Strategic environmental assessment integrating landscape and urban planning

120 26 0
  • Loading ...
1/120 trang
Tải xuống

Thông tin tài liệu

Ngày đăng: 14/05/2018, 15:48

UNIPA Springer Series Fabio Cutaia Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrating Landscape and Urban Planning UNIPA Springer Series Editor-in-chief Carlo Amenta, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy Series editors Sebastiano Bavetta, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy Calogero Caruso, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy Gioacchino Lavanco, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy Bruno Maresca, Università di Salerno, Fisciano, Italy Andreas Öchsner, Griffith School of Engineering, Southport Queensland, Australia Mariacristina Piva, Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy Roberto Pozzi Mucelli, Policlinico G.B.Rossi, Verona, Italy Antonio Restivo, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy Norbert M Seel, University of Freiburg, Germany, Germany Gaspare Viviani, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy More information about this series at Fabio Cutaia Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrating Landscape and Urban Planning 123 Fabio Cutaia University of Palermo Palermo Italy ISSN 2366-7516 UNIPA Springer Series ISBN 978-3-319-42131-5 DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42132-2 ISSN 2366-7524 (electronic) ISBN 978-3-319-42132-2 (eBook) Library of Congress Control Number: 2016943826 © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 This work is subject to copyright All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made Printed on acid-free paper This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland Foreword In his analysis, Cutaia believes that Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) could be correctly addressed, realised and implemented only through participative processes integrated within town planning The recourse to participation bereft of rhetoric is necessary because its “value”, ever present at the centre of the evaluation, is an expression of judgement belonging to those directly involved in the process of transformation—in this case, the landscape The same notion is valid for the town plan, but the two kinds of activities—SEA and plan/project of the landscape—present different yet complementary characteristics with several agents assuming adhesive roles or being the main factor of integration The use of participation in SEA is indispensable, useful and convenient, being: (a) Necessary: in order to define matters and degrees of values regarding agents and their individual perspectives, so as to understand the range of effects in a shared way, also increasing transparency and comprehension of the evaluative methodology implemented by the technical–scientific field; (b) Useful: because due to the involvement of different territorial transformations agents in the evaluation procedure, we can specifically define the acquisition of data, use of tools and individuation of indicator arrays according to the goals, enrichment methods and instrumental resources of the evaluation in itself in respect of the plan or project of landscape; (c) Convenient: because the participative process integrates the objectives of the evaluators (knowledge and transparency for decision-making) with beneficiaries of transformations (partisan advantages of the local system), improving the delimitation of the analytical field and conferring qualification to the landscape in the plan project Planning creates the basic conditions for the transformation of the town, landscape and whole territory, while the evaluation contributes to the planning process, qualifying the project through the construction and comparison of different visions and scenarios The evaluation increases the value of the landscape project, above all through the careful and in-depth exploration of the prevision offered by the plan alternatives v vi Foreword When such exploration of alternatives is conducted within informal and institutional participative paths of landscape transformation, it directly takes place inside an evaluative process including technical and administrative authorisations and political decisions Considering the landscape as dynamic and complex anthropologic data, the evaluation cannot assume a mere empiric basis, but should be supported by roles and analytical methods scientifically founded, noticed and accessible on an international level Regarding the evaluation of specific local transformation phenomena, data must be searched for on each occasion, implicating the construction of knowledge, above all regarding the use of specific resources by local agents Nowadays, the typology of “institutional planning”, with exception to the Italian case, is everywhere recursive/circular and based on the interaction between proposers and beneficiaries, even before the implementation of the plan processes Therefore, SEA is inserted into the planning structure in a gradual and incremental way, without huge innovations or procedural surprises in the regulation of the relationships among the agents of the transformations Cutaia’s research presents two study cases in which the level of participation is different and with them can be found the success of the landscape transformation projects Linearity and circularity of the analytical and strategic visioning approaches are compared and examined, underlining with effectiveness the success and failures in landscape terms through the different manners in which the plans were addressed and implemented The thesis suggests the prevalence of “urban and regional planning” in respect of “strategic planning” and the implementation of “placed-based” policies This is because, outside institutional planning, the design approach to be shared is merely reduced to the analysis or validation of individual projects in the wider frame of the transformations contemplated by the landscape plan In the conclusion, the continued relationship and the reciprocal mutualisation between plan, evaluation and landscape are highlighted Given that landscape requires a multi-scale and multi-objective integrated approach, both the institutional planning and that of the landscape sector are present near the strategic planning in a directly related way within a legal procedure In each typology of strategic plan, eventually we find reference to juridical norms surrounding land use, which makes possible the concrete realisation of strategic visions through systemic or individual projects in several landscapes In urban planning, despite the guarantee of institutional processes, the roles of subjects are attendant or dependant on the decision-makers With political crises across Europe (especially regarding electoral and voting turnouts), urban planning is often perceived as a discipline that creates more problems than it is able to resolve Planning, in its acceptation of “strategic”, uses a circular model as in the case of SEA with the implementation of the general model named DPSIR In order to attain effectiveness at an institutional level, it requires a tight relationship with the traditional town plan, which is