Keywords

3.1 Landscape Amenity: A Politically Significant Issue

3.1.1 Should We Care for the Appearance of Rural Landscapes?

As regards perception, the idea of ‘landscape’ identifies a conceptual sphere that differs from that of ‘environment’ or ‘territory’, a sphere where image plays a fundamental role (Cassatella 2011, p. 105). It expresses the identity of a place, it facilitates our appreciation of its values and it is linked to the satisfaction felt by inhabitants when considering the quality of their surroundings.

The European Landscape Convention (CoE 2000) defines landscape as ‘an area, as perceived by people’ (Article 1) and recognises the fundamental role landscape plays in the ‘formation of local cultures’, ‘a basic component of the European natural and cultural heritage, contributing to human well-being and consolidation of the European identity’ (CoE 2000, Preamble).

Leisure and the enjoyment of the landscape have become significant factors in rural development, as emerges from the ‘commodification’ of certain rural landscape functions not directly involved in food production. The legibility of the landscape is a fundamental characteristic necessary for landscape orientation and use (Lynch 1960); turning former, intensively exploited landscapes into ‘legible’ ones is the principle behind the work done in many rural areas of historical and cultural value (Brinkhuijsen 2007).

The aesthetic qualities of particular rural landscapes help to make them an expression of the cultural identity of entire peoples. Italy protects the landscape thanks to its Constitution (1947); the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code (the Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio, Italian Republic 2004) ‘safeguards landscape in relation to aspects and characters which constitute a material and evident representation of national identity’ (Article 131).

At an international level, UNESCO lists and protects many rural landscapes as ‘cultural landscapes’ for—among other things—their singular legibility and scenic importance.Footnote 1 The internationally famous beauty of particular rural landscapes can become a promotional tool aiding local agricultural production, a factor in its commercial success and consequently that of the local economy (as is the case with wine production in the Cinque Terre area, in Italy).

In 2012, the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policies instituted the National Observatory of Rural Landscape, Agricultural Practices and Traditional Knowledge, responsible for surveying, research and the development of general principles and guidelines for the protection and enhancement of the rural landscape (Italian Republic, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole 2012; Agnoletti 2012).

If we look at the policies of other European countries, we find that the ‘enjoyment of the countryside’ is one of the objectives pursued by public policy in the UK (DEFRA 2000, p. 133). In the Netherlands, policies for rural territories work alongside strategies set up to safeguard landscape structure and the enhancement that is useful to more established economic and productive measures designed for the agricultural industry, thanks to national policy documents such as the Belvedere Memorandum (VROM 1999) and the Agenda Landschap (VROM and LNV 2008).

3.1.2 The Experience of Landscape Beauty as an Ecosystem Service

In theoretical frameworks of multifunctionality, landscape’s aesthetic dimension is considered part of the cultural ecosystem services, the subject of increasing interest in the ‘ecosystem services agenda’ (Daniel et al. 2012) and in studies addressing the economic value of the landscape (Van der Heide and Heijman 2013). Nevertheless, when it comes to the systematisation of ecosystem services, cultural ecosystem services are a category that attracts less interest compared to those that are usually the subject, for example, of landscape ecology (Antrop 2007). Daniel et al. (2012) stress the fact that cultural ecosystem services are currently neither adequately defined nor taken into account within the broader ecosystem services framework.

By comparing the most common ecosystem services (Table 3.1), we can draw a few conclusions. The leading cases of systematisation list among cultural ecosystem services many of the factors that are also the basis of current expert techniques for landscape characterisation and valuation (Landscape Institute 2013; Swanwick 2002). Moreover, cultural services performed by ecosystems can be assimilated with those provided by the landscape. Indeed, landscape studies also highlight similar systematisations, for example the one proposed by Natural England (2009).

