soil sealing

Regulatory Frameworks

Student No: 130443540

Module: TCP8936

MSc Planning for Developing Countries

Architecture, Planning & Landscape

Newcastle University

23rd May 2014

SOIL SEALING

MODULE: TCP8936 Soil Sealing STUDENT NO: 130443540

1 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….2

2. The problem………………………………………………………………………………….3

3. The Italian situation…………………………………………………………….………..4

4. The Italian regulatory framework……………………………………………….…6

6. Case study……………………………………………………………………………………..7

7. Lessons to learn: Germany………………………………………………………….…9

8. Brief summary…………………………………………………………………………….11

9. References…………………………………………………………………………………..12


2 | P a g e

1 INTRODUCTION

The soil, according to the definition proposed by the Soil and Water Conservation Society of

America (1986) is “a natural body consisting of mineral and organic particles that forms from the

physical and physiochemical alteration of the rock and the biological and biochemical

transformation of organic residues.” An internal atmosphere, specific flora and fauna and a

particular economy and water characterise soils, which represent the means of dynamic

interaction between atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere (Hill et al., 2000).

The soil is a complex system that provides core and vital functionalities to ecosystems (Haygarth

and Ritz, 2009; Munafò et al., 2010). Among its various biological functionalities, the most

important ones are the maintenance and growth of biodiversity, the absorption and regulation

of the water cycle, the supply of nutrients to ecosystems, filtering water and air and managing

their exchanges (Nannipieri et al., 2003). In a nutshell, soil determines the natural balance of the

planet and its entire living species (Doran & Zeiss, 2000; Doran et al., 1996).

When soil is damaged, or its functionalities are compromised, this balance is lost, leading to

disastrous environmental consequences, which nowadays would be heavily reflected human

societies (Olarieta et al., 2008). A compromised soil loses, in whole or in part, the features that

make it so vital to ecosystems and human life itself. The most evident effects of soil alteration,

which directly affect everyday life, are biodiversity loss and the exponential increase of

hydrogeological risk, such as floods and landslides (Olarieta et al., 2008).

Soil formation is a long process that lasts for geological eras, and is therefore considered a non-

renewable resource. On the other hand, the degradation and alteration of soil can be a rather

fast and rapid process (Johnson and Lewis, 2007) and this is the reason why soil should be used

and managed in a sustainable way, trying not to compromise its functionalities.


3 | P a g e

2 THE PROBLEM

The incredible development of the urbanisation

process has led 52.5% of the world's population

to live in urban areas (World Bank, 2012).

Originally, the growth of cities was related only to

the growth of the urban population (Davis, 1965).

On the contrary, nowadays in Europe, where

population growth is around 0.21% (CIA, 2013),

urbanisation is out of control and is driven by the

quest for “welfare” rather than need (Gibelli &

Salzano, 2006). From 1950 to the present day,

cities in Europe have experienced a growth of

78% compared with an increase of the population

that barely reaches 33% in total.

A severe problem arising from urbanisation is known as soil sealing, described by the European

Commission (2011) as “the coverage of the soil with sealing materials such as concrete, metal,

glass, asphalt, plastic in a way that inhibits the ecological functionality of the soil”, resulting in an

irreversible loss of the biological characteristics of the soil and a loss of soil itself. Soil sealing is

the primary cause of soil loss in Europe, especially agricultural land, where sealed soil accounts

for 9% of land in the entire continent, and is internationally considered as the main cause of

biodiversity loss (Cannon and Horton, 2009; Zhang et al., 2007).

Despite the severity of the problem, soil sealing is often not perceived as such by the population,

because it manifests itself in the “form of a silent degradation” (Salvati et al., 2012; Munafò et

al., 2013). Besides altering in a permanent way the vitality of natural ecosystems, soil sealing

irreversibly changes the features of the land (Johnson, 2001; Genske, 2003; Hough, 2004; Couch

et al., 2007). It creates a barrier between soil, air and water, interfering with the ecosystem’s

functions:

Prevents groundwater recharge

Increases the risk of flooding

Reduces the absorption capacity of carbon (carbon sink), thus the ability to contain climatic changes

Destroys and fragments habitats, with a resulting collapse of biodiversity

Soil sealing is generally an irreversible process and, in any case, unsealing processes are

excessively expensive and do not guarantee success (Andreatta, 2012).

52.5%

47.5%

Urban Population

Rural Population

Figure 1. WORLD POPULATION Source: World Bank, 2012.


4 | P a g e

3 THE ITALIAN SITUATION

Italy is the largest producer of concrete and the first soil-sealer in Europe. In the fifteen years

between 1990 and 2005, in Italy more than 3 million hectares of soil were covered with concrete

and 2 million of these were fertile agricultural land (Agapito et. Al, 2009).

Urbanisation per capita in Italy is approximately 230 square meters per inhabitant, which varies

from 120 square meters per inhabitant in Basilicata, to more than 400 square meters per

inhabitant in Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Agapito et al., 2009). Over 10% of the territory is urbanised in

20% of Italy’s Municipalities. There are about 500 Municipalities where over 15% of their territory

is sealed and around 100 municipalities have been able to urbanise more than 50% of their

territories. For example, the Molise region, one of the smallest in Italy, has increased its

urbanised territory by 500% over the past 50 years (Agapito et al., 2009). On the other hand, Italy

is the first country in Europe for availability of housing: there are about 27 million housing unit,

of which 20% are unoccupied, nevertheless the construction industry keeps building more and

more (Agapito et al., 2009). All this in the name of economic theories, according to which “if it is

not built there is no economic progress.”

Soil sealing is amplified by an increasing urban sprawl, which is characterised by a low-density

urban expansion that tends to occupy horizontally vast shares of territory, thus increasing the

amount of urban areas that may undergo sealing processes (Barberis et al., 2006)

As pointed out by the European Union, one of the main factors of degradation and reduction of

biodiversity is represented by the fragmentation, degradation and destruction of habitats caused

by changes in land use due to increased edification (European Commission, 2011).

Figure 2. Soil sealing at Municipality level in Northern Italy. Source: ISPRA 2011, based on Copernicus data.


5 | P a g e

Soil sealing in Italy reached 7.8% of the national territory, which compared to the European

average of 4.6%, is an alarming number (ISTAT, 2013).

Figure 3. Percentage of sealed soil in Europe. Source: ISTAT 2013.

The scale of this growing phenomenon can be clearly understood by looking at the statistics of

some Italian cities: in the new province of Monza, over 50% of the soil has been covered by

concrete; in that of Naples, 43.2% and in Milan, 37.1% (ISTAT, 2011).

Between 2001 and 2011, the consumption of

soil increased by 8.8%, compared with an

increase of 4.7% of the resident population,

almost all immigrants (ISTAT, 2013). As if in ten

years, a territory equal to the province of

Milan had been completely saturated by

buildings at the average daily rate of 45

hectares. Average because in recent years the

pace has reached peaks of 161 hectares daily

(ISTAT, 2013). Currently 12.9% of Veneto

Region and 12.8% of Lombardy Region are no

longer natural (ISTAT, 2011). In the South, the

increase was 10.2%, compared with 8.7% of

the Northwest and 7.8% in the Northeast

(ISTAT, 2011).

At this rate, the gap between the urbanisation of North and South - though still relevant with

9.2% in the Northwest against 4.7% in the whole South - will soon be filled. Especially in certain

areas of Campania Region, such as the province of Caserta, where the spatial extent covered by

concrete has increased by 18.4% (ISTAT, 2012).

13,4

12,2

11,9

7,7 7,1 6,55,3 5,2 5,1

4 3,9 3,9 3,6 3,2

1,6 1,5

7,8

4,6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Figure 4. Increase of soil consumption, 2001-2011 (percentage). Source: ISTAT 2013.


