A method for analysing and planning rural built-up landscapes: The case of Sardinia, Italy

Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

A method for analysing and planning rural built-up landscapes: The case of Sardinia, Italy Andrea De Montis a,b,∗ , Antonio Ledda a,b , Vittorio Serra a,b , Marco Noce a , Mario Barra a , Stefano De Montis a a b

Dipartimento di Agraria, University of Sassari, Italy Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture, University of Cagliari, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 11 June 2016 Received in revised form 21 November 2016 Accepted 7 December 2016 Keywords: Rural buildings Rural landscapes European Landscape Convention Landscape fact sheet Landscape atlas

a b s t r a c t The implementation of the European Landscape Convention has paved the way for innovative tools able to analyse scattered and medium-small size elements, far beyond the usual isolated relevant landmarks. In this context, planners have been confronted with the problem of defining those characteristics of rural landscapes which are typical of agricultural and forestry activities and ecosystems. The specific focus on rural landscapes has attracted the interest of international scientists. They have approached the question from many perspectives, but have rarely analysed the interplay between landscapes, buildings, and settlements. In this paper we design and apply a method which is able to define, analyse and plan built-up rural landscapes. This method is based on organizing qualitative and quantitative landscape information in fact sheets, a tool that was often used in the last generation of landscape atlases in Italy. We have investigated three landscape units in Sardinia, Italy, one of the first administrations to approve a regional landscape plan which conformed with the European Landscape Convention. Our evidence demonstrates that the method is powerful, as it helps in the identification of the main characteristics of each rural built-up landscape and the drafting of general planning propositions. In particular, the method proves useful in stressing the cross-fertilization between building types and the shape of the rural landscapes: single story buildings on plains and multi-story buildings in mountainous areas. While the method is clearly influenced by the European Landscape Convention and the Italian local regulations, it is based on general principles and can be applied, with proper adaptations, to other cases worldwide. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The European Landscape Convention (hereafter, ELC) made planners place more focus on the territorial systems which create landscapes, including not only isolated and relevant landmarks but also the scattered and medium-small size elements involved. In this respect, ELC implementation in European Union member (and nonmember) states has paved the way for new tools. These are suitable for ordinary and distributed landscapes and often applicable to rural and agricultural landscapes. This apparently superfluous definition −in reality European landscapes are broadly rural– has attracted the interest of many scholars in recent times (Dehkordi, 2012; Rogge et al., 2007; Paracchini and Capitani, 2011).

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. De Montis), [email protected] (A. Ledda), [email protected] (V. Serra), [email protected] (M. Noce), [email protected] (M. Barra), [email protected] (S. De Montis). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.028 0264-8377/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

While many definitions of landscape exist (Donadieu, 2014; Romani, 2008; Farina, 2006), in this paper we refer to the landscape as conceived in the ELC: “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (ELC, 2000). The ELC gives the same importance to all types of landscapes: thus natural, rural, peri-urban and urban landscapes are the key factors in European cultural identity (Piorr and Müller, 2009). Italy signed the ELC in 2000 and ratified it in 2006 (Italian Republic, 2006). In 2004 Italy approved Legislative Decree No. 42 ‘Code of Cultural and Landscape Heritage’ (hereafter, the Code) (Italian Republic, 2004). The Code introduced the ELC principles into the Italian regulatory system by stressing innovative concepts, such as landscape quality, local identity, and cultural values. According to the Code, states and regions must ensure that the whole national territory is properly identified, protected, planned, and managed. Recent studies have observed that the ELC has introduced a common style of landscape planning at continental level for the first time. This has, however, been differently implemented, depending on the institutional frameworks operating in each coun-

114

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Table 1 The Research questions (RQs) that form the basis of this paper.

Table 2 State of the art summary on rural landscapes: issues and meaning.

RQs

Description

Issue

Meaning

RQ1

How are rural built-up landscapes approached in the literature? How are rural built-up landscapes analyzed in Italian regional landscape plans? Is it possible to build an indicator based method for assessing rural built-up landscapes? How can we apply the method to interpret real (i.e. Sardinian) rural built-up landscapes?

Approach Focus Methods Data Indicators

General conceptual framework Specific conceptual issues Methods explained and applied Source, description, and resolution of data adopted Qualitative-quantitative measures

RQ2 RQ3 RQ4

try (De Montis, 2014). They have also reported that roughly half of the Italian regional and provincial administrations have approved landscape plans which conform with the Code, including typical instruments such as landscape units, atlases and catalogues, and focusing specifically and explicitly on the analysis and planning of agricultural and rural landscapes (De Montis, 2016). The literature on rural landscapes is multi-sectoral, as it includes contributions from many disciplines. The authors often start from theoretical definitions or assessments of the landscape and propose methods based on qualitative and quantitative criteria. As part of this, some papers approach defining rural landscape by describing the architectural and spatial characteristics of rural buildings and settlements (Jeong et al., 2012). In this paper we intend to discuss the methods, criteria, and indicators adopted when defining and planning rural landscapes, with a special focus on the interaction between buildings and landscape. We start from the definition of rural landscapes in the international literature and then focus on designing a method which is able to assess built-up rural landscapes. In order to arrive at an operative definition, we integrate the method with certain elements obtained from a study of the approaches to rural landscapes proposed by the last generation of landscape plans approved by Italian local administrations. We apply the method to the study of rural landscapes in three regions of Sardinia, Italy, with the intention of extending the Regional Landscape Plan (RLP) of Sardinia (Sardinia, 2006) to the interior of the island. We report the Research Questions (RQs ) that shape our paper in Table 1. RQ1 identifies the emergence of an established corpus of scientific contributions which are specifically designed to interpret rural built-up landscapes. RQ2 investigates the approaches used by some Italian Code-based regional landscape plans for analyzing and planning rural built-up landscapes. The answers to RQ3 are a combination and cross-check of the responses to RQ1 and RQ2 and concern the design and application of an indicator based method for characterizing rural built-up landscapes. RQ4 refers to how the model is applied and interpreted in actual cases in Sardinia, Italy. Based on the RQs , the argument unfolds as follows. In the next section we discuss a state of the art summary of the scientific contributions on rural built-up landscapes. In the third section we scrutinize some Code-based Italian regional landscape plans, with respect to their importance for rural landscapes and buildings. In the fourth section we design an indicator-based method which is able to define the dimensions of buildings in rural landscapes and in the fifth section we use it to assess the key characteristics of rural built-up landscapes of Sardinia, Italy. In the sixth section we discuss the results obtained and elaborate on the conclusions and perspectives of this paper. 2. Rural built-up landscapes: a summary of the state of the art In this section, we describe the reference selection method and scrutinize some relevant scientific contributions concerning rural landscapes with an emphasis on buildings and settlements.

Rural landscapes have been approached from a number of different points of view (Agnoletti, 2013, 2014; Dehkordi, 2012; Rogge et al., 2007). Agnoletti (2014) pointed out that there is a lack of funding and few policies are able to describe and preserve the historical character of rural landscapes. Dehkordi (2012) developed landscape degradation modelling and assessment in the context of rural areas in Japan. Rogge et al. (2007) studied the differences in the perception of Belgian rural landscapes expressed by various target groups: farmers, landscape experts, and country-dwellers. In 2015 we selected a set of thirty-one journal articles filtered from the sciencedirect.com database by using the following keywords: agricultural landscapes, rural landscapes, rural landscape analysis and planning, and rural buildings-landscape integration. Sciencedirect.com is a well-known scientific database and includes major international journals (for instance, Land Use Policy and Landscape and Urban Planning) in the field of landscape analysis and planning. As a cross-check, we searched the broader database Scopus, using the same keywords, and found the same journals. The selected papers have been filtered according to a set of bibliometric criteria in order to define some key features. The key features have been useful to provide a cluster of context elements linked to a specific rural building and the surrounding rural landscape. We have considered key features including: approach used for studying the rural landscape, focus, methods, data, and indicators. We stress that we aim to provide an overview about a specific set of papers covering the rural built-up landscape dimension. It is not our intention to provide an extensive literature review regarding studies on rural landscapes. We scrutinized the selected papers applying a quali-quantitative analysis of the issues described in Table 2. The first and second issues obtain the general and specific features of the approach proposed in each contribution. The remaining three issues obtain the description of the method adopted, the data Table 3 Macro-groups of the selected references. Macro-groups

Key concepts

References

Buildings analysis

Architectural shapes and features, building materials and techniques Landscape change in time, landscape natural and artificial matrices

Jeong et al. (2012); Tassinari et al. (2010); García et al. (2003); García et al. (2006); García and Ayuga (2007); van der Vaart (2005) Gulickx et al. (2013); Pôc¸as et al. (2011); Pedroli et al. (2007); Skowronek et al. (2005); Poudevigne et al. (1997) Riguccio et al. (2015); Gullino and Larcher (2012); Laterra et al. (2012); Ma and Swinton (2011); Petit (2008); Claval (2005); Mander and Jongman (1998) Hiner (2014); Sklenicka et al. (2014); Wheeler (2014); Øian (2013); Primdahl et al. (2013); Ruiz and Domon (2012); Paquette and Domon (2001) Garcia-Llorente et al. (2012); Qingjuan et al. (2011); Ramírez et al. (2011); Sevenant and Antrop (2007, 2010); Natori et al. (2005); Antrop (2004); Appleton and Lovett (2003)

