Enhancement of Small Towns in Inland Areas. A Novel Indicators Dataset to Evaluate Sustainable Plans
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Aim of the Paper
3. Literary Excursus on the ‘Small Town’ Definition
- The centres of big metropolitan areas;
- the small towns as urban nuclei included in fast or stationary development cities, originally key nodes of the territory as important places for economic and political-cultural activities; and
- abandoned small towns.
4. Small Towns and Valorization Actions
5. Materials and Methods. A New Panel of Evaluation Criteria and Sub-Criteria
- General goal (Level I);
- criteria by which to reach the goal (Level II);
- sub-criteria (Level III); and
- possible alternatives (Level IV).
- Presence of local traditions and identities;
- lack of services;
- typical production activities;
- distance from major cities;
- lack of adequate infrastructure;
- environmental quality;
- insertion in a natural context;
- limited and compact extension of the built fabric;
- ‘human scale’ dimension of the built;
- quality of the built heritage; and
- site-specific typological-constructive characters.
- Territory;
- urban core;
- building.
6. Novel Indicators Datasets for the Multi-Criteria Analysis of Small Towns Enhancement Plans
6.1. Evaluation Indicators of the Small Towns’ Social Components
- Local traditions and identities;
- secondary urbanization works; and
- social assistance services.
6.2. Economic Indicators
- Productive vocations, and
- primary urbanization works.
6.3. Environmental Indicators
- Territory;
- urban core; and
- building.
6.4. Historical-Architectural Indicators
7. Results and Discussion
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sau, A. La Rivitalizzazione Dei Borghi e Dei Centri Storici Minori Come Strumento per il Rilancio Delle Aree Interne. Federalismi.it. Rivista di Diritto Pubblico Italiano, Comparator, Europeo, n. 3, 31.01.2018. Available online: www.federalismi.it (accessed on 1 March 2020).
- Paolella, A. Il Riuso Dei Borghi Abbandonati. Esperienze Di Comunità, 1st ed.; Pellegrini Editore: Cosenza, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Berizzi, C.; Rocchelli, L. Borghi Rinati. Paesaggi Abbandonati e Interventi di Rigenerazione, 1st ed.; Il Poligrafo: Padua, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Figueira, J.; Greco, S.; Ehrgott, M. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ribera, F.; Nesticò, A.; Cucco, P.; Maselli, G. A multicriteria approach to identify the Highest and Best Use for historical buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 41, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishizaka, A.; Nemery, P. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, B. Méthodologie Multicritére d’Aide à la Décision, 1st ed.; Economica: Paris, France, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Guitoni, A.; Martel, J.M. Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1998, 109, 501–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vincke, P. L’aide Multicritère à la Décision, 1st ed.; Université de Bruxelles: Bruxelles, Belgium, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Colson, G.; De Bruyn, C. Models and Methods in Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 1st ed.; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1989; Volume 23. [Google Scholar]
- Fishburn, P.C. A survey of multiattribute/multicriterion evaluation theories. In Multiple Criteria Problem Solving, 1st ed.; Zionts, S., Ed.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 1978; pp. 181–224. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, B.; Bouyssou, D. Aide Multicritère à la Décision: Methodes et Cas, 1st ed.; Economica: Paris, France, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Keeney, R.L.; Raiffa, H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- De Montis, A. Analisi Multicriteri e Valutazione per la Pianificazione Territoriale, 1st ed.; CUEC Editrice: Cagliari, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Nesticò, A.; Somma, P. Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Methods for the Enhancement of Historical Buildings. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; Valipour, A. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications—A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ. Res. Ekonomska Istraživanja 2015, 28, 516–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Gioia, V. Criteri di definizione dei centri storici. Civ. Delle Macch. 1975, 1–2, 25. [Google Scholar]