instead based on linear models—not recursive We must not consider SEA merely an environmental compatibility procedure because it is a constructive path of politic consensus regarding a common future desirable and reachable Foreword vii Environmental analysis is included in the wider environmental assessment as a constitutive part, ever orientated to the qualification of the relationship with the traditional plan, in order to aim for its effective implementation Therefore, without urban planning, SEA remains a simple study unable to have a direct bearing on the management of landscape transformations Meanwhile, the plan, in order to enjoy real participation without being rhetoric-specious, has to be constructed from the beginning of the environmental assessment process A better hypothesis is to simultaneously implement the planning of interventions linked to environmental risk (such as hydrogeological instability, earthquakes, and eruptions) to both SEA and the urban planning process For these reasons, we ought to assume SEA as a base for the urban and the environmental risk plans In fact, this set of plans for land usage risks and regulations supported by strategic dimensions (explicitly or exclusively according to competitiveness and impossible in the case of the traditional regulative plan) could represent innovative modalities of spatial planning instruments, determinant in order to manage and resolve numerous arising conflicts during the governing of landscape transformations Risk, urban and extra-urban land uses and strategies could be kept together by SEA as a sustainable guarantee both of the rules and of the innovation projects of the state of the natural and anthropogenic ecosystem Cutaia intents to convince the reader that urban planning and SEA are, in fact, inseparable The tight relationship between SEA and plans demonstrates that the value of the environmental dimension must necessary be related to other anthropogenic dimensions (including economic, cultural and social) This is important in order to avoid the possibility of planning choices, assuming a characteristic of technocracy or another bereft of democracy The determinism of the environmental sciences cannot be automatically translated into political choices Shifting focus from the plan to the evaluation, not pertaining to the general environmental assessment but merely to SEA regarding the different kinds of plans (included those of landscape), we have to distinguish some aspects of the evaluation procedure in respect of the planning discipline Evaluation can be interpreted as a kind of analysis able to include both the analytical/provisional plan dimension and that of its implementation in the landscape transformation process Therefore, the evaluation procedure can be considered as a specific analytical field, a frame of construction of the relationship among agents, of the effects that take place on an institutional level and as evaluative process in respect of the plan The evaluation can guarantee the relationship-based conditions and the contribution of the agents involved in the transformations decisively qualifying and validating the evaluation itself From Cutaia’s research, we can relieve the centrality of SEA institutionalisation, seen in different evaluative examples in the specific sectors of the landscape In front of the landscape matter, intended as an object of planning activity, the peculiarity of evaluative judgements cannot merely be assumed in the descriptions of the plan alternatives The reflection of the different values in play, from a strategic point of view, implicates a reconsideration of the logical trajectories that cannot be reduced to functional schematisations produced by deterministic approaches In evaluations, values perceived by viii Foreword individuals involved in the plan often take the field, forcing a decision between the alternatives on offer and the contradictions of the individual partisan positions In this case, we cannot consider out-and-out alternatives, but all plausible actions, respecting the values of the singular agents involved The research of Cutaia highlights the importance and complexity of the reflective and participative paths required by SEA for landscape transformation management, in spite of the continuing recourse regarding topics scientifically identified and argued The disciplinary—rather than scientific—dimension prevails although data and material used in the evaluation (in prevalent measures) and the planning (in variable measures) are determined; this is due to the fact that their instrumental use is limited to specific practices and politics, in which the uncertainty and the incremental natural of the tools implemented are determinant Cutaia started from the landscape in order to confer a constitutive sense to participative planning From a disciplinary planning perspective, he had to align himself with the environmental evaluation, underlining the SEA procedure in reason of its intrinsic correlation to the planning action Participation is the adhesive of multi-agent and multi-objective planning The interests of the research did not focus on the participation procedure itself; through the reading of the study cases, it is a somewhat unavoidable result of a path concentrated on the analysis of planning potentiality surrounding landscape problems Furthermore, the work marks a research perspective on the theoretical bases of landscape indicator construction In respect of environmental indicators, these are differentiated by their connections with the relationship-based capability typical of the agents involved in the evaluation in the plan of the landscape The contribution of the evaluation is recognisable in the disciplinary way in which all scientific data and knowledge avoid false expectations They unmask the purely rhetorical arguments while specifying dimensions of deterministic certainty in respect of communication fluxes and reflections, constantly demanded by the uncertainty dominating the sphere of the plan’s political actions The level of ambiguity could be notably increased in landscape planning, requiring recourse more frequent than the rhetoric-bereft participation in the planning process Cutaia displays sensitivity for the etic topic of the centrality of a human in relation to the social life of the community, deeply present not only in the planning field The resident community not only asks for environmental sustainability, but also undertakes research into solutions to problems about equity distribution Cutaia shows attentiveness towards matters of human dignity, which cannot be put in the second plan with respect to the deterministic reading of the exact sciences Perhaps, there is consonance with a recent declaration by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the European Parliament in Strasbourg: respecting nature also calls for the recognition that man himself is a fundamental part of it Along with an environmental ecology, there is also need for human ecology consisting in respect for the person Ferdinando Trapani University of Palermo, Italy Foreword Among the questions still open concerning the Strategic Environmental Assessment of urban plans, certainly one of the