Exploring the relationship among local conflicts and territorial vulnerability: The case study of Lombardy Region

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Land

Use

Policy

jou rn al h om ep a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l a n d u s e p o l

Exploring

the

relationship

among

local

conﬂicts

and

territorial

vulnerability:

The

case

study

of

Lombardy

Region

Alessandra

Oppio

a

_,

_Stafano

_Corsi

b,∗

_,

_Sergio

_Mattia

a

_,

_Andrea

_Tosini

b

a_Department_of_Architecture_and_Urban_Studies_(DAStU),_Politecnico_di_Milano,_via_Bonardi_3,₂₀₁₃₃_Milan,_Italy

b_Department_of_Economics,_Management,_and_Quantitative_Methods_(DEMM),_University_of_Milan,_via_Celoria_2,₂₀₁₃₃_Milan,_Italy

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received10January2014

Receivedinrevisedform31October2014 Accepted10November2014 Keywords: Vulnerabilityassessment Localconﬂicts Overlaymapping Lombardyregion

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Duringthelast10years,oppositionbylocalcommunitiesagainstthedevelopmentofindustrial facili-ties,energytechnologiesandtransportinfrastructureshassteadilygrown.Negativeexternalitiesonthe environment,qualityoflifeandhealtharethemostfrequentmotivationsoftheopponents.Disputes aretypicallygroundedinenvironmental,socialandeconomicconcernsaboutthelocalimpactsofnew developmentproposals.Withinthiscontext,thispaperaimstoexploretheexistenceofapotential rela-tionshipbetweenthelevelofterritorialvulnerabilityandthedistributionoflocalconflictssurveyed bythelocalandnationalpressintheLombardyRegion(Italy).Thistypeofrelationshipisinvestigated usinganempiricalanalysisbasedonanoverlaymappingofdifferentinformativelayers.The vulner-abilityindexhasbeencalculatedaccordingtothemostrecentconceptualandanalyticalframeworks developedinthescientificliterature.Itisamultidimensionalindexgroundedinenvironmental,social andeconomiccriteria.Theoutputsofthevulnerabilityassessmenthavebeenplacedintothematicmaps toprovideacomprehensiveoverviewoftheenvironmentalandsocioeconomicstateoftheLombardy Region.Inadditiontothegeneraldegreeofvulnerability,themapsdisplaythelocalconflictssurveyedby theNIMBYForum,anItaliansurveyofterritorialdisputesmanagedbytheAgencyofResearchand Infor-mationSociety.Themapsprovideameansofi)puttingforwardsomehypothesesabouttheoppositions thathaveemergedaroundthelocalizationofnewfacilities,includingmainlyindustrialfacilities,waste disposals,energyplantsandtransportinfrastructures,andthevulnerabilityoftheLombardyRegion;ii) identifyingthedrivingfactorsofterritorialvulnerability;iii)investigatingwhetherthelocaloppositions aredirectlyproportionaltoterritorialvulnerability.Thefirstresultsindicatethatadirectrelationship amongterritorialvulnerabilityandconflictsdoesnotexist.Thisoutcome,evenonapreliminarybasis, providesanewanalyticalperspectiveforunderstandingthereasonsbehindlocalcommunityprotests.

Introduction

Thestudyofvariousinteractionsbetweenpeoplethatarethe

resultofconcernsforenvironmentalqualityisaﬁeldofresearch

thathasbeencomprehensivelyinvestigatedsincethesecondhalf

ofthelastcentury;thisistheresultofthegrowingpublic

aware-nessofthenegativeexternalitiesofhumanactiononthenatural

landscape.Asmanyscholarshaveclaimed,noeconomicactivityis

exemptfromexternalities(Pigou,1948;Mishan,1965;Boulding,

1966;BardeandGerelli,1980;Roegen,1971).

Thus, many theoretical perspectives and methodological

approachesforunderstanding,evaluatingandprovidingoptions

∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+393403770163. E-mailaddresses:alessandra.oppio@polimi.it(A.Oppio), stefano.corsi@unimi.it(S.Corsi).

forlandusetoensurethathumanhabitationadheresto

sustaina-bilityprincipleshavebeendeveloped(Ndubisi,2002).Themost

relevantthreattothesegoalsis thelossin theecologicalvalue

ofenvironmentalresourcesandtheresultingdecreaseinhuman

well-being.Environmentalandsocio-economicvulnerabilityistoo

often neglected in decisions regarding territorial and/or urban

redevelopmentinterventions,asindicatedbytheamountoflocal

communityoppositionagainstfacilitiesthatareperceivedasa

dan-ger(MattiaandOppio,2008).Theoppositionoflocalcommunities

tonewinfrastructuresandplants,theso-calledNIMBY(NotInMy

BackYard)syndrome,areconsideredaproxyindicatorofthelevel

oftheperceivedrisk.Manyscholarshaveexaminedthecausesof

localconﬂictsindifferentﬁeldssuchasurbanizationinagrarian

landscapes(DarlyandTorre,2013;Torreetal.,2014),the

commit-teeagainstextractiveindustry(Hilson,2002),andtheinterferences

betweenwindpowerandmilitaryaviation(Lindgrenetal.,2013).

Othershaveprovidedsuggestionsforlanduseconﬂictresolution

(2)

240 A.Oppioetal./LandUsePolicy43(2015)239–247

basedforthemostpartoncommunityinvolvementin

decision-makingprocesses(RauschmayerandWittmer,2006;Wittmeretal.,

2006;Nijniketal.,2009;Hesseletal.,2009;Kamruzzamanand Baker,2013;MagsiandTorre,2013;Saarikoskiaetal.,2013).

Thepotentialnegativeimpactofinfrastructureandplantsonthe

environmental,economicandsocialsystemsshouldbeconsidered

afurtherpressurefactor(BradleyandSmith,2004),especiallyfor

thoseterritoriesthatarehighlyvulnerableasaconsequenceoftheir

susceptibilitytoharmorhazard(Menonietal.,2011)ortotheir

inabilitytocopewithexternalevents(Cutteretal.,2003;Turner

etal.,2003;Berryetal.,2006;Metzgeretal.,2006;Smithetal., 2008).