- Coletta, T. I Centri Storici Minori Abbandonati della Campania. Conservazione, Recupero e Valorizzazione, 1st ed.; Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane: Naples, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Di Stefano, R. Il Recupero Dei Valori. Centri Storici e Monumenti. Limiti Della Conservazione e del Restauro, 1st ed.; Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane: Naples, Italy, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Rocchi, G. Istituzioni di Restauro Dei Beni Architettonici e Ambientali, 1st ed.; Hoepli Editore: Milan, Italy, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Aa, V.V. Storia Dell’arte Italiana. Inchieste Su Centri Minori, 1st ed.; Giulio Einaudi Editore: Turin, Italy, 1980; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Tosco, C. Il Paesaggio Come Storia, 1st ed.; Il Mulino: Bologna, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Nesticò, A.; D’Andria, E.; Fiore, P. Centri Minori E Strategie Di Valorizzazione. In I Centri Minori… Da Problema a Risorsa. Strategie Sostenibili per la Valorizzazione del Patrimonio Edilizio, Paesaggistico e Culturale Nelle Aree Interne, 1st ed.; Fiore, P., D’Andria, E., Eds.; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2019; pp. 1397–1404. [Google Scholar]
- Morris, M. Paure e Speranze Sul Futuro Dell’arte. Le Prospettive Dell’architettura Nella Civiltà, 1st ed.; Nuova Editrice Berti: Parma, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Carver, N.F. Borghi Collinari Italiani, 1st ed.; CLEAN Edizioni: Naples, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Nesticò, A.; He, S.; De Mare, G.; Benintendi, R.; Maselli, G. The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Nesticò, A.; Guarini, M.R.; Morano, P.; Sica, F. An Economic Analysis Algorithm for Urban Forestry Projects. Sustainability 2019, 11, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Fusco Girard, L.; Nijkamp, P. Le Valutazioni per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile della Città e del Territorio, 3rd ed.; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Neely, A.; Adams, C.; Kennerley, M. The Performance Prism; Financial Times/Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Nesticò, A.; Maselli, G. Sustainability indicators for the economic evaluation of tourism investments on islands. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mega, V.; Pedersen, J. Urban Sustainability Indicators, 1st ed.; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Mameli, F.; Marletto, G. A selection of indicators for monitoring sustainable urban mobility policies. In Trasporti, Ambiente e Territorio. La Ricerca di Un Nuovo Equlibrio, 1st ed.; Marletto, G., Musso, E., Eds.; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2010; pp. 167–174. [Google Scholar]
- Vallega, A. Indicatori per il Paesaggio, 1st ed.; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Minx, J.; Creutzig, F.; Ziegler, T.; Owen, A. Developing a Pragmatic Approach to Assess Urban Metabolism in Europe. A report to the European Environment Agency, 1st ed.; Technische Universität Berlin and Stockholm Environment Institute, Climatecon: Berlin, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Science for Environment Policy. In In-Depth Report: Indicators for Sustainable Cities; EEA Urban Metabolism Framework; Directorate-General Environment: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; p. 13. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Transport for Sustainable Development in the ECE Region, 1st ed.; UNECE Transport Division: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Volpiano, M. Indicators for the Assessment of Historic Landscape Features. In Landscape Indicators, 1st ed.; Cassatella, C., Peano, A., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 77–104. [Google Scholar]
- Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Rural Development in the European Union Statistical and Economic Information Report 2013, 1st ed.; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON). Key Indicators for Territorial Cohesion and Spatial Planning, Part A, Executive Summary, 1st ed.; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, R.G.; Stein, J.M. An Indicator Framework for Linking Historic Preservation and Community Economic Development. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 113, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valtenbergs, V.; González, A.; Piziks, R. Selecting Indicators for Sustainable Development of Small Towns: The Case of Valmiera Municipality. Procedia Comput. Sci. Spec. IssueIcte Reg. Dev. 2013, 26, 21–32. [Google Scholar]
- European Environment Agency (EEA). Core Set of Indicators (CSI). In Digest of EEA Indicators 2014, 1st ed.; Aa, V.V., Ed.; European Environment Agency: Luxembourg, 2014; pp. 28–31. [Google Scholar]
- UN-Habitat. Measurement of City Prosperity. Methodology and Metadata, 1st ed.; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bosch, P.; Jongeneel, S.; Rovers, V.; Neumann, H.-M.; Airaksinen, M.; Huovila, A. CITYkeys LIst of City Indicators, 1st ed.; CITYkeys: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Troisi, R.; Alfano, G. Towns as Safety Organizational Fields: An Institutional Framework in Times of Emergency. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Nesticò, A. L’Analisi Economica del Rischio di Progetto. Criteri e Tecniche. LaborEst 2019, 18, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Criterion | Invariant | Sub-Criterion |
---|---|---|
