Historical Centres, Protected Natural Areas, Communities and Sustainable Development: A Possible Balance
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Istituto di Studi sul Mediterraneo (ISMed), 80134 Napoli, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(2), 403; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020403
Submission received: 15 December 2022
/
Revised: 22 January 2023
/
Accepted: 26 January 2023
/
Published: 2 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development of the Territory and Use of Natural and Cultural Resources to Improve the Quality of Life of Residents)
Abstract
:The paper illustrates how the recovery and valorisation of protected natural areas can constitute, for the local communities of small inland areas in Italy, a flywheel of sustainable development with beneficial effects for the entire ‘country system’. Through a SWOT analysis and having selected the indicators for the chosen territory, which is the Roccamonfina Volcanic Area and Garigliano Mouth Regional Natural Park in the Campania Region, the characteristics of the area were highlighted as well as all the municipalities that contribute to defining the park area. The methodology adopted was chosen to identify a sample area whose peculiarities are applied and scalable to other contexts with similar conditions. The paper aims to contribute to the debate on the valorisation of protected areas in Southern Italy to promote the enhancement of production potential in sectors such as enhancing ecological quality, agricultural supply chains and projects linked to tourism sustainability. Promoting the role of agriculture, through the valorisation of quality agricultural supply chains and projects linked to tourism sustainability, can contribute to the economic development of Italy’s inland areas. The authors believe that the sustainable development of southern Italy’s protected areas can take place in territories with a characteristic identity based on environmental quality, territorial cohesion and the recovery of food habits. In the absence of adequate solutions, the protected natural areas and the communities that inhabit them risk deterioration, with the consequent loss of identities—cultural, historical, territorial—that must instead be preserved, handed down and enhanced.
1. Introduction
The theme of the protection of, and, at the same time, the enhancement of protected natural areas in Italy originated in 1991 when, after a long debate between scientific, cultural and political parties, one of the best laws in the sector was enacted with international recognition [1], entitled: “Framework law on protected areas”, no. 394 of 6 December 1991 [2]. For the first time, a law associated the conservation of natural environments, which are very important for the protection of biodiversity, with the protection and enhancement of the territory, including the built environment, its historical–artistic and architectural heritage (forgetting urban planning), the enhancement of intangible heritage, and specific and original production activities, often identity-based. Together, these factors could have supplied the support to favour the relaunch of areas rich in bio-diversity, with prospects for sustainable development. The “Park Community” (art. 10) is endowed with the “Park Plan” (art. 12) and the “Park Regulation” (art. 11) and supported by the “Incentive Measures” (art. 7) and by the “Initiatives for Economic and Social Promotion” (art. 14). These have all the cards to produce the eco-sustainable development of the areas of the country that are to be protected. Finally, the law provides for two levels of classification of protected areas: national and regional parks, whether parks of large dimensions or nature reserves, characterised by small areas. The national-level park communities in central and northern Italy have made the most of the opportunities offered by the law.
In the Campania region, the two national parks, Vesuvius and Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Monti Alburni, have been able to make use of government incentives by adopting appropriate planning. On the contrary, all the other parks in southern Italy, such as the Gargano (Puglia), Pollino (Basilicata and Calabria), Sila and Aspromonte (Calabria), and the Lucano, Val d’Agri and Lagonegrese Apennines (Basilicata) have failed to take advantage of the opportunities contained in current legislation aimed at relaunching the local, social, cultural and economic development of protected natural areas. The peculiarity is that Southern Italy has the largest presence of protected natural areas; of the 527 Italian park areas, 386 are located in the South while only 141 are in Central or Northern Italy. This situation also affects the distribution of the population living in the protected areas; in Central and Northern Italy there are 775,000 inhabitants, while in the South there are approximately 2 million 200,000. Estimates taken from the GREEN REPORT [3], indicate that in the decade 2001/2010, the population of national park areas increased by 1.6% compared to 6.4% at the national level. According to the Official List of Protected Areas in Italy, 871 have been established for a total protected land area of over 3 million hectares, equal to about 10.5% of the national land area [4]. Of all the Italian regions, Campania and Abruzzo have the largest area of protected natural areas. In the Campania region, the area allocated to regional protected natural areas is larger than the national area. Despite this, the lack of planning, programming and land management has so far not allowed an adequate valorisation of the regional-level protected natural areas in the Campania region. There are several reasons for the failure of planning and management of protected natural areas in southern Italy. First of all, the poor capacity of the ‘Park Authorities’ to carry out territorial planning, i.e., to provide the ‘Park Community’ with the appropriate tools to operate. Another non-negligible reason is the poor involvement of the ‘local communities’ by the competent institutions. The case of the Campania Region, in particular, is one that has been examined in depth and in which many of the problems summarised above have emerged and will be addressed in this paper. On the one hand, we aim to highlight the problems of Campania’s protected natural areas, but on the other hand, based on the characteristics and peculiarities of each area, to propose solutions to provide a contribution aimed at improving, protecting and enhancing the territories in Southern Italy that have not implemented an approach based on the opportunities of the last decade. At present, ecological networks, i.e., the system of protected areas that are also affected by environments and spaces located in urbanized or marginal areas, have the purpose of mapping and relating territories that are the habitat of all those species that contribute to the balance and functioning of ecosystems 1. In this context, “little-known towns and villages” [5] that fall within these areas show signs of severe neglect. The elements of the weakness of the minor centres that fall within the protected areas are the small size of the settlements, the sparse population, the aging process of the resident population, and the limited accessibility to essential services. In addition to these problems, there is also the geographical location that penalizes the inland protected areas located in hilly and mountainous areas where connection networks are limited.
2. Method and Methodology
2.1. Territorialist Approach and Protected Natural Areas
The territories of these centres are characterized by diversified and valuable resources, such as environmental resources and important agri-food (forests, protected areas, agricultural production) and cultural activities (archaeological heritage, abbeys, small museums, craft centres). These places, which contain traces of millenary history made up of identities and knowledge, a rich historical–artistic–architectural, natural and enogastronomic heritage, are also places for experimenting with the most innovative good practices in energy, green economy, and waste recycling, and are “lab” of hospitality and social inclusion [6]. The theme of the relationship between local communities, small towns, and the territory of the protected areas, where important processes are being launched with the aim of reconciling the reconstitution of ‘natural capital’ with the conservation of rural landscapes throughout Italy, appears central. The protected areas can become the territorial laboratories for improving the agro-zootechnical, ichthyic, and forestry production chain, promoting the ‘Mediterranean Diet’ 2 through which virtuous actions can be implemented and quality productions can be sustained by protecting biodiversity and safeguarding the tangible and intangible heritage. Encouraging the role of agriculture through the valorisation of ecological quality agricultural supply chains and projects linked to tourism sustainability can contribute to the economic development of Italy’s protected natural areas.