Table 3.1 Ecosystem cultural services and landscape services within some theoretical frameworks
Full size table

Landscape is, essentially, perception (CoE 2000, Article 1). The systematisations of cultural services show that landscape amenity is not limited to its aesthetic or visual dimension, but it also consists of other aspects: identity, spirituality, cultural diversity, a sense of the past, active enjoyment and its educational role (Table 3.1). We can therefore assert that the beauty of a landscape is already encompassed by the functions still attributed to ecosystems. Nevertheless, we do come across issues that need to be addressed.

Reference to more specific services—and their identification—is weak or entirely lacking. As regards this aspect, systematisation does not seem to be adequately based on more recent progress made in specialist fields. For example, if more detailed services were highlighted, it would be easier to associate them with their respective sets of landscape indicators as developed in field literature to date (and as distinct from environmental ones, Cassatella 2011).

Our proposal is referring to three main, separate dimensions that can be used to analyse and characterise rural landscape amenity:

  • a memorial function, i.e. the image that contributes to recognising and passing on identity (associated values: a sense of history, symbolic value, significance, distinctiveness, unicity, fame, integrity…);

  • an aesthetic function, linked to contemplative enjoyment (associated values: beauty or scenic quality, tranquillity, sonority, variety, richness…);

  • a recreational function, equivalent to its possible active use, i.e. its use in terms of outdoor activities, tourism, as well as its educational and informative use (usability).

The next section will examine the possible relations between these and other functions of the rural landscape.

3.2 Multifunctional Landscape from Theory to Practice: Trade-offs in the Landscape

Scientific attention to the paradigm of landscape multifunctionality was raised in the context of agricultural policies and their evaluation (Rentig et al. 2009). One of the earliest and best-known definitions of the concept is as follows (see also Rega, infra, Introduction): “multifunctionality refers to the fact that an economic activity may have multiple outputs and, by virtue of this, may contribute to several societal objectives at once” (OECD 2001, p. 11).

The question which the OECD poses for agriculture (2001, p. 9), “multifunctionality: a characteristic or an objective?”Footnote 2, also applies to landscape: Considering multifunctionality an intrinsic characteristic of landscape leads to an underestimation of the potential negative interactions (or “trade-offs”) between different activities and policies, even if they all claim to be “sustainable”.

The assumption that diverse environment and landscape functions can co-exist “at once” has major implications for policy making and evaluative frameworks: landscape functions are usually meant to be dependent on environmental ones. As a consequence, they are not adequately developed, or they are considered a priori equal in sign. This conception is quite clear in current models of environmental assessment (applied, for example, in Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment), where landscape is a component of the environment, and is assessed by indicators derived from landscape ecology, or based on land-uses (Cassatella and Voghera 2011, p. 34). Even in Landscape Impact Assessment, in the field of perceptual indicators, the coincidence of naturalness and beauty is an implicit model. As a matter of fact, the most natural landscape may not always be the most scenic, however, most Visual Impact Assessment methods assume that they are (Churchward et al. 2013). The relationships between diversity of use/ecological diversity/visual diversity or between human-perceived naturalness/naturalness defined only by ecological characteristics needs to be clarified (Daniel 2001).

The consequence of the abovementioned paradigm is the idea that environment- and landscape-oriented actions can “naturally” coincide or otherwise derive mutual benefits. In practice, landscape values can conflict, depending on different social actors and perceptions. The following examples focus on the difficulty of managing the relationship between scenic values and other environmental functions.

The famous Dutch national ecological network project for the Randstad Holland envisaged the creation of ‘new wilderness’ areas with large-scale forestation work carried out in rural areas. Some people noted that this also led to the destruction of traditional agricultural landscapes that had both memorial and identity-building value. In general, such ‘greening’ projects can create visual barriers to important sights or limit the openness of panoramic views. In some landscape enhancement projects, the clearing of vegetation is necessary to improve scenic aspects and encourage usability, to uncover historical landmarks or restore views of historical importance. In the Netherlands, this is the policy followed in some sites protected as Natural Landscapes, but such work can lead to negative repercussions for the environment. Yosemite National Park (California) launched its tree felling programme to restore the park’s original views, but many people have raised concerns regarding the ecological effect of such felling.Footnote 3