most complex is represented by the evaluation of their effects on the landscape It presents complex profiles for two reasons: the first being ascribable to the historical dichotomy between urban planning on one hand and landscape on the other; the second connected to the prevalent aesthetic approach that characterises landscape studies, which makes the application of the quantitative methods often employed in Strategic Environmental Assessment objectively difficult Aside from these considerations, the work presented by Fabio Cutaia reaches, through close examination of the open questions and two study cases, a first systematisation of the matter Although complete response to the different starting questions is not permitted, it constitutes an important contribution to the construction of practical protocols the Strategic Environmental Assessment must abide by when it finally attains operating speed For these reasons, the work is a worthy aid for scholars and technicians interested in Strategic Environmental Assessment Additionally, it can benefit every kind of operator in the landscape field because of its contents and characteristics, which include the reconstruction of the most recent normative frame and the new techniques implemented in the analysis and planning of the landscape The reasoning of Cutaia starts from an assumption: the introduction of the landscape dimension in the strategic evaluation can represent, following the clarification of particular ambiguities, the opportunity for the definitive convergence of urbanism with landscape—or rather, to use an expression employed in the previous research, to achieve an “armistice in the war of position” between urbanism and landscape In fact, still today, in spite of numerous attempts at adhesion of urbanism issues—and more generally of planning—with those of landscape and regarding matters related to its interpretation and modification, we cannot affirm that a full integration between the two disciplines has occurred Stiff sectorial laws remain within the legal procedures of the majority of European countries—above all in the Mediterranean area Even less encouraging is a clear institutional separation of ix 7.1 Essential Tools for Landscape Evaluation 95 traditional bidimensional cartographic representations permits improved comprehension for the population Moreover, they facilitate the involvement of the youngest part of the population—in other terms, the full inclusion of all inhabitants: an unavoidable fact if we want undertake effective participation processes and pursue the objective of sustainable development In fact, without public participation, it is impossible to move towards not only a new territorial culture based on sustainable management of natural and patrimonial resources, but also a new consideration of landscape as a whole (Noguè 2009) However, in order to obtain the participation of a wide range of subjects, the individuation of devices is not enough People must primarily acquire a certain comprehension of landscape characters and recognise that they are continually evolving One of the most innovative aspects of the ELC regards the significant openness in a social direction, starting from the premises reported in the preamble and the definition of landscape Its meaning unites the views of different disciplines but, above all, underlines the social dimension of the landscape The landscape is the result of the relationship between the environment and the human society transforming, perceiving and residing within it We can also underline another important aspect: the clear gathering of perceptions and social representations as starting points, given that landscape must be appreciated through the eyes of “populations” (Castiglioni 2009) According to the observations made by several scholars (Castiglioni 2009; De Marchi 2009; Nogué 2009; Pedroli and Van Mansvelt 2006; Prieur and Durousseau 2006), regarding the contents of ELC and the disciplinary debate, we can reveal three different stages to observe the landscape–population relationship: The survey of the “aims” and values ascribed by a population to its territory; Awareness, education and training of the different population sections as regards landscape relevancies and values; The public participation in establishing objectives in decisional and evaluating processes As to the first stage, the survey of landscape values appears basically as an activity of research: useful in the assessment of plans and determination of choices most suitable to landscape reality Awareness and education activities, such as direct participation, constitute essentially mainly practical points of view Considering this issue, we can observe that the necessary didactic–educational skills not belong merely to the professional bodies of knowledge operating in landscape areas, delegating other people the task; on the contrary, these individuals have no adequate skills in territorial issues (Castiglioni et al 2007) Moreover, in settings where education and training are efficient, these dominate practical procedures, limiting the possibilities given by more complex approaches of involvement in the decision-making process (De Marchi 2009) Arnstein (1969) outlines eight levels of public participation of which “informing” and “consultation” represent just two of them, in the specific, the third and the fourth In fact, the first and the second rungs of her ladder pattern are “manipulation” and “therapy”, also defined as levels of “non-participation” because they have been contrived—in the 96 Landscape Assessment opinion of the scholar—by some to substitute for genuine participation Their real objective is to enable powerholders to “educate” or “cure” the participants Even before the levels of real participation, we have that defined “placation”, due to the fact that the ground rules allow have-nots to advise, but retain for the powerholders the continued right to decide In the higher levels, the 6th, the 7th and the 8th, we have “partnership”, “delegated power” and “citizen control” according to a growing degree of citizen power 7.1.3 Indicators As an introductory concept, we need to reaffirm the importance of a distinction in terms and contents, whereby the landscape is not an individual component of the environment but rather a systemic prospective in which the entire system of objects and relationships is represented, as perceived by its population Moreover, such vision does not coincide with other systemic perspectives such as those of “ecosystem” or “territory” (Malcevschi and Zerbi 2007) Vallega (2008) affirms that the tendency to identify the landscape policy with the environmental is very diffuse and distorts the idea that landscape is automatically protected if there are sufficient environmental policies, because the landscape is often associated with the environment As we have already indicated, to this day, the indicator categories for assessment and for effects landscape suffers are ascribable to four systems, hereby mentioned according to their major use: • Natural and rural context; • Urban context, action for recovery, improvement and protection for various reasons; • Infrastructures, planning aspects and tourism; • Visual