Dynamic analysis

Landscape ecology

Landscape functions and ecosystem services

Sociological and policy analysis

Landscape perception and cultural identity

Visual analysis

Human preferences, visual perception

Table 4 Literature overview of rural landscapes: classification and characteristics. Macro Group

Authors, Year

Approach

Focus

Methods

Data

Indicators

Buildings analysis

van der Vaart (2005)

Studying re-used rural buildings helps when clarifying changes in rural landscapes

Conversion of former farm buildings to a different function

Impact analysis

Effects of measures on the social and architectural, landscape

Jeong et al. (2012)

Implementation of a web −based GIS for decision-making on tourism resources and new rural buildings Analysis of landscape planning regulations for reducing land use

Demographic decline and sustainable rural development for tourist activities

Integration between GIS and Multi Criteria Evaluation

Improving landscape classification criteria and descriptive parameters. Model validation in a pilot sample The reuse of ancient buildings

Land suitability GIS-based analysis

Exterior features and characteristics of farm buildings, 862 questionnaires on explanation of re-use patterns and evaluation of the surrounding landscape Data supporting criteria construction (including land cover, land use, morphology, socio-economics) Regional technical maps; cadastral maps 2005; aerial images, Corine Land cover

A method able to identify, describe, catalogue, and record rural buildings

Spatial data, aerial views, and photographs

Photographs of building and surrounding area

Last type of use, number of buildings, construction design, structural properties, internal layout, other architectural indicators. Parameters used for defining colors: hue, saturation, and lightness

Tassinari et al. (2010)

General approach tested in a region of Spain through a procedure which uses a feedback system

García et al. (2003)

A computer aided approach to landscape integration

Analysis of exterior color of agro-industrial buildings

García et al. (2006)

A photo-analytical approach to landscape integration Remote sensing and statistical spatial analysis

Analysis of materials and exterior texture of agro-industrial buildings Land use changes

Computer analysis, public survey, tables for studying buildings-background relationship using computer Computer analysis, public survey, table for systematic application of the process Analysis of dynamics

Poudevigne et al. (1997)

Dynamic analysis of land use changes (time span: 1979-2002)

Data interpretation and definition of driving forces (policies), griding

Cartography, GIS, and multivariate analysis, griding

Skowronek et al. (2005)

Rural landscape dynamic analysis

Socio-economic and political drivers of rural landscape change

Historical analysis and landscape character analysis

Pôc¸as et al. (2011)

Photographs of building and surrounding area Three EOS Landsat images ortho-rectified and error-processed, compared with agricultural statistics, CORINE land cover, field survey, forest inventory Topographical map (1:25,000), geological map (1:50,000), aerial photographs (1:20,000), field survey, inventory of protected areas Land use cadastral maps (1:5000), Census data

Land use, land-cover, morphology, elevation, urbanisation, housing use

Parameters for the texture study: grain size, density, internal contrast, regularity Land use variation (11 CLC classes)

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Dynamic analysis

García and Ayuga (2007)

Physical, visual, economic, social, and environmental sub-criteria

Land cover (including habitation), ecological pattern, and topographical and lithological features, Index C of mutual connectance (a function of the Shannon index) Physiognomic landscape elements measures: area, natural elements, cultural elements, population, population density, cultivated land measures

115

116

Table 4 (Continued) Macro Group

Landscape ecology

Authors, Year

Approach

Focus

Methods

Data

Indicators

Pedroli et al. (2007)

Analysis of the interplay between land use change versus biodiversity and natural landscape Spatial analysis of landscapes as spatial social-ecological often conflicting systems

Integrated study of the rural landscape and farmers participation in a bottom-up approach for mental and physical health Statistical analysis of correlations between landscape services and spatial characteristics, gridding

Information from 13 interviews about organic farming

Gulickx et al. (2013)

Integration of nature conservation measures and land use planning with respect to organic farming in Germany Multi-functionality and mapping the spatial distribution of landscape services (including residential services)

Eutrophication, environmental pollution, fragmentation, isolation of habitats, species survival condition At data point (ex. soil type), distance to (rural road, natural area, . . .), neighbourhood (pond, solitary trees)

Mander and Jongman (1998)

Editorial report of a conference of the International Association for Landscape Ecology Evaluation of ecosystem

“Perspective of Rural Landscapes”

–

Interplay between the complexity of the landscape and the ecosystem

Correlation and principal component analysis

Geo-referenced land cover and soil properties data at two grain scales

Laterra et al. (2012)

Soil map (1:50,000), topographical map (1:10,000), monumental buildings (Atlas Province Noord-Brabant), digital elevation map (res. 5mx5m) –

Comparing UNESCO rural landscapes against cultural and natural parameters

The role of rural landscapes for the development of a multifunctional agriculture

Ecological and historical assessment of landscape integrity based on Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)

Overlaying cadastral maps, historical data, modern cartography, and aerial images

Ma and Swinton (2011)

Evaluation of the importance of the ecosystem for rural landscapes and the agricultural land market, based on their supply and demand Spatial, temporal and ecological analysis of land use patterns

Building a framework characterizing the integration between the ecosystem and agricultural land

Hedonic model based impact analysis of the effect of the ecosystem on agricultural land

Market data, prices, contract type, cadastral maps, social importance, location and, natural status of farmland, its functional forms and variables

The impact of rural landscape changes on the dynamics of biodiversity

Statistical tools to describe the change in habitats

Countryside Surveys from 1978 and 2007, digital maps, land use types (1 km x 1 km resolution)

The role of typical agricultural products in character, quality and use of rural areas

Multi-criteria analysis and spatial analysis

Land use, land cover, aerial photographs, 200 questionnaires

Petit (2008)

Riguccio et al. (2015)

Definition of Typical Agricultural Districts: specialized areas for high quality products and tourism

Many variables describing the functions of the ecosystem: soil carbon storage, erosion control, wetland water holding capacity, aquifer protection, etc. Architectural layout, rural layout, traditional land-users, traditional crops and products, cultural value, social and economic sustainability, management Willingness to pay, and natural characteristics (lakes, rivers, wetlands, forests)

Density of woodland, total area of arable land, modifications of agricultural systems and practices, change in species richness and composition of plant communities Certified typical agricultural products (fruit, vineyard, greenhouse) landscape, historical towns, agro-tourism, educational farms, traditional regional structures, protected areas (natural parks, Nature 2000 Network sites), cultural districts and local folklore events

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Gullino and Larcher (2012)

–

Table 4 (Continued) Macro Group

Sociologic and policy analysis

Approach

Focus

Methods

Data

Indicators

Claval (2005)

Analogy between linguistics and geography, landscape analysis Rural policy analysis and geography

Landscape forms as languages

Semiotics

–

–

Effects of the open market and sustainability agenda on rural landscapes

Spatial VS territorial competence-based policies. Landscape Strategy Making (LSM)

Qualitative measures of level of LSM implementation

Sklenicka et al. (2014)

Socio-economic effects and influence on rural landscapes

Different landscape effects of market-based vs transition socialist economy (time span: 1952-2009)

Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Four municipal planning projects in the research program. Dialogue based and integrated planning for the rural landscape (Diaplan) Cadastral land use 1 km x 1 km pattern (four agricultural productive systems: corn, cereal, potato, and fodder)

Hiner (2014)

Sociological analysis of a rural-urban area

The different socio-cultural perspectives of insiders and outsiders in rural areas subject to restructuring

Qualitative data analysis

Information drawn from 51 interviews

Paquette and Domon (2001)

Socio-demographic composition of migrants from urban to rural areas

Multivariate analysis for describing population profiles

In situ observations, land use change images, socio-demographic and residential history surveys in 254 residential settings

Wheeler (2014)

An exploration of rural spaces, to explain the role of the past in social memory and identity

A dynamics analysis of residential settlement patterns in rural landscapes and transformations in the built-up environment Rural industrial remains as activators of memories from the past

Geographical studies on social and personal memories

Øian (2013)

Assessing different uses of marginal rural areas in Norway

The importance of local “natural and wild” landscapes for local inhabitants and occasional users

Social profiling

Ruiz and Domon (2012)

Modelling landscape-subject interactions

The attitude of rural population and farmers to intensive agricultural areas and policies

Interactive method with many cycles of data collection and analysis

26 interviews with participants selected from many age groups and with different periods of residency Interviews with representatives of local hunters and anglers, regularly visiting sport anglers, owners of angling rivers or hunting grounds Semi-structured interviews including 27 subjects and predetermined questions