6 | P a g e

4 THE ITALIAN REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Italy has a set of laws concerning the protection of the environment that can be considered

enviable worldwide. Overall, it comes to complete and strict set of regulations, with appropriate

bodies with the purpose of protection, called “soprintendenze” (super-intendancies) (Gerofilini,

2012). However, the system of environmental protection laws is regularly bypassed mainly for

building purposes.

The protection of the territory in Italy finds its roots in Article 9 of the Italian Constitution,

according to which “The Republic [...] safeguards the natural landscape and the historical and

artistic heritage of the Nation.” This dictate underpins the whole body of laws and regulations

relating to the protection of the landscape and the territory.

The foremost national regulatory text, on which environmental protection has been based, is the

Legislative Decree of 29 October 1999 n. 490 "Consolidated laws in the field of cultural and

environmental heritage" (Title II, Heritage landscape and environment), which was supported by

Regulation 3 June 1940 n. 1357 for the application of the law on the protection of natural beauty.

The Leg. 490/99 has been created in order to gather in a single text the regulatory requirements

that were spread all over through several different policies, and mainly:

• Law of 29 June 1939 no. 1497 "Protection of natural beauty and panoramic views"

• Law of 8 August 1985 n. 431/1985 (known as "Galasso Act"), which supports and

completed the Law n.1497/39 without replacing it.

In 2004, the Government implemented a new legislation code, called the "Urbani Code"

regarding cultural heritage and landscape, which appears to be as a direct implementation of

Article 9 of the Italian Constitution. This new code revokes and replaces completely the

Legislative Decree n. 490/1999, putting an order to the complex subject related to environmental

protection by providing a new united text (Campanelli, 2004).

This is the only significant policy that addresses the soil-sealing problem in Italy. It requires the

preparation and implementation of regional landscape plans for each Italian Region; once the

regional landscape plan is approved, the policy can prevent uncontrolled soil sealing (Campanelli,

2004). The problem with this policy is that many Italian Regions fail to prepare and thus

implement these plans for several reasons (Settis, 2010).

Since Italy has invested a great deal in the estate market, local authorities are subjected to strong

pressures from the construction sector, which pushes to continue to have the opportunity to

build up where they most prefer, under the guise of creating job opportunities (Barberis, 2005).

In addition to this, the unemployed population is pushing for the creation of new employment,

so the local authorities are forced to defer the environmental problems in favour of more

pressing problems.


7 | P a g e

Specifically, many Municipalities are without funds because of the Stability Pact (2011), which

imposes strong and unfair limits on Municipalities’ spending, so it goes against their economic

interest to block the most profitable industry, and consequently environmental protection

objectives fade into the background (Settis, 2010).

On the one hand, each Region requires by law that all their Municipalities equip themselves with

a General Master Plan consistent with the regional Spatial Plan, in order to regulate and control

their own spatial developments through zoning and land use. On the other hand, this

requirement is considered as a guideline only and it is often not followed and even ignored

completely, as it lacks ways of enforcement (Campanelli, 2004). Therefore, it is evident that the

problem lies in both lack of enforcement and lack of updated tools.

One of the possible – if not the only – solutions to this problem is the implementation of policies

and laws that prevent the construction of new buildings without previous implementation of the

General Master Plans (Rizzo et al., 2012).

5 CASE STUDY

Italy is one of the most affected nations by hydrogeological risk, involving 82% of the

Municipalities (Legambiente, 2011). The dimensions of the phenomenon can be clearly

understood taking an overview of some of the events that have affected the Italian area: 5,400

floods and 11,000 landslides in the past 80 years, 70,000 people involved and 30,000 billion in

damages in the last 20 years (ISPRA, 2011).

«Italy collapses. Now everyone is talking about hydrogeological risk and care of the territory. Tomorrow, however, everyone will return to

idolise the crane and to run the concrete mixer.

(Domenico Finiguerra)

Figure 5. Genoa Province. Google Maps Sky View 2014)


8 | P a g e

The Liguria Region, situated in the north-west of Italy, gives an emblematic example of the soil sealing effects in Italy. The Liguria Region is one of Italy’s hot spots for flooding risk (99% of urban areas) and an improper land use can have dramatic consequences (Legambiente, 2011). This has never been considered in the past and it is barely considered now. In fact, in the 70s, uncontrolled building started in Genoa, the capital city of the Liguria Region, and has not stopped since then, spreading throughout all Liguria’s main cities (Travisi et al., 2010). Specifically, huge amounts of the spreading urban areas have been sealed, particularly without considering plans for the management of storm water. The current scenario is a platform of concrete and asphalt all over Liguria’s urban cities, where the soil is incapable to perform its natural functions, leading to an almost total disappearance of natural measures able to prevent or contain flooding, which constantly affects the area (Travisi et al., 2010). In the Liguria Region and especially in the city of Genoa, flooding is extremely dangerous and brings devastating consequences to the whole environment and to the local population.

Despite all the experienced flooding,

especially the most recent ones of 2013

and 2011, where several people died and

severe damages were made to the built

environment, the Municipality of Genoa

still continues to allow heavy urban sprawl

and its subsequent soil sealing

(Legambiente, 2011 & 2013). Many have

been the initiatives to prevent this

attitude, but for a reason or another the

proposed policies and the guidelines set at

Regional level are yet to be approved and

there are still many difficulties and

impediments to their implementation

(Legambiente, 2013). In fact, around 51%

of the initiatives to mitigate the

hydrological risks are considered to be

negative and not sufficient (Legambiente,

2013).

Furthermore, the Municipality of Genoa,

together with other cities, are focusing on increasing the built environment on non-urban areas

in the name of economic development, withstanding the current economic crisis afflicting the

country (Legambiente, 2011), because, when facing economic difficulties and a very high need of

employment, giving priority to environmental protection is the last thing they think about.

Therefore, until the introduction of a policy that enforces the compliance with the requirement

to implement the General Master Plan, no positive progress will be achieved in cities like Genoa.

Figure 6. Genoa flooding.


9 | P a g e

6 LESSONS TO LEARN: GERMANY

Almost 86% of Germany’s territory is now urbanised, and more than half of it (52%) is sealed (EEA,

2006), accounting for 7.7% of the whole nation’s territory. This is why soil sealing in Germany is

a severe problem (Wessolek, 2008). Nevertheless, the German Government has always been

active towards addressing this issue (German Federal Government, 2008).

Germany has been one of the leading nations in terms of sustainable development and has been

one of the firsts to focus on soil consumption, addressing the issue in its political agenda (FAI,

2012). The Federal Government has be active in this sense since the implementation of a Strategy

for soil protection in 1985, which aimed to limit soil consumption (FEA, 2003). Ever since, the

strategy has been revised, updated and strengthened in order to achieve its target (GIUA1, 2010).

To prevent the spreading of soil sealing, Germany implemented several approaches amongst

which two in particular could be very useful and inspiring for the Italian situation (WWF & FAI,

2012).

Since 1998, Germany started using fiscal instruments in order to discourage the occupation of

free (non-urban) areas and to encourage the redevelopment of already urbanised land, for

example by providing a different property tax depending on whether or not the development

was carried out on already urbanised areas (GIUA1, 2010). These financial instruments focus on

incentives for the densification of cities, for the re-use of degraded areas and the use of

construction methods that reduce the impact on the environment (GIUA1, 2010). To this, the

Federal Government has also added a series of measures to improve the attractiveness of urban

centres, such as providing funding for the restoration of buildings in a state of abandonment or

deterioration (GIUA1, 2010).

This approach has the potential to be strongly effective in Italy. The Italian regulatory framework

related to environment protection and conservation is fairly robust and comprehensive, though

it lacks enforcement methods (WWF & FAI, 2012). It is also renowned that in Italy the main driver

that triggers decisions is the perspective to pay less, especially taxes.