Changesinlanduse,socio-economiccharacteristics,

biodiver-sity,atmosphericcompositionandclimatereducethecapability

ofaterritorythatismeanttobeanecosystemthatprovidesvital

servicesforpeopleand societysuchasbiodiversity, food,ﬁbre,

waterresources,carbonsequestrationandrecreation(Costanzaet

al.,1997;DeGrootetal.,2002).

Within this context, the concept of vulnerability has been

increasinglyconsidered,asit revealsthedegreetowhicha

ter-ritorialsystemislikelytoexperienceharmduetodifferenttypes

ofthreats,andthegoalhasbeentoprovidereliableinformationfor

policyanddecisionmaking(GolobiˇcandBreskvar ˇZaucery,2010).

Furthermore,vulnerabilityisthesusceptibilityofagiven

popula-tion,system,orplacetoharmfromexposuretothehazard,andit

directlyaffectstheabilitytopreparefor,respondto,andrecover

fromhazardsanddisasters(Cutteretal.,2009).Ontheonehand,

itfocusesonthestateofaterritorydescribedbyaspeciﬁcsetof

criteria.Ontheotherhand,italsoreferstohowthenaturaland

humanenvironmentcanrespondtoexternalevents(Toroetal.,

2011)thathavethepotentialtobecomeworse(BradleyandSmith,

2004).Accordingtotheecosystemapproach(MilleniumEcosystem

Assessment,2005),vulnerabilityisamultidimensionalnotion,as

itregardsnotonlytheenvironmentalandphysicalissuesbutalso

thesystemic,social/community/institutionalandeconomicones

andtheirrelationship(Cutteretal.,2003;Menonietal.,2012).

Thevulnerabilityoftheterritorywithrespecttotherealization

ofinfrastructurescanalsobeassociatedwithlandconsumption

andtheimpactontheagriculturalsystem(Mazzocchietal.,2013;

Torreetal.,2014).Becausethisnotionhasbeenstudiedin

sev-eralﬁelds,manycomplementarydeﬁnitionshavebeendeveloped

accordingtodifferentconceptualmodelsandframeworkswith

dif-ferentmethodsofmeasurement(Tranetal.,2010).

Althoughthemanydeﬁnitions ofthenotionof vulnerability

highlightthedifferentfacesofthesameconcept,theyallfocuson

thefollowingconcepts:i)vulnerabilityisanintrinsicfeatureofa

systemthatcanbedescribedbytheuseofaspeciﬁcsetofcriteria;

ii)thenotionofvulnerabilityismultidimensionalasitaffectsnot

onlytheenvironmentalaspectofaterritorybutalsotheeconomic

andsocialonesandtheirmutualrelationships.

Thedeﬁnitions ofriskareseveral.Thedeﬁnitionusedinthe

LegislativeDecreeno.81of2008,whichfollowstheoneproposed

byCutter (Cutteret al., 2000), deﬁnes “risk” asthe product of

thelevelofdamage intheconditionsofuseand thefrequency

ofadverseevents(D.LgsNo.81of2008,Article2).Thedeﬁnition

conformstothefollowingformula:

R=D∗F

whereRrepresentstherisk,DfordamageandFforthefrequency

ofharmfulevents;theterritorialvulnerabilitycouldaffectboththe

frequencyandthelevelofharm.Thedevelopmentofinfrastructure

inavulnerablecontextstrengthenstherisk,asitincreasesthe

fre-quencyandthesigniﬁcanceoftheharmfulevents.Thus,therisk(R)

shouldbecommensuratetothedegreeofterritorialvulnerability

(V): R∼V

Atthesametime,theconﬂicts(C)shouldbeproportionaltothe

risk,asthelocalcommunitiesgenerallyhinderthedevelopmentof

interventionsperceivedasdangerous:

C∼R

Consequently,thelevelofdisputesagainstfacilitiesshouldbe

balancedwiththedegreeofterritorialvulnerability:

C∼V

Starting fromthis conceptual framework, thepaper aimsto

exploretheexistenceofapotentialrelationshipbetweenthelevel

ofterritorialvulnerabilityandthedistributionofthelocal

commu-nityoppositiontothedevelopmentofindustrialfacilities,energy

technologiesand transport infrastructures.Data about protests,

surveyedbytheItalianPermanentMediaObservatoryofNimby

Forum,indicatethatterritorialdisputeseffectivelyariseinthemost

industrializedandurbanizedregions.

Thegeographicaldistributionoflocaloppositionhasbeen

deter-minedbyanempiricalanalysisbasedontheoverlaymappingof

differentinformativelayers.

Thevulnerabilityassessmentcombinedwiththespatialanalysis

ofdisputeshighlightsthecriticismofthecomplexdecision-making

processesandsuggestsrelevantinsightsforbetterunderstanding

thereasonsfor localopposition.For instance,the identiﬁcation

ofthecostsand beneﬁtsofnewfacilitiesdependsontheirsize

andscope.Consequently,thenumberofstakeholdersinvolvedis

generallyaffectedbytheterritorialleveladoptedforvulnerability

assessment.

Thispaperisdividedintothreeparts.Theﬁrstpartfocusesonthe

methodologyformeasuringtheterritorialvulnerability.The

sec-ondpartdisplaystheterritorialvulnerabilityproﬁleofLombardy

provinceswithradarchartsandvulnerabilitymaps.Thethirdpart

isdedicatedtotheanalysisoftheemerging issuesbya

territo-rialvulnerabilityassessmentcombinedwithaspatialanalysisof

localconﬂicts.Theoverlaymappingofthevulnerabilityindexand

thelocalizationofoppositions,althoughempirical,representsan

interestinginvestigationaboutthereasonsforthedisputes.