Primdahl et al. (2013)

Dependent variables: mean farmland patch size, farmland proportion, permanent element proportion, landscape heterogeneity index (Shannon diversity index), edge density, road density. Independent variables: growing regions, year Educational attainment, income, political party affiliation, political/social/economic ideologies Three groups of indicators: visual, landscape trajectory, and socio-demographic indicators Personal memories and stories, history as community and interactive experience for landscape future management ‘Naturalness’ and ‘culturalness’, tourist use of natural resources, traditional and local exploitation

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Authors, Year

Many types of relationships: hedonistic and personal pleasure; emotional with memories and identity pride; utilitarian in generating a profit; social as opportunity for making personal acquaintances

117

118

Table 4 (Continued) Authors, Year

Approach

Focus

Methods

Data

Indicators

Visual analysis

Appleton and Lovett (2003)

Realistic analysis of geo-visualized rural landscapes

Ability to draw from images acceptable understanding of transformations of the rural landscape

Statistical analysis of respondents’ judgements

Ground surface, foreground vegetation, shadows, buildings, sky, age, familiarity, experience

Natori et al. (2005)

Conservation planning for a rural environment

Integration of visual with biological landscapes

Sevenant and Antrop (2007)

Landscape visibility analysis of the rationales of traditional rural settlements

Comparing settlement patterns to land use zoning and landscape visibility

Mapping land use for conservation areas based on visual and biological landscape values. Participatory research involving the local public GIS-based viewshed and statistical analysis

Ordnance Survey LandLine (1:2500), Landform Profile DEM (10 m resolution) on a 2 km x 4 km rural area, ArcView ArcInfo data elaborated in Visual Nature Studio images. 62 web-based interviews of image realism Biological and scenery (interview-based) survey data

Qingjuan et al. (2011)

Landscape planning and designing strategies in a rural area with a high potential for economic development

Local rural landscape as a new model of urban −rural integration

Policy analysis. Alternative landscape planning and strategies

Ramírez et al. (2011)

Quality assessment of landscape views from rural roads

Mediterranean landscapes

Statistical and regression analysis

109 pictures of landscapes seen from a hypothetical driver on a rural road

Garcia-Llorente et al. (2012)

Assessing social and ecological factors that influence landscape use and non-use values

Explaining landscape multi-functionality and social preferences with monetary and non-monetary techniques

Willingness to pay assessment including: selection of landscape views in main landscapes units, assessment of social preferences, identification of multifunctional landscapes through focus group

381 face-to-face photo-based questionnaires

Topographical maps (1:50000, 1:40000), aerial photographs (1:29000, 1:38000), Landsat images (15–60 m resolution), land use map (1:50000) Relevant ecological and visual characteristics of rural land

Vegetation, topography, patch size, habitat requirements, scenic measures and individual judgement and perception Viewshed inside and outside areas, visible land use areas

Number of Linpans dwindle, visual quality of rural landscape changes, simulation of rural setting replaced by different construction patterns Four indicators: land use, vegetation, form, and texture. It is a simplified version of a method including 16 variables ˜ et al., 2009) (Canas Earth morphology, riparian vegetation, dam, shady agricultural valley, wind farms, greenhouse farms

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Macro Group

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

used, and the indicators used and applied in each of the selected papers. As illustrated in the remainder of this section, the articles have been clustered in the five macro-groups reported in Table 3, while Table 4 shows the complete analysis of the selected References The first macro-group is the most relevant for the aims of this paper, as it contains articles which analyse the architecture and its design in rural landscapes. According to these papers, the analysis of rural buildings should be based on their suitability for and conformity with the particular landscapes, from a complex and multi-sectoral point of view. The second macro-group includes articles which emphasize the importance of dynamic analysis of landscape changes and their natural and human-driven determinants. The third includes papers based on the principles of landscape ecology. They often describe the multiple functions of the landscape and the type of ecosystem. The fourth macro-group consists of articles on how the landscape is perceived by local societies, with a specific focus on demographic issues. The fifth macro-group includes papers on the assessment of the visual quality of the landscape and the need to deal with the different human preferences for the development of the land, seen from different viewpoints. Despite the macro-group approach used, the methodological approaches suggest that two types of analysis were adopted: a general study of landscape features based on the interpretation of land use, regional technical, and cadastral cartography and satellite images, and a detailed scrutiny of the characteristics of the buildings, based on new information obtained by direct measurement during field surveys. This twofold approach is particularly evident in articles (for instance, van der Vaart, 2005) in the first macrogroup (Building analysis), as they stress those aspects of rural landscapes that are connected to the interplay between buildings and countryside. However it can also be found in other macrogroups which can be broadly characterized as papers providing territorial analyses of rural landscapes. In the landscape ecology macro-group, Gullino and Larcher (2012) tackle landscape integrity by conducting, in addition to an analysis and interpretation of cadastral historical and modern cartography, an analysis of rural buildings, their detailed architectural layout and the internal distribution of spaces. In the last macro-group (Visual analysis), Appleton and Lovett (2003) couple the study of the many aspects of rural landscapes at the territorial level with an analysis of the features of buildings at local scale. In the next section we clarify to what extent the methodological advances proposed in the literature have been adopted in Italian planning practices.

3. Italian regional landscape plans and rural built-up landscapes De Montis (2016) has recently observed that Italy has a moderately good performance with respect to the release of landscape plans which comply with the ELC, via the Code. Thus we focus on nine last generation Italian regional landscape plans recently approved in Italy. Fig. 1 illustrates the coverage of the study: the sample covers roughly half of the population and the territorial area of the country. The features of the plans are described in Table 5. They often include a reference to the landscape but rarely to the territory. Plans were approved in the 2000 s and in the 2010s. We scrutinized these tools with reference to the issues reported in Table 6. The first two issues are the rationale for two fundamental constructs (landscape units and atlases/catalogues) of the last generation landscape plans. Issues 3–5 specifically focus on detailed definitions of the rural landscape and planning and the clarification of the architectural characteristics of rural buildings. Issues 6–8

119

Table 5 Regional Landscape plans under scrutiny: main characteristics. Region

Denomination (and code)

Year of approval

Apulia

Regional Landscape and Territorial Plan (RLTP) Regional Landscape and Territorial Framework (RLTF) Regional Landscape and Territorial Plan (RLTP) Regional Landscape Plan (RLP) Regional Landscape Plan (RLP) Regional Landscape Plan (RLP) Territorial Coordination Plan (TCP) Regional Landscape Plan (RLP) New Regional Territorial Coordination Plan (NRTCP)

2013

Calabria Lazio Lombardy Piedmont Sardinia Tuscany Umbria Veneto

2013 2007 2013 2009 2006 2014 2012 2007

Table 6 Scrutiny of landscape plans: issues and description. N

Issues

Description

1

Landscape units

2

6

Landscape atlases or catalogues Rural landscapes: focus Rural landscapes: fact sheets Rural building types and materials Methods

Territories with clear boundaries and homogeneous landscapes Visual or textual documents illustrating landscape units Specific focus on rural landscapes Detailed analytical documents defining rural landscapes Technological solutions for rural buildings

7

Data

8

Indicators

3 4 5

Methods adopted for defining rural landscapes Type, resolution, and source of data processed Indicators used to define rural landscapes

report on the possible analytical frameworks that could be adopted for identifying and defining rural landscapes. In Table 7 we present a synopsis of the analysis of the nine regional landscape plans. In two regions (Sardinia and Tuscany), planners produced specific documents to define rural landscapes, while in the remaining cases they preferred to refer to the usual and comprehensive concept of the landscape. The majority of the plans (with the exception of Sardinia) cover the entire region under discussion. All the selected plans divide the regions into landscape units. These are typically described using photographic atlases or catalogues, where there is special interest in rural (or agrarian) landscapes. In some cases planners identify rural or agricultural landscapes by emphasizing the specific role that agriculture and other human activities play in shaping and modifying them. Often the analysis is based on the description of rural buildings with respect to housing type, function, architectural details and building techniques. The landscape plans approved by Lazio, Lombardy, Piedmont, Tuscany, and Veneto are relevant, as they provide some explicit information on the rural built-up landscape. Lazio’s RLTP takes into account historic rural buildings and villages in reclamation areas. In Lombardy, the regional landscape plan uses photographs and textual documentation to show rural buildings, such as farmhouses (‘cascine’), barns and stables. In Piedmont, the plan defines three types of rural areas, according to the morphological characteristics of the settlement. The Tuscan plan additionally stresses the historical aspects and the housing types in particular areas where share-cropping is used. These are complex buildings, often modified from the Middle ages to the first decades of the twentieth century. The NRTCP of Veneto reports on some rural buildings of historical, technological, and landscape interest, especially those which were built using ancient wooden building techniques. In

120

Table 7 Nine regional landscape plans selected: synopsis of the scrutiny. Landscape Units