Table 1 shows absolute and percentage change in population in the Campania Region 2001–2020. To highlight the decline in the population of the entire Region, and more clearly in the study area, Figure 1 shows all the protected natural areas in the Campania Region, differentiating the regional from the national areas. In both, the entire municipalities that make up the protected natural areas are highlighted. Finally, Figure 1 also shows the locations of the park authorities.
Figure 2 shows the populations of the municipal territories that contribute to defining the protected natural areas, both national and regional. In particular, in the area under study, it can be seen from the colouring of the municipal territories that the territories of Sessa Aurunca and Teano have a much larger population than the other municipalities.
Table 2 lists all the protected natural areas in the Campania region, indicating their extension but above all highlighting the morphology of the territory, which contributes to briefly defining the main features of the area. Lastly, Table 3 and Table 4 below contribute to providing a picture of the agrifood peculiarities that characterise the Campania Region. Roccamonfina area emphasises in particular high quality products such as buffalo mozzarella (mozzarella di bufala campana), extra virgin olive oil of Terre Aurunche, Gaeta olives, chestnuts (the Marrone di Rocca d’Aspide) while in the wine sector there are two certified high quality wines of great tradition: Falerno del Massico and Galluccio.
Table 5 shows the number of agritourism and all other accommodation facilities in the territories that contain the regional park areas of the volcanic area of Roccamonfina and the Garigliano estuary. In the chosen study area the presence of agritourism is equivalent, having the same characteristics, to rural tourism facilities. In the area, however, there are structures that can be assimilated to the Albergo Diffuso, albeit in reduced quantities. From the table many structures emerge, but it must be considered that many of these, especially those that belong to the territories of Sessa Aurunca and Teano, are part of the structures of summer accommodation seasonal tourism, as they are also located on the coast. As both individual facilities and bed capacity, the quantities are very small, but in any case, they constitute economic activities that link farms, local entrepreneurs, typical productions and tourist flows.
2.2. Small Municipalities in Italy: Quantity and Qualitative Data
The analysis continues with a look at the comparison between small municipalities, resident population and a land area of Italian small municipalities. A total of 5500 small municipalities (Table 6), 69% of Italian municipalities, have 10,068,213 residents, with a municipal surface area of 55% of the national territory, representing 17% of the Italian population. Most small municipalities have a population of between 1001 and 3000 inhabitants (45.8%), while municipalities with a population of under 1000 inhabitants make up 33.6% of the total. In many Italian regions, more than 70 per cent of the territorial area concerns small municipalities, which have experienced a decrease in the number of inhabitants in recent years (−3% from 2012 to 2017). This puts the issue of counter-exodus at the centre of the debate.
In recent decades, small municipalities have also been called ‘Borghi’ (villages) and from a quality point of view, 274 have been awarded the Italian Touring Club’s (Tci) Orange Flag certification (December 2022), while 334 those classified among the ‘Most Beautiful Villages in Italy’ (December 2022). The Tci awards Orange Flags to places that have a valuable historical, cultural and environmental heritage and offer quality tourist accommodation. The association of Italy’s Most Beautiful Villages has been promoted since 2001 by the Tourism Council of the National Association of Italian Municipalities and includes municipalities that apply policies to conserve their historical and cultural heritage, limit new artificial surfaces, maintain traditional agricultural practices and focus on sustainability [8]. Both initiatives consider for certification only municipalities with up to 15,000 inhabitants (and, in the case of Orange Flags, only if located inland) [9]. Table 7 shows the data on the municipal territories that make up the protected natural area and the inhabited centres that are inside these areas. Finally, the data show that there are extensive protected areas but with few inhabited centres, which is common in other regions of southern Italy.
2.3. The Case Study of the ‘Parco Regionale Area Vulcanica di Roccamonfina e Foce Garigliano’
There are eight regional parks in Campania, of which two are predominantly coastal and not to be counted as ‘inland areas’, as defined by the ‘National Strategy for Inland Areas’, and six are to be considered completely inland. Among these, we have chosen to illustrate the ‘Regional Park Volcanic Area of Roccamonfina and Foce Garigliano’ (Figure 3), hereafter referred to as the Park only, both because it is particularly significant in the regional context and because it is little known and little studied. The population trend in the Campania region and in Italy has been decreasing since 2011, with a fluctuating trend until 2020 (Figure 4), a constant trend in the period between 2014 and 2020, of the population, a fact that is also found in the Park area that is the subject of this case study.
This phenomenon is particularly evident in the Park area, which involves seven contiguous municipalities with two population centres with a population of over ten thousand Table 8. On the contrary, the demographic size of the other five municipalities is less than five thousand units. In particular, the municipality of Sessa Aurunca, with a population of over twenty thousand units, is certainly the largest and most important inhabited centre and extends over a large territory (162.2 square kilometres) rich in landscape, archaeological, architectural and urbanistic qualities. Teano is the other important centre in the area with a population of over ten thousand and a territory that covers 89.43 square kilometres.
The other five municipal territories are much smaller and as a whole, they reach 117.84 square kilometres, which is less than the territory of the municipality of Sessa Aurunca alone (Table 8 and Figure 5 and Figure 6). The data on the evolution of the demographic phenomenon concerning the Park, reveals a constant decrease in population both in absolute value and percentage of all the municipalities. The data produced by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istat), suitably revised based on the case study, confirm a consistent negative trend with percentage variations even in double figures (Table 8 and Figure 5 and Figure 6).