Figure 7. German cities


10 | P a g e

A financial reform in this sense could be a powerful catalyst to trigger the enforcement of

sustainability and environmental policies: few developers would want to build on free land if this

implies paying overall more taxes compared to the amount of taxes to pay for the redevelopment

of urbanised areas. This strategy could also work according to the fact that, in Italy, there are

many empty buildings that could be restored and also a lot of urban land that is currently not

used for any purpose. Italy needs a law that enforces the reutilisation of urbanised land rather

that free land and this can only be a financial one.

Furthermore, where the usage of free land is inevitable, the German Government implemented

a policy which enforces land compensation, meaning that for each free land that will be urbanised,

the developers must intervene on other compromised lands with un-sealing or naturalisation

interventions, such as planting new green (FEA, 2003). However, if the developers are not able

to do so with their own resources, they will have to pay an additional tax to the Government in

order to enable public bodies to deal with the compensation process (FEA, 2003).

This is another useful policy that could be transferred into the Italian system, perhaps with some

revised details, in order to avoid the nullification of its purpose, by workarounds policies.

To ensure a successful implementation, Germany, together with the European Union,

emphasises on the importance of establishing targets for the reduction of soil consumption at all

levels of government, in order to create a system that covers the entire national territory (German

Federal Government, 2008).

Finally yet importantly, a fundamental feature of soil consumption policies is to be shared by all

political groups, in order to maintain consistency throughout the succession of governments

(German Federal Government, 2008).

Figure 8.. Dresden, Saxony Region, Germany


11 | P a g e

Dresden, capital city of the Saxony Region in Germany, is one of the best examples of good

practices against soil sealing and urban sprawl (European Commission, 2011). In fact, Dresden

implemented several policies to address the sealing problem, in accordance with the Overview

of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27 that highlights a three-

tiered approach to address the issue:

“Limiting the progression of soil sealing with improved spatial planning or by

reconsidering negative subsidies that indirectly encourage soil sealing.

Mitigation actions to reduce damage when soil sealing can not be avoided. These include

using permeable surfaces instead of conventional asphalt or cement and building green

roofs.

Compensation measures to partially offset soil losses in one area by measures taken

somewhere else.”

Dresden focuses on limitation and compensation by enforcing limits to urban development and

requiring “new construction projects on non-urban land to offset related soil sealing with

unsealing or greening measures in other parts of the city” (IASS, 2013).

7 BRIEF SUMMARY

It has been shown that, overall, the Italian legislation related to environmental protection, and

particularly land use management aimed to a better use of the land and to contain soil sealing,

is quite rich. What lacks is a strong enforcement policy and the willingness to change direction in

the management of the territory, towards a more sustainable and environmentally friendly

future. This could be achieved through a firm financial reform targeted to address issues of soil

consumption and urban sprawl, and also from seeking support and advice at international level.

Figure 9. Dresden, Saxony Region, Germany


12 | P a g e

8 REFERENCES

1. Agapito, A., Alessi, E., Battisti, C., Benedetto, G., Bologna, G., Bulgarini, F., Ciacci, L., Costantini, M., Fantilli,

P., Ferroni, F., Ficorilli, S., Fioravanti, S., Lenzi, S., Martinoja, D., Meregalli, D., Petrella, S., Pratesi, I., Rocco,

M., Romano, B., Teofili, C. and Tosatti, V. (2009). “2009: l’anno del cemento—Dossier sul consumo di

suolo in Italia.” WWF Italia, Roma.

2. Andreatta, L. (2012). “Soil Sealing.” Bruxelles. [Online] Available at:

http://www.europa.provincia.tn.it/binary/pat_puntoeuropa/newsletter_da_bruxelles/Soil_Sealing_Andre

atta_5.1337605092.pdf

3. Barberis, R. (2005). “Consumo di suolo e qualità dei suoli urbani.” Rapporto APAT 703-729.

4. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Wege zum nachhaltigen Flächenmanagement – Themen

des Projektes des Förderschwerpunkts REFINA, Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik, Berlin 2010. - Federal

Ministry of Education and Research, trails for sustainable land management - topics of the project the

funding priority REFINA, German Institute of Urban Affairs (GIUA)1, Berlin 2010. [Online] Available at:

file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/DB0498.pdf

5. Campanelli, M. (2004). “Guida al nuovo codice dei beni culturali del paesaggio.” Halley Editrice.

6. Cannon, W.F., Horton, J.D., 2009. Soil geochemical signature of urbanization and industrialization –

Chicago, Illinois, USA. Applied Geochemistry 24, 1590–1601.