Landscape atlases or catalogues

Rural landscapes: focus

Rural landscapes: fact sheets

Rural building types and materials

Methods

Data

Indicators

Apulia

11 landscape units are described according to structure, identity and statutory interpretations, and strategic scenarios

The “Atlas of Environmental, Territorial, and Landscape Heritage” contains a fact sheet on rural morphology and typologies

Rural landscapes are described within the landscape units

Fact sheets of landscape units describe the rural landscapes through text and pictures

Typical rural buildings are mentioned

Identified according to morphotypologies, cultural-historical characteristics, and types of settlement

16 Atlases report on the landscape units (i.e. agricultural landscapes)

They are described by a fact sheet including: name, municipalities, constraints, landscape assets, specific regulations, compromised or degraded areas

The rural building types include watermills, crushers, farmhouses

Lazio

Identified from elaborations of the Regional Technical Map (printed at 1:25000) and synoptic frame with legend

The photographic atlas of typical landscapes includes fact sheets describing the agricultural area through text, pictures, and land use maps

Analysis of historic buildings

Identification assisted by multiple indicators

Regional Technical Map (1:10000, flight 1989-1990), land use map, orthophotos AIMA 1996, orthophotos (1:10000) EN 2000 (taken in 1998-1999)

Indicators include typical or specialized agricultural production, landscape quality, land fragmentation, and scattered building

Lombardy

23 geographical landscape units (PPR, 2010)

The photographic atlas of typical landscapes describes Roman identity, agricultural areas and agricultural reclamations, rural villages and buildings The Atlas (PTR, 2013) emphasizes the main characteristics of the territory and the institutional scenario. A section includes fact sheets reporting the generalities of landscapes

Rural landscapes are characterized by semi-natural and anthropogenic factors: cultivated fields, small patches of forest or other remaining vegetation, vineyards, rivers, local roads, and buildings for agricultural use Three types of agricultural (i.e. rural) landscapes: considerably valuable, valuable, and continuous

Land use map (1:5000), digital terrain model (1:5000), orthophoto regional map (1:10000), topographic map (1:25000) Land use map, landslide and flood map, digital terrain model

Morphological analysis, types of cultivation, urban sprawl, abandonment of agricultural funds

Calabria

Rural landscapes are characterized with reference to structure, asset values, evolution, agronomic and cultivation traits, and ecological value Identification assisted by multiple indicators

The PPR (2010) includes a map (1:300000) concerning traditional agrarian landscapes

Agrarian landscapes include rural dwellings in closed courts, permanent rural dwellings, and groups of stables and barns (PPR, 2010)

Identification assisted by multiple indicators

Regional Technical Map 1:10000, historical maps, photos (PPR, 2010)

The agrarian landscape components include terraced vineyards, orchards, traditional farms, and rural dwellings (PPR, 2010)

The agrarian landscape is recognized (PPR, 2010)

Agricultural landscapes are classified as regional landscape assets with respect to agricultural crops and morphopedological substrate, and rural buildings and architectural and building materials

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Region

Table 7 (Continued) Landscape Units

Landscape atlases or catalogues

Rural landscapes: focus

Rural landscapes: fact sheets

Rural building types and materials

Methods

Data

Indicators

Piedmont

76 landscape units are defined, based on many indicators

Rural Landscapes are described through the landscape units, regulations, rural architectural types, techniques, and typical building materials

–

Analysis of building typologies, density, historic buildings

–

Land use and land cover map

Geo-morphological aspects, natural ecosystems, consistent historical settlement patterns, consolidated dissemination of crops, and cultural models

Sardinia

The PPR disciplines 27 coastal landscape units

12 fact sheets illustrate macro-landscapes with thematic maps of landscape morphology, nature and agriculture, and settlements. The atlas shows the “100 rural landscapes” representative of the regional rural heritage

–

Description of the rural landscape with respect to some indicators

Regional databases and cartography

Rural landscapes are described with respect to cadastral pattern, cultivation types (soil and water management), rural settlements and road viewpoint pictures, dimensions of natural and farming areas, and the human dimension

Tuscany

20 landscape units were identified

The Atlas of rural landscapes describes the most representative rural landscapes and classifies them into macro-landscapes. The Atlas aims to recognize the peculiarities of the Sardinian rural landscapes, and facilitate their management, development and protection The Catalogue of historical rural landscapes describes the main rural landscapes with respect to their social and economic characteristics, and small settlements

The plan identifies specific rural areas, including rural landscape systems with sparse traditional settlements or traces of agricultural infrastructures and related historical infrastructure, and rural fluvial landscapes with sparse traditional settlements Rural landscapes are described in an Atlas which is part of PPR 2013

The fact sheets describe location, social and economic characteristics, agriculturallandscape, settlements, evolutionary processes, storytelling

Analysis of building typologies, density, historic buildings

A catalogue describes the main rural landscapes, based on their traditional characteristics and the historical value of each landscape

A topographic map (1:50000) and other maps, detailed geographic databases available in the regional archives, pictures

Identification of historical rural landscapes criteria: historical relevance, authenticity, integrity, stability over time, traditional practices and techniques (cropping systems, agricultural and water provision arrangements)

Historical rural landscapes

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Region

121

122

Table 7 (Continued) Landscape Units

Landscape atlases or catalogues

Rural landscapes: focus

Rural landscapes: fact sheets

Rural building types and materials

Methods

Data

Indicators

Umbria

19 landscape units are denominated “regional landscapes”

There is not a clear definition of rural landscape. The agrarian landscapes are recognised

A series of fact sheets cover various aspects of the landscape. A thematic map covers the agrarian landscape

–

–

The Repertoire of knowledge includes basic mapping systems, studies, research, a database produced within the framework of European programs, and thematic maps at a regional scale

–

Veneto

39 landscape units were identified and described in fact sheets

The Atlas identifies contexts, landscape units, and landscape assets. The atlas includes regional maps and repertoire of landscapes. According to the ELC, the Atlas assigns a value to landscapes, based on their integrity and relevance An Atlas describes the landscape units

The Atlas reports of some general rural issues. The plan defines and regulates four categories of rural areas

There is not a specific fact sheet about the rural landscape. The Atlas mentions some rural landscapes and buildings. Thematic maps (1:50000) cover rural areas (areas of high agricultural use, peri-urban agriculture) and territorial elements (historical agrarian landscapes, terraced landscapes)

Rural buildings and typical building materials (such as wood) are mentioned within the Atlas

–

Satellite images, Regional Technical Map, GSE LAND database, photos, land use map

–

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Region

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

123

Fig. 1. In dark gray, Italy in the European context (A). In light gray, the regions covered in this study (B).

Veneto typical rural buildings include ‘malghe’ and ‘tabià’ (buildings used as stables and barn). 4. The assessment of rural built-up landscapes: an indicator-based method Drawing on the literature review reported in Section 2 and the scrutiny of landscape practices described in Section 3, we note that many authors propose a twofold approach to defining rural landscapes, with territorial and wide-frame analyses being integrated with specific descriptions of local rural buildings and settlements. We observe that current practices for defining and planning rural landscapes organize the relevant information in schematic fact sheets. These include a variety of textual, photographic, and cartographic elements. Finally we highlight that both scientific essays and planning practices tackle the complexity of defining rural landscape by using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative indicators. Thus, in this section we present a method that may be useful for characterizing rural built-up landscapes. This is based on the use of Landscape Fact Sheets (LFSs), whose layout is designed to describe and evaluate qualitative and quantitative indicators, and to encapsulate cartographic, and photographic documentation. A typical LFS is divided in two sections describing: i) the geographical and general features (Table 8); and detailed descriptions of the features of the buildings (Table 9). Tables 8 and 9 describe the LFS sections. They explain the theme illustrated, the indicator chosen, the types of values adopted, and the source of the data. As Table 8 shows, LFS section 1 refers to the themes which characterize landscapes in a territorial perspective and at territorial scale. In the “1. Overview”, we provide the geographical position and the RLP unit where the landscape analysed is located. In “2.