2.4. The Case Study of the Roccamonfina-Foce Garigliano Regional Park
To produce a more coherent analysis of the case study, a SWOT analysis, developed ad hoc below, was used. This is suitable for assessing the quantitative and qualitative aspects with field verifications, also by comparing with experts in the field to highlight successful and non-successful cases. The SWOT analysis (Table 9) shows that the specific features of the case study are fully representative of all the elements that contribute to the value of this territory. Of course, the weak points are confirmed to be depopulation and abandonment by the population but, at the same time, the opportunities can guarantee a revival. It is no coincidence that the certification of quality products creates the conditions for the ‘Mediterranean Diet’ 3 to be one of the added values for the area’s relaunch. Potential also remains conditioned by hydrogeological instability and poorly maintained real estate. The presence of cultural heritage (artistic, architectural, historical and urban) of interesting value is also noted. To this end, the methodology adopted for the paper and suitably reworked confirms a study promoted by ISFOL [10] concerning some southern Italian regions, namely Campania, Puglia, Calabria, Sicily and Basilicata, characterised by slower growth, depopulation and ageing population.
2.5. Tools
One of the most effective tools to address the problem of Italy’s internal areas is the one put in place with the ‘National Strategy of Internal Areas’ [11]. This aims to touch every region and macro-region of the country, creating employment, achieving social inclusion and reducing the costs of land abandonment, for those areas that are significantly distant from the centres of supply of essential services (education, health and mobility), rich in important environmental and cultural resources and strongly diversified by nature and as a result of secular processes of anthropisation. About a quarter of the Italian population lives in these areas, in a portion of territory that exceeds sixty per cent of the total and is organised in over four thousand municipalities. The National Energy Strategy (NES) identifies energy savings and renewable energies as two of the seven key actions with which it aims to pursue the four strategic objectives by 2020 of reducing energy costs, de-carbonising the economic system, enhancing the security of supply and boosting growth [12]. Another fundamental instrument of the Strategy put in place by Italy is “The National Environmental Action Strategy for Sustainable Development in Italy 2002–2010” [13] which guarantees continuity with the action of the European Union and has as its objectives and actions the continuity of the Strategy in the system of the Regions, Autonomous Provinces and Local Authorities in light of the principle of subsidiarity, through the preparation of sustainability strategies at all levels. Another important instrument at the national level is the ‘Digitisation of Public Administration’ as part of the ‘National Recovery and Resilience Plan’ through the National Digital Data Platform. Of particular relevance concerning municipalities of small population size, i.e., those with a population of less than five thousand. Measures for the support and enhancement of small municipalities, as well as provisions for the redevelopment and recovery of the historic centres of the same municipalities [14], have been introduced in favour of residents of small municipalities and the productive activities established therein, to counter their depopulation and encourage the influx of tourists. Lastly, one of the most important and decisive tools for achieving sustainable development in protected and inland natural areas is the enhancement of local communities and their settlements through the planned application of the ‘Mediterranean Diaeta’, which obtained UNESCO recognition as part of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2010, as it involves a series of skills, knowledge, rituals, symbols and traditions concerning cultivation, agricultural harvests, fishing, animal breeding, conservation, processing, cooking and sharing and consumption of food.
3. Results
The main result is the mere fact of being interested in such areas. As already mentioned, the existing literature on this subject in Italy is very scarce, especially concerning southern Italian areas. The subject of protected areas in their promotion and enhancement was partly addressed in the 1990s, but subsequently, the topic has no longer been at the centre of either political or cultural debate. Since the post-war period, trends towards an urban-centric approach have diverted attention towards inland areas and, in particular, protected natural areas. Another result is that of having developed a SWOT analysis centred on the characteristics of the territory and highlighting the area’s potential, problems, opportunities offered by legislation and economic incentives, and threats caused by a lack of planning, monitoring and land management. Another result is that of having connected the territories, potentials and local communities of the Roccamonfina Foce Garigliano Volcanic Area Regional Park in a synoptic framework. Closely related to the aforementioned concept of a territorial laboratory, which is one of the most shareable approaches to tackling the problem in a “smart land” key, we have focused on a territorial sphere where it is possible to experiment and implement widespread and shared policies aimed at increasing the territory’s competitiveness and attractiveness with specific attention to social cohesion, the dissemination of knowledge, creative growth, accessibility and freedom of movement, the usability of the environment and the quality of the landscape and citizens’ lives [15]. Another result is that of having identified the elements capable of linking the agro-zootechnical, fishing and forestry production chain and of disseminating and protecting the ‘Mediterranean Diet’ through which to implement virtuous actions and support quality production while protecting biodiversity. The 2013 Mediterranean Diet recognition document, which, starting from the assumption that the term ‘diet’ derives from the Greek diaīta, i.e., ‘lifestyle’, attributes to the element an example of sustainable development in full compliance with existing international human rights instruments and the need for mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals. The document emphasises the use of the element as an example, for the entire international community, by the most important agencies of the United Nations, such as the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), which considers it a model of a sustainable diet that respects natural resources and biodiversity, local landscapes and the environment, and the World Health Organisation (WHO), which recognises it as a nutritional model that contributes to the health and wellbeing of populations. The Mediterranean Diet thus becomes a paradigm of permanent dialogue with nature, guided by respect for cultural, biological and environmental diversity, as well as hospitality, neighbourliness, sharing, intercultural dialogue, mutual respect and creativity. The term ‘protection’ has been declined in the sense of ‘care of territorial resources’, so as not to forget that through the protection of the areas also passes the ‘security of the territory’, a precondition—together with basic services—for counteracting the phenomena of abandonment and demographic decline and relaunch development processes [16]. In our opinion, proposing and promoting the formation of an “International Network of the Villages of the ‘Mediterranean Diet’” would fall within the measure “R.3” UNESCO in which protection measures are elaborated to protect and promote the element, such as specifically the “Mediterranean Diet” as formulated by UNESCO in 2010 becomes an important element to invest in. One of the conditions that certainly needs to be implemented is to set up a Mediterranean network with the countries that are already recognised by UNESCO (Italy, Spain, Morocco, Greece, Cyprus, Croatia and Portugal). Another objective to which our methodology points is to implement ‘nature tourism’ concerning the naturalistic value of both the extinct volcanic area of Roccamonfina (geomorphological sector) and the final stretch including the mouth of the Garigliano river (faunistic, hydrological, ichthyic, geological and botanical sectors). There are successful cases of good practice of this kind in Southern Italy, such as in the Cilento Region, which is the home of the Mediterranean Diet.