7. Central Intelligence Agency, CIA (2013).

8. Couch, C., Petschel-Held, G. and Leontidou, L. (2007). “Urban Sprawl in Europe: Landscapes, Land-Use

Change and Policy.” Blackwell, London.

9. Davis, K. (2011). "The urbanization of the human population." City Reader 20. Originally Scientific

American, 1965, 213 (3).

10. Deutsche Bundesregierung, Fortschrittsbericht zur nationalen Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, Für ein

nachhaltiges Deutschland, 2008. - German Federal Government Progress Report on the national

sustainability strategy for a sustainable Germany, 2008. [Online] Available at:

http://www.mwkel.rlp.de/File/2008-Nationale-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie-Fortschrittsbericht-pdf

11. Doran, J. W., Sarrantonio, M., Liebig, M., (1996). “Soil health and sustainability.” In: Sparks, D.L. (Ed.),

Advances in Agronomy, 56: 1–54. San Diego.

12. Doran, J. W. and Zeiss, M. R. (2000). “Soil health and sustainability: managing the biotic component of soil

quality.” Applied Soil Ecology 15: 3-11.

13. European Environment Agency, EEA (2006). “Urban sprawl in Europe. The ignored challenge.” København,

EU.

14. European Commission (2011). “Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects

in EU-27.” Austrian Environment Agency.

15. Fondo Ambientale Italiano, FAI (2012). “Il suolo: una risorsa.” [Online] Available at:

http://www.forumprovincegiovani.it/public/504880/Il-suolo-una-risorsa.pdf

16. Genske, D.D. (2003). “Urban Land—Degradation, Investigation, Remediation.” Springer, Berlin.

17. Gerofilini, A. (2012). “Tutela del Paesaggio: breve analisi della normative vigente.” Silvae 229-247.

18. Gibelli, M.C. and Salzano, E. (2006). “No Sprawl. Perché è necessario controllare la dispersione urbana e il

consumo di suolo.” Alinea, Firenze.

19. Haygarth, P.M., Ritz, K., 2009. The future of soils and land use in the UK: soil systems for the provision of

land-based ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 26S, S187–S197.

20. Hill, G. T., Mitkowski, N. A., Aldrich-Wolfe, L., Emele, L. R., Jurkonie, D. D., Ficke, A., Maldonado-Ramirez,

S., Lynch, S. T. ans Nelson, E. B. (2000). "Methods for assessing the composition and diversity of soil

microbial communities." Applied Soil Ecology 15: 25-36.

21. Hough, M. (2004). “Cities and Natural Process.” Routledge, London.

22. IASS (2013). Global Soil Forum. Potsdam. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V.


13 | P a g e

23. ISPRA (2011).

24. ISTAT (2011).

25. ISTAT (2012).

26. ISTAT (2013).

27. Italian Constitution. Article 9.

28. Johnson, M.P. (2001). “Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed

research agenda.” Environ. Plann. A 33: 717–735.

29. Johnson, D. L. and Lewis, L. A. (2007). “Land Degradation—Creation and Destruction.” Rowman &

Littlefield, Lahnam.

30. Legambiente (2011). “Ecosistema rischio 2011.” [Online] Available at:

http://www.legambiente.it/sites/default/files/docs/dossier_ecosistemarischio2011.pdf

31. Legambiente (2013). “Ecosistema rischio 2013.” [Online Available at:

http://www.legambiente.it/sites/default/files/docs/ecosistema_rischio_2013_def.pdf

32. Munafò, M., Norero, C., Sabbi, A. and Salvati, D.L., (2010). “Soil sealing in the growing city: a survey in

Rome, Italy.” Scottish Geographical Journal 126: 153–161.