Landscape and infrastructure system”, we describe the environment and landscape and the road and rail systems. In “3. Settlement pattern” we describe the housing types, their density and their relationship with urban and rural areas. In “4. Spatial structure”, we describe the general patterns which emerge from these subdivisions of the agricultural systems. We have classified landscape characteristics, also taking into account the method proposed in the European project “Eucaland” concerning the classification of European agricultural landscapes (Pungetti and Kruse, 2010). The Council of the European Union (The Council of the European Union, 2001) stresses the importance of architectural quality, which is considered as a relevant part of both urban and rural environments (The Council of the European Communities, 1985). It encourages the EU Member states to “intensify their efforts to improve the knowledge and promotion of architecture and urban design, and to make contracting authorities and the general public more aware of and better trained in appreciation of architectural, urban and landscape culture” (The Council of the European Union, 2001). The Italian Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport define the architectural quality as the outcome of a consistent development design, which (1) acknowledges the functional and aesthetic requirements that are the basis for building design and construction, and (2) ensures its smooth integration into the landscape and the surrounding environment (Italian Republic, 2003). In this paper, we name ‘inconsistent elements’ any artefacts not complying with both the conditions (1) and (2) reported above. In detail, for inconsistent elements we mean legally authorized buildings, and actions, whose value is zero or negative, as they are in disharmony with the surrounded context, and may cause loss of local identity with depreciation both of (1) the area in which they are realized and (2) the surrounding areas (Sardinia, 2006). According to Villari (2013),

124

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Table 8 Landscape Fact Sheet, Section 1: geographical and general features. N

Themes

Indicator

Value

Data source

1

Overview

Geographic position, RLP unit

2

Landscape and infrastructure system

Environmental and landscape elements, Road and railway system

Gauss-Boaga coordinates, number and name of the RLP unit Spatial data

3

Settlement pattern

Housing type Housing density Urban-rural relation

Global Positioning System, Official regional ortho-photos, RLP RLP, regional land use map, official cartography of the Military Geographic Institute (MGI) Regional Technical Map (RTM)

4

Spatial structure

Field type and texture

Isolated, towers, linear (“cuile”, “stazzo”, etc.), courtyards, terraces. Housing volume per unit of surface area. Compact, consolidated, urban, peri-urban, diffused, scattered, isolated Open and closed fields, regular and irregular texture, further details

Official regional ortho-photos, regional land use map, Eucaland Project on European Agricultural Landscape Classification (Pungetti and Kruse, 2010), Historical rural landscapes (Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry policies)

Table 9 Landscape Fact Sheet, Section 2: detailed features of buildings. N

Themes

Indicator

Value

Data source

1

General view

Image

2

Local built-up landscape

Google Earth satellite images, field survey Field survey

33.1 3.2

Generalities Toponym Age

Photographic view of the settlement Photographic view of the rural building Name of the site Time of construction

3.3 3.4 4

Size Conservation status Building type

Qualitative-quantitative text description Quantitative text description Good, mediocre, bad, ruin Qualitative text description

5

Use

6

Inconsistent elements

7

Landscape-building relations

8 9

Layout and elevation Building techniques and materials Guidelines

10

Volume and surface area Current conservation status Characteristics of the building type Current utilization pattern Building techniques and materials not consistent with the original architectural morphology Buildings’ coherence with the surrounding landscape Layout and elevation Building techniques and materials adopted Suggestions about renovation and use/reuse

a consistency assessment is key to deciding which inconsistent elements should be removed or preserved, even though consistency judgment cannot be based only on aesthetic issues. García and Ayuga (2007) point out that the selection and correct combination of old and new materials are difficult activities and involve both aesthetic and technical competencies. Council of Europe (2003) confirms this broader approach by recommending a correct study, selection, and adoption of traditional techniques and materials to protect and rehabilitate the built heritage, including historic rural buildings (see also Italian Republic, 2004). The ELC promotes the design of new landscapes. However, the RLP of Sardinia does not fully promote the design of new landscapes yet. On the other hand, the RLP of Sardinia is compliant with the ELC, as it encourages “actions to conserve and maintain the significant or characteristic features of a landscape, justified

Image Qualitative text description

Official cartography, field survey Field survey Field survey Field survey Field survey

In use, occasional use, abandoned Quali-quantitative text description

Field survey

Quali-quantitative text description Technical drawings Quali-quantitative text description Quali-quantitative text description

Field survey

Field survey

Field survey Field survey

by its heritage value derived from its natural configuration and/or from human activity” (ELC, 2000). In this paper, we selected the criteria to steer decision-making toward solutions based on a wise balance between landscape protection and innovation. We provide politicians and planners with a rational framework defined by legal boundaries and rooted in scientific literature and practice. In Table 9, we summarize the themes in LFS section 2 on the specific description of rural buildings in a landscape context. As in “1. General view” and “2. Local built-up landscape”, we include photographic views of the general landscape and of the rural buildings themselves. In “3. Generalities”, we report how the site is commonly described and perceived, in order to understand the linguistic and cultural aspects of the geographical location, the time of construction, the volume and surface area, and the conservation status of the rural building. Elements 4–9 refer to key

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

aspects of buildings: building type, current use, inconsistent elements, relationship between the landscape and the building, layout and elevation, and building techniques and materials. Defining the building type and its current use is the first step in the classification process. Highlighting inconsistent elements, as defined above, appears as a useful way for planning consistent specific actions in rural building renewal. As regard the relationship between buildings and surrounding landscape, some critical factors are brought by: power transmission lines’ infrastructures, one of the main drivers of rural landscape degradation (Navrud et al., 2008; Marazzi and Tempesta, 2005), and factories and paved roads (Tempesta and Vecchiato, 2013). Color and texture of external building materials are important elements, as García et al. (2003, 2006) stress in their methodological approaches to landscape integration. Layout and elevation are closely related with building type, as reported by specific taxonomic studies on historic rural buildings of Sardinia (Baldacci, 1951; Caniggia and Maffei, 1987; Le Lannou, 1941; Sanna and Cuboni, 2008). According to similar studies (Ortu and Sanna, 2009), the classification of building techniques and materials provides designers with a catalogue of correct solutions based on the adoption also of not-original yet coherent materials. Some analyses describe the current characteristics of rural buildings; others make a critical analysis of the units and open up design issues. Hence, theme “10. Guidelines” refers to suggestions and recommendations for the reuse and design of rural buildings, considering that “[i]nappropriate re-conversions can result in the waste of valuable economic resources and the loss of local heritage” (Russo et al., 2013). As regard the intervention on historical buildings, Ornelas et al. (2016) stress that patrimonial, technical, and social aspects are important for achieving complete guidelines for best practice.

5. Results: the assessment of rural built-up landscapes in Sardinia, Italy In this section, we use the method described in section 4 to define three rural built-up landscapes in Sardinia, Italy. Sardinia is the second largest island in the Mediterranean Sea. It has been the site of human habitation since prehistoric times, and contains landscapes that have evolved over time. Some of these transformations have been described in the literature (Dettori, 2013; Pungetti, 1996; Mantegazza, 1869). According to Dettori (2013) and Mantegazza (1869), the most dominant characteristic of the Sardinian rural landscape is its vastness. Dettori (2013) observed that in Sardinia forests cover more than a half of the entire surface area of the island, while agricultural areas use 42%, with 51% of the latter being used for pasture. Landscape planning in Sardinia was rarely used until the early 1990’s, when the regional administration approved fourteen regional landscape plans. These were designed to give added value to environment and landscape elements and used an integrated ecological and environmental approach to the protection of the natural resources (De Montis and Caschili, 2012). In 2006 the regional administration approved a Code-based RLP which is still used in some areas of the island. This established the first homogeneous area, and included twenty-seven landscape units located along the coastline. Now the regional administration is willing to complete the design of the RLP by extending it to the interior of the island. The regional administration has also decided to focus on identifying landscapes with distinguishing rural characteristics. In 2013 the regional administration approved an Atlas of rural landscapes. This was specifically dedicated to defining agricultural and forestry matrices of Sardinian landscapes. This Atlas was included in the 2013 update of the RLP, which was withdrawn a short time later, mainly for political reasons.

125

Table 10 Unit and localization of the rural built-up landscapes. Number and denomination of the Landscape Unit

Localization

14. Gulf of Asinara

Issi Ezi Mannu Nodigheddu Rugginosu Monti di Scobba Fioreddu Banari Siligo Siligo 2 Thiesi Austis Arzana Ortueri Teti Teti 2

47. Meilogu

39. Mandrolisai-Gennargentu

In this institutional and planning context, we apply our method to the analysis and characterization of three landscape units in northern and central Sardinia (Fig. 2): ‘Gulf of Asinara’, ‘Meilogu’, and ‘Mandrolisai-Gennargentu’. The first unit belongs to the first homogeneous area of the RLP. The remaining two units are in the interior of the island and as yet are not subject to any landscape planning restrictions. The black dots in Fig. 2 show the locations of the fifteen rural built-up landscapes selected in our paper (Table 10). The application of the method led to the construction of fifteen LFSs. An example of an LFS is reported in Figs. 3 and 4. In the remainder of this section we present a synthesis of the characterization of the rural built-up landscapes in the three landscape units. In the “Gulf of Asinara” unit, rural built-up landscapes are often characterized by scattered settlements and isolated buildings. We have selected and studied alluvial plains, natural pastures, non-irrigated lands, and Mediterranean maquis. In the areas surrounding the municipality of Sassari, the second largest city in Sardinia, and the neighbouring small towns of Sorso, Sennori and Usini, the agricultural landscapes consist of plains and meadows characterized by olive and citrus groves, and vineyards. Further away from the urban areas there is a mixture of pastureland and maquis, with the flatter areas used for arable farming, usually field crops. Rural buildings are usually located in strategic and often elevated sites, which dominate the surrounding landscapes. Sometimes small aggregations of buildings have developed after the construction of the original nuclei. The most frequent building type is called ‘cuile’ in the local dialect, and has a very simple layout and low elevation. Cuiles are single story buildings with additional rooms being added on to the original ones over time. Thus, they have a mostly linear layout and belong to the linear building type. The structure consists of a weight bearing wall usually made of local stone (shale) and finished with a layer of plaster. The roof is supported by wooden A-frames and is constructed on a cane framework covered with mortar and terracotta tiles. The “Meilogu” unit is an area of meadows, hills and surface rocks. Most of the land is covered by pasture. Nowadays there are only a few fruit bearing trees. These are the remnants of the original woodland, which was destroyed by fires and human activities. The prevalent economic activity is livestock farming with the fields used for growing fodder. There are few olive trees and their crop is mainly consumed by the owners of the farms and their families. The field boundaries consist of traditional dry stone walls. Rural buildings are used for agriculture purposes and animal husbandry and are often located in small settlements near major roads. Single buildings are quite rare in this rural landscape. The Mandrolisai-Gennargentu unit contains