Moreover, many landscape evaluation models propose land consumption as an indicator. According to this indicator, any land taken away from the natural or agricultural habitat for urban use is a negative value. However, this implies that the anthropisation of landscape can never be a positive contribution! This generalisation is too extreme because it rules out the very concept of cultural landscape and it is an example of what happens when we borrow an environmental indicator and apply it to landscape evaluation models, supposing them to be the same thing. Urbanisation judged according to land consumption can obviously affect perceptive aspects such as the obstruction of views and light and sound pollution, but it can also produce new landscapes. Only the specific evaluation of landscape aspects can judge this (Cassatella et al. 2009).

In conclusion, multifunctionality is an option and not an intrinsic character of landscape. As a consequence, differences, potential positive and negative trade-offs between landscape function must be brought to light (Seardo 2012), in order to avoid conflicts and to maximize synergies between environmental, rural and landscape policies. Scenic landscape assessment can contribute to this effort by fostering the comprehension of perceptual aspects, through appropriate techniques. Methods for dealing with scenic landscape assessment are the subject of the next section. In Sect. 3.4, the contribution of scenic assessment to rural landscape policies and planning will be illustrated through case studies.

3.3 A Methodology for Assessing Scenic Landscape

Scenic landscape represents a challenge in research and in public policies (Cassatella 2014 in press) and a number of scientific methods (both qualitative and quantitative) for assessing scenic landscape are being proposed and experimented. This section illustrates a set of methods specifically developed and applied to Italian cultural landscapes, and related to the field of landscape planning. Such methods derive from Landscape Character Assessment, but also include indicator-based evaluation.

The present section illustrates the methodological steps, while the next one will focus on the applications, pointing out the most relevant results in the perspective of landscape and rural policies.

Phase 1. Identification and (cartographic and iconographic) representation of scenic characteristics.

Firstly, landscape scenic features are identified by desk study, consisting of:

  • sectoral analysis concerning the assessment of landscape attributes,

  • listing designated (landscape, cultural or environmental) assets,

  • other sources which can reflect social and identity value (literature, iconography, tourist guides),

  • mapping and classification of potential observation points and routes.

Secondly, field surveys make it possible to verify the conditions of the resources identified above, the visual relations between them, the significance of the mapped vantage points and the existence of detrimental elements. The output is a map of scenic features and characters.

Phase 2. Visual analysis through Geographic Information Systems.

On the basis of a Digital Terrain Models (DTM) or a Digital Surface Models (DSM), a viewshed is calculated by a GIS space analyst and associated to each selected observation point or route.Footnote 4 The viewshed analysis depends on the choice of parameters related to the viewcone (radius, azimuth, width). In our applications, we used three different radii, relating, on the one hand, to perceptual phenomena (foreground, middle ground, background), and, on the other hand, to the possibility of applying different planning regulations to each one (the theory and methods are developed in Cassatella (2013a), a partial explanation in Cassatella, in press).

Using similar methods and parameters, the area of visual influence of emergent features, such as landmarks or detrimental elements, can be mapped.

Phase 3. Visual landscape indicators.

On the basis of the previous steps, a series of indicators can be calculated, using quantitative methods and GIS, or estimated, using qualitative methods (For landscape indicators of social and visual perception see Ode et al. (2008); Cassatella (2011)). In this chapter, as an example, we illustrate an indicator called “visual sensitivity” (VS).Footnote 5

The indicator of visual sensitivity represents how much of an area is seen from the selected vantage points (i.e. the percentage of selected viewpoints which “see” an area), on a scale ranging from “highly visible” to “not visible”, on the basis of the abovementioned viewshed analysis. Thus, an area which can be seen from all the selected viewpoints is classified as “highly visible” and, as a consequence, has a high VS. The numerical sensitivity value assigned using GIS is the sum of all viewsheds. It can, however, be transferred to another appropriate numerical scale.

