ecosystem Services (ES) assessment (Ng et al., 2013), Urban Planning (Ahern, 2012; Tannier, Foltête, & Girardet, 2012), and into Environmental Impact

(17)

Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (Girardet, Foltête, & Clauzel, 2013; Mancebo Quintana, Martín Ramos, Casermeiro Martínez, & Otero Pastor, 2010; Scolozzi & Geneletti, 2012a). Connectivity assessment in the context of land use decision making processes and landscape and urban planning is still challenging (Scolozzi & Geneletti, 2012b). Lack of data and mismatching scale of analysis can represent insurmountable constraints for the correct evaluation and integration of ecological connectivity into plans and assessment procedures. Moreover, complex models can be hard to manage when scenario comparison is requested or the localization and extension of the area change. Thus, several examples of structural connectivity assessment (not species specific approach) and simplified models were presented to adequately face these issues in the planning and assessment practice at different spatial scales (Mancebo Quintana et al., 2010; Marulli & Mallarach, 2005; Ng et al., 2013). An assessment of structural landscape connectivity in terms of energy, based on landscape graphs approach, was presented in an innovative model named PANDORA (Gobattoni, Lauro, Monaco, & Pelorosso, 2012; Gobattoni, Pelorosso, Lauro, Leone, & Monaco, 2011). The energy considered by the model is linked with vegetation metabolism by BTC index, thus it assesses the biological energetic state of the landscape and bio-energy exchanges among landscape components (Bio-Energy Landscape Connectivity, BELC). The model was developed to meet the needs of planners and practitioners involved in the environmental assessment procedure and it was proposed as operative Decision Support System to assess the impact of different scenarios of land use change. The last version of the model (Gobattoni, Groppi, Monaco, & Pelorosso, 2014) analyzes the contribute of each patch of land mosaic to global BELC and, consequently to functionality and resilience of the whole system.

In the current methods to assess landscape connectivity in terms of ecosystem services, there are two main limitations: 1) connectivity is calculated within the same land use category of habitat patches; 2) the evaluation of ecosystem services mainly relies on patch size without considering other variables, e.g. water, soil and climatic characteristics, that could strongly affect the final ecosystem services value (Ng et al., 2013). A model fully integrating ES into landscape connectivity assessment has not been presented yet. In this work, to face those limits, we propose the last version of model PANDORA with the new module, presented here for the first time, for the evaluation of the ecological value (Ecosystem Services) of single patches of landscape mosaic in terms of Habitat (e.g. land cover) and BELC. The multi-scale workability and the spatial approach of the model aim at furnishing a further tool for the spread of ecosystem services and landscape ecology concepts into procedures of assessment (e.g. EIA, SEA) and land planning at different administrative scales.

2 METHODOLOGY

The proposed method for bio-energy landscape connectivity (BELC) assessment is here synthetically reported. A deep description is out of the aims of this paper and it can be found in other publications. The ES evaluation is then reported in a specific paragraph.

Numerical integration of the Ordinal Differential Equations (ODEs) system, on which the model PANDORA is founded, can be rather heavy because of the high number of equations, specially to produce a friendly user system. Thus, an approximated solution is proposed in order to substitute the above set of ODEs with an algebraic hierarchy which may be implemented easily (Gobattoni et al., 2014). The Bio-Energy (B) is the state variable related to the metabolism of vegetation characterizing each land cover patch. The parameters regulating the B evolution (e.i. evolution to mature forest with highest biodiversity level) are derived by vegetational, morphological, climatic and soil characteristics of the landscape units. Most important human-made barriers to energy fluxes (e.g. large and high traffic roads) define the borders of each landscape unit

(18)

(LU). Other human-made barriers (e.g. minor roads, edified areas, urban sprawl, no photosynthetic surfaces) in each LU are considered as limiting factors to energy fluxes and consequently to the evolution of biotopes energy level inside them. Fluxes of bio-energy among LUs are continuously recalculated with the evolution of the patches and they define the connectivity index of each LU. High connectivity level defined by such an index is considered by the model as a positive factor for the increase of the Bio-Energy of the patch. The solution of the algebraic hierarchy until asymptotic values gives the final values of Bas_{for each}

patch and the Generalized Biological Energy of the overall system (Mas_tot).

