63
tools already in force, an unavoidable step is the evaluation of a sort of “exter-
nal coherence”. This implies the construction of a matrix, able to stress a set of
retroactive types of interrelations among planning objectives at different scales:
»
Convergence: planning tools can merge on a common ground with multidi-
mensional indicators;
»
Conflict: planning tools use similar languages, but the expected outputs are
in contradiction or show evident incongruities;
»
Criticality: planning tools express incompatible aspects that require a nego-
tiation initiative;
»
Indifference: planning tools have no significant reciprocal impact.
Each “intersection” is then conceptually a thematic field to be addressed by
mitigation measures related to the sensitivity of any given landscape.
As for the assessment methodologies, they should take into account at least
three main fields that tackle sustainability issues inside “landscape frames”, such
as landscape units, character areas, eco-regions, or other “district” forms:
»
the first one concerns aspects like “form and memory”, that is, in order to
understand the past, the trajectory of change and/or continuity, which has
brought any specific living environment to the current state and which pro-
vides the springboard for any future change. More precisely, form issues
should be conveyed in both sense of feature and scale issues, ultimately to
shape and size issues;
»
the second one should provide an in-depth evaluation of environmental is-
sues (wildlife), such as heterogeneity, connectivity, fragmentation, as a meas-
ure for biodiversity not to be reduced;
»
the third one is referred to the social acceptability (social awareness and
institutional responses). Dealing with perceptions claims for a peculiar atten-
tion to indicators based on notions such as: the willingness to change (how