Others indices can be obtained on the basis of VS, for example the percentage of landmarks which are visible, or not visible, which we can assume as an indicator of visual richness or “imageability”; the percentage of visual detriments which affect highly sensitive areas (“visual influence of detrimental elements”).

All the outputs of the abovementioned phases (visual characteristics map, viewshed map, VS map, as well as photographic atlases, etc.) can be usefully implemented into landscape and spatial planning, in particular to help to foresee the effects of urban development plans on landscape, and, at a more detailed scale, to regulate and control building activity. Potential applications of scenic assessment are illustrated by case studies in the next section.

3.4 Scenic Landscape Assessment Applications for Policies and Plans: Case Studies in the Piedmont Region

The case studies presented here concern three Italian cultural landscapes, in the same region, representing different landscape situations in terms of the importance of agriculture and urban dynamics.Footnote 6 The Piedmont Region has a variety of rural areas, some of which are famous landscapes (such as the Langhe vineyards, or the rice fields of the Vercelli area). However, it is also strongly marked by urban development, so that rural and urban areas are inseparable, mainly in the perception of landscape.

The case studies call for different landscape strategies as they present different “rur-urban” dynamics: a protected rural landscape (Albugnano, surroundings of Vezzolano Abbey), a landscape in transition (San Martino Alfieri), and a peri-urban landscape (the metropolitan area of Turin). In 2009 the Piedmont Region adopted a Regional Landscape Plan (RLP), under which the three rural areas fall under different types of regulations, ranging from protective and prescriptive measures to general rules for “ordinary” landscape and a site-specific strategic project.

For each case study, three main aspects will be illustrated: the main scenic landscape characteristics and functions; (scenic) landscape quality objectives, proposed planning measures and tools.

3.4.1 A Rural Landscape Under Protection: Albugnano, Surroundings of Vezzolano Abbey

The first case study, Albugnano, is a nationally valued landscape, recognized by a designation act, in order to protect its historical and scenic value. The landscape is purely rural, alternating vineyards and woods, where historically relevant religious buildings constitute landmarks. Thus, the scenic characters are: openness and focality of the views, intervisibility between landmarks, and texture.

Amenity, tranquillity and spirituality, are the main landscape “services” which depend on scenic characters; therefore we can identify contemplation as the key function to protect and enhance. This means protecting panoramic views (not only the viewpoints, but also the area in the view), visual axes between viewpoints and landmarks, and conserving the integrity of texture, avoiding the intrusion of urban features.

Thanks to the act of designation, every urban development in the area is subject to a procedure of authorization, which assesses its “landscape compatibility”. Moreover, in the framework of the RLP, each designated area is currently being associated to site-specific prescriptive regulations. Albugnano served as case study for developing and illustrating guidelines concerning scenic assets (Cassatella 2014 in press). Scenic assessment provided a map and an atlas of visual features and of visual relations (see Sect. 3.3, phase 1), and maps of the viewshed of observation points and panoramic routes (Fig. 3.1). Thanks to these maps, the authorities responsible for assessing the landscape compatibility of interventions can identify all the areas where whatever transformation may affect the scenery (Sect. 3.3, phase 2). The local authorities, which are responsible for local development plans, are supported in localizing interventions in areas with a low level of VS (Sect. 3.3, phase 3), from the planning phase onwards.

Fig. 3.1
figure 1

(Above) In-depth views are a distinctive character of the Albugnano nationally valued landscape. (Below) Landscape sensitivity mapped from observation points and panoramic routes

Full size image

3.4.2 A Landscape in Transition: San Martino Alfieri

The hilly landscape of San Martino Alfieri is characterized by vineyards, natural woods, historic villages and farmhouses. The recent phenomena of urban sprawl, the success of urban models in the housing market, the abandonment of crops in areas which are too difficult to cultivate with modern techniques, and the construction of prefabricated concrete warehouses express the tendency towards a new coexistence between urban and rural elements of landscape. In contrast, the stated aim of planning documents is the conservation of the historic identity, and of its legibility, which depends on the relations between a number of traditional elements: field texture, types, scale, colours and materials of the settlements (in a word: landscape characters), hierarchy between symbolic landmarks and ordinary buildings.