4. Discussion
In our research one of the missing links concerns the next, more empirical step aimed at activating synergies centred on the needs of the territory, especially if protected, which are: (a) the lack of internal confrontation within the local communities, (b) soliciting a permanent round table between the communities and local administrators, (c) activating concertation between the local community, the Park community, and administrators (municipal, provincial and regional), who should take part in drafting the Park Plan. In our opinion, it would be appropriate to continue the research by activating a debate with local administrators and communities, involving professionals with interdisciplinary skills. There is an awareness that the management of protected areas necessarily passes through a planning phase that is crucial for the achievement of objectives. This phase has not yet been implemented in many protected areas, either for the formation procedure or for the adoption of the Park Plan. Law 394/91, with the intention of standardising procedures, dictates an operational scheme that only partially obliges due consultation (but does not prevent it from being extended!) and does not impose (but does not prevent!) an objective pathway for identifying values, threats and the most appropriate responses.
In recent years, the Park Authorities 4 have been the recipients of increasingly meagre resources and insufficient technical-administrative resources, causing operational difficulties in achieving the goals set by the legislator. These limitations have exacerbated the perception of parks, by stakeholders and communities, mainly in their constraining aspect. Only in more mature realities is the added value that protected areas can bring to local development understood, in a prospective vision. A further element of discussion that contributes to better clarifying the contribution of planning is that which brings together Park Authorities, Universities and Research Centres to make more operational the results of research activities in protected natural areas, which prove to be useful territorial laboratories for various experiments. It has been seen that all regional laws tend to create a ‘system’ of protected areas in which, in addition to the provisions for the protection and conservation of physical heritage (in its broadest sense), there is room for the enhancement of compatible productive activities, scientific research, training and education. This theme is particularly central to the development of territories but is little addressed in the literature, especially that concerning southern Italy. The objectives recognised for the activity of the Park Authorities in the regional regulations 5 are ambitious, but often made unattainable by a complex governance that is sometimes unsupported. Another relevant topic related to sustainable tourism and the territory of protected areas concerns accesses to network connections, which plays an important role in the promotion of the territory of inland areas [17].
5. Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to contribute to the identification of possibilities to facilitate the intervention in the territory of protected areas with analytical methods oriented towards the pursuit of “sustainable development”. It is necessary to initiate planning of priorities that allows greater acceptance of local communities towards Protected Natural Areas, and greater transparency towards citizens, which conveys the idea that the instrument “protected area” sets objectives, implements actions and is monitored, adaptively improving management. One of the critical elements which, among other things, makes it difficult to find studies on protected areas in general is the lack of a serious systematic and continuous monitoring programme of biodiversity elements (monitoring of values, threats and expectations). The lack of monitoring and the scarcity of studies and research on the subject is an essential element in the management of protected areas, both for conservation, economic development and environmental sustainability. The lack of monitoring affects local strengths in terms of costs to be incurred and entrepreneurial actions to be undertaken. In particular, in the case study area, tourism activities have been started up in agritourism, supported by cooperatives that use local produce with quality certifications. It is in these factors that we must invest to motivate communities and to create a virtuous exchange circuit between development models, conservation of protected areas and the surrounding area. Therefore, at the local scale, we must move from a logic of assistance to an approach that links communities to the protected area by clarifying costs and benefits. Quality agricultural production is a powerful ally of environmental conservation, but also the basis for the consolidation and spread of the Mediterranean Diet, which integrates human activities and environmental conservation. Additionally, it is precisely in this sense that protected natural areas can be an investment in consideration of environmental ‘diversity’; for an area to be distinguished by its innovative and strategic proposals, it must be able to bring out the identity factors that can make it recognisable. It is no coincidence that in recent years, alongside the classic tourism of cities of art, a series of tourist circuits have been developed, also directed at lesser-known territories, which leverage not only artistic and architectural attractions but also elements such as taste (food and wine). In particular, the Mediterranean Diet in Southern Italy is passed on from generation to generation and constitutes a strong identity factor. In this direction, the intangible cultural heritage and the social and cultural economic activities linked to it constitute a strong element of attraction for tourism purposes. Another topic concerns the protection of protected areas that, as in the case study analysed in this paper, lack a planning phase that would be represented by the adoption of the “Park Plan” and that is crucial for the achievement of priority objectives, to achieve a transparent and shared decision-making process that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the area being planned. At present, protected areas are portions that are enclosed within their borders and do not export biodiversity and economic opportunities, both within and outside them. The so-called minor centres, ‘little known’ inhabited areas with areas of historical–architectural (sometimes even urbanistic) interest, and the small villages (about twenty thousand in total in Italy) guard an extraordinary heritage of tangible and intangible assets, traditions and manufacturing skills, knowledge and conviviality also strongly linked to the ‘Mediterranean Diet’. These factors contribute to the strengthening of local identity and its maintenance, which become a flywheel of development, perfectly consistent with the promotion and growth strategies of the territory to safeguard and enhance local communities. In the absence of adequate solutions, protected natural areas and the communities that live in them can only deteriorate, with the consequent loss of identity—cultural, historical, territorial—that instead must be preserved, handed down and enhanced.
In conclusion, the authors believe that the way to arrive at a possible balance within the protected areas of the Campania region is through energetic and sustained action on the part of the institutions and all the stakeholders identified by the authors, which places local communities at the centre of any action concerning their territory.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.B. and T.V.; methodology, A.B.; formal analysis, A.B.; writing original draft preparation, A.B. and T.V.; writing review and editing, A.B. and T.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research has received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Regional Park of Roccamonfina e Foce Garigliano and Paolo Pironti (CNR-ISMed).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
| 1 | Naturalistic policies are linked to landscape, urban, infrastructural and social issues among others. The first consequence has been the affirmation of a new conception of the relations between protected areas and the territory, which leads to the interweaving of protection and development policies, to the systematic extension of attention to environmental contexts that are much broader than the protected areas, to making decision-making and management processes more complex, but at the same time more significant, by involving local institutions and actors. |
| 2 | The 2013 Mediterranean Diet recognition document, which, starting from the assumption that the term ‘diet’ derives from the Greek diaīta, i.e., ‘lifestyle’, attributes to the element an example of sustainable development in full compliance with existing international human rights instruments and the need for mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals. The document emphasises the use of the element as an example, for the entire international community, by the most important agencies of the United Nations, such as the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), which considers it a model of a sustainable diet that respects natural resources and biodiversity, local landscapes and the environment, and the World Health Organisation (WHO), which recognises it as a nutritional model that contributes to the health and wellbeing of populations. The Mediterranean Diet thus becomes a paradigm of permanent dialogue with nature, guided by respect for cultural, biological and environmental diversity, as well as hospitality, neighbourliness, sharing, intercultural dialogue, mutual respect and creativity. |
| 3 | The Orange Flag is a recognition of tourist-environmental quality awarded by the “Touring Club Italiano” to small inland municipalities, with a population of no more than 15,000, that stand out for their qualifying offer and reception. The ‘Touring Club Italiano’ (TCI) is a non-profit association, intending to promote tourism throughout Italy, founded in 1894 in Milan. |
| 4 | The bodies of the park authority are (a) the president; (b) the executive board; (c) the executive council; (d) the board of auditors; (e) the park community. |
| 5 | In Italy, regional regulations are included in regional laws implementing national law, as in the case of Campania Regional Law No 33 of 01/09/1993. |
References
- Bertini, A. Introduzione. Aree protette, comunità locali e centri abitati. In Aree Protette in Italia. Il caso della Campania; Bertini, A., Nicoletti, D., Vitolo, G.F.R.T., Eds.; Rubbettino: Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro), Italy, 2015; p. 15. [Google Scholar]
- Gazzetta Ufficiale, serie generale n. 292 del 13/12/1991—suppl. ordinario n. 83 “Legge quadro sulle aree protette”, n. 394 del 6 dicembre 1991.
