Planning and Design Perspectives for Land Take Containment: An Operative Framework (SpringerBriefs in Geography) 3030910652, 9783030910655

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN GEOGRAPHY

Benedetta Giudice

Planning and Design Perspectives for Land Take Containment An Operative Framework 123

SpringerBriefs in Geography

SpringerBriefs in Geography presents concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across the fields of physical, environmental and human geography. It publishes compact refereed monographs under the editorial supervision of an international advisory board with the aim to publish 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance. Volumes are compact, 50 to 125 pages, with a clear focus. The series covers a range of content from professional to academic such as: timely reports of state-of-the art analytical techniques, bridges between new research results, snapshots of hot and/or emerging topics, elaborated thesis, literature reviews, and in-depth case studies. The scope of the series spans the entire field of geography, with a view to significantly advance research. The character of the series is international and multidisciplinary and will include research areas such as: GIS/cartography, remote sensing, geographical education, geospatial analysis, techniques and modeling, landscape/ regional and urban planning, economic geography, housing and the built environment, and quantitative geography. Volumes in this series may analyze past, present and/or future trends, as well as their determinants and consequences. Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in this series. SpringerBriefs in Geography will be of interest to a wide range of individuals with interests in physical, environmental and human geography as well as for researchers from allied disciplines. More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/10050

Benedetta Giudice

Planning and Design Perspectives for Land Take Containment An Operative Framework

Benedetta Giudice Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning Politecnico and Università di Torino Torino, Italy

ISSN 2211-4165     ISSN 2211-4173 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Geography ISBN 978-3-030-91065-5    ISBN 978-3-030-91066-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91066-2 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 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, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword: Land Take and the Emerging Role in the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19: Environmental and Territorial Pressures Starting from the environmental policy of the European Union, it is possible to recognise a deep sensibilisation on land take in relation to its relevance for sustainability, resilience, climate change, health and well-being. In the last decade, the land take phenomenon showed a considerable reduction: from over 1000  km2/year between 2000 and 2006 to 539 km2/year between 2012 and 2018.1 Nowadays, in Italy, even if more slowly than in the previous years, the phenomenon of land take is still increasing with a value of approximately 57 million m2, and a rate of increase of 2 m2/s.2 This enduring situation opened an active debate in the Italian Parliament in order to define a national legislative and programmatic framework able to promote a progressive evolution to the zero net land take scenario, as proposed by the Rio+20 strategy. At the European and Italian level, land take is essential to promote coherent responses to climate change, trying to develop a multiscale planning and design approach, able to forecast an optimal use of the land resources, responding to territorial fragilities and developing a regeneration action of the land and underused landscapes.3 The land take strategy for sustainability and resilience is also an emerging design paradigm in relation to the current pandemic event; this is one of the most significant contributions of the book by Benedetta Giudice in order to change urban policies, plans and design issues.  Data available via https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/land-take-3/assessment  Munafò M (ed) (2020) Consumo di suolo, dinamiche territoriali e servizi ecosistemici. Edizione 2020. Report SNPA 15/20. Available via https://www.snpambiente.it/2020/07/22/consumo-di-­ suolo-dinamiche-territoriali-e-servizi-ecosistemici-edizione-2020/. Assessed 5 December 2020 3  MATTM (2015) Strategia Nazionale di Adattamento ai Cambiamenti Climatici. Available via http://www.pdc.minambiente.it/sites/default/files/allegati/Strategia_nazionale_adattamento_cambiamenti_climatici.pdf. Assessed 5 December 2020; CMCC (2017) Piano Nazionale di Adattamento ai Cambiamenti Climatici, PNACC, Prima stesura per la consultazione pubblica. Available via https://www.minambiente.it/sites/default/files/archivio_immagini/adattamenti_climatici/documento_pnacc_luglio_2017.pdf. Assessed 5 December 2020 1 2

v

vi

Foreword: Land Take and the Emerging Role in the COVID-19 Pandemic

The current COVID-19 situation has indeed highlighted the need to reconsider the relationship with the Earth in all its dimensions, even the most devastating ones, and rethink a development model based on sustainability and resilience. Indeed, the pandemic has made it evident the need to rebalance the weight of the three dimensions of sustainability (economy, society and environment), requiring greater knowledge of the phenomenon, pursuing immediate responses to the new pandemic emergency and rebalancing the approach on the role of nature and biodiversity for the antifragility of the territory.4 At the same time, it is necessary to define a resilient strategy in the long term. According to the main recorded and international programs, this approach aims to redefine our territorial governance models and environmental actions.5 The topic of contrasting the environmental, climatic, ecological and health crisis hinges on sustainable development objectives. For example, it aims at respecting the balance between human and natural systems, defining development perspectives basing them on the principles of social and intergenerational justice. In this framework, it appears strategic considering the value of the soil. Nowadays, in order to consider these new issues, it is necessary to redefine the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to the ongoing international debate conducted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the EUROPARC Federation on the necessity to reallocate investments (which are estimated to be around 1 billion dollars a year) and to reframe long-term scenarios. Additionally, this new situation makes it necessary to update some European and global policies, such as the implementation of the Paris government agreements on the Climate Agreement, the EU Biodiversity Strategy, the EU Green Deal, the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing Development and the WHO Manifesto. The current situation demonstrates that the framework of the SDGs and the international policies requires substantial governmental, social, medical and scientific changes,6 making clear which are the priorities for the post-pandemic era. In this perspective, which of these goals can be achieved in a less connected world within a slow global economy? Moreover, how to rethink the direct impacts on the environment, climate and human health of the scenarios of territorial development caused by the current models of life and consumption, as well as the use of urban and natural or open spaces? As said by Rudolf Virchow,7 the father of modern pathology, the epidemic is a social phenomenon with medical effects. In my opinion, as a planner and a landscape researcher, it is possible to imagine that it is a  Taleb N N (2012) Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder. Random House, New York  Naidoo R, Fisher B (2020) Sustainable Development Goals: pandemic reset. Nature, 583:198–201. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01999-x 6  Horton R (2020a) COVID-19 is not a pandemic. The Lancet, 396(10255):874. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32000-6; Horton R (2020b) Covid-19. La catastrofe. Cosa è andato storto e come fermarlo di nuovo. Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore, Roma 7  See Virchow R (1985) Collected Essays on Public Health and Epidemiology. Volume 1. Science History Publications, Canton 4 5

Foreword: Land Take and the Emerging Role in the COVID-19 Pandemic

vii

territorial phenomenon capable of producing significant effects on different sectors: economy, society (regarding fragility and social equity) and environment. In order to achieve this, it requires knowledge of the phenomenon and immediate and long-­ term resilient responses aimed at redefining our models of territorial planning and environmental governance. In planning debates, it is necessary to understand how planning tools at different levels shape actions to react to the contagion and define suitable territorial choices and impacts in emergency conditions in urban areas? Using Singer’s “syndemy concept,”8 urban areas are affected by the multiple integrated effects of anthropisation and land take processes. As a medical anthropologist, he remarks that COVID-19 clusters with pre-existing conditions, interacting with them, and should be considered driven by broader territorial problems, such as political, economic and social factors. In fact, the planet is a network of interconnected systems, and the intertwining between natural and anthropogenic phenomena is multiple and extremely complex. The COVID-19 pandemic is an integral part of this network, and it contributes to determining and combining the different causes. The threats to biodiversity, with the continuous loss and fragmentation of habitats, the trade and exploitation of wild species, including for food purposes and the greater contact between man and wildlife, land take, the deforestation and hydrogeological instability, pollution and anthropic pressure, have significantly contributed to the outburst of the current pandemic. Additionally, they contributed to strengthening ongoing issues such as climate change, risks to human health (spillover, zoonosis), the increase of fragility and the urban crisis of social and economic balances on the global scale. All these elements represent a prerequisite to be considered when facing new emergencies at a global level. These problems are relevantly affecting cities and need a specific response from urban and regional planning. The changes in land use and the emergency of land take have increased the population’s exposure to shocks, whether they are anthropic, natural or connected to health issues.9 This increase has stressed the current economic and social fragilities both in terms of loss of human lives and socio-economic crises, limiting personal freedom and producing significant lifestyle changes. In this way, the health crisis has turned into an urban crisis, requiring re-orientating the consolidated spatial, social and economic models basing the planning and design activity on new paradigms able to face the sustainability and resilience challenges.10

8  Singer M, Bulled N, Ostrach B, Mendenhall E (2017) Syndemics and the biosocial conception of health. The Lancet, 389(10072):941–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30003-X 9  Mendenhall E (2020) The COVID-19 syndemic is not global: context matters. The Lancet, 396(10264):1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32218-2 10  Voghera A, Giudice B (2019) Evaluating and Planning Green Infrastructure: A Strategic Perspective for Sustainability and Resilience. Sustainability, 11, 2726. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11102726

viii

Foreword: Land Take and the Emerging Role in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Planning and Design Solutions In order to face the multiple challenges of the current pandemic and territorial crisis, we should adopt win-win solutions that can have multiple benefits: (1) achieving universal health coverage, (2) strengthening the capacity of early warning systems for global health risks and (3) focusing on development (improving well-being and quality of life) rather than growth (increasing economic performance). The paradigm of green and blue infrastructure planning and design that Benedetta Giudice discusses in the framework of the French and Italian planning systems is one of the strategic solutions to contrast land take and to open a new way to the optimal use of the resource soil, from the planning to the economic point of view. Currently, many policymakers and investors recognise that it is not possible to optimise short-term growth. Spending on clean air and water, climate, peaceful and resilient communities, and healthy ecosystems requires new models of action, including economic ones. In this sense, we can figure out measures that generate direct social responses and environmental objectives with financial and economic instruments, such as a green territorial strategy supported and implemented by economic resources. As Voghera and Giudice (2019)11 recognised, green and blue infrastructure started their successful path from an original issue inspired by landscape ecology principles.12 Nowadays, it has been widely recognised and promoted as the “ecological framework needed for environmental, social and economic sustainability”13 because it can be developed for connecting and supplying ecological, economic and social benefits, which are at the basis of sustainable development. As Benedetta Giudice states in her book, green and blue infrastructure entered into planning theories, policies and design practices. In this sense, the European Commission (EC) recognised green and blue infrastructure as a “strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services.”14 It is the contemporary metaphor of sustainable and resilient planning approach that bases the design on

 Voghera A, Giudice B (2019) Evaluating and Planning Green Infrastructure: A Strategic Perspective for Sustainability and Resilience. Sustainability, 11, 2726. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11102726 12  Burel F, Baudry J (1999) Écologie du paysage. Concepts, méthodes et applications. Édi-tions TEC&DOC, Paris; Clergeau P (2007) Une écologie du paysage urbain. Éditions Apogée, Rennes 13  Benedict M A, McMahon E T (2002) Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century; Sprawl Watch Clearing House: Washington, DC. Available via http://www.sprawlwatch. org/greeninfrastructure.pdf. Assessed 1 December 2020 14  EC  – European Commission (2013) Communication from the Commission to the Europe-an Parliament, The Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital, COM/2013/0249 Final. European Commission, Brussels. Available via https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ HTML/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249&from=EN. Assessed 1 December 2020 11

Foreword: Land Take and the Emerging Role in the COVID-19 Pandemic

ix

multiscale landscape benefits (exemplary are the cases of London, Paris and New York in promoting climate change adaptation and biodiversity preservation). Furthermore, the green and blue infrastructure paradigm can be the most relevant solution to implement the 7th Environment Action Programme, in line with its four key pillars for enabling a framework for the transition to a green economy: (1) implementation, (2) integration, (3) information and (4) investments. It can be used to support transitions of territorial and landscape systems that provide food, mobility, energy, biodiversity and well-being to the European population. It calls for collaborative consumption focusing on resources efficiently, shifting from individual decisions to organised or collective demand. Additionally, it fosters prosumerism enabled by technological innovations such as smart grids and technological solutions (grey actions) and social innovation, thus generating new social relationships. These actions allow promoting sustainability transitions, eco-innovation processes and eco-design, reducing the environmental impacts of anthropic processes and basing the planning and design solution on ecologically based planning and design. Angioletta Voghera Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino Turin, Italy

Acknowledgements

This book mainly emerges from my PhD thesis held at Politecnico di Torino and discussed in June 2018. I am deeply grateful to my supervisors, professor Angioletta Voghera (Politecnico di Torino) and professor Gilles Novarina (École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Grenoble), which guided and advised me with patience and encouragement throughout my PhD years and, furthermore, spent little time writing the foreword and the afterword of this book. Finally, I want to thank my parents, who always supported my decisions and believed in my capabilities.

xi

Contents

1 Introduction: Innovative Reflections on Land Take ����������������������������    1 1.1 Changed Conditions of Cities ����������������������������������������������������������    1 1.2 Ecological Paradigms������������������������������������������������������������������������    3 1.3 Proposing a New Approach��������������������������������������������������������������    6 1.4 Structure and Contents of the Book��������������������������������������������������    8 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    9 2 Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach��������   13 2.1 Urban Sprawl: A Matter of Terminology, Time and Place����������������   13 2.1.1 European Interpretations������������������������������������������������������   17 2.2 In Search for Alternatives ����������������������������������������������������������������   21 2.2.1 Coping with Land Take in Global and European Policies����������������������������������������������������������   23 2.3 Planning Alternatives: The Quest for Limitation Towards Sustainability������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   27 2.4 The Environmental and Ecological Turn������������������������������������������   30 2.5 Moving Towards a Diverse Approach to Land Take ������������������������   33 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   34 3 Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences����������������������������������������������������������   39 3.1 France and Italy in the European Context����������������������������������������   39 3.1.1 An Overview on Land Take��������������������������������������������������   41 3.1.2 French and Italian Planning Systems in the European Context��������������������������������������������������������   42 3.1.3 Institutional Setting��������������������������������������������������������������   47 3.1.4 Planning Tools����������������������������������������������������������������������   50 3.2 Planning for Sustainability����������������������������������������������������������������   56 3.3 Green Infrastructure in France and Italy������������������������������������������   61 3.4 Elements of Innovation ��������������������������������������������������������������������   66 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   68

xiii

xiv

Contents

4 Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies��������������������������������������������������������������   71 4.1 Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region����������������������������������������   71 4.1.1 The Cities of Grenoble and Lyon������������������������������������������   72 4.1.2 Planning Tools����������������������������������������������������������������������   74 4.1.3 Trames Vertes et Bleues in Action: From the Regional to the Local Scale��������������������������������������������   78 4.1.4 The Urban Project Approach������������������������������������������������   90 4.2 Case 2: The Piedmont Region����������������������������������������������������������   97 4.2.1 Institutional and Planning Background��������������������������������   97 4.2.2 Sustainability Issues��������������������������������������������������������������   99 4.2.3 Methodological Innovations in GI Construction in the Province of Turin��������������������������������������������������������  102 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  108 5 Ecological Planning����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  111 5.1 Emerging Paradigms from French and Italian Approaches��������������  111 5.2 Merging Planning and Design����������������������������������������������������������  114 5.3 Defining Perspectives for Sustainable and Resilient Cities��������������  118 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  122  Afterword: Toward an Urbanism of Biodiversity? ��������������������������������������  125 Gilles Novarina Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  133

Chapter 1

Introduction: Innovative Reflections on Land Take

Abstract  Since the 1980s, land take and, later, its ecological concerns have become an integral part of European planning and design debates. Due mainly to the acknowledgement that the world population is estimated to be above all urban, the literature is still passionate, recognising a place of honour to the rapid urbanisation process. Currently, the urbanisation process is associated with global urban challenges (climate change, biodiversity preservation and soil artificialisation). In this regard, this chapter lays the groundwork for the overall argument, discussing some key points: the evidence of a changed status of traditional historical cities, caused by the rapid urbanisation process, and the continuous emergence and mainstreaming of ecological paradigms, as one of the main challenges for current planning and design approaches. To this end, the book aims to develop a new approach to land take, proposing a turnabout: cities are still central to deal with global challenges, but the starting point of planning and design is represented by natural, ecological and landscape elements. In the end, the book proposes some potential perspectives that are substantial to sustainable and resilient cities. Keywords  Urban sprawl · Land take · Sustainability · Urbanisation · Ecological transition · Green infrastructure

1.1  Changed Conditions of Cities Worldwide cities, above all traditional European ones, are known for their compact historical city centre surrounded by walls. Nowadays, it is a common opinion that the traditional features of cities do not exist anymore, their image has dissolved and cities are becoming more and more unsettling (Perulli 2014). The result is that cities’ image is now less dense, covering a more extended portion of land where boundaries and hierarchies merge into each other. Despite this contemporary urbanisation process, this dissolution has not affected the urban condition, but it has renewed and amplified it (Indovina 2016). Nowadays, this idea of cities is correlated to some global challenges and emergent phenomena: environmental degradation, climate change, global warming, loss of biodiversity and soil permeability and air © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 B. Giudice, Planning and Design Perspectives for Land Take Containment, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91066-2_1

1

2

1  Introduction: Innovative Reflections on Land Take

pollution. Additionally, cities are also characterised by the rapid increase of urban population. Indeed, within the next 30 years, the world population is notably estimated to be above all urban (UN 2019) due mainly to the shift from the countryside to city centres, and the land occupied by cities will drastically increase. The 1980s iconic image of the “city as an egg” by Price well describes the evolving urbanisation phenomenon, presenting the different stages of modern cities compared to an egg and its possible cooking methods – boiled, fried and scrambled. It is no coincidence that this cooking metaphor is later recalled by Duany et al. (2000, p. 42) when defining American sprawl: “the new American city has been likened to an unmade omelet: eggs, cheese, vegetables, a pinch of salt, but each consumed in turn, raw.” Many urban settlements emerge for the prevalence of horizontal growth, characterised by low-density housing (mainly at the rural fringe), high land occupation and the increasing use of the private car. The immediate result in the international literature is the redefinition of urban boundaries and the (re)conceptualisation of different processes and forms of urbanisation, leading to identify new “figures of urbanised territories” (Lanzani 2015) or to define emergent processes of urbanisation (Brenner 2014; Soja 2000). In both cases, the immediate reference is to urban sprawl (Bruegmann 2005; Galster et al. 2001) that reconceptualised entire research fields, first in the American context and later worldwide. The principal consequence of new urbanisation models recalls the concepts of land take which instantly helps figure the involvement of land taken from the ground and soil sealing. These two phenomena contribute to many environmental problems, and they are one of the main causes of soil depletion processes (Ronchi et al. 2019). The link with planning and planners’ involvement is immediate. Indeed, in these years, planners have built knowledge and experiences and have matured their opinions and thoughts on the changed conditions of cities. In Europe, planning systems differ one from another (see Sect. 3.1.2; Nadin and Stead 2008), and some of these systems contributed to the expansion of cities not rationalising urban plans’ choices. For example, in Italy, many urban plans are the same as 20 years ago, characterised by a traditional zoning system and planning choices based upon urban and infrastructural growth. Additionally, considering the high number of municipalities and their attributed importance, Italian urban plans are often the result of uncoordinated and contradictory planning choices. In order to curb land take, pressures to realise coordinated and harmonious urban plans among municipalities were inevitable but little pursued. Indeed, a fragmented institutional and policy setting where goals and strategies of municipalities and sectors are not aligned may prove to be counterproductive (Borgström et  al. 2006). In this perspective, the long-term strategy promoted by the French government to adopt supralocal plans and the continuous process of renovation of planning instruments proves to be functional. One of the first turning points in international planning studies and practices is the introduction of the concept of sustainable development in the 1987 Brundtland Report (Brundtland 1987), later emphasised in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN 1992). Sustainable development and sustainability entail different spheres of interaction, the social, the economic and the environmental ones. Indeed, in discourses on sustainability, land take and urban growth

1.2  Ecological Paradigms

3

have gained even more importance. This increased importance is because land take and urban sprawl pose major sustainability challenges. These challenges are emphasised by the priority given to environmental concerns in urban plans’ choices, the imposition of a long-term perspective and a particular concern on irreversible environmental and ecological phenomena. Additionally, urban growth demonstrated the necessity to overcome urban localism to focus on transterritorial implications of local planning choices (Camagni 1999). Already in the 1990s, the evidence was that new urban processes claimed new energetic equilibria and new relationships with natural cycles and resources (Gambino 1992). In this perspective, the United Nations, through the establishment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, relaunched the concept of sustainable development claiming for a global improvement of everyday life, including the sustainability and resilience of cities, the need to contrast climate change, the protection of life on land and below water. The introduction of SDGs shows that sustainability works at different scales which is also reflected in planning practices. Already in the 1990s, indeed, starting from the consideration of the three dimensions of sustainable development applied to urban realities, it was clear the necessity to define new approaches to planning at different scales. In particular, when dealing with land take and urban growth, many scholars identified the wide area as the most pertinent scale (Gibelli 2016) to overcome municipal boundaries. Next to large-scale interventions, worldwide, some cities have been promoting sustainability pathways (e.g. reforestation interventions1) and advancing actions against threats (such as stormwater management). As a direct connection to the changed conditions of cities, currently, the world is facing a historical period characterised by uncertainty (Gabellini 2018). Not only the recent crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic but even before the world encountered economic, social, environmental and climatic imbalances which led to times of uncertainty. This uncertainty called not only for sustainable strategies but, more recently, also for adaptability, resilience and transformation processes (Folke et al. 2010; Johnson et al. 2018). In a world of uncertainty, urbanisation has acquired new interpretations as a disturbance in the urban form (Samuelsson et al. 2019).

1.2  Ecological Paradigms To respond to the adverse effects of urbanisation and face incoming global challenges, there is the need to consider “ecological knowledge” in urban planning (Niemelä 1999). These global challenges include climate change, food security,

1  For example the “million trees NYC” promoted in the framework of the PLANYC by the city of New York City. In 2020, the Italian Ministry for the Environment launched a national call for the presentation of urban reforestation projects.

4

1  Introduction: Innovative Reflections on Land Take

deforestation, land degradation and resource depletion.2 To overcome the minimal attention given to the implications of ecological considerations (Wilkinson 2011), this “ecological knowledge” helps introduce new paradigms in planning. These new paradigms concern the resource soil on which cities and suburbs lie on. The soil is a scarce and nonrenewable resource. It is considered in association with its vital functions (such as food production, hydrological cycles and the provision of ecosystem services), assuring citizens’ well-being and an acceptable quality of life. Additionally, it protects communities from floods. A sealed soil hinders the normal life cycle of these functions contributing to worsening climate change conditions. Due to the above-mentioned changed conditions of cities, sustainability, soil preservation and quality of life gained political momentum in Europe, where many policies and strategies have been released, and many others are currently being discussed. In the European Union (EU) framework, facing upcoming ecological challenges was included as one of the principal territorial cohesion goals (EEA 2011). More recently, the European Green Deal has set the ambitious goal to make the EU the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. It based its strategy upon eight pillars, within which sustainable soil management plays a central role (Montanarella and Panagos 2021). In this perspective, the EU delivered several measures and initiatives to protect the quality of soils: the “Farm to Fork Strategy” to make food systems fair, healthy and environmentally friendly, and the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030. Within the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 and after failing in approving the Soil Thematic Strategy (EC 2006), the roadmap for a new EU soil strategy was launched in November 2020. The overarching aim of all these measures is to reinforce the importance of soil preservation as “healthy soils are essential to meet climate and biodiversity goals under the European Green Deal” and deliver high food quality. In particular, the new roadmap paves the way for a process of consultation with citizens and stakeholders. The reported goals3 (protect soil fertility, reduce erosion and sealing, increase organic matter, identify contaminated sites, restore degraded soils, define what constitutes good ecological status for soils) show the intentions to address specific orientations to address soil degradation and preserve soils functions. The European Green Deal makes it even more evident the interplays between soil and climate issues: soil mistreatment adversely affects the climate, and climate change takes revenge on the soil. In this perspective, the European Climate Law also includes actions to safeguard soils and their vital functions. Additionally, the EU in December 2020 launched the new EU Soil Observatory that aims at collecting information and data necessary to raise communitarian awareness on the value of soils and develop meaningful indicators and assessment to safeguard soils’ functions and address policy development.  In relation to resources availability, every year the “Earth Overshoot Day” is established when ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. Every year this date is anticipated with respect to the previous year. For example, in 2016, the date was the 8th August, while in 2017 the 2nd August, in 2018 and 2019, the 29th July. The “Earth Overshoot Day” is an initiative of Global Footprint Network. 3  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12634-New-EU-SoilStrategy-healthy-soil-for-a-healthy-life 2

1.2  Ecological Paradigms

5

Despite the lack of a common European directive, most European countries have emphasised the significance of the environment (and the landscape) for their fundamental cultural and civil value in their national agenda. For example Italy recognises landscape as one of the principles of its National Constitution (article 9) but still lacks a national strategy specifically addressed to tackle land take and preserve the functions of fertile soils. The slowdown of normative changes and the inertia of choices led to high land take values (see Sect. 3.1.1). In the planning field, many countries proposed sustainable soil management practices to address favourable conditions for achieving urban sustainability. The provision of green spaces (Boulton et al. 2018), green belts, greenways, green infrastructure (GI) and also the promotion of urban regeneration interventions have been (re)conceptualised to limit urban sprawl, enhance densification processes (Haaland and van den Bosch 2015), preserve biodiversity, mitigate climate change (Gill et al. 2007) and even provide positive outcomes to mental and physical health (Ekkel and de Vries 2017; Maas et al. 2006). Among these strategies, GI is the most challenging one as it entails several additional concepts, such as ecosystem services, nature-­ based solution and social-ecological systems (SES). The latter represents one of the principal focus of ongoing scientific debates in environmental studies and European initiatives and policies. The concept of SES allows reflecting on GI’s role in the interplays between human and environmental fields (van der Jagt et al. 2019) which “are central to the very process of human settlement, urbanization and well-being” (Wilkinson 2011, p.  155). Compared to the limited notion of ecological network (Bennett 2004; Jongman and Pungetti 2004), the concept of GI allows embracing social and economic elements. In this sense, GI can no longer be considered “old wine in new bottles” (Davies et al. 2006, p. 5), since it allows envisioning a broader set of practical features. In particular, the concept of GI allows including the features of multifunctionality and multiscalarity in the urban project. As already mentioned, adopting a multiscalar approach can help reduce the impacts of land take and develop coordinated and sustainable planning choices. Furthermore, the above-­ mentioned fragmented institutional and policy setting may also affect the correct functionality of GI. To counterbalance the effects of urban sprawl, several models and movements of urbanism emerged worldwide: New Urbanism, Landscape Urbanism and Ecological Urbanism (see Sect. 2.3). In this framework, a sort of social-ecological urbanism movement and urban ecological design emerged with the promotion of several urban initiatives of regeneration, renaturalisation and regreening. The proliferation of these local initiatives demonstrates how the topic is still relevant in current times and how it has been associated with environmental, ecological and natural issues. In this sense, emerging from academic debates, land take and actions to contrast it have become an abused topic succeeding in being mainstreamed in decision-making processes and public debates. The initiatives can have different characteristics and inputs and can be either top-down or bottom-up ones.4

4  In Italy, some popular initiatives arose in favour of land take containment (e.g. the experience of the forum “Salviamo il paesaggio”).

6

1  Introduction: Innovative Reflections on Land Take

The urgent call for innovation in environmental and ecological assets and hope for the world’s sustainable future assessment is not strictly bound to environmental studies. The emerging necessity is also evident in the Pope’s encyclical “Laudato sì” (2015). This encyclical represents the first document in Church’s history dealing with environmental protection topics, “the care of our common house.” This topic arises from the awareness of the ongoing ecological pressures, crisis and catastrophes that the world is continuously facing. “Since everything is closely interrelated, and today’s problems call for a vision capable of taking into account every aspect of the global crisis,” the encyclical calls for an “integral ecology” in respect to human and social dimensions. The document, acknowledging the scientific consensus on ecological issues, integrates the socio-cultural and spiritual values. The inclusion of these values helps to relate environmental degradation with the increasing social situation of poverty and suffering, and it can have the ambition to build joint actions of new development models. In this view, these models should address all the features of the ongoing crisis.

1.3  Proposing a New Approach The rapid urbanisation, other urban challenges and their associated impacts contributed to putting sustainability and quality of life at the centre of international debates; moreover, these urban challenges are expected to endure in the next years (Keivani 2010). Nowadays, even though it could appear an exhausted topic, the international data show the increasing urgency to deal with it operatively. The book does not intend to develop additional measurement methodologies, but, starting from the available data, it aims at exploring the relationships among the phenomena of urban diffusion, land take, soil sealing and existing planning and design strategies. To assure a desirable ecological transition, what emerges is that the changed conditions of cities and the uprising ecological paradigms bring out some main elements of discussion: • The leading role of sustainability (specified in its three components) in urban planning practices and the emergence of the concept of urban and territorial resilience • The identification of the most appropriate scale for action, in favour of a multiscalar approach, able to connect different environments, overcome urban boundaries and harmonise planning choices • The need to integrate operatively ecological and natural features into planning and design tools at different scales In this process of ecological transition, soil can play a central role and has the opportunity to become the “environmental infrastructure” (Pavia 2019) on which to base the future development of cities with particular attention on the adaptation and mitigation to climate change. Soil as a continuum can help redefine urban, local and supralocal strategies, redefine the “progetto di suolo” (Secchi 1986) and overarch

1.3  Proposing a New Approach

7

several concepts. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully handle the resource soil in the idea of the urban project, whereas often, the alterations of the Earth’s surface escape the logic of the project and the plan entirely. Additionally, while recalling the interplays between climate and soils, it is essential to work simultaneously on both sides: on the one hand, the adaptation and mitigation to climate change and, on the other hand, soil design. In this sense, climate and soil can guide planners and policymakers toward an integrated and innovative approach to urban design and planning. Soil, when unaltered, as part of the natural resources, falls within the “reverse the gaze” logic, where the plan and the urban project are built starting from natural and landscape elements.5 The approach proposed in the book, the GI one, helps considering cities in their entirety as “complex ecological identities” (Alberti et al. 2003) or “complex adaptive systems” (Marcus and Colding 2014; McPhearson et al. 2016) capable of merging into the urban environment dynamic interactions among biophysical, socio-economic and ecological features. Indeed, the GI approach is one of the few approaches that attempt to integrate these elements; this integration appears necessary to mitigate some of the impacts caused by land take at different scales. Additionally, as already mentioned, since the multiscalar approach of GI and the fact that ecology and biodiversity do not stand on fixed boundaries, it can help overcome the rigidity of urban plans imposed by zoning and municipal boundaries.6 The GI approach allows reinterpreting the role of supralocal plans, which have often been put aside in favour of local plans, and overcoming the separateness of the many fields of knowledge that characterise contemporary culture. On the one hand, this reinterpretation favours the development of wide-area plans, strategically considered favourable to soil preservation, and a holistic approach capable of integrating the fields of knowledge into an organic project. In this sense, it is, therefore, possible to reorient the ecological approach to planning (Steiner 2008) toward new strategies, also considering the urban design practices (Palazzo and Steiner 2011). In this perspective, GI offers several features which are central in current urban planning and design: multiscalarity, multifunctionality, diversity, and connectivity. Its multiscalarity constitutes the principal element in territorial and landscape structuring, providing the good preservation and rehabilitation of natural and ecological values, from the regional scale to the urban one, and the regeneration of degraded areas. The multifunctionality opens the path to the inclusion of different dimensions, considering the role and the design of public spaces, the effects of social demand for an acceptable quality of life, while, at the same time, facing some inevitable social inequalities (Garcia-Lamarca et al. 2019; Haase et al. 2017). At the European level, some countries recognised the importance of safeguarding soils and enhancing natural resources in contemporary cities. In this perspective,

 This concept is resumed from the 2006 SCoT of Montpellier (see Sect. 3.3).  This approach could principally favour the Italian planning system, since it is strictly bounded to municipal boundaries and urban plans are mainly developed at the municipal scale. 5 6

8

1  Introduction: Innovative Reflections on Land Take

some European countries included the GI strategy in their ordinary planning practices. The French case study of Trames Vertes et Bleues (see Sects. 3.3 and 4.1), since its national implementation, represents a significant example of territorial and ecological cohesion. Furthermore, this example shows that GI is not widespread only in academic and scientific debates, but it has had an operative implementation also among public decision-makers and practitioners. Such an awareness was also made possible inasmuch as the French government has always continued innovating its planning tools. On the contrary, the Italian planning system is more traditional and blocked in its original features. Indeed, in Italy, the introduction of GI appears to be weaker, sporadic and limited. Starting from this rhetoric, European and international experiences show that it is necessary to reach an acceptable level of naturality in cities. In this sense, there is the necessity to implement operatively a flexible and ecologically oriented design that favours urban renewal actions and the valorisation of urban green spaces instead of new interventions of land take on natural and agricultural soils. In order to effectively preserve ecological continuities, biodiversity conservation strategies must be prioritised and need to consider the possible spatiotemporal dynamics of territories. In this perspective, the proposed GI approach allows innovating planning practices and design at different scales. This innovation can adequately address upcoming challenges of contemporary cities and suburbs, reducing the use (and abuse) of natural resources and contributing to the achievement of sustainable and resilient objectives (Voghera and Giudice 2019).

1.4  Structure and Contents of the Book This book is organised into five chapters. The first chapter introduces the book’s topic, framing it in the current international debates and explains the proposed approach. The second chapter examines urban sprawl, land take and soil sealing in relation to their interplays with environmental and ecological issues in planning practices. First, this chapter deals with the difficulties that emerged when conceptualising the phenomenon of urban sprawl and land take. The in-depth literature review revealed indeed the emergence of various terms which entailed different meanings. Subsequently to the increase of these new urban settlements (and their related terminology), some movements attempted to contrast this tendency to continuously building low-density settlements at the rural fringe. The EU, with the support of the European Environmental Agency (EEA), delivered many strategies to tackle the direct and indirect consequences of urban sprawl and land take (Sect. 2.2.1). The final aim of these strategies is to achieve the objective of “no net land take” by 2050 (Science for Environment Policy 2016) and climate neutrality by 2050. In parallel, some European countries developed national policies and planning strategies to limit urban growth (Sect. 2.3). Among these planning strategies, green belts are quite emblematic as they were conceived even before the issue of

References

9

urban sprawl became so abused. Defined initially as green containers for stopping urban growth, throughout the years, the emergent environmental and ecological pressures make it evident the necessity to shift toward models of sustainable planning. In this perspective, the strategy of green infrastructure (GI) is one of the most developed in many European countries (Sect. 2.4), and even the EU identifies its strategic role for biodiversity and landscape preservation (EC 2013). In particular, the book set the framework of two European countries, France and Italy. This framework is the core of Chaps. 3 and 4. The third chapter sets the contexts of the two countries in relation to some central topics: planning systems (Sect. 3.1.2), the institutional setting (Sect. 3.1.3) and the planning tools (Sect. 3.1.4). Due to the extent of these issues, this chapter does not pretend to cover all of them exhaustively, but it aims at framing the main peculiarities linked to the core topic of the book, that is land take. The last two paragraphs of this chapter present the latest planning changes, highlighting the aspects of sustainability and the development of green infrastructure. The fourth chapter applies the elements developed in the previous chapter in two case studies in France and Italy. On the one hand, the French case study (Sect. 4.1) is the region of Rhône-Alpes and the cities of Grenoble of Lyon, and, on the other hand, the Italian case study (Sect. 4.2) is the region of Piedmont and the Metropolitan City of Turin. This chapter aims to examine different approaches to ecological preservation and green infrastructure, highlighting how it is not only a matter of methodology but it also includes urban design interventions. This factor can be easily deduced from the multiscalarity of the proposed plans and projects, from the regional scale to the plot (Sect. 4.1.4). The fifth chapter draws the key themes. In particular, it traces the emerging paradigms suggested by the French and the Italian approaches (Sect. 5.1), and it proposes some features to tackle urban sprawl and enhance biodiversity preservation, merging actions of planning and design (Sect. 5.2). It concludes with the definition of some research perspectives for the development of sustainable and resilient cities (Sect. 5.3).