Materialsandmethods

ThedeﬁnitionoftheVulnerabilityIndex

TheVulnerabilityIndex(VI)hasbeencalculatedaccordingtothe

methoddevelopedbyToroetal.(2011)becauseitconsidersboth

theenvironmentalandsocio-economicvariables.

TheVIisgivenbythesumofthevulnerabilityvalueofeachof

thefollowingcriteria:

VI=IWD+IFD+ILUC+ISWQ+IAQ+ISS+IPp+IEp+IEdu

whereIWHisthevulnerabilityvalueofwildlifehabitat;IWHofthe

ﬂoradiversity;ILUCofthelandusechange;ISWQofthesurfacewater

quality;IAQoftheairquality;IEpoftheemployment;IPpofthe

pop-ulation;IEduoftheeducationalsystem;IWHofthesocialsecurity.

Thevulnerabilityvalueatthelevelofcriteriaisnormalizedonthe

basisoftheminimumandthemaximumvalueofeachvariable

accordingtothefollowingformula:

Ni=(Xi−Xmin)/(Xmax−Xmin)

whereNiisthenormalizeddata,Xiisthedatatobenormalized,

XministheminimumvalueassumedbythevariablesandXmaxisthe

(3)

Fig.1.Lombardyregion;Landuse,Provinces,Neighbouringterritories.

thecurrentstepoftheresearch,thevaluesoftheindexreﬂectthe

levelofvulnerabilityofeachfactorwithreferencetoaneutral

sce-nario.Itshouldberelevanttointroduceaweightingsystemforthe

criteriaonthebasisofboththetechnicalanalysisofthestrengths

andweaknessesofaspeciﬁcterritoryandtheinvolvementoflocal

communities.

TheanalysishasfocusedonLombardy,asitisoneoftheItalian

regionswiththehighestamountoflocalcommunityopposition

in thelast tenyears as measuredby theNimby Forum annual

survey.Giventhesubdivisionofthecountryintothree

adminis-trativelevels(Regions,ProvincesandMunicipalities),theVIhas

beenperformedattheprovincelevelbecausethemajorityofthe

conﬂictsrefertolinear(e.g.,roadinfrastructureandhigh-voltage

lines)orpunctual(e.g.,airportinfrastructure,industrialplants,and

biogasplants)developmentproposalsthathaveanimpactonthe

sub-regionalterritorialscale,forexample,theprovinces.

Casestudy:theLombardyregion

TheLombardyregionhasasurfaceof23,858km2_and_a

pop-ulationof9,400,000inhabitants (RDP,2007).Nearly50%ofthe

regionalterritoryislowlying,morethan40%ismountainous,and

therestishilly(Fig.1).Ruralareascover82%oftheterritoryand

areinhabitedby35%ofthepopulation.Regionalpopulation

den-sityis408inhabitants/km2_,_much_greater_than_the_national_average

(199ab/km2₎₍_Corsi,₂₀₀₉_)._The_{demographical}_structure_is_affected

byadecliningbirthrateandanincreasinglifeexpectancy,and53%

oftheregionaladultpopulationhasacompleteeducation

(upper-secondaryandsuperior).Thispercentageincreasesto73%amongst

youngpeople.TheLombardyregiongeneratesmorethan20%ofthe

ItalianGDP.TheeconomicstructureofLombardyischaracterized

bytheimportanceofthesecondaryandtertiarysector.In2003,

theGDPpercapitawas28,254euro(40%morethanthenational

average).

Nearly57%oftheregionalterritoryisdedicatedtotheprimary

sector,whilethetotalUAAcovers43%ofit.

Aportionof15%oftheregionalterritoryfallsunderNatura2000,

withatotalsurfaceofapproximately370,000Haand245sites,and

thereare92parksandotherprotectedareasthatcover131,000Ha

(Fig.2).Urbanand peri-urbanareashavea greatimportancein

termsof population(morethan5.9millionpeople) andsurface

andhaveadensityofnearly1400inhabitants/km2_._The_Lombardy

regionholds,togetherwiththeVenetoregion,theprimacyofthe

urbanizedlandthataffects13%ofthetotalarea(ISTAT,2013).The

urbanareaismadeupofthemaintowns(Bergamo,Brescia,Monza

andBrianza)andthelargeconurbationofMilan.TheLombardy

regioniscrossedbyoneofthelargestnetworksofinfrastructure

inItaly:Therailnetworkisextensive,with80.6kmper1000km2

(Corsi,2009);theroadnetworkisjustunder12,000kmand

rep-resents 7.9% of the national road network (Annuario Statistico

Regionale,2011).Intheregion,therearealso14airports,ofwhich

5areforcivilianuse(AnnuarioStatisticoRegionale,2007).Inthe

Lombardyregion,7landﬁlls(ISPRA,2012)and13waste-to-energy

(4)

Fig.2.Lombardyregion:Protectedareas,Parks,Reserves. Source:AreeprotettedellaRegioneLombardia(2013).

plants,37.6%arepresentinLombardy(CRPA,2013).TheSIRENA

projectintheLombardyregionhasidentiﬁedapproximately24,000

powerplants rangingfromhydroelectric plants tophotovoltaic

power(the mostnumerous) to plant biomass in power plants

(FINLOMBARDIA,2012).In2012,theAuthorityforElectricityand

GasmeasuredintheLombardyregion127,348kmof electricity

distributionnetworks,morethanallotherregions(Autoritàper

l’energiaelettricaeilgas,2012).

TheVulnerabilityIndex(VI)hasbeenstructuredthroughthe

measurementofenvironmentalandsocioeconomiccriteria,

quan-tiﬁed byspeciﬁc criteria as suggestedby the above-mentioned

researchbyToro(seeTable1).

Table1

Vulnerabilitycriteria.

Criteria Acronym Indicators Sources Year

WildlifeDiversity WD Numberofthreatenedspecies CentroFloraAutoctona

(LombardyRegion)

2008

FloraDiversity FD Numberofthreatenedspecies CentroFloraAutoctona

(LombardyRegion)

2008

AirQuality AQ AirQualityIndex ARPALombardia:Regional

agencyforenvironmental protection

2011

Landuse LUC Percentageofnaturalareas DUSAF2.1(DestinationofUse

ofAgriculturalandForestSoils) LombardyRegion

2010

SurfaceWaterQuality SWQ Sewagetreatmentchannelled

intothedrainagesystem

ATO(AmbitoTerritoriale Ottimale)LombardyRegion

2007

SocialSecurity SS QualityofLifeIndex ILSOLE24ORE(annualsurvey) 2012

Population Pp Populationdensity ISTAT(populationsurvey) 2013

Employment Ep Unemploymentrate ISTAT(labourforcesurvey) 2012

Educationsystem Edu Averageyearsofeducationof thepopulationover15years

(5)

Fig.3.TheVulnerabilitymapofeachprovince.

Ashortsummaryofthecriteriaisprovidedafterward.

RegardingWildlifeDiversity(WD)andFloraDiversity(FD),the

RegionalLawNo.10ofMarch2008allowsthespeciﬁcationand

quantiﬁcationofendangeredspecies attheprovinciallevel.The

regulationliststhefaunaandﬂorathatarethreatened.Therangeof

threatenedspecieshasbeentestedandidentiﬁedbytheRegional

CentreofMonteBarroAutochthonousFloraCentre(CFA).CFAis

anexperimentalstationoftheLombardyregionthefundamental

objectiveof which is topromote actionsthat ensurethe

avail-abilityofnativeplantscompatible withtheLombardyterritory.

Thespeciesforwhichinrecentyearstherehasbeennocertainty

regardingtheirexistencehavenotbeenincludedinthestudy(CFA,

2008).

TheAirQuality(AQ)indexhasbeencalculatedonthebasisofa

partialvalueforeachofthefollowingairpollutants:PM10,carbon

monoxide(CO),nitrogendioxide(NO2),sulfurdioxide(SO2)and

ozone(O3).Thus,theAirQualityindexhasbeenmeasuredbythe

followingequation:

AQ= 100×PC

PL

whereAQ=AirQualityindex,PC=concentrationofthepollutant,

andPL=thepermissiblelimitofthepollutant.

Theapproachadoptedinthecasestudyisbasedontheallocation

totheAQofthelowestsub-indexvaluethathasbeenadopted(EPA,

2009),asitisthemostwidelyusedapproachintheinternational

literature,mainlyintheﬁeldofforecasts.Thedatarequiredforthe

calculationoftheAirQualityindexwerecollectedandanalyzed

usingthemonitoringstationsofARPA Lombardia(ARPA,2011),

theRegionalAgencyforEnvironmentalProtection.

TheLandUse(LUC)ofthestudyareahasbeenassessedthrough

theDUSAF2.1andCorineLandCoverdatabase,whichallow

identi-fyingandmonitoringthecharacteristicsoflandcoveranduse.The

territoryisarticulatedandrepresentedby5mainclasses(Class1:

Artiﬁcialareas,Class2:Ruralterritories,Class3:Forestsandnatural

areas,Class4:Wetlands,Class5:WaterBodies).Thepercentageof

naturalsoilinthisstudyhasbeencalculatedforeachprovince.The

ﬁveabove-mentionedclasseshavebeencombinedwithreference

tothedegreeofthesoilnaturalness,deﬁnedbythepresenceof

humanactivitiesandtheconsequentmodiﬁcationoftheterritory

incomparisontoitsoriginalandnaturalcondition.

Thefollowing3classesderivefromthecombinationoftheﬁve

dras-ticallychangedtheoriginallayoutofthearea.

• Seminaturalareas(Class2):agriculturalareaswhereintensive

cultivationofthesoilprevailsoverthenaturalcomponent.

• NaturalAreas(Class 3,4,5): areasthatare theclosesttothe

naturalconditionoftheland.Intheseareas,itisexpectedthat

biodiversityishigh.

TheSurfaceWaterQuality(SWQ)hasbeenevaluatedonthe

(6)

Fig.4.Levelofvulnerabilityforeachenvironmentalandsocio-economicfactorattheprovincelevel.

drainagesystemattheprovinciallevel(accordingtothe

classiﬁ-cationofthecoverageofsewerageservicesintheenvironmental

authorities–theATOorAmbitoTerritorialeOttimale–that

man-agepublicservicessuchaswaterandwastedisposal).Themethod

ofpuriﬁcationisappliedtoallmunicipalitieswithmorethan2000

inhabitantequivalents.Thedataofthemunicipalitiesthatbelongto

aprovincewerecollectedforagivenprovincialwaterquality.The

degreeofwastetreatmentisapercentageoftheprovincialload.

ThedataextractedbytheFirstReportonInfrastructure(Regione

Lombardia,2008)refertotheyear2007.

SocialSecurity(SS)hasbeenconsideredfortheQualityofLife

Index,calculatedeveryyearbyIlSole24Ore,anItalianﬁnancial

daily,foralloftheItalianprovincesonthebasisofsixthematicareas

(thestandardofliving,servicetopeopleandenvironment,

busi-nessandlabour,publicorder,population,facilitiesandactivities

forleisure).

Table2

Measurementofthevulnerabilityvalueofeachcriterion.

Provinces WD FD AQ LUC SWQ SS Pp Ep Edu

VARESE 0.33 0.17 0.46 0.56 0.80 0.89 0.33 0.88 0.64 COMO 1.00 0.53 0.85 0.73 0.10 0.38 0.20 0.00 0.67 LECCO 0.39 0.42 0.26 0.73 0.20 0.77 0.18 0.30 0.70 SONDRIO 0.44 0.38 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 1.00 0.62 BERGAMO 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.62 0.20 0.41 0.17 0.28 1.00 BRESCIA 0.67 1.00 0.59 0.56 0.80 0.21 0.10 0.25 0.99 MILANO 0.22 0.15 0.84 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.93 0.62 0.00 MONZAEBRIANZA 0.22 0.15 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.61 0.00 PAVIA 0.56 0.05 0.31 0.15 0.80 0.86 0.06 0.63 0.63 LODI 0.06 0.05 0.48 0.03 0.20 1.00 0.11 0.85 0.62 CREMONA 0.00 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.07 0.26 0.69 MANTOVA 0.11 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.20 0.32 0.06 0.53 0.84

(7)

TheindicatorforPopulation(Pp)isdensity(ISTAT,2012).

Den-sityindicatesthenumberofinhabitantslivinginagivenarea;inour

case,thereferenceunitistheprovince.Themeasureisexpressed

ininhabitantspersquarekilometre(inhab./km2_).

The unemployment rate (Ep) has been deﬁned as the ratio

betweenthepopulationaged15andabovewhoareinsearchof

employment.TheISTATLabourForceSurveyisthemainsourceof

statisticalinformationonthelabourmarket.Thedatarefertothe

year2012.

TheindicatorforEducationsystem(Edu)hasbeencalculatedas

thepercentageofresidentswithqualiﬁcationsofsecondaryschool

andbeyond(ISTAT,2001).

Table2displaysthevulnerabilityvaluesforeachcriteriaatthe

provincelevelintheLombardyregion.

Theoutputsofthevulnerabilityassessment havebeen

orga-nized into thematic maps for the purpose of providing a

comprehensiveoverviewoftheenvironmentalandsocioeconomic

stateoftheLombardyregion(seeFig.3).

Results

AsrepresentedbyGraph1,themajorityoftheprovinceshave

a VIvaluethat is abovetheaverage. In thehigherpositions of

therank, there aretheprovinces ofBrescia (VI=1) and Varese

(VI=0.96),whileinthelowerpositions,thereareLodi(VI=0.39),

Mantova(VI=0.11)andCremona(VI=0).Theothersexhibit

val-uesthatrangefrom0.42to0.62(Sondrio,Milano,Bergamo,Lecco,

MonzaeBrianza,Pavia).

Althoughthedistributionofvaluesappearsquitehomogeneous,

theanalysisofeach vulnerabilitycriteriaindicatesavaried

pic-ture.The radar charts highlight theweaknessand strengths of

each province and their degree of intensity (see Fig.4).Apart

fromthetwoclustersofprovinces–Mantova/Cremona/Lodiand

Milano/Monza Brianza – for which the vulnerability interests

exhibitthesameaxiswithacomparablelevelofimportance,the

differentshapeassumedbytheradarchartsoftheotherprovinces

revealsthepeculiarityoftheterritoryanalyzed(seeFig.4).

Graph1.TheVulnerabilityIndexineachprovinceoftheLombardyregion.Theblack lineindicatestheaveragevalueoftheVI(0.54).

Inthemajorityoftheprovinces,thevulnerabilityishigherfor

thegroupofenvironmentalfactors(WD,FD,LUC,SWQ,AQ)thanfor

thesocio-economicones(Ep,Pp,Edu,SS),exceptfortheprovinces

of Lodi,Mantova andCremona,although theruralareasarean

importantpresence.

Furthermore,astheLandUsecriteriontakesintoaccountthe

percentageofnaturalareas,thevulnerabilityassessmentneglects

thatagreatpartofthoseprovincesisoccupiedbyintensive

agri-culture,whichshouldbeconsideredasmuchasthevulnerability

factor(Mazzocchietal.,2013).Mountainareas(forinstance,inthe

provinceofSondrio),aswellastheagriculturallands,seemmuch

lessvulnerablethanhighlyurbanizedprovinces.Agriculturalareas

arenotsubjecttoaspecialprotection.Onlyafewspeciﬁcareas

areincludedinagriculturalparks(e.g.,theSouthMilan

Agricul-turalPark),whichdonothavethelevelofprotectionofnatural

parksandthereforedonotaffecttheVI;however,thisdeﬁnition

couldleadthepolicymakerstoidentifythemaspotentialareasof

developmentandthereforeasasuitable locationforplantsand

infrastructure.

Figs.5and6. Numberoflocalconﬂictsanddegreeofvulnerability.Typologiesofconﬂictsanddegreeofvulnerability. Source:Authors’elaborationoftheARISdata.

(8)

Therefore,thevulnerabilityvalueoftheLandUsecriterion,even

ifequal,doesnothavethesamemeaningforalloftheprovinces.

Thisisapitfalloftheassessmentmethodologythatshouldbesolved

forthepurposeofprovidingmorerobustresults.

Inadditiontothedegreeofvulnerabilityattheprovincelevel,

localconﬂictscausedbythedevelopmentofnewinfrastructureand

plantshavebeenconsidered(Nimby®Forumreport2012).

Throughasystemofmediamonitoring,thePermanentMedia

ObservatoryoftheNimbyForumsurveysthenewsrelatedto

ter-ritorialdisputes,anditcreatesaninventoryoftheplantsunder

opposition. The data are analyzed and discussed, providing an

updatedoverviewofthephenomenonandanannualreport.

ThelatestNimby®_Forum_report_indicates_that_in_2012,_the

num-berofplantsandinfrastructurescontestedatthenationallevelis

354(nearly7%higherthaninthepreviousedition).IntheLombardy

region,thereare54disputesagainstnewfacilities(infrastructure,

powerplants,pipelines,landﬁllorbiogasplantsandother).

Toexploretherelationshipbetweenconﬂictsandvulnerability,

theoppositionhasbeengroupedinto5categories(1.

Infrastruc-ture: mainly highways, ring roads and roads, as well as the

expansionof the airport of Malpensa;2. Energy plants:power

plantsandhighvoltagelines;3.Wastelandﬁlls,centresforthe

treatmentofspecialwasteincluded;4.Incinerators;5.LNG

termi-nals)andoverlaidonthevulnerabilitymaps.