Social | Presence of local traditions and identities | Local traditions and identities |
Lack of services | Secondary urbanization works Social assistance services | |
Economic | Typical production activities | Productive vocations |
Distance from major cities | Primary urbanization works | |
Lack of adequate infrastructure | Primary urbanization works | |
Environmental | Environmental quality | Flora and fauna |
Environmental quality of water, air and soil | ||
Green areas | ||
Historical-architectural | Insertion in a natural context | Integration with the environment |
Visual image | ||
Limited and compact extension of the built fabric | Dialogue between the urban fabric and its context | |
‘Human scale’ dimension of the built | Empty/Full relationship and green space system | |
Quality of the built heritage | Formal relationship between the building and the characteristics of the urban core | |
Site-specific typological-constructive characters | Typological-distributive and typological-formal characteristics of the building |
Valorization of small towns | Social criterion | Local traditions and identities Secondary urbanization works (kindergartens, schools, health facilities, neighborhood markets, municipal delegations, churches and religious buildings, sports facilities) Social assistance services (services for the elderly, for people with disabilities, for immigrants) |
Economic criterion | Productive vocations (agriculture, crafts, industry, trade, tourism) Primary urbanization works (roads serving the settlements, conduits suitable for collecting and draining sewage, car parks, electricity network, telephone network, gas network, public lighting, water network) | |
Environmental criterion | Territory Flora and fauna Environmental quality (water, air, soil) Urban core Green areas Building Bioclimatic quality | |
Historical-architectural criterion | Territory Integration with the environment Urban core Visual image Dialogue between the urban fabric and its context Empty/Full relationship and green space system Building Formal relationship between the building and the characteristics of the urban core Typological-distributive and typological-formal characteristics of the building |
Reference Study | N. Indicators |
---|---|
Mega V., Pedersen J. (1998), Urban Sustainability Indicators [33] | 16 |
European Commission (2008), European Green Capital Award | 12 |
Mameli F., Marletto G. (2009). A selection of indicators for monitoring sustainable urban mobility policies [34] | 14 |
Vallega A. (2009), Indicatori per il paesaggio [35] | 37 |
European Environment Agency (2010), EEA Urban Metabolism Framework [36,37] | 15 |
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2011), Transport for sustainable development in the ECE region [38] | 17 |
Volpiano M. (2011), Indicators for the Assessment of Historic Landscape Features [39] | 12 |
Swiss Confederation (2012), Ufficio Federale dell’Ambiente UFAM – Paesaggio: Indicatori | 11 |
EU Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2013), Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and Economic Information, Report 2013 [40] | 59 |
European Spatial Planning Observation Network (2013), KITCASP - Key Indicators for Territorial Cohesion and Spatial Planning [41] | 20 |
Phillips R. G., Stein J. M. (2013), An Indicator Framework for Linking Historic Preservation and Community Economic Development [42] | 29 |
Valtenbergs V., González A., Piziks R. (2013), Selecting indicators for sustainable development of small towns: the case of Valmiera municipality [43] | 73 |
European Environment Agency (2014), Digest of EEA Indicators 2014 - Core Set of Indicators (CSI) [44] | 42 |
UN-Habitat - United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2016), MEASUREMENT OF CITY PROSPERITY - Methodology and Metadata [45] | 39 |
Bosch P., Jongeneel S., Rovers V., Neumann H-M., Airaksinen M., Huovila A. (2017), CITYkeys list of city indicators [46] | 74 |
TOTAL | 470 |
Selective criteria of the evaluation indices | Focus | It is necessary to select indicators that measure only what you want to measure |
Relevance | It is appropriate to choose the indicators most consistent with the current study | |
Accessibility | It is meant to provide an easy way to find the required data | |
Clarity | Clear and unambiguous interpretation indicators are taken into account | |
Cost | Preference is given to indicators whose data collection requires little cost | |
Frequency | That means choosing the indicators that repeatedly present themselves |
Social Criterion | ||
---|---|---|
Sub-Criterion | Indicator | Description |
Local traditions and identities | Indicated by literature | |
Sense of place/identification with place/attachement to place | The way people perceive the resources and historical environment of their community. There is an identity linked to the place that evokes a special sense of place. This indicator requires a direct survey among the inhabitants of the historical sites | |
The number of cultural events | n. of cultural events | |