References Alberti M, Marzluff J, Shulenberger E et al (2003) Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystem. Bioscience 53(12):1169–1179. https://doi.org/1 0.1641/0006-­3568(2003)053[1169:IHIEOA]2.0.CO;2 Bennett G (2004) Integrating biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Lessons learned from ecological networks. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge Borgström ST, Elmqvist T, Angelstam P, Alfsen-Norodom C (2006) Scale mismatches in management of urban landscapes. Ecol Soc 11(2):16. Available via http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol11/iss2/art16/ Boulton C, Dedekorkut-Howes A, Byrne J (2018) Factors shaping urban greenspace provision: a systematic review of the literature. Landsc Urban Plan 178:82–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2018.05.029 Brenner N (2014) Theses on urbanisation. In: Brenner N (ed) Implosions/explosions. Towards a study of planetary urbanisation. Jovis Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp 181–202

10

1  Introduction: Innovative Reflections on Land Take

Bruegmann R (2005) Sprawl: a compact history. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Brundtland GH (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. United Nations, New York Camagni R (ed) (1999) La pianificazione sostenibile delle aree periurbane. Il Mulino, Bologna Davies C, MacFarlane R, McGloin C et al (2006) Green infrastructure planning guide. Available via http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/North_East_Green_Infrastructure_ Planning_Guide.pdf. Assessed 20 Dec 2020 Duany A, Plater-Zyberk E, Speck J (2000) Suburban nation. The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. North Point Press, New York EC – European Commission (2006) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/ EC (COM(2006)232). Available via https://eur-­lex.europa.eu/legal-­content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri =CELEX:52006PC0232&from=BG. Assessed 8 Dec 2020 EC  – European Commission (2013) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital, COM/2013/0249 Final. European Commission, Brussels. Available via https://eur-­lex.europa.eu/legal-­content/ EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249&from=EN. Assessed 24 Oct 2020 EEA – European Environmental Agency (2011) Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies using monitoring systems  – Technical report n. 18/2011. Available via https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/green-­ infrastructure-­and-­territorial-­cohesion. Assessed 10 Jan 2021 Ekkel ED, de Vries S (2017) Nearby green space and human health: evaluating accessibility metrics. Landsc Urban Plan 157:241–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.008 Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B et al (2010) Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol Soc 15(4):20. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/ iss4/art20/ Francis (2015) Encyclical letter Laudato Sì of the Holy Father Francis on care for our common home. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Available via http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/ encyclicals/documents/papa-­francesco_20150524_enciclica-­laudato-­si.html. Assessed 15 Nov 2020 Gabellini P (2018) Le mutazioni dell’urbanistica. Carocci editore, Roma Galster G, Hanson R, Ratcliffe MR et  al (2001) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept. Hous Policy Debate 12(4):681–717. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10511482.2001.9521426 Gambino R (1992) Condizioni ambientali, consumo di suolo e infrastrutture. In: Dematteis G (ed) Il fenomeno urbano in Italia: interpretazioni, prospettive, politiche. FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp 165–184 Garcia-Lamarca M, Anguelovski I, Cole H (2019) Urban green boosterism and city affordability: for whom is the ‘branded’ green city? Urban Stud 58(1):90–112. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098019885330 Gibelli MC (2016) Planning for sprawl containment: the Italian anomaly. In: Fregolent L, Tonin S (eds) Growing compact. FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp 107–125 Gill S, Handley J, Ennos A et al (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ 33(1):115–133. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.115 Haaland C, van den Bosch CK (2015) Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: a review. Urban For Urban Green 14(4):760–771. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009 Haase D, Kabisch S, Haase A et al (2017) Greening cities—To be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat Int 64:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. habitatint.2017.04.005 Indovina F (2016) New urban forms. The distinctive character of the European metropolis. In: Nello O, Mele R (eds) Cities in the 21st century. Routledge, New York, pp 60–66

References

11

Johnson JL, Zanotti L, Ma Z et al (2018) Interplays of sustainability, resilience, adaptation and transformation. In: Leal Filho W, Marans RW, Callewaert J (eds) Handbook of sustainability and social science research. Springer, World Sustainability Series, Cham, pp 3–25. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­67122-­2_1 Jongman RHG, Pungetti G (eds) (2004) Ecological networks and greenways; concept, design, implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Keivani R (2010) A review of the main challenges to urban sustainability. Int J Urban Sustainable Dev 1(1–2):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463131003704213 Lanzani A (2015) Città territorio urbanistica tra crisi e contrazione. FrancoAngeli, Milano Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP et  al (2006) Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Community Health 60:587–592. https://doi.org/10.1136/ jech.2005.043125 Marcus L, Colding J (2014) Toward an integrated theory of spatial morphology and resilient urban systems. Ecol Soc 19:55. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­06939-­190455 McPhearson T, Pickett STA, Grimm NB et al (2016) Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities. Bioscience 66(3):198–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw002 Montanarella L, Panagos P (2021) The relevance of sustainable soil management within the European Green Deal. Land Use Policy 100:104950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2020.104950 Nadin V, Stead D (2008) European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. Disp – The Planning Review 172(1):35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001 Niemelä J (1999) Ecology and urban planning. Biodivers Conserv 8:119–131. https://doi.org/1 0.1023/A:1008817325994 Palazzo D, Steiner FR (2011) Urban ecological design – a process for regenerative places. Island Press, Washington DC Pavia R (2019) Tra suolo e clima. La terra come infrastruttura ambientale. Donzelli editore, Roma Perulli P (ed) (2014) Terra mobile. Atlante della società globale. Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi, Torino Ronchi S, Salata S, Arcidiacono A et al (2019) Policy instruments for soil protection among the EU member states: a comparative analysis. Land Use Policy 82:763–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2019.01.017 Samuelsson K, Colding J, Barthel S (2019) Urban resilience at eye level: spatial analysis of empirically defined experiential landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 187:70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2019.03.015 Science for Environment Policy (2016) No net land take by 2050? Future Brief 14. Produced for the European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/ no_net_land_take_by_2050_FB14_en.pdf. Assessed 25 Nov 2020 Secchi B (1986) Progetto di suolo. Casabella 520:19–23 Soja EW (2000) Postmetropolis: critical studies of cities and regions. Blackwell, Oxford and Malden Steiner FR (2008) The living landscape. An ecological approach to landscape planning. Island Press, Washington DC UN – United Nations (1992) Rio declaration on environment and development. United Nations, Rio de Janeiro UN  – United Nations (2019) World urbanization prospects. The 2018 revision. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New  York. Available via https://population. un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-­Report.pdf. Assessed 15 Nov 2020 van der Jagt APN, Smith M, Ambrose-Oji B et  al (2019) Co-creating urban green infrastructure connecting people and nature: a guiding framework and approach. J Environ Manag 233:757–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.083 Voghera A, Giudice B (2019) Evaluating and planning green infrastructure: a strategic perspective for sustainability and resilience. Sustainability 11:2726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102726 Wilkinson C (2011) Social-ecological resilience: insights and issues for planning theory. Plan Theory 11(2):148–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095211426274

Chapter 2

Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

Abstract  This chapter attempts to frame the concepts of urban sprawl, soil sealing and land take. Starting from some of the most recognised definitions in international literature, the concepts are analysed with regard to their evolution in space and time. Although the book focuses on the European context, the chapter also provides some American references. The chapter outlines why the concept of land take has been chosen to interpret the phenomenon in Europe, and it presents the need to reinterpret the concept in current times. This quest for a new approach is also developed by specifying some of the most influencing global and European policies and strategies, recently activated to limit land take and urban sprawl. Keywords  Urban sprawl · Land take · Urbanisation · Soil sealing · Sustainability · Ecological planning

2.1  Urban Sprawl: A Matter of Terminology, Time and Place Depending on which country and which cultural background, the topic of land take has been characterised by a prosperous diffusion of terms and definitions. The terminology used to describe the phenomenon of urbanised land increase and the relentless building has indeed taken different acceptations over time. Land take, urban sprawl, diffuse city, dispersed city and urban explosion are just some of the terms that can be found in international literature. Additionally, it is not possible to restrict the topic within a specific field of research; indeed, it has been used with different meanings and discussed in various research fields.1 Talking about urban sprawl and its evolution over time could appear controversial, but it becomes necessary as it has been the first attempt to conceptualise the phenomenon. Indeed, though the topic appeared and developed during different periods, it has quite a long-time history (Bruegmann 2005). First appearances of the 1  In addition to the planning one, an important field is the sociological and economic one; see, for example, the discussion on the decline of great cities due to the high concentration of tertiary sector, Sassen (2000).

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 B. Giudice, Planning and Design Perspectives for Land Take Containment, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91066-2_2

13

14

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

term “sprawl” with reference to cities date back probably to the late 1950s when the sociologist William Whyte used it to describe the rising tendency of expansion that was changing the majority of the American cities in that period.2 Later, the urban sprawl phenomenon gained even more attention in the international planning debate during the 1990s. In addition to the time factor, the topic has no precise and definite spatial context, but it appeared and spread worldwide. This spatial condition also affected the way countries called the phenomenon. “Sprawl” is indeed the most recognised term when speaking of urban expansion and, even though it is anchored in the US context, it has also been used in many non-US contexts. Significant difficulties arose for non-English-speaking countries that had problems translating “sprawl” in their own languages: this difficulty resulted in a multitude of terms. Linked to this variety of words, in international literature, it is difficult to find an unambiguous and comprehensive description of what exactly sprawl is (its physical features, causes and consequences).3 As Dutton reports, indeed, “sprawl is amorphous and eludes easy description, but everyone seems to recognise his/her own version of it” (2000, p. 17). This statement shows how it is challenging to define sprawl, but everyone recognises it when they see it. Some researchers even stated that people could only have a general interpretation of it because “the term urban sprawl has been so abused that it lacks precise meaning, and defining urban sprawl has become a methodological quagmire” (Audirac et al. 1990, p. 475). This situation led to the broad diffusion of different approaches to urban sprawl, resulting in a multitude of definitions and interpretations. Galster et al. (2001) have been among the first researchers who admitted the existing confusion over the topic of sprawl, “a metaphor rich in ambiguity”, and attempted to find a straightforward definition of it. “Lost in a semantic wilderness” (Galster et al. 2001, p. 682), they carried out an extensive literature review which resulted in “no common definition of sprawl and relatively few attempts to operationally define it in a manner that would lead to useful comparisons of areas to determine which had experienced greater or less degrees of sprawl” (Galster et al. 2001, p. 682). In this situation, they pointed out how different interpretations of sprawl could be divided into six approaches:

 He used it in the opening paragraph of the Fortune Magazine in 1958.  Even though it is not the aim of the book, it is important to underline how a significant number of studies focused on the issue of the measurement (its quantitative feature) which attempted to find a valid method (through acceptable indicators) to assess and measure the phenomenon of urban sprawl. This type of studies focused above all on density (Fulton et al. 2001) and economic costs (Burchell et al. 2005). In addition to measurement and assessment, it is important to outline how a necessary aspect is that values must be comparable between each other; otherwise, it is not possible to assume which country or city sprawls most, and it is more difficult to address specific policies and rules to favour a better sustainable development of the land. 2 3

2.1  Urban Sprawl: A Matter of Terminology, Time and Place

15

• Sprawl can be described by using examples: they refer to the city of Los Angeles which is often associated with the idea of sprawling cities.4 • Sprawl can be used “as an aesthetic judgement” when speaking of an ugly urban development pattern. • Sprawl is considered as the cause of a (negative) externality or even a combination of them (e.g. extensive use of cars instead of public transport or the progressive loss of farmland, fertile soils and environmental features).5 • Sprawl is defined as a consequence of some independent variable (e.g. fragmented planning and governance). • Sprawl can be used to describe “one or more existing patterns of development” (low-density development at the fringe of urban areas, leapfrogging development or ribbon low-density development along roads and highways).6 • Sprawl can be defined as a process of development, thus providing it with a dynamic condition. These six categories contributed to identifying eight characterising dimensions which they use to define and assess the phenomenon: “sprawl is a pattern of land use in an urban area that exhibits low levels of some combination of eight distinct dimensions: density, continuity, concentration, clustering, centrality, nuclearity, mixed uses and proximity” (Galster et al. 2001, p. 685). It is possible to convey that sprawl can be interpreted both as a static feature (i.e. a pattern of development or a physical characteristic) and a dynamic one (i.e. a process). Ewing (1997) and Burchell et al. (2005) pursued the first line of thought that describes the phenomenon of sprawl in American cities as an inevitable condition. The second line of thought considers sprawl and its changes in the pattern of land use over time, and it suggests that sprawl is a stage of urbanisation (Ewing 1997) that could be later modified. Already in these first attempts of systematisation of sprawl definition, it appears evident that its meaning is associated with its socially relevant effects of land use. In this case, the shift to consequences made by sprawl makes it evident how it is not only a problem of what sprawl is but what sprawl (most frequently and probably) does. In this perspective, in current times, this attention mainly focuses on environmental issues caused by urban sprawl, interpreting sprawl primarily as the overconsumption of land, with the consequent loss of natural and agricultural habitats and the increase of urbanised and sealed surfaces. In this sense, new terms have arisen, such as soil sealing and artificialisation.

4  See Ewing (1997) and Geddes (1997). To have a different perspective, see Bruegmann (2005) which proved that Los Angeles density is higher than the one in other American cities (which are mostly thought to be denser), and it did not decrease over time. 5  For example, the Sierra Club carried out important initiatives against environmental contamination caused by urban sprawl. 6  A forerunner in defining different patterns of metropolitan settlements is Kevin Lynch (1961) which distinguished five basic patterns: sprawl, galaxy, compact, star and ring form. For other examples, see also Burchell et al. (2005).

16

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

The lack of precise meaning has led to an unclear identification and distinction between causes and consequences7 due to the difficulty to find a common term and definition. It is not easy to draft an exhaustive list of drivers and evaluate which of them have had the most significant influence. Indeed, urban sprawl causes vary between different countries, so they depend on the political, social and economic conditions of cities. Two of the most frequent methods of classification are (1) the distinction of causes upon their scales, macro, meso and micro (e.g. Couch et al. 2007) and (2) the distinction upon their typology factors, economic, governmental and technological (e.g. Bruegmann 2005). One of the most shared drivers of sprawl is the increased mobility which is strictly connected to the improvement and broadening of highways and national infrastructures and the increase of individual car owners (Ingersoll 2004; Couch et al. 2007). In fact, the general opinion is that car travels have helped shape urban sprawl in conjunction with the construction of new infrastructures or the extension of the existing ones. Nevertheless, some scholars argue that cars and mobility have not led to sprawl, because “the outward dispersal of urban population started centuries before the advent of the automobile” (Bruegmann 2005, p. 108). Other factors are more connected to the social and the economic spheres: for example, individual housing preferences have helped shape urban sprawl, including the fact that moving to the suburbs was considered by citizens a healthier solution for their life and it increased economic growth of the post-war years (Bruegmann 2005; Couch et  al. 2007). Additionally, it is even not so wrong to think that citizens appreciate these new types of confused urban development (Donadieu 1998), because, in a certain way, they allow citizens who want to escape from cities to live in the countryside and have more privacy without being so far from work and shops. In this perspective, the social sphere can also include some “antiurban attitudes” (Bruegmann 2005). Another driver behind urban sprawl can be the inadequate management of land development8 or the different treatments by planning tools, the governance fragmentation in terms of size and number9 and the lack of integrated land uses. In this regard, it is necessary to verify the coherence and the effectiveness of land-use policies at all administration levels. Land-use changes occur gradually and, therefore, they are not immediately negatively or positively perceived. Without entering into specifics, consequences can be framed and evaluated upon the economic, social and environmental aspects. In the social sphere, sprawl is considered to reduce the housing gap between different ethnic groups and increase the affordability of buying a detached, independent house (Bruegmann 2005). Nevertheless, it can generate greater segregation of 7  The description of causes and consequences does not pretend to be exhaustive. It helps frame the discourse towards environmental and ecological concerns. 8  In American literature, it is the common opinion that sprawl is mainly caused by government policies like single-use zoning or the mortgage interest deduction on the federal income tax (Bruegmann 2005; Burchell et al. 2005). 9  This situation is true above all in the European context, where each country has its own planning legislation and tools, and administrative fragmentation is high.

2.1  Urban Sprawl: A Matter of Terminology, Time and Place

17

residential development according to income with consequent social and economic divisions (EEA 2006). From an economic perspective, urban sprawl can be considered an expensive urban form due to increased costs of commuting, transportation and the need to extend existing infrastructures. Other people habits are influenced by urban sprawl; indeed, a branch of literature analyses the connections between urban sprawl and health (Frumkin et al. 2004). Human well-being and quality of life are directly influenced by environmental impacts, such as air pollution and high noise levels, and travel-related issues, such as long distances between house, work and shop. Long distances cause an increase in private cars use and the reduction of walking activity. The environmental sphere is the most impressive one in as much as urban sprawl directly affects soils, ecosystems and other natural spheres. As the main environmental consequence, soil artificialisation causes the loss of all its vital functions, such as food provision and water retention. Other consequences are, as already mentioned, air pollution, low water quality, the alteration of microclimate conditions, the production of the urban heat island effect (Stone et al. 2010), the loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitats and the decreased aesthetic appeal of landscape (EEA 2011). Regarding the last two aspects, fragmentation causes the disruption of migration corridors for wildlife species and can reduce natural habitats threatening biodiversity; this ecological degradation process can weaken the efforts made by some nature conservation initiatives (such as the one of Natura 2000). All these environmental consequences flow into the global challenge of climate change. A more deepened analysis could present how impacts (1) derive on the scattered urban form, (2) span local, regional and global geographical scales and (3) directly affect different habitats (fauna and flora) and citizens. Therefore, their quality of life is put at risk, “with a consequent profound crisis in contemporary living” (Sargolini 2013, p. 27).

2.1.1  European Interpretations European cities have, without any doubt, different features and a longer history than the American ones. In this perspective, European cities and their peculiar features suggest making a distinction not only between urbanisation and city but also between different types of cities (Gabellini 2018) and countries. Even though the phenomenon of urban sprawl is considered to be typically and peculiarly American, many European studies have attempted to demonstrate how, even in Europe, there is a sort of urban sprawl. These studies are relatively recent, but some argue that the beginning of continuous urban growth in Europe is as old as the Industrial Revolution (Couch et al. 2007). However, since this moment, the process has not been linear and has gained speed only in the last 50 years, after World War II (Antrop 2004). Industrialisation and technological progress resulted in a rapid increase in population which caused urban sprawl in Europe.

18

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

To describe urban sprawl, the European Environmental Agency used the expression “ignored challenge” (EEA 2006). In this report, EEA underlines the fact that “sprawl threatens the very culture of Europe, as it creates environmental, social and economic impacts for both the cities and countryside of Europe. Moreover, it seriously undermines efforts to meet the global challenge of climate change” (2006, p.  5). In this sense, it is more than evident that urban sprawl in Europe directly affects the culture of cities and their environment. In Europe, the phenomenon of urban sprawl (as defined by American studies) manifests itself in later times, in the 1970s, assuming partly different characteristics: particularly, it depends on the geographical context. European cities have a longer history than American ones (Benevolo 1993), and they have different dimensions and different features of morphology and use of space. However, generally, they are founded upon their historical city centres. Other factors are the time and speed of appearance; for example, in Italy, urbanisation has proceeded slowly until the Second World War (Dematteis 1992). Moreover, the topic in academic fields arose later than in other European countries.10 In this perspective, an interesting systematic attempt to describe the different patterns of European cities and urbanisation in the period between the 1970s and the 1990s comes from the work by Camagni (1999). The term used, metropolizzazione (“metropolisation”, or diffused low-density development), implies, within the process of urban sprawl, the one of cities transformation into metropolises. The term is specified into three different types: • metropolizzazione a carattere diffuso (diffused metropolisation), • metropolizzazione a carattere concentrato (concentrated metropolisation), • diffusione e saldatura delle reti urbane regionali (diffusion and reinforcement of urban regional networks), The first one occurred in France, especially around the city of Paris, in the Rhône-­ Alpes Region, around the cities of Toulouse and Bordeaux, and in Italy, particularly in the area between Milan and Venice (plus the city of Rome, Naples, Turin and Bari). The second one appeared in Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland, while the third arose where there were no big monocentric urban agglomerations (especially Germany).  Additionally, in Italy, the topic of urbanisation came even after that in other European countries. In fact, the first national research aimed to provide the country with an overall perspective on the topic is the report “It. Urb. 80 (Rapporto sullo stato dell’urbanizzazione in Italia),” coordinated by Giovanni Astengo and Camillo Nucci. This research can be considered a reaction to the lack of knowledge fundamentals of the Italian planning system in the 1970s. This research, carried out between 1982 and 1988, analyses the process of urbanisation between 1951 and 1981 at the national scale, and it represents the only systematic research on the effects of intense urbanisation in the post-war years. It is divided into regions and takes into account two main characteristics: land take and urban forms. Elements like infrastructures are instead put aside even though they largely contribute to the loss of agricultural land; these elements will be later considered in other studies, such as the one financed by CNR-IPRA, “Interazione e competizione dei sistemi urbani con l’agricoltura per l’uso della risorsa suolo” (1988).

10

2.1  Urban Sprawl: A Matter of Terminology, Time and Place

19

As already mentioned, in Europe, the phenomenon will manifest itself later compared to the United States. Starting from the 1970s, it will assume more and more evident but different characteristics, tending to be more functional, even if the attributes of sprawl are declined with different intensity depending on the geographical and national contexts. Concerning the terminology, besides the definition given by the EEA, it is evident how between the 1960s and the 1970s, the terminology used to describe the concept referred principally to the process of urbanisation in relation to its location compared to the city centre; in this case, terms of urbanisation tended to be preceded by a suffix (e.g. rur- and sub-). This typology was first used in Anglo-­ Saxon and French literature and only later in Italian literature. On the one hand, the term rurbanisation (Bauer and Roux 1976), firstly coined in France, suggests a comparison between urbanisation and rural activities. The most evident result of these two processes is the proliferation of low-density and dispersed urban agglomerations just outside cities’ borders affecting rural spaces. In particular, this neologism highlights the interweaving between rural spaces and urbanised territories. On the other hand, suburbanisation and the consequent rise of suburbs come instead from the American and English literature as a result of sprawl. Other terms, such as “sprawltown” (Ingersoll 2004), make an explicit reference to the American concept of urban sprawl but are also used to describe a state of being after that the city has disappeared. Another interesting interpretation of the phenomenon can be found in German literature, where Thomas Sieverts (2003) refers to it as the Zwischenstadt. This concept indicates the “in-between” or intermediate territories, outlining the fragmentation and heterogeneity of settlements. Since the high number of historical European cities (even of tiny dimensions), this concept appears to be more appropriate for them than for American cities. In this perspective, the focus is on the form and the nature of European cities and their historical and cultural landscape. Cities affected by these changes may have a twofold result: their structure, form and image are destroyed, but these changes can represent the possibility of new design perspectives. In Italy, due to the different characteristics of cities, the transformation of the settlement organisation has given shape to various territorial forms and concepts which are typically the word city followed by an adjective: from the “città diffusa” (Indovina 1990), to the “megalopoli padana” (Turri 2000), to the “città diramata” (Detragiache 2003) and the “città infinita” (Bonomi and Abruzzese 2004). This transformation is above all mentioned with reference to the Northern part of Italy, starting from the situation of Veneto Region and the metropolitan area of Milan, and then also affecting the Emilian settlement system and progressively all other regions. Starting from the Veneto Region context, the concept of città diffusa is not described as an autonomous and independent form of organisation of the settlement but as the transformation of different forms of land use. In this perspective, the concept is intended as a transformation process where the city must not be acquired for its physical and morphological elements but rather for its attributes of functionality and social relationships. The concept was later resumed by Bernardo Secchi (1998) when talking about the contemporary city, identifying it as an ensemble of different forms and ages: the old city, the modern and the diffuse one. The continuity of the

20

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

settlement does not characterise the diffused model but fragmentation. The concept of città diramata also includes socio-economic processes triggered by high social classes, which tend to concentrate in city centres. This movement allows the rise of a process of urban renewal. Instead, middle classes tend to de-urbanise by leaving city centres, while peripheries are abandoned in a state of neglect (Detragiache 2003). Some European territories have been more damaged by sprawl than others, and for this reason, they have acquired specific characteristics. An example is the “megalopoli padana” that identifies all the territory in the Northern part of Italy where there is a continuous compresence of agricultural areas and urbanised ones. In this area, the diffuse city has broadened urban space and filled the countryside with buildings but what makes it unique is that “its diversity is its own strength, its beauty but also its complexity” (Turri 2000). The focus appears to be always from the city to the countryside, urban development that enters into the countryside. At the same time, some researchers have used a reversed gaze, starting from the landscape of agricultural environments. In the late 1990s, the expression of “campagnes urbaines” (literally urban countryside) by Pierre Donadieu reflected on the agricultural landscape from a different perspective that poses it in a privileged position: agricultural land needs major attention and preservation indeed due to the damages caused by land take.11 An inevitable consequence is the trivialisation and homogenisation of the landscape (Donadieu 1998). Additionally, the “campagnes urbaines” contribute to redesigning cities, rethinking ways and forms of their ecological functioning and the collective and cultural reappropriation of natural infrastructures. From this point of view, the large availability of open spaces in periurban territories can represent an excellent opportunity for settlements’ redevelopment and ecological regeneration.12 All these definitions (Table 2.1) stress the attention on the common condition of settlement dispersion which makes it unrecognisable what cities and the countryside are. The attempt to give a definition of these periurban and suburban forms and urban development models shows how these areas often have weak planning support and control. If we consider environmental issues and current definitions, the European Union (EU) is stressing the attention on the concept of soil sealing. The term soil sealing refers to “changing the nature of the soil such that it behaves as an impermeable medium (for example compaction by agricultural machinery). Soil sealing is also used to describe the covering or sealing of the soil surface by impervious materials by, for example, concrete, metal, glass, tarmac and plastic”.13 This definition shows an important shift in conceptualisation: from the pattern of urban settlements  He focuses his discourses on the French situation, but they can be generalised.  The topic of agricultural lands is also connected to its productive value (food access, food security and urban agriculture). In particular, fostering urban agriculture represents one key issue of urban regeneration processes of unused or underused spaces. For example, see Clément (2005) for its interpretation of the so-called third landscape towards an ecological regeneration. 13  This definition can be found in the glossary of the European Environment Agency, https://www. eea.europa.eu/help/glossary#c4=10&c0=all&b_start=0 11 12

2.2  In Search for Alternatives

21

Table 2.1  some of the first terms of development patterns in European countries Term Urban sprawl

Geographical context United States

Rurbanisation / ville éparpillée

France

città diffusa

Italy

Zwischenstadt

Germany

Period Characteristics 1960s Low-density development – The rise of the suburban landscape 1970s Explosion of the city outwards, in the rural environment 1990s A new type of city, triggered by economic circumstances 2000s “In-between” or intermediate territories

References Ewing (1997); Bruegmann (2005) Bauer and Roux (1976) Indovina (1990) Sieverts (2003)

(peculiar to all previous concepts) to the resource soil, intended as a scarce and non-­ renewable resource fundamental to life on Earth. This shift demonstrates the raising awareness on sustainable agriculture, food security, climate regulation, preservation of ecosystem services and biodiversity, energy security and resource-use efficiency. When speaking of Europe, it appears to be more appropriate to use the term land take. The EEA defines land take as “the area of land that is ‘taken’ by infrastructure itself and other facilities that necessarily go along with the infrastructure, such as filling stations on roads and railway stations”.14 While soil sealing refers only to impervious areas, the expression land take is more general and encompassing. Indeed, it does not refer to specific land types, but it emphasises that new constructions generally increase land take.

2.2  In Search for Alternatives In the United States, currents of thought and theories promoted by planners, architects, environmentalists and researchers were born during the late 1980s and 1990s, whose principles gave rise to a system of rules aimed at reducing sprawl and governing urban growth with a view to sustainability. The most famous are the movements of New Urbanism and Smart Growth which tended to favour the requalification of spaces by rethinking mobility models that force the use of private cars, creating denser urban areas served by a qualified system of public transport. They both criticise suburban sprawl, but they mainly differ in their final objective: New Urbanism (primarily influenced by architects and planners) focuses on functions of the environment and design solutions, while Smart Growth (influenced by environmentalists) is more on planning and transportation solutions.15 Some scholars identify New

 Ibid.  This book does not have an economic perspective, but it is important to underline that many studies attempted to determine the effects on housing prices. This situation also happened within discourses on greenbelts.

14 15

22

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

Urbanism and Smart Growth movements differently, but they share some common paradigms (Godschalk 2004). New Urbanism has later been the starting point for new schools of thought, Landscape Urbanism and Ecological Urbanism. The cultural movement of New Urbanism was born in response to dispersed suburban settlements built after the Second World War. Particularly, in the late 1980s, in the United States, this movement began to influence both private and public developers as an alternative to suburban sprawl cities. In the attempt of formulating a general theory of sprawl, New Urbanists identified some key elements that contributed to sprawl: lack of regional planning, lack of neighbourhood design, zoning, specialisation and standardisation, the role of cars and highways (Dutton 2000). In 1993, New Urbanists founded the Congress for the New Urbanism, and in 1996, they ratified the Charter for the New Urbanism that identified a set of 27 guiding principles for public policy, development practice, urban planning and design. These principles are functional for planning both wide areas and local projects; indeed, following the structure of New Urbanism principles, projects span from the regional scale to the neighbourhood one till the single block. To guide projects, they defined a method to classify the overall environment, both urbanised and not urbanised, as a continuous transition from the city core to rural and natural environments: this method is the transect. Additionally, as design solutions, they proposed the retrofit of the suburbs through strategic plans or infill projects (also of large scale). Smart Growth was born as a planning and transportation approach to increase development densities and promote walkable urban centres and transit-oriented choices. In this perspective, Smart Growth provided ten principles that can be considered best practices when planning and designing cities and later implemented in 100 possible policies (Smart Growth Network 2002). Smart Growth has often been advocated to be “more than a ghost of urban policy past” (Burchell et al. 2000) as it has been able to deliver tangible results compared to previous policies to limit urban sprawl and to encourage infill development (Goetz 2013). The Smart Growth movement has had broad involvement and support from different stakeholders: segments of government at different scales, communities and private actors. As for New Urbanism, Smart Growth strategies have been developed at different scales: regional (e.g. Greater Boston), metropolitan (e.g. Denver and Portland) and local and neighbourhood (e.g. the city of Los Angeles).16 Portland is one of the most known examples of Smart Growth development, since the Metropolitan Planning Association

 The literature on Smart Growth initiatives and implementation is very vast and demonstrates the different attitudes to Smart Growth that cities have had. The experience of Greater Boston has been deepened by McCauley and Murphy (2013). They advocate that the network of governance, mainly thanks to national incentive programmes, new forms of regulations and public-private coalition, played an essential role in making the strategy. The strategy aimed to prevent the regional housing crisis, sustain its pool of knowledge-economy workers and govern land-use decisions (McCauley and Murphy 2013). In Denver, historically recognised as a sprawling “cow town”, Smart Growth initiatives benefited from a large coalition to create a stronger identity (Goetz 2013).

16

2.2  In Search for Alternatives

23

adopted the “urban growth boundary” as the principal policy to promote an adequate land development in peripheral areas. Within this boundary, a set of policy tools was implemented (e.g. long-term growth concept plan and parking management). The urban design strategy of New Urbanism has had some reflections in two more recent movements, the Landscape Urbanism approach (Waldheim 2006) and the Ecological Urbanism (Mostafavi and Doherty 2010). Landscape Urbanism movement, where the landscape is intended as urbanism, attempts to integrate landscape and the social quality of the design, at different scales, from the regional to the local. This integration is carried out “articulating multiple roles for landscape in the shaping of contemporary urbanism” (Waldheim 2006, p. 45). Differently from the New Urbanism movement, Landscape Urbanism represents an attitude towards urban design and architectural aesthetic rather than a set of principles. Moreover, it states that sprawl is so widespread that it has to be accepted, failing to raise awareness of damages caused by it. Starting from the aesthetic understanding, the Ecological Urbanism movement attempts to go beyond this architectural aesthetic supported by Landscape Urbanism. Indeed, the Ecological Urbanism approach attempts to overcome and “incorporate the inherent conflictual conditions between ecology and urbanism” (Mostafavi and Doherty 2010, p. 17). Additionally, it recognises scales and impacts of ecology in the urban territory and beyond its boundaries. All these new design paths work along with the encroachment fields of a renovated transdisciplinarity and help participate in the rethinking of the contemporary cities. Additionally, New Urbanism, Landscape Urbanism and Ecological Urbanism movements are also somehow pushing for sustainability by promoting environmentally friendly neighbourhoods, walkability and bicycling strategies, and the reuse of obsolete buildings and infrastructures. In particular, some scholars state that New Urbanism emphasises the preservation of open space and aesthetic design, while Smart Growth gives priority to infill and equity aspects. Nevertheless, critics argue that the New Urbanism movement could even increase environmental problems, but it addresses the social and community objectives of planning (Talen 2002).

2.2.1  Coping with Land Take in Global and European Policies The challenge of limiting land take is not only a matter perceived at the national scale and tackled with the introduction of specific national planning directives and strategies. Indeed, some international initiatives are trying to launch this issue in the global debate on sustainable development. Most concerns are also connected to the increasing percentage of “urban people”. Global prospects on population state that in 2018, population that lives in urban areas was 55% of the world’s population, and this value is expected to reach 68% by 2050 (UN 2019).

24

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

In 2015, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) declared that year as the International Year of Soils17, resulting in the World Soil Charter. This initiative focused on the role that soils play in our life; it has been the occasion to organise worldwide a series of events related to the resource soil. The general objectives were to increase awareness of the seriousness of the issue, not only among institutional authorities but also citizens. Its key messages were the following: • Healthy soils are the basis for healthy food production. • Soils are the foundation for vegetation which is cultivated or managed for feed, fibre, fuel and medicinal products. • Soils support our planet’s biodiversity, and they host a quarter of the total. • Soils help to combat and adapt to climate change by playing a key role in the carbon cycle. • Soils store and filter water, improving our resilience to floods and droughts. • Soil is a non-renewable resource; its preservation is essential for food security and our sustainable future. The safeguard of soils was also crucial in the UN Post-2015 Development Agenda, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations. The post-2015 development agenda is a United Nations member state–led process to define a global development framework that will succeed the 8 Millennium Development Goals when they reach their target date at the end of 2015. At the same time, as accelerating efforts to meet MDG targets, FAO has embraced the post-2015 process, identifying 14 thematic areas in which it can support member states in reaching new goals. This process resulted in September 2015 in the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by world leader’s representatives. As a follow-up of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United Nations promoted the identification of 17 new global goals, the so-called SDGs, with 169 associated targets and indicators. SDGs intend to embrace the concept of sustainable development with other processes within economic, social and environmental spheres (such as ending poverty, achieving gender equality, reducing inequality). In particular, regarding soils and urbanisation processes, SDG no. 11 “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” and SDG no. 15 “Life on Land” indicates some important priorities. While SDG no. 11 emphasises cities’ role, SDG no. 15 pays close attention to land and soils and their related ecosystem services. Indeed, target 11.3 states the achievement by 2030 of an “inclusive and sustainable urbanisation and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries”. A specific indicator (11.3.1) of this target outlines the necessity to understand the “ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate”. SDG no. 15, among its target, states to “combat desertification, restore degraded

17

 Further information can be found via http://www.fao.org/soils-2015/en/

2.2  In Search for Alternatives

25

land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world” by 2030 (target no. 15.3). Other international strategies adopted a different approach to land take limitation by setting a specific goal to be reached; for example, the International Strategy Rio + 20 in 2012 set the goal of “land-degradation neutral world” with a value of zero net land take by 2030. This target is above all bounded to global trends such as the increase of population and, as a direct consequence, also the demand for food, energy and water that will cause higher pressure on land. Parallel to international authorities, the EU has also highlighted the importance of soil and its vital functions in everyday life. Indeed, for more than 15 years, the EU developed different policies to create a common vision suitable for all countries: this represented an important change in the cultural path towards urban sustainability and city competitiveness. In this perspective, European countries and citizens can benefit from all the policies in support of sustainable development. Nevertheless, to develop good environmental national policies and strategies, there must be good coordination between administrative levels of each country and among practitioners, politicians and citizens. As for international prospects, these concerns come from the verification that almost 75% of the European population lives in urbanised areas, and this value is evaluated to increase to 80–90% within 2020, causing an increase in land take in the exurban areas (EEA 2006). By now, “there is no legislation at the European level that focuses exclusively on soil conservation” (Glæsner et  al. 2014, p.  9538). Nevertheless, since the early 2000s, there have been some attempts to emphasise the importance of soils through some specific strategies and guidelines: the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (2006), the Resource Efficiency Roadmap (2011) and the Guidelines on best practices to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing (2012). The Soil Thematic Strategy, updated and implemented in 2012 (EC 2012a), represents the pioneering initiative by the EU. It sets a general definition of soil sealing (“permanent covering of an area of land and its soil by impermeable artificial material, such as asphalt and concrete”) and some general objectives and actions to be undertaken to ensure a high level of soil protection and common principles. The Resource Efficiency Roadmap proposed how to increase resource productivity and provided a framework in which future actions can be designed and implemented coherently. This document proposed that by 2020, EU policies must take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use both in the EU and globally with the aim of “no net land take by 2050”. This target will be resumed in the seventh Environment Action Programme. The third document, the Guidelines on best practices to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing (EC 2012b), is a collection of policies, legislation, funding schemes, local planning tools and information campaigns. This document’s general objective is to provide information on the importance of soil sealing, its impact and examples of best practices for limitation, mitigation and compensation, and to ensure better land management in the EU. These best practices give planning practices and tools a central role in dealing with limitation, mitigation and compensation.