A new equilibrium between old and new characteristics must be achieved by the ordinary forms of land management and planning. The Landscape Character Assessment contributes with a detailed check-list of scenic characteristics related to the traditional landscape (Table 3.2), which may be used as a reference for protection measures, as well as for local design codes, building regulations, guidelines and for the assessment of new interventions. Local codes may also deal with types of vegetation and species to be preferred or avoided in green spaces: indeed, the inhabitants of this landscape tend to follow urban models in their gardens and public spaces too, abandoning traditional local elements and favouring cosmopolitan species.

Table 3.2 Checklist for scenic character assessment of rural landscapes in San Martino Alfieri, Piedmont Region
Full size table

The landscape analyses for San Martino Alfieri included studies on agronomy, landscape ecology, history and scenery, carried out by different experts. The overlapping of these analyses, in search for a synthetic assessment, revealed multiple and sometimes diverging values assigned to the same elements. The observed trade-offs between different landscape functions can be illustrated by the following example. The majority of routes in the area have a historic character, offer panoramic views and, thanks to their green belts (hedgerows or tree lines), have an ecological value as green corridors: a synergy of ecosystem services (“win-win”, TEEB 2010). Some stretches of road pass through the wood, so haven’t a panoramic value, while others present a different mix of functions. When the hedgerows obtrude the view, the trade-off is a “some win/others lose” type. This example shows that the trade-offs between landscape functions cannot be mechanically determined, but must be verified on a case-by-case basis. Some choices might be necessary, in the case of interventions, such as greening interventions, or, in contrast, tree-cuttings.

3.4.3 A Peri-urban Landscape: The Metropolitan Area of Turin

The metropolitan area of Turin, one of the largest in Northern Italy, presents a peri-urban landscape, still rich in open spaces with natural and cultural resources: natural parks, rivers, historical residences and gardens (including a UNESCO serial WHL Site), and minor traces such as historic farmhouses and channels. Despite their land capability, the remaining agricultural areas are poor and, not infrequently, abandoned. However, they are strategic for “framing” the abovementioned resources, insofar as they constitute the landscape context of the built heritage, and essential ecological corridors.

For this reason, in 1999 the Piedmont Region implemented the “Corona Verde” strategic plan for protecting and enhancing the open spaces of the metropolitan area of Turin, from a landscape perspective (Cassatella 2013b). Thus, the Plan fully recognizes the multiple cultural functions that agriculture plays in a dense urban area. The scenic assessment supported this landscape project by mapping the rural areas which play a role in maintaining the legibility of historic and symbolic landmarks, and the openness towards important landscape frames in the background, such as the Alps (Fig. 3.2). The zone of visual influence of urban areas and infrastructure was mapped by GIS, and interpreted as indicator of perceptual disturbance on open areas.Footnote 7 This map also emphasizes their fragmentation.

Fig. 3.2
figure 2

(Above) A bird’s-eye view of the Turin metropolitan area. Natural and rural resources still coexist in the interface with the urban areas. (Photo: Archivio Direzione Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici del Piemonte). (Below) Main objectives of Corona Verde Strategic Plan (Source Politecnico di Torino 2007)

Full size image

With the help of European Regional Development Funds (ERDF), Corona Verde co-financed the creation of cycling routes and greenways, redevelopment and facilities for outdoor activities, renaturation and mitigation of infrastructural barriers, landscaping of the surroundings of heritage sites, awareness raising and promotional activities.

It should be noted that, until now, the Piedmont Region has made use of ERDF and not CAP incentives. Nowadays, it is clear that the challenge undertaken by Corona Verde needs a more integrated system of planning, implementation measures and financial instruments involving territorial, landscape and rural policies as well. We elaborate on this issue in broader terms in Sect. 3.5.3.