AsindicatedbyFigs.5and6,themapsprovideameansof:i)

puttingforwardahypothesisabouttheconﬂictsthathaveemerged

aroundthelocalizationofnewfacilitiesandthevulnerabilityof

theLombardyregionassessedattheprovincelevel;ii)addressing

questionsregardingthedrivingfactorsofvulnerabilityindifferent

provinces;iii)andinvestigatingthedegreetowhichthe

opposi-tionsdependsontheeffectiveterritorialvulnerability.

Theanalysisofthevulnerabilitycombinedwiththespatial

dis-tributionof local conﬂictsindicatesa relationship betweenthe

valueofgeneralvulnerability(VI)andthenumberofoppositions.

More precisely, theprovinces of Bresciaand Varese, for which

the VI value is 1 and 0.96, respectively, with a prevalence of

environmentalvulnerability,reveal thehighernumber of

oppo-sitions(10–11)thantheprovinceof Bergamo,forwhich theVI

value is 0.54. A lower number of conﬂicts is observed in the

provincesofSondrio(VI=0.42),Lodi(VI=0.39),Cremona(VI=0.11)

and Mantova (VI=0).Conﬂicts due to opposition to

infrastruc-ture and electrical systems are the most popular among the

provincesoftheLombardyregion.Other typologiesof conﬂicts

do not seem to be inﬂuenced by the degree of vulnerability

(Fig.6).

Discussionandconclusions

TheﬁrstoutputsofthisresearchindicatethattheVIprovides

afunctionalclassiﬁcationoftheterritories.Itcouldeffectivelybe

usedtoimprovedecisionsaboutthedevelopmentoffacilitiesand

tofairlydistributethecostsandbeneﬁtsbothamongpublicinterest

andprivateproﬁtandamongpresentandfuturegenerations.The

syntheticinformationgivenbytheVImakesitpossibletocompare

andrankdifferentterritoriesaccordingtotheirdegreeof

environ-mentalandsocio-economicvulnerability.Thevulnerabilitymaps

representadditionalknowledgethatplannersshouldusefor

bet-terunderstandingthebasisoflocalconﬂicts.Atthesametime,they

canbeconsideredaneutralscenario,whichtheimpactscausedby

thenewfacilitiesmightchange.

With regard to the location of the conﬂicts, signiﬁcant

dif-ferencesare not detectable,but thespread of local opposition

correspondstoalow willingnessofthecommunity toaccept a

changeintheirutilityduetothechangesinlandusethatcause

negativeexternalities.

Althoughthe conﬂicts shouldbe proportional tothedegree

of territorial vulnerability as has beenposited by theresearch

question,theoutputsofthisanalysisdenythisassumption.Local

disputesseem nottobeaffectedbyvulnerabilityand risk.

Fur-thermore,it must betakeninto consideration thatthis type of

proportional relationship has not emerged because the Nimby

Forumdatabasedoesnotanalyzetheriskforeachtypologyofthe

facilitiesandconsequentlytheriskperception.Nevertheless,itis

wellacknowledgedthatthereissubstantialvariationamongthe

individualperceptionsofimpacts,suchastheenvironmentaland

healthimpactsandtheeffectsonpropertyvaluesandpublicsafety

(Schively,2007).

Futuredevelopmentsintheresearchwillrequirebalancingthe

conﬂictimportanceaccordingtothedegreeofthespeciﬁcriskof

thedifferentinfrastructuresandplantsunderopposition.

Finally,ifthecriteriaandindicatorsthatconstitutetheindex

arewidelysharedand supportedbytheliterature,weightingis

a subjectofmore attention.Theresultsdiscussedin thispaper

havenotdeliberatelycontemplatedtheweightingoftheVI.The

weightassignmentcouldsupporttheanalysisofthestateofa

ter-ritoryinamoredynamicwaybytakingintoaccounttheeffects

ofpolicymeasuresregardingfacilitydevelopmentwiththeaidof

vulnerabilityassessment.Theweightingsystemshouldbedeﬁned,

on the one hand, by the measurement of the speciﬁc risk, as

alreadydescribed,and,ontheotherhand,bytheinvolvementof

localcommunitiesandstakeholders.Thepublicengagementinthe

decision-makingprocessescouldbeenvisagedasanopportunity

tospreadknowledgeandawarenessaboutthevulnerabilityofthe

territories.Involvingtheperceptionsandprioritiesofthepublic

beforethedeﬁnitionofthedevelopmentoptionscouldprevent

theadversepositionstakenagainstfutureprojectsthatareviewed

asunfairandunequal.Fromthisperspective,anunderstandingof

territorialvulnerability,groundedinenvironmental,economicand

socialcriteria,wouldseemtohelpdeﬁnethealternativeprojects

beforethedecision-makingprocesshasbegun.

References

Barde,J.P.,Gerelli,E.,1980.EconomiaePoliticadell’ambiente.IlMulino,Bologna. Berry,P.R.,Rounsevell,H.P.,Audsley,E.,2006.Assessingthevulnerabilityof

agricul-turallanduseandspeciestoclimatechange.Environ.Sci.Policy9,189–204. Boulding,K.E.,1966.TheEconomicsoftheComingSpaceshipEarth.In:Jarret,H.

(Ed.),EnvironmentalQualityinagrowingEconomy,ResourcesfortheFuture. JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore(MD),pp.3–14.

Bradley,M.,Smith,E.,2004.Usingsciencetoassessenvironmentalvulnerabilities. Environ.Monit.Assess.94,1–7.

Corsi,S.,2009.Infrastruttureviarieeagricoltura.In:AAVV(Ed.),Perun’altra cam-pagna,Riﬂessioniepropostesull’agricolturaperiurbana.Milano,Maggioli,pp. 51–59.