26

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

If we take into account some European countries on their own, it is possible to identify how some countries have adopted specific national policies to prioritise environmental sustainability and to limit land take. For example, in Germany, the issue of soil valorisation entered in the political agenda of federal states, Länder, and municipalities in the late 1980s; the then Environmental Minister Angela Merkel set out for the first time a quantitative objective of land take reduction, less than 30 ha/day by 202018 for settlements and infrastructures. This target was later resumed in 2002 in the National Sustainable Development Strategy “Perspectives for Germany – Our Strategy for Sustainable Development”.19 One of its aims is the zero-growth target by 2050, but, so far, few measures to achieve this target have been implemented by the German government. This national policy included some relevant aspects: for example, building new areas must be sustained by a framework of economic and social costs, and planning tools can be accompanied by economic and fiscal tools. Some possible solutions to soil valorisation come from planning tools and building codes which are oriented to sustainable urban development through, for example, the reuse of brownfields and the valorisation of the landscape. Additionally, the path towards zero land take is characterised by the qualitative improvement of urbanised soils (both settlements and infrastructures) in consideration of ecological necessities. In this perspective, the German government promotes brownfields regeneration and environmental compensation actions. In 2009, Great Britain set the National Soil Strategy for England “Safeguarding our Soils – A Strategy for England”. This document provides a vision by 2030 to guide future policy development across a range of fields. It identifies some steps necessary to prevent further soil degradation and raises people’s awareness of the threats to the soil. Even though not following all its suggestions, this strategy supports the aims of the EU Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, clarifying that the national action is more suitable to protect the soil efficiently. One of the most recent national policies was developed in 2019 by the French government. France adopted the “Zero Net Artificialisation” policy, developed within the framework of the biodiversity plan of 2018. To achieve the objective of zero net artificialisation by 2030, the document introduces some fiscal and regulatory tools estimating that it is necessary to reduce the artificialisation rate by 70% and renature 5.500 hectares of artificialised areas per year. To achieve this goal, the guiding principles include the modification of urban planning rules encouraging urban renewal and densification and the renaturation of abandoned urbanised spaces. It also introduces compensation actions to renature soils and deartificialise them. The above-mentioned international and European strategies and their related guiding principles and objectives represent an attempt to reach a better environmental quality paving the way to an innovative planning approach at different territorial scales.  This value corresponded to a quarter of that period’s tendency which was equal to 129 ha/day in 2000. 19  In 2016, the German government revised the strategy to align it with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. 18

2.3  Planning Alternatives: The Quest for Limitation Towards Sustainability

27

2.3  P  lanning Alternatives: The Quest for Limitation Towards Sustainability Limiting urban growth is not a new issue, and many planning policies addressed this task more than half a century ago. Since the 1950s, it has indeed become an imperative in urban planning practices all over the world. The quest for limitation is not strictly referred to prevent urban sprawl, but it is often associated with the preservation of green and open spaces. Since the late 1980s, with the rise of sustainable development, preservation of open spaces and limitation to urban growth has become even more important, raising awareness on new concepts (ecosystem services, ecological connectivity). One of the first planning designation to prevent urban sprawl is the greenbelt concept. The original aim of greenbelts was to prevent urban sprawl by keeping undeveloped areas open and green, ensuring sufficient land for recreation and farming and preserving natural habitats, soil functionalities, agricultural land and forests (Gallent et al. 2006; Amati 2008). The main original focus was on city-countryside separation, rural-urban fringe and the preservation of green spaces (Sturzaker and Mell 2017). This concept is based on Ebenezer Howards’ Garden City movement of the late XIX century and has been later introduced in the UK planning policy. Traditionally greenbelts were implemented in planning policy in response to issues caused by industrialisation. In the UK, it was first implemented by Raymond Unwin in the 1930s and later by Patrick Abercrombie, who used this concept in his proposal for the reconstruction plan of the city of London: the Greater London Plan of 1944. He proposed the identification of some open spaces to preserve the existing beauty of the farmland landscape and improve the quality of life of inhabitants. The London plan had two main objectives (Gaeta et al. 2013): • The containment of urban development. • The recovery of a local and communitarian dimension. The achievement of these two objectives was attempted by elaborating different tools: the introduction of density control, the definition of a greenbelt and the creation of some satellite cities around the main city, the so-called New Towns.20 What emerges from this greenbelt project is its rationality, which was made possible by the identification of different zones characterised by their own functionality. Greenbelts reached their peak popularity in UK planning discourses above all in the 1950s and the 1970s. Later, at the end of the 1990s, a commission of experts entrusted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) researched some European and American urban regeneration cases to identify  As already mentioned, Howard theorised the concept of New Towns (also known as Garden Cities) in 1898. At the beginning of the twentieth century, some first urban experiments were attempted with the creation of Letchworth and Welwin. The concept of new towns was later exported also in Asian countries (e.g. China, Korea, India and Iran).

20

28

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

useful guidelines for the future development of English cities. The final output, described in the final report “Towards an Urban Renaissance” (1999), identified greenbelts as a key tool in preventing urban decline even though it highlighted the necessity for a more sophisticated and creative approach when designing urban green areas. English greenbelts have been included in national planning policies21: the first appearance is 1988, within the Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2), which was later replaced in 2012 by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).22 NPPF identified five specific purposes: • • • • •

“to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land” (DCLG 2012, p. 19).23

The English experience shows how the national government somehow institutionalised greenbelts24; when preparing local development plans; indeed, local authorities must consider these objectives. Following their introduction in England’s planning policy, greenbelt principles spread internationally after the Second World War: Frankfurt (Macdonald et  al. 2020a), Leipzig, Zürich, Barcelona, Budapest, Seoul, Tokyo, Melbourne, Toronto (Amati 2008; Sturzaker and Mell 2017). For example, in Germany, greenbelts have been recognised among planning policies to manage urban growth and preserve open spaces (Siedentop et al. 2016). The main difference of German greenbelts’ policies is that they have no national guidance and the scale of action is the regional one, while in the UK, the discourse is mainly carried out at the local level. The absence of national guidance gives regional and local authorities more flexibility in greenbelts’ implementation. In particular, German regional plans usually combine greenbelts with other policies to strengthen urban growth management and control. In recent decades, English greenbelts have faced a transition period and have been negatively and critically considered by some scholars (Balen 2006; Gallent et al. 2006) and professionals. Criticisms were mainly on their lack of flexibility and their action in periurban areas, where planning has acted with inertia; it is claimed that planning actions attempted to contain urban expansion without improving the quality and the management of territories and landscape (Gallent et  al. 2006). Another considered negative aspect caused by inefficient greenbelts is the depletion of agricultural soil functionalities inside the perimeter of them and a consequent low

 The reference is to the England framework.  The NPPF has been later revised in 2019. 23  The revised version of 2019 has maintained the same purposes. 24  For an interpretation on the role of institutional structures in shaping greenbelts, see Han and Go (2019). 21 22

2.3  Planning Alternatives: The Quest for Limitation Towards Sustainability

29

landscape quality and restricted public access (Barker 2006). Other weaknesses are often associated with discourses on the crisis of housing supply. Therefore, even though it can be considered a contradiction because greenbelts were defined to prevent urban sprawl, some researchers and administrative bodies consider greenbelts an obstacle to the necessary housing demand. As an unintended but evident consequence, there is the development of unsustainable urban forms based principally on a car-dependent and commuter model as people live beyond the outer borders of greenbelts (Barker 2006). Nevertheless, more recently, the concept of greenbelt has evolved since its first definition. There is evidence that it can contribute not only to containing urban growth but to shaping multifaceted frameworks: starting from farmland preservation, they include the provision of ecosystem services, the mitigation and adaptation to climate change and the development of green infrastructure (Natural England and the Campaign to Protect Rural England 2010) (see Sect. 2.4). Thus, it is possible to recognise a new generation of greenbelts (Macdonald et al. 2020b) which embed new functions and aims. There is also evidence that, while in the 1940s greenbelts were mainly a top-down planning strategy, the establishment of a greenbelt relies on popular initiatives in the latest years. A different planning approach to urban growth management and environmental preservation is the Green Heart of the Randstad in the Netherlands25: it allows somehow to limit urban growth in a specific perimeter and connect the overall polycentric model of the Randstad. Unlike greenbelts, the Green Heart lies within cities and not on their edge, “rim cities form a belt and landscape the core” (Kühn 2003). The Green Heart concept was defined within the principles of Dutch spatial organisation in the 1950s and 1960s and has attracted the attention of many international researchers26 with its peak in the 1970s when environmental awareness arose. It consists of a central open space surrounded by a “horseshoe-shaped urbanised ring” (Kühn 2003) aimed originally at protecting rural production. Later, its aims included also economic growth promotion. Since the first report of 1966, all these objectives have been identified and integrated into various National Spatial Planning reports. At the end of the 1980s, the third report defined the boundaries of the Green Heart more precisely, and at the end of the 1990s, it has become Dutch National Landscape. More recently, apart from specific planning strategies, some general recommendations have arisen in European and global cities to promote urban densification, infill intervention and brownfield regeneration. These indications are also promoted worldwide as a strategic means to reach UN SDGs (see Sect. 2.2.1) and a measure to tackle urban sprawl and land take (EC 2012b). Some European countries have adopted specific densification and brownfield redevelopment programmes (e.g. Germany, England and the Netherlands). These programmes, to be effective, need  The Netherlands represents a country with unique features: it is indeed a highly dense country with a small territorial extension. In particular, the Randstad area is a “polycentric planning concept of the metropolitan region in the western part of The Netherlands, connecting the major cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht” (Kühn 2003, p. 23). 26  For example, Hall (1966) described this concept in his book on world cities. 25

30

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

to overcome economic and bureaucratic constraints. These constraints and the difficulty to activate this strategy have led some scholars to state that compactness can lead to a low percentage of green spaces within urban boundaries (Haaland and van den Bosch 2015), thus leading somehow to the so-called fallacy of the compact city (Neuman 2005). However, in the literature, there is a general deficiency in defining clear visions for operationalising compact and green cities (Artmann et al. 2019). The planning approaches of greenbelts and Green Heart can be considered abstract constructs of planners. However, they tend to open new paths to landscape and soil protection considering specific local environmental and well-being qualities and social uses. On the other hand, densification processes and brownfield redevelopment do not directly include aspects as green spaces and green connection. In this perspective, a new vision to include adequate green spaces in the urban environment need to be traced (Artmann et al. 2019; see Sects. 2.4 and 3.3).

2.4  The Environmental and Ecological Turn In recent decades, research on urban sprawl and land take has mainly focused its attention on environmental and ecological issues: urban sprawl is interpreted as the overconsumption of land which causes the loss and degradation of environmental and agricultural habitats and ecosystem services (MEA 2005). Starting from studies and principles of landscape ecology (Forman and Godron 1986; Burel and Baudry 1999), a new approach to planning arose in international literature: the ecological approach, supported by the development of ecological networks, and, later, green infrastructure (GI). The ecological approach to planning (McHarg 1969; Steiner 2008) takes the cue from the American context. Starting from a more general environmental approach, it helps shape, develop and transform the landscape and the urban environment by considering its biophysical and socio-cultural elements. In Europe, ecological networks gained attention in the 1970s, with the adoption of the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN). The PEEN aimed to preserve European natural assets and biodiversity by identifying core biodiversity zones, buffer zones and connecting corridors, maintaining a coherent combination of European natural and semi-natural habitats.27 The creation and management of the PEEN were later identified as one of the leading objectives in the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS). In the 1990s, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognised the importance of ecological networks at the international level. The concept of GI was introduced at the beginning of the 2000s, promoted as “an interconnected network of green space that conserves natural ecosystem values and  Starting from the experience of PEEN, some European countries introduced a national ecological network project in their national policy. For example, in 1990, the Dutch government decided to introduce the National Ecological Network (NEN), identifying it as a tool able to provide the basis for ecological sustainability and maintain ecosystems’ functionality.

27

2.4  The Environmental and Ecological Turn

31

functions and provides associated benefits to human populations” (Benedict and McMahon 2002, p. 5). Here, it is interpreted as the “ecological framework needed for environmental, social and economic sustainability” (Benedict and McMahon 2002, p. 5). This definition can be considered the first definition that explicitly links GI to sustainable development, based upon ecological, economic and social benefits. In this context, it is also important to underline that the concept of GI is not strictly related to a specific case context, but it has spread in different research fields and geographical contexts (Boyle et al. 2014). Furthermore, only in recent years, it has also influenced and entered into planning theories and policies (Lennon 2015), including the ones of landscape planning (Voghera and Giudice 2021) and design practices. As for urban sprawl, international literature does not provide a unique and shared definition.28 The European Commission (2013) underlined its strategic role defining GI as a “strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services”. Its strategic role is also underlined in other European strategies; for example the EU has included GI in the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 (target no. 2). Together with an ecosystem-based solution, GI is recognised to be a relevant approach to addressing climate change in the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change. Additionally, it has been integrated into territorial planning and cohesion (EEA 2011), identifying its role in mitigating and adapting to climate change. The relevance of these approaches (GI and ecosystem-based) has also been highlighted at the international level (e.g. in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Paris Agreement). Additionally, concerning the above-mentioned UN Sustainable Development Goals, GI is strategically relevant to implement some of them: no. 3 “Good health and well-being”, no. 11 “Sustainable cities and communities”, no. 13 “Climate Action”, no. 14 “Life below water”, and no. 15 “Life on land”. Differently from ecological networks, the definitions by Benedict and McMahon (2002) and by the EC (2013) show that, besides guaranteeing biodiversity and species movements, it provides a wide range of ecosystem services and integrates economic and social factors. Indeed, recognising its strategic role in international policies allows outlining how GI can be considered a producer of multiple benefits (Hansen and Pauleit 2014) for health, life, and habitat quality. The definition by the EC (2013) entails three key aspects (Liquete et al. 2015): (1) the idea of a network composed of territorial, environmental and landscape systems, (2) the central role of planning and management and (3) the necessity to integrate the concept of ecosystem services.

 The sample of definitions could be even broader if we take into account American literature, where the reference is also to “greenways” (Ahern 2004; Fàbos 2004). In 1987, the President of the Commission on American Outdoors in the United States stated that greenways could provide citizens with the necessary accessibility to open space, both through the creation of connections between urban and rural spaces and the insertion of green spaces into cities. In particular, greenways include not only ecological aspects but also recreational and cultural heritage ones.

28

32

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

Other definitions, even though not always unambiguous, show the general evidence that GI is a concept that encompasses multiple factors (both natural and human-made) and contributes to achieving different objectives. Its added value (compared to other planning approaches to green spaces) is also traceable in the statement that GI “differs from conventional approaches to open space planning because it looks at conservation values and actions in concert with land development, growth management and built infrastructure planning” (Benedict and McMahon 2002, p. 5). This statement allows including a sustainable development perspective in addition to a conservative one and, additionally, GI can be framed within the concept of resilience (Staddon et al. 2018; Voghera and Giudice 2019). Reviewing international literature, it is evident that the concept of GI has prevailed in many research fields, focusing above all on which benefits it can provide (Table 2.2). It appears to be not only a matter of environmental issues (Demuzere et al. 2014) but also a matter of social inclusion or exclusion (Haase et al. 2017). Apart from the worldwide recognised environmental benefit of managing and regulating stormwater hazards (Ahern 2011; Demuzere et al. 2014; EC 2013; Meerow and Newell 2017), GI can contribute to the limitation of land take and soil sealing (EC 2012b; Artmann et al. 2019), the mitigation and adaptation to climate change (Demuzere et  al. 2014), the regulation of urban heat island (EC 2013) and the improvement of soil, air and water quality (Demuzere et al. 2014). In Europe, some successful examples can be found. One of the most well-known examples of GI development is the Emscher Park in the Ruhr and Rhine area, in western Germany. Formerly a coal deposit and one of the largest and most productive steel and coal industries in Europe, since the 1970s, its remediation has

Table 2.2  Benefits of GI Environmental issues

Landscape quality

Social concerns

Benefits of GI Limiting land take and soil sealing Improving soil, air and water quality Regulating urban heat island effect Managing and regulating stormwater hazards Halting the loss of biodiversity Supporting landscape connectivity and recreational activities (such as slow mobility) Supporting ecological functionality and accessibility to green space Recovery of degraded and vacant land Reducing social and ecological vulnerability Enhancing quality of life and developing healthy communities

Source: Adapted from Voghera and Giudice (2019)

References EC (2012b); Artmann et al. (2019) Demuzere et al. (2014) Tzoulas et al. (2007); EC (2013) Ahern (2011); Demuzere et al. (2014); EC (2013); Meerow and Newell (2017) EC (2013) Meerow and Newell (2017); Zhang et al. (2019) Meerow and Newell (2017) Zhang et al. (2019) Meerow and Newell (2017) Tzoulas et al. (2007); EC (2013); Demuzere et al. (2014)

2.5  Moving Towards a Diverse Approach to Land Take

33

constituted a huge environmental and landscape challenge29 (Zepp 2018). The final project of the redesign of the Emscher Park integrated seven green corridors to create a new green backbone and a new metropolitan park connecting the entire region and allowing the penetration of rural and green elements in urbanised areas. This experience’s success was made evident, since the transformation led to creating natural and cultural corridors, celebrating the industrial heritage and providing habitat and river restoration, and slow mobility enhancement (Ahern 2011). This example does not pretend to be exhaustive, but it shows how GI can be designed at a wide scale, allowing overcoming limitations imposed by administrative boundaries (identified as a driver of land take, see Sect. 2.1) and having important benefits at different scales, from the regional to the local level (in this perspective, the French case is emblematic, see Sects. 2.3 and 2.4). Additionally, the successful result of the Emscher Park experience demonstrates how it is possible to attract new investments, basing its renewal interventions on ecological and environmental quality.

2.5  Moving Towards a Diverse Approach to Land Take The proposed examination shows the lack of a shared and harmonised terminology and definition over urban sprawl and land take. This statement is true above all in the case of urban sprawl, where the concept can be applied to different aspects (Galster et al. 2001), as it is a multidimensional concept in time and space. This lack has made it necessary to shift from urban sprawl to land take, a concept that introduces the problem of land. Even though it does not stress the qualitative aspects of land-use change, it allows placing the issue into a broader vision of current academic and public debates. In particular, it aligns with the major global challenges of sustainability, resilience and climate change that have become central in political and urban agendas. Even though the situation already appears critical, potentially, planners, architects and policy decision makers have many tools to prevent the point of no return. The critical situation calls for some changes of vision; for example from urban growth control (greenbelts are an exemplary case) to growth management through the inclusion of new urban paradigms (e.g. GI). Particular attention must be paid to global, national, regional and local environmental and ecological aspects, which affect other issues, such as energy consumption and food production. In this chapter, the presented experiences, whether planning tools or policies, do not pretend to explain the whole situation exhaustively. However, they provide a

 Despite its industrial vocation, the Ruhr region is characterised by a long history in GI and green space management; indeed, the idea of developing GI dates back to 1912. In the redesign of the Ruhr region, the Emscher river played an important role, first as a source of water and energy provision and as a communication route and after as an ecological corridor to be valorised and reinforced. In 1989, the IBA Emscher Park involved 17 municipalities and developed 120 projects mainly based on ecological elements to improve environmental quality and relaunch its economic performance.

29

34

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

general overview of what has been done and what can still be done. In this sense, some lessons can be learned from the presented experiences. The experience of the New Urbanism movement facilitates the link among urban sprawl, urban design practices and protection of open spaces. As originally conceived, greenbelts seem outdated, but their design (provided by boundaries) makes different landscapes easier to read. Their recent reconceptualisation towards the inclusion of environmental and ecological elements (Natural England and the Campaign to Protect Rural England 2010; Macdonald et al. 2020b) is evidence of their obsolete approach to urban growth control. There is a general and global (re)quest for climate change adaptation which could serve as the setting for a new way of thinking ecology within urban environments, above all in the compact forms, without forgetting the social aspects. Thus, linking social and environmental necessities, the call is for a new hygienism based upon natural elements (McHarg 1969) and well-being qualities. In this perspective, the concept of GI can help achieve these goals as it has been able to introduce in the ecological approach to planning (Steiner 2008) the elements of multifunctionality (Hansen and Pauleit 2014), multiscalarity (spatial and temporal) and connectivity between urban and exurban environments. Particularly, GI represents the natural backbone of territorial and urban plans able to provide multiple benefits and help mitigate the effects of land take and climate change. Their connectivity is also provided by the fact that GI is not bounded to some specific boundaries (as in the case of planning tools) and, therefore, can help tackle the issue of ecological and landscape fragmentation. This renovated vision is reflected in the definition of the GI approach to land-use planning proposed by the Landscape Institute: “A GI approach to land-use planning, design and management enables us to demand and deliver more from the land in a sustainable way. By considering the widest range of functions an asset can perform simultaneously, GI can enhance the primary use of the land and unlock the greatest number of benefits. At its heart, GI aims to manage the many, often conflicting, pressures for housing, industry, transport, energy, agriculture, nature conservation, recreation and aesthetics. It also highlights where it is important to retain single or limited land-use functions” (2009, p. 6).

References Ahern J (2004) Greenways in the USA: theory, trends and prospects. In: Jongman R, Pungetti G (eds) Ecological networks and greenways. Concepts, design, implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 34–55 Ahern J (2011) From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landsc Urban Plan 100:341–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021 Amati M (2008) Urban green belts in the twenty-first century. Ashgate, Hampshire Antrop M (2004) Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan 67:9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-­2046(03)00026-­4

References

35

Artmann M, Kohler M, Meinel G et  al (2019) How smart growth and green infrastructure can mutually support each other—a conceptual framework for compact and green cities. Ecol Indic 96:10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.001 Audirac I, Shermyen AH, Smith MT (1990) Ideal urban form and visions of the good life Florida’s growth management dilemma. J Am Plan Assoc 56(4):470–482. https://doi. org/10.1080/01944369008975450 Balen M (2006) Land economy: how a rethink of our planning policy will benefit Britain. ASI (Research), London Barker K (2006) Barker review of land use planning: final report  – recommendations. HM Treasury, London Bauer G, Roux JM (1976) La rurbanisation ou la ville éparpillée. Editions du Seuil, Paris Benedict MA, McMahon ET (2002) Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century. Sprawl Watch Clearing House, Washington, DC.  Available via http://www.sprawlwatch.org/ greeninfrastructure.pdf. Assessed 14 September 2020 Benevolo L (1993) La città nella storia d’Europa. Editore Laterza, Roma-Bari Bonomi A, Abruzzese A (eds) (2004) La città infinita. Bruno Mondadori, Milano Boyle C, Gamage GB, Burns B et  al (2014) Greening cities. A review of green infrastructure. Transforming Cities: Innovations for Sustainable Futures, Auckland. Available via https:// cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/creative/schools-­programmes-­centres/transforming%20cities/ Greening_Cities_Report.pdf. Assessed 14 September 2020 Bruegmann R (2005) Sprawl: a compact history. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Burchell RW, Listokin D, Galley CC (2000) Smart growth: more than a ghost of urban policy past, less than a bold new horizon. Hous Policy Debate 11(4):821–878. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10511482.2000.9521390 Burchell RW, Downs A, McCann B et al (2005) Sprawl costs. Economic impacts of unchecked development. Island Press, Washington, DC Burel F, Baudry J (1999) Écologie du paysage. Concepts, méthodes et applications. Éditions TEC&DOC, Paris Camagni R (ed) (1999) La pianificazione sostenibile delle aree periurbane. Il Mulino, Bologna Clément G (2005) Manifesto del Terzo paesaggio. Quodlibet, Macerata Couch C, Leontidou L, Petschel-Held G (eds) (2007) Urban sprawl in Europe: landscapes, land-­ use & policy. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford DCLG – Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National planning policy framework, London Dematteis G (ed) (1992) Il fenomeno urbano in Italia: interpretazioni, prospettive, politiche. Franco Angeli, Milano Demuzere M, Orru K, Heidrich O et  al (2014) Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J Environ Manag 146:107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025 Detragiache A (2003) Dalla città diffusa alla città diramata. Franco Angeli, Milano Donadieu P (1998) Campagnes urbaines. Actes Sud, Arles Dutton J (2000) New American Urbanism. Re-forming the suburban metropolis. Skira, Milano EC – European Commission (2012a) The implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and ongoing activities, COM/2012/046 Final. Available via https://eur-­lex.europa.eu/legal-­content/EN/ TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0046&from=EN. Assessed 25 October 2020 EC – European Commission (2012b), Guidelines on best practices to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing. Commission Staff Working Document. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available via http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/guidelines/pub/ soil_en.pdf. Assessed 24 October 2020 EC  – European Commission (2013) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital, COM/2013/0249

36

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

Final. European Commission, Brussels. Available via https://eur-­lex.europa.eu/legal-­content/ EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249&from=EN. Assessed 24 October 2020 EEA  – European Environmental Agency (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe  – the ignored challenge. EEA Report n. 10/2006. Available via https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_ report_2006_10/eea_report_10_2006.pdf/view. Assessed 2 November 2020 EEA – European Environmental Agency (2011) Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies using monitoring systems  – Technical report no. 18/2011. Copenhagen. Available via https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/green-­infrastructure-­and-­territorial-­cohesion. Assessed 25 October 2020 Ewing RH (1997) Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? J Am Plan Assoc 63(1):107–126. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975728 Fàbos JG (2004) Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landsc Urban Plan 68(2–3):321–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.07.003 Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York Frumkin H, Frank L, Jackson R (2004) Urban sprawl and public health: designing, planning and building for healthy communities. Island press, Washington, DC Fulton W, Pendall R, Nguyen M et  al (2001) Who sprawls Most? How growth patterns differ across the U.S. survey series. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC Gabellini P (2018) Le mutazioni dell’urbanistica. Carocci editore, Roma Gaeta L, Janin Rivolin U, Mazza L (eds) (2013) Governo del territorio e pianificazione spaziale. Cittàstudi, Milano Gallent N, Andersson J, Bianconi M (2006) Planning on the edge – the context for planning at the rural-urban fringe. Routledge, New York Galster G, Hanson R, Ratcliffe MR et  al (2001) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept. Hous Policy Debate 12(4):681–717. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10511482.2001.9521426 Geddes R (1997) Metropolis unbound: the sprawling American City and the search for alternatives. American Prospect 8(35):40 Glæsner N, Helming K, de Vries W (2014) Do current European policies prevent soil threats and support soil functions? Sustainability, 6(12):9538–9563. https://doi.org/ https://doi. org/10.3390/su6129538 Godschalk DR (2004) Land use planning challenges: coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. J Am Plan Assoc 70(1):5–13. https://doi. org/10.1080/01944360408976334 Goetz A (2013) Suburban sprawl or urban centers: tensions and contradictions of smart growth approaches in Denver, Colorado. Urban Stud 50(11):2178–2195. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098013478238 Haaland C, van den Bosch CK (2015) Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: a review. Urban For Urban Green 14(4):760–771. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009 Haase D, Kabisch S, Haase A et al (2017) Greening cities—to be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat Int 64:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. habitatint.2017.04.005 Hall P (1966) The world cities. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London Han AT, Go MH (2019) Explaining the national variation of land use: a cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries. Land Use Policy 81:644–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2018.11.035 Hansen R, Pauleit S (2014) From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Ambio 43:516–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-­014-­0510-­2 Indovina F (ed) (1990) La città diffusa. Daest-IUAV, Venezia Ingersoll R (2004) Sprawltown: Cercando la città in periferia. Meltemi editore, Roma

References

37

Kühn M (2003) Greenbelt and green heart: separating and integrating landscapes in European city regions. Landsc Urban Plan 64(1–2):19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-­2046(02)00198-­6 Landscape Institute (2009) Green Infrastructure. An integrated approach to land use. Landscape Institute, London. Available via https://landscapewpstorage01.blob.core.windows.net/www-­ landscapeinstitute-­org/2016/03/Green-­Infrastructure_an-­integrated-­approach-­to-­land-­use.pdf. Assessed 8 November 2020 Lennon M (2015) Green infrastructure and planning policy: a critical assessment. Local Environ 20(8):957–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.880411 Liquete C, Kleeschulte S, Dige G et al (2015) Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: a Pan-European case study. Environ Sci Pol 54:268–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.009 Lynch K (1961) The pattern of metropolis. Daedalus J Am Acad Arts Sci 90:79–98 Macdonald S, Monstadt J, Friendly A (2020a) From the Frankfurt greenbelt to the regional park RheinMain: an institutional perspective on regional greenbelt governance. Eur Plan Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1724268 Macdonald S, Monstadt J, Friendly A (2020b) Rethinking the governance and planning of a new generation of greenbelts. Reg Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1747608 McCauley SM, Murphy JT (2013) Smart growth and the scalar politics of land management in the greater Boston region, USA. Environ Plan A Econ Space 45(12):2852–2867. https://doi. org/10.1068/a45307 McHarg IL (1969) Design with nature. Natural History Press, New York MEA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC Meerow S, Newell JP (2017) Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: growing resilience in Detroit. Landsc Urban Plan 159:62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2016.10.005 Mostafavi M, Doherty G (eds) (2010) Ecological urbanism. Lars Müller Publishers, Zürich Natural England and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (2010). Green Belts: a greener future. Available via https://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/housing-­and-­planning/green-­belts/item/1956-­ green-­belts-­a-­greener-­future. Assessed 10 September 2020 Neuman M (2005) The Compact City fallacy. J Plan Educ Res 25(1):11–26. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0739456X04270466 Sargolini M (2013) Urban landscapes. Environmental networks and quality of life. Springer-­ Verlag Italia, Milano Sassen S (2000) Cities in a World Economy, 2nd Edition. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks Secchi B (1998) Città moderna, città contemporanea e loro futuri. In: Dematteis G, Indovina F, Magnaghi A, Piroddi E, Scandurra E, Secchi B (eds) I futuri della città. Tesi a confronto. Franco Angeli, Milano, pp 41–70 Siedentop S, Fina S, Krehl A (2016) Greenbelts in Germany’s regional plans  – an effective growth management policy? Landsc Urban Plan 145:71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2015.09.002 Sieverts T (2003) Cities without cities: an interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. Spon Press, London and New York Smart Growth Network (2002) Getting to Smart Growth: 100 policies for implementation. Available via https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-­01/documents/gettosg.pdf. Assessed 5 November 2020 Staddon C, Ward S, De Vito L et al (2018) Contributions of green infrastructure to enhancing urban resilience. Environ Syst Decis 38(3):330–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-­018-­9702-­9 Steiner FR (2008) The living landscape. An ecological approach to landscape planning. Island Press, Washington, DC Stone B, Hess JJ, Frumkin H (2010) Urban form and extreme heat events: are sprawling cities more vulnerable to climate change than compact cities? Environ Health Perspect 118(10):1425–1428. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901879

38

2  Land Take: From General Concerns to an Ecological Approach

Sturzaker J, Mell I (2017) Green belts: past; present; future? Routledge, London Talen E (2002) The social goals of new urbanism. Hous Policy Debate 13(1):165–188. https://doi. org/10.1080/10511482.2002.9521438 Turri E (2000) Megalopoli padana. Einaudi, Torino Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S et al (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 81:167–178. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001 UN  – United Nations (2019) World urbanization prospects. The 2018 revision. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New  York. Available via https://population. un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-­Report.pdf. Assessed 15 November 2020 Voghera A, Giudice B (2019) Evaluating and planning green infrastructure: a strategic perspective for sustainability and resilience. Sustainability 11:2726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102726 Voghera A, Giudice B (2021) Green infrastructure and landscape planning in a sustainable and r­esilient perspective. In: Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S (eds) Ecosystem services and green infrastructure. Cities and nature. Springer, Cham, pp  213–224. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­54345-­7_16 Waldheim C (ed) (2006) The landscape urbanism reader. Princeton Architectural Press, New York Zepp H (2018) Regional green belts in the Ruhr region. A planning concept revisited in view of ecosystem services. Erdkunde 72(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.3112/erdkunde.2018.01.01 Zhang Z, Meerow S, Newell JP et al (2019) Enhancing landscape connectivity through multifunctional green infrastructure corridor modeling and design. Urban For Urban Green 38:305–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.014

Chapter 3

Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Abstract This chapter provides a contextualised framework of two European countries: France and Italy. These two countries are framed with reference to their institutional structure and their planning systems. To address the topic of land take and ecological restoration and examine how they are interlinked, the proposed analysis emphasises which measures, policies and tools have been undertaken in the two countries. The choice reveals how the two countries share some common elements of discussion, but they tackle the issues of land take containment, ecological continuities and green infrastructure with different perspectives. Keywords  Land take · Urban planning · Urban design · Sustainability · Green infrastructure · Ecological networks · France · Italy

3.1  France and Italy in the European Context France and Italy are two European countries sharing common elements and presenting noteworthy environmental, ecological and landscape features. Recently, they both started to face incoming challenges by developing national policies and local experiences in the field of planning, biodiversity and ecological preservation, and GI development. They share common policy objectives, and recently, they underwent significant institutional changes and redefinition of competencies (see Sect. 3.1.3). France and Italy are characterised by a highly fragmented administrative setting, even though each body has different weights regarding planning competencies. Both countries are administratively divided into four levels: Regions, Departments/ Provinces, Metropolises/Metropolitan Cities and Municipalities. The main difference lies in the fact that French Departments do not have significant planning competencies, while Italian Provinces (before and after the creation of Metropolitan Cities) carry out an important action of coordination between the Region and Municipalities. Regarding Regions, the French ones do not have the same powers as the Italian ones. The main difference is that Italian Regions (which underwent a very massive process of regionalisation in the 1970s) can legislate, and this © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 B. Giudice, Planning and Design Perspectives for Land Take Containment, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91066-2_3

39

40

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

legislative action has been essential in the field of planning. Despite this, it is possible to recognise that this action of regional legislation (for what concerns the planning structure) has led to a multifaceted situation in terms of plans characteristics. Only recently, French Regions went through substantial changes in their arrangement and planning competencies, above all in the field of sustainable development. Since 2014, both countries experienced significant institutional changes and metropolisation processes which requestioned the role of wide-area planning. In France, the metropolisation process led to the creation of Metropolises, while in Italy, it led to the creation of Metropolitan Cities and the redefinition of the role of the Provinces. Since these changes, Italian Provinces and new Metropolitan Cities have had to redefine their competencies in planning in the attempt to include the strategic perspective in addition to the coordination one. In France, wide-area planning is not strictly related to an institutional body, but the experience of SCoTs has proved to have had a wide approval and to have been efficient in managing territorial and economic transformations. In particular, both countries have a high number of municipalities (many of which have small dimensions in terms of inhabitants) compared to their territorial surface. In fact, on the one hand, France has more than 35.000 municipalities and, on the other hand, Italy more than 8.000. The most remarkable difference lies in the role and the willingness to cooperate into inter-municipalities: in France, it is a heartfelt situation, while in Italy, there is a strong sense of individualism felt by each municipality. The willingness to cooperate includes planning practices and, as a first consequence, local plans are made up of agglomerations and unions (an ensemble of municipalities) which share a common and shared policy perspective and objective. This situation helps not to have conflicting choices between neighbouring urban plans. Since scholars often denounce it as one of the major institutional obstacles to the more rational development of cities (May et al. 1998), it is important to underline their administrative fragmentation. Among the main principles of planning defined in the latest national laws, France has recognised the necessity to limit land take and use soil in a sustainable way. The continuous legislative action on this topic offers a wide range of tools to favour an environmental and ecological approach to planning. Strongly related to these necessities, France has given great relevance to biodiversity safeguarding by introducing operational ecological elements, such as green and blue infrastructure (see Sect. 3.3), into the planning process at different scales. In the same perspective, Italy has introduced GI elements in its National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change (2015) (see Sect. 3.3). Despite this, currently, soil valorisation is not yet one of the key issues of the Italian government, even though the EU has fixed zero land take within 2050 (see Sect. 2.2.1). To monitor the situation of national land take, both countries carry out specific research at the national level. On the one hand, the action of ISPRA in Italy (subordinated to the surveillance of the Ministry of the Environment) consists of realising and updating an annual report. On the other hand, the French Ministry of Agriculture, food farming and forestry has created a specific national observatory, and the Ministry of Ecology has developed a report on soil artificialisation.

3.1  France and Italy in the European Context

41

3.1.1  An Overview on Land Take Even though the quantification issue is not central in the discourse, it is important to have a general overview of the dimensions assumed by land take in France and Italy. Indeed, in this field, both France and Italy have developed some specific studies and indicators to quantify the extension of the phenomenon.1 In 2017, the French Ministry of Ecology developed a specific report on land take and artificialisation “Théma – Artificialisation. De la mesure à l’action” (SEEIDD 2017). Basing its analysis on CLC 2012 data,2 this methodology facilitates the comparison with other European countries. This report can represent a good starting point for future research and when realising urban plans. Nonetheless, it can currently have a relatively limited application, since it seems a simple recipient of heterogeneous information. In this sense, as of now, it cannot be already identified as a tool for annually monitoring land take in France. According to this report, the French situation is significantly diversified within the continental territory (thus excluding overseas territories); the highest rate of land take is traceable along coastal zones, particularly the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coast. A similar situation can be found around some major urban agglomerations, such as Paris, Toulouse, Lille, Bordeaux and Nice (Fig. 3.1). The evolution of the phenomenon between 1990 and 2012 (Fig. 3.2) shows how it has mainly concerned the Côte d’Azur and the territories near the Spanish border. In Italy, quantification studies play a central role in land take studies. The Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA) is the research institute in charge of updating a national database every year and drafting a report. The latest report (Munafò 2020) offers a detailed analysis of the Italian situation on land take and presents itself as a continuum and integration of previous reports. It provides a set of various indicators. Indeed, between 2018 and 2019, the report estimates that the phenomenon of land take in Italy has not slowed down and that it affects more than 7% of the entire surface.3 The current situation (Fig. 3.3) delineates how the phenomenon is especially evident in the Northern part of the country (the so-called Po valley), along the infrastructural axes between the cities of Florence and Pisa, around major cities, in Lazio and Campania Regions, in the southern part of Puglia Region and the coastal zones. The latest major transformations between 2018 and 2019 (Fig.  3.4) occurred more or less in the same zones.

1  To have an idea of European trends in land take, see https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/ indicators/land-take-3/assessment. 2  Corine Land Cover (CLC) is a European project for the survey and monitoring of land-use changes. Financed by the EC, the first survey dates back to 1990, and it has been updated in 2000, 2006, 2012 and 2018. It allows to have a general overview of the state of the environment in the EU area providing support for the development of common policies. It classifies land use into 44 classes. 3  In 1950s, the value of Italian sealed surfaces was around 2.7% (ISPRA 2015).

42

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Fig. 3.1  Municipal land take rate in 2012. (Source: Adapted from SEEIDD (2017))

3.1.2  F  rench and Italian Planning Systems in the European Context Europe is characterised by a multitude of administrative settings, planning systems and urbanisation models. Since the variety of European administrative settings affect each planning system (Nadin and Stead 2008), it is important to understand how French and Italian planning systems place themselves in the European framework. Many studies attempted to classify the different European spatial planning approaches4 (Davies et al. 1989; Newman and Thornley 1996; CEC 1997; Farinós Dasi 2007). These studies aggregated spatial planning systems into families and compared them. The first two studies (Davies et al. 1989; Newman and Thornley 1996) followed a similar classification approach: they both concentrate on one  The concept of spatial planning is relatively new, and it does not have a precise definition. On the contrary, it has been used as a “generic term to describe the ensemble of territorial governance arrangements that seek to shape patterns of spatial development in particular places” (Nadin and Stead 2008, p. 35). 4

3.1  France and Italy in the European Context

43

Fig. 3.2  Evolution of municipal land take rate between 1990 and 2012. (Source: Adapted from SEEIDD (2017))

single aspect, the legal and administrative framework of each country, while the last two (CEC 1997; Farinós Dasi 2007) attempts to apply a broader set of criteria to generate some ideal types. The first study (Davies et al. 1989) identified two broad legal families: one is connected to the concept of Common Law and the other to the Napoleonic Codes.5 The analysis by Newman and Thornley (1996) broadened the number of European countries and thus the number of families. They identified five distinct families: Germanic, Scandinavian, Napoleonic, British and Eastern Europe. In this study, France and Italy are both included in the Napoleonic family. Although this study can be considered the first great work on comparing planning systems, the choice of one criterion poses some strong limits (Gaeta et al. 2013).