aspects and place identity Here, we have the pretension of proposing one new landscape indicator able to resolve the matter of assessment, although we want to offer a method for the synchronic reading of the several variables within the same territory In addition, we have to consider that each territory has its own peculiarities, meaning the selection of indicators must be made accordingly We propose an evaluation modality that, even if involving a reduced number of indicators, should be able to render the reality in its entirety and signal the possible effects of the urban planning Other indications, in order to guarantee an increased grip on the context, are those that relate the analysis to homogeneous territorial portions—such as the landscape units —and involve the population in the process during the phase of selection of indicators The local community possesses paramount knowledge of the territory to analyse during phases of data collection, above all for the indicators regarding the perception and the identity of the locations 7.1 Essential Tools for Landscape Evaluation 97 In the field of landscape indicators, we observed the limits of those viewing reconnaissance as a conclusive method (including number of towers in a certain area, architecture conservation quality, number of actions implemented regarding protection) and the utility offered by those that are mainly evaluative Their purpose is the assessing of the terms according to which aspects, processes and actions are coherent with the scope of sustainable development (Vallega 2008) Under this profile, the basic distinction between “statistical evaluation” and “indicator” emerges rather clearly: the first has a merely recognitive function, which consists of the description of aspects, processes and behaviour per se, while the second evaluates them according to an aim, as the environmental assessment procedures require 7.2 Many Variables, a Possible Unique Method of Assessment We have already declared the desire to propose an “assessment modality” which, after the evaluation of the landscape, could tie together the different territorial variables in order to render them in a unique value, as a reference for the assessment both of the territory and the spatial planning instruments recognised for that territory For this reason, we are going to introduce the concept of “Dashboard of Sustainability” (henceforth also dashboard), which, if flexibly used, can be help in the landscape assessment, allowing a holistic view of the whole In fact, this method of data rendering allows the presentation of complex issues in a synthetic and highly communicative format Tendencies in recent years have oriented interest in the creation of models able to measure, represent and monitor sustainability through sets of indicators organised in order to facilitate the decision process The reasons must be sought on one hand in the fact that the policies implemented by the different organisations are noticed if the results are measurable (Tenuta 2009) On the other hand exists the need to provide the public with information expressed in a language exact as possible, above all in the case of a topic such as sustainability in which precision is also a condition for democratic verification For the needs of the spatial planning and the environmental assessment, the multi-criterion evaluative methods, such as the dashboard, could assume a central role and represent one possible solution The multi-criterion analysis permits the study of complex issues, evaluating singularly—but in an integrated fashion—all variables present, attributing to each their relative “weight” Therefore, the multi-criterion analysis simultaneously allows a question to be examined from several points of view (Boggia 2007), just as the actions to be implemented on the landscape require The Dashboard of Sustainability is software developed within the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, later modified by the 98 Landscape Assessment International Institute for Sustainable Development and, finally, engineered by Jochen Jesinghaus at the Joint Research Centre of the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research The dashboard, based on an indicator set and with a synthetic parameter under different aspects, allows visualisation of the sustainability level of the development of a certain area Consequently, through this software, we can obtain a synthetic frame able to describe the reality and quality of a certain territory according to the scale of the work, from national to regional, from provincial to local, giving a unique value Several “categories of evaluation” contribute to the procedure of the elaboration of the final index, which could be associated through meaning, to the “context” concept proposed by Vallega: fields of territorial reality and human action to which the indicators can be referred The contexts, in turn, will be articulated in four levels of analysis, contributing to the construction of the “index of performance”: Level Level Level Level of of of of singular indicator; subcategory; macro-category; index of performance The software employed generates a list of results for each one of the levels indicated Firstly, it calculates the arithmetic mean of the individual indicator scores of the same subcategory—a phase repeated for the other subcategories in the model For each group of subcategories, and thusly for each macro-category, the software elaborates a synthetic result by the weighted arithmetic mean of the scores of the individual subcategories Then, the weighted arithmetic mean of the scores of the macro-categories will give the index of performance, contained inside the box of the “context” The following constitutes the contexts of reference: • Environmental context: the natural environment in the wider meaning, that is to say a complexity of elements and processes, biotic and abiotic, interrelated (Vallega 2008); • Social context: the use of resources, economic organisation and social conditions (Vallega 2008), the third being in terms of human development, identification and interaction with the landscape (Nogué et al 2009); • Landscape context: tangible and intangible signs of cultural components (Vallega 2008), analysis of transformations, including perceptual aspects (Mougiakakou et al 2005; Nogué et al 2009; Peano et al 2011), landscape education (Nogué et al 2009) and recreational opportunities (Peano et al 2011); • Economical–institutional context: territorial productive resources, public policies and private actions in the field of protection, management and planning (Nogué et al 2009); institutional subjects and every other agent and stockholder, and actions related to communication (Vallega 2008) 7.2 Many Variables, a Possible Unique Method of Assessment 99 Data scheme representation by “Dashboard of Sustainability” software Referring to the elements SEA must assess, we can observe that in this method itself they are contemplated with the final data being related to the interaction between the different factors, as the directive also requires Certainly, the more indicators in the models, the more realistic it is We also have to underline the fact that we are