- Available online: https://ambientenonsolo.com/764mila-di-aree-terrestri-protette-in-europa-i-dati-eurostat/ (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- Gazzetta Ufficiale, serie generale n. 125 del 31/05/2010—suppl. ordinario n. 125. Decreto 27 Aprile 2010 del Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare.
- Bertini, A. Per i centri abitati “poco noti”. In Turismi e Turisti. Politica, Innovazione, Economia in Italia in Età Contemporanea; Avallone, P., Strangio, D., Eds.; Franco Angeli Editore: Milano, Italy, 2015; pp. 207–226. [Google Scholar]
- Bertini, A.; Vitolo, T. Sustainable tourism development: Best practices and inland areas. In Post COVID-19 Tourism: A Pathway towards Sustainable Development in the Mediterranean Region; Buonincontri, P., Errichiello, L., Micera, R., Eds.; Graw Hill: Milano, Italy, 2015; pp. 85–100. [Google Scholar]
- Paladino, M. Il Sistema delle aree Parco della Regione Campania, Asita 2017, pp. 804–805.
- Bertini, A.; Caruso, I.; Vitolo, T. Inland Areas, Protected Natural Areas and Sustainable Development. Eng. Proc. 2022, 18, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanzo, L.; Ferrara, A. Paesaggio e patrimonio culturale. In Bes; 2021; p. 170. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/files/2022/04/9.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- Resce, M. (Ed.) Le Aree Protette: Vincolo o Opportunità. In Istituto per lo Sviluppo della Formazione Professionale dei Lavoratori; Isfol: Rome, Italy, 2013; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
- Strategia Nazionale delle Aree Interne. Available online: https://www.agenziacoesione.gov.it/strategia-nazionale-aree-interne/#:~:text=La%20Strategia%20Nazionale%20per%20le,aree%20interne%20del%20nostro%20Paese (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- Strategia Energetica Nazionale (SEN), approvata con decreto congiunto dei Ministri dell’ambiente e dello sviluppo economico l’8 marzo scorso. Available online: https://www.mise.gov.it/images/stories/documenti/Testo-integrale-SEN-2017.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- Ministero Dell’ambiente Dalla Legge n. 221 del 28 Dicembre 2015 Conseguente l’Agenda 2030 per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (Ministero Dell’ambiente e Della Tutela del Territorio). Available online: https://www.bosettiegatti.eu/info/norme/statali/2015_0221.htm (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- GU Serie Generale n.256 del 02-11-2017. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/gazzetta/serie_generale/caricaDettaglio?dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2022-11-02&numeroGazzetta=256 (accessed on 31 January 2023).
- Bonomi, A.; Masiero, R. Dalla Smart City Alla Smart Land; Marsilio Editori: Venezia, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Accordo di Partenariato 2014–2020. Strategia Nazionale per le Aree Interne: Definizione, Obiettivi, Strumenti e Governance. Documento Tecnico Collegato alla Bozza di Accordo di Partenariato Trasmessa Alla CE il 9 Dicembre 2013. Available online: https://opencoesione.gov.it/it/adp_2014_2020/ (accessed on 22 November 2022).
- Bressanelli, G. The role of digital technologies to overcome Circular Economie challenges in PSS Business Models: An exploratory case study. Procedia CIRP 2018, 73, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
National Parks (in shades of green), Regional Parks (in red), Municipalities of National Parks (in yellow), Municipalities of Regional parks (in pink), with small point, the centre of Park, with continuous black line, park area boundary [7].
Figure 1.
National Parks (in shades of green), Regional Parks (in red), Municipalities of National Parks (in yellow), Municipalities of Regional parks (in pink), with small point, the centre of Park, with continuous black line, park area boundary [7].
Figure 2.
Campania Region. Parks with municipal territories and population. Keys: until 1000 in, yellow; by 1001 to 3000 (green); by 3001 to 5000, (brown); over 10,000 (red); with continuous black line, park area boundary [7].
Figure 2.
Campania Region. Parks with municipal territories and population. Keys: until 1000 in, yellow; by 1001 to 3000 (green); by 3001 to 5000, (brown); over 10,000 (red); with continuous black line, park area boundary [7].
Figure 3.
Map of protected natural areas in the Campania Region, northern section. No. 2 highlights the protected area of the ‘Regional Park of the Roccamonfina and Foce Garigliano Volcanic Area’ and its provisional zoning, from which it can be seen how extensive zone B (area in light green) is, this area is particularly important for the agricultural and pastoral activities that take places there and for the economic impact on the entire area. Under No. 1 is the Matese Regional park, under No. 4 is the Falciano Lake Regional Nature Reserve, under No. 5 is the Oasi WWF Bosco di San Silvestro and No. 7 is the Foce Volturno and Costa di Licola Regional Nature Reserve. The Roccamonfina volcano is a now-extinct apparatus that over the millennia has provided the surrounding area with fertile soil rich in minerals, where the symbiosis of the environment with man has lasted for centuries and is consolidated. The stretch of the Garigliano river on the left bank is protected by the Campania region and the mouth with a stretch of the coastal dune is an integral reserve and should be defended, protected, and enhanced much more than it is. (©CNR 2011—by Antonio Bertini; graphic realization by Filomena Maione and Stefania Scapin).