3.5 Supporting Landscape and Rural Policies Through Landscape Visual Assessment

3.5.1 Detailing Categories of Cultural Ecosystem Services Related to Landscape Amenity

Scenic quality supports several cultural services, related to non-use landscape values (identity, memory, spirituality, aesthetic enjoyment), and to recreational uses (outdoor activities, didactics) (Table 3.1). Moreover, thanks to landscape scenery, other environmental values can be “perceived” by the public, thus raising its awareness of them. Through the case studies, we observed several landscape functions of rural areas, namely: memory and aesthetics in an exceptional place, cultural values related to tradition and identity in an “ordinary” area, and recreation and ecological connectivity in a peri-urban context, where open spaces are a resource characterized by rarity. Each of these functions can be analysed through specific techniques, which can involve several disciplines (Daniel et al. 2012), in order to better understand the phenomena, the elements and the dynamics which have to be managed. The comprehension of their differences and specificities is essential for designing strategies and focusing on the appropriate techniques of interventions. For example, in the first case study (Albugnano) prescriptive regulations have been designed to protect well-defined scenes, while in the last one (Turin) an extensive knowledge system is provided to stimulate a variety of local actions within a strategic framework.

Scenic landscape assessment possesses a set of methods which can be useful for dealing with cultural services, identifying landscape values (including with reference to public opinion, by appropriate techniques not discussed in this chapter but see Grittani et al., infra Chap. 5 and Bottero, infra, Chap. 6), mapping the material and immaterial features which support perception, and defining quality objectives in order to contribute to policies. Above all, scenic assessment can highlight landscape features which play different functions, and potential interferences between environmental trade-offs. For example, in the case of San Martino Alfieri, the same element, a route, is, alternatively, a panoramic route or an ecological corridor, but cannot have both functions at the same time, because hedgerows and tree lines constitute, from a scenic point of view, a visual obstruction. A policy choice is needed. Only a sufficiently highly developed framework of cultural services, which recognizes specific landscape scenic values, can produce aware decision making about positive and negative trade-offs.

3.5.2 Developing Scenic Landscape Indicators for Environmental Assessment Frameworks

While landscape amenity is an ecosystem service and must not be confused with other kinds of cultural services, specific indicators are needed in the framework of landscape assessment and in the environmental assessment procedures where landscape is considered a component (such as EIA and SEA). As discussed in Sect. 3.2, the reduction of landscape assessment to only those aspects that can be measured by land-use or ecological indicators is as common as it is reductive and wrong from a theoretical perspective. Above all, when the assessment procedure regards policy effects, and not only landscape quality, such a reductionist approach risks underestimating the negative trade-offs between various functions, mostly in a multifunctional perspective.

The literature on landscape indicators of scenic quality (and even social perception) is rich in proposals and experimental case studies (Cassatella 2011). In this chapter, we have briefly illustrated visual sensitivity; in our view, VS can be applied to different types of landscape, rural, as well as urban and natural ones; it can be developed and mapped both at the local and at the regional scale; it is sensitive to modifications in land uses, and, as a consequence, can usefully inform decision-making and support landscape planning for the evaluation of alternative scenarios.

Moreover, VS can constitute a component variable for calculating other indexes related to scenic quality (illustrated in Sect. 3.3).

Finally, introducing scenic landscape indicators into current frameworks for evaluating rural, environmental and spatial policies can contribute to a stronger focus on landscape quality objectives, in line with the European Landscape Convention.

3.5.3 Integrating Rural and Spatial Policies to Protect and Enhance Landscape Scenic Beauty

In a given landscape scene, all of the elements are perceived in a holistic way, thus the scenic quality or rural landscape depends as much on fields and vegetation as on built elements, settlements and infrastructure. As a consequence, conservation and enhancement of rural landscape amenity can only be achieved by integrating rural and spatial policies and related tools, at any scale of intervention. In fact, a goal-oriented (or “normative”, OECD 2001, p. 11) concept of multifunctionality implies multisectoriality.