The ES assessment has been realized by considering both the land cover typology (e.i. habitat) and the importance of the patch for the global landscape connectivity expressed by the asymptotic value of Mas_tot.

The importance of each patch in terms of its contribution to the maintenance of Mas_{tot level has been}

calculated by comparing the Mas_{tot difference before and after changing the patch into an urban area (e.i.}

impervious and no photosynthetic surface). Such an index is defined as dMtot. Ecosystem Services Value for Biodiversity protection (ESV_B) for a unit area of different land cover categories (€/ha/year) has been updated and modified to Italian case from Ng, Xie, & Yu (2013). The model has been developed in open source environment and applied in a portion of the municipality of Viterbo (Central Italy) considering the actual land use and urban development.

2.1 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ASSESSMENT

ES value (ESV) can be evaluated for each patch taking in consideration only the type of habitat (e.g. land Cover) and the area of a patch by the following conventional formula (Ng et al. 2013):

j k k

kj

VC

A

ESV

=

⋅

_{_} (1)

where ESVkj is the estimated Ecosystem Services Value of patch j of land cover category k, VCk is the value

coefficient for landcover category k, Ak_j is the area of the patch j and land cover category k. VCk is the

economic value of each macro land cover typology and it was used to evaluate different ESs in China (Ng et al., 2013; Tianhong, Wenkai, and Zhenghan, 2010; Xie, Lu, C. X., Leng, Zhang, and Li, 2003). Based on a seminal work of Costanza et al. (1997) and Xie et al. (2003), Tianhong et al. (2010) report the procedure to obtain the contribute of each land cover class in the delivery of a range of ES starting from equivalent weight factors of ESs for several terrestrial ecosystem (see table 1).

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOREST GRASSLAND CROPLAND WETLAND WATER BODY BARREN LAND Gas regulation 3.5 0.80 0.50 1.80 0 0

Climate regulation 2.70 0.90 0.89 17.10 0.46 0 Water supply 3.20 0.80 0.60 15.50 20.40 0.03

Soil formation and retention 3.90 1.95 1.46 1.71 0.01 0.02

Waste treatment 1.31 1.31 1.64 18.18 18.20 0.01 Biodiversity protection 3.26 1.09 0.71 2.50 2.49 0.34 Food 0.10 0.30 1.0 0.30 0.10 0.01 Raw material 2.60 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.01 0 Recreation and culture 1.28 0.04 0.01 5.55 4.34 0.01 Total 21.85 7.24 6.91 62.71 46.01 0.42

(19)

Tab. 1 Equivalent weight factor of ESs per hectare of terrestrial ecosystems in China (Tianhong et al. 2010)

The economic value of average natural food production of cropland per hectare per year (ANFPC) was assigned to the weight factor one (bold character in table 1). Thus, to obtain the delivered ESs for unit area of different terrestrial ecosystem it is necessary to multiply the economic value of ANFPC for each weight of the table 1. ES value of one unit area of each land use\land cover category can be then assigned based on the nearest equivalent ecosystems. ANFPC can be calculated considering a mean price for hectare of most common crops (e.g. wheat) and that, generally, the natural food production is 1/7 of the actual food production. The weights were estimated for China context so for other Regions possible variations are expected. In this work, for the applicability of the method and the aims of the paper, the proposed weights were unchanged, while, the economic value of ANFPC was recalculated for Italian study case and update to nowadays. Different types of land cover in the study area were finally estimated.