Figure 3.
Map of protected natural areas in the Campania Region, northern section. No. 2 highlights the protected area of the ‘Regional Park of the Roccamonfina and Foce Garigliano Volcanic Area’ and its provisional zoning, from which it can be seen how extensive zone B (area in light green) is, this area is particularly important for the agricultural and pastoral activities that take places there and for the economic impact on the entire area. Under No. 1 is the Matese Regional park, under No. 4 is the Falciano Lake Regional Nature Reserve, under No. 5 is the Oasi WWF Bosco di San Silvestro and No. 7 is the Foce Volturno and Costa di Licola Regional Nature Reserve. The Roccamonfina volcano is a now-extinct apparatus that over the millennia has provided the surrounding area with fertile soil rich in minerals, where the symbiosis of the environment with man has lasted for centuries and is consolidated. The stretch of the Garigliano river on the left bank is protected by the Campania region and the mouth with a stretch of the coastal dune is an integral reserve and should be defended, protected, and enhanced much more than it is. (©CNR 2011—by Antonio Bertini; graphic realization by Filomena Maione and Stefania Scapin).
Figure 4.
Comparison in percentage terms between the Campania region and Italy of the variation in population years 2002–2020 (source ISTAT, elaboration TUTTITALIA.IT).
Figure 4.
Comparison in percentage terms between the Campania region and Italy of the variation in population years 2002–2020 (source ISTAT, elaboration TUTTITALIA.IT).
Figure 5.
The municipal surface area is represented in square kilometres of the municipalities included in the Regional Park of the volcanic area of Roccamonfina and the mouth of Garigliano (elaboration by Antonio Bertini on Istat data).
Figure 5.
The municipal surface area is represented in square kilometres of the municipalities included in the Regional Park of the volcanic area of Roccamonfina and the mouth of Garigliano (elaboration by Antonio Bertini on Istat data).
Figure 6.
The graph effectively visualises the scale of depopulation and, consequently, the importance of the phenomenon, which particularly affects areas with a high landscape and cultural value that are poorly developed (elaboration by Antonio Bertini on Istat data).
Figure 6.
The graph effectively visualises the scale of depopulation and, consequently, the importance of the phenomenon, which particularly affects areas with a high landscape and cultural value that are poorly developed (elaboration by Antonio Bertini on Istat data).
Table 1.
Population and absolute and percentage changes in the Campania Region 2001–2020.
| Year | Resident Population | Absolute Variation | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 5,701,389 | - | - |
| 2002 | 5,725,098 | +23,709 | +0.42% |
| 2003 | 5,760,353 | +35,255 | +0.62% |
| 2004 | 5,788,986 | +28,633 | +0.50% |
| 2005 | 5,790,929 | +1943 | +0.03% |
| 2006 | 5,790,187 | −742 | −0.01% |
| 2007 | 5,811,390 | +21,203 | +0.37% |
| 2008 | 5,812,962 | +1572 | +0.03% |
| 2009 | 5,824,662 | +11,700 | +0.20% |
| 2010 | 5,834,056 | +9394 | +0.16% |
| 2011 | 5,836,317 | +2261 | +0.04% |
| 2012 | 5,769,750 | +5326 | +0.09% |
| 2013 | 5,869,965 | +100,215 | +1.74% |
| 2014 | 5,861,529 | −8436 | −0.14% |
| 2015 | 5,850,850 | −10,679 | −0.18% |
| 2016 | 5,839,084 | −11,766 | −0.20% |
| 2017 | 5,826,860 | −12,224 | −0.21% |
| 2018 | 5,740,291 | −86,569 | −1.49% |
| 2019 | 5,712,143 | −28,148 | −0.49% |
| 2020 | 5,624,260 | −87,883 | −1.54% |
Table 2.
Natural protected areas of the Campania Region, land area and type (elaboration by Antonio Bertini). Keys: NP, National park; RP, regional park; MR, marine reserve; UAP Underwater archaeological park; SR, State reserve; RR, Regional reserve; RUP, Regional Urban Park; OPA, Other protected area.
Table 2.
Natural protected areas of the Campania Region, land area and type (elaboration by Antonio Bertini). Keys: NP, National park; RP, regional park; MR, marine reserve; UAP Underwater archaeological park; SR, State reserve; RR, Regional reserve; RUP, Regional Urban Park; OPA, Other protected area.
| Denomination | ha | Morpho-Typology | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NP | Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Monti Alburni | 181,048.00 | Coastal, inland and river archaeological |
| NP | Vesuvio | 8482.00 | Inland volcanic and metropolitan |
| RP | Campi Flegrei | 7350.00 | Coastal, marine, inland, lacustrine, volcanic, archaeological, thermal |
| RP | Matese | 33,326.53 | Inland, mountainous, lacustrine, archaeological |
| RP | Monti Lattari | 16,000.00 | Inland, coastal mountainous, archaeological |
| RP | Monti Picentini | 62,200.00 | Inland hill mountane fluvial |
| RP | Partenio | 14,870.00 | Inland hill mountane |
| RP | Roccamonfina e Foce Garigliano | 11,000.00 | Inland, volcanic, hilly, fluvial, thermal coastal |
| RP | Taburno-Camposauro | 12,370.00 | Inland upland |
| RP | Fiume Sarno | 3436.00 | Fluvial, archaeological |
| MR | Costa degli Infreschi e della Masseta | 2332.00 | Marina: coastal |
| MR | Punta Campanella | 1539.00 | Marina: coastal and island |
| MR | Regno di Nettuno | 11,256.00 | Marina: coastal and island |
| MR | Santa Maria di Castellabate | 7095.00 | Marina: coastal |
| UAP | Baia | 176.60 | Marine: coastal and archaeological |
| UAP | Gaiola | 41.60 | Marine: coastal and archaeological |
| SR | Castelvolturno | 268.14 | Coastal and lacustrine |
| SR | Cratere degli Astroni | 250.00 | Inland, volcanic, metropolitan area |
| SR | Isola di Vivara | 35.63 | Coastal, island, volcanic |
| SR | Tirone Alto Vesuvio | 1005.00 | Inland forested |
| SR | Valle delle Ferriere | 455.00 | Inland fluvial, archaeological-industrial |
| RR | Foce Sele e Tanagro | 6900.00 | Fluvial and coastal |
| RR | Foce Volturno e Costa di Licola | 1540.00 | Coastal, fluvial and lacustrine |
| RR | Lago Falciano | 9.00 | Lacustrine inland |
| RR | Monti Eremita Marzano | 1500.00 | Inland mountainous |
| RUP | Parco delle Colline di Napoli | 2215.00 | Internal metropolitan area |
| OPA | Baia di Ieranto | 50 | Coastal |
| OPA | Bosco di San Silvestro | 76 | Inland wooded |
| OPA | Diecimare | 444 | Inland wooded |
| OPA | Monte Polveracchio | 200 | Inland, mountainous and lacustrine |
| Total | 387,551.50 |
Table 3.