The number of visitors in cultural events | n. visitors in cultural events | |
Taste’s places | It is evaluated by the level at which the “taste’s places” enter into landscape valorization policies
Gt expresses the total number of “taste’s places” existing in the considered territory. | |
Event places | It is assessed by the degree to which “event places” are included in the perception of the landscape and are enhanced through ad hoc measures
Et expresses the total number of “event places” existing in the considered territory. | |
Proposed | ||
Number of oral traditions (fables, historical events, music)/religious traditions/gastronomic traditions/festivals, exhibitions, and markets | n. of oral, religious, gastronomic traditions, festivals, fairs, and markets | |
Secondary urbanization works | Land Use Mix | Land use diversity per square kilometre, within a city or urban area (residential, commercial, and services, industrial, public facilities, and public spaces) |
Land use change | % of total (building, roads, domestic, green space, agricultural, woodland, water, etc.) | |
Access to services (hospitals and schools) | Travel time (minutes) to hospitals/schools | |
Access to basic health care services | % of people | |
Access to local/neighbourhood services within a short distance | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the distance in km to reach the nearest services | |
Unemployment structure | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the % of unemployed residents | |
Social Justice Indicator | Percentage of the population affected by poverty, unemployment, lack of access to education, information, training, and leisure | |
Development of service sector | This indicator measures the share of gross value added (GVA) in the services sector in a region | |
Access to public amenities | % of people | |
Access to commercial amenities | % of people | |
Access to educational resources | Likert’s scale. Wherever possible, the use of the percentage of the population accessing educational resources is suggested | |
Number of public libraries | Number of public libraries per 100,000 people (n./100,000 people) | |
Social assistance services | Indicated by literature | |
The number of assistance centers | n. of assistance centers | |
Net migration | It’s the ratio of net migration during the year to the average population in that year. It is also possible to use: n./1000 | |
Average number of assistance hours per year | Average number of assistance hours per year | |
Percentage difference between the offered services level and the standard services level | Percentage difference between the offered services level and the standard services level | |
Quantitative level of benefits | To be estimated on the most appropriate evaluation scale, depending on the available information framework | |
Proposed | ||
Percentage of those who benefit from social assistance services on the resident population | % population benefiting from social assistance services/total resident population |
Economic Criterion | ||
---|---|---|
Sub-Criterion | Indicator | Description |
Productive vocations | Indicated by literature | |
Forest areas extensively exploited | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the surface in m2 of extensively exploited forest areas | |
Agricultural areas | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the surface in km2 of agricultural areas | |
Economic specialization | Shows the level (high or low) through which a city focuses its economic activities on certain goods and services
N is the total number of industries. H varies from 1/N to 1. A value of H greater than 0.25 indicates a high concentration | |
Structure of the economy | % GVA by branch (primary/secondary/tertiary sector) | |
Land use efficiency | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed to make use of expert judgements, from which a quantitative evaluation algorithm can be deduced | |
Distribution of businesses and employed by industries | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the number of employees in the industrial sector | |
The number of tourists | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the number of tourists compared to the resident population | |
Foreign Direct Investments | Capital/Earnings | |
Accomodation load | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the accommodation capacity of the structures (hotels, hostels, b&b etc.) as number of beds | |
Dynamics of foundation and dissolution of local businesses | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. An economic indicator is proposed, depending on the level of information available | |
The number of guest nights | Number of guest nights | |
Economic enhancement of historical-cultural heritage networking | It is proposed to evaluate this parameter according to the specificities of the case study | |
Agricultural land use | % of Utilised agricultural area (UAA) in arable land/permanent pasture/permanent crops | |