working with software, so we have to convert the qualitative information into numeric data, matching numbers to qualitative judgements—obligating the involvement of the local community because it is the only agent able to complete the task According to this recommendation, the degree of subjectivity, inherent in some evaluations, becomes less subjective, more objective and shared The software output allows the communication of data in three different ways and facilitates comprehension to a wide public In fact, the data can be represented through tables, geographic representations and synthetic graphic schemes Regarding the third modality, the graphic elaboration uses graphics of easy intuition: • The context sector dimension reflects the quantity of information related to the issue described by the subcategory and, consequently, in the macro-category; • The central circle contents the Policy Performance Index, mentioned above; • The boxes in the lower part of the image, divided in coloured slices, represent the four contexts examined; • The slices in the boxes represent a macro-category pertaining to a certain aspect of that precise context; 100 Landscape Assessment • The colouration is based on a traffic-light scheme and, varying between red, yellow and green, indicates if the environment or plan quality is insufficient, good or excellent; • The numbers in the middle of the section represent the performance of the whole sector, obtained as a mean of the indicators of each section; The arrow in the upper part of the image indicates the degree of area global performance, obtained as mean of the four sectors References General References and Literature Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation J Am Plann Assoc 35:216–224 Boggia A (2007) Un modello di monitoraggio ambientale e socio-economico per la valutazione della sostenibilità Rivista Micron 7:36–40 Castiglioni B (2009) Aspetti sociali del paesaggio: schemi di riferimento In: Castiglioni B, De Marchi M (eds) Di chi è il paesaggio? La partecipazione degli attori nella individuazione, valutazione e pianificazione Cleup, Padova Castiglioni B, Celi M, Gamberoni E (2007) (ed) Il paesaggio vicino a noi: Educazione, consapevolezza, responsabilità Atti del Convegno, Padova 24/03/06, Museo Civico di Storia Naturale e Archeologia, Montebelluna Cinti D (2008) Progetto di paesaggio Alinea, Firenze De Marchi M (2009) Partecipazione e paesaggio In: Castiglioni B, De Marchi M (eds) Di chi è il paesaggio? La partecipazione degli attori nella individuazione, valutazione e pianificazione Cleup, Padova Hermosilla Pla J (2009) (ed) Catálogo de los Paisajes de l’Horta Sud Universitat de València, Valencia Malcevschi S, Zerbi MC (2007) Ecosistema, paesaggio e territorio: Tre prospettive complementari nel rapporto uomo-ambiente Società Geografica Italiana, Firenze Mata Olmo R (2006) Métodos de estudio del paisaje e instrumentos para su gestión: Consideraciones a partir de experiencias de planificación territorial In: Mata Olmo R, Tarroja A (eds) El paisaje y la gestión del territorio Diputació de Barcelona, Barcellona McHarg J (1989) Progettare la natura Muzzio Editore, Padova Mougiakakou SG, Tsouchlaraki AL, Cassios C, Nikita KS, Matsopoulos GK, Uzunoglu NK (2005) Scapeviewer: preliminary results of a landscape perception classification system based on neural network technology Ecol Eng 24:5–15 Nogué J (2009) L’Osservatorio del paesaggio della Catalogna e i cataloghi del paesaggio: la partecipazione cittadina nella pianificazione del paesaggio In: Castiglioni B, De Marchi M (eds) Di chi è il paesaggio? La partecipazione degli attori nella individuazione, valutazione e pianificazione Cleup, Padova Nogué J, Puigbert L, Bretcha G (ed) (2009) Indicadors de paisatge: reptes i perspectives Observatori del Paisatge de Catalunya, Olot Peano A, Bottero M, Cassatella C (2011) Proposal for a set of indicators In: Cassatella C, Peano A (ed) Landscape indicators: assessing and monitoring landscape quality Springer, Dordrecht Pedroli B, Van Mansvelt DJ (2006) Landscape and awarenessraising, training and education In: AA.VV Landscape and sustainable development: challenges of the European landscape convention Council of Europe Publishing, Bruxelles References 101 Prieur M, Durousseau S (2006) Landscape and public participation In: AA.VV Landscape and sustainable development: challenges of the European landscape convention Council of Europe Publishing, Bruxelles Tenuta P (2009) L’analisi multicriteriale per la valutazione della sostenibilità Economia Aziendale Online 3:111–130 Vallega A (2008) Gli indicatori per il paesaggio Franco Angeli, Milano Chapter Past Objectives and Future Scenarios Abstract The intimate link between landscape and urban planning has long been denied and underestimated In spite of the “good intentions” of certain scholars, practitioners and policy makers across Italy, Spain and other EU countries, their efforts are undermined by rigidly framed, sector-focused laws and by a concept of landscape defined in purely aesthetic terms We have established the importance of identifying tools used to integrate the various approaches that “urbanism” and landscape planning adopt in dealing with urban planning to date In fact, even with the prospect of significant environmental legislation, the discipline is still unable to incorporate the concept of landscape and its associated values The work presented, throughout the course of the treatise, shows that a real opportunity for Strategic Environmental Assessment can be fully exploited if properly devised, becoming the “cross-linkage” to facilitate plan integration of environmental, economic and social sustainability However, the matter triggers new questions, above all regarding the participation of people to promote and realise plan policies, identifying landscape values belonging to their territory These questions remain open, as we need to indicate and specify a real approach that can be referenced Keywords Urbanism Á Landscape Á Assessment Á Participation If we consider the expression “urbanism” in terms of a scientific meaning, whereby people order and regulate the development of a territory, it is obvious that the “landscape” is, in truth, the result of a slow and continuous work of anthropogenic modification It constitutes the outcome, sometimes unwanted and spontaneous, of the constant reinvention of places and a consequent alteration of its original character and identity However, in most of Europe, this natural connection between planning and landscape, in terms of interpretation and modification, was only established recently This delay in recognition has certainly and partly resulted from strictly sectorial legislation, a clear separation of institutional powers between the respective ministries responsible for protecting the landscape and those responsible for © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 F Cutaia, Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrating Landscape and Urban Planning, UNIPA Springer Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42132-2_8 103 104 Past Objectives and Future Scenarios urban planning in various countries, and the absence of an adequate focus on area-wide planning