5  The first family includes only England, while the second includes Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Italy is not included in this first study.

44

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Fig. 3.3  Municipal land take in 2019. (Source: Adapted from Munafò (2020))

3.1  France and Italy in the European Context

45

Fig. 3.4  Localisation of land take changes between 2018 and 2019. (Source: Adapted from Munafò (2020))

46

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Quite different are the approaches undertaken in the last two studies (CEC 1997; Farinós Dasi 2007), which, for the first time, were commissioned by supranational institutions. The first one, commissioned by the European Commission in the mid1990s, involved experts of the 15 EU Member States and resulted in the creation of the EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies. The EU Compendium proposed seven criteria of comparison: the scope of the system, the extent and type of planning at national and regional levels, the locus of power, the relative roles of public and private sectors, the nature of the system of law, the constitutional provisions and administrative traditions, the maturity or completeness of the system, the distance between expressed objectives and outcomes (CEC 1997). According to it, four major spatial planning approaches can be identified: a regional economic approach, a comprehensive integrated approach, land-use management and urbanism. In this study, France and Italy place themselves in two different classes. On the one hand, France is characterised by a regional economic approach, and, on the other hand, the Italian planning system is included in the fourth approach, urbanism. In the regional economic approach,6 the central government has a decisive role in pursuing social and economic objectives and “managing development pressures across the country” (CEC 1997, p. 36). The urbanism approach has characterised many southern European countries (in addition to Italy, Greece and Spain), and it is strongly influenced by architecture and urban design. In this category, regulation “has been undertaken through rigid zoning and codes” (CEC 1997, p. 37). In 2007, a European research project (ESPON – Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level) attempted to update the EU Compendium classification, including the new EU Member States (the total number amounts to 29). It can be observed that there is a general shift towards the comprehensive integrated approach (e.g. France) and the regional economic one. Differently from the regional economic approach, the comprehensive integrated one does not focus on economic development but on spatial coordination where spatial planning is “conducted through a systematic and formal hierarchy of plans from national to local level, which coordinate public sector activities across different sectors” (CEC 1997, p. 37). As highlighted by the last two studies, institutional levels on their own are not enough to explain the complex system of planning. This statement is true above all in countries like France and Italy, where territories are characterised by heterogeneous landscape assets and specific environmental conditions. Despite this, the Italian planning system is strongly conditioned by its administrative bodies which confer to the overall structure a segmented structure based upon administrative boundaries. Municipal boundaries determine a high territorial fragmentation with various cultural identities. This situation is also reflected in the Italian planning system.

 Even though to a lesser extent, this approach also includes Portugal and some areas of Germany.

6

3.1  France and Italy in the European Context

47

3.1.3  Institutional Setting The previous comparative studies entail the importance of the administrative structure when dealing with planning systems. In recent years, new processes occurred in Europe: it is the case of the regionalisation process which made it necessary to identify renovated types of government and governance and spatial planning structures (Soja 2011; Caruso et al. 2019). In this perspective, France has always had a robust and efficient action led by the central government; indeed, it “determines the scope, the goals, the amount of money involved, and the matters (in broad terms) for the plan conventions to be passed within the regions for five-year periods, as provided by the Planning Reform Act 1982” (CEC 2000a, p. 19). Even though the decentralisation process in France occurred since the beginning of the 1980s, the central State has not decreased the importance of its role, but it has even reinforced it in some analysts’ opinion (Farinós Dasi 2007). This process of decentralisation had important impacts on spatial planning and vertical relations among different administrative levels. The main aim of this process was to increase the power of regional and local (including intermunicipal) institutions but without weakening the role of the central State. In this sense, decentralisation allowed local and regional bodies to interact with the central State actively. French territory is organised into Regions, Departments, Metropolises and Municipalities; in particular, French Regions and Municipalities are going through important reorganisation actions. As of January 2019, France is constituted by a high number of municipalities, 34.970, with a population of more than 66 million inhabitants.7 Many of these municipalities have a very small number of inhabitants and a limited territorial extension. The Departments represent the intermediate level, in the number of 101, and they are the oldest levels, since their creation dates back to the French Revolution. Given the high number of municipalities, intermunicipalities8 in France have always played an important role, especially in planning processes. Since the first law in 1890 and the formalisation in 1999,9 in fact, French intermunicipal structures represent a rational tool of territorial organisation, created upon voluntary agreements on the basis of a common project of territorial

7  The data of population refers to 1st January 2017. Data retrieved via https://www.insee.fr/fr/stati stiques/4277602?sommaire=4318291. Assessed 21 September 2020. 8  French inter-municipalities come under the name of EPCI – Établissement public de coopération intercommunale. There are different types of EPCI, depending on their type of funding, with or without an autonomous tax system (the autonomous ones have the fiscal power to levy taxes). On 1 January 2020, the EPCI with autonomous tax system were 1.253 (data retrieved via https://www. banatic.interieur.gouv.fr/V5/accueil/index.php. Assessed 22 September 2020). 9  The formalisation took place with the law no. 99-586 relative au renforcement et à la simplification de la coopération intercommunale, also known as law Chevènement. This law reformed quite deeply the intermunicipal organisational structures by abolishing some entities and creating new ones.

48

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Fig. 3.5  Scheme of the new institutional settings of France and Italy. In grey Regions and in orange Metropolitan Cities

development. Moreover, since the municipal level has always been the local level of proximity to the citizen, inter-municipalities have had considerable success. Until the decentralisation process in 1983, French Regions have always had limited power. In comparison to Italian ones, it is relevant to underline that French Regions do not have the power to legislate and, until quite recently, they had few competencies in planning. Besides, as a different aspect from Italian Regions, French ones do not have any hierarchical link with the lower level, the Departments. In 2015, French Regions were subject to a territorial reform that reduced their number from 22 to 13.10 Before the merge of Regions in 2014, the French government identified a new body, the Métropoles, identified as metropolitan areas or intermunicipalities (Fig. 3.5).11 These reforms (namely NOTRe12 and MAPTAM13 laws) also led to a general redistribution and reorganisation of competencies at each scale, thus repositioning the role of different territories. The creation of metropolitan areas was mainly made necessary to counterbalance the economic and cultural predominance of the Parisian region (Gravier 1947; de Bujadoux 2015). French inter-­ municipalities have always had an important role in planning processes; in this case,  Some regions have maintained the same perimeter as before the law, while others have been merged. These mergers are particularly evident in the South-West, North and East of France. 11  In 2014, French reform identified 11 metropolitan areas: Bourdeaux, Brest, Grenoble, Lille, Montpellier, Nantes, Rennes, Rouen, Strasbourg, Toulouse and Lyon. Lyon has a special statute. One year later, they broadened the number of metropolitan areas to 13: Grand Paris and Marseille (these two have a special statute). Since 2019, metropolitan areas are 21: additionally, there are Clermont-Ferrand, Dijon, Metz, Nancy, Nice, Orléans, Saint Étienne, Toulon and Tours. 12  Loi n. 2015-991 portant sur la nouvelle organisation territoriale de la République. 13  Loi de Modernisation de l’Action Publique Territoriale et d’Affirmation des Métropoles. 10

3.1  France and Italy in the European Context

49

Métropoles’ perimeter is not fixed and can be changed, demonstrating how French planning policies have a variable geometry (Gibelli 2016). The creation of French Métropoles can be considered the beginning of the clarification of local competencies, since they have the task to enhance territorial competitiveness and cohesion. Concerning Regions, the 2015 reform mainly intended to achieve simplification and clarification of the territorial competencies (including new responsibilities in planning) and economies of scale, make Regions the engine of the country’s economic recovery14 and increase competitiveness among territories. In recent times, some scholars are questioning whether these reforms (mainly the ones on Regions) have worked or not. Basing their thoughts also on the latest events (e.g. the contestation of the yellow vests), some scholars believe that the reform of law NOTRe was a total failure (Bourdin and Torre 2020) or rather convincing in terms of reinvention of regional identity (Simoulin and Negrier 2020). Italy has a similar situation regarding the institutional setting: starting from the bottom, Municipalities, Metropolitan Cities, Provinces and Regions. Like France, Italy has a fragmented municipal situation (they are a little less than 8.000),15 even if not in the same proportions. However, unlike French ones, Italian Municipalities have always played an important role in their proximity to citizens and in pursuing local development. The latest institutional changes occurred in 2014 when ten Metropolitan Cities were established,16 and provinces (nowadays, there are 107 provinces) have seen their powers weakened. Unlike French Regions, since their institution in 1970 and the subsequent law of 1972, Italian ones have always had legislative powers and significant regional and urban planning competences.17 In the definition of local autonomies, law no. 142 of 1990 represents a fundamental step, since it redefined the institutional structure and competencies in a unique, organic and coordinated legislative text. The main objective of this law is the redistribution of competencies (including planning) with particular attention to municipal and provincial ones. In this case, Provinces are not merely intended as an intermediate level between Regions and Municipalities, but they acquired new functions with regard to territories and the environment. The law stresses the attention also on possible collaborative forms at the local level: associations, unions and even fusions. Indeed, it encouraged municipalities, above all the small ones, to a progressive merger functional to creating unions and fusions.

 This reform aligns itself with the debate on regionalisation.  The current situation of Italian municipalities is a legacy of the feudal period; in this sense, they are culturally and historically relevant in Italian geography and economy. 16  Metropolitan cities had already been introduced in 1990 by the national law no. 142 (aimed at reorganising the institutional system) and included in the national Constitution in 2001, but they were later established by law no. 56 in 2014, and they are Turin, Milan, Venice, Genoa, Bologna, Florence, Rome, Naples, Bari and Reggio Calabria. Four other metropolitan cities (Palermo, Messina, Catania and Cagliari) were established by Regional Laws of the two autonomous regions, Sicily and Sardinia. 17  Overall, there are 20 regions in Italy that are distinguished between the ones with an ordinary statute (16 in total) and the autonomous ones (4 in total). 14 15

50

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Unions of municipalities represent a new typology of local bodies; the creation of a union is made upon voluntary choice among Municipalities, while Regions play a role of coordination, promotion and incentive. Nonetheless, the consequent duty to fuse into a single municipality constituted a major obstacle in creating unions as small municipalities saw this as a loss of individual powers. In 2000, this text was subject to a complete revision and integration. The main objective was to clarify and organise a subject of such vast competence which was specified by a series of different legislative norms. In fact, this law gathers, in a systematic framework, dispositions about the institutional organisation, electoral system, juridical state of administrators, financial system and organisation of municipalities, provinces and associations. Following these systematic laws, successive ones had just one main objective: pursuing the decrease in spending outcomes. As already mentioned, since 2014, Italy has been experiencing a vivid legislative revision process through institutional rearrangement and with a correspondent redistribution of competencies between different levels. In 2014, hinged on the logic of costs’ reduction (the so-called spending review), the law no. 56 (also known as Delrio law), through the institution of metropolitan cities (Fig. 3.5), pursued two important objectives: the reduction of the number of territorial entities and the definition of appropriate tools to manage more cohesively and coherently cities’ growth. These objectives can be identified as an attempt to overcome municipal boundaries which often led to an incoherent and hostile planning system. The main issue regarded the delimitation of new metropolitan cities whose borders finally corresponded to the pre-existing provinces. The approbation of this law transformed old provinces into bodies elected by the municipal council (indirect election) and obliged small municipalities with less than 10.000 inhabitants to aggregate in a union of municipalities.

3.1.4  Planning Tools French and Italian planning tools can be delineated with two different approaches. On the one hand, since the late 1960s, the central State of France has carried out important legislative initiatives on planning processes and tools, while the Italian central government has been less active in planning legislation. On this front, in Italy, Regions have been more fruitful. Since the latest changes in French planning instruments, they can be delineated with a temporal overlook of planning laws and related tools. In contrast, due to their hierarchical structure, Italian planning tools can be briefly analysed in general terms following the division between administrative levels. Moreover, since there are consistent differences among Italian Regions and their legislative corpus, it is more convenient to delineate the Italian framework with an overview of regional planning laws. In this perspective, the two countries have a different approach to planning. French planning tools are not always strictly related to fixed administrative boundaries but tend to be developed in an aggregate and homogeneous way, according to EPCI. In contrast, Italian planning tools are

3.1  France and Italy in the European Context

51

varied according to administrative levels, leading to a more fragmented situation. A complete analysis of French and Italian planning tools could consist of a single book; therefore, the analysis here proposed focuses primarily on some main elements concerning urban expansion and land take containment. In the French national context, first activities in territorial management and planning date back to the years after the Second World War, when there was a great necessity to rebuild and define future urban expansions. Different methods were applied first to counterbalance the weight of Paris and its consequent spatial and economic imbalances (Gravier 1947; Faludi and Waterhout 2002; de Bujadoux 2015). In this period, even though policies were centralised, the main aim was to counterbalance the effect of centralisation (Farinós Dasi 2007).18 French planning is usually referred to as aménagement du territoire; according to Faludi and Waterhout (2002), this concept is not easily translatable in English, because, differently from spatial and regional planning, it also includes economic aspects.19 Since the first law of 1967, urban and regional planning has played a central role in France, basing their rules upon variable geometries. In this sense, institutional is not always so relevant in planning discourses. The law of 196720 introduced two planning tools: the Schéma Directeur d’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme (SDAU) and the Plan d’Occupation des Sols (POS). They were initially drafted in collaboration between the State and municipalities, and, in a second time (with the decentralisation laws of the 1980s), they were entirely devolved to municipalities. The POS, drafted by municipalities, was conceived mainly for land-­ use regulation (Guérois and Pumain 2002), as it established each parcel assignment and the related building rights. To forecast future urbanisations, the POS21 had a specific coefficient, the Coefficient d’Occupation des Sols (COS),22 and it adopted a mere action of zoning as the only mean for real control of land use. Indeed, it was divided into different communal areas: the ones where it was forbidden to build and urban areas where it was possible to build immediately, since they foresaw public facilities and areas for future urbanisations (they include natural zones). In this perspective, the POS turned out to be a technocratic conception and a rigid structure that did not allow including project proposals, as it is not a “sketched” tool  The central State provided itself with some means of economic intervention and proposed a national territorial plan (in 1950, some recommendations were presented). Later, in 1963, a significant achievement to pilot spatial planning at the national level was the creation of the DATAR (Délégation interministérielle à l’aménagement du territoire et à l’action régionale), placed under the responsibility of the Prime Minister, an Inter-ministerial organ in charge of promoting and coordinating the actions of State in the field of planning (or aménagement du territoire). 19  It corresponds to the regional economic approach to spatial planning of the EU Compendium of 1997 (see Sect. 3.1.2). 20  “Loi n° 67-1253 du 30 décembre 1967 d’orientation foncière”. 21  The POS has had a wide application: in 1997, almost half of municipalities (15.180 out of 35.000), covering almost 90% of the entire population, had drawn it up (Guérois and Pumain 2002). 22  The COS is the ratio expressing the number of square metres of net floor area that can be built per square metre of floor area. It is different depending on the zones of PLU, and its value can be increased for special housing programmes. 18

52

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

(Ingallina 2004). Project proposals and large building operations, which should have a more inclusive and democratic approach, were permitted in specific zones, called Zones d’Aménagement Concerté (ZAC). In these zones, in order to build, municipalities and private actors had to make negotiating processes and stipulate a contract. Both POS and ZAC had to be compatible with SDAU’s objectives; in particular, SDAU had to define planning orientations for a medium- and long-term period (e.g. protecting natural spaces and maintaining agricultural activities). Additionally, it also defined the localisation of large-scale infrastructures and the maximum expansion of urban areas (Guérois and Pumain 2002). Nevertheless, SDAU, due to its illustrative character, did not impose significant restrictions on urbanisation, and it had the difficult task to harmonise infrastructural policies between main municipalities and their peripheries which were not always covered by a POS, while the city centre was. In the contemporary perspective of land take containment, municipalities appeared to be particularly unsuited to manage urban sprawl (Guérois and Pumain 2002), above all in a country where communal fragmentation is very high. The situation worsened within the decentralisation process, where many competencies were transferred to municipalities. In fact, decentralisation law gave broad fiscal autonomy to municipalities that self-approved their own urban plans, helping cities expand even faster than before (Gibelli 2016). The 1990s have been a fruitful period for urban, territorial and landscape planning. In 1993, France adopted the reference law on the landscape, which constitutes the official and complete statute of landscape, also considering that it has not been modified after the successive European Convention on Landscape (ELC).23 Between 1995 and 2000,24 France carried out a process of urban and regional planning renovation which resulted in the creation of two new planning tools in place of the previous ones: the Schéma de Cohérence Territoriale (SCoT), the Plan Local d’Urbanisme (PLU) and the Carte Communale (as an alternative to municipalities which do not

 Loi n. 93-24 sur la protection et la mise en valeur des paysages et modifiant certaines dispositions législatives en matière d’enquêtes publiques. This law contains some relevant factors affecting planning at different scales. It introduces some tools for landscape protection and valorisation, such as the creation of Directives de protection et de mise en valeur des paysages and regional natural parks in charge of drafting a Charte paysagère. This law completes the French code on urban planning for what concerns, for example building permits by demanding a particular analysis (volet paysager) on landscape integration of new buildings and their visual impact. This law completes protection issues with the creation of specific zones of protection for architectural, urban and landscape heritage. 24  In these years, some important laws have been promulgated: in 1993, the Loi d’Orientation sur le Développement et l’Aménagement du Territoire set the basis for territorial management that will be later resumed, in 1999, by the Loi n. 99-553 d’Orientation sur l’Aménagement et le Développement Durable du Territoire (also known as Loi Voynet or LOADDT). It created two new territorial entities, the pays and the agglomeration, in charge of carrying out a project that gives economic development and urban management orientations. This law created and defined the Projet d’Agglomération, a not binding document draft within an intermunicipal framework; it can be considered a “list of projects to be carried out in the future and their location” (Farinós Dasi 2007). 23

3.1  France and Italy in the European Context

53

have a PLU).25 The introduction of new types of plans is mainly due to the necessity to overcome the rigidity of the previous ones, favouring more flexible tools which can provide shared choices of future urban development. The SCoT, a sort of a strategic master-planning document, is an intermunicipal plan which substitutes the Schéma directeur. The PLU substitutes the POS, and it represents a global project of urban planning and management (in the sense that it must take into account and manage different aspects) and fixes the general rules of land use. Both PLU and SCoT include a territorial strategy, contained in a new document, the Projet d’Aménagement et de Développement Durable (PADD), which constitutes the structural and strategic part of them.26 This document must define the general planning and management orientations with particular regard to open space protection and ecological preservation; the final aim is to translate these objectives into territorialised projects. Another important role of PLU is defining the relationships between urban planning policies and mobility ones. The SCoT intends to guarantee a stronger coherence between different objectives and develop a strategy for a specific territory. Indeed, it must define the main objectives of planning by coordinating different policies (housing, mobility, environment, etc.), and it is more restrictive than the SDAU (Guérois and Pumain 2002). In this perspective, without an approved SCoT, municipalities could not start building, even though they were covered by a PLU that identified spaces for new urbanisation. The perimeter of each SCoT is not fixed, and it can correspond to an already existing EPCI (or a group of them) or not; the second case leads to the generation of new intermunicipal boundaries. The laws Voynet, Chevènement and SRU represent the basis for the renovated French planning structure, and they share some common elements of discussion. Since 1999, inter-municipalities have acquired a consistent role in planning processes; despite this importance, the high presence of periurban municipalities (which have competencies in urban planning) represents an urgent problem of French territory (Charmes 2011), causing the spread of scattered developments. To avoid this situation as much as possible, the law SRU tried to make periurban municipalities lose part of their competencies if they were not included in a SCoT and were not allowed to grant building permits or urbanise open spaces. This renovation was necessary due to the inefficacy of POS on the subject of land take containment as it had no restrictive and cogent rules in terms of building. On the contrary, the PLU can be considered a more global tool as it is not anymore intended to assign building rights to each parcel exclusively but is oriented towards a general urban renewal (as the chosen title of the law clearly denounces, renouvellement urbain) and to the development of a shared sustainable project. Indeed, the  They have been introduced by the Loi n. 2000-1208 Solidarité et Renouvellement urbain (law SRU). 26  In addition to PADD, SCoT is constituted by three documents: a survey (rapport de présentation) which contains a diagnostic and the environmental evaluation, and the document of orientations and objectives (document d’orientation et d’objectifs – DOO). Instead, the PLU is constituted by a rapport de présentation, orientations of management and planning (orientations d’aménagement et de programmation – OAP) and a regulatory part. 25

54

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

law used as its motto the sentence “reconstruire la ville sur la ville” (literally, rebuild the city within the city). The PLU attempts to fulfil this concern through the already mentioned tool of PADD which has to draft an urban project oriented towards a perspective of sustainability. The willingness to overcome land take is the major link between the law SRU and the Loi n. 2010-788 portant engagement national pour l’environnement (ENE, or Loi Grenelle II). The battle against the regression of agricultural and natural areas and land take becomes one of the major objectives of French urban planning. The law also invites local bodies to realise eco-districts (such as the Caserne de Bonne of Grenoble, see Sect. 4.1.4) favouring an adaptation to social cohesion and environmental sustainability. Currently, the SCoT represents one of the French most consolidated planning practices, and it is considered one of the most appropriate planning scales to contain urban sprawl (Gibelli 2016). The institution of Metropolises and the related transfer of municipal competencies to them have increased the importance of the local intermunicipal plan, PLU and PLUi, but there is still little evidence on its role and implications. The Italian situation is quite different. Although many attempts of promulgating a new national law on urban and regional planning, the Italian planning system is still anchored to the national law no. 1150 of 1942.27 In 2001, some major changes occurred. Indeed, modifications to the Title V of the Constitution have introduced a sort of a new and comprehensive discipline: the expression governo del territorio replaced the term urbanistica (the urbanism approach of the comparative studies, see Sect. 3.1.2) and included additional aspects to land use. Governo del territorio, literally territorial government, is identified as a concurrent legislative subject between the State and Regions. This constitutional change underlines both the relevance of land use in accordance with public development and the necessity to define appropriate and efficient planning tools towards a policy of territorial cohesion (Janin Rivolin 2011). The original text of law no. 1150 of 1942 stated that the State was in charge of drawing up territorial coordination plans to orient and address lower levels. Nonetheless, Italy has always lacked such a national strategic framework that sets the basis for a coherent planning system at different scales, and it keeps placing great emphasis on planning at local scales.28 Due to the urbanism tradition, Italy has no national spatial planning (Faludi and Waterhout 2002). This situation is also underlined by the European Compendium on Italy, which states that “territorial planning is practically non-existent at the national level, merely illustrative at the regional level and implemented at the local level” (CEC 2000b, p. 97). Furthermore, in the 1970s, in the European context, it was evident the “incapacity of planning systems to foresee and manage the process of urban growth (…) but in Italy there 27  In that period, the National Italian planning law represented the reference to which many other European countries referred to when dealing with their first planning laws. 28  The only real attempt to define a national plan is the so-called Progetto ‘80, developed in the late 1960s, but it has never been pursued.

3.1  France and Italy in the European Context

55

has been no concrete outcome, due to the inertia and rigidity of the planning system” (CEC 2000b, p. 17). These affirmations state mainly the lack of a strategic role of planning, and the levels mostly in charge of the planning process are regions. A cornerstone of the Italian planning system is the introduction of urban standards in 1968 which obliged urban plans to provide a minimum quantity of public city and services.29 The introduction of urban standards in the Italian planning and design framework has constituted an outstanding social achievement for constructing the public city. Nonetheless, current debates highlight the necessity to identify new urban standards. Currently, the Italian planning system has a four-tier hierarchical structure: each institutional level is indeed in charge of drafting a specific plan. Regions derive their competencies from the National Constitution, including regional planning. As already mentioned, Italian Regions and the two autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano, differently from the French ones, can legislate, and each of them (except for the Molise Region) has promulgated a specific law on planning. Generally speaking, on the one hand, Regions are in charge of drafting a regional territorial plan (called Piano Territoriale Regionale – PTR), which can also have a landscape value, and a regional landscape plan (Piano Paesaggistico Regionale – PPR). On the other hand, provinces and metropolitan cities must draft a provincial (or metropolitan) plan of territorial coordination. Municipalities, either alone or gathered in an intermunicipality, have to draft an urban plan. The lack of a general national framework has led to many different realities due to the approbation of different regional laws on urban planning. Despite the varied planning system, the main level is the municipal one, thus reflecting the urbanism approach to planning (CEC 1997); this is also reflected in historical and identity processes that created the so-called campanilismo feeling.30 The high number of municipalities and the related sense of belonging have had consequences in uncoordinated planning processes among neighbouring municipalities. Urban land-use plans have a strongly prescriptive character, and they are the most cogent ones as they set rules on land use through a rigid zoning plan and the allocation of specific uses to all these zones. Additionally, they are also legally binding. In the latest years, to reduce land take and overcome the rigidity of urban plans, some Regions have decided to structure urban plans into three different plans: an operative one, a structural one and a building code. Regions play a central role in the Italian planning system and environmental and landscape policies due to their legislative powers. Over the past two decades, many Italian Regions have carried out fundamental initiatives and efforts to modernise urban and regional planning through massive or minor reforms of their laws. These new laws are called laws of the second and third generation. These new laws resume the broad concept of governo del territorio, including all the subjects within territorial resources, programming and planning tools, and guaranteeing the necessary  To have an overview of Italian urban standards, see Falco (1993). In the latest years, some Regions have introduced important innovation attempting to overcome the rigidity of the tool and to integrate elements of urban and ecological-environmental quality (e.g. Emilia-Romagna). 30  This “feeling” refers to the sense of attachment and belonging to a specific municipality. 29

56

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

coherence between different policies and sectoral plans (Minucci 2005; INU 2019). These new laws integrate some substantial elements: they are a consequence of new national laws that conditioned local bodies and the need to interpret and meet new territorial, landscape and environmental conditions. These attempts to reform tried to solve the over-simplified techniques, the excessively rigid solutions and the prescriptive interpretation of the existing Italian planning practices.

3.2  Planning for Sustainability In recent decades, in response to global pressures and challenges, both France and Italy have shifted their attention to environmental and landscape aspects in the planning process. In line with European indications, the fundamental topics on which the two countries focus their attention are land take containment and ecological preservation in favour of biodiversity and climate change mitigation and adaptation. In France, a crucial turning point in regional and urban planning is the promulgation in 2009 and 2010 of the so-called Grenelle laws.31 These laws, implementing and modifying the French Code of Urbanism and the Environmental Code in line with the principles of sustainable development, introduce new issues connected to environmental protection and ecological preservation in urban planning tools (e.g. the battle against land take, climate change mitigation and adaptation, gasses reduction, preservation and renovation of biodiversity and ecological continuity). Even if it is not clearly explicit among law’s objectives, previous experiences have shown that the most appropriate level to face these objectives is the supra- and intermunicipal one. Therefore, making intermunicipal plans was a strong suggestion, still an optional decision, but it was not compulsory. In line with the new challenges of sustainable development, Grenelle laws introduce a new planning tool aimed at ecological preservation and renovation; this tool is called Trame Verte et Bleue (see Sect. 3.3). These laws also introduce a new plan to be managed and realised at the regional scale: the Schéma régional de coherence écologique (SRCE). Generally, this plan had to define and explain the main ecological elements of a specific regional territory. This new regional plan had to be taken into account by the SCoT,32 while local plans had to be compatible with it. While the Grenelle laws introduce important elements of ecological preservation and renovation, many other sectorial laws resumed the concept of land take setting some indicators and figures. In 2010, the Loi n. 2010-874 du 27 juillet 2010 de Modernisation de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche pointed out the 2020 objective of halving the rhythm of agricultural land take. To develop tools suitable for measuring

 Grenelle laws are two laws; the first has been promulgated in 2009, while the second in 2010. The second one is an extension of the first one. 32  “Taking into account” refers to the French concept of “prise en compte,” meaning that tools are not prescriptive. 31

3.2  Planning for Sustainability

57

agricultural transformations and appropriate indicators, a specific observatory was constituted.33 In 2014, a new law strengthened the relevance of inter-municipalities by transferring to inter-municipalities competencies on urban planning and introduced innovative elements to be implemented in PLU and SCoT.34 To achieve the objective of inter-municipalities, it introduced a new planning tool, the so-called Plan Local d’Urbanisme Intercommunal (PLUi), to be drafted by a single EPCI. The law also introduces some land take containment objectives: it imposes to SCoT to present an analysis of natural, agricultural and forestland take occurred within the previous 10  years and to justify the quantified objectives for its limitation. Besides, the municipal plan, the PLU, is in charge of presenting the situation of previous land take, and it must set out regulations that favour the densification of built spaces and limit land take. Other innovative aspects are the suppression of the COS in PLU and the limitation of the possibility to fix minimum sizes of parcels. These dispositions sought to foster housing construction with a consistent limitation of land take. In particular, the suppression of COS was pursued in favour of other building and design rules (such as emprise au sol, the maximum height of buildings, rules for future settlements). Besides, this law reinforced the concept of greening into cities by introducing the Coefficient de Biotope par Surface (CBS)35 which obliges new PLU to preserve or create some non-urbanised and permeable areas. The introduction of CBS contributes to standardising and putting into effect some principles of environmental quality, such as the guarantee and improvement of the microclimate, the guarantee and development of soil functionality and the management of water resources, the creation of an optimal and living space for the fauna and the flora. Grenelle and ALUR laws reinforced the strategic nature and role of SCoT, playing a central role in the French planning system. The Loi NOTRe (see Sect. 3.1.3), besides the above-mentioned institutional changes, introduced a new planning tool in charge of Regions, the Schéma Régional d’Aménagement, de Développement durable et d’Égalité des Territoires (SRADDET). The creation of the SRADDET helps restore the strategic role of territorial planning and strengthens the place of the regional institution which is invited to formulate a political vision of its priorities in terms of spatial planning. The plan is in charge of setting medium- and long-term objectives concerning several themes: territorial balance, the establishment of infrastructures of regional interest, housing, control of energy consumption, combating climate change, air pollution, protection and restoration of biodiversity, waste prevention and management. Once approved, the SRADDET will replace other sectoral regional plans (e.g. the SRCE), but,

 Observatoire National de la Consommation des Espaces Agricoles (ONCEA), later substituted by the Observatoire des espaces naturels, agricoles et forestiers (OENAF). 34  This new law is called Loi n. 2014-366 du 24 mars 2014 pour l’accès au logement et un urbanisme rénové (also known as Loi ALUR). 35  French legislation resumed this concept from the city of Berlin, and this coefficient is a modernised version of the coefficient d’emprise au sol which exists since the nineteenth century. 33

58

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

differently from the SRCE, SCoTs and PLUs must be compatible with its rules and take into consideration its objectives. In 2015, France adopted the Stratégie nationale de transition écologique vers un développement durable 2015–2020 (the national strategy of ecological transition for a sustainable development). This strategy promotes a new reflection for the limitation of agricultural land take in the first of its nine priorities – preserver et renforcer la capacité des territoires à fournir et à bénéficier des services écosystémiques (preserve and reinforce the capacity of territories to supply ecosystem services). In 2016, a new law, the loi pour la reconquête de la biodiversité, de la nature et des paysages, recalled some elements of landscape and nature protection (previously introduced by the law of 1993). This law has introduced a dynamic and renovated vision of biodiversity, and its main aim is to protect and valorise French natural heritage. The law strengthens some juridical principles, such as the institution of a principle of ecological solidarity, which defines the relevance of combining biodiversity preservation and human activities. This principle is useful for the definition of preservation and restoration actions of green and blue infrastructure through biodiversity reservoirs and ecological continuities. In the latest years, Italian national and regional governments have mainly focused on land take containment rather than ecological preservation. Unlike France, no new specific plans have been identified to achieve the incoming goals of sustainability. Nonetheless, landscape and heritage conservation appears to be central in sustainability discourses. Since the late 1930s, many national laws introduced aspects for preserving the cultural and environmental heritage.36 In this perspective, the first laws of 1939 introduced the first attempt of landscape plan (the so-called piano paesistico) but only on specific constrained assets. Later in the 1980s, law no. 431/1985, the so-called Galasso law, reinforced the role of landscape plans obliging Regions to elaborate it. This law set important changes for the protection of areas with significant environmental interest. After the approbation of the ELC, in 2004, Italy introduced the Code of cultural heritage and landscape (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, the law no. 42/2004). Regarding ecological preservation, the evidence is more limited and more recent than the landscape. Nevertheless, despite the lack of a systemic framework, since the 1990s, some urban plans attempted to introduce ecological elements (Oliva 1999; La Riccia 2017). The first Italian town that attempted to achieve ecological objectives within urban planning is Reggio Emilia. In particular, this experience faces sustainability issues through the strategy of ecological regeneration of the city. Inspired by the renewal project of the Emscher Park (see Sect. 2.4), the concept of ecological regeneration provides the suitable framework for enhancing the ecological conditions of a specific territory. In this perspective, the urban plan of Reggio Emilia introduced innovative elements at the plot scale, such as bio-climatic corridors, mitigation areas for atmospheric pollution, wooded area to be maintained. At

 The first two laws were law no. 1089/1939 (protection of historical “things”) and law no. 1497/1939 (protection on natural “beauties”).

36

3.2  Planning for Sustainability

59

the municipal scale, the plan identified the green system, defined by natural reservoirs, filter areas, connections and agricultural territories. This experience foresees an ecological and environmental approach to planning in the Italian panorama; particularly, it provides innovative operational visions on the urban and agricultural territory. Regarding land take, since the 1980s, some national studies attempted to systematise urbanisation processes at the national scale.37 These studies played an important role as they analysed the effects of intense urbanisation in the post-war years, and they mainly aimed at helping planners to develop conscious choices in relation to the existing situation. In this perspective, since 2012, Italy has mainly attempted to pursue land take containment drafting national and regional policies and laws. Additionally, to pursue the realisation of a coherent cognitive framework, it has been paying great attention to monitoring the evolution of the phenomenon.38 In 2014, one of the most remarkable tentative texts, the Disegno di Legge n. 2039/2014 “Contenimento del consumo del suolo e riuso del suolo edificato”, was presented by both the national department of Environment and the one of Agriculture. This law proposal, which will never see the light, was strictly and solely connected to land take containment and urban regeneration: the main issue was that it mainly focused on agricultural lands forgetting, for example, natural areas. Additionally, it did not include and extended its features to the planning system: indeed, it is not intended to reform the Italian planning law of 1942. Therefore, the text could seem contradictory (Gibelli 2016) and counterproductive as it proposed some technical measures (e.g. the so-­ called compendi urbani neorurali) that could threaten agricultural lands. This particular measure was intended to foster sustainable territorial development by renovating specific rural settlements. Nonetheless, the law proposal did not give municipalities precise indications on how to transform a rural settlement into a compendio urbano neorurale, and therefore, they cannot be considered an operative guideline for local planning. This law proposal can be considered a general law of principles that aimed to identify a maximum quantity of land take and prioritise the assessment of other possible ways before consuming new soil. Other relevant elements underlined the role of urban renewal, but, as this law was not about urban and regional planning, there could have been some problems for what concerns authorities and institutions. On this front, Regions have attempted to fill this gap. If we consider Italian regional planning laws, we can outline a heterogeneous framework concerning the presence or absence of land take and urban regeneration principles (Table  3.1). Almost each Region has included land take containment among the principles and

 As already mentioned (see Sect. 2.1.1), the most important research is the “Report It. Urb. 80” (“Rapporto sullo stato dell’urbanizzazione in Italia”) which was carried out between 1982 and 1988 by a group coordinated by Giovanni Astengo and Camillo Nucci. 38  In this field, it is important to mention the activity led by ISPRA (see Sect. 3.1.1) and CRCS, a research centre on land take. 37

60

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Table 3.1  Italian regional planning laws (RPL) and provincial planning laws (PPL) and evidence of land take and urban regeneration aspects Regions and Autonomous Provinces (AP) Abruzzo Basilicata Bolzano (AP) Calabria

Campania Emilia-Romagna

Friuli-Venezia-Giulia Lazio Liguria

Lombardy Marche Molise Piedmont

Puglia

Sardinia Sicily Trento (AP) Tuscany Umbria Valle d’Aosta Veneto

Planning law RPL no. 18/1983a RPL no. 23/1999 PPL no. 10/2018

Land take (LT) and urban regeneration (UR)

LT containment is integrated as a principle in the RPL and a specific article, no. 17 RPL no. 19/2002 A specific article in the latest modification (modified by no. 40/2015) of the RPL (art. 27 quarter “zero land take planning”) RPL no. 16/2004 RPL no. 24/2017 A specific article, no. 5, in the RPL, objective of zero LT by 2050 A specific article, no. 7, in the RPL on UR RPL no. 5/2007 RPL no. 38/1999 RL no. 7/2017 on UR RL no. 28/2019 on UR RPL no. 36/1997 (modified by no. 11/2015, no. 1/2017) RPL no. 12/2005 RL no. 31/2014 on LT containment RPL no. 34/1992 – RPL no. 56/1977 The second monitoring of land take, 2015, (modified by no. 3/2013) officially approved RL no. 16/2018 on UR RPL no. 20/2001 RL no. 13/2008 on UR (modified by no. 28/2016) RL no. 18/2019 defines some measure to limit LT RPL no. 45/1989 (modified by no. 8/2015) RPL no. 71/1978 PPL no. 15/2015 A specific article, no. 18, in the RPL on LT containment RPL no. 65/2014 LT integrated as a principle in the RPL RPL no. 1/2015 LT containment integrated as a principle in the RPL RPL no. 11/1998 RPL no. 11/2004 RL no. 14/2017 on LT

In 2017, the regional Giunta approved a new law proposal whose principles lie on land take containment and promotion of urban regeneration

a

objectives of regional planning, but only a few have introduced a specific law or an article in the regional planning law. In the last 5 years, some Regions attempted to draft a specific law on land take containment, but they have never been approved (e.g. in 2017, the regional Giunta

3.3  Green Infrastructure in France and Italy

61

of Abruzzo approved a new law proposal whose principles lie on land take containment and promotion of urban regeneration). On the contrary, two Regions approved a specific law on land take containment, Lombardy and Veneto. Other Regions opted for a law on urban regeneration (e.g. Lazio, Liguria), including some land take references. Reclaiming EC policies’ objectives, a recurring aspect of these laws is the objective of zero land take by 2050. The regional law of Lombardy identifies specific dispositions for land take reduction and the requalification of degraded soil. The law transfers to gives the PTR the duty to specify indices for measuring land take at the regional scale. Calabria and Emilia-Romagna Regions introduced in their RPL a specific article aiming to zero land take. The Calabria Region, in the recently approved revision of its RPL, indicates that municipalities intend not to use any additional quantities of free land for the expansion of their urbanised area. Similarly, the Emilia-Romagna Region assumes the objective of zero land take to be achieved by 2050. The only permitted exceptions are for public interventions and strategic settlements to enhance regional attractiveness or whether it is necessary to activate regeneration interventions in the urbanised territory or to realise social housing interventions. It defines a maximum value of admitted land take (3% of the urbanised land). Additionally, to increase its attractiveness and liveability, the Emilia-Romagna Region promotes urban regeneration according to sustainability criteria and energetic-­environmental performances.