Economic development of non-agricultural sector | GVA (million EUR) in secondary and tertiary sectors | |
Tourism infrastructure in rural areas | Total number of bed places in tourist accommodations (%) | |
Tourism intensity | n./100.000 | |
Local food production | % of tonnes | |
Green jobs | % of jobs | |
Land use change | % of total (building, roads, domestic, green space, agricultural, woodland, water, etc.) | |
Proposed | ||
Prevailing cultivation | % of cultivations | |
Primary urbanization works | Length of mass transport network | Km/1,000,000 people |
Length of bike route network | % in km | |
Public transport network length | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the route length in km (tram, trolleybus, bus) | |
Street intersection density | Number of street intersections per one square kilometer of urban area (n./km2) | |
Street density | Number of kilometers of urban streets per square kilometer of land (km/km2) | |
Infrastructure density | km of roads per 1,000 inhabitants | |
Infrastructure quality | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the % of asphalted road surface on the total existing road surface | |
Percentage of houses with communications (including electricity, water, sewage, gas, heating, internet, phone lines) | % of houses equipped with electrical system, water system, purification system, gas, heating, internet, telephone line | |
The number of public Wi-Fi places | Number of public spaces equipped with Wi-Fi | |
Public and private services accessibile via telephone and computer | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. The indicator should be chosen according to the data availability | |
Transportation mode split (percentage of each mode of transportation, i.e., private, public, bicycles, pedestrians) | % of each transport mode (public, private, cycle, walking) | |
Internet access | It is the ratio between the total number of Internet users in a city and the total population of the same city (%) | |
Home computer access | Percentage of families owning household computers compared to the total number of families in the city (%) | |
Internet infrastructure | Families with DSL coverage (%) | |
Internet take-up in rural areas | Families with a broadband connection contract (% of families with at least one member aged between 16 and 74 years) | |
Access to electricity | Percentage of families connected to the national network | |
Access to public transport | % of people | |
Access to high speed internet | % of people | |
Access to public free WiFi | % of m2 | |
Public transport use | n./cap/year | |
Land occupied by transport infrastructures | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. A percentage evaluation is proposed | |
Quality of the street and sidewalks cover | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the use of expert judgements |
Sub-Criterion | Indicator | Description |
---|---|---|
Territory | ||
Flora and fauna | Land cover | % area in agricultural/forest/natural/artificial classes |
Protected forest | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed an evaluation based on the extension in m2 | |
The number of protected animal and plant species | n. of protected animal and plant species | |
Percentage of preserved area/reservoirs/waterways/parks in relation to total land area | % areas, reserves, rivers, protected parks in relation to the total territorial area | |
Species and habitats of European interest | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the use of a numerical or percentage data | |
Number and status of protected European habitats and species | Number and Conservation Status (EU defined status of Natura 2000 sites—SACs and SPAs and Annexed species) | |
Designated areas | km2, %, number of species and habitats listed by the Habitats Directive | |
Land take | hectares or km2 | |
Urban land take | % of land that is converted from natural and semi-natural areas (including wooded and agricultural areas) to artificial land used for urban and economic purposes | |
Proportion of protected areas | Not specified in the bibliographical reference. It is proposed the % of protected natural areas on the total number of existing natural areas | |
Biodiversity: Tree species composition | Area of forest classified by number of tree species occurring and by forest type (%) | |
Biodiversity: Protected forest | _share of FOWL protected under MCPFE classes (%) _ change of FOWL area protected under MCPFE classes (ha) | |
Forest ecosystem health | % of sampled trees in defoliation classes 2–4 (all trees/conifers/broadleaves) | |
Protected areas and elements | Surface extension. Level of environmental protection. Number of protected elements. Other specific indicators | |
Ecologically protected areas | % of surface area subject to ecological protection measures in relation to the total surface area
St is the total area, expressed in hectares (ha), of the considered territory. | |
Protected species | % of protected plant and/or animal species in relation to all existing plant and/or animal species