within the wider urban debate over the last 50 years These contributory, strongly interrelated causes are reflected on a conceptual and philosophical level by a common matrix of ideas that have inspired, especially in Italy, all landscape protection rules In fact, the separation of urban planning and landscape finds its origins in a specific vision of landscape in purely aesthetic and cultural terms (Trombino and Provenzano 2009), by virtue of its interpretation as a “work of art” The acceptance of landscape as an object of aesthetic contemplation has progressively impeded the creation of a space for urban planning, and spatial planning in general, to be able to occupy in relation to landscape, causing the break still perceptible today To separate landscape from territory is impossible: it would mean considering the first a “superstructure” of the second, indicating guidelines and standards incapable of acting on their determinants In this framework, the introduction of the landscape dimension in the environmental assessment process represents an opportunity for the final convergence of urbanism with the landscape As several scholars have shown, SEA could be considered a synthesis of the different dimensions that characterise the “modern” concept of landscape, not only since it is not limited to the simple protection of cultural heritage, but also takes account of many interactions between economic, social and cultural heritage pressures SEA, then, is a candidate for enabling a holistic reading of the natural and human conditions that lead to a particular landscape assuming a specific physiognomy (Farina 2006) Additionally, it could fulfil the role of a reading filter for landscape phenomena, proposing an interdisciplinary mode of interpretation able to reconcile conservation and development Moreover, the possibility of ex ante evaluations, which typify the nature of SEA, allows for plans and programmes to be structured, taking into account the constraints and the strategic framework within which the various elements of higher-level planning operate, including landscape planning SEA, therefore, as an armistice of the conflict between urban planning and landscape, represents a valid vehicle to connect urban planning and landscape In this context, landscape is understood as a reality so complex as to be more than the sum of perceptual, aesthetic, social, ecological and economic factors; a reality that integrates the aesthetic-philosophical tradition, which has characterised protection to date (particularly in Latin Europe), with a more complex view of it as a territory in constant (and uncontrollable) mutation Consequently, the full integration of SEA into the tools of urban and regional planning seems to present a possible and valid path to find a paradigm in which policies can promote development, protection and enhancement of the area and those that, instead, link to a different urban order can achieve effective and efficient synergies (Fidanza 2011) The environmental assessment of plans and programmes could be the core of such integration within planning tools, through incorporating a series of considerations related to the “sustainability” in its more complex sense, as well as environmental issues It is widely believed that an appropriate local articulation of the contents of SEA can be Past Objectives and Future Scenarios 105 used to simultaneously address various requirements of a territory In Anglo-Saxon areas, where environmental assessment has for some time already constituted a necessary part of the planning process, SEA has produced noteworthy benefits and developed planning tools; this proves that the evaluation has value only if developed within a planning process (Therivel 2006) If properly formulated and implemented, SEA can completely unlock its potential within any legal order and finally become the real “transversal hinge” that allows the integration of environmental, economic and social development within a plan Together with these possibilities, we can observe a wide set of problems concerning the way this procedure should produce particular evaluations in quite “cultural” and “perceptible” terms as we can see in the ELC From an operational point of view, we can notice some doubts concerning the procedure of landscape assessment and community involvement How can we attain completion within SEA boundaries, using indicators, in the most objective, shared and involving assessment method able to communicate the cultural and perceptible dimension of landscape? This second question informed the entire research path, conducted in the analysis of two study cases, in which the landscape assessment offered important contributions and found its own dimension in the spatial planning instruments Finally, we observed the need to provide a method for the survey of planning effects on different elements of the landscape The research area examined raised several questions deserving scientific attention, which are only partly resolved while others need further examination The definition and employment of landscape units already are consolidated in the field of geophysical territorial analysis; several disciplines take advantage of their usages, both for the description of a certain territorial area and for the individuation of precise lines of action As for the indicators, as we already mentioned, the study does not offer any additional ones, having no intentions to assert which could be the best among them Rather, they suggest a method for synchronic reading of the various land variables The issues of indicators, despite being explored by several scholars, are not yet considered closed, although many theories abound, not only those from the first generation The new step to take now is the implementation of these tools in professional practice, above all regarding landscape indicators In fact, with significant resistance and difficulty in the first years, technicians started to use ecological indicators yet still they find implementing landscape indicators arduous now, perhaps even more so The participation of people is still an open question Professionals usually conduct landscape analysis, though the ELC insists on the importance of involving both citizens and economic agents in planning and assessment procedures from the outset SEA institutional framework and its inclusion in the national legislation represent a good opportunity to efficiently test the new methodologies and practices within urban planning, oriented towards recognising the participation of local communities in planning processes Article no 2, point (b.) in Directive 106 Past Objectives and Future Scenarios 42/2001/EC states that the assessment process has to be formed by “consultations” whose results have to be “evaluated” in the decisional process SEA must then provide for arenas for citizen opinion or stages of collation, systematisation and interpretation of expressed requests and their actual integration in the decisions of plan policies By reading this directive, we assume the importance of citizen participation in the assessment process identifying with the decisional process of the plan development, besides importance being related to promotional