The method proposed by Ng et al. (2013), to calculate biodiversity Ecosystem Services Value (ESV_B) considering ecological connectivity measures, introduces a connectivity index as followings:

max _ max _ _

_

_k k j k k kj

A

dPC

VC

B

ESV

_⎟

⎟

⋅

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎝

⎛

⋅

=

(2)

100

_ ' _ _ _

⎟

⋅

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎝

⎛

−

=

j k j k j k j k

PC

dPC

(3)

where ESV_Bkj is the estimated biodiversity Ecosystem Services Value of patch j of land cover category k,

Ak_max refers to the largest area of patches among the land cover category k. PC (possibility of connectivity)

is a well known area-based functional connectivity index (Saura and Pascual-Hortal 2007). dPCk_j indicates

the importance of each patch in terms of its contribution to the maintenance of overall connectivity by comparing the overall connectivity difference before (i.e. PCk_j) and after (i.e. PC’k_j) moving the patch

(Saura and Pascual-Hortal, 2007). dPCk_j is the dPC value of patch j of land cover category k, and dPCk_max

indicates the maximum value of dPC among land cover category k. The method standardizes values of connectivity within the same land cover category and takes in consideration the largest patch as reference. The proposed new method to calculate ESV_Bkj is a modification of the formula (2) and (3) and it aims to

overcome above cited constrictions by introducing a connectivity index linked with bio-energy level of the landscape and the actual patch area:

j j kj k kj

A

dMtot

VC

B

ESV

_⎟

⎟

⋅

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎝

⎛

+

⋅

=

max _

1 _

(4)

100

'

⋅

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎝

⎛

−

=

j as j as j as kj

tot

M

tot

M

tot

M

dMtot

(5)

where ESV_Bkj is the estimated biodiversity ecosystem services value of patch j of land cover category k with

bio-energy connectivity evaluation, VCk is the value coefficient for land cover category k updated for Italian

(20)

the Generalized Biological Energy of the overall system; it derives by Pandora 3.0 model e.i. by the solution of the algebraic hierarchy until asymptotic values of all the patches: it is the index of overall BELC and it considers the Bioenergy evolution of all the landscape patches under the actual barriers to energy fluxes, climatic, morphological and soil conditions. dMtotkj indicates the importance of each patch j and land cover

category k in terms of its contribution to the maintenance of overall BELC by comparing the overall connectivity difference before (i.e. Mas_tot

j) and after (i.e. Mastot’j) changing the patch into an urban area.

dMtotj_max indicates the maximum value of dMtot among all the patches j of the landscape without

considering land cover type difference.

In this work a comparison between ESV_B evaluation without and with BELC assessment is proposed on the basis of formulas (1) and (4) respectively, moreover aggregated ESV_B assessments are pointed out at: a) Land cover type scale

∑

=

zk j kj k

ESV

B

ESV

1

_

(6) Where zk is the number of patches with land cover category k.

b) Landscape Unit scale

∑

=

mi r ir i

ESV

B

ESV

1

_

(7) Where mi is the number of patches inside the landscape unit i.

c) Landscape scale

∑

=

n i i tot

ESV

B

ESV

1

_

(8) Where n is the number of landscape units.

3 RESULTS

The commodity exchange of Bologna for 2013 reports a mean price of 200 €/ton for soft wheat and 270 €/ton for durum wheat. Thus, considering a value of 250 €/ton and a mean production of 6 ton/ha per year, the economic value of ANFPC for Italy was estimated as 214 €/ha per year. Table 2 reports the final VCk for

the main land cover typology of the study area for Biodiversity protection.

FOREST GRASSLAND ORCHARD CROPLAND WETLAND

WATER BODY BARREN LAND BUILD UP Biodiversity protection 697,64 233,26 189,92 151,94 535,00 532,86 72,76 0,00 Tab. 2 Value Coefficient (VCk) for land cover category k of unit area for Biodiversity protection (€/ha*year). Note that orchards are

calculated as 25% more of cropland

The index dMtotj representation (Fig. 1) allows to highlight the importance of each patch in terms of its

contribution to the maintenance of the overall bio-energy level and consequently to BELC. The results show also the capabilities of the model to spatially discriminate the ES value of each patch on land mosaic (Fig. 2),

(21)

the ES at level of land cover typology (Fig. 3) and at level of LU (Fig. 4). The ES value at landscape scale without and with connectivity measure is therefore 7.134.357,90 €/year and 10.192.959,80 €/year, respectively, with an increase of 42.8% considering the BELC.