St is the number of species, belonging to spontaneous vegetation, existing at the time the survey is carried out | |
Environmental quality | Renewable energy production (wind, hydro, biomass, etc.) | Megawatts and % by renewable energy type |
Greenhouse gas emissions | Tonnes CO₂ eq. per individual | |
Water quality | Specific quality indicator | |
Water quality status | Absolute values on the actual status or objective met/failed (as per WFD for groundwater, rivers, lakes, estauarine, coastal) | |
Air quality | Specific quality indicator | |
Emissions of main air pollutants | Specific indicator | |
Exposure of ecosystems to acidification, eutrophication and ozone | Specific indicator | |
Exceedance of air quality limit values in urban areas | Specific indicator | |
Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations | Specific indicator | |
Green growth and eco-innovation | Specific indicator | |
Global Climate Indicator (GCI) | Emitted total CO₂, CH₄, N₂O and CFCs and halons | |
CO₂ emissions | Specific indicator | |
Emission of greenhouse gases and local pollutants | Specific indicator | |
Urban core | ||
Green areas | Green area per capita | Green surface per capita |
Green space | Hectares/100,000 | |
Building | ||
Bioclimatic quality | Proposed | |
Shape and orientation | Type of shape. Building orientation | |
Ventilation quality | Presence/absence of internal ventilation. Ventilation level | |
Energy class | Level |
Historical-Architectural Criterion | ||
---|---|---|
Sub-Criterion | Indicator | Description |
Territory | ||
Integration with the environment | Indicated by literature | |
Exceptionality of the historical-cultural characteristics of the landscape | Score scale | |
Fragility of the historical-cultural characteristics of the landscape | Score scale | |
Designation of rural areas | «[…] If more than 50% of the total population lives in rural grid cells, the region is classified as predominantly rural. Regions where between 20% and 50% of the population lives in rural grid cells are considered intermediate, while those with less than 20% in rural grid cells are predominantly urban» | |
Importance of rural areas | This indicator consists in 4 sub-indicators: % territory in rural areas % population in rural areas % Gross Value Added in rural areas % employment in rural areas | |
Protected areas and elements | Surface extension. Level of environmental protection. Number of protected elements. Other specific indicators | |
Settlement dispersion | Urban penetration units per km2 of landscape (DSE/km2) Alternatively, it can be replaced with an urban sprawl index t to the initial year of investigation and t+n to the final year. urb refers to the built area (in terms of land consumed) expressed in km2 within administrative boundaries. pop is the total population of the municipality | |
Landscape value of skyline | Visual and aesthetic impact produced by human presence and activities on the skyline (linear/areal impact coefficient)
Lb expresses the baseline length delimited by that portion of the skyline. Si expresses the total surface area of the area engravings produced by human communities on the outline delimited by the skyline. Sc expresses the surface area limited by the skyline | |
Injured landscape | Representative indices of human impact on the landscape
At represents the total suburban area of the considered territory | |
Proposed | ||
Landscape infrastructures (religious itineraries, transhumance routes, protoindustrial architecture paths) | km of paths and trails recovered and/or valorized | |
Urban core | ||
Visual image | Indicated by literature | |
Historic preservation element/plan and integration with community planning | It is important to note whether or not the local government has a historical conservation plan as part of its overall plan (the community masterplan) | |
Fragility of the historical-cultural characteristics of the landscape | Score scale | |
Significance/Typicality of the historical-cultural characteristics of the landscape | Score scale | |
Landscape perceived beauty | Average score given through questionnaires on the beauty of the landscape in a specific municipality (1 = not corresponding at all; 5 = corresponding in full) | |
Landscape value of skyline | Visual and aesthetic impact produced by human presence and activities on the skyline (linear/areal impact coefficient)
Lb expresses the baseline length delimited by that portion of the skyline. Si expresses the total surface area of the area engravings produced by human communities on the outline delimited by the skyline. Sc expresses the surface area limited by the skyline | |
Panoramic sites | Relevance of panoramic sites in the perception of the landscape and in the preservation of its quality
Pd indicates the number of panoramic sites that have deteriorated as a result of improper interventions on the territory | |
Parking pressure | Visual impact dimension of car parks on the landscape