Both landscape planning and spatial planning influence rural areas, in their open and built spaces. It is quite rare for ordinary planning to deal with scenery. However, a varied range of tools and experience offer interesting solutions for a wide range of situations and purposes (Table 3.3).Footnote 8 The first step is to establish landscape quality goals which explicitly recognize functions such as contemplation of aesthetics, recreation, conservation of memory, and so on. The second step is to compare these goals with current forms of land management, with trends, and with the scenario which is proposed by plans (with reference to all those plans with potential effects on landscape), in order to identify potential alliances and conflicts. The next step is to design strategies, plan measures and actions. The final step involves evaluating their implementation and effects. Scenic landscape assessment and landscape indicators are essential tools.

Table 3.3 Assessment techniques and planning tools for dealing with landscape services related to scenic values
Full size table

In the case studies, different planning strategies have been observed, mainly focused on the built environment. In fact, in the Italian context, spatial and landscape planning have little scope for regulating the rural open space, which is only subject to laws concerning agriculture and forestry as economic activities. Conversely, Rural Development Programmes (RDP) offer the chance to address a number of important drivers which shape the landscape, particularly via agri-environmental measures. In fact, the management of woods and forest, crops, hedgerows, even fallow land or set-aside areas, buildings and roads connected to rural practices may influence the landscape scene, its openness, sense of history and identity, accessibility and usability for recreational uses. As a consequence, the relationships between spatial planning and RDP must be strengthened (see also Rega, infra, Chap. 2).

In Italy, the Regions are responsible for implementing the RDP, the Regional Territorial Plan (RTP) and RLP. However, they are designed and assessed by separate departments of the regional administration. This causes a lack of coordination with regard to knowledge, goals, strategies, evaluative frameworks, and, ultimately, can lead to potential conflicts. The fact that all these instruments are subject to a common evaluation procedure, Strategic Environmental Assessment, may offer a window of opportunity to foster inter-departmental cooperation, harmonization of environmental objectives and knowledge sharing (see Rega, infra, Chap. 2).

At the regional level, the RDP, RTP and RLP could share:

  • part of their knowledge apparatus (data and interpretations) on land uses, environment, ecology, and, of course, landscape;

  • part of their strategic framework related to ecosystems and landscape, for example: the protection of traditional rural landscapes, or of landscape characterized by outstanding scenic beauty, can be a shared goal, based on a joint identification of target areas, which each plan or program will address by its own instrument, such as planning regulation or financial measures;

  • part of their evaluation framework, mainly concerning landscape indicators. A shared database would contribute to a more efficient and economically feasible monitoring, and, mostly, to the identification of the multiplicity of values. For example, scenic landscape indicators could reveal positive and negative effects of greening measures on the scenery.

At the local level, integration between rural programs and landscape and spatial plans could lead to integrated programs for designing multifunctional systems of green and open spaces, including agricultural parks, ecological networks and greenways. The plans may design the spatial scheme, while the rural programs may offer management criteria and financial instruments.

In Italy, an example of good practice is represented by the connection between the RDP of the Apulia Region, which foresees some landscape strategies of the RLP are supported by the funds of the CAP (Regione Puglia and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali 2013). In other contexts, such as the Piedmont Region, the RDP’s agro-environmental measures barely address spatial targets, and this fact affect their effectiveness (Rega and Spaziante 2013). Just as environmental measures should target the most suitable areas, so should measures designed to improve the landscape quality and experience. In the latter case, “suitability” can be determined thanks to landscape assessment.

It should be noticed that the existence of a landscape plan is an important factor in designing multifunctional measures and in interpreting indicators, because it provides a landscape quality goals and spatial targets. In our view, multifunctionality is a goal-oriented concept, and the synthesis between amenity, productivity, and ecological services can only be achieved through a project-based approach.

In conclusion, whereas conserving or enhancing the character of rural landscape which support cultural services (because of its exceptional beauty, traditional character and identity, or recreational use or potential) is a policy goal, integrating rural, landscape and spatial policies is necessary, on the basis of horizontal collaboration and synergy between sectors of public administration, so as to ensure the sharing of knowledge, goals, projects, targets, evaluations and financial instruments.