stages and consultations following the expressions of opinions No subsequent chance exists for people to be active in the above-mentioned process However, we cannot help considering the effects that further situations of public involvement would have on the process of the plan adoption and that, delaying the stage, could call its efficiency and suitability into question According to what we previously exposed, among several initiatives to form new institutional bodies, the Landscape Observatory of Catalonia is the most mature in the European context The institution has the task of involving social agents in landscape issue debates and it represents the meeting point between the government and society in general, supporting a high degree of involvement and opportunity for interventions on decisional processes Pertaining to the assessment of landscape planning effects, the main issue of previous research and indeed of potential new studies (from public participation to the formation of Landscape Catalogues of Catalonia) dealt with two different challenges: the acceptance of intangible, symbolic and identifiable landscape value elements together with the achievement of results representing the reality of the area The lack of a specific methodology led to the formulation of a suitable adoption for the formation of Landscape Catalogues This experience shows the effectiveness of the public involvement process in a complex context as landscape is, so the identification of these symbolic values represents the most evident result (Nogué 2010) As one can clearly deduce from what has been mentioned up to now, the main purpose of the project is twofold: The development of clear practical protocols in SEA procedures for public participation in the planning process; The involvement of the local communities and different users of the territory in landscape assessment, in particular for the perception and identification of places We consider the urgent identification of a theoretical and practical framework as reference for the debate on practical processes and on SEA, whose approach is related to sharing, participation and involvement of the local community SEA develops by a process of common learning and improves the efficiency of the process of plan ex ante, in itinere and ex post According to its contents, SEA offers the subject field of environmental planning multifaceted and practical training of the assessment process not external to the same process, but rather a qualifying and essential part (Zoppi 2006) Nevertheless, directive planning referring to the recognition of local community requests in SEA processes is not simply formal and Past Objectives and Future Scenarios 107 abstract, but absolutely negligent as to the reading and to the spirit of the directive Consequently, among the aims to achieve the desired end are the following: • The definition of the concept of “public”, which is left ambiguous in the Aarhus Convention and in SEA directives with the purpose of being determined first nationally and later regionally; • The planning of procedures through consultations must happen; • The assessment of dynamics enabled by local authorities that promote different processes of public participation; • The description of the practical aspects devoted to identifying intangible values of landscape; • The planning of cooperation settings among ranges and skills transversal to teaching and landscape From this point of view, we believe it is important to underline that we are in an awkward situation, requiring a steady practical and theoretical effort to address the participation issues referred to in the adoption of Directive 42/2001/EC Regarding regional and urban planning, it is even more important to appreciate practical regulations and a likewise method to evaluate expectations, gain agreement or identify disagreement surrounding territorial policies within the assessment process: i.e the modelling of individual decisions References General References and Literature Farina A (2006) Il paesaggio cognitivo: una nuova entità ecologica Franco Angeli, Milano Fidanza A (2011) La Vas: raccordo tra sviluppo e ambiente Urbanistica Informazioni 236:24–26 Nogué J (2010) El paisaje en la ordenación del territorio: la experiencia del Observatorio del Paisaje de Cataluña Estudios Geográficos, vol LXXI, no 269:415–448 Therivel R (2006) La Evaluación Ambiental Estratégica de los Planes Urbanísticos en Inglaterra Ciudad y territorio Estudios territoriales 149–150:635–650 Trombino G, Provenzano S (2009) Valutazione Ambientale Strategica: come e quale paesaggio valutare? XII Conferenza Nazionale della Società degli Urbanisti, Bari Zoppi C (2006) Attori locali e pianificazione del territorio: Metodologie e pratiche nel quadro concettuale della valutazione ambientale strategica Gangemi, Roma Legislation Council of Europe, European Landscape Convention, adopted 20th October 2000 in Florence Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27th June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, Official Journal of the European Communities, no 197, vol 44 of 21st July 2001 Afterword As the reader will have been able to realise the subject broached by Fabio Cutaia in this work is not easy at all The landscape is characterised by its conceptual and methodological complexity and to try and search for its fit—its “armistice” as it is said by the author, or even better, “alliance”—with the typical practice of town and land planning turns out to be particularly difficult This is largely due to the lack of understanding of landscape concept whose meaning has been reduced so many times, but also, to the difficulty of the usual procedures and tools in land and town planning which are unintelligible for anyone who is not an expert on the subject The integration of both worlds—and the unavoidable implication that society takes part in these disciplines—cannot be done without carrying out deep changes in the methods, in the “know-how” of spatial planning Nevertheless, it is essential that we change the way to contemplate and contact our environment, which means an entire cultural transformation much harder to achieve since it not only affects the experts on the subject, but also society as a whole In that respect, as a university teacher on these subjects, I consider it necessary to include two key aspects: training and awareness According to the European Landscape Convention, both matters must be present in all the educational stages, from primary school to university, and spread to the civil society sphere as well The aforementioned cultural transformation could only come true that way What is more, there will be a real interest in preserving and recognising the worth of landscape Technical and legal mechanisms or specific tools will not be a problem if they represent a true social aspiration Only from these premises, a clear interest in driving the landscape implementation into the planning process, that Fabio Cutaia reveals throughout his book, will emerge After a conceptual and interdisciplinary long tour, the recent decade has brought itself a certain consensus-assembled around the European Landscape Conventionregarding terminology, definition and contents