Lc expresses the length, calculated in km, of the relevant country lines developing in the territory concerned. Sp expresses the surface area, calculated in hectares (ha) of the spaces that, at times of maximum frequency, are car parks within the territory considered. Sc expresses the surface area, calculated in hectares (ha), of the territory characterized by the landscape to be safeguarded | |
Proposed | ||
Visual interference (or the presence of illegal building and/or architectural artefacts out of scale with respect to the pre-existing built fabric) | m3 of illegal building and/or architectural artefacts out of scale with respect to the pre-existing built fabric | |
Hydrographic ponds | N. of existing or designed hydrographic elements (natural or artificial) | |
Dialogue between the urban fabric and its context | Indicated by literature | |
Perceived quality of the landscape around the own home | Share of interviewees who were “not at all satisfied” (0) to “very satisfied” (10) with the quality of the landscape around their home | |
Panoramic sites | Relevance of panoramic sites in the perception of the landscape and in the preservation of its quality
Pd indicates the number of panoramic sites that have deteriorated as a result of improper interventions on the territory | |
Proposed | ||
Urban morphology (intended as the aggregation mode of settlements that define their form. The elements that structure an urban core are considered: Streets, buildings, open spaces, green areas) | How much the project proposal alters the way the settlement is aggregated (score scale) | |
Level of the relationship between the small town and its context | Score scale | |
Empty/Full relationship and green space system | Preservation of relation systems between assets | Score scale |
Accessibility to open public areas | Percentage (%) of urban area that is located less than 400 m away from an open public space
| |
Green, Public space and Heritage Indicator (GPI) | Percentage of green or public spaces and local heritage in need of improvement | |
Public outdoor recreation space | m2/cap | |
Green space accessibility | % of total population within 500 metres of public managed green areas (active and passive) | |
The number of green space reconstruction projects | N. | |
Urban pedestrian areas | Urban surface area pedestrianized in relation to the quality of the landscape
S indicates the extension, measured in hectares (ha), of the total urban area. | |
Valuing of urban public parks and gardens | It provides an evaluation of the green spaces’ function within the urban landscape
Sn indicates the area, measured in hectares (ha), of the green spaces that should be realised. | |
Revitalisation of historical urban spaces | Relationship between the urban spaces that have benefited, or are benefiting, from architectural recovery and cultural valorization in a single city, or in a complex of cities, and the complex of historical urban spaces existing in the urban context considered.
Sr expresses the surface area, measured in hectares (ha), of historical spaces which, at the time the indicator is calculated, are subject to architectural restoration and cultural valorization. St expresses the total area, measured in hectares (ha), of the city’s historical spaces taken into account. | |
Building | ||
Formal relationship between the building and the characteristics of the urban core | State of preservation of built heritage with reference to characterizing elements | Score scale |
Historic preservation element/plan and integration with community planning | It is important to note whether or not the local government has a historical conservation plan as part of its overall plan (the community masterplan) | |
Historic fabric | Measures the amount (%) of historical fabric in a specific community. This is done by dating the structures from the foundation of the settlement to the present day | |
Typological-distributive and typological-formal characteristics of the building | Preservation of the assets | It is proposed to evaluate this parameter according to the specificities of the case study |
Use of historical-cultural heritage | Percentage of buildings in use | |
Preservation of cultural heritage | Likert’s scale | |
Ground floor usage | % of m2 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nesticò, A.; Fiore, P.; D’Andria, E. Enhancement of Small Towns in Inland Areas. A Novel Indicators Dataset to Evaluate Sustainable Plans. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6359. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166359
Nesticò A, Fiore P, D’Andria E. Enhancement of Small Towns in Inland Areas. A Novel Indicators Dataset to Evaluate Sustainable Plans. Sustainability. 2020; 12(16):6359. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166359
Chicago/Turabian StyleNesticò, Antonio, Pierfrancesco Fiore, and Emanuela D’Andria. 2020. "Enhancement of Small Towns in Inland Areas. A Novel Indicators Dataset to Evaluate Sustainable Plans" Sustainability 12, no. 16: 6359. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166359