3.3  Green Infrastructure in France and Italy France and Italy have a different approach to green infrastructure. On the one hand, in 2010, France has opted for a national strategy that integrates ecological and environmental elements directly into the planning process at different scales. On the other hand, in Italy, the most innovative experiences in GI derive from recent landscape regional plans. Grenelle laws introduce and define a new planning tool: Trame Verte et Bleue (TVB) (Clergeau and Blanc 2013). This planning tool takes the cue from landscape ecology principles (Burel and Baudry 1999; Clergeau 2007) and was introduced into the planning debate to answer the challenges that territories had to face. Initially, Grenelle laws do not give a precise definition of what TVBs are; the definition will be better expressed in a following decree39 on the topic which states that the TVB is a network made up of terrestrial and aquatic ecological continuities identified by SRCE and by national, supralocal and local documents. It is a tool for sustainable spatial planning. More specifically, the TVB represents the legislative and planning response to biodiversity loss, an ecological approach to planning, and an attempt to slow down urbanisation processes. Their priority objectives are environment and

39

 Décret n° 2012-1492 du 27 décembre 2012 relatif à la trame verte et bleue.

62

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

ecology-related: reduction of habitats’ fragmentation and vulnerability, and preservation and renovation of ecological continuities and biodiversity. Despite this environmental and ecological predominance, the TVB also takes into account socio-economic challenges related to human activities. For example, the TVB is in charge of identifying which human activities contribute positively (or negatively) to ecological and biodiversity-friendly dynamics. The TVB can be considered one of the first attempts in Europe to integrate into the national legislative apparatus the concepts of landscape ecology. In 2014, the central State approved the document “Orientations nationales pour la préservation et la remise en bon état des continuités écologiques” (National orientations for the preservation and renovation of ecological continuities). This document gives general principles and guidelines which must be better specified at the lower scales (regional, supralocal and local). Additionally, it also provides a methodological guide for their construction40 and integration to create coherence among different Regions in terms of objectives and contents. As already mentioned, at the regional scale, the TVB tool had to be included in the SRCE which overarches the SCoT plan and the local ones (PLU and PLUi). The regional plan can appear to be juridically fragile as it has no prescriptive value, but it must only be taken into account by SCoT. Despite this apparent fragility, SRCE represented the functional framework for the ecological coherence of the regional territory, introducing the issue of biodiversity in the planning process. Since 2015, the SRCE and its objectives have been embedded into the SRADDET (Fig. 3.6). This change also modified the relationship among plans; indeed, SCoT and PLU must take into account the SRADDET’s objectives and be compatible with its regulations. Besides multifunctionality (typical to all GI experimentations), an innovative element of the French TVB is their multiscalarity: at the national level, some national guidelines are given which must be better specified and integrated at lower levels. At the regional level, between 2010 and 2019, many Regions41 attempted to draft a systemic SRCE. At the local level, before the approbation of Grenelle laws, some pioneer experiences attempted to integrate natural, ecological and landscape elements in spatial planning: for example, the city of Rennes in its local development plan, the ville

 Generally speaking, they are constituted by biodiversity reservoirs and ecological corridors. Some specific spaces, identified by previous laws and codes, are automatically integrated as either biodiversity reservoirs or ecological corridors of the TVB. For example, the “heart” of national parks, national and regional natural reserves, spaces for the conservation of specific biotope are included in biodiversity reservoirs. Instead, concerning ecological corridors, an element automatically included is the permanent greenery along watercourses that constitute riparian corridors, contributing both to the guarantee of the quality of the aquatic environment and the establishment of ecological corridors. Watercourses, like wetlands, can be either biodiversity reservoirs or ecological corridors. It is also recommended to include some other elements (e.g. riverbeds) derived from sectoral plans and specific inventories (e.g. sites of Natura 2000 network). 41  The Regions to which we refer are the ones before the latest changes (see Sect. 3.1.3). 40

3.3  Green Infrastructure in France and Italy

63

Fig. 3.6  The structure of French TVB. (Source: Adapted from Voghera and Giudice (2019))

archipel. Another pioneering case is the 2006 SCoT of Montpellier42 which poses natural and landscape aspects at the centre of the project: this approach is the so-­ called inverser le regard. This approach intends to favour the green armature, representing the “box”, or the empty spaces, instead of the “content” of urban development projects. In this perspective, urban projects must take into consideration aspects as reinvesting in already urbanised areas and intensifying and densifying urban contexts. This SCoT is the first French plan that understood the importance of controlling urban growth by identifying two specific limits for urban expansion, “fixed limits” and “limits to enhance”, and a level of density for each area of expansion. The increasing relevance of the TVB can also be traced in major cities’ policies: in 2018, the city of Paris, for instance, approved the new Plan Biodiversité de Paris 2018–2024. This plan integrates the TVB and urban resilience in synergy and coherence with other local and regional plans (e.g. SRCE), strategies (such as Plan Pluie and Stratégie de Résilience) and urban regeneration projects (such as the one of the Petite Ceinture ferroviaire). This document identifies 30 actions, some of which are strictly related to the topic of the TVB: in particular, action 16, “Renforcer le reseau de la nature sur le territoire parisien” (reinforcing the natural network in the

 Since the 1970s, the agglomeration community of Montpellier has witnessed a consistent growth of population (doubling its value), due mainly to a very strong territorial attractiveness. In the same period, there has been intense land permeabilisation, not only for new dwellings but also infrastructures, leisure and commercial spaces, etc. The SCoT was approved in 2006, and it gathered a group of 31 municipalities and a population of 400.000 inhabitants. In 2015, the newly instituted Montpellier Méditerranée Métropole decided to review the SCoT. 42

64

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Parisian territory) and action 20 “Renforcer la végétalisation de la Ville” (reinforcing the presence of nature in the city). In a perspective of a more integrated sustainable action, the municipality of Paris has drafted, with other institutional actors, a scheme of the local TVB; this study will also be extended to two new realities, the trame noire (all the shaded places) and the trame brune (soil). All these elements allow understanding how the French TVB constitutes a tool of sustainable territorial management, making it easier to include planning choices in a logic of ecological coherence. The TVB implementation must be analysed through the strengths and weaknesses of each territorial context by ensuring and preserving, in a logic of sustainable development, a balance and economic potential. Such a systemic and multiscale approach can strengthen the comprehension, awareness and acceptability of the TVB by different territorial stakeholders, and it can also legitimate interventions of ecological continuities’ renovation. This implementation must be undertaken with respect to the subsidiarity principle by offering the shared territorial governance that can successfully construct a good public policy. Starting from the national orientations, local territories have a broad margin of adaptation and implementation depending on their local context and available information and knowledge. Different public policies must be coherent with the TVB, above all the ones concerning water management, energy and climate, transportation, agriculture and forestry. Concerning these last two elements, the TVB tool constitutes an opportunity for agricultural and forestry promotion. The most challenging aspect of the TVB is its translation into local plans (Cormier and Kenderesy 2013). This translation could be achieved through both cartographic identification and the inclusion of natural and environmental orientations or prescriptions to preserve local ecological continuities. The ensemble of dispositions contained in the regulatory part of the PLU can be activated in such a sense and with such an objective. Thus, the maintenance and restoration of the TVB elements can be based on their inscription in urban planning documents avoiding unnecessary changes of land assignment which can lead to landscape and environmental fragmentation. In Italy, there is not a common institutionalised vision on GI.  At the national level, the central role of landscape planning is also highlighted in the Italian National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change (2015) and its Action Plan (2017). In particular, they recognise landscape planning as the specific contribution in defining a large-scale project for ecological and landscape networks. The realisation of ecological networks has also been identified as one of the key objectives of the Italian National Biodiversity Strategy (MATTM 2010) and the Italian National Strategy for Sustainable Development (MATTM 2017). The principal outputs in developing GI come from regional landscape plans (Voghera and Giudice 2021). Currently, Italy has approved six regional landscape plans: Puglia in 2015, Tuscany in 2015, Piedmont in 2017, Friuli-Venezia-Giulia in 2018, Lazio in 2021 and partly Sardinia in 200643 (Table 3.2).

 The regional landscape plan of Sardinia has been approved only for coastal zones. For its incompleteness, it will be not taken into consideration.

43

3.3  Green Infrastructure in France and Italy

65

Table 3.2  Approved regional landscape plans and their GI project Regional landscape plan Puglia (2015) Tuscany (2015) Piedmont (2017) Friuli-Venezia Giulia (2018) Lazio (2021)

GI project The structural component of the plan The ecological network to raise the ecosystemic quality of the regional territory The network of landscape connection Regional ecological network as one of the networks of strategic relevance The plan does not explicitly cite the ecological network or GI, but it defines priority areas where it is urgent to intervene

The regional landscape plan of Puglia identified GI as a structural component of the plan. Indeed, in its landscape plan, the Puglia Region interprets the territory as a material and immaterial heritage; in this sense, it embraces the social and cultural sphere and different stakeholders’ capacity to get involved. The plan, developed through a structural approach to landscape knowledge and a strategic vision, aimed to reconnect landscape valorisation and territorial planning at different scales. In particular, the plan defined five territorial projects for the regional landscape (e.g. the regional ecological network and the patto città-campagna) and 13 integrated landscape projects to anticipate the realisation of some interventions. The regional landscape plan of Tuscany sets out an ecological network for increasing the ecosystemic quality of the regional territory. The recently approved regional landscape plan of the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia Region (2018) identified the regional ecological network among the networks of strategic relevance (the others are those of cultural heritage and slow mobility). Since the regional ecological network has a multiscalar significance and is species specific, its elements acquire different structural and functional attributes if examined at diverse spatial scales or if related to diverse species. The chosen logic favours the mitigation of the effects on landscape change processes (e.g. habitat fragmentation). At the local scale, the regional ecological network results in an interconnected system of natural and seminatural habitats permeating the landscape and maintaining the necessary conditions for safeguarding potentially threatened animal and plant species. A similar approach is proposed by the regional landscape plan of Piedmont which combines the ecological and landscape networks to the cultural and recreational ones (see Sects. 4.2.1 and 4.2.2). In addition to these five approved plans, some Regions are working to accomplish the adoption and approbation of their regional landscape plans. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the Lombardy Region, in the revision process of its landscape plan, based the development of the green regional network on the multifunctional mapping of biophysical values of the territory (natural, agricultural and cultural elements). The combination of these elements determines the design features within which landscape and territorial preservation actions are defined. Acquiring the network as a priority for the regional landscape becomes a tool for preserving landscape values and a spatial design tool for territorial regeneration. Next to regional landscape plans, some supralocal and local experiences arose. One of these experiences is the project of the ecological network of the Marche

66

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Region (REM), developed in 2010. The institution and the regulation of a regional ecological network were stated in the regional law no. 2 of 2013; this institution was the evidence of the importance given to natural biodiversity, ecological processes and landscape preservation. The REM is identified as a tool of analysis, interpretation and management of the regional ecological context contributing to developing regional plans, both territorial and landscape. Following EU dispositions, it aims to valorise and preserve the integrity of ecological processes and their related ecosystem services, mitigating territorial and landscape fragmentation and conserving plant and animal species. The realisation of the project of the REM aimed mainly at “defining a complete framework for regional ecological systems and the relationships that govern them” and “providing tools to ‘contaminate’, with appropriate structural directions, the territorial policies that different entities (region, province, city) implement in their own skill areas, intervening on the tools used to plan vast and communal areas” (Sargolini 2013, p.  69). Due to the dispersed assets of Adriatic cities, the REM attempts to give a strategic territorial vision through the valorisation of relationships between cities and periurban, exurban and open spaces. Thus, developing a sort of territorial and ecological regeneration project, the REM project can be considered both a strategic tool and a starting point to redefine the functionality and the ecological elements of the Adriatic city.

3.4  Elements of Innovation Despite the undeniable differences in modalities and timing, it is possible to outline some innovation elements in the way that France and Italy have modified their planning tools to satisfy upcoming societal challenges. Both countries have placed the principles of sustainable development at the centre of their renovation process. Undoubtedly, France is the country that provided substantial changes in its planning tools. Since the 2000s, France has indeed opted for a massive reorganisation of its bodies and redistribution of competencies. Since their limited restrictive character, previous planning tools contributed to the spread of urban sprawl and did not pay close attention to environmental and ecological values. In contrast to these tools, urban planning tools in force integrate specific elements to contrast land take and enhance the landscape and environmental values (Table  3.3). Since 2000, with the launch of the policy of urban renewal and the motto “rebuild the city within the city”, both SCoT and PLU(i) have prioritised urban regeneration interventions and infill development. Instead, the introduction of the tool of TVB represents the turning point in French environmental and ecological planning. Even though their relatively recent introduction, TVBs have witnessed various changes in their applicability. In a first moment, they were incorporated in a

3.4  Elements of Innovation

67

Table 3.3  Main characteristics of French planning instruments

Old tools

Planning tools SDAU POS SRCE

Tools in effect

Scale Intermunicipal, wide area Municipal Regional

SRADDET Regional

SCoT

Intermunicipal, wide area

PLU(i)

Municipal or intermunicipal

Key elements Variable geometry

Biodiversity preservation, not strictly prescriptive Prospective, prescriptive and integral plan Strategic plan, priority to densification Oriented towards urban renewal, intensification and densification

Land take limitation Not so restrictive

Ecological value –

Not so restrictive

– TVB

Evaluation and quantification of existing urbanised land Evaluation and quantification of existing urbanised land

TVB, energetic transition TVB

TVB

specific regional planning tool (the SRCE) which was later abrogated in favour of a more comprehensive tool (the SRADDET). This change represents one of the latest steps in the process of ecological transition of the country. Indeed, the SRADDET aims not only to preserve biodiversity via TVB but also to reinforce the regional institution through medium- and long-term objectives. In the French planning framework, the SRADDET represents a fundamental plan for its prospective, prescriptive and comprehensive nature. The prospective nature is provided by the identification of medium- and long-term objectives; the prescriptive nature is determined by the fact that its rules must be compatible with SCoT and PLU(i), while its objectives must be taken into account by these plans; the comprehensive nature depends on the fact that it integrates previous sectoral plans (e.g. the SRCE). In this sense, the SRADDET represents the shared project of each regional territory, based upon the pillars of sustainable development. The Italian situation is quite different. The national government has been less operative in providing new planning tools in line with sustainable development principles. Nevertheless, the Regions have made the most significant changes in promulgating specific laws and promoting renovated flexible plans (Table 3.4). The degree of innovation is different among Regions: indeed, even though not all of them undertook innovation processes of their planning tools, many have been approving new planning laws and laws on land take containment and urban regeneration enhancement. Regional landscape plans play a central role in Italian planning practices; all the five approved plans recognise the importance of GI, both to preserve biodiversity and limit land take.

68

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Table 3.4  Aggregated data on Italian RPL (before and after the constitutional change – CC – of 2001), evidence of land take and urban regeneration aspects, and presence of a regional landscape plan

Regions and Autonomous Provinces

Planning law Pre CC

Post CC

Land take and urban regeneration Land Urban take regeneration

Regional landscape plan

Abruzzo Basilicata Bolzano (AP) Calabria Campania EmiliaRomagna Friuli-Venezia Giulia Lazio Liguria Lombardy Marche Molise Piedmont Puglia Sardinia Sicily Trento (AP) Tuscany Umbria Valle d’Aosta Veneto

References Bourdin S, Torre A (2020) The territorial big bang: which assessment about the territorial reform in France? Eur Plan Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1777943 Burel F, Baudry J (1999) Écologie du paysage. Concepts, méthodes et applications. Éditions TEC&DOC, Paris Caruso N, Pede E, Saccomani S (2019) Regionalization processes and institutional transformations in the Italian metropolitan areas among crises and ambiguities. Int Plan Stud. https://doi. org/10.1080/13563475.2019.1674641 CEC – Commission of the European Communities (1997) The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. Regional development studies, vol 28. European Communities, Luxembourg. Available via https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-­detail/-­/publication/059fcedf-­ d453-­4d0d-­af36-­6f7126698556/language-­en/format-­PDF/source-­161248870. Assessed 26 September 2020

References

69

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2000a) The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies: France. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Available via https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-­detail/-­/publication/941427c1-­ a253-­4b55-­9c4e-­672132a3ad94. Assessed 26 September 2020 CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2000b) The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies: Italy. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Available via https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-­detail/-­/publication/befa61a7-­ df67-­4d59-­9da5-­c68213c0e280. Assessed 26 September 2020 Charmes E (2011) La ville émiettée. Essai sur la clubbisation de la vie urbaine. Presses universitaires de France, Paris Clergeau P (2007) Une écologie du paysage urbain. Éditions Apogée, Rennes Clergeau P, Blanc N (eds) (2013) Trames vertes urbaines. De la recherche scientifique au projet urbain. Éditions du Moniteur, Paris Cormier L, Kenderesy M (2013) Gouvernance des trames vertes et bleues urbaines. Analyse des modalités initiées lors de la mise en place d’une politique par les collectivités. Available via http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr/sites/default/files/references_bibliographiques/synthese_gouvernance_trames_vertes_urbaines-­2.pdf. Assessed 20 October 2020 Davies HWE, Edwards D, Hooper AJ et  al (1989) Comparative study. In: Davies HWE (ed) Planning control in Western Europe. HMSO, London, pp 409–442 de Bujadoux J (2015) Les réformes territoriales. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris Falco L (1993) I “nuovi” standard urbanistici. Edizioni delle Autonomie, Roma Faludi A, Waterhout B (2002) The making of the European spatial development perspective. No masterplan, Routledge, London and New York Farinós Dasi J (ed) (2007) Governance of territorial and urban policies from EU to local level. Final report of ESPON project 2.3.2. Esch-sur-Alzette: ESPON Coordination Unit Gaeta L, Janin Rivolin U, Mazza L (eds) (2013) Governo del territorio e pianificazione spaziale. Cittàstudi, Milano Gibelli MC (2016) Planning for sprawl containment: the Italian anomaly. In: Fregolent L, Tonin S (eds) Growing compact. Franco Angeli, Milano, pp 107–125 Gravier JF (1947) Paris et le désert français. Le Portulan, Paris Guérois M, Pumain D (2002) Urban sprawl in France (1950–2000). Franco Angeli, Milano Ingallina P (2004) Il Progetto urbano. Dall’esperienza francese alla realtà italiana. Franco Angeli, Milano INU – Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica (2019) Rapporto dal Territorio 2019. INU Edizioni, Roma ISPRA – Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (2015) Il consumo di suolo in Italia – Edizione 2015, Rapporto 218/2015. Available via https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/ pubblicazioni/rapporti/il-­consumo-­di-­suolo-­in-­italia-­edizione-­2015. Assessed 5 October 2020 Janin Rivolin U (2011) Abitare l’Europa. Difficoltà e ritardi del governo del territorio in Italia. Urbanistica 147:84–88 La Riccia L (2017) Landscape in the urban planning practices. Case studies in Italy. In: Landscape planning at the local level. The urban book series. Springer, Cham, pp  71–138. http://doi-­ org-­443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­57367-­0_5 MATTM – Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare (2010) Strategia nazionale per la biodiversità in Italia. Available via https://www.minambiente.it/sites/default/files/ archivio/allegati/biodiversita/estratto_strategia_eng.pdf. Assessed 8 November 2020 MATTM – Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare (2017) Strategia nazionale per lo sviluppo sostenibile. Available via https://www.minambiente.it/sites/default/files/ archivio_immagini/Galletti/Comunicati/snsvs_ottobre2017.pdf. Assessed 8 November 2020 May N, Veltz P, Landrieu J et al (1998) La ville éclatée. Éditions de l’Aube, La Tour d’Aigues Minucci F (2005) L’evoluzione del governo del territorio e dell’ambiente. Dalla logica dei comandi alle logiche condivise. UTET, Novara

70

3  Optimising Land Use: Insights from French and Italian Planning Experiences

Munafò M (ed) (2020) Consumo di suolo, dinamiche territoriali e servizi ecosistemici. Edizione 2020. Report SNPA 15/20. Available via https://www.snpambiente.it/2020/07/22/consumo-­di-­ suolo-­dinamiche-­territoriali-­e-­servizi-­ecosistemici-­edizione-­2020/. Assessed 5 October 2020 Nadin V, Stead D (2008) European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. DISP – Plan Rev 172(1):35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001 Newman P, Thornley A (1996) Urban planning in Europe: international competition, national systems, and planning projects. Routledge, London Oliva F (ed) (1999) Piani regolatori sostenibili. Urbanistica 112:47–75 Sargolini M (2013) Urban landscapes. Environmental networks and quality of life. Springer-­ Verlag Italia, Milano SEEIDD  – Service de l’économie, de l’évaluation et de l’intégration du développement durable (2017) Théma  – Artificialisation. De la mesure à l’action. Available via https://www. ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Th%C3%A9ma%20-­%20Artificialisation.pdf. Assessed 5 October 2020 Simoulin V, Negrier E (2020) Merging regions in contemporary France: a policy perspective. Eur Plan Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1791054 Soja EW (2011) Regional urbanization and the end of the metropolis era. In: Bridge G, Watson S (eds) New companion to the city. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 679–689 Voghera A, Giudice B (2019) Evaluating and planning green infrastructure: a strategic perspective for sustainability and resilience. Sustainability 11(10):2726. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11102726 Voghera A, Giudice B (2021) Green infrastructure and landscape planning in a sustainable and r­esilient perspective. In: Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S (eds) Ecosystem services and green infrastructure. Cities and nature. Springer, Cham, pp  213–224. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­54345-­7_16

Chapter 4

Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

Abstract  This chapter explores the concept of GI with specific reference to two case studies in France and Italy. The French case study is the former Rhône-Alpes Region, with particular regard to the cities of Grenoble and Lyon. The Italian case studies are instead the Piedmont Region, with an analysis of some local experiences. These two Regions, which border one another, have similar multifaceted landscape assets. In this chapter, the topic of GI will be developed by highlighting the pros and cons of each experimentation. On the one hand, the Rhône-Alpes Region has opted for a GI project at different scales (from the SRCE to the plot scale), while the Piedmont Region has various GI projects not directly related to one to another. Keywords  Green infrastructure · Design approach · Landscape planning · Multiscalarity · Urban planning · Rhône-Alpes · Piedmont

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region The Rhône-Alpes Region1 is characterised by a heterogeneous landscape asset, both natural and urban. The sample of cities chosen is limited, and, therefore, it cannot be judged as an exhaustive selection, but even though located in the same region, these two cities have developed relevant and different approaches and can help extract some important elements of analysis. The Rhône-Alpes Region is the second region in terms of territorial surface (43.700 sq.km.) and of population (6 million inhabitants). It is located in a strategic area that borders with other French regions (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Languedoc-Roussillon, Auvergne, Bourgogne and Franche-Comté), with the Italian regions of Piedmont and Valle d’Aosta and with some Swiss cantons. The Region is 1  The reference is to the Rhône-Alpes Region, prior to the promulgation of Loi NOTRe, because the original SRCE was developed within the context of Rhône-Alpes and not Auvergne-Rhône-­ Alpes. The region of Auvergne, indeed, has developed a different SRCE in 2015. Later, in April 2020, the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Region has approved its SRADDET (see Sect. 4.1.3 for a brief overview).

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 B. Giudice, Planning and Design Perspectives for Land Take Containment, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91066-2_4

71

72

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

divided into eight Departments: Loire, Rhône, Ain, Haute-Savoie, Savoie, Isère, Drôme and Ardèche. A great variety of landscapes characterise the regional territory2: the chain of the Alps, the Central Massive and the Rhône valley which crosses from north to south all eight departments. The element of water, in different forms, is also a key element of regional landscape: the region is indeed crossed by two of the main French rivers (Rhône and Loire), and the total length of all rivers is approximately 49.929 km, and it is covered by 3 out of 5 big French lakes. Urbanisation and urban development are concentrated in two distinct areas: the urban region of Lyon and the Sillon Alpin, the area that extends from Geneva to Valence. This area is constituted by the alpine agglomerations of Valence, Grenoble, Chambéry and Annecy. Corine Land Cover (2006) has shown that between 2000 and 2006, land take in this region has been extensive, with almost 7.500  ha of urbanised areas to the detriment of agricultural lands.

4.1.1  The Cities of Grenoble and Lyon The urban landscape of the Rhône-Alpes Region is represented by 3 Metropolises: Grenoble, Lyon and Saint-Étienne. The first two are the object of the analysis, since they are experiencing massive revitalisation and renovation processes, and they both put great emphasis on ecological and sustainable strategies and urban regeneration projects. Since their new institutional status as Metropolises,3 they recently renovated their local plans (PLUi in Grenoble and PLU-H in Lyon) at a metropolitan scale and, in the last ten years, they approved their SCoT with a temporal limit of 20 years. In particular, their ecological approach to planning takes the cue from the one of 2006 of Montpellier (see Sect. 3.3). Since 2014, both cities have become metropolises: on the one hand, the Grenoble-­ Alpes Métropole (METRO) is constituted by 49 municipalities, and, on the other hand, the Lyon Métropole (Grand Lyon) gathers 59 municipalities. They are head cities of different Departments: Grenoble of Isère and Lyon of Rhône. Both cities are experiencing urban revitalisation and economic relaunching processes, and, following the logic of renewal into the built city, they have been experiencing important actions of urban renewal and regeneration. In this perspective, 2  The Region has identified 302 geomorphological landscape units, gathered in 7 families, which corresponds to the increasing degree of human occupation in the territory, but they do not have a hierarchical value. These families are natural landscapes, natural landscapes for free time and leisure, agricultural landscapes, rural and heritage landscapes, emerging landscapes, landscapes marked by great settlements, urban and periurban landscapes (Alexis 2005). 3  Regarding metropolisation process, recent research (such as Halbert et  al. 2012) on European urban systems analysed and categorised the different characteristics of Grenoble and Lyon metropolises and included them in two different typologies: Grenoble is indeed identified as an academic metropole (the only one in France), while Lyon is an economic metropole (together with Marseille, Nice, Strasbourg and Toulouse).

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

73

urban projects in France led an essential role in defining new policies on public spaces, transportation and eco-districts. In the latest years, the city of Grenoble is relaunching its image and role in the French context above all in the academic field, and it is founding its development upon sustainable strategies (Bobroff 2011). In the latest 15  years, its population slightly increased (approximately, it has 158.000 inhabitants), and it is currently the third densest city in France. The force of Grenoble metropolitan territory lies in the great variety of its landscape, shaped upon the two elements of mountain and water. Indeed, the city of Grenoble is located in a plain at the confluence of two rivers, the Isère and the Drac, that form the so-known “Y” of Grenoble. This plain is surrounded by three alpine massifs, Chartreuse, Vercors and Belledonne (Fig.  4.1) which, in 1968, hosted the tenth edition of the Winter Olympic Games. This world event has been the occasion to bring some remarkable transformations and urban renewal actions. These elements have earned the city of Grenoble the title of European Green Capital 2022. The Grenoble Metropolis has defined among its major strengths its mountain peculiarity. In this sense, the main challenge for such a metropolitan area is the necessity to overcome the urban/mountain divide, confront itself with different territorial elements and find some common strategic objectives to be identified in local plans (SCoT and PLUi).

Fig. 4.1  The mountain landscape surrounding the city of Grenoble. (Photo: Benedetta Giudice)

74

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

This territory has also to face some important affecting natural risks, particularly the ones related to torrential floods of Isère and Drac; they are mainly caused by climate change, and they are accentuated when exceptional events occur. In this perspective, planning tools have to include these eventualities by reconciling the territory with its geography through a resilient approach. Apart from its natural vocation, the city of Grenoble, since the end of the nineteenth century, has also reached great importance in the industrial field (with the invention of the white charcoal) and as a scientific and academic pole. Due mainly to its restricted geographical context and its particular climate conditions, the city of Grenoble, together with the nearby municipalities (the so-called Région Urbaine Grenobloise  – RUG), has built a strong policy based on sustainable urban development. North-west of Grenoble, the city of Lyon is located in the northern part of the Rhône valley (which extends from Lyon to Marseille) and between the Central Massive and the Alpine one. It is connected with Italian territory through the highspeed train line, which connects Milan-Turin-Lyon-Paris. As Grenoble, Lyon is characterised by the intersection of two rivers, Saône and Rhone; this area is known as the Confluence which, since the end of the 1990s, has been undertaking a huge urban renewal process (see Sect. 4.1.4). Lyon, born as an industrial city, also preserves an important architectural and historical heritage which has been worth the inscription of some historical quartiers (Vieux Lyon, Fourvière hill, Presqu’île and Croix-Rousse) in the World Heritage List of UNESCO (Fig. 4.2). Since the 1980s, the city of Lyon has invested many efforts to relaunch itself at the international level and improve its attractiveness for both residents and visitors, focusing on environmental sustainability (Carpenter and Verhage 2014). The city of Lyon itself, divided into nine districts, is not a big one (516.092 inhabitants in 2017 with an increase of 9% compared to 2007), but including its metropolitan area, it reaches more than 2 million inhabitants. If we consider this second value, the city of Lyon is the third one, after the cities of Paris and Marseille, while its metropolitan area is the second one. Additionally, this value corresponds to a third of the regional population in only 8% of the territory.

4.1.2  Planning Tools Since the 1970s, the activity of planning in the Rhône-Alpes Region has played a central role in the development of territorial and economic relaunch and metropolisation processes. Main experiences come from the three main cities, Grenoble, Lyon and Saint-Étienne which, in the 1970s, attempted to share a common

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

75

Fig. 4.2  The view of Fourvière hill from the Saône river. (Photo: Benedetta Giudice)

territorial perspective.4 Currently, they have developed their SCoTs,5 and, at the regional level, Rhône-Alpes has approved the first French SRCE.  In 2020, this SRCE has been abrogated and substituted by the SRADDET of the AuvergneRhône-Alpes Region. In addition to the ecological features of TVB, this new plan includes several ambitious objectives of adaptation and mitigation to climate change, equitable regional development and house availability, contrast to land take and air pollution, and concretisation of policies of the energy transition. Regarding the area of Grenoble, since 1973, with the approbation of the first SDAU,6 wide-area planning has always played an important role in the development of coherent urban and territorial choices. In 2012, Grenoble developed and approved the first SCoT of the Rhône-Alpes Region in line with Grenelle principles of sustainable development. This SCoT of Grenoble gathers 273 municipalities, many of which have less than 2.000 inhabitants (205 out of 273), or less than 1.000 (157 out 273), or even less than 500 (93 out of 273). Instead, in terms of territorial extension, this SCoT is the second largest. Its main objectives are the following:  This experience was developed by the Organisme d’Étude et d’aménagement d’Aire Métropolitaine (OREAM) of Lyon-St-Étienne-Grenoble. It was the first time that planning activities in the agglomeration of Lyon were connected to its urban region and the near ones. 5  In the entire regional territory, there are 40 SCoTs approved. 6  This plan involved 115 municipalities. 4

76

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

• The preservation of biodiversity, the protection of natural space and damp areas which led to the map of TVB. • The valorisation of landscape resources. • The reduction of agricultural and natural areas artificialisation. • The optimisation of urban spaces to redistribute housing. • The construction of integrated transport policies. At the municipal level, Grenoble approved a PLU in 2005 (later modified in 2007) in substitution of the previous POS. It gave two main orientations: densification in already urbanised areas served by public transport and the increase of social housing offer to reinforce social mixture (Novarina and Seigneuret 2015). This plan decayed after the promulgation of the law on Metropolises which gave them new competencies in planning. Thus, the newly institutionalised Grenoble-Alpes Métropole decided to elaborate a PLUi. This plan gathers 49 municipalities, and it was approved in December 2019. Following a general principle of quality, instead of quantity, and the objective of creating a common policy for the entire metropolitan area, the plan identifies some priority challenges to be addressed in the Metropolis: • Environmental priorities: the battle against climate change, the commitment in the energetic transition, the control and reduction of land take,7 the insertion of natural and biodiversity elements in the urban landscape, the reinforcement of the high residential quality, the battle against the banalisation of landscape,8 the preservation of citizens’ health reducing exposition to nuisances, and the creation of a connected system of slow mobility. • Economic priorities: the support of economic dynamism in favour of employment and innovation, the positioning of tourism with suitable offers, and the reinforcement of connections with principal networks of regional, national and international mobility. • Social priorities: the strengthening of social and territorial cohesion in response to current and future needs. An innovative element of Grenoble’s PLUi is the predisposition of thematic and sectoral OAPs. Thematic OAPs deal with air quality, risks and resilience, and landscape and biodiversity, while sectoral OAPs, in a number of 94, give orientations to specific geographical sectors of the metropolitan area. The metropolitan area of Lyon has undergone different changes in its institutional subdivision, and even its planning history is quite peculiar. The

7  Indeed, despite the high percentage of natural coverage (78%), between 2005 and 2015, there has been an increase of 465 ha of urbanised areas and a decrease of 567 ha of agricultural surfaces. 8  In this perspective, an interesting example is represented by the landscape of Grenoble’s faubourgs (literally, the suburbs). They are the result of the urban expansion of the nineteenth and twentieth century that accompanied industrial development. They represent spontaneous housing zones developed along roads.

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

77

agglomeration of Lyon provided itself with a SCoT in 2010.9 This SCoT, whose process lasted almost six years, was initially made up by 72 municipalities of the Métropole of Grand Lyon, the Communauté de communes de l’Est lyonnais (CCEL) and the Communauté de communes du Pays de l’Ozon (CCPO). This SCoT configures itself as a necessary revision of the previous plan, and it mainly takes the cue from the Directive Territoriale d’Aménagement (DTA) de l’Aire Métropolitaine Lyonnaise (2006), with which it must be compatible. In 2017, the SCoT was modified, aligning itself to new national legislations (e.g. the dispositions set by the Grenelle laws), the indications provided by the SRCE and the increased number of municipalities involved (74). Indeed, even though some ecological continuity elements could already be found in the first version, changes were made necessary to be fully adapted to the concept of TVB. The different vocations of the territory of the Lyonnaise agglomeration were translated in SCoT’s objectives, to be pursued within the temporal perspective of 2030. To be mentioned, another peculiar planning process of Lyon is the inter-SCOT project (Boino 2007). The inter-SCOT process is constituted by 914 municipalities, 11 different SCoTs with a population of 3.100.000 inhabitants. At the local level, Lyon and its agglomeration in 2012 have started to redraw their intermunicipal plan by engaging itself for the first time with the habitat policy. This new plan, Plan Local d’Urbanisme et de l’Habitat (PLU-H), approved in 2019, is organised into three different scales: the scale of Metropolis, 9 “life buckets” (bassins de vie) and 59 municipalities, including the nine districts of the city of Lyon. It attempts to readapt SCoT objectives at the local scale, even though the number of municipalities involved in the two processes differs only by 13 units. It recognises some key policies: urban agriculture, ecological continuities, integration of nature in the city, the offer of old and new housing, PADD, urban renewal and intensification. To allow the achievement of these policies, its strategy is based upon four main challenges: • A metropolitan challenge, to make the agglomeration more attractive and to construct a more responsible metropolis. • An economic challenge to enhance the dynamism of the agglomeration and to create new job opportunities. • A solidarity challenge to make the agglomeration welcoming, supportive and balanced in response to housing necessities of everyone. • An environmental challenge to improve and preserve citizens’ health and well-being. The central area of the agglomeration (constituted by the municipalities of Lyon and Villeurbanne) is characterised by a highly urbanised territory (92%) and, to fulfil these four challenges, is heading toward an overall action of urban renovation and regeneration. In particular, this process is carried out through the regeneration of some industrial and military abandoned areas (the so-called friches) and of some

 Previous wide-area plans date back to 1978 (SDAU) and 1992 (SD).

9

78

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

Table 4.1  Comparison between Grenoble and Lyon planning tools SCoT

PLUi & PLU-H

Year of approbation No. of municipalities No. of inhabitants Territorial surface Year of approbation No. of municipalities No. of inhabitants Territorial surface

Grenoble 2012 273 751.300 3.720 sq. km. 2019 49 445.516 542 sq. km.

