A Landscape Complex Values Map: Integration among Soft Values and Hard Values in a Spatial Decision Support System

  • Maria Cerreta
  • Roberta Mele
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7334)


The paper develops a Spatial Decision Support System (SDSS) for the identification and evaluation of the landscape complexity for the Massa Lubrense territory, in the South of Italy. Through the elaboration of a selection of spatial indicators and the combination of GIS and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, it has been defined a decision-making process for the construction of a map of complex values, soft and hard values, that characterize the landscape of Massa Lubrense. The paper explores the potential of a Spatial Decision Support System (SDSS) in the field of land-use planning, recognizing different weights and priorities according to a complex definition of the landscape and its values.


Complex values Knowledge generation Spatial indicators Spatial Decision Support System Multi-Criteria Analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fusco Girard, L.: Sustainability, Creativity, Resilience: Toward New Development Strategies of Port Areas through Evaluation Processes. International Journal of Sustainable Development 13(1-2), 161–184 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cerreta, M.: Thinking Through Complex Values. In: Cerreta, M., Concilio, G., Monno, V. (eds.) Making Strategies in Spatial Planning. Knowledge and Values, pp. 381–404. Springer, Dordrecht (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fusco Girard, L., Nijkamp, P.: Le valutazioni per lo sviluppo sostenibile della città e del territorio. Franco Angeli, Milano (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fusco Girard, L., Nijkamp, P.: Energia, bellezza, partecipazione: la sfida della sostenibilità. Valutazioni integrate tra conservazione e sviluppo. Franco Angeli, Milano (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fusco Girard, L., Cerreta, M., De Toro, P., Forte, F.: The Human Sustainable City: Values, Approaches and Evaluative Tools. In: Deakin, M., Mitchell, G., Nijkamp, P., Vreeker, R. (eds.) Sustainable Urban Development. The Environmental Assessment Methods 2, pp. 65–93. Routledge, London (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zeleny, M.: Multiple Criteria Decision-Making: Eight Concepts of Optimality. Human Systems Management 17(2), 97–107 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zeleny, M.: Human Systems Management: Integrating Knowledge, Management and Systems. World Scientific Publishers, Hackensack (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giampietro, M., Allen, T.F.H., Mayumi, K.: Science for Governance: the Implications of the Complexity Revolution. In: Guimaraes-Pereira, A., Guedes-Vaz, S., Tognetti, S. (eds.) Interfaces Between Science and Society, pp. 82–99. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Munda, G.: Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Funtowicz, S.O., Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., Ravetz, J.: Multi-Criteria-Based Environmental Policy. In: Abaza, H., Baranzini, A. (eds.) Implementing Sustainable Development, pp. 53–77. UNEP/Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Munda, G.: Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation: Methodological Foundations and Operational Consequences. European Journal of Operational Research 158(3), 662–677 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strauss, K.: Re-Engaging with Rationality in Economic Geography: Behavioural Approaches and the Importance of Context in Decision-Making. Journal of Economic Geography 8(2), 137–156 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richardson, T.: Environmental Assessment and Planning Theory: Four Short Stories about Power, Multiple Rationality, and Ethics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25(4), 341–365 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Swanwick C.: Landscape Character Assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage (2002),
  15. 15.
    Pinto-Correia, T., Cancela d’Abreu, A., Oliveira, R.: Landscape evaluation: methodological considerations and application within the Portuguese national landscape assessment. In: Brandt, J., Vejre, H. (eds.) Multifunctional Landscapes. Theory, Values and History, vol. I, pp. 235–252. WIT Press, Southampton (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wrbka, T., Erb, K.-H., Schulz, N.B., Peterseil, J., Hahn, C., Haberl, H.: Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy 21, 289–306 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vervloet, J.A.J., Spek, T.: Towards a Pan-European landscape map-a mid-term review. In: Unwin, T., Spek, T. (eds.) European Landscapes: From Mountain to Sea. Proceedings of the 19th Session of the Permanent European Conference for the Study of the Rural Landscape (PECSRL), pp. 8–19. Huma Publishers, Tallinn (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mücher, C.A., Wascher, D.M., Klijn, J.A., Koomen, A.J.M., Jongman, R.H.G.: A new European landscape map as in integrative framework for landscape character assessment. In: Bunce, R.G.H., Jongman, R.H.G. (eds.) Landscape Ecology in the Mediterranean: Inside and Outside Approaches. Proceedings of the European IALE Conference, Faro Portugal, March 29-April 2. IALE Publication Series, vol. 3, pp. 233–243 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Eetvelde, V., Antrop, M.: A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology and characterisation for trans-regional integration, applied on the federal state of Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning 91, 160–170 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dramstad, W.E., Tveit, S.M., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A.: Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 78, 465–474 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Swanwick, C.: The assessment of countryside and landscape character in England: an overview. In: Bishop, K., Philipps, A. (eds.) Countryside Planning. New Approaches to Management and Conservation, pp. 109–124. Earthscan, London (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parris, K.: Measuring changes in agricultural landscapes as a tool for policy makers. In: Brandt, J., Vejre, H. (eds.) Multifunctional Landscapes. Theory, Values and History, vol. I, pp. 193–218. WIT Press, Southampton (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Selman, P.: Planning at the Landscape Scale. Routledge, Oxon (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Eetvelde, V., Marc Antrop, M.: Indicators for assessing changing landscape character of cultural landscapes in Flanders (Belgium). Land Use Policy 26, 901–910 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Healey, P.: Knowledge Flows, Spatial Strategy-Making, and the Roles of Academics. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 26(5), 861–881 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G.: Models, methods, concepts and applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saaty, T.L., Peniwati, K.: Group decision making: Drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abadi, H.N., Akbari, E., Etesami, H., Keshavarzi, A., Kohbanani, H.R.: Site selecting for dumping urban waste using MCDA methods and GIS techniques. World Applied Sciences Journal 7(5), 625–631 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cerreta, M., De Toro, P.: Integrated Spatial Assessment for a Creative Decision-making Process: a Combined Methodological Approach to Strategic Environmental Assessment. International Journal of Sustainable Development 13(1/2), 17–30 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fusco Girard, L., Cerreta, M., De Toro, P.: Integrated Spatial Assessment in Planning: Strategic Choices for Cava de’ Tirreni Master Plan. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process 2011, Sorrento (Italy), June 15-18, pp. 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Di Martino, F., Giordano, M.: I sistemi informativi territoriali, teoria e metodi. Aracne Roma (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Campagna, M.: GIS for Sustainable Development. Taylor & Francis Group LLC, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Higgs, G.: GIS for Environmental Decision-Making. Andrew Lovett and Katy Appleton, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Murgante, B., Borruso, G., Lapucci, A.: Geocomputation, Sustainability and Environmental Planning. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morse-McNabb, E., Sposito, V.: GIS-based modelling of regional conservation significance. Applied GIS 2(3) 2(3), 20.1–20.20 (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marinoni, O.: Implementation of Analytic Hierarchy Process with VBA in ArcGIS. Computational Geosciences 30, 637–646 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bishop, I., Hossain, H., Sposito, V., Yingxin, W.: Using GIS in Landscape Visual Quality Assessment. Applied GIS 2(3), 18.1-18.20 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Cerreta
    • 1
  • Roberta Mele
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Conservation of Architectural and Environmental HeritageUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations