The Multidimensional Assessment of Land Take and Soil Sealing

  • Raffaele Attardi
  • Maria Cerreta
  • Valentina Sannicandro
  • Carmelo M. TorreEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9157)


In 2006 European Commission stated that soil, fairly recognisable as an ecosystem structure, can be considered essentially as a non-renewable resource, thus triggering both studies for the assessment of land take phenomenon and actions for its mitigation and reduction. In last two decades, a deeper and ecosystem approach to land-use policies targeted to the sustainable development enabled a closer understanding of the complexity of urban dynamics leading to the necessity of multidimensional and integrated approaches for the assessment of the use of resources. The paper presents a multi-dimensional approach to evaluate the phenomenon of land take and soil sealing implemented on a sample of municipalities in Apulia Region, in Southern Italy. The construction of a composite indicator for comparative qualitative and quantitative measurement of land take and soil sealing among the municipalities is aimed at a better evaluation of future urbanisation scenarios and at a monitoring process of urban growth.


Land use Urban sprawl Urban fringe Impact evaluation Composite indicator 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Breheny, M., Rookwood, R.: Planning the sustainable city region. In: Blowers, A. (ed.) Planning for a sustainable environment, pp. 150–189. Earthscan, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams, K., Burton, E., Jenks, M.: Achieving the compact city through intensification: an acceptable solution?. In: Jenks, M., Burton, E., Williams, K. (eds.) The Compact City. A sustainable urban form? pp. 71–83, E&FN Spon (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gulinck, H.: Neo-rurality and multifunctional landscapes. In: Multifunctional Landscapes, Brandt, J., Vejre, H. (eds.) vol. 1: Theory, Values and History, vol. 14 of Advances in Ecological Sciences, pp. 63–74. WIT Press, Southampton (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hite, J.: Land Use Conflicts on the Urban Fringe: Causes and Potential Resolution, Clemson, SC (Strom Thurmond Institute, Clemson University) (1998). URL:
  5. 5.
    Fulton, W., Pendall, R., Nguyen, M., Harrison, A.: Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S. In: Survey Series, Washington, DC (The Brookings Institution) (2001). Related online version:
  6. 6.
    Wolman, H., Galster, G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M., Furdell, K., Sarzynski, A.: The fundamental challenge. In: Measuring sprawl: which land should be considered? (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allen, C.R.: Sprawl and the Resilience of Humans and Nature: an Introduction to the Special Feature. Ecology and Society 11(1), 36 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Environmental Agency - EEA: Urban sprawl in Europe: The ignored challenge. EEA Report, 10/2006, Copenhagen (European Environmental Agency) (2006). related online version:
  9. 9.
    Adell, G.: Theories and models of the peri-urban interface: a changing conceptual landscape, London (Development Planning Unit, University College London) (1999). Related online version:
  10. 10.
    Allen, A., D’avila, J.: Mind the gap! Bridging the rural-urban divide. In: id21 insights, 41 (2002). URL:
  11. 11.
    Allen, A.: Environmental Planning and Management of the Peri-Urban Interface: Perspectives on an Emerging Field. Environment & Urbanization 15(1), 135–148 (2003). doi: 10.1177/095624780301500103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Antrop, M., Van Eetvelde, V.: Holistic Aspects of Suburban Landscapes: Visual Image Interpretation and Landscape Metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(1–3), 43–58 (2000). doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00079-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meeus, S.J., Gulinck, H.: Semi-Urban Areas in Landscape Research: A Review. In: Living Reviews in Landscape Research (2008). ISSN 1863-7329:
  14. 14.
    Cerreta, M., Malangone, V.: Valutazioni multi-metodologiche per il Paesaggio Storico Urbano: la Valle dei Mulini di Amalfi. BDC, Bollettino del centro Calza Bini 1, 39–60 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cerreta, M., Poli, G.: A Complex Values Map of Marginal Urban Landscapes: An Experiment in Naples (Italy). International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems 4(3), 41–62 (2013). doi: 10.4018/ijaeis.2013070103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Balena, P., Sannicandro, V., Torre, C.M.: Spatial Analysis of Soil Consumption and as Support to Transfer Development Rights Mechanisms. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Carlini, M., Torre, C.M., Nguyen, H.-Q., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) ICCSA 2013, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 7974, pp. 587–599. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Attardi, R., Cerreta, M., Franciosa, A., Gravagnuolo, A.: Valuing cultural landscape services: a multidimensional and multi-group SDSS for scenario simulations. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Rocha, A.M.A., Torre, C., Rocha, J.G., Falcão, M.I., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) ICCSA 2014, Part III. LNCS, vol. 8581, pp. 398–413. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Perchinunno, P., Rotondo, F., Torre, C.M.: The evidence of links between landscape and economy in rural park. International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems 3(2), 72–85 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barberis, R.: Consumo di suolo e qualità dei suoli urbani. In: Qualità dell’ambiente urbano – II Rapporto Apat, APAT 2005 – pp. 703–729 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ARPA Emilia-Romagna: Consumo di Suolo, in Gestione delle risorse naturali e dei rifiuti; Relazione sullo stato dell’ambiente della Regione Emilia-Romagna, pp. 618–644. (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Munda, G., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P.: Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for environmental management. Ecological Economics 10(2), 97–112 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Munda, G.: Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: some methodological issues. Ecological Economics 19(2), 157–168 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gough, C., Castells, N., Funtowicz, S.: Integrated Assessment: an emerging methodology for complex issues. Environmental Modelling and Assessment 3, 19–29 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ravetz, J.: Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(1), 31–64 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morano, P., Locurcio, M., Tajani, F., Guarini, M.R.: Urban redevelopment: a multi-criteria valuation model optimized through fuzzy logic. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Torre, C., Rocha, J.G., Falcao, M.I., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) Computational Science and Its Applications - ICCSA 2014, Guimaraes 2013. LNCS, vol. 8581, pp. 161–175. Springer, Switzerland (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Neill, R.V., Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G., Jackson, B., DeAngelis, D.L., Graham, R.L.: Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1(3), 153–162 (1988). doi: 10.1007/BF00162741 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosini, M.D.: Applications. In: Rosini, M.D. (ed.) Macroscopic Models for Vehicular Flows and Crowd Dynamics: Theory and Applications. UCS, vol. 12, pp. 217–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gomez-Sal, A., Belmontes, J.A., Nicolau, J.M.: Assessing landscape values: a proposal for a multidimensional conceptual model. Ecological Modelling 168, 319–341 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Feld, C.K., et al.: Assessing and monitoring ecosystems—indicators, concepts and their linkage to biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: RUBICODE (Ed.), Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems., p. 108 (2007). Review on Indicators.pdf
  30. 30.
    Schwarz, N.: Urban form revisited. Selecting indicators for characterizing European cities. Landscape and Urban Planning 96, 29–47 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., Makeschin, F.: A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators 21, 30–38 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hermann, A., Kuttner, M., Hainz-Renetzeder, C., Konkoly-Gyurò, E., Tiraszi, A., Brandenburg, C., Allex, B., Ziener, K., Wrbka, T.: Assessment framework for landscape services in European cultural landscapes: An Austrian Hungarian case study. Ecological Indicators 37, 229–240 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Balena, P., Sannicandro, V., Torre, C.M.: Spatial multicriterial evaluationof soil consumption as a tool for SEA. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Torre, C., Rocha, J.G., Falcao, M.I., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) Computational Science and Its Applications - ICCSA 2014, Springer International Publishing, pp. 446–458 (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Socco, C., Cavaliere, A.: Il bordo della città, Osservatorio Città Sostenibili - Dipartimento Interateneo Territorio - Politecnico e Università di Torino, Working Paper P09/07 (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W.: Landscapes Capacities to Provide Ecosystem Services. A Concept for Land-Cover Based Assessments. In: Landscape Online 15, 1–22, p. 6. (2009). doi: 10.3097/LO.200915
  36. 36.
    Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, New York. Springer-Verlag, USA (1981)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raffaele Attardi
    • 1
  • Maria Cerreta
    • 1
  • Valentina Sannicandro
    • 1
  • Carmelo M. Torre
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.MITO Lab, Department DICARTechnical University of BariBariItaly

Personalised recommendations