126

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Fig. 2. Cartographic and photographic representation of the landscape units: Gulf of Asinara (A), Meilogu (B), and Mandrolisai-Gennargentu (C). The black dots represent the location of the rural built-up landscapes selected.

trees (holly, cork oak, and white oak) which are used for commercial purposes, including the Mediterranean Cork Oak, whose bark is used for cork. Some of the steepest areas have been reforested with pine trees, while other areas are used for pasture. In both Meilogu and Mandrolisai-Gennargentu, the common building type is the result of the slow aggregation of structures. In Meilogu, there were buildings with many rooms, on one, two or three floors. In Mandrolisai-Gennargentu individual single rural buildings are very rarely found in the countryside. Most buildings were in urban areas. Rural buildings usually have two or three floors and two entrances on different floors. The orography explains the difference between rural buildings on flat coastal plains and interior mountainous areas. Cuiles are mostly located on plains, while high buildings are found in hilly areas. In the latter, the walls are generally made with unplastered regular stone blocks and the interior walls are typically blue or light blue. The materials used for rural buildings are often the typical rocks of the area, and buildings on the slopes of hillsides are higher than those on the plains. Colors are also often useful indicators, such as, for example, the red paint used for the external walls of the cuiles in the “Gulf of Asinara” or the blue paint used for the interiors of the high buildings in “Mandrolisai-Gennargentu”. As for the recovery and reuse, in some cases the cuiles of the Gulf of Asinara have been redeveloped as agro-tourism buildings immersed

in high quality landscapes. In other cases they are no longer used as habitations but serve the needs of agricultural activities and livestock farming. In cases where they are used sporadically or abandoned, progressive decay usually leads to partial or complete collapse of the structures, and appropriate conservation, restoration and reconstruction actions are necessary. In the case of the buildings located inside the towns, some have retained their original form, and have been accurately redesigned and reconverted to other uses, such as serving the needs of religious pilgrimages and wine-tourism. In the small towns of Mandrolisai, we found morphologically coherent buildings with severely degraded weight bearing walls. Ancient buildings in very bad condition have often been completely demolished and reconstructed. In cases of partial reconstruction, we documented the alternative and non-coherent solutions that were adopted: aluminum doors and windows, nonlocal construction materials, and garish colors. In these cases we generally recommend a careful analysis of the historical context and using this as a basis for designing buildings that maintain the original layout, surface, volume, materials and techniques. Outside of the urban areas we recommend maintaining the stone walls and hedges which form the field boundaries and refurbishing the access roads and the overall decor. Where possible local stone should be used for rebuilding the walls. Elastic and resistant mortar should

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Fig. 3. Landscape Fact Sheet, Section 1, concerning cuile ‘Issi’ in the ‘Gulf of Asinara’.

127

128

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

Fig. 4. Landscape Fact Sheet, Section 2, concerning cuile ‘Issi’ in the ‘Gulf of Asinara’.

be used for plastering and the colors used for the buildings should blend into the local landscapes. 6. Discussions and concluding remarks In this section we discuss the results, with a focus on the concept of rural buildings being pivotal elements in the characterization of Sardinian landscapes, and present the concluding remarks of this paper, with reference to the responses we obtained

to the RQs proposed in section 1. In this paper we have scrutinized the literature, in order to draw up fundamental definitions of rural built-up landscapes and then compare them. We have also checked whether theoretic approaches have been incorporated into the most recent landscape planning tools approved in Italy. We found that operative analyses of the built-up areas of rural landscapes involve using a twofold description of contextual and local aspects of the building units, and the adoption of landscape fact sheets including photographs, descriptions, and numerical data. As

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

a result, we designed a similar framework for the study of rural built-up landscapes in Sardinia. Our LFS-based approach to landscape assessment enabled us to associate a specific rural built-up landscape with given rural building types and housing systems. Sardinian rural built-up landscapes have different features, depending on the specific geographical contexts. These distinguishing features include the orography, geology, history and culture of the places. The LFSs provide us with key information and guidelines for designing appropriate strategies for giving added value to rural buildings, and their recovery and reuse. As for the responses to our RQs , key for understanding the rationale of this paper, RQ1 looked at how rural built-up landscapes are studied in the scientific literature. We realized that many authors are inclined to differentiate between general landscapes and specific rural landscapes. We classified a set of essays into five macro-groups. One of these was mainly concerned with the dimensions of rural buildings and settlements. With the exception of this macro-group, the essays generally used a twofold approach for defining rural landscapes. Firstly they used wide criteria for interpreting the results of analyses of the territories, and then they went into the details of the structural and architectural features of rural buildings and settlements. Since our study also covered practical operative aspects of the situation, we were interested in clarifying whether these methodological advances were actually adopted in on-going landscape planning practices in Italy. Hence in RQ2 , which was designed to study how rural landscapes are tackled in Italian landscape planning tools, we scrutinized nine regional landscape plans approved in the 2000s and 2010s, based on the ELC and the Code. We carried out a comparative analysis of the plans, looking at how well they dealt with the eight issues which have characterized the latest generation of landscape plans in Europe and Italy. Some of the major findings are that many landscape plans specify what rural landscape are through organizing the different information in synthetic LFSs, with quali-quantitative indicators being used to describe rural built-up landscapes. The replies to RQ1 and RQ2 allowed us to give a positive answer to RQ3 , which was on whether it was possible to construct a method which was able to assist analysts and planners in defining rural built-up landscapes. Thus we designed a method based on the use of LFSs, including a section on the general territorial aspects of the relationship between buildings and the landscape and a second on the specific architectural and structural characteristics of rural buildings and settlements. LFSs convey a wealth of information on rural built-up landscapes, including a set of carefully designed quali-quantitative indicators, as we start from the assumption that correct planning proposals, even in complex contexts, should originate from an assessment of key characteristics and phenomena with transparent measurement systems. For RQ4 , on the application of the method to real case studies, we used the method to investigate the dimensions of buildings in three landscape units in Sardinia, one of the first Italian regions to approve a landscape plan in compliance with the ELC (via the Code). We compiled fifteen LFSs with relevant information. This allowed us to interpret the major characteristics of the dimensions of the buildings in the three landscape units. In particular, the method proved useful in stressing the cross-fertilization between building types and the shape of the rural landscapes: single story buildings on plains (Gulf of Asinara) and multi-story buildings in mountainous areas (Mandrolisai-Gennargentu). While we have presented a system that was used to analyse and define the rural built-up landscapes in a specific region of Italy, we stress that the method has been constructed in such a way that it can be adopted to study rural built-up landscapes in other Italian, European, and world regions. Of course, the emphasis is on the principles of the ELC, in general, and the Code in particular. The use of LFSs, often included in landscape atlases, and of qualiquantitative indicators which are able to evaluate landscape quality

129

and values, makes our method most suitable for application to Italian and European landscapes. However we believe that the method has universal validity and can be used, with the proper integrations, for any case worldwide. It presents a framework which combines and compares general principles with operative tools used in local landscape planning practices, in order to define, interpret, and plan rural built-up landscapes. Acknowledgement The authors are supported by the funds of the research contract “Rural landscapes of Sardinia” between the Dipartimento di Agraria and the Autonomous Region of Sardinia. Appendix A. European, national, and regional laws 1. Apulia 2009. Legge regionale 7 ottobre 2009, n. 20 “Norme per la pianificazione paesaggistica”. http://www. regione.puglia.it/index.php?page=burp&opz=getfile&file=s1-1. htm&anno=xl&num=162 [Last accessed: February 2016]. 2. Calabria 2002. Legge urbanistica regionale 16 aprile 2002, n. 19 “Norme per la tutela, governo ed uso del territorio –legge urbanistica della Calabria”, testo coordinato con successive modifiche e integrazioni. http://www.urbanistica.regione.calabria.it/allegati/ norme/Normativa reg/2002-04-16%20n.%2019.pdf [Last accessed: February 2016]. 3. Italian Republic 2003. Draft law (in Italian, ‘Disegno di legge’) ‘Legge quadro sulla qualità architettonica’, n. 2867. 4. Italian Republic 1939. Legge n. 1497 del 29 giugno 1939. Protezione delle bellezze naturali. pubblicata sulla Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 241 del 30 giugno 1939. 5. Italian Republic 2004. Decreto legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42 recante il “Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio” ai sensi dell’articolo 10 della legge 6 luglio 2002, n. 137. ”. Pubblicato nella Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 45 del 24 febbraio 2004. 6. Italian Republic 2006. Legge 9 gennaio 2006, n. 14 “Ratifica ed esecuzione della Convenzione europea sul paesaggio, fatta a Firenze il 20 ottobre 2000”. ”. Pubblicato nella Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 16 del 20 gennaio 2006 - Supplemento Ordinario n.16. 7. Lazio 1998. Legge regionale 6 6uglio 1998, n. 24 “Pianificazione paesistica e tutela dei beni e delle aree sottoposti a vincolo paesistico” http://www.architettiroma.it/quaderni/paesaggistica/ leggereg24-98.pdf [Last accessed: February 2016]. 8. Lombardy 2005. Legge regionale 11 marzo 2005, n. 12 “Legge per il governo del territorio”. http://smtp.consiglio.regione. lombardia.it/NormeLombardia/Accessibile/main.aspx?exp coll=lr002005031100012&view=showdoc&iddoc=lr002005031100012 &selnode=lr002005031100012#n1 [Last accessed: February 2016]. Piedmont 2008. Legge regionale 16 giugno 9. 2008, n. 14 “Norme per la valorizzazione del paesaggio”. http://arianna.consiglioregionale.piemonte.it/ariaint/ TESTO?LAYOUT=PRESENTAZIONE&TIPODOC=LEGGI&LEGGE=14 &LEGGEANNO=2008 [Last accessed: February 2016]. 10. Sardinia 2004. Legge regionale 25 novembre 2004, n. 8 “Norme urgenti di provvisoria salvaguardia per la pianificazione paesaggistica e la tutela del territorio regionale”. Testo storico e coordinato con le modifiche della legge regionale 23 aprile 2015, n. 8. http://www.sardegnaterritorio.it/documenti/6 532 20150612075919.pdf [Last accessed: February 2016]. 11. The Council of the European Communities, 1985. Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services. Official Journal L 223, 21/08/1985 P. 0015–0025.

130

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131

12. The Council of the European Union, 2001. Council resolution of 12 February 2001 on architectural quality in urban and rural environments. Official Journal C 073, 06/03/2001 P. 0006–0007. 13. Tuscany 2014. Legge regionale 10 novembre 2014, n. 65 “Norme per il governo del territorio” http://raccoltanormativa. consiglio.regione.toscana.it/articolo?urndoc=urn:nir:regione. toscana:legge:2014-11-10;65 [Last accessed: February 2016]. 14. Umbria 2015. Legge regionale 21 gennaio 2015, n. 1 “Testo unico Governo del territorio e materie correlate”. http://leggi. crumbria.it/mostra atto.php?id=77102&v=FI,TE,IS,VE,SA&m=5 [Last accessed: February 2016]. 15. Veneto 2004. Legge regionale 23 aprile 2004, n. 11 “Norme per il governo del territorio” modificata dalla legge regionale 26 maggio 2011, n. 10 “Modifiche alla legge regionale 23 aprile 2004, n. 11 ‘Norme per il governo del territorio’ in materia di paesaggio”. http://www.consiglioveneto.it/crvportal/leggi/ 2004/04lr0011 ToC.html [Last accessed: February 2016].

Appendix B. Regional landscape plans 1. Apulia 2013. Piano Paesaggistico Territoriale Regionale Available from: http://paesaggio.regione.puglia.it/ (PPTR). index.php/area-download/16-downloads/218-elaborati-pptrapprovato.html [Last accessed: February 2015]. 2. Calabria 2013. Quadro Territoriale Regionale (QTRP). Available from: http://www. Paesaggistico urbanistica.regione.calabria.it/index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=630&Itemid=177 [Last accessed: February 2015]. 3. Lazio 2007. Piano Territoriale Paesistico Regionale (PTPR). Available from: http://www.regione.lazio.it/rl urbanistica/ ?vw=contenutiElenco&id=8 [Last accessed: February 2015]. 4. Lombardy 2010. Piano Paesaggistico Regionale (PPR). Available from: http://www.territorio.regione. lombardia.it/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=DG Territorio%2FDGLayout&cid=1213299878360&p=1213299878360 &pagename=DG TERRWrapper Accessed: February 2013. Piano Territoriale Regionale 2015.Lombardy, (PTR). Available from: http://www.territorio.regione. lombardia.it/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=DG Territorio%2FDGLayout&cid=1213299878360&p=1213299878360 &pagename=DG TERRWrapper [Last accessed: February 2015]. 5. Sardinia 2006. Piano Paesaggistico Regionale (PPR). Available from: http://www.sardegnaterritorio.it/paesaggio/ pianopaesaggistico2006.html [Last accessed: February 2015]. 6. Piedmont 2009. Piano Paesaggistico Regionale (PPR). Available from: http://www.regione.piemonte.it/territorio/pianifica/ ppr.htm [Last accessed: February 2015]. 7. Tuscany 2014. Piano di indirizzo territoriale (PIT). Available from: http://www.regione.toscana.it/-/piano-di-indirizzoterritoriale-con-valenza-di-piano-paesaggistico [Last accessed: February 2015]. 8. Umbria 2012. Piano Paesaggistico Regionale (PPR). Available from: http://www.umbriageo.regione.umbria.it/pagine/pianopaesaggistico-regionale [Last accessed: February 2015]. 9. Veneto 1992. Piano Territoriale Regionale di Coordinamento (PTRC). Available from: http://www.ptrc.it/ita/pianificazioneterritoriale-veneto-ptrc-vigente.php?pag=ptrc [Last accessed: February 2015]. 10. Veneto 2007. Nuovo Piano Territoriale Regionale di Coordinamento (NPTRC). Available from: http://www.ptrc.it/ita/ pianificazione-territoriale-veneto-ptrc-nuovo.php?pag=ptrc [Last accessed: February 2015].

References Øian, H., 2013. Wilderness tourism and the moralities of commitments: hunting and angling as modes of engaging with the natures and animals of rural landscapes in Norway. J. Rural Stud. 32, 177–185. Agnoletti, M., 2013. Italian historical rural landscapes: dynamics, data analysis and research findings. In: Agnoletti, M. (Ed.), Italian Historical Rural Landscapes – Cultural Values for the Environment and Rural Development. Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, pp. 3–87. Agnoletti, M., 2014. Rural landscape, nature conservation and culture: some notes on research trends and management approaches from a (southern) European perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 126, 66–73. Antrop, A., 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 67 (1–4), 9–26. Appleton, K., Lovett, A., 2003. GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: defining ‘sufficient’ realism for environmental decision-making. Landsc. Urban Plan. 65, 117–131. Baldacci, O., 1951. La casa rurale in Sardegna [Rural housing in Sardinia]. Hoepli, Firenze (In Italian). Caniggia, G., Maffei, G.L., 1987. Composizione architettonica e tipologia edilizia [Architectonic composition and housing typology], vol. 1. Marsilio, Venezia (In Italian). ˜ Canas, I., Ayuga, E., Ayuga, F., 2009. A contribution to the assessment of scenic quality of landscapes based on preferences expressed by the public. Land Use Policy 26 (4), 1173–1181. Claval, P., 2005. Reading the rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 9–19. Council of Europe, 2003. European Rural Heritage Observation Guide endorsed by the ministers responsible for regional planning during the 13th session of the European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT) in Ljubljana, on 17 September 2003. De Montis, A., Caschili, S., 2012. Nuraghes and landscape planning: coupling viewshed with complex network analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 105, 315–324. De Montis, A., 2014. Impacts of the European Landscape Convention on national planning systems: a comparative investigation of six case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 124, 53–65. De Montis, A., 2016. Measuring the performance of planning: the conformance of Italian landscape planning practices with the European Landscape Convention. Eur. Plan. Stud., 1–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1178215. Dehkordi, F.A., 2012. Landscape degradation modelling: an environmental impact assessment for rural landscape prioritisation. Landsc. Res. 37 (5), 613–634. Dettori, S., 2013. Sardinia. In: Agnoletti, M. (Ed.), Italian Historical Rural Landscapes – Cultural Values for the Environment and Rural Development. Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, pp. 531–545. Donadieu, P., 2014. Scienze del paesaggio. Tra teorie e pratiche [original title: Sciences du paysage. Entre théories et pratiques]. Edizioni ETS, Pisa. ISBN: 9788846737106. ELC, 2000. European Landscape Convention. Florence, 20/10/2000 – Treaty open for signature by the member States of the Council of Europe and for accession by the European Union and the European non-member States. CETS No.176. Farina, A., 2006. Il paesaggio cognitivo. Una nuova entità ecologica. Franco Angeli, Milano (In Italian). García, A.I., Ayuga, F., 2007. Reuse of abandoned buildings and the rural landscape: the situation in Spain. T. ASABE 50 (4), 1383–1394. García, L., Hernández, J., Ayuga, F., 2003. Analysis of the exterior colour of agroindustrial buildings: a computer aided approach to landscape integration. J. Environ. Manag. 69 (1), 93–104. García, L., Hernández, J., Ayuga, F., 2006. Analysis of the materials and exterior texture of agro-industrial buildings: a photo-analytical approach to landscape integration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 74 (2), 110–124. Garcia-Llorente, M., Martin-Lopez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Lopez-Santiago, C., Aguilera, P.A., Montes, C., 2012. The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 19–20, 136–146. 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. Ecol. Indic. 24, 273–283. Gullino, P., Larcher, F., 2012. Integrity in UNESCO World Heritage Sites: a comparative study for rural landascapes. J. Cult. Herit. 14, 389–395. Hiner, C.C., 2014. Been-heres vs. come-heres and other identities and ideologies along the rural–urban interface: a comparative case study in Calaveras County, California. Land Use Policy 41, 70–83. Jeong, J.S., Garcia-Moruno, L., Hernandez-Blanco, J., 2012. Integrating buildings into a rural landscape using a multi-criteria spatial decision analysis in GIS-enabled web environment. Biosyst. Eng. 112, 82–92. Laterra, P., Orúe, M.E., Booman, G.C., 2012. Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 154, 56–67. Le Lannou, M., 1941. Pâtres et paysans de la Sardaigne [Shepherds and peasants of Sardinia]. Arrault, Tours. In French. Ma, S., Swinton, S.M., 2011. Valuation of ecosystem services from rural landscapes using agricultural land prices. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1649–1659. Mander, Ü., Jongman, R.H.G., 1998. Human impact on rural landscapes in central and northern Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 41, 149–153. Mantegazza, P. 1869. Profili e paesaggi della Sardegna. Brugola, Milano. Marazzi, M., Tempesta, T., 2005. Disponibilità a pagare e disponibilità ad accettare per la riduzione dell’impatto paesaggistico delle linee elettriche dell’alta tensione. AESTIMUM 46, 65–95.