Costanza,R.,d’Arge,R.,deGroot,R.,Farber,S.,Grasso,M.,Hannon,B.,Limburg, K.,Naeem,S.,O’Neill,R.V.,Paruelo,J.,Raskin,R.G.,Sutton,P.,VandenBelt,M., 1997.Thevalueoftheworld’secosystemservicesandnaturalcapital.Nature 387,253–260.

Cutter,S.,Boruff,B.,Shirley,W.,2003.Socialvulnerabilitytoenvironmentalhazards. Soc.Sci.Quart.84,242–261.

Cutter,S.,Mitchell,J.T.,Scott,M.S.,2000.RevealingtheVulnerabilityofPeopleand Places:ACaseStudyofGeorgetownCountySouthCarolina.Ann.Assoc.Am. Geographers90(4),713–737.

Cutter,S.L.,Emrich,C.T.,Webb,J.J.,Morath,D.,2009.SocialVulnerabilitytoClimate VariabilityHazards:AReviewoftheLiterature.FinalReporttoOxfam Amer-ica.HazardsandVulnerabilityResearchInstitute,DepartmentofGeography, UniversityofSouthCarolina,pp.1–44.

Darly,S.,Torre,A.,2013.Conflictsoverfarmlandusesandthedynamicsof “agri-urban”localitiesintheGreaterParisRegion:anempiricalanalysisbasedon dailyRegionalpressandfieldinterviews.LandUsePolicy33,90–99. DeGroot,R.S.,Wilson,M.A.,Boumans,R.M.J.,2002.Atypologyfortheclassification,

descriptionandvaluationofecosystemfunctions,goodsandservices.Ecol.Econ. 41,393–408.

Golobiˇc,M.,Breskvar ˇZaucery,L.,2010.Landscapeplanningandvulnerability assess-mentintheMediterranean.Finalreport.RegionalActivityCentreforthePriority ActionsProgramme.

Hessel,R.,VandenBerg,J.,Kaboréc,O.,VanKekema,A.,Verzandvoorta,S., Dipa-mad,J.,Dialloe,B.,2009.LinkingparticipatoryandGIS-basedlanduseplanning methods:AcasestudyfromBurkinaFaso.LandUsePolicy26,1162–1172.

(9)

Hilson,G.,2002.Anoverviewoflanduseconﬂictsinminingcommunities.LandUse Policy19,65–73.

Kamruzzaman,Md.,Baker,D.,2013.Willtheapplicationofspatialmulticriteria eval-uationtechniqueenhancethequalityofdecision-makingtoresolveboundary conﬂictsinthePhilippines.LandUsePolicy34,11–26.

LegislativeDecreeNo.81of2008ImplementationofArticle1oftheLawof3August 2007,n.123,concerningtheprotectionofhealthandsafetyintheworkplace. Lindgren,F.,Johansson,B.,Malmlöf,T.,Lindvall,F.,2013.Sitingconﬂictsbetween

windpowerandmilitaryaviation:problemsandpotentialsolutions.LandUse Policy34,104–111.

Magsi,H.,Torre,A.,2013.Proximityanalysisofinefﬁcientpracticesandsocio-spatial negligence:evidence,evaluationsandrecommendationsdrawnfromthe con-structionofChotiarireservoirinPakistan.LandUsePolicy36,567–576. Mattia,S.,Oppio,A.,2008.Pratichedicittadinanzaattive:ilbilanciopartecipativo.

6◦_Rapporto_sul_processo_di_{liberalizzazione}_della_società_italiana._Franco_Angeli,

Milano,pp.81–104.

Mazzocchi,C.,Sali,G.,Corsi,S.,2013.Landuseconversioninmetropolitanareasand thepermanenceofagriculture:SensitivityIndexofAgriculturalLand(SIAL),a toolforterritorialanalysis.LandUsePolicy35,155–162.

Menoni,S.,Margottini,C.,Galderisi,A.,Delmonaco,G.,Ferrara,F.,Kropp,J.P., Este-ban,J.F.,Lopez,J.,Pugliano,A.,Mejri,O.,2011.Shiftinthinking.In:Menoni, S.,Margottini,C.(Eds.),Insiderisk:AstrategyforSustainableRiskMitigation. Springer-Verlag,Milano,pp.287–327.

Menoni,S.,Molinari,D.,Parker,D.,Ballio,F.,Tapsell,S.,2012.Assessingmultifaceted vulnerabilityandresilienceinordertodesignrisk-mitigationstrategies.Nat. Hazards64,2057–2082.

Metzger,M.,Rounsevell,M.,Acosta-Michlik,L.,Leemans,R.,Schröter,D.,2006.The vulnerabilityofecosystemservicestolandusechange.Agric.Ecosyst.Environ. 114,69–85.

Mishan,E.,1965.Relectionsonarecentdevelopmentintheconceptofexternal effects.Can.J.PoliticalEcon.31,3–34.

Ndubisi,F.,2002.EcologicalPlanning:AHistoricalandComparativeSynthesis.Johns HopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore.

Nijnik,M.,Zahvoyska,L.,Nijnik,A.,Ode,A.,2009.Publicevaluationoflandscape contentandchange:severalexamplesfromEurope.LandUsePolicy26,77–86. Pigou,A.C.,1948.TheEconomicsofWellfare.McMillan,London.

Rauschmayer,F.,Wittmer,H.,2006.Evaluatingdeliberativeandanalyticalmethods fortheresolutionofenvironmentalconﬂicts.LandUsePolicy23,108–122. Roegen,G.,1971.TheEntropyLawandtheEconomicProcess.HarvardUniversity

Press,Cambridge.

Saarikoskia,H.,Raitio,K.,Barry,J.,2013.Understanding‘successful’conﬂict res-olution:policyregimechangesandnewinteractivearenasintheGreatBear Rainforest.LandUsePolicy32,271–280.

Schively,C.,2007.UnderstandingtheNIMBYandLULUphenomena:reassessing ourknowledgebaseandinformingfutureresearch.J.Plan.Literature21(3), 255–266.