33. Munafò, M., Salvati, L. and Zitti, M. (2013) “Estimating soil sealing rate at national level—Italy as a case study.” Ecological Indicators 26: 137-140.

34. Nannipieri, P., Ascher, J., Ceccherini, M. T., Landi, L., Pietramellara, G. and Renella, G. (2003). "Microbial

diversity and soil functions." European Journal of Science 54: 655-670.

35. Olarieta, J.R., Rodríguez-Valle, F.L. and Tello, E. (2008). “Preserving and destroying soils, transforming

landscapes: Soils and land-use changes in the Vallès County (Catalunya, Spain) 1853–2004.” Land Use

Policy 25: 474–484.

36. Rizzo, L. S., Rizzo, R. F. and Tizzani, P. (2012) “Consumo del suolo, antropizzazione, alluvioni e reti

ecologiche.” Atti 16a Conferenza Nazionale ASITA - Fiera di Vicenza 6-9 novembre.

37. Salvati, L., Bajocco, S., Ceccarelli, T., Zitti, M. and Perini, L., (2011). “Towards a process-based evaluation of

land vulnerability to soil degradation in Italy.” Ecological Indicators 11: 1216–1227.

38. Scalenghe, R. and Marsan, F.A. (2009). “The anthropogenic sealing of soils in urban areas.” Landscape and

Urban Planning 90 (1-2) 1–10.

39. Settis, S. (2010). “Paesaggio, Costituzione, Cemento. La battaglia per l’ambiente contro il degrado civile.”

Turin, Italy.

40. Soil and Water Conservation Society of America (1986). [Online] http://www.swcs.org

41. Wessolek, G., 2008. Sealing of Soils. Urban Ecology, Section III. 161–179.

42. World Bank (2012).

43. WWF and FAI (2012). “Terra Rubata”.

44. Zhang, X., Chen, J., Tan, M., Sun, Y., 2007. Assessing the impact of urban sprawl on soil resources of

Nanjing city using satellite images and digital soil databases. Catena 69, 16–30.

45. Barberis, R., Di Fabbio, A., Di Leginio, M., Giordano, F., Guerrieri, L., Leoni, I. and Viti, S. (2006).

“Impermeabilizzazione e consumo dei suoli nelle aree urbane.” APAT (Agenzia per la protezione

dell’ambiente ei servizi tecnici): 631-649. Rome, Italy. [Online] Available at: http://www.apat.gov.it

46. Travisi, C. M., Camagni, R. and Nijkamp, P. (2010). “Impacts of urban sprawl and commuting: a modelling

study for Italy”. Original Research Article Journal of Transport Geography 18 (3): 382-392.

47. Umweltbundesamt, Reduzierung der Flächeninanspruchnahme durch Siedlung und Verkehr, Texte 90/03,

Berlin 2003. - Federal Environment Agency (FEA) reduce land consumption by housing and transport, texts

90/03, Berlin 2003. [Online] Available at:

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/publikation/long/2587.pdf


14 | P a g e

IMAGES 1. http://www.plantday.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/il-suolo-che-vive.jpg

2. http://images.vanityfair.it/Storage/Assets/Crops/280224/8/91961/genova-alluvione_650x435.jpg

3. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTky-

GLmDOkuLC0tKlMVvmzxTbKTyrioPzoHLXIOcjM9sy7w-8Xhg

4. http://www.ilsussidiario.net/img/ANSA3/liguria_R400.jpg

5. http://fr.wallpaperswiki.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Berlin.jpg

6. http://www.holidaygermany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Holiday-Germany-German-Cities-worth-

a-Visit.jpg

7. http://www.dresden.de/media/bilder/dtg/sightseeing/altstadt/20090609_588_dresden_silhouette_som

mer_sd.jpg

8. https://www.dresden.de/media/bilder/dtg/freizeit/20100616_588_kunstakademie1_elbe_rg2.jpg

soil sealing

Documents