of landscape concept Once this enormous effort is done, it is the time to put the Convention into practice, its application and transfer to the planning instruments In the words of Alister Scott, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 F Cutaia, Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrating Landscape and Urban Planning, UNIPA Springer Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42132-2 109 110 Afterword “[…] it is an urgent plea to move beyond the rhetoric of the ELC and to embed landscape more firmly into the spatial planning area (2011:2761)” In that regard, there is not so much experience about the implementation of the Convention postulated and its consequences on the European landscape in the future Some of the most recent studies such as the one entitled “Impacts of the European Landscape Convention on national planning systems: A comparative investigation of six case studies” (De Montis 2014), or the one coordinated by Sala and Moles (2014), that tackles the landscape planning in the local area through the analysis of international experiences, try to cast light on this undoubtedly key issue Moreover, the present work contributes to this respect, showing the transfer of some general concepts from the European Landscape Convention to the particular cases of Veneto and Catalonia Within each one of these regions leads the way into landscape politics Besides analysing the international framework (such as legislation and instruments), Cutaia moves downward to the specific details in different projects of planning on a local and regional scale, conferring pragmatism on the studies that could not be otherwise Just from this experimental base, very close to both reality and the particular implementations of the landscape integration into the land planning instruments, we will be able to improve the tools in order to act in territories with landscape sensitivity From a perspective of the way to study the landscape integration and the planning through the Strategic Environmental Assessment, the author, in this work, seems to be firmly in favour of exploring methods that determine the treatment of landscape in the Strategic Environmental Assessment procedures that “[…] try to express the landscape values by using the language of numbers” (Chap 4) Therefore, Cutaia considers that the best way to achieve the desired landscape integration in town and land planning implementation is by means of its assimilation into other environmental aspects easy to measure, or, at least, with more tradition or practice of doing it by quantitative indicators I will not criticise his point of view because I feel that, as far as landscape indicators are concerned, there is almost everything left to However, the author certainly seems to move away from the guideline the European Council has issued in the “Guidelines for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention” when it states that it is essential to go forward in a landscape qualitative analysis within the instruments of impact evaluation In fact, in this document, the European Council expressly set the landscape against the most widely-used methods to analyse the environmental components (water, air, soil), based on well-contrasted quantitative methods In this regard, in a complete and interesting study on landscape indicators, published by Cassatella and Peano (2011), it is stressed the difficulty of reducing the landscape analysis to exclusively numerical components Thus, the best choice is to use a combination of both indicators, quantitative and qualitative, as suggested by the Landscape Observatory of Catalonia (Nogué et al 2009) Afterword 111 Likewise, in the rest of the matters the book deals with, we will have to keep an eye on the development and implementation of these landscape indicator systems and return, from an appropriate temporal perspective, to review with critical attitude their validity It would be a sort of evaluation of their own assessment systems As far as I am concerned, and before concluding, I must highlight the double value of this book: on the one hand, it expounds, thematically and conceptually, the relationship between planning and landscape by using a special tool (Strategic Environmental Assessment); on the other, it descends to very specific levels using the research on regional cases in Italy and Spain and the indicator analysis that should be useful to articulate, in practical terms, this relationship In this sense, the author moves with ease over different planes: between the conceptual and the most practical plane; between global approaches and a particular case All of them are indispensable aspects and the work, as a whole, would be incomplete if they were not included In conclusion, Cutaia presents a situation with issues not only of great interest, but also of great complexity Obviously, he fails to provide answers for everything Additionally, from my own point of view, he reveals more means of investigation and discussion than he can develop However, I am convinced that he accurately aims at the key matters within these disciplines which will become objects of academic reflection and implementation in the coming years or even decades Juan José Pons Izquierdo University of Navarra, Spain References General References and Literature Cassatella C, Peano A (2011) (eds) Landscape indicators: assessing and monitoring landscape quality Springer, Netherlands Council of Europe (2008) Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the guidelines for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on February 2008 at the 1017th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies 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 Nogué J, Puigbert L, Bretcha G (2009) (eds) Indicadors de paisatge: Reptes i perspectives Observatorio del Paisaje de Cataluña, Olot Sala P, Moles A (2014) (Coord.) La planificació del paisatge en l’àmbit local a Europa: Els casos dAlemanya, Franỗa, Paùsos Baixos, Regne Unit, Suùssa i la regió de Valònia, a Bèlgica Observatori del Paisatge de Catalunya, Ministeri de Turisme i Medi Ambient del Govern d’Andorra Scott A (2011) Beyond the conventional: meeting the challenges of landscape governance within the European landscape convention? J Environ Manag 92(10):2754–2762 ... Switzerland 2016 F Cutaia, Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrating Landscape and Urban Planning, UNIPA Springer Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42132-2_1 The Origins of Environmental Assessment. .. 81 85 87 Evaluating Planning Effects on the Landscape Landscape Assessment 7.1 Essential Tools for Landscape Evaluation 7.1.1 Landscape Units ... merely conceptual and philosophical, conducted to perceive the landscape in aesthetical and historical terms, scarcely concerning planning and protection Strategic Environmental Assessment, given
- Xem thêm -

Xem thêm: Strategic environmental assessment integrating landscape and urban planning , Strategic environmental assessment integrating landscape and urban planning , 2 Many Variables, a Possible Unique Method of Assessment

Mục lục

Xem thêm

Gợi ý tài liệu liên quan cho bạn

Nhận lời giải ngay chưa đến 10 phút Đăng bài tập ngay