Smith,E.R.,Mehaffey,M.H.,O’Neill,R.V.,Wade,T.G.,Kilaru,J.V.,Tran,L.,2008. Guide-linestoAssessingRegionalVulnerabilities.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, Washington,DC.

Toro,J.,Duarte,O.,Requena,I.,Zamorano,M.,2011.DeterminingVulnerability ImportanceinEnvironmentalImpactAssessment.ThecaseofColombia. Envi-ron.ImpactAssessmentRev.32,107–117.

Torre,A.,Melot,R.,Magsi,H.,Bossuet,L.,Cadoret,A.,Caron,A.,Darly,S.,Jeanneaux,P., Kirat,T.,VuPham,H.,Kolokouris,O.,2014.Identifyingandmeasuringland-use andproximityconﬂicts:methodsandidentiﬁcation.SpringerPlus3(85),1–26 http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/85

Tran,L.,O’Neill,R.,Smith,E.,2010.Spatialpatternofenvironmentalvulnerability assessmentintheMid-AtlanticRegion,USA.Appl.Geogr.30,191–202. Turner,B.,Matson,P.,McCarthy,J.,Corell,R.,Christensen,L.,Eckley,N.,

Hovelsrud-Broda,G.,2003.Aframeworkforvulnerabilityanalysisinsustainabilityscience. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.100,8074–8079.

Wittmer,H.,Rauschmayer,F.,Klauer,B.,2006.Howtoselectinstrumentsforthe resolutionofenvironmentalconﬂicts?LandUsePolicy23,1–9.

Webreferences

Annuario Statistico Regionale, 2007, Retrieved26/06/2014 from: http://www. asr-lombardia.it/ASR/trasporti/reti-infrastrutturali-e-impianti/lombardia-e-province/tavole/3010/.

Annuario Statistico Regionale, 2011, Retrieved26/06/2014 from: http://www. asr-lombardia.it/ASR/trasporti/reti-infrastrutturali-e-impianti/regioni-italiane/ tavole/1679/.

Aree Protette della Regione Lombardia, 2013, Retrieved 30/04/2014 from: http://www.cartograﬁa.regione.lombardia.it/geoportale/DiscoveryServlet? command=viewdetails&uuid={1F3EC07C-75FD-172C-73D7-A5BF7217B768}

ARPALombardia,2011,Retrieved13/03/2014from:http://www2.arpalombardia. it/siti/arpalombardia/meteo/richiesta-dati-misurati/Pagine/

RichiestaDatiMisurati.aspx.

ATO Ambito Territoriale Ottimale, Regione Lombardia, 2007, Retrieved 31/10/2014 from: http://www.reti.regione.lombardia.it/cs/Satellite?c= RedazionaleP&childpagename=DGReti%2FDetail&cid=1213566061277& packedargs=NoSlotForSitePlan%3Dtrue%26menu-to-render%

3D1213422387490&pagename=DG RSSWrapper.

Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas, 2012, Retrieved 25/06/2014 from: http://www.autorita.energia.it/it/dati/elencodati.htm.

Centro Flora Autoctona, Flora e piccola Fauna protette in Lombardia, 2008, Regione Lombardia Retrieved 13/03/2014 from: http://www.parcobarro. lombardia.it/lr10/index.php?title=Paginaprincipale.

CRPA, Biogas: Il settore è strutturato e continua a crescere, 2013, L’informatore Agrario 2013 Retrieved 31/10/2014 from: http://crpalab. crpa.it/media/documents/crpa www/Settori/Ambiente/Download/Archivio 2013/IAsuppl112013p11.pdf.

DUSAF 2.1, Uso del suolo in Regione LombardiaI dati DUSAF 2010, ERSAF, Regione Lombardia, 2010, Retrieved 31/10/2014 from: http://www.ersaf. lombardia.it/upload/ersaf/pubblicazioni/IdatiDusafed.201013383392.pdf. EPA, UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency,2009. AirQuality Index

–a Guide to Air Quality andyour health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ofﬁceof AirQuality Planningand StandardsOutreach and Infor-mation DivisionResearch, Triangle Park,NC, Retrieved 26/06/2014 from: http://www.epa.gov/airnow/aqibrochure0214.pdf.

FINLOMBARDIA, 2012. Retrieved 30/04/2014 from: http://sirena.ﬁnlombarda. it/sirena/catasto.jsp.

ILSOLE24ORE, 2012. Retrieved 13/03/2014 from: http://www.ilsole24ore. com/speciali/qvita2012/home.shtml.

ISPRA,2012.Rapportodeirifiutiurbani,Retrieved30/04/2014from:http://www. isprambiente.gov.it/files/pubblicazioni/rapporti/rifiuti2012/rapporto-rifiuti-2012-estratto.pdf.

ISTAT,Laborforcesurvey,2012.Retrieved13/03/2014from:http://dati.istat.it/. ISTATpopulationcensus,2001,Retrieved13/03/2014from:http://dati.istat.it/ ISTATpopulationsurvey,2013,Retrieved13/03/2014from:http://dati.istat.it/. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystem and human wellbeing,

Synthesis, Retrieved 10/03/2014 from http://www.millenniumassessment. org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.

NIMBY FORUM, 2012. Gli Impianti contestati, Retrieved 19/03/2014 from: http://www.nimbyforum.it/.

RDP, Rural DevelopmentProgramme 2007-2013for Region Lombardia (Italy) –CCIN◦ _{2007IT06RPO007,}_2007,_Retrieved_13/03/2014_from:_http://www.

reterurale.it/.

RegioneLombardia,2008.Rapportosulleinfrastrutture,Retrieved31/10/2014from http://www.ors.regione.lombardia.it/resources/pagina/N11e3b0be4ff4cb18119 /N11e3b0be4ff4cb18119/Rapportosulleinfrastrutture.pdf.