Fig. 1 dMtotkj index representation: the value ranges between 0 and 100 and defines the percentage decrease of overall generalized bio-energy Mastot consequent to the conversion of the patch into an urban area (e.i. impervious and no photosynthetic surface)

(22)

Fig. 2 ESV_Bkj for each land cover patch of study area. a) Without considering BELC; b) with BELC

Fig. 3 ES Value for each land cover typology without and with BELC, respectively

(23)

4 DISCUSSION

The concept of landscape embraces all the components of human environment: cultural identity, natural resources, economy and society. Landscape is, therefore, an expression of the diversity of shared mutli-cultural and natural heritage (ECTP-CEU, 2013).

Spatial planning science and praxis has to provide cohesion among these different aspects and, consequently, it has to be applied to all the various contexts: residential, commercial and industrial areas; infrastructures; tourist and leisure locations; urban green areas and parks; rural areas. The challenge for effective planning consists in integrating these needs, starting from the protection and management of biodiversity and lndscapes. To pursue this aim, it’s necessary to assess the interactions between human settlements, infrastructures and natural areas, i.e. examining landscape connectivity, which is a theme stressed since long time ago by landscape ecology (e.g. Forman, 1995).

Starting from Landscape Ecology assumptions, it’s necessary to extrapolate the role for spatial planning. Namely, landscape connectivity was considered in the evaluation of ES only recently (Ng et al., 2013). The current methods to assess landscape connectivity in terms of ES, show two main general limitations: 1) connectivity is calculated within the same land use category of habitat patches; 2) the evaluation of ES mainly relies on patch size without considering other variables, e.g. water, soil and climatic characteristics, that could strongly affect the final ES value. Moreover, a model fully integrating ES into landscape connectivity assessment has not been presented yet.

In this work, we propose an innovative approach to face these limitations. The new index dMtot points out the importance of each patch in terms of its contribution to the maintenance of BELC (Fig. 1). It considers soil, climatic and morphological aspects of the LUs and, moreover, is related to the connectivity of all the patches with respect to a bio-energy measure making the dMtot index no-dependent from habitat typology, indeed all the patches contribute to BELC.

The calculation of ES values of the patch considers a measure of a structural landscape connectivity founded on thermodynamic laws that lie behind all the environmental processes and dynamics of landscape, as well as animal movements and vegetation/ecosystem evolution. Consequently, such a connectivity is strictly linked to the functionality and resilience of the landscape.

Indeed, ES values as well as dMtot index can be used to individuate suitable areas for urban development or conservation measures both at level of patch (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) and at level of LUs (Fig. 4). Such a latter zoning, based on recognizable barriers (e.g. roads) on landscape, may facilitate the integration of connectivity information in different territorial plans e.g. supporting the characterization of urbanized and non-urbanized areas into municipality plans, or of rural areas for provincial or regional plans. Finally, the data required by the model are usually available by land manager making the implementation of the procedure feasible also into contexts of scarce resources and low financial availability.

In this way, it’s possible to carry out the usual planning praxis giving it an effective, low cost and scientifically sound analysis. Moreover, it’s possible to quickly compare scenarios and make maps and graphics generated by PANDORA model accessible to stakeholders thus supporting, in a more transparent way, both planners’ choices and people participation. The proposed approach can therefore allow decision makers, but also communities, to have a clear picture of the ecological impacts of planned order and, as a consequence, to contribute to build healthy landscapes.

(24)

5 CONCLUSIONS

The final aim of this research consists in developing methods and tools to include the ES thinking in planning practice since it can allow to assign an objective value to natural resources: biodiversity, air, soil, water and energy.

At the present step, in this paper, the new version of model PANDORA 3.0 is presented: through the application to a real case, it has pointed out its capability to assess the landscape in terms of BELC and ES. The model allows to support the decision making process by the assessment of different land use scenarios. The multi-scale workability and the spatial approach of the model aim at furnishing a further tool for the spread of ES and landscape ecology concepts into procedures of assessment (e.g. EIA, SEA) and land planning at different administrative scales.

REFERENCES

Ahern, J. (2012), “Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design”, Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1203-1212.