A. De Montis et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 113–131 Natori, Y., Fukui, W., Hikasa, M., 2005. Empowering nature conservation in Japanese rural areas: a planning strategy integrating visual and biological landscape perspectives. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 315–324. Navrud, S., Ready, R.C., Magnussen, K., Bergland, O., 2008. Valuing the social benefits of avoiding landscape degradation from overhead power transmission lines: do underground cables pass the benefit-cost test? Landsc. Res. 33 (3), 281–296. Ornelas, C., Guedes, J.M., Breda-Vázquez, I., 2016. Cultural built heritage and intervention criteria: a systematic analysis of building codes and legislation of Southern European countries. J. Cult. Herit. 20, 725–732. Ortu, G.G., Sanna, A. (Eds.), 2009. I manuali del recupero dei centri storici della Sardegna: Atlante delle culture costruttive della Sardegna [Handbooks for the recovery of the ancient centres of Sardinia: Atlas of the building cultures of Sardinia]. Dei −Tipografia del Genio Civile, Roma. In Italian. Pôc¸as, I., Cunha, M., Marcal, A.R.S., Pereira, L.S., 2011. An evaluation of changes in a mountainous rural landscape of Northeast Portugal using remotely sensed data. Landsc. Urban Plan. 101, 253–261. Paquette, S., Domon, G., 2001. Trends in rural landscape development and sociodemographic recomposition in southern Quebec (Canada). Landsc. Urban Plan. 55, 215–238. Paracchini, M.L., Capitani, C. 2011. Implementation of a EU wide indicator for the rural-agrarian landscape. Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Available from http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/EUR 25114.pdf Accessed: March 14, 2015. Pedroli, G.B.M., Van Elsen, Th., Van Mansvelt, J.D. 2007. Values of rural landscapes in Europe: inspiration or by-product? NJAS − Wageningen J. Life Sci. 54, 431–447. Petit, S., 2008. The dimensions of land use change in rural landscapes: lessons learnt from the GB Countryside Surveys. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 2851–2856. Piorr, A., Müller, K., 2009. Introduction. In: Piorr, A., Müller, K. (Eds.), Rural Landscapes and Agricultural Policies in Europe. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. xix–xxiii. Poudevigne, I., van Rooij, S., Morin, P., Alard, D., 1997. Dynamics of rural landscapes and their main driving factors A case study in the Seine Valley, Normandy, France. Landsc. Urban Plan. 38, 93–103. Primdahl, J., Kristensen, L.S., Swaffield, S., 2013. Guiding rural landscape change. Current policy approaches and potentials of landscape strategy making as a policy integrating approach. Appl. Geogr. 42, 86–94. Pungetti, G., Kruse, A., 2010. European Culture Expressed in Agricultural Landscapes. Perspectives from the Eucaland Project. Roma, Palombi. Pungetti, G. 1996. Paesaggio in Sardegna. Storia carattere politiche-Landscape in Sardinia. History Features Policies. CUEC Editrice, Cagliari. Qingjuan, Y., Bei, L., Kui, L., 2011. The rural landscape research in Chengdu’s urban-rural intergration development. Procedia Eng. 21, 780–788. Ramírez, Á., Ayuga-Téllez, E., Gallego, E., Fuentes, J.M., García, A.I., 2011. A simplified model to assess landscape quality from rural roads in Spain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 142, 205–212.

131

Riguccio, L., Tomaselli, G., Russo, P., Falanga, C., 2015. Identification of Typical Agricultural Districts for the development of rural areas applied to Eastern Sicily. Land Use Policy 44, 122–130. Rogge, E., Nevens, F., Gulinck, H., 2007. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 82 (4), 159–174. Romani, V., 2008. Il paesaggio. Percorsi di studio. Franco Angeli, Milano (In Italian). Ruiz, J., Domon, G., 2012. Relationships between rural inhabitants and their landscapes in areas of intensive agricultural use: a case study in Quebec (Canada). J. Rural Stud. 28, 590–602. Russo, P., Riguccio, L., Carullo, L., Tomaselli, G., 2013. Using the analytic hierarchical process to define choices for re-using rural buildings: application to an abandoned village in sicily. Nat. Resour. 4 (4), 323–332. Sanna, A., Cuboni, F. (Eds.), 2008. I manuali del recupero dei centri storici della Sardegna: architettura in pietra delle Barbagie, dell’Ogliastra, del Nuorese e delle Baronie [Handbooks for the recovery of the ancient centres of Sardinia: stonish architectures of Barbagie, Ogliastra, Nuorese and Baronie]. Dei –Tipografia del Genio Civile, Roma. In Italian. Sevenant, M., Antrop, M., 2007. Settlement models, land use and visibility in rural landscapes: two case studies in Greece. Landsc. Urban Plan. 80, 362–374. Sevenant, M., Antrop, M., 2010. Transdisciplinary landscape planning: does the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium). Land Use Policy 27 (2), 373–386. Sklenicka, P., Símová, P., Hrdinová, K., Salek, M., 2014. Changing rural landscapes along the border of Austria and the Czech Republic between 1952 and 2009 Roles of political, socio-economic and environmental factors. Appl. Geogr. 47, 89–98. Skowronek, E., Krukowska, R., Swieca, A., Tucki, A., 2005. The evolution of rural landscapes in mid-eastern Poland as exemplified by selected villages. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 45–56. Tassinari, P., Carfagna, E., Torreggiani, D., Benni, S., Zagaraiou, M., 2010. The study of changes in the rural built-up environment: focus on calibration and improvement of an areal sampling approach. Biosyst. Eng. 105, 486–494. Tempesta T., Vecchiato D., 2013. Qualità del paesaggio e diffusione di insediamenti produttivi e residenziali nel territorio. Uno studio nel Parco naturale del Delta del Po. In: Autonomous Region of Sardinia. Osservatorio della Pianificazione Urbanistica e della Qualità del Paesaggio. Qualità del paesaggio e opere incongrue. Strumenti n.2. Editrice Taphros, Olbia, p. 64–67. ISBN 9788874321391. Villari A., 2013. Definire l’incongruo nel paesaggio. In: Autonomous Region of Sardinia. Osservatorio della Pianificazione Urbanistica e della Qualità del Paesaggio. Qualità del paesaggio e opere incongrue. Strumenti n.2. Editrice Taphros, Olbia, p. 43–49. ISBN 9788874321391. Wheeler, R., 2014. Mining memories in a rural community: landscape, temporality and place identity. J. Rural Stud. 36, 22–32. van der Vaart, J.H.P., 2005. Towards a new rural landscape: consequences of non-agricultural re-use of redundant farm buildings in Friesland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 143–152.