Lyon 2010 74 1.450.000 750 sq. km. 2019 59 1.370.678 538 sq. km.

entire neighbourhoods (e.g. La Duchère) with the aim to reach a balance of functional heterogeneity and to assure a good life quality to all citizens. Regarding the environmental challenge, one of the main tackled issues is the realisation of ecological continuities (according to SRCE orientations) to favour the movement of wild fauna. Table 4.1 helps summarise the current planning situation of the two cities. Both Grenoble and Lyon have approved a SCoT with a timeline of 20 years, but they differ quite a lot in terms of the number of municipalities and inhabitants involved. Indeed, on the one hand, the SCoT of Grenoble gathers 273 municipalities with fewer inhabitants, while, on the other hand, the SCoT of Lyon only 74 with a population of more than 1 million. The primary motivation relies on the fact that they represent two different territorial situations. The city of Lyon itself has a strong economic impact at the national level (despite the limited population), while its hinterland, based upon a multipolar system, is very populous, making this territory the third most populous area in France. Grenoble, smaller in dimension and born as an industrial city, stood out in the European context as an important high education and university city. Nowadays, the Metropolis is trying to relaunch the attractiveness of the territory.

4.1.3  T  rames Vertes et Bleues in Action: From the Regional to the Local Scale Ecological preservation, ecological continuities and limitation to land take have always been key elements of Rhône-Alpes regional and local policies, even before the promulgation of Grenelle laws. Indeed, in the Rhône-Alpes Region, the evidence of the increasing value of land take and the awareness to limit it to tackle ecological fragmentation date back to the 1990s.10 Despite the relevance of these

 To be mentioned, the departmental experience of the Réseau Écologique Départemental de l’Isère (REDI) in 2001 which takes the cue from the Swiss ecological network and, at the regional scale, the implementation of the Directive Territoriale d’Aménagement (DTA) of the Lyonnaise

10

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

79

first experiences, they were not yet oriented to have operational value, but they were limited to the simple diagnosis and analysis. In 2006, the Region expressed its willingness to build a regional network of protected natural spaces (RERA) by relying on regional natural reserves (RNR), sites characterised by high biodiversity and biological corridors: the result was the realisation of an Atlas of ecological networks of the Region. The RERA atlas represents the starting point for constructing the SRCE, whose process is a collaborative activity among the State, the Region and a specific regional committee of Trame Verte et Bleue (CRTVB). The SRCE of Rhône-Alpes identifies different regional challenges to be tackled: the first ones are urban dispersion and land take that cause irreversible consequences on the functionality of the ecological network and natural spaces. The SRCE acknowledges the importance of planning tools that must translate ecological continuities into their projects, starting from the ones identified and mapped by the regional structure of TVB.  To do this, it proposes to local plans and projects to integrate these continuities, and it suggests a methodology to implement into local plans the tool of TVB. Taking the cue from national orientations, the SRCE of Rhône-Alpes identified five main elements as integral parts of the regional TVB system (Fig. 4.3): • Biodiversity reservoirs (including protection zones), they cover almost 25% of the regional territory. • Permeable spaces differentiated upon the level of permeability, healthy (45% of the regional territory) or medium (20%). • A total of 268 ecological corridors, hierarchically divided into regional ones for a global connexion (219) and regional ones to face local challenges (49). • Blue thread, constituted by 14.820 km of rivers and 155.350 ha of damp areas. • Aerial thread, identifying the paths of circulation of birds. To include the ecological functionality of the entire regional territory efficiently and appropriately, the realisation of the TVB structure is the result of a participatory process with some groups of experts. The selected methodology to model and cartography the different TVB elements is the eco-landscape one.11 The eco-landscape methodology integrates a certain number of already existing and identified perimeters for their environmental and biodiversity relevance. In particular, biodiversity reservoirs are recognised for their great ecological abundance, while the notion of permeable spaces (identified by the SRCE as complementary elements in support of

area with the introduction concept of Infrastructures Vertes et Bleues (IVB). The first experience’s methodology relies on theoretical modelling of the landscape structure, remarkable habitats and corridors. The collection of on-site data has been useful to develop a map of ecological networks of the Isère department that identifies localisation of fauna and information on possible obstacles. The experience of Lyonnaise IVB, instead, is a notable precursor of Grenelle dispositions as they intended to integrate the objectives of biodiversity preservation, landscape quality and liveability into planning tools. 11  Regions applied different methodologies to build the structure of TVB. To see a comparative analysis of these methodologies, see Amsallem et al. 2018.

80

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

Fig. 4.3  The TVB of the Rhône-Alpes SRCE. (Source: Région Rhône-Alpes 2014)

the realisation of the TVB) allows integrating the “ordinary” nature (areas with an agricultural, natural and forestry predominance but characterised by a high level of ecological functionality). The identification of regional ecological corridors is based upon the principle of connectivity (not the zoning one), and its main objective is to contrast land take and maintain a certain level of permeability. To reach an acceptable level of permeability, it is necessary to maintain a specific heterogeneity level among the different environments and preserve the remaining axes between them. After the first step of diagnosis on the regional territory and the already identified ecological corridors, corridors have been hierarchised and divided into two types: • Corridors represented by major axes, indicating a global principle of connection which must be specified at the local scale. • Corridors represented by minor axes, referring to a more localised and vulnerable connection. Watercourses with a high ecological value represent the blue thread, and they can serve both as biodiversity reservoirs and as water corridors. Roads and, above all, railways (also known as grey infrastructure) represent a remarkable element of the regional landscape of Rhône-Alpes. In the logic of building a coherent TVB structure, roads are negatively identified, as they have relevant impacts of fragmentation on natural environments and ecological continuities. Nevertheless, sometimes, they can be considered at the same level of ecological corridors if they are equipped with green facilities along their paths.

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

81

As already mentioned, in April 2020, this SRCE has been replaced by the SRADDET. Concerning the TVB project, the SRADDET shares the same objectives resuming the elements introduced by the two SRCEs. The two Regions adopted different methodologies to identify their regional TVB. Indeed, differently from the eco-landscape approach of Rhône-Alpes, the SRCE of Auvergne opted for the integration of existing perimeters, already identified, recognised for their biodiversity value and shared by the scientific community and local stakeholders. Despite this difference, these methodologies were both in compliance with national directives. To define a joint project of the new regional TVB, the SRADDET harmonised the cartography on the scale of the new regional perimeter, maintaining, where necessary, some specific features of Auvergne and Rhône-Alpes. The new regional territory is divided in this way (Fig. 4.4): • • • •

24% of biodiversity reservoirs 362 ecological corridors Blue thread. Permeable spaces of connection.

For the metropolitan territory of Grenoble, the SRCE identifies different stakes for the preservation of ecological corridors and biodiversity in different urban and

Fig. 4.4  The TVB of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes SRADDET. (Source: Région Auvergne-Rhône-­ Alpes 2020)

82

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

rural contexts. In addition to this, the SRCE identifies four sectors which include ecological corridors labelled as primary.12 This strategy should then be transferred to local planning tools, SCoT and PLU. Among their main principles, the two SCoTs of Grenoble and Lyon include the issue of limiting land take which appears to be strongly related to the one of TVB, and they identify some specific orientations. To study the two SCoTs, in relation to the elements of TVB and land take, an analysis under different perspectives has been applied (Table 4.2): • • • • • •

Control of land take. Landscape and ecological valorisation. Identification of specific boundaries. Urbanisation type. Relationship with blue infrastructure. Agricultural territory.

The SCoT of Grenoble, taking inspiration from 2006 Montpellier SCoT, emphasises the reduction of land take. By doing this, Grenoble SCoT chose to start from the preservation of natural elements and only in a second moment to identify the possible urban development. In the perspective of a frugal land take, one of the first main steps is the reduction and the redefinition of the “enveloppe urbaine”13 introduced by the SD in 2000. In particular, the SCoT fixes some boundaries to preserve natural and agricultural spaces and limit the diffusion of building for a long-time term (50 years). These boundaries are of two types: strategic boundaries and boundaries of principles. The first ones are defined into local planning tools and become everlasting, while the second type can evolve and change over time. Table 4.2  Main elements of Grenoble and Lyon SCoT

Land take control Landscape and ecological valorisation

Identification of boundaries Urbanisation type Blue infrastructure Agricultural territory

SCoT Grenoble 2030 Reduction of SD enveloppe urbaine TVB, Vues emblématiques

Strategic boundaries and boundaries of principle Armature urbaine hiérarchisée

Lyon 2030 Sustainable urban model through the green Armour Orientations for landscape preservation for specific areas (Natura 2000 sites) Grande Trame paysagère, valorisation of viewsheds 3 networks Multipolar development Included in the green Armour Included in the green Armour

 The reference is to the SRCE of Rhône-Alpes, since both SCoTs have been approved before the approbation of the SRADDET. 13  This concept indicates the potential areas suitable for development. 12

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

83

In favour of landscape improvement, the SCoT identifies some precise guidelines for a proper landscape insertion of the proposed projects. Despite the variety of landscape, indeed, the urban region of Grenoble (RUG) is mainly characterised by compact cities and small villages, with a strong attachment to the activity of mining and has little space for public areas. The general trend, at different scales, is to avoid landscape banalisation. These guidelines include the following: • Redeveloping the existing urban patterns and take into account the spatial structure of urbanisation when defining a development project. • Adapting new constructions to topography and landscape context. • controlling the quality of urban borders, • Preserving and improving landscape quality of infrastructural axes of entrance into cities. • Reinforcing vegetalisation and urban and water infrastructures. The TVB tool in Grenoble SCoT has above all ecological values; some of the main objectives are to decrease biodiversity fragmentation and vulnerability, ease genetic exchanges and improve the quality and diversity of landscapes. In compliance with national indications, the elements composing the TVB of Grenoble SCoT are (Fig. 4.5) the following: • • • • • • •

Biodiversity reservoirs. Complementary biodiversity reservoirs. Ecological corridors. Blue thread. Buffer zones along watercourses. Damp zones. Biodiversity into cities, green interruptions of recreational and landscape interest.

The Lyonnaise agglomeration specified its SCoT through the identification of three networks that have the vocation to structure the entire urban development: • The network of agricultural and natural spaces. • The network of rivers and their tributaries. • The network of metropolitan public transportation. Despite not having a direct link to the notion of TVB, the first network is the one that contains the elements for the construction and implementation of a network made up of natural areas. This system can easily be identified as a forerunner tool of TVB. Indeed, this network recognised a system of natural, agricultural and forestry areas as “full spaces” and not only as “empty spaces” for possible future urbanisations. This system is considered a natural keystone infrastructure that shapes the territory, just like other ones,14 and it is called armature verte (literally, green armour). It represents almost half of the agglomeration territory. The armour is divided into some main elements: coeurs verts (green hearts), couronne verte (green

14

 The logic behind this choice is the already mentioned concept of inverser le regard.

84

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

Fig. 4.5  The TVB of Grenoble SCoT. (Source: AURG 2018)

crown) and trame verte (green thread).15 These elements are not isolated, but they are interlinked through some additional green connections (liaisons vertes) that have ecological and landscape functions in natural and agricultural territories and are connected to parks16 (Fig. 4.6). Green hearts have effects at the regional scale, and they are identified by the DTA as big natural spaces to safeguard. In these areas, it is recommended to maintain agricultural and forestry activities, develop tourism and leisure activities and preserve biodiversity. The main goal of the green crown is to structure and limit the urbanised territory, and it is recommended to create some specific policies for the  These elements take the cue from the experience of DTA.  The elements of the green armour and their objectives are specified in the document of orientations and objectives (DOO), starting from the orientations given by DTA.

15 16

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

Fig. 4.6  The main elements of TVB of Lyon SCoT. (Source: Adapted from Sepal 2017)

85

86

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

maintenance and valorisation of agricultural activities. The green thread, located near the urbanised area, is identified as a set of mostly unbuilt, natural, agricultural and forestry spaces which are related to urban public parks. Therefore, these spaces can be considered “green lungs” closed to cities, easily reachable by citizens. For these areas, it is recommended to manage and valorise agricultural activities and landscape planning, raise awareness in citizens toward nature protection and draw up projects with local bodies, environmentalists and farmers. All these elements gain significant value because they are connected through green connections to create a coherent system. These connections gather many functions (ecological, landscape, agricultural, leisure) and, among these, the SCoT the Lyonnaise agglomeration recognises two types: the ones which contribute to the ecological functionality of the agglomeration (corridors écologiques) and those destined to leisure activities and to slow mobility (cheminements de loisirs et de découverte). Each local plan should then adopt specific regulatory tools suitable for the preservation and the restoration of ecological corridors: for example, specific classifications and locations reserved to crucial areas for ecological continuity. Additionally, they can also constitute green interruptions (coupures vertes) between two urbanised areas, in terms of landscape and as a support for slow mobility. These interruptions are natural and agricultural areas that are threatened by urban pressure and must be resumed by PLU. As a general orientation, building is not permitted in the territories contained in the green armour, and their land assignment is identified and classified by each PLU.  Compatibly with all local conditions, the PLU may approve suitable constructions and solutions necessary for ecological and environmental functionality, with the exclusion of certain boundaries imposed directly by the SCoT for the maintenance and protection of specific areas.17 Related to the issue of the green armour, the SCoT of Lyon urges to develop actions of greening into the city centre. In this perspective, SCoT suggests realising new green areas, green terraces, to plant new trees, etc. To manage and valorise natural and agricultural spaces, the SCoT defines some principles: realisation of concerted programmes depending on the specificities of each territory, creation of a local agricultural policy, identification of discovery paths compatible with ecological values and agricultural uses. Valorisation is a useful tool to implement the offer of nature into the Lyonnaise agglomeration, consequent to an increasing social demand that increases pressures on some highly frequented spaces. Both Metropolises have implemented these elements in their recently approved local plans: PLUi in the Grenoble-Alpes Métropole and PLU-H in Grand Lyon Métropole. Since 2013, the metropolitan agglomeration of Grenoble, in line with the regional policy, has committed itself to a framework strategy in favour of biodiversity, with

 These areas include unalterable sites, sites of landscape interest, zones with high biodiversity value (Znieff – Zones Naturelles d’Intérêt Écologique, Faunistique et Floristique, they are constituted by the terrestrial, river and marine spaces). Znieff areas are divided into two categories: type 1 and type 2. The first type includes generally limited areas characterised by the presence of species and remarkable environments that are very sensitive to transformations; instead, type 2 is constituted by large natural environments that have been poorly subjected to modifications and offer significant biological potential.

17

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

87

the implementation of several actions that have made it possible to create a dynamic and to gain a better understanding of the ecological challenges facing the region. In 2016, the regional strategy Contrat Vert et Bleu was unanimously approved by the Metropolis of Grenoble and many other partners. Within the temporal horizon of 5 years (2017–2022), it is a tool for the actualisation of local TVB on the basis of the priorities and objectives of the SRCE. The consultation process allowed identifying 56 actions (both tangible and intangible) led by 14 contracting authorities (Grenoble-Alpes Métropole is one of them). They cover actions to restore ecological corridors (terrestrial and aquatic), manage different environments conducive to biodiversity, as well as communication, awareness-raising and biodiversity training actions. The Metropolis of Grenoble-Alpes manages eight metropolitan natural areas that help preserve the green heart of the territory, thus providing a natural setting favourabl to biodiversity and conducive to relaxation. In this perspective, the local TVB of the Metropolis of Grenoble specifies the regional scheme and recognises three elements: (1) biodiversity reservoirs, (2) blue thread and (3) ecological corridors (Fig. 4.7). The Metropolis of Grand Lyon, in the revision of its PLU-H, recalls the SCoT which positions the environment at the centre of the territorial project. In this perspective, the PLU-H promotes the development of the agglomeration by doing a coherent TVB scheme18 and strengthening the presence of nature in the city.19 Despite its intense urbanisation and the presence of numerous transport infrastructures, the Metropolis of Grand Lyon has varied landscapes and natural areas. The local TVB is constituted by more than 200 biodiversity reservoirs, connected by almost 200 ecological corridors. The local TVB is also composed of various parks and rows of trees that contribute to this diversity. In particular, specific natural sites located in the urbanised area are remarkable and constitute biodiversity reservoirs on a regional scale (such as some islands in the Rhône and Saône rivers, the aquatic and alluvial environments of Miribel Jonage, some natural sites in the west of Lyon) (Fig. 4.8). Additionally, at the local scale, TVB represents a tool for urban composition: indeed, marking coherent boundaries, it defines the structure of the urbanised  Since the 1990s, the concept of Trame Verte, now incorporated into the national legislation, has been the subject of a specific approach in the Grand Lyon area. Thus, through the creation of the Ecology Mission, the then urban community has initiated a relevant work to identify environmental stakes. The Urban Ecology Charter, integrating the notion of the green thread, was adopted in 1992 and revised in 1997. Ten generic themes were identified: urban territories, periurban territories, water, waste, air, noise, energy, risks, observation and information. The Charter’s action plan was updated in the framework of the Agenda 21 approach in 2005 and then in a new version of the Charter in 2011. With similar TVB objectives, the ecological dimension of these spaces was already considered, even if the environments and how they function were not made explicit. Moreover, unlike today, the blue element was not clearly expressed, but watercourses were an integral part of the approach. 19  This discourse was already present in the 1990s, when the metropolitan area of Lyon, the municipalities and the Rhône Departmental Council gathered to construct a policy of Projets Nature. With local stakeholders’ participation (e.g. farmers and nature conservation associations), 11 projects had come into being in 10 years. Currently, they are 14 covering more than 15.000 hectares. 18

88

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

Fig. 4.7  The TVB of Grenoble PLUi. (Source: Grenoble Alpes Métropole and AURG 2019)

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

Fig. 4.8  The TVB of Lyon PLU-H. (Source: UrbaLyon 2019)

89

90

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

territories. TVB indeed helps to ensure a link between the urbanised areas and the natural spaces bordering them, highlighting the need to reflect on the treatment of boundaries and borders between natural and built-up areas. These actions can be done in different ways: the gradual reduction of density, the strong contrast between dense housing and natural spaces, the role of road authorities in their function, or no limit, the staging of the building by a green setting. Generally speaking, the local TVB of Lyon’s agglomeration contributes to urban development as a comprehensive project which is composed of several urban projects, identified as constitutive nodes and elements of the local TVB (e.g. the project of Rue Garibaldi or Rives de Saône). Great attention is therefore mainly paid to public spaces and the connection of existing and planned parks.

4.1.4  The Urban Project Approach The regional and local TVB structure is constituted by some major connections between green areas, but it can also be made up of small regeneration interventions realised at the urban and plot scale. In this perspective, TVB at the urban and plot scale can find an operative reference in a planning tool unique to the French context, the Zones d’Aménagement Concerté (ZAC). These areas are identified as areas within which a public authority or a public establishment decides to intervene to carry out urban development. In this sense, ZAC can help overcome the complex issue of realising TVBs at the local scale, providing adequate operativity. In line with the principles of the latest laws (for enhancement of urban renewal, see Sects. 3.2 and 3.3), in these areas, it is indeed possible to realise urban regeneration projects with different characterisations: ecological, landscape, limitation of land take. Since the first experiences of friches industrielles, the urban project concept has evolved toward a more comprehensive dimension in terms of sustainable design and as a decisional and operational process. The idea of the urban project here expressed refers to the French projet urbain, conceptualised in response to the technocratic character of regional and urban planning (Ingallina 2004). They are conceived as “regeneration actions aimed at requalifying ‘pieces’ of city often located in the centre of conurbations, enhancing the specific qualities of places (presence of water, architectural heritage, industrial wastelands) and providing the city with prestigious facilities enabling it to position itself favourably in interurban competition” (Pinson 2006). Urban projects have indeed the duty to draft a global strategy, gather different aspects of development (economic, social and environmental) and make different types of intervention more coherent between each other. The frequent reference to urban and territorial projects (instead of plans) shows a shift of vision toward a more operative way to allocate investments and resources (Ingallina 2004). Both the cities of Grenoble and Lyon have been carrying out important actions of urban renewal and regeneration. In particular, since the launch of SCoT Lyon 2010, Lyon has put great emphasis on public spaces projects (Novarina and Seigneuret

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

91

2016). In 1995, indeed, the then urban community of Lyon20 started a massive process of urban renewal and regeneration to enhance the role of Lyon at the international level (Darchen 2019), to improve its attractiveness for both citizens and tourists (by also promoting international events, such as the Fête des Lumières) and to promote environmental sustainability. Some of the main projects are Lyon Confluence, Lyon Part-Dieu, Gerland, La Duchére and Rives de Saône.21 All these projects have common objectives to improve liveability, attractiveness and ecological quality, but they differ in dimensions of the area, ways of implementation and typology of intervention. As a whole, starting from environmental sustainability, these urban projects contribute to the realisation of the local TVB, creating new public and green spaces. In terms of dimensions, in some cases, entire neighbourhoods have been rethought. For example, the area of Lyon Part-Dieu has been entirely redeveloped to become the new strategic centre of the city and to position Lyon at the European and international level. It will function as the new tertiary headquarters of the city, and it will be a liveable neighbourhood through a general rearrangement of transportation means in favour of slow mobility. Liveability will be assured by introducing natural elements (e.g. new trees will be planted) in continuity to interventions envisaged by other projects, such as the reconfiguration of a major route, the Rue Garibaldi. With a total length of 2,6 km, this route connects north-south two urban parks, parc de la Tête d’or and parc Blandan22 and, in the 1960s, was initially conceived as an urban highway to facilitate cars transit. Its reconfiguration is the output of extensive concertation with citizens; the final result is the conversion of this route into a new green artery discouraging the use of private cars with the creation of new public spaces for pedestrians, cycle paths and adequate lanes for public transportation (Fig. 4.9). Rue Garibaldi, as it was initially conceived, constituted an obstacle to ecological continuity, whereas the recent re-adjustment can perform as a linear element of ecological continuity in the project of the local TVB. This ecological continuity will connect its northern and southern extremity, represented by the two aforementioned urban parks. In the logic of the project of the local TVB, these urban parks represent green nodes. As mentioned above, the Grand Lyon policy on public spaces relies on two main strategies: the ville nature and the ville creative (Novarina and Seigneuret 2016). The Rives de Saône project, included in a broader approach for the re-appropriation of rivers, embraces both elements aiming to re-establish the Saône river landscape (50 km) and give it back to the citizens. This renewal intervention does not only  Its boundaries correspond more or less to the current Metropolis.  These proposed urban projects represent just a small selection of all the projects in Lyon. To have a look at all the projects insisting in the city of Lyon, see https://www.grandlyon.com/projets/ projets-­urbains.html 22  Recently, both urban parks have undergone important renewal interventions. Parc Blandan was originally a military zone. Some of the military buildings have been restored and refunctionalised (e.g. in university campuses), while others have been demolished as their structure was in a poor state of conservation. 20 21

92

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

Fig. 4.9  Rue Garibaldi and its new public spaces. (Photo: Benedetta Giudice)

Fig. 4.10  New artistic and landscape installations of Rives de Saône project. (Photo: Benedetta Giudice)

involve the river ecosystem, its environmental preservation and biodiversity enhancement (natural elements composing the ville nature concept), but it includes other types of interventions on riverbanks. Therefore, these interventions develop the project in line with the ville creative concept. Indeed, the realisation of the project involved 12 international artists, who realised, along the entire river path, 23 artistic and landscape installations (Fig. 4.10).

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

93

A worldwide known urban regeneration project is the Lyon Confluence, a former industrial site, constituting one the largest regeneration projects in Europe in terms of land being redeveloped (150 hectares). It is located in the southern area of Lyon’s city centre at the confluence of two rivers, Saône and Rhône. Half of this area was formerly an industrial site, while the other half hosted a residential neighbourhood. Its location has always appeared to be separated from the rest of the city centre by the presence of Perrache railway station,23 railroads and the highway. Its regeneration process started at the end of the 1990s and intended to create a new eco-district with a strong focus on environmental sustainability. Additionally, the project configures itself as a unique ecological reservoir with the creation of new green areas, favouring the ecological continuity of the local TVB and the maintenance of local biodiversity along the Saône river. In this perspective, 35 hectares have been dedicated to green spaces, 13 hectares of basins have been managed next to the Saône river and 3.000 trees have been planted. Due to its dimensions, the project has been divided into two ZACs, corresponding to two different temporal phases. On the one hand, ZAC 1, corresponding to 41 hectares located along Saône riverbanks, has been completed.24 On the other hand, ZAC 225 is an area of 24 hectares located on the side of the Rhône river which started in 2010. The entire project is expected to be completed in 2025, with a population of 16.000 inhabitants and 25.000 activities. Indeed, both ZACs foresee a mixed-use neighbourhood, not only housing (including a percentage of social housing) but also commercial activities, leisure facilities (such as the museum) and offices (Fig. 4.11). The project of Lyon Confluence is strongly related to the project of Rives de Saône mentioned above, with the revitalisation of its riverbanks and the creation of new public spaces, sports facilities, community gardens, a marina (Place Nautique) and cycle paths. In the framework of the programme “Climat, énergie et infrastructures durables” promoted by WWF France,26 the area of the Confluence has been the pilot case study for realising a Plan d’action durabilité (PAD).27 Additionally, in 2010, the Confluence neighbourhood has been certified as the first WWF sustainable district in France.  The Perrache railway station is currently undergoing a general retrofitting project that will provide a sense of continuity between public spaces. 24  This ZAC includes the realisation of the neighbourhood of Sainte-Blandine, the banks of the Saône river, the headquarters of the new region of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes and the new museum of the Confluence. 25  The masterplan of this second zone was entrusted to the group of architects of Herzog & de Meuron and Michel Desvigne. 26  Through the programme “Climat, énergie et infrastructures durables”, the association of WWF France has engaged itself at the local scale to accompany cities in the transition to a more sustainable future. Together with the Metropolis of Grand Lyon, they signed an agreement of partnership for five years. 27  This plan is based on the ten principles of sustainability of WWF “One Planet Living”, to reinvent cities in the current framework of limited natural resources. 23

94

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

Fig. 4.11  The project of Confluence Lyon. (Photo: Benedetta Giudice)

Its worldwide recognition is then the result of a long process based upon the attention for the safeguard of natural and cultural heritage, the inclusion of specific environmental, ecological and energetic requirements and its mixed-use of social and functional uses. Compared to the intense policy on public spaces by the Metropolis of Grand Lyon, Grenoble is a little bit more lacking. Despite this, some relevant examples can be found. Indeed, since the 2000s, the city of Grenoble has carried out concertation processes for the redevelopment and requalification of some parts of the city, particularly the southern one (La Villeneuve, the Olympic district). Additionally, Grenoble offers the possibility to introduce new elements of discussion, such as the

4.1  Case 1: The Former Rhône-Alpes Region

95

one concerning the contribution of eco-districts to sustainable development (Verhage and Leroy 2014). One of the most known projects in the city of Grenoble is the ZAC Caserne de Bonne, consisting of an abandoned military barracks and its surroundings (the dimension of this project is 8,5 hectares). It is quite remarkable, since it was awarded the first Grand Prix national ÉcoQuartier in 2009. The urban regeneration project, designed by Christian Devillers, can be considered one of the stages of the process of ecological development (Bobroff 2011) and, due to its close location to the city centre, it can be considered a hinge between the city centre and the southern peripheries. Indeed, it aims at establishing a new urban and ecological continuity, preserving the military buildings by assigning them mixed-uses (residential accommodations, commercial units, offices, a hotel, a residence for student and one for aged people and a school) and realising a new public space (5 hectares of public urban park). Thus, the project aims to create a new pole that combines social, generational and functional heterogeneity, emphasises sustainable development (e.g. alternative energy systems such as solar heating systems and solar panels) and includes actions of slow mobility. The urban park is a complementary and integral part of the project, and it is an element of environmental continuity between the near Hoche garden and the old barracks (Fig. 4.12). In the north-west part of the city of Grenoble, a majestic project is underway, the Presqu’île.28 It is located at the confluence of Isère and Drac rivers, quite separated from the rest of the city, and consists of an area of 265 hectares. This area gathers various functions since the installation in 1956 of the Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique and in 1971 a first atomic battery by the Institut européen Laue-Langevin (ILL) and a second experimental reactor. In the following years, it has become an enclave dedicated to high technological research. Since the beginning of the 2000s, in the framework of urban renovation actions toward sustainable development, the city of Grenoble decided to bet on this area for the creation of an innovative and more connected neighbourhood by proposing an urban project with a development model based upon three main aspects: university, research and industry. This project can be considered the first step for achieving the Écocité Grenobloise and a demonstrator of the post-carbon city (Novarina and Seigneuret 2015). It includes different concepts, such as social cohesion and innovation, conciliation of density and quality of life, integrated and smart mobility and reduction of energy consumption. One of its strategic ambitions is the construction of a ville nature by valorising and strengthening the role of green and blue spaces. To achieve this goal, the Metropolis has launched the so-called Mikado metropolitan project, involving five municipalities. It helps to link and enhance the natural and recreational spaces at this entrance to the Metropolis and encourage the presence and circulation of biodiversity while offering pleasant living spaces to citizens. Its evolutionary path helps to increasingly valorise the existing landscape and

28

 It was first assigned to Claude Vasconi and after to the architect Christian de Portzamparc.

96

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

Fig. 4.12  The project of the ZAC Caserne de Bonne. (Photo Benedetta Giudice)

natural asset, functionally integrating the water environment to flood events and creating the local TVB. In this perspective, the urban project approach is not merely linked to buildings, but it foresees and includes an ecological approach that considers public spaces and green areas as nodes, reservoirs or ecological corridors in the construction of the local TVB.  Thus, the urban project approach with an ecological perspective (the combination of buildings and public spaces) contributes to enhancing nature into cities.

4.2  Case 2: The Piedmont Region

97

4.2  Case 2: The Piedmont Region The Italian case study is represented by the Piedmont Region with a particular focus on the city of Turin and its territory; the Region is organised into one Metropolitan City (Turin), seven Provinces and 1.181 Municipalities. The Piedmont Region is the second largest of Italian regions, and it is one of the most highly fragmented in terms of the number of municipalities: it is indeed constituted by 1.181 municipalities, many of which have very few inhabitants. Morphologically speaking, its territory is characterised by various types of landscape. It is mainly mountainous with the Alpine landscape (including two national parks, Gran Paradiso and Valgrande), the area of Langhe and Roero (in the province of Cuneo), which recently has been inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage List for its wine landscape and production, and vast rice fields (provinces of Vercelli and Novara).

4.2.1  Institutional and Planning Background The planning system in the Piedmont Region is still mainly referred to as the urban planning law no. 56 of 1977, “Tutela e uso del suolo” (Preservation and use of soil) which underwent different modifications in the following years. Even though it was promulgated more than 40 years ago, this law introduced some important elements that moved up the concept of sustainable development into spatial planning. The choice of the title is emblematic, as it makes a clear reference to the preservation of the resource soil. Once it was promulgated, this law gave great importance to intermunicipal planning, but, in this sense, little has been done. Some of the most innovative elements were the following: • The introduction of supramunicipal regulatory plans carried out by Mountain communities (later abandoned). • A new approach to the interpretation of the territory by introducing a set of analysis with a perspective on social, economic and environmental aspects. • The concept of homogeneous areas is replaced in favour of a territorial subdivision upon settings with specific characteristics. • The openness to a discussion with all the stakeholders interested. The original version of this law identified only two planning levels, the Region and Municipalities. The issue of the intermediate level arose after the promulgation of the national law no. 140 of 1990 (see Sect. 3.1.3). Nonetheless, there have been some attempts to organise the institutional and territorial bodies in Piedmont even before the approbation of this law. Indeed, since the end of the 1960s, the Piedmont Region identified some territorial subdivisions and carried out some regional reorganisation: first, the so-called ecological areas in 1966/1967, and later, in 1975, the experience of the Comprensori. The definition of ecological areas took into

98

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

consideration the transformations of the territorial and socio-economic structures. Unlike other Italian Regions, Piedmont decided to establish a body, the Comprensori, dedicated not only to urban planning aspects but also socio-economic and financial ones. The territorial plan of Comprensori had the duty to identify sub-­comprensoriali areas, named geographical units, which functioned as an optimal scale for the intermunicipal plan. Even though the pioneer experience unique to the Italian context, Comprensori were finally abolished in 1986. The first significant revision of the regional law dates 1984 with the introduction of a new planning tool, the territorial operative project (Piano Territoriale Operativo – PTO). This tool showed the necessity to intervene at the local scale on regional issues operatively. Since this moment, the Region has launched some local experiences of intervention (e.g. the PTO of river Po in 1995). From these first experiences, it is possible to understand the need for an operational mode to fulfil complex planning issues. In 2001, another significant revision to regional law no. 56 occurred: the regional law no. 1/2001 introduced some experimentations of new procedures for the approbation of urban plans’ variants. This law was later abrogated by a successive modification of the regional law; this latest modification is the regional law no. 3 of 2013 which introduced relevant changes in the procedures of plans’ approbation and reinforced the objective of limiting land take to reach an expected zero net land take. Nowadays, planning in Piedmont is made up of various tools at different scales, regional, provincial and metropolitan and municipal. Regional planning tools are the Regional Territorial Plan (Piano Territoriale Regionale – PTR) and a Regional Landscape Plan (Piano Paesaggistico Regionale – PPR). On the one hand, the PTR was approved in July 2011 and replaced the previous one of 1997; on the other hand, the PPR was approved in October 2017. Even though they have been approved in different years, the two regional plans shared the building process, forecasting a shared vision and the cognitive framework for the entire territory. The PTR embraces different territorial strategies to position the regional territory in the European and Italian framework. These strategies aim at enhancing the attractiveness of Piedmont. The PTR is composed of three interconnected components: • A cognitive-structural framework, aimed at critically reading the regional territory and the system of networks. • A strategic part, composed of the different policies on which to identify the main strategic axes of development. • A statutory part, the regulatory content, intended to define roles and functions of the different contexts of the territorial government. The PPR, instead, represents the principal planning tool for the enhancement and protection of the landscape, the environment, natural and cultural heritage. The guiding perspective was not only to improve the living conditions of the population and its cultural identity but also, in coherence with the PTR, to strengthen the attractiveness of the region and its competitiveness in networks of relations that are expanding at the global scale. The two regional plans stress the attention on the necessity to overcome the fragmentation of territorial problems (even before the municipal fragmentation); indeed,

4.2  Case 2: The Piedmont Region

99

they both identify specific geographical contexts that are not coherent with each other. On the one hand, PTR identifies 33 Ambiti di Integrazione Territoriali (AIT) which are subdivided, in a first proposal, in 198 sub-ambiti; these sub-ambiti are the main reference for intermunicipal plans. AITs are identified as territorial functional systems favouring an integrated vision at the local scale of the plan’s objectives and strategies. The scale of AIT allows highlighting proximity relations (environmental, landscape, cultural heritage, etc.) among facts, actions and projects that coexist and interact in a specific territory. They are identified as gravitational areas constructed upon people’s movements to reach urban services and later verified by different institutional levels. On the other hand, the PPR defines, on the basis of landscape and morphological characteristics, 76 ambiti di paesaggio (landscape character areas), distributed into 535 unità di paesaggio (landscape units). In the attempt to enhance intermunicipal planning, the PTR envisages the possibility to realise municipal aggregations. In particular, article 12 states that municipalities, on the basis of their predominant morphologies, structural homogeneities and perceptive relations within the framework of AITs, can aggregate for a better and more efficient territorial governance. Concerning provincial planning, in the same year of the approval of PTR, in August 2011, the new Provincial Territorial Coordination Plan of Turin (PTC2) was approved. In line with the old one, approved in 1999, this new plan pays close attention to the issue of land take containment. To implement PTC2, the then Province of Turin committed itself to continuously monitoring the evolution of land take at the provincial scale by establishing a specific observatory. In this discourse on territorial organisation, at the metropolitan level, the recently institutionalised Metropolitan City of Turin introduced the concept of “homogeneous areas”. Due to its vast territorial surface and the high degree of administrative fragmentation (316 municipalities), the metropolitan territory has been subdivided into 11 homogeneous areas on the basis of specific functions. These areas are characterised by territorial proximity and a population of more than 80.000 inhabitants. They have been conceived as optimal contexts for the organisation in an associated form of municipal services (e.g. planning), and they can function as a decentralised location for the administrative functions of the metropolitan city.

4.2.2  Sustainability Issues The Piedmont Region and, in particular, the Province of Turin have carried out important initiatives to limit land take and to enhance the landscape and environmental assets of its territory. In the late 1990s, the Piedmont Region carried out the strategic project of Corona Verde (literally, Green Crown) involving 93 municipalities of the metropolitan area of Turin. The Corona Verde project consisted of realising a net of ecological

100

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

corridors connecting all the open spaces to the landscape, nature and cultural heritage29 of the territory (Cassatella 2013). The general aim was the requalification of the metropolitan territory of Turin and the improvement of quality of life. The main outputs were the creation of bicycle and pedestrian paths, the requalification of the river environment, the rearrangement of green areas and the increase of quality of rural-urban territories. The goal of this strategic project is twofold: on the one hand, it intended to reach a good ecological connection (through the creation of an interconnected system of green areas) and, on the other hand, it aimed at relaunching the attractiveness of the territory through the preservation of historical heritage. Later on, in 2009, the Piedmont Region promulgated law no. 19 “Testo Unico delle aree naturali e della biodiversità” (law on natural areas and biodiversity) which establishes the regional ecological network. A successive regional deliberation approved the methodology for the individuation of the elements of the regional ecological network. The proposed methodology is the one defined by the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (ARPA). This methodology has been tested in some provincial experimentations, as in the province of Novara. Regarding the ecological network, the PPR establishes some guidelines and implements the elements of the regional ecological network. The output is the realisation of a network of landscape connection, constituted by the integrated implementation of the elements of the cultural network and the recreational network (Fig. 4.13). In this sense, this integrated network is characterised as a multipurpose and multifunctional system that combines traditional ecological features (nodes, ecological connections and restoration areas) with historical and cultural ones. Additionally, the regional ecological network represents one of the strategic projects to be specified in provincial and sectoral plans. Both the two regional plans, PPR and PTR, recognise the great value of soil and promote land take containment. In this perspective, the Piedmont Region provided itself with a document on monitoring regional land take. It represents the primary tool to measure and quantify regional land take and the starting point for the realisation of policies to contrast urban dispersion. Published twice, the second edition constitutes an official document to be considered in local plans.30 This document contains different values that present the situation of regional land take; these values must be regarded as the starting point for local planning and for assessing territorial transformations when urban plans forecast new buildable areas. Nevertheless, this type of document can have some limitations: by adopting a methodology to the entire regional territory, the monitoring provides only quantitative values which are not contextualised within each municipality and territory to which they refer. In this perspective, the document does not give a correct and functional interpretation of  The Corona Verde project connects through a green belt the system of Corona di Delitiae delle Residenze Reali, the Residences of the Royal House of Savoy in the city of Turin and in the neighbouring municipalities, built between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. This system is inscribed in the WHL of UNESCO. 30  The first edition was published in 2013 and it represented only an orientative document. Instead, the second edition, differently from the first one, was approved by the Regional Council in 2015. 29

4.2  Case 2: The Piedmont Region

101

Fig. 4.13  The network of landscape connection. (Source: Regione Piemonte 2017)

the phenomenon, as Municipalities and Provinces are evaluated with the same methodology (Giudice 2017). Additionally, it does not relate to the methodology provided by the National monitoring by ISPRA (see Sect. 3.1.1), resulting in different values. To reinforce the importance given to quantitative values and the role of regional monitoring, the PTR establishes that each provincial plan must define a maximum threshold of land take for each municipality. Additionally, the PTR states that, whether the definition of the thresholds is not fulfilled, the forecast of land take increase allowed to municipalities for every five years may not exceed 3% of the existing urbanised area.