Bastian, O. (2013), “The role of biodiversity in supporting ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites”, Ecological Indicators, 24, 12-22.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M. (1997), “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital”,

Nature, 387(6630), 253-260.

ECTP-CEU, European Council of Spatial Planners (2013), The Charter of European Planning, approved by the General assembly of Barcelona the 22th April 2013.

Foley, J. a, Defries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E. a, Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J. a, Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N., Snyder, P.K. (2005), “Global consequences of land use”, Science, 309, 570-574.

Foltête, J.-C., Clauzel, C., Vuidel, G. (2012), “A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks”,

Environmental Modelling and Software, 38, 316-327.

Forman, R.T.T. (1995), “Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology”, Landscape Ecology, 10(3), 133-142. Girardet, X., Foltête, J.-C., Clauzel, C. (2013), “Designing a graph-based approach to landscape ecological assessment of linear infrastructures”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 42, 10-17.

Gobattoni, F., Groppi, M., Monaco, R., Pelorosso, R. (2014), “New developments and results for mathematical models in environment evaluations”, Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, accepted.

Gobattoni, F., Lauro, G., Monaco, R., Pelorosso, R. (2012), “Mathematical Models in Landscape Ecology: Stability Analysis and Numerical Tests”, Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 125(1), 173-192.

Gobattoni, F., Pelorosso, R., Lauro, G., Leone, A., Monaco, R. (2011), “A procedure for mathematical analysis of landscape evolution and equilibrium scenarios assessment”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(3-4), 289-302. Gulickx, M.M.C., Verburg, P.H., Stoorvogel, J.J., Kok, K., Veldkamp, A. (2013), “Mapping landscape services: a case study in a multifunctional rural landscape in The Netherlands”, Ecological Indicators, 24, 273-283.

Hermann, A., Schleifer, S., Wrbka, T. (2011), “The Concept of Ecosystem Services Regarding Landscape Research: A Review”, Living Rev. Landscape Res., 5(1), 1-37.

(25)

Karjalainen, T.P., Marttunen, M., Sarkki, S., Rytkönen, A.-M. (2013), 2Integrating ecosystem services into environmental impact assessment: An analytic–deliberative approach”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 54-64.

Luque, S., Saura, S., Fortin, M.-J. (2012), “Landscape connectivity analysis for conservation: insights from combining new methods with ecological and genetic data”, Landscape Ecology, 27(2), 153-157.

Mancebo Quintana, S., Martín Ramos, B., Casermeiro Martínez, M. a, Otero Pastor, I. (2010), “A model for assessing habitat fragmentation caused by new infrastructures in extensive territories - evaluation of the impact of the Spanish strategic infrastructure and transport plan”, Journal of environmental management, 91(5), 1087–96.

Marulli, J., Mallarach, J.M. (2005), “A GIS methodology for assessing ecological connectivity: application to the Barcelona Metropolitan Area”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2-4), 243-262.

MEA (2003), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment, Island Press.

Ng, C.N., Xie, Y.J., Yu, X.J. (2013), “Integrating landscape connectivity into the evaluation of ecosystem services for biodiversity conservation and its implications for landscape planning”, Applied Geography, 42, 1-12.

Pelorosso, R., Gobattoni, F., Lauro, G., Monaco, R., Leone, A. (2012), “Pandora: modello per l’analisi di scenario a supporto delle pianificazioni”, Urbanistica, 149, 129-138.

Pelorosso, R., Leone, A., Boccia, L. (2009), “Land cover and land use change in the Italian central Apennines: A comparison of assessment methods”, Applied Geography, 29(1), 35-48.

Saura, S., Pascual-Hortal, L. (2007), “A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(2-3), 91-103.

Scolozzi, R., Geneletti, D. (2012a), “A multi-scale qualitative approach to assess the impact of urbanization on natural habitats and their connectivity”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 36, 9-22.

Scolozzi, R., Geneletti, D. (2012b), “Assessing habitat connectivity for land-use planning: a method integrating landscape graphs and Delphi survey”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(6), 813-830.

Tannier, C., Foltête, J.-C., Girardet, X. (2012), “Assessing the capacity of different urban forms to preserve the connectivity of ecological habitats”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(1-2), 128-139.