Protected designation of origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) from the Campania Region and parks (elaboration Antonio Bertini). Protected designation of origin (PDO), Protected geographical indication.
Table 3.
Protected designation of origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) from the Campania Region and parks (elaboration Antonio Bertini). Protected designation of origin (PDO), Protected geographical indication.
| Caciocavallo Silano | PN Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Monti Alburni | |
| Cipollotto Nocerino | Dop | PR del bacino fiume Sarno |
| Colatura di alici di Cetara | Dop | PR Monti Lattari |
| Cilento white fig | Dop | PN Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Monti Alburni |
| Mozzarella di Bufala Campana | PR Area vulcanica di Roccamonfina e foce Garigliano | |
| Cilento extra virgin olive oil | PN Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Monti Alburni | |
| Colline Salernitane extra virgin olive oil | PN Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Monti Alburni | |
| Irpinia extra virgin olive oil—Colline dell’Ufita | ||
| Sorrento Peninsula extra virgin olive oil | PR Monti Lattari | |
| Extra virgin olive oil Terre Aurunche | PR Area vulcanica di Roccamonfina e foce Garigliano | |
| Olive of Gaeta | PR Area vulcanica di Roccamonfina e foce Garigliano | |
| Piennolo del Vesuvio tomato | PN Vesuvio | |
| S. Marzano tomato from Agro Sarnese-nocerino | PR del bacino fiume Sarno | |
| Provolone del Monaco | PR Monti Lattari | |
| Ricotta di Bufala Campana | PN Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Monti Alburni | |
| PGIs recognized by the European Union | ||
| Paestum Artichoke | PN Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Monti Alburni | |
| Montella chestnut | PR dei Monti Picentini | |
| Roccamonfina chestnut | PR Area vulcanica di Roccamonfina e foce Garigliano | |
| Amalfi Coast Lemon | PR Monti Lattari | |
| Sorrento Lemon | PR Monti Lattari | |
| Marrone / Chestnut of Serino | PR dei Monti Picentini | |
| Marrone of Roccadaspide | PR Area Vulcanica di Roccamonfina e foce Garigliano | |
| Mela annurca Campana | PR del Taburno-Camposauro | |
| Giffoni Hazelnut | PR dei Monti Picentini | |
| Campania IGP olive oil | Tutti i parchi | |
| Gragnano Pasta | PR dei Monti Lattari | |
| Rocket from Piana del Sele | PN Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Monti Alburni e PR dei Picentini | |
| White Veal of the Central Apennines | Provincie Benevento e Avellino | |
| PGI pending | ||
| Bracigliano cherry PGI | PR dei Monti Picentini | |
| Irpinia Hazelnut PGI | PR del Partenio | |
| Peeled Tomato of Naples PGI | PR del bacino fiume Sarno | |
Table 4.
Certified wines produced, in part, in regional protected areas in Campania (elaboration Antonio Bertini).
Table 4.
Certified wines produced, in part, in regional protected areas in Campania (elaboration Antonio Bertini).
| Wine | Certification | Regional Parks |
|---|---|---|
| Aglianico del Taburno | Doc | Taburno Camposauro |
| Aversa | Doc | Campi Flegrei |
| Campania | Igt | Picentini |
| Campi Flegrei | Doc | Campi Flegrei |
| Costa d’Amalfi | Doc | Monti Lattari |
| Falerno del Massico | Doc | Area Vulcanica di Roccamonfina e Foce Garigliano |
| Fiano di Avellino | Doc | Partenio |
| Galluccio | Doc | Area vulcanica di Roccamonfina e Foce Garigliano |
| Greco di Tufo | Docg | Picentini |
| Irpinia | Doc | Picentini |
| Ischia | Doc | Regno di Nettuno |
| Penisola sorrentina | Doc | Monti Lattari |
| Taurasi | Docg | Picentini |
Table 5.
Accommodation facilities in Regional Park area of the volcanic area of Roccamonfina and the Garigliano estuary.
Table 5.
Accommodation facilities in Regional Park area of the volcanic area of Roccamonfina and the Garigliano estuary.
| Typology | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Municipality | Agritourism | Country House | B&B | Holiday Apartment | Hotel | Guest house | Holiday Village | Camping | Residence |
| Conca della Campania | 3 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Galluccio | 3 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Marzano Appio | - | 2 | 3 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Roccamonfina | 2 | - | 3 | - | 2 | 2 | - | - | - |
| Sessa Aurunca | 2 | - | 3 | - | 6 | - | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Teano | 9 | - | 4 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Tora e Piccilli | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Totals | 19 | 7 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Table 6.
Quantity, resident population and land area of small municipalities in Italy, year 2017 (Associazione Nazionale Comuni Italiani ANCI).
Table 6.