102

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

In the latest years, the regional departments of Agriculture and Territory have arranged some law proposals on land take, but they have never been approved. In 2018, the regional Giunta approved a law proposal on the reuse and the requalification of obsolete building heritage and integrated some norms of the PTR. These new norms implement the issue of land take in regional policies; the principal aim is to pursue a progressive and continuous reduction of land take to reach the objective of zero land take in 2040. In 2014, the Metropolitan City of Turin, together with the Politecnico di Torino,31 ISPRA and the Council for the research in agriculture and the analysis of agrarian economy (Crea), started working on the European project LIFE+ SAM4CP (Soil Administration Model for Community Profit). Through the development of a digital simulator, the project aims at providing better management of soils, fostering qualitative urban choices based upon ecosystem services (Salata et  al. 2020). In this perspective, the project highlights how the implementation of urban planning tools and the operationalisation of ecosystem services can foster more efficacy in the decision-making processes of territorial transformations. Starting from the pilot experimentation in the municipality of Bruino, the project promoted coplanning activities in the development of variants of the PRG to the other three municipalities of the metropolitan area of Turin. The selected municipalities (Chieri, None and Settimo Torinese) represent a good record for their morphological characteristics.

4.2.3  M  ethodological Innovations in GI Construction in the Province of Turin The Province of Turin has always led important initiatives in land take containment and participated in international projects. These initiatives have their background in provincial planning tools. Since the first Provincial Territorial Plan of Coordination (PTCP) of 1999, the city of Turin and its metropolitan area have decided to highlight the importance of safeguarding soils and limiting land take, introducing them as structural elements of the planning process. In this perspective, in 2010, the former Province of Turin took part in the OSDDT-­ MED32 project, in partnership with five institutional bodies, each of which represented a different territorial context of the Mediterranean area: the Province of Terni (Italy), the Department of Hérault (France), the Region of Murcia (Spain), the Region of Crete (Greece) and the City of Pembroke (Malta). The objective of this project, developed in 3 years, was quantitative as it attempted to elaborate a shared methodology through a set of different indicators (e.g. the intensity of land take, the annual medium rate of land take increase and an indicator of environmental preservation), to monitor and assess the evolution of land take. This project was constructed through practices of concertation and consciousness among citizens to raise awareness of the importance of the topic. 31 32

 Under the scientific coordination of prof. Carlo Alberto Barbieri.  Occupation des sols et développement durable du territoire sur l’arc méditerranéen.

4.2  Case 2: The Piedmont Region

103

The principle of limiting land take has been later resumed and reinforced in preparing the new provincial plan of Turin, the PTC2, definitively approved in 2011. The structural objectives of this plan are a limited land take, increased biodiversity, a renovated system of material and immaterial connections, reduced environmental pressures and socio-economic development of the territory. To achieve these objectives, the PTC2 organised the provincial territory upon three different typologies of areas: • Dense areas, constituted by portions of urbanised territory, located near the historic centre, with a significant urban layout, characterised by the presence of a consolidated building fabric and qualified service functions for the community. • Areas of transition, constituted by portions of land on the edge of urbanised areas, characterised by the limited extension and possible presence of primary infrastructures. • Free areas, constituted by portions of land outside the consolidated urban fabric or the built-up areas, characterised by the principal agricultural and forestry function even in the presence of smaller or scattered settlements, identified as identity and distinctive elements of the landscape be preserved. In each of these areas, the value of permitted construction is different. In dense areas, it is allowed to build, while in the areas of transition, it is possible to activate interventions of urban regeneration and densification. In the free areas, instead, it is not permitted to build. These areas have been initially determined on the basis of geometrical processing through the identification of the ratio of the density of each territorial context. This technical proposition of boundaries is then examined and reviewed by single municipalities with regard to existing environmental and landscape restrictions. Furthermore, it will serve, in coplanning processes of variants, as the qualitative model on which the choices of localisation of new interventions will have to orient. In this sense, this methodology has a mixed approach to limit land take: it focuses on qualitative assumptions (based upon boundaries and densities) but without avoiding quantitative elements. The qualitative approach to land take is then mainly resumed in the construction of the provincial green system. This system is constituted by the above-mentioned free areas, the sites of the Natura 2000 network and other areas characterised by a high landscape quality. In this system, free areas represent landlocked territories that, if restored and preserved, can represent important landscape and environmental resources. To realise a strategic policy for green spaces and to enhance the quality of the natural and built environment, the PTC2 process identified and followed two different principles: • The Provincial ecological network. • The limitation of land take inasmuch soil is intended as a fundamental resource for safeguarding the natural ecosystem. Different elements constitute the provincial ecological network: • Parks and natural reserves. • Areas of the Natura 2000 network (core areas, corridors and buffer zones).

104

• • • •

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

Landscape assets and areas of high landscape and environmental value. Zones of ecological connectivity (such as rivers). Damp zones. Wooded areas.

In 2014, to build the Provincial ecological network, the metropolitan city of Turin, together with the National Agency for new technologies, energy and sustainable economic development33 (ENEA), and the Politecnico di Torino approved a specific methodology. In particular, they defined the guidelines for the green system (LGSV), within which a specific methodology for developing the provincial ecological network (LGRE) was defined (Voghera et al. 2017; Voghera and La Riccia 2018). The main objective was to determine a proposal for implementing the provincial ecological network at the local level. The proposed methodology is inspired by the bioecological approach (Bennett and Wit 2001) which identifies landscape as an interconnected system of habitats by linking areas of the Natura 2000 network, sustainable use areas and potential restoration areas. The proposed methodology aims at defining an efficient process of assessment of ecological functionality and critical environmental issues. To achieve this, the methodology proposes to assess land-use typologies in relation to five ecological-­ environmental criteria: naturality, relevance for preservation, fragility, extroversion and irreversibility (Voghera and Giudice 2019) (Fig. 4.14). These indicators do not refer to a single land-use and landscape typology, but they refer to habitats and their functionality as complex and interrelated systems.34 Each indicator has been further divided into different levels of specificity, varying from 5 levels to 3. The value of naturality, subdivided into five levels, considers the absence or presence of anthropic disturbance in a specific territory. The second criterion, relevance for preservation, defines the level (on a scale of 4) of relevance or suitability of land

Fig. 4.14  Indicators of the provincial ecological network of Turin. (Source: Voghera and Giudice 2019)  Agenzia Nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile.  See Voghera and Giudice (2019) to have an overview on other methodologies based upon the definition of specific indicators. 33 34

4.2  Case 2: The Piedmont Region

105

uses for biodiversity preservation and considers the importance for habitat and species. Fragility is classified upon four levels of specificity depending on how much the different land-use typologies are intrinsically unable to resist the ensemble of pressures generated by the anthropic use of the territory (such as pollution and anthropic disturbances). This indicator is strictly connected and can be used to measure the vulnerability of a system. The level of extroversion, subdivided into five levels, considers the intensity, probability or possibility that external pressures (such as pollution, industrial production, possible diffusion of exotic species) can generate in neighbouring areas. The last criterion, irreversibility, defines the level (on a scale of 3) of the improbability of irreversibility in land-use change that could lead to a higher degree of naturality. The combination of the first two indicators, naturality and relevance for preservation, allows defining territorial zoning based on its reticular value and ecological functionality. The ecological functionality has four different classes: (1) areas with high ecological functionality, (2) moderate functionality, (3) residual functionality and (4) null functionality. The first class is optimal for the development of habitats and species, while areas included in the last class act as obstacles for developing the ecological network. The identification of these classes allows defining the reticularity of the territories involved and making more evident which parts of these territories are more sensitive to changes. In this sense, the methodology can be used to identify the most relevant natural areas for biodiversity preservation and the possible areas for priority expansion of the ecological network. The identification of the ecological functionality allows defining the map of the structure of the ecological network (Carta della strutturalità della rete ecologica). This map is constituted by three main elements: (1) structural elements of the network (primary ecological network), (2) areas for priority expansion and (3) areas of possible expansion. The structural elements are characterised by a high or moderate level of ecological functionality. The areas for priority expansion, with a residual ecological functionality, have to be considered for interventions necessary to increase the ecological functionality and maintain the primary ecological network. The areas of possible expansion are the ones in which it is possible to realise interventions functional for the safeguard of natural habitats and biodiversity preservation. Starting from these considerations, this methodology has been tested and adapted to some local experimentations35: municipalities of Bruino, Ivrea with Bollengo, and Chieri. The experimentations were developed starting from an analytical process to frame the supramunicipal ecological system and, especially in some cases, to select the most suitable local connectivity paths, with an active participatory process and public consultation. The method previously presented was reconsidered in each experimentation upon their local specific characteristics. This local adaption allows to guide and provide local authorities with specific measures to limit ­urbanisation and enhance the ecological state of each territory. Each experimentation has defined specific methodological and operational orientations which can be

35  These experimentations have been tested by the Politecnico di Torino, under the scientific coordination by prof. Angioletta Voghera, in collaboration with local authorities.

106

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

further implemented in  local plans. To maintain an adequate level of ecological functionality, the implementation in local plans expects some specific actualisation mechanism (e.g. mitigation and compensation measures). The experimentation carried out in the municipality of Bruino was conceived in the strategic framework of the River Agreement of Sangone River (Voghera 2020). Starting from the provincial ecological network, the main goal was to define a network of local ecological and landscape connections by defining specific interventions to enhance landscape quality. The local ecological network of Bruino is connected to the rural and periurban landscape, urban parks, cycle and pedestrian paths and private gardens. The management of green spaces is accompanied by some parameters that combine plant species suitable for local weather and soil conditions and their resistance to urban pollution. The implementation of the methodology in the legislative part of local plans includes introducing specific mitigation measures to counteract negative impacts caused by the construction of new facilities (buildings and infrastructures). These measures and their related interventions are oriented to the acquisition and reforestation of areas along the Sangone River, allowing the expansion of the supralocal ecological network. The municipalities involved in the experimentation in the territory of the Morainic Amphitheatre of Ivrea are Ivrea and Bollengo. This territory was identified through a process of public concertation involving both institutional and non-institutional stakeholders. This experimentation emphasises the topic of landscape valorisation and urban green spaces, and it provides a normative approach to the construction of the ecological network, translating provincial orientations into operational rules suitable for both urban plans. These rules are functional for some specific strategies, such as the safeguard of prestigious natural elements, the valorisation of watercourses, the de-sealing and the mitigation of negative impacts. The most recent experimentation (2017) is the one by the municipality of Chieri (Fig. 4.15). Many different geographies of governance (both top-down and bottom­up) have been considered to construct the local ecological network. The zoning proposed by the Metropolitan City of Turin, homogeneous areas (see Sect. 4.2.1), includes the municipality of Chieri in the homogeneous area of Chierese-­ Carmagnolese, composed of 22 municipalities. Additionally, a voluntary aggregation of 30 municipalities of Chieri’s hinterland gathered in a Tavolo di identità territoriale and shared the main objectives for constructing the local ecological network. This territory is mainly rural and characterised by a relevant historical and landscape heritage. The construction of the local ecological network ran parallel to the project of implementation of existing cycle paths (the Biciplan project); this joint project allowed taking into consideration both ecological, landscape and recreational aspects. Despite different reference strategies, the two projects aim at realising a coherent and harmonious local ecological network, also implementing the existing cycling system. An additional value is provided by the analysis of the visual relationships among different structural landscape elements. The prevalence of the rural environment did not provide areas of high ecological functionality next to the city centre but only residual; to overcome this situation, green wedges and multifunctional connections have been included.

4.2  Case 2: The Piedmont Region

107

Fig. 4.15  The multifunctional connection system of Chieri. (Elaborated by Politecnico di Torino)

108

4  Approaches to Green Infrastructure and Ecological Preservation: Two Case Studies

References Alexis S (ed) (2005) Les 7 familles de paysages en Rhône-Alpes. Des paysages pluriels pour un territoire singulier  – Available via http://observatoiredepaysages-­caue73.fr/wp-­content/ uploads/2018/11/les_7_familles_de_paysages_en_rhone-­alpes_cle6f17bc-­5.pdf. Assessed 8 October 2020 Amsallem J, Sordello R, Billon L et  al (2018) Bilan des Schémas régionaux de cohérence écologique en France: quels apports méthodologiques pour l’identification et la cartographie de la Trame verte et bleue? Sciences Eaux & Territoires, 25:4–11. Available via http:// www.set-­revue.fr/bilan-­des-­schemas-­regionaux-­de-­coherence-­ecologique-­en-­france-­quels-­ apports-­methodologiques-­pour. Assessed 11 October 2020. https://doi.org/10.14758/ SET-­REVUE.2018.25.01 AURG  – Agence d’Urbanisme de la Région Grenobloise (2018) Document d’orientation et d’objectifs. Available via https://scot-­region-­grenoble.org/les-­documents-­du-­scot/. Assessed 30 January 2021 Bennett G, Wit P (2001) The Development and Application of Ecological Networks. A Review of Proposals, Plans and Programmes; AID Environment: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; Available via https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2001-­042.pdf. Assessed 19 October 2020 Bobroff J (2011) La Caserne de Bonne a Grenoble: projet emblématique d’un developpement durable à la francaise. PUCA, Paris Boino P (2007) Lyon: le territoire comme facteur de métropolisation. In: Motte A (ed) Les agglomérations françaises face aux défis métropolitains. Anthropos, Paris, pp 42–61 Carpenter J, Verhage R (2014) Lyon City profile. Cities 38:57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2013.12.003 Cassatella C (2013) The ‘Corona Verde’ strategic plan: an integrated vision for protecting and enhancing the natural and cultural heritage. Urban Res Pract 6(2):219–228. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/17535069.2013.810933 Darchen S (2019) Contextual and external factors enabling planning innovations in a regeneration context: the Lyon confluence project (France). Int Plan Stud 25(4):340–354. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/13563475.2019.1626220 Giudice B (2017) Caratteri e criticità delle misure sul consumo di suolo in Piemonte. In: Arcidiacono A, Di Simine D, Oliva F, Ronchi S, Salata S (eds) La dimensione europea del consumo di suolo e le politiche nazionali. Rapporto CRCS 2017. INU Edizioni, Roma, pp 144–148 Grenoble Alpes Métropole and AURG (2019) PLUi Rapport de présentation – T2 État initial de l’environnement. Available via https://www.grenoblealpesmetropole.fr/646-­les-­documents-­du-­ plui.htm. Assessed 30 January 2021 Halbert L, Cicille P, Rozenblat C (2012) Quelles métropoles en Europe? Des villes en réseau, Travaux n. 16. La documentation Française, Paris Ingallina P (2004) Il progetto urbano. Dall’esperienza francese alla realtà italiana. Franco Angeli, Milano Novarina G, Seigneuret N (eds) (2015) De la technopole à la métropole? L’exemple de Grenoble. Editions Le Moniteur, Paris Novarina G, Seigneuret N (2016) L’alliance d’une stratégie d’ensemble aux détails de projets d’espaces publics: l’exemple de la métropole lyonnaise. In: Le Bras D, Seigneuret N, Talandier M (eds) Métropoles en chantier. Berger-Levrault, Boulogne Billancourt, pp 185–206 Pinson G (2006) Projets de ville et gouvernance urbaine. Pluralisation des espaces politiques et recomposition d’une capacité d’action collective dans les villes européennes. Revue française de science politique 56(4):619–651 Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (2020) Les cartes du rapport d’objectifs du SRADDET Auvergne-­ Rhône-­Alpes. Available via https://jeparticipe.auvergnerhonealpes.fr/sraddet/sraddet-­projet-­ definitif. Assessed 30 January 2021

References

109

Région Rhône-Alpes (2014) ATLAS regional – Cartographie des composantes de la Trame verte et bleue. Available via http://www.auvergne-­rhone-­alpes.developpement-­durable.gouv.fr/srce-­ rhone-­alpes-­a10983.html. Assessed 30 January 2021 Regione Piemonte (2017) Piano Paesaggistico Regionale. Tavola P5. Available via https://www. regione.piemonte.it/web/temi/ambiente-territorio/paesaggio/piano-paesaggistico-regionaleppr. Assessed 13 December 2021 Salata S, Giaimo C, Barbieri CA et al (2020) The utilization of ecosystem services mapping in land use planning: the experience of LIFE SAM4CP project. J Environ Plan Manag 63(3):523–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1598341 Sepal (2017) SCOT Agglomération Lyonnaise 2030. Available via https://www.scot-­agglolyon.fr/ espace-­documentaire/. Assessed 30 January 2021 UrbaLyon (2019) PLU-H A.1.1 Rapport de présentation: tome 1. Diagnostic general. Available via https://pluh.grandlyon.com. Assessed 30 January 2021 Verhage R, Leroy M (2014) Développement urbain durable: Comment apprendre des expériences d’écoquartiers? Géocarrefour 89(4):235–245. https://doi.org/10.4000/geocarrefour.9558 Voghera A (2020) The River agreement in Italy. Resilient planning for the co-evolution of communities and landscapes. Land Use Policy, 91, Article 104377.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2019.104377 Voghera A, Giudice B (2019) Evaluating and planning green infrastructure: a strategic perspective for sustainability and resilience. Sustainability 11(10):2726. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11102726 Voghera A, La Riccia L (2018) Ecological networks in urban planning: between theoretical approaches and operational measures. In: Calabrò F, Della Spina L, Bevilacqua C (eds) New metropolitan perspectives, Local knowledge and innovation dynamics towards territory attractiveness through the implementation of horizon/E2020/Agenda2030 volume 2. Springer, Cham, pp 672–680 Voghera A, Negrini G, La Riccia L, Guarini S (2017) Reti ecologiche nella pianificazione locale: Esperienze nella Regione Piemonte. Reticula 14:1–9

Chapter 5

Ecological Planning

Abstract  As the world faces unprecedented urbanisation and its related challenges, there is a necessity to trace some sustainable and resilient urban strategies. To this end, this concluding chapter presents the key themes of the presented experimentations and proposes some future perspectives of research. Starting from French and Italian approaches, it is argued that it is possible to define some criteria that, merging the practices of planning and design, can help redesign and re-founding contemporary cities and territories in a sustainable and resilient perspective. This redesign and refoundation need to be pursued under the upcoming paradigms of ecological and biodiversity preservation, land take control, landscape valorisation and green infrastructure development. Finally, the section dedicated to possible future research perspectives frames some significant pathways that are currently emerging in literature and should be undertaken to provide a constant and operative integration of green infrastructure in planning and design. Keywords  Land take · Sustainability · Urban planning · Urban design · Green infrastructure · Operativity · Resilience · Social-ecological systems

5.1  E  merging Paradigms from French and Italian Approaches Underlying the elusive character of the concept of GI (Reimer and Rusche 2019) and its adaptability, the experiences of France and Italy, and in particular, the cases of Rhône-Alpes and Piedmont, provide some significant examples of how the strategy of GI can be tailored, tackled and mainstreamed in planning practices and tools (Giudice et al. 2021). Indeed, despite their evident differences, some key elements can be traced (Table 5.1). In general, the two cases allow recognising that the development of GI must pursue both biodiversity preservation and restoration, implementing different approaches and complementary methodologies.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 B. Giudice, Planning and Design Perspectives for Land Take Containment, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91066-2_5

111

112

5  Ecological Planning

Table 5.1  Approaches, scales and functions of French and Italian GI Approach France Methodological and design based Italy

Methodological

Implementation scale Functions From the national to Biodiversity and landscape the local preservation and restoration, land take limitation Provincial and local Biodiversity preservation and restoration, landscape valorisation

In particular, on the one side, the French experimentation represents an excellent example of how a national policy can be operatively applied and implemented at different scales of interventions. Besides, the continuous renovation process in planning provides a dynamic framework for adjusting current societal necessities and challenges each time. The extensive application of TVBs allows framing how Regions and other institutional bodies have interpreted this national strategy. The regional level sets the basis for the TVB development, while the local level has to translate the regional indications into effective rules and objectives. The operativity is then pursued, thanks to the multiscalar implementation, from the regional to the plot scale. Indeed, despite the strong top-down approach, the success of implementing TVBs in local plans (as in the reported case of the development of the PLUi of Grenoble) relies on stakeholders’ involvement, favouring social inclusion, both providing a mixed residential offer and organising participatory moments. The integration of TVBs at the city level is made possible by developing urban projects that link the architectural project with the wise use and readaptation of public spaces. The paradigm here introduced is the one of “nature en ville” (nature into cities).1 Not only Grenoble and Lyon but also many other French cities are applying this paradigm in their planning and design policies to promote liveability and increase international attractiveness. The city of Paris, for example, is undertaking important initiatives to improve its sustainability and resilience.2 Specific contributions to the operativity of TVBs come from OAPs. As in the PLUi of Grenoble, OAPs provide design guidelines that must be considered when proposing a project. Besides, in this specific case, OAPs reinforce the rules of PLUi to pursue a “harmonious integration of projects in a territory of common goods” and aim to reconsider the role of landscape as a territorial resource in its entirety and ordinary nature as a landscape and productive space. Regarding the renovation process of planning instruments, unlike previous sectoral plans (e.g. the SRCE), the introduction of the SRADDET allows having a global and coordinated vision on regional challenges. This collective vision has also been pursued by reinforcing the regional body and the widely recognised role of the metropolitan level in planning. Many Métropoles indeed have chosen to develop territorial strategies at this level, encompassing the different needs, visions and challenges of each municipality coherently. The result is a coordinated and  See Sect. 5.2 to deepen this paradigm.  For example, Grand Paris has promoted interventions to convert abandoned railways into public parks (the project of Petite Ceinture), to revitalise the Canal de l’Ourcq. 1 2

5.1  Emerging Paradigms from French and Italian Approaches

113

harmonious development strategy aimed at overcoming pluralism and the impacts of uncoordinated urban projects on ecological connectivity. Despite the prescriptive character, this plan allows achieving a certain degree of flexibility and adaptation in planning and design choices. The adaptation, intended as the capacity to tailor planning and design choices site to site, is pursued through specific objectives and related rules. On the other side, the Italian government has not developed a specific national policy on GI, but some Regions are carrying out significant initiatives in landscape planning, including the strategy of GI. This absence of national policies aligns with the ongoing rapid obsolescence of prescriptive and regulatory planning and the problematic horizontal governance. The quest for a change was already claimed at the end of the 1990s by some Italian urban planners. They declared that this situation was caused by the inertia of the political system that in more than 50 years has not been able to offer stable rules to planning at different scales over time (Benevolo 1996). In the Italian framework, the Piedmont Region and the Province of Turin constitute an exception, because they have been able to develop some pioneering experiences. Concerning the regional level, the Piedmont Region has attempted to reach out to the main societal challenges with the approbation of the regional landscape plan. Indeed, this regional landscape plan is one of the few approved, and it integrates the network of landscape connection among its pillars. Difficulties arise when it comes to the local level. Until now, in fact, the required implementation of regional directives into local plans has proved to be demanding. Therefore, the principal knot to untie is the transfer of directives and indications in the everyday practice of Italian planning. The regional network of landscape connection solely remains a strategic scenario, while the passage to concrete projects of territorial and landscape valorisation appears difficult (Giudice et al. 2017). The methodology developed by the Province of Turin and ENEA attempts to overcome these difficulties, introducing some specific indicators to be applied at the local scale. Nevertheless, the mere application of these indicators to single municipalities can prove to be counterproductive when not conceptualised as a whole. Indeed, keeping as the first goals biodiversity preservation and land take limitation, it is necessary to act at a wider scale, without following restrictions imposed by municipal boundaries. This wide-scale action still seems challenging as Italian urban plans continue to be developed mainly at the municipal scale, taking into account only the territory of one municipality and not considering neighbouring cities. The proposed approaches point out that GI is a transdisciplinary, cross-sectoral and multiscalar issue. To provide optimal functionality, it is necessary to have efficient interactions between different elements and stakeholders and good quality and accessibility. An approach of this kind enables delivering multiple interconnected benefits to diverse groups of beneficiaries and “upscaling of good examples and the effective implementation of different nature-based solution designs” (Andersson et al. 2019, p. 572).

114

5  Ecological Planning

5.2  Merging Planning and Design Nowadays, the need for more sustainability and resilience has affected how planners and architects envision the ecological future of cities (McDonnell and MacGregor-Fors 2016). Contemporary cities are home to ecosystem goods and services from natural and green areas which depend on human management and intervention. To maintain adequate functionality levels of these areas, it is necessary to implement planning choices with design actions. Since the emergence of the Landscape Urbanism movement, it was suggested that urban renewal projects should be guided by the landscape instead of downgrading green spaces to residual elements. In this perspective, the theorists of Landscape Urbanism promoted the integration of ecology and green spaces in urban planning and design. This approach is somehow what the 2006 Montpellier SCoT proposed with the pioneering concept of “inverser le regard”, where nature becomes the organising and supporting structure of the urban project. This turnabout has imposed planners and architects to introduce new requirements concerning the characteristics, the scales and the materials of each place. The multiscalar project of GI allows introducing the dimensions of natural continuity, connectivity and reticularity. At the city level, the multiscalar project of GI is translated into urban projects, conceived both in time and space, and punctual interventions (e.g. green roofs and green walls). Nevertheless, to realise a local GI project, urban projects must have the capacity to connect scenarios, passing from general principles to urban realities. In this sense, the introduction of GI gives a new meaning to the urban project of the sustainable city. Recently, there is a growing interest in eco-districts (as in the case of the Caserne de Bonne in Grenoble) and sustainable neighbourhoods3 (as in the case of the Lyon Confluence). These new urban development models conciliate the “mending” of landscapes with a strong ecological awareness and a renovated liveability idea. Indeed, they allow hosting all the different elements necessary for the ecological transition. This kind of projects has also contributed to revitalising and relaunching cities’ attractiveness and positioning itself favourably in international competition. The case of Lyon Confluence is emblematic, as it has been able to regenerate an entire area of the central part of the city, reconnecting it to the historical tissue. As in the case of French ones, contemporary urban projects are focusing their attention on the role of public spaces. Starting from the selected projects, it is possible to outline that some prevalent tendencies characterise the readaptation of public spaces and the realisation of new ones: • Integration within the local context • Connection with nearby green and blue spaces, providing enhanced ecological and landscape functionality and quality  See Luederitz et  al. (2013) for a systematic proposal of principles for developing sustainable neighbourhoods. 3

5.2  Merging Planning and Design

• • • •

115

Social inclusion Functional mixing Inclusion of “strong” energetic criteria Connection with different infrastructural systems (public transportation, cycle and pedestrian paths)

Taking as exemplifying and exemplary the projects of Caserne de Bonne and Lyon Confluence, it is possible to deduce some main lines of sustainability action that contemporary urban projects are undertaking. As a successive step, these projects promote the introduction of the “nature en ville” strategy (Table 5.2). The realisation of these urban projects contributes to pursuing societal challenges and increasing the liveability and the quality of life of citizens. Their contribution to sustainability is evident (Bottero et al. 2019). Still, their added value has to be found in the strategy of “nature en ville”, which encourages the idea that nature can provide many solutions for developing urban projects. These solutions connect design with functionality, both ecological and recreational (e.g. ecologically designed basins can be used as reservoirs to retain heavy rainfall and as biotopes for diverse flora and fauna). This challenge is even more exacerbated in big urban conurbations that plan to host a high number of new dwellers; this situation entails the necessity to maintain the right balance between built-up areas and natural and agricultural spaces. The analysis of the selected projects suggests a reappraisal of the function and status of nature in the city that goes beyond the aesthetics of nature in the urban environment and the response to social expectations or the economic development of territories, including the environmental functions reassigned to nature in the city. This inclusion makes nature the indispensable balancing factor for sustainable urban development (shade, fight against heat islands, habitat for Table 5.2  Sustainability elements of Caserne de Bonne and Lyon Confluence Environmental performance

Social factors

Nature en ville

Caserne de Bonne Buildings with a high energy performance Use of renewable energy resources Sustainable management of the water resource Recycled building materials 35% of social housing Involvement of different stakeholders

Creation of new open and green spaces, in continuity with the existing neighbouring parks which have been extended

Lyon Confluence Buildings with a high energy performance

25% of social housing and 25% at a moderate price Participatory approach among all stakeholders (public and private promoters, developers and architects) Organisation of public debates and thematic ateliers with citizens Creation of water basin in connection with the Saône river Close relation with the riverbanks and the Rives de Saône project

116

5  Ecological Planning

biodiversity, etc.). Besides, projects show an evolution in the representations and uses of nature. They seek a pragmatic and globalising approach based on aesthetic, ecological and economic features. In this approach, natural and landscape assets represent the overarching elements of these projects, becoming the catalysts for the aesthetic and environmental regeneration of the dense and the diffused city. In this perspective, the renewal and repositioning of our knowledge on nature must be sustained by adequate planning and design systems and calls into question massive public policies in terms of aesthetics, use and repositioning of technical expertise and know-how. In this sense, nature and its related cultural knowledge become a condition of urban life. The result is the vision of a less standardised and more diversified nature. On the contrary, on this front, Italian experimentation is quite limited. Indeed, the selected experiences provide mainly methodological indications and operative modalities for constructing the local ecological network. Difficulties arise when shifting from the network conceived as a strategic scenario to tangible territorial valorisation projects. For example, the REM project shows the necessity to provide cities with new and improved projects, above all in the cases where cities have lost their identity in terms of form and functionality. The REM attempted to define the possible links between ecological networks and cities, introducing the element of nature in cities. The proposed actions include the redesign of residual areas, the design of greener neighbourhoods and the valorisation of periurban and rural landscapes. The limited implementation in the Italian framework forces us to find other possible ways to apply GI operatively and introduce natural and landscape elements in urban environments. A possible way can be found in the territorial planning tool of the River Agreement (RA). Since the beginning of the decision-making process, the RA is based on voluntary participatory action (Voghera 2020). In this framework of merging planning and design, the RA proves to be suitable to guide the realisation of specific territorial projects, also in separate parts. Indeed, it is a method to define a territorial and governance scenario for the identification of “a shared strategy, actions and rules for the water quality of the river and for environmental and landscape regeneration, and socio-economic development of the river basin” (Voghera and Giudice 2020, p.  6). In the analysed region of Piedmont, the RA has been applied in some pioneering experiences, the Sangone river and the Stura di Lanzo river. These experiences are flexible tools that prove to be operative in mediating local conflicts and interests through negotiated processes (IRES Piemonte 2012). The RA of the Sangone has been developed in the framework of the Corona Verde project (see Sect. 4.2.2); this synergy contributed to realising several projects. In the definition of a design approach, the RA represents an “opportunity for building the territorial project with the contribution of the communities, to launch that environmental and landscape regeneration, with the transformation of systems of actions, some of which small and molecular, sustained by local actors” (Voghera 2016, p. 22). In particular, a project of this kind demands “interconnection in an overall

5.2  Merging Planning and Design

117

strategy, capable of building up through environmental reclamation and regeneration processes and actions which might even be minimal” (Voghera 2016, p. 22). Only recently, the city of Turin has activated the public consultation process of the Strategic Plan of the Green Infrastructure. This plan is an analysis and planning tool to guide investments and management policies for Turin’s public urban green spaces over the next few decades. Encompassing both existing and expected green areas, the proposed plan is based on two analytical approaches: the first, the socalled greenprint, is both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the entire public green system, while the second is the quantitative and economic analysis of the ecosystem services provided by the urban GI. Once the plan has entered into force, it will provide strategies to enhance urban biodiversity and contrast climate vulnerabilities, evaluate ecosystem services provided by the GI, and introduce new forms of public-private partnerships for managing and strengthening the green system. This plan will be the occasion to set a system of interconnected green spaces, overcoming the “isolation” of current urban projects4 and forestation actions. Nevertheless, once it is approved, it will be possible to make some conclusions on its effectiveness to connect green spaces in a local GI. All the cases (French urban projects and Italian RAs) show that the development of such strategies requires the definition of a coordinated and coherent territorial project to be discussed through a massive participatory process among different stakeholders and citizens. The realisation of these projects is functional for the necessary ecological transition of cities and contributes to increasing their international attractiveness. Biodiversity preservation plays a significant role in this process, and it should represent the starting point for all urban projects of re-development and regeneration. The initial metaphor of turning the tide is again central in this mechanism where urban design is not only related to sustainability but also the new umbrella concept of resilience (Pickett et al. 2004; Colding 2007). In the field of resilience, which will be discussed in the next paragraph, the landscape and the environmental project should represent, mainly at the local scale, the starting point for territorial safety, good climatic quality, coping both with adaptation and uncertainty. Besides, new features come into play: spaces need to be reversible and understood in their multiplicity and evolution over time. Their arrangements have to be thought of according to the evolutionary character and temporality. The metaphor of GI contributes to developing a comprehensive approach on the systemic ecological cycle to be placed at the base of the territorial project, envisioning both an aesthetic purpose and an overall positive environmental impact. To overcome the limits of available spaces designed for green spaces, “planners and urban designers should therefore consider how land use in urban settings could optimally serve as ‘buffers’ around patches of natural habitats” (Colding 2007, p. 50). This challenge can, again, be achieved at different scales by GI.

 The most known example is the post-industrial park of Parco Dora.

4

118

5  Ecological Planning

5.3  Defining Perspectives for Sustainable and Resilient Cities As the urban population is estimated to continue increasing, cities will continue playing a central role in sustainability policies. The French and Italian experiences show that some new tendencies are paving the way for renovation processes of planning practices. Biodiversity and soil preservation, landscape valorisation, climate change mitigation and GI development play a central role in rethinking these planning practices. Nevertheless, an overarching adaptation and achievement of these objectives entail other aspects to be taken into consideration that are currently emerging in the international literature and research. To contain land take, the development of GI may not seem sufficient, but, differently from other mitigation and compensation actions,5 it allows including natural, landscape and biodiversity aspects at the different scales of planning and design. These aspects currently represent the most challenging ones, also in relation to the ongoing global pandemic crisis. To be prepared for future pandemic makes it necessary to acknowledge that human, wildlife and ecological health are very close and inseparable. In this perspective, such topics as biodiversity and soil preservation, landscape valorisation, climate change mitigation and GI development fully converge in the framework of sustainable development. Nevertheless, what emerges in recent studies is the uprising of some umbrella concepts. In particular, the resilience concept (Davoudi 2012) permeates different research fields, including the planning one (Brunetta et al. 2019). The international literature shows that there have been many attempts to delineate a suitable definition and the role of resilience in relation to the field of application (Meerow et al. 2016). In this context, the most appropriate resilience concept to be mentioned is the social-ecological one (Folke 2006). It stems from systems ecology (Holling 1973), connecting ecological systems and human societies, and, despite the minimal attention, it may imply significant relations with planning theory (Wilkinson 2011). In social-ecological resilience, it is possible to place the issue of GI (Meerow and Newell 2017; Voghera and Giudice 2019). Nevertheless, current research on the resilience of GI is limited to climate change adaptation and stormwater management, while a comprehensive understanding of other issues lacks. Resilience also enters the design field. When dealing with design actions, it is necessary to encompass the aesthetic and creative components in the technical definition of resilience based on ecological science (Pickett et al. 2004). Such a description allows the “continued adjustment and self-organization of urban systems” (Pickett et al. 2004). In design, it is essential to establish dialogues and design projects that could comprise and engage multidisciplinary teams (planners, ecologists and designers). The multi- and interdisciplinarity allow enriching the process and the project engaging experimental groups in fruitful reflection on the reproducibility of technical systems and project implementation methods. As the project matures and new challenges and social understanding may occur, it will be necessary to activate continuous monitoring.

5  For an overview on a specific compensation action, see the experimentation of the Environmental Compensation Plan of Stura di Lanzo River (Voghera and Giudice 2020).