Termorshuizen, J.W., Opdam, P. (2009), “Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development”, Landscape Ecology, 24(8), 1037-1052.

Tianhong, L., Wenkai, L., Zhenghan, Q. (2010), “Variations in ecosystem service value in response to land use changes in Shenzhen”, Ecological Economics, 69(7), 1427-1435.

Xie, G.D., Lu, C.X., Leng, Y.F., Zhang, D., Li, S.D. (2003), “Ecological assets valuation of the Tibetan Plateau”, Journal of

Natural Resources, 18(2), 189-196 (in Chinese).

Zurlini, G., Petrosillo, I., Aretano, R., Castorini, I., D’Arpa, S., De Marco, A., Pasimeni, M.R., Semeraro, T., Zaccarelli, N. (2014), “Key fundamental aspects for mapping and assessing ecosystem services: predictability of ecosystem service providers at scales from local to global”, Annali di Botanica, 4, 61-71.

AUTHORS’ PROFILE Raffaele Pelorosso

He is a researcher in Landscape and Urban Planning at the University of Tuscia. He holds a PhD in “Science and Technology for the Forest and Environmental Management” at University of Tuscia. Lecturer in Ecology, Cartography and Planning. His research activity is mainly focused on landscape functionality, urban green, land use planning, analysis of landscape dynamics, land cover and land use change. Associate Editor of International Journal of Sustainable Land Use and Urban Planning. He is authors of more than 50 scientific papers and peer reviewer for many international journals as: Land Use Policy, Landscape and Urban Planning, Environmental Management, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Management, Advanced in Space Research, Science of the Total Environment.

(26)

Federica Gobattoni

She has a Master Degree in Environmental Engineering at University of Perugia, PhD in “Science and Technology for the Forest and Environmental Management”, and she’s a post-doctoral researcher at University of Tuscia. Her research activity is mainly concerned with landscape dynamics, environmental modeling in GIS environment, decision support systems for planning and management of natural resources, development of mathematical models for landscape evolution and equilibrium scenarios assessment. She was Convener of the “Landscape functionality and conservation management” session at European Geosciences Union General Assembly of 2010, 2011 and 2012. She is peer reviewer for many international journals as: Journal of Water and Climate, Ecological Complexity, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, Chemical Engineering and Technology, Earth Science Informatics.

Francesco Geri

He is graduated in Natural Science with a Ph.D in Environmental Science and Technology. He was lecturer in Landscape Ecology, Thematic Cartography and in Geographic Information Systems. Authors of several scientific papers in landscape ecology, remote sensing and geographical information science. He's also reviewer of international scientific journals such as Landscape and Urban Planning, Ecological Indicators, International Journal of Geo-Information, International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, Remote Sensing, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and

Geoinformation. He's a GIS analyst with experience in statistical data processing and an expert GIS and web programmer through the use of different programming language such as Python, PHP, Javascript etc.

Roberto Monaco

He is full professor of Mathematics at the Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning at Politecnico of Torino. His research activity is focused on mathematical models in applied sciences, in particular in fluid dynamics and regional sciences. He is author of more of 130 papers, of several books and Editor of Proceedings of many international conferences. He has promoted and is the director of an international summer school in Models and Methods of Kinetic Theory. He is peer reviewer of several mathematical journals, as those of IOP (Inst. of Phys.), Phys. of Fluids and Acta Appl. Mat.

Antonio Leone

Full professor of Land Engineering at University of Tuscia, Industrial Engineering course. Member of the Teaching College PhD “Land and Urban Planning” at Politecnico di Bari and “Environment and landscape design and planning” at Sapienza University of Rome. Participant and responsible in several projects financed by the European Union within 5th Framework Programme, Interreg IIIB Research Program, COST-actions, LIFE programme and other national and regional research programs (e.g. Nature 2000 sites). Member of Scientific International Committee for Metropolitan Strategic Master Plan “Terra di Bari”. Member of Scientific Committee for University Consortium for Socio-economic and Environment Research (CURSA). Author of more than 100 scientific papers in the area of landscape and environmental planning.