Quantity, resident population and land area of small municipalities in Italy, year 2017 (Associazione Nazionale Comuni Italiani ANCI).
| Small Municipalities | Resident Population | Land Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N. | % | N. | % | N. | % | |
| Piemonte | 1046 | 89 | 1,305,774 | 30 | 20,018 | 79 |
| Valle d’Aosta | 73 | 99 | 92,704 | 73 | 3240 | 99 |
| Lombardia | 1043 | 69 | 2,097,223 | 22 | 15,262 | 64 |
| Trentino-Alto Adige | 256 | 88 | 455,679 | 44 | 10,864 | 80 |
| Veneto | 289 | 51 | 747,112 | 15 | 8032 | 44 |
| Friuli-Venezia Giulia | 151 | 70 | 278,111 | 23 | 5494 | 70 |
| Liguria | 182 | 78 | 246,230 | 16 | 3900 | 72 |
| Emilia Romagna | 135 | 41 | 362,755 | 8 | 8984 | 40 |
| Toscana | 119 | 44 | 289,667 | 8 | 9478 | 41 |
| Umbria | 61 | 66 | 134,402 | 15 | 3333 | 39 |
| Marche | 160 | 70 | 320,231 | 21 | 5081 | 54 |
| Lazio | 254 | 67 | 461,258 | 8 | 7502 | 44 |
| Abruzzo | 250 | 82 | 356,367 | 27 | 7605 | 70 |
| Molise | 125 | 92 | 153,962 | 49 | 3654 | 82 |
| Campania | 335 | 61 | 693,521 | 12 | 7962 | 58 |
| Puglia | 84 | 33 | 215,437 | 5 | 2794 | 14 |
| Basilicata | 99 | 76 | 191,044 | 33 | 5844 | 58 |
| Calabria | 322 | 80 | 646,343 | 33 | 10,227 | 67 |
| Sicilia | 202 | 52 | 493,766 | 10 | 8348 | 32 |
| Sardegna | 314 | 83 | 526,627 | 32 | 16,931 | 70 |
| Totals | 5500 | 69 | 10,068,213 | 17 | 164,554 | 54 |
Table 7.
Protected Natural Areas of the Campania Region with municipal territories (n.T.C.) and built-up areas within the areas (n.C.A.) (elaboration Antonio Bertini).
Table 7.
Protected Natural Areas of the Campania Region with municipal territories (n.T.C.) and built-up areas within the areas (n.C.A.) (elaboration Antonio Bertini).
| Type | Denomination | n.T.C. | n.C.A. |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Park | Vesuvio | 13 | 0 |
| National Park | Cilento e Vallo di Diano | 80 | 77 |
| Regional park | Matese | 15 | 4 |
| Regional park | Area vulcanica Roccamonfina e foce Garigliano | 7 | 3 |
| Regional park | Taburno Camposauro | 14 | 4 |
| Regional park | Partenio | 22 | 10 |
| Regional park | Campi flegrei | 6 | 5 |
| Regional park | Picentini | 31 | 11 |
| Regional park | Bacino Idrografico fiume Sarno | 11 | 2 |
| Regional park | Monti Lattari | 27 | 11 |
| Regional reserve | Lago Falciano | 2 | 0 |
| Regional reserve | Foce Volturno e Costa di Licola | 3 | 0 |
| Regional reserve | Monti Eremita Marzano | 3 | 0 |
| Regional reserve | Foce Sele Tanagro | 4 | 0 |
| Totals | 2 NP + 8 RP + 4 RR | 238 | 127 |
Table 8.
Campania Region. Regional Park Volcanic Area of Roccamonfina and mouth of Garigliano, municipal surface area, population and population variations in absolute and percentage values (processing by Antonio Bertini on Istat data).
Table 8.
Campania Region. Regional Park Volcanic Area of Roccamonfina and mouth of Garigliano, municipal surface area, population and population variations in absolute and percentage values (processing by Antonio Bertini on Istat data).
| Km2 | 2001 | 2011 | D v a | D % | 2022 | D v.a. | D % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conca della Campania | 26.6 | 1392 | 1256 | −136 | −9.7 | 1159 | −97 | −7.7 |
| Galluccio | 32 | 2385 | 2239 | −146 | −6.12 | 2022 | −217 | −9.69 |
| Marzano Appio | 28.2 | 3087 | 2345 | −742 | −24.04 | 1976 | −369 | −15.74 |
| Roccamonfina | 31.04 | 3827 | 3626 | −201 | −5.25 | 3169 | −457 | −12.60 |
| Sessa Aurunca | 162.2 | 22,825 | 22,216 | −609 | −2.67 | 20,158 | −2058 | −9.26 |
| Teano | 89.43 | 13,042 | 12,587 | −455 | −3.49 | 11,399 | −1188 | −9.44 |
| Tora e Piccilli | 12.5 | 1068 | 947 | −121 | −11.33 | 766 | −181 | −19.11 |
| Totals | 381.97 | 46,234 | 43,960 | −2274 | −4.92 | 39,490 | −4470 | −10.17 |
Table 9.
SWOT analysis of the Roccamonfina and Foce Garigliano Regional Natural Park, Region Campania, Italy.
Table 9.
SWOT analysis of the Roccamonfina and Foce Garigliano Regional Natural Park, Region Campania, Italy.
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
| Botanical characteristics, fauna, geological, volcanic agronomic | Depopulation of the centre and the territory |
| Biodiversity | Abandonment of centre facilities |
| Quality agricultural products (chestnuts, wines, annurca apples) Historical centres that preserve important historical-urban and architectural evidence of the past (Traces of the Aurunci people, megalithic walls, castles, the permanence of the urban plan, Roman theatres and amphitheatres, 15th-century noble seat, Sessa Aurunca cathedral, The ‘Devil’s Claw’, fossil human footprints dating back 350,000 years, 16th-century shrine | Reduced accessibility to areas, both vehicularly and remotely (lack of digitization) |
| Chestnut woods | |
| Opportunities | Threats |
| Quality certification of certain products (chestnut, wine, annurca apple) | Hydrogeological instability (due to the reduced presence of people engaged in agricultural activities) |
| Recognition of the area as a natural area to be protected | Decline in construction |
| Mediterranean Diet | Reduction in work possibilities |
| Orange Flags | Isolation from the context |
| Recognition of the Regional Protected Natural Area | Desertification of the centre and the entire area |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Bertini, A.; Vitolo, T. Historical Centres, Protected Natural Areas, Communities and Sustainable Development: A Possible Balance. Land 2023, 12, 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020403
AMA Style
Bertini A, Vitolo T. Historical Centres, Protected Natural Areas, Communities and Sustainable Development: A Possible Balance. Land. 2023; 12(2):403. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020403
Chicago/Turabian StyleBertini, Antonio, and Tiziana Vitolo. 2023. "Historical Centres, Protected Natural Areas, Communities and Sustainable Development: A Possible Balance" Land 12, no. 2: 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020403
APA StyleBertini, A., & Vitolo, T. (2023). Historical Centres, Protected Natural Areas, Communities and Sustainable Development: A Possible Balance. Land, 12(2), 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020403
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