5.3  Defining Perspectives for Sustainable and Resilient Cities

119

Connected to resilience, cities are orienting their policies and programs toward climate protection actions and implementing nature-based solutions to enhance the provision of ecosystem services. In this discourse, GI plays a central role. If strategically implemented, it can help increase the sustainability and resilience of urban ecosystems and social-ecological systems (SES). In particular, GI contributes to defining better the principles of multifunctionality, diversity, connectivity and continuity. These GI principles are the most familiar to planners, but they have little consideration in planning documents (Pauleit et al. 2020). In this sense, it is necessary to make an effort in conceptualising, for example, connectivity, proposing more than just one purpose (e.g. the spatial linkage of green spaces) and multifunctionality. These concepts (sustainability, resilience, ecosystem services, social-ecological systems) are a key question for planning and managing GI. At the same time, GI enables limiting land take, because it coordinates “the regulatory restrictions of land-use transformations within a landscape networks design”, protects permeability of urban ecosystems, contributes to implementing a general strategy for the densification of cities and facilitates regeneration processes (Arcidiacono and Ronchi 2021, pp. 10–11). The vague character of GI allows experimenting new “approaches and practices that define and change contextualized traditions of environmental planning” (Reimer and Rusche 2019, p. 2). These new conceptualisations of environmental planning practices should involve biodiversity aspects. As already mentioned, urbanisation directly affects biodiversity loss, and conservation challenges are required (McKinney 2002). Many studies show that the city is home to real biodiversity more or less connected to periurban spaces, favoured by the increasingly ecological management of green spaces and urban parks (Clergeau and Machon 2014). These urban green areas meet fundamental challenges in terms of living conditions, leisure activities, but also agriculture through shared gardens and local activities of periurban agriculture. This biodiversity is achieved through nature that transforms the city into a biotope, supporting the existence of a new and enriched urban ecosystem. Currently, to reach out to sustainability and resilience, researchers and practitioners must pay attention to biodiversity on every occasion of the project and plan. The scope of the urban project and plan must then be reshaped according to new requirements to preserve as many remnant natural areas as possible. In this field, nature occupies and manages the core of the project and its peripheries in a technical and aesthetic way to gradually take the form of a biotope. The renaturalisation of damaged areas or the preservation of existing natural sites contribute to enriching urban biodiversity (e.g. the colonisation of these areas by short-distance migratory species). The element of nature draws the contours of the contemporary living environment and habitability which produce new devices to accommodate figures of rich and intertwined natures (wild, domesticated, resilient, poetic, segmented, etc.). To support biodiversity and increase available habitats for species, planning must struggle to cluster and connect different types of urban green spaces, promoting landscape complementation functions and encouraging key ecosystem processes (Colding 2007).

120

5  Ecological Planning

Societal challenges show that it is necessary to promote a comprehensive social, ecological and economic perspective on cities and urban green spaces. Nevertheless, the path toward more sustainable and resilient cities, above all in some European countries, is still long and arduous. To reach this comprehensive perspective, it is essential to start integrating the concept of resilience and the emergence of biodiversity aspects in planning. Simultaneously, it is possible to trace some additional steps and open issues to be undertaken: an adequate fiscal system, a more operative project action (Sect. 5.2), a compensatory system, a performative approach to planning and an inclusive participatory process. Considering these issues, regional and urban planning needs to be more flexible and adaptive. Finding an adequate fiscal system appears necessary as our economic behaviours have resulted in being irremediably unfair to ecological issues, and this global ecological modification seems to be a product of these unfair behaviours (Perulli 2014). Like the Italian “oneri di urbanizzazione”,6 some planning fees are counterproductive and enable the increase of municipal land take. The necessity for municipalities to collect financial resources obliged them to increase the number of permitted construction grants which led to a consequent increase in land take. Instead, like Germany, some countries introduced a system of ecological account (ökokonto) in planning to supply environmental and ecosystem losses (Voghera and Destudio 2019). This mechanism is connected to environmental compensation, enabling creating new environmental values (Kuiper 1997; Cowell 2000) to make amends for damage (Elliott and Cutts 2004). In this perspective, it is possible to minimise the effects of land take by “creating commensurate environmental benefits and values” near the environmentally degraded areas (Voghera and Giudice 2020). As the last aspect, the restless quest for sustainable and resilient cities calls for a more performative and flexible planning model instead of a conforming and prescriptive one. Performance-based planning (PBP), originally conceived in Anglo-­ Saxon countries (the United States, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand) and in Nordic countries in the 1970s, can ease the decision-making process in planning choices (Baker et al. 2006). While conforming planning is based on a fixed land-use zoning, this approach enables the activation of less prescriptive and non-binding planning, tailored to local characteristics, and the consideration of the environmental situation. This consideration allows choosing and establishing land uses with reference to their specific features. In this perspective, PBP allows evaluating and reducing the environmental impacts of development. Furthermore, urban projects and plans are no longer only decided upon a set of quantitative standards but upon combined criteria (Voghera and Giudice 2020). In this approach, GI can find their operative way, enabling the improvement of the performance of the urban ecosystem (Ronchi et al. 2020). 6  “Oneri di urbanizzazione” correspond to a payment to transfer to municipalities when demanding for a building grant. These planning fees were originally used to finance new urbanisation works. Nevertheless, since their first definition at the end of the 1970s, they have changed their original purpose and, 20 years after, they served to fill municipal resources for current expenses. Nowadays, starting from the 1st January 2018, Italian planning fees are again used for their original purpose to finance new urbanisation works.

5.3  Defining Perspectives for Sustainable and Resilient Cities

121

If we consider the Italian and French situation, it emerges how their pathways toward a renovated regional and urban planning oriented to landscape and biodiversity valorisation, sustainability and resilience are quite different. The Italian path seems still long and slow. Even though the 2010 National Strategy for Biodiversity, few operative references emerge. In this perspective, the most significant experience is regional landscape planning which allows integrating some biodiversity aspects. Some Regions are pushing forward the process of landscape planning, even though the reference to biodiversity relevance is still weak and limited. The importance to limit land take seems more evident, but some Regions have missed the opportunity to approve effective laws. Single municipalities have always envisaged “oversized” prescriptions in their urban plan, while nowadays, they face opposite tendencies (population decrease, empty or underused buildings). On the contrary, France has undertaken a different path, identifying the ecological transition as one of the principal engines for sustainable development. This identification has paved the way for structural changes in conceiving and introducing ecology and nature in planning at different scales. The result was the creation of a national strategy from which it emerges that it is necessary to rehabilitate, enhance actively, and green the empty and unbuilt spaces through important environmental, ecological and landscape projects. The proposed aspects represent a good starting point to achieve a comprehensive perspective and approach to land take that considers and integrates both ecological and social elements in the planning process. The identification of this perspective also entails a general reconsideration of scale in planning and design. Local experimentations taken as a single entity are little effective. Limited coordination and coherence between scales can indeed negatively influence the development and maintenance of GI, biodiversity and landscape policies. To be more performative, they need to be included in a coherent, coordinated, integrated and flexible system where general principles become practical realities. Therefore, anticipating the effects of land-use planning on biodiversity must be conducted on multiple scales (from local to regional and even global), especially when focusing on ecological continuity issues which involves ecological dynamics on different spatial and temporal scales. Nevertheless, the realisation of GI could encounter different kinds of barriers (social, institutional or financial) which could lead to a miscomprehension and difficulty in realising the expected actions. To overcome some of these obstacles, this comprehensive perspective also needs broad public involvement. Numerous scenarios for the evolution of territories must be developed by large working groups involving the knowledge of local actors. This local knowledge makes it possible to characterise land use in a detailed manner by integrating different uses and environments adapted to the challenges of each territory. Starting from consolidated and ongoing experiences, there remains a concern that they will actually succeed in taking account of the many interdependencies and if there will be enough time for their effects to become effective. This concern is crucial if we consider ongoing uncertain times and their impacts on cities and societies. Climate change calls for nature-based mitigation and adaptation actions (Demuzere

122

5  Ecological Planning

et al. 2014; Matthews et al. 2015; Sussams et al. 2015). The recent COVID-19 pandemic will undoubtedly represent an unprecedented testbed for future times to understand how cities might be affected by other pandemics and how they will react to minimise the impacts (Sharifi and Khavarian-Garmsir 2020). In this continuously changing and unexpected context, planners and policymakers will have to make an effort in finding the right priorities for achieving the ecological future of cities.

References Andersson E, Langemeyer J, Borgström S et  al (2019) Enabling green and blue infrastructure to improve contributions to human well-being and equity in urban systems. Bioscience 69(7):566–574. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz058 Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S (2021) Challenges for contemporary spatial planning in Italy. Towards a new paradigm. In: Arcidiacono A, Ronchi S (eds) Ecosystem services and green infrastructure. Perspectives from spatial planning in Italy. Springer, Cham, pp 1–16 Baker DC, Sipe NG, Gleeson BJ (2006) Performance-based planning: perspectives from the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. J Plan Educ Res 25(4):396–409. https://doi.org/1 0.1177/0739456X05283450 Benevolo L (1996) L’Italia da costruire. Un programma per il territorio. Laterza, Roma-Bari Bottero M, Caprioli C, Cotella G et  al (2019) Sustainable cities: a reflection on potentialities and limits based on existing eco-districts in Europe. Sustainability 11:5794. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11205794 Brunetta G, Ceravolo R, Barbieri CA et al (2019) Territorial resilience: toward a proactive meaning for spatial planning. Sustainability 11(8):2286. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082286 Clergeau P, Machon N (2014) Où se cache la biodiversité en ville? 90 clés pour comprendre la nature en ville. Éditions Quae, Versailles Colding J (2007) ‘Ecological land-use complementation’ for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plan 81(1–2):46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.016 Cowell R (2000) Environmental compensation and the mediation of environmental change: making capital out of Cardiff Bay. J Environ Plan Manag 43(5):689–710. https://doi. org/10.1080/713676580 Davoudi S (2012) Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? Plan Theory Pract 13(2):299–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124 Demuzere M, Orru K, Heidrich O et  al (2014) Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J Environ Manag 146:107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025 Elliott M, Cutts N (2004) Marine habitats: loss and gain, mitigation and compensation. Mar Pollut Bull 49(9–10):671–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.08.018 Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 Giudice B, Novarina G, Voghera A (2017) Reti verdi e blu. Una strategia per la resilienza urbana. In: Talia M (ed) Un futuro affidabile per la città. Apertura al cambiamento e rischio accettabile nel governo del territorio, XIV edizione Progetto Paese, Triennale di Milano, 21 novembre 2017. Planum, Roma-Milano, pp  104–109. Available via http://www.planum.net/un-­futuro-­ affidabile-­per-­la-­citta. Assessed 15 January 2021 Giudice B, Novarina G, Voghera A (2021) L’intégration de la trame écologique et paysagère dans la planification territoriale - Mise en perspective des stratégies de deux régions alpines en France et en Italie. Revue Sciences Eaux & Territoires 36:8–15. https://doi.org/10.14758/ SET-REVUE.2021.2.01 Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

References

123

IRES Piemonte (2012) I Contratti di fiume e di lago in Piemonte. Politiche per la tutela e il mantenimento della risorsa acqua. Rapporto di Ricerca, Torino. Available via http://www.ires. piemonte.it/pdf/Rapporto-­Contratti-­fiume-­di-­lago-­Piemonte.pdf. Assessed 5 January 2021 Kuiper G (1997) Compensation of environmental degradation by highways: a Dutch case study. Eur Environ 7(4):118–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-­0976(199707/08)7:43.0.CO;2-­K Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Von Wehrden H (2013) A systematic review of guiding principles for sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landsc Urban Plan 118:40–52. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.06.002 Matthews T, Lo AY, Byrne JA (2015) Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landsc Urban Plan 138:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.010 McDonnell MJ, MacGregor-Fors I (2016) The ecological future of cities. Science 352(6288):936–938. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3630 McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52(10):883–890. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-­3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2 Meerow S, Newell JP (2017) Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: growing resilience in Detroit. Landsc Urban Plan 159:62–75 Meerow S, Newell JP, Stults M (2016) Defining urban resilience: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 147:38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011 Pauleit S, Hansen R, Rall EL, et al (2020) Green infrastructure for the city of the future. Perspectives from Europe. Working papers. Rivista online di Urban@it, 2. Available via https://www.urbanit.it/wp-­content/uploads/2020/10/BP_Pauleit_EtAl.pdf. Assessed 15 February 2021 Perulli P (ed) (2014) Terra mobile. Atlante della società globale. Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi, Torino Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM (2004) Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landsc Urban Plan 69(4):369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.035 Reimer M, Rusche K (2019) Green infrastructure under pressure. A global narrative between regional vision and local implementation. Eur Plan Stud 27(8):1542–1563. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/09654313.2019.1591346 Ronchi S, Arcidiacono A, Pogliani L (2020) Integrating green infrastructure into spatial planning regulations to improve the performance of urban ecosystems. Insights from an Italian case study. Sustain Cities Soc 53:101907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101907 Sharifi A, Khavarian-Garmsir AR (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic: impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Sci Total Environ 749:142391. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142391 Sussams LW, Sheate WR, Eales RP (2015) Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future? J Environ Manag 147:184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.09.003 Voghera A (2016) Approaches, tools, methods and experiences for territorial and landscape design. In: Ingaramo R, Voghera A (eds) Topics and methods for urban and landscape design. Springer, Cham, pp 13–34 Voghera A (2020) The river agreement in Italy. Resilient planning for the co-evolution of communities and landscapes. Land Use Policy 91:104377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2019.104377 Voghera A, Destudio M (2019) Il Piano delle Compensazioni Ambientali del fiume Stura di Lanzo. Sperimentazioni metodologiche. Arch Stud Urban Reg 126:118–140. https://doi.org/10.3280/ ASUR2019-­126007 Voghera A, Giudice B (2019) Evaluating and planning green infrastructure: a strategic perspective for sustainability and resilience. Sustainability 11:2726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102726 Voghera A, Giudice B (2020) Defining a social-ecological performance to prioritize compensatory actions for environmental regeneration. The experimentation of the environmental compensation plan. Sustain Cities Soc 61:102357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102357 Wilkinson C (2011) Social-ecological resilience: insights and issues for planning theory. Plan Theory 11(2):148–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095211426274

Afterword: Toward an Urbanism of Biodiversity?

Gilles Novarina Centre of Excellence in Architecture Environment & Building Cultures, Grenoble School of Architecture - Grenoble Alpes University [email protected] Since the beginning of the 2010s, in the two countries studied in Benedetta Giudice’s book, the preservation and restoration of biodiversity have gradually become one of the major objectives of national environmental and urban planning policies, identified as territorial planning actions led by the regions, departments or provinces, as well as by the new metropolitan institutions. The centralised government of France launched a national initiative, approving various laws (the second Grenelle law in 2010 and the law for the restoration of biodiversity, nature and landscapes in 2016) to encourage regional and local authorities to include the objectives of preservation of the green and blue grid in their territorial and urban planning documents (SRADDET, SRCE, SCoT, PLU). In Italy, whose system is sometimes characterised by administrative federalism, the initiative came from the regions with the most consolidated tradition in territorial planning (Emilia-Romana, Piedmont, Puglia, Tuscany), which sought to integrate the objectives of preserving and restoring biodiversity into their landscape plans.

 wo Contrasting Strategies for Preserving T and Restoring Biodiversity Biodiversity policies have mainly resulted in the identification, in territorial planning strategies, of the Trames Vertes et Bleues in France and ecological networks in Italy, which are increasingly designed like green infrastructure that can provide ecosystem services. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 B. Giudice, Planning and Design Perspectives for Land Take Containment, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91066-2

125

126

Afterword: Toward an Urbanism of Biodiversity?

In Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, the methodology recently adopted in the framework of the SRCEs and the SRADDET is of the “eco-landscape” type (Région Auvergne-­ Rhône-­Alpes 2019): it integrates, in biodiversity reservoirs, territories that are subject to protection measures (nature reserves, listed or classified sites, Natura 2000 areas, biotope decrees) or land control measures (sensitive natural areas), as well as inventory perimeters (natural areas of ecological, faunal and floristic interest). The identification of ecological corridors, based on a cartographic study and expert opinions, has underlined the importance of “diffused corridors” or “permeable spaces”, located mainly in valleys, to ensure ecological connections. The methodology used is less scientific than pragmatic and was based on the scientific community and local stakeholders’ involvement. The SRADDET leads mainly to the publication of a “rules’ booklet” that sets out how local strategies and plans must specify the green and blue grid design at the inter-municipal and communal level. This regulatory content is in charge of accompanying measures with the introduction of green and blue contracts that allow the region to finance actions to restore ecological corridors at the local level. In the Piedmont Region, the approach developed to identify the constituent elements of the regional ecological network also combines ecological and landscape analyses and underlines this network’s multifunctional dimension. Provincial plans (PTCP) and sectoral plans are in charge of delimiting biodiversity reservoirs and ecological corridors. The methodology used in the PTCP of Turin seeks to define the level of naturality of the areas concerned and the resilience of natural areas to external anthropogenic pressures. The combination of these two indicators makes it possible to define the functionality (or non-functionality) of the various types of areas that make up the ecological network. Therefore, the approach developed in Piedmont is intended to be more scientific than that adopted in Auvergne-Rhône-­ Alpes and tends to underline the importance of the most extended natural territories and least affected by urbanisation in preserving biodiversity. The most significant local project, called Corona Verde, seeks to link the Dukes of Savoy’s Baroque residences, which form the Crown of Delights around the city of Turin, through ecological corridors, including footpaths and cycle paths. The main difference between these strategies in the two regions studied by Benedetta Giudice is the role assigned to what Italian town planners Bernardo Secchi and Paola Viganò call, by analogy with the città diffusa, the naturalità diffusa (Viganò 2001). In both countries, biodiversity reservoirs are large areas that are generally subject to protection measures. For example, the SRADDET of Auvergne-­ Rhône-­Alpes emphasises that 59% of its territory is included in a protection perimeter, even if not all these perimeters have a strict naturalistic content. Therefore, the challenge is not as the preservation of protected areas from urbanisation as the protection of ecological corridors in the valleys, most of which are largely urbanised. These corridors, which are made up of areas of “ordinary nature” (Région Auvergne-­ Rhône-­Alpes 2019) (i.e., extensive agricultural areas, natural environments without exceptional characteristics, hedges, wasteland), have no value as such but play a significant role in the development of the ecological network. These areas are particularly affected by fragmentation processes resulting from the construction of

Afterword: Toward an Urbanism of Biodiversity?

127

major transport infrastructures. Most often small in size, they are difficult to identify in wide-scale plans, and their preservation depends on the appropriate consideration of regional guidelines in local plans or projects.

The Importance of Plans and Projects at the Local Scale In France, local plans, whether inter-municipal or communal, are obliged to take into account the guidelines defined in regional strategies, whether sectoral or territorial. This legislative obligation has prompted local authorities to develop innovative approaches to biodiversity. The SCoT of the Greater Lyon metropolitan area, approved in 2010, proposes a polycentric organisation of the territory, whose backbone is the green and blue network (and the regional rail network). The PLUi of Grenoble Alpes Métropole (2019) has led to OAPs’ development, which set out the main principles for preserving and restoring the landscape and biodiversity with which operative projects must be compatible. This notion of compatibility, which is legally different from conformity, opens up the possibility of negotiations between local authorities and developers before obtaining planning permissions. In Italy, there are significant differences between regions and experimentations in biodiversity preservation have been conducted by local authorities that have built partnerships with universities, as with the Politecnico of Turin (Voghera and Giudice 2019). These experimentations have highlighted the importance of involving civil society stakeholders (associations for the protection of fauna and flora, farmers, dwellers, architecture and planning professionals) in identifying at the local level of the areas suitable for ecological networks. The same willingness to experiment can be found in a certain number of sustainable urban development projects, first and foremost eco-districts and environmentally friendly housing developments. They have enabled the implementation of new techniques under what has come to be known as “ecological engineering”, which consists of “man-made manipulation using a small amount of additional energy to control systems in which the main energy forces come from natural sources” (Odum 1962). Among these upcoming techniques, there is the differentiated management of green spaces, the collection of rainwater to feed open water canals or basins, the creation of green façades to regulate urban heat islands or the phyto-purification of wastewater. Such initiatives, often poorly coordinated, lead to the introduction of new natural areas in cities, often small in size, whose contribution to the restoration of the green and blue grid and biodiversity is sometimes difficult to assess.

A Necessary Change of Paradigm The most recent studies on urban ecology emphasise the need to overcome the approaches that have prevailed until now on the role of nature in the city. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, the creation of public parks and gardens in the

128

Afterword: Toward an Urbanism of Biodiversity?

main European cities reflected the desire to improve hygiene conditions in the city, with the vegetation being thought to play a role in air filtration. The aim was to provide each district with a minimum amount of green space in order to guarantee the population pleasant living conditions. Since the 1990s, these “greening policies”, based on a quantitative approach, have gradually been called into question, as landscape ecology has shown the importance of ecological corridors for biodiversity conservation (Novarina 2003). Nowadays, faced with the challenges of climate change and the rapid degradation of biodiversity, a new approach to nature and landscape is needed and must become “a conceptual basis for the urban project”. This approach, that of the “living landscape” (Clergeau 2020, p. 11), is based on a new conception of the relationship between man and nature: “nature is no longer simply a resource or an exterior, but a world on which we depend because we are a component of it” (Abadie 2020, p. 17). Therefore, the city must be considered an ecosystem, and all the services that nature and the landscape provide must be taken into account in the urban planning project. Such a paradigm shift should lead urban planners not only to innovate but also to reinterpret the precedents from which they build their actions and projects. Previous urban planning theories are indeed rich in their approach to the role of nature in the city. Indeed, the idea of networking natural areas did not arise from the rediscovery of landscape ecology at the end of the 1980s, but it was already present, in the mid-­ nineteenth century, in the thinking of engineers and architects who were involved in the restructuring of large European or North American cities. Adolphe Alphand, who was responsible to Baron Haussmann for the Department of Plantations and Promenades of the City of Paris, was among the first to speak of a green spaces system and recommend a landscape design tailored to the characteristics of the site (Audouy et al. 2018). He is also the inventor of the avenue parc, which aimed to link public parks and gardens. Frederic Law Olmsted, who visited Paris in 1859, took up the principles developed by Alphand and made the parkway a structuring element of the park system he set up in Boston (1880) and then in Chicago (1893). In Boston, this landscape architect integrates the need to manage the Muddy River’s flooding into his landscape projects by creating waterways that, like parkways, link public parks and gardens (Hunt 2018). Finally, Jean-Claude Nicolas Forestier, a collaborator of Adolphe Alphand, is credited with meticulously describing the constituent elements of the park system and making it an essential complement to the urban plan (Forestier 1997). Nevertheless, even more than these initiatives of the first landscape architects, as Benedetta Giudice points out in her book, it is the garden city that constitutes the most successful attempt to integrate nature into the city’s construction. The garden city is not merely a city with plenty of nature, but it is a city structured by nature in a series of interconnected elements, each of which has a particular function: • The central park around which the main public buildings are located, which are the framework of the communitarian life, • The park avenues, which provide the link between the various wards (neighbourhoods) and which accommodate local facilities, particularly primary schools,

Afterword: Toward an Urbanism of Biodiversity?

129

• The collective gardens of the closes which are shared by a basic group of dwellings, • The private gardens attached to each housing unit, • The green belt surrounding the garden city that separates it from other cities and constitutes both a food production area and a space for relaxation and leisure. Therefore, nature plays a structuring role not only at the level of the overall urban plan (central park, park avenues, green belt) but also of the sub-components of the city (communal gardens, private gardens, planted streets). Since it emphasises the different roles and functions (relaxation, sports leisure, food production, contribution to public hygiene) that nature can play in the city, the garden city model can constitute a precedent of primary importance for contemporary urban planning experimentations which seek to integrate the imperatives of preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Initiatives to revive the garden city are currently underway in Great Britain (for example, we can cite the submissions by URBED and Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. for the 2014 Wolfson Economic Prize), which are oriented in this sense and apply the principles of the garden city to the restructuring of areas affected by sprawl (Sadoux et al. 2017).

The Issue of Management of Spaces of “Nature en Ville” Changing the paradigm to build urban planning for biodiversity must lead urban planners, architects and landscape architects to consider the contemporary city as a whole. While the new urbanists recall that the majority of the American population lived in sprawl territories (Duany et al. 2010), Italian architects and urban planners have clearly shown that these territories constitute a città diffusa, i.e., a city in the full sense of the term which accommodates housing, amenities and economic activities (Indovina 1990; Secchi 2000, p. 74). This città diffusa, organised like a patchwork, integrates still cultivated agricultural land, shreds of forest, wasteland or neglected land. These spaces of ordinary nature  – to recall the term used by the SRADDET of the Auvergne Rhône-Alpes Region  – can become the elements of ecological networks that will play a leading role in the restructuring and requalification of a città diffusa characterised by dispersion and fragmentation. In a city that makes sense on the scale of what Italians call the area vasta, what others call the regional city or the metropolitan area, the spaces designed to become the constituent elements of the ecological networks represent increasingly essential areas. The management methods of urban parks, which are still in use today and based on public ownership of land and management by specialised municipal services, appear to be increasingly unsuitable in most European countries. If it constitutes a common good, the green and blue grid cannot be the object of public appropriation, as urban parks have been until now. If the costs of acquiring agricultural or forest land are not necessarily high, their maintenance costs are hardly compatible with local authorities’ resources.

130

Afterword: Toward an Urbanism of Biodiversity?

This is a challenge that ecology specialists, urban planning professionals and, more broadly, public administrators must face by seeking solutions based on cooperation between the public administration, private companies and the third sector (non-governmental organisations specialising in the field of environmental protection). Some of these solutions are already well known, such as the voluntary associations that manage natural reserves. Other solutions are upsetting the division of roles between the public and private sectors by, for example, entrusting the maintenance of natural areas to companies. In this respect, eyes immediately turn to urban agriculture, which could be called upon to take on more and more tasks in managing natural areas. However, urban agriculture must not be limited to the cultivation of new residential buildings’ flat roofs. The challenge is to maintain or establish new multi-purpose enterprises that, in addition to their traditional function of producing quality food products, develop other activities and services. Among these services, it is worth mentioning, apart from the already mentioned maintenance of natural spaces, the education of people or groups involved in cultivating a shared garden, the composting of part of the household waste or energy production (biomass). Such management methods also question the principle that public ownership of parks and gardens necessarily entails opening them up to the public. The imperatives of protecting fauna and flora, as well as the use of agricultural land for breeding or cultivation, are not always compatible with opening up the areas concerned for the population’s leisure or relaxation. There is every reason to believe that the spaces that make up the green and blue grid will sometimes be public property, sometimes private property, that some of them will be set aside, that others will be open to the public, which will imply that new collective land-use rights will be guaranteed to the urban population. Therefore, Benedetta Giudice’s research opens up new paths for reflection and action that are not limited to territorial planning but question the practice of architectural and urban planning, as well as the methods of administration and management of urbanised or natural territories.

References Abadie L (2020) La nature nous rend des services. In: Clergeau P (ed) Urbanisme et biodiversité. Vers un paysage vivant structurant le projet urbain. Éditions Apogée, Rennes, pp 17–26 Audouy M, Le Dantec JP, Nussaume Y, Santini C (eds) (2018) Le Grand Pari(s) d’Alphand. Création et transmission d’un paysage urbain. Éditions de La Villette, Paris Clergeau P (2020) L’urgence d’un changement de paradigme. In: Clergeau P (ed) Urbanisme et biodiversité. Vers un paysage vivant structurant le projet urbain. Éditions Apogée, Rennes, pp 9–13 Duany A, Plater-Zyberk E, Speck J (2010) Suburban nation: the rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. North Point Press, New York Forestier JCN (1997) Grandes villes et systèmes de parcs. Norma Éditions, Paris Hunt JD (2018) Les Promenades de Paris et le Landscape Urbanism. In: Audouy M, Le Dantec JP, Nussaume Y, Santini C (eds) Le Grand Pari(s) d’Alphand. Création et transmission d’un paysage urbain. Éditions de La Villette, Paris, pp 139–146

Afterword: Toward an Urbanism of Biodiversity?

131

Indovina F (ed) (1990) La città diffusa. Daest-IUAV, Venezia Novarina G (2003) Ville diffuse et système du vert. Rev Géogr Alp 91(4):9–17 Odum HT (1962) Ecological tools and their use. Man and the ecosystem. In: Waggoner PE, Ovington JD (eds) Proceedings of the Lockwood conference on the suburban forest and ecology. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 652. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, pp 57–75 Région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (2019) Ambition Territoires 2030. Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Schéma régional d’aménagement de développement durable et d’égalité des territoires. Annexe Biodiversité. Available via https://jeparticipe.auvergnerhonealpes.fr/sraddet/sraddet-­projet-­ definitif. Assessed 10 January 2021 Sadoux S, Novarina G, Parham S et  al (2017) La Garden City, une référence pour la requalification de la ville diffuse. In: Mantzarias P, Milbert I, Viganò P (eds) Inégalités Urbaines. MētisPresses, Genève, pp 195–212 Secchi B (2000) Prima lezione di urbanistica. Laterza, Roma-Bari Viganò P (ed) (2001) Territori della nuova modernità/Territories of a new modernity. Electa, Napoli Voghera A, Giudice B (2019) Evaluating and planning green infrastructure: a strategic perspective for sustainability and resilience. Sustainability 11:2726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102726

Index

A ALUR laws, 57 Ambiti di Integrazione Territoriali (AIT), 99 Aménagement du territoire, 51 Artificialisation, 15 B Biodiversity, 111, 113, 116–121 Biodiversity reservoirs, 62 Bioecological approach, 104 Biotope, 115, 119 C Calabria Region, 61 Campagnes urbaines, 20 Campanilismo, 55 Carte Communale, 52 Caserne de Bonne, 114, 115 Chieri, 107 Cities, changed conditions, 1 Cities of Grenoble and Lyon, 72–74 Città diffusa, 19 Climate change adaptation, 34 Climate change mitigation, 118 Coefficient d’Occupation des Sols (COS), 51 Common Law, 43 Communauté de communes de l’Est lyonnais (CCEL), 77 Communauté de communes du Pays de l’Ozon (CCPO), 77 Compendi urbani neorurali, 59 Complex adaptive systems, 7 Complex ecological identities, 7 Comprensori, 97, 98

Confluence, 74 Confluence Lyon, 94 Contemporary cities, 114 Corine Land Cover (CLC), 41 Corona Verde project, 99, 116 Côte d’Azur, 41 COVID-19 pandemic, 3 Cultural movement, 22 D Decentralisation process, 48 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), 27 Directive Territoriale d’Aménagement (DTA), 78 di Torino, Politecnico, 107 E Écocité Grenobloise, 95 Eco-districts, 114 Ecological functionality, 105 Ecological knowledge, 3, 4 Ecological networks, 64–66 Ecological planning French and Italian approaches, 111–113 merging planning and design, 114, 116, 117 sustainable and resilient cities, 118–120, 122 Ecological regeneration, 58 Ecological transition, 6 Ecological turn land take, 30–33 Ecological Urbanism, 23

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 B. Giudice, Planning and Design Perspectives for Land Take Containment, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91066-2

133

Index

134 Economic priorities, 76 Emilia-Romagna Regions, 61 Emscher Park, 33 Energy and sustainable economic development (ENEA), 104 English greenbelts, 28 Environmental and ecological turn land take, 30–33 Environmental infrastructure, 6 Environmental priorities, 76 EPCI, 53 EU Compendium, 46 EU framework, 4 European Commission, 31 European Convention on Landscape (ELC), 52 European Environmental Agency (EEA), 8, 18 European policies land take, 23–26 European research project, 46 European territories, 20 European Union (EU), 20 F Fourvière, 75 France green infrastructure in, 61–66 institutional setting, 47–50 land take, 39, 40 planning tools, 50–56 French cities, 112, 114, 117, 118, 121 French Ministry of Agriculture, 40 French Ministry of Ecology, 41 French planning systems, 42, 43, 46 French Regions, 40, 48, 49 French territory, 47 Friuli-Venezia-Giulia Region, 65 G Garibaldi, Rue, 91 GI construction, methodological innovations in, 102–106 Giunta of Abruzzo, 61 Global pandemic crisis, 118 Governo del territorio, 54, 55 Grand Lyon policy, 91 Green belts, 5, 9, 27–30 Green hearts, 29, 30, 84 Green infrastructure (GI), 5, 7–9, 30, 32, 34, 111–114, 116–121 cities of Grenoble and Lyon, 72–74 in France and Italy, 61–66 planning tools, 74–78

Rhône-Alpes Region, 71, 72 Trames Vertes et Bleues, 78–87, 90 urban project approach, 90–96 Green lungs, 86 Greenprint, 117 Greenways, 5, 31 Grenelle laws, 56, 61, 62 Grenoble, 73, 95 metropolitan agglomeration of, 86 Grenoble Metropolis, 73 H Homogeneous areas, 99 Hydrological cycles, 4 Hygienism, 34 I Infrastructures Vertes et Bleues (IVB), 79 Innovation, land take, 66–68 Institutional setting, 47–50 Institutional system Piedmont Region, 97–99 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 30 “Inverser le regard”, 114 Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA), 40, 41 Italian approaches, GI, 113 Italian National Biodiversity Strategy, 64 Italian planning systems, 42, 43, 46 Italian Provinces, 39 Italian Regions, 55 Italian urban plans, 2 Italy green infrastructure in, 61–66 institutional setting, 47–50 land take, 39–45 planning tools, 50–56 L Landscape Urbanism and Ecological Urbanism, 5 Landscape Urbanism movement, 114 Landscape valorisation, 113, 118 Land take coping with global and European policies, 23–26 diverse approach to, 33, 34 environmental and ecological turn, 30–33 France and Italy, 39–42, 44, 45

Index green infrastructure in, 61–66 institutional setting, 47–50 planning tools, 50–56 French and Italian planning systems, 42, 43, 46 innovation elements, 66–68 limitation towards sustainability, quest for, 27–30 New Urbanism, 22, 23 sustainability, planning for, 56–61 United States, 21 urban sprawl European interpretations, 17–21 terminology, time and place, 13–17 LGRE, 104 LGSV, 104 Loi d’Orientation sur le Développement et l’Aménagement du Territoire, 52 Loi NOTRe, 57 Lombardy Region, 65 London plan, 27 Lyon, 74, 76, 77 Lyon Confluence, 114, 115 Lyonnaise agglomeration, 83, 86 M Megalopoli padana, 19, 20 Merkel, Angela, 26 Métropoles, 49, 112 Metropolis, 95 Metropolis of Grenoble-Alpes, 87 Metropolitan Cities, 40, 49 Metropolitan City of Turin, 102, 106 Metropolizzazione, 18 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), 24 Ministry of Ecology, 40 Morainic Amphitheatre of Ivrea, 106 Multifunctional connection system of Chieri, 107 Multifunctionality, 7, 34 Municipal boundaries, 46 N Napoleonic Codes, 43 National Agency, 104 National Constitution, 5 National Ecological Network (NEN), 30 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 28 National Spatial Planning, 29 National Strategy for Biodiversity, 121 National Sustainable Development Strategy, 26 Nature en ville, 112, 115 Netherlands, 29

135 New Urbanism, 5, 21–23, 34 NOTRe, 49 O OAPs, 112 Operativity, 112 OSDDT-MED project, 102 P Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), 30 Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN), 30 Performance-based planning (PBP), 120 Piano Paesaggistico Regionale (PPR), 55, 98 Piano paesistico, 58 Piano Territoriale Regionale (PTR), 55, 98 Piedmont Region, 97, 113 GI construction, methodological innovations in, 102–106 institutional and planning, 97–99 sustainability issues, 99–102 Plan d’action durabilité (PAD), 93 Plan d’Occupation des Sols (POS), 51, 53 Plan Local d’Urbanisme (PLU), 52, 53 Plan Local d’Urbanisme Intercommunal (PLUi), 57, 112 Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2), 28 Planning system Piedmont Region, 97–99 Planning tools France and Italy, 50–56 green infrastructure, 74–78 the territorial operative project (PTO), 98 PLU-H, 87 Projet d’Aménagement et de Développement Durable (PADD), 53 Province of Turin, 102, 113 Provincial ecological network, 104 Provincial Territorial Plan of Coordination (PTCP), 102 Puglia, 65 R Reggio Emilia, 58 Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (ARPA), 100 Regional landscape plan of Tuscany, 65 Regional natural reserves (RNR), 79 Regional network of protected natural spaces (RERA), 79 Région Urbaine Grenobloise (RUG), 74

Index

136 REM, 66, 116 Réseau Écologique Départemental de l’Isère (REDI), 78 Resilience, 112, 114, 117–121 Resource Efficiency Roadmap, 25 Rhône-Alpes, 79 Rhône-Alpes Region, 71, 72, 78 Rhône-Alpes SRCE, 80 River Agreement (RA), 116 S Saône river landscape, 91 Schéma de Cohérence Territoriale (SCoT), 52–54, 63 Schéma Directeur d’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme (SDAU), 51, 53 Schéma Régional d’Aménagement, de Développement durable et d’Égalité des Territoires (SRADDET), 57, 62, 67, 81, 112 Schéma régional de coherence écologique (SRCE), 56, 62, 79 Secchi, Bernardo, 19 Second World War, 51 7th Environment Action Programme, 25 Smart Growth movement, 22 Social-ecological systems (SES), 5, 119 Social priorities, 76 Soil, 6 Soil preservation, 4, 7, 118 Soil sealing, 15, 20, 21, 25, 32 Sprawltown, 19 Stormwater management, 3 Sustainability, 27–30, 112, 114, 115, 117–119, 121 Piedmont Region, 99–102 planning, land take, 56–61 Sustainable development, 2 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 3, 24

T Thematic OAPs, 76 Trame Verte et Bleue (TVB), 56, 61, 62, 64, 78–87, 90, 112 Transdisciplinarity, 23 Transformations, 41 TVB of Lyon PLU-H, 89 U United Nations, 3 UN Sustainable Development Goals, 31 Urban design, 117 Urban green spaces, 5, 8 Urbanisation, 1–3, 6, 18 urbanistica, 54 Urban planning, 2, 49, 53–56, 58, 64, 66, 114, 120, 121 Urban Project approach, 90–96 Urban revitalisation, 72 Urban sprawl, 2, 3, 5, 8 European interpretations, 17–21 terminology, time and place, 13–17 V Veneto Region, 19 ville creative concept, 92 W Whyte, William, 14 Z ZAC Caserne de Bonne, 96 Zones d’Aménagement Concerté (ZAC), 52, 90, 93 Zwischenstadt, 19