Keywords

1 Introduction

The European Commission, the European Parliament and the UN have made their own recommendations for the enhancement of natural capital and the consequent reduction in net land use by 2050. Consumption is requested to align with demographic growth, a very binding condition for the Italian State given the constant decrease in recent years which leads to a strong action of recovery, requalification and revitalization of the existing to the detriment of any urban expansion initiative to new construction or to generic unjustified anthropization. Already in 2006, the Commission [1] laid the foundations for a strategic directive for soil protection [2] and supplemented the process with an impact assessment [3] analyzing the economic, social and environmental effects of different translating options of the strategy into law.The process came to a halt in 2010 due to the opposition of some Member States, it was relaunched in 2011 [4] by the Commission for the achievement of the net land take increase target of zero by 2050 and, in 2012, with a report [5] through which the Commission invited the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions to submit their point of view regarding the protection of continental soil and, at the same time, ensuring a sustainable use.

In 2015, the UN, in its Global Agenda, also declined the Sustainable Development Goals [6], highlighting a specific interest in the soil and requiring member countries to incorporate the following guidelines into short and medium-term programs:

  • restrain land consumption within the limits of population growth;

  • ensure the availability and access to safe and inclusive green spaces;

  • pursue a land degradation neutral world to safeguard and develop ecosystem functions and services.

The containment of land use is also proposed by the UN among the objectives of the 2030 Agenda, SDG n. 11 ‘Sustainable cities and human settlements’; in particular the target 11.3 ‘improving inclusive and sustainable urbanization and the capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable planning and management of human settlements in all countries’ includes among its indicators the’ Ratio between land consumption rate and of population growth’ [7].

However, the restraint of land use is opposed by lobbies which, for legitimate and non-legitimate purposes, support the greater efficiency (in terms of time and costs) of new buildings compared to redevelopment projects. Italy knows something about it, where land consumption grew by 1′045 square kilometers between 2006 and 2020 and the Nugnes draft law seems to have run aground in the quicksand of Parliament. In Italy every year, between 1990 and 2017, agriculture has lost from 17′000 to 35′000 hectares of arable land, and there have been unsuccessful attempts to legislate on the subject since 2012. The heart of the Nugnes proposal (draft law n. 164) connects urban regeneration with the containment of land consumption, so that the resources made available to the urban regeneration can only be exploited in the presence of initiatives with no impact on new territorial spaces.

The Senate, on the other hand, has already taken steps to separate the two issues by freeing from constraints the urban recovery actions that often conceal building projects from scratch. The problem concerns not only the destruction of valuable natural capital but also the encroachment of buildings in fragile areas due to hydrogeological conditions. The increase in consumption evolves hand in hand with the economic recovery and is particularly relaunched in the Northeast regions. This results in losses in value calculated to the extent of 1 billion euro per year in terms of lower carbon storage and lower agricultural production; and the same in reference to the decrease in ecosystem services that the soil can no longer guarantee (regulation of the hydrogeological cycle, improvement of air quality and reduction of erosion). Thus, the moments of economic recovery aggravate the criticality, especially when they are triggered by flows of financing to be spent in a short time and not compatible with eco-sustainable interventions based on the regeneration of the existing [8,9,10,11]. By virtue of the number and complexity of the technical and administrative constraints that the regeneration and the reuse must take into consideration. Specifically, this becomes more relevant when dealing with urban structures crystallized on outdated and not renewed for some time regulatory instruments. From this point of view, the theme of spaces for the establishment of production activities according to sector plans promoted by the Consortia of the industrial development Areas (Presidential Decree n. 218/78, Clause 50), framed in the various regional disciplines, is particularly felt. Many of these find themselves in the position whereby, preordained expropriation constraints lapsed, they can no longer proceed to acquire lands destined for business even in the presence of a growing demand for settlement by businesses.

Let's look at the problem in detail with reference to the question of the Campania Region.

2 Industrial Development Consortia

As is known, the Industrial Development Consortia were established with the law n. 634 of 29th of July 1954 for the refinancing of the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno (Italian public body created to finance industrial initiatives aimed at the economic development of the Southern Italy, in order to bridge the gap with the Northern Italy), 760 billion lire (today over 350 million euros) intended to promote the industrialization of the Southern Italy [12]. The provision provided that the Consortia would govern the industrial settlement through specific regulatory plans. With law n. 555 of 1959 and subsequent circulars, the criteria for identifying the areas to be industrialized were specified and, with the Circular of the Committee of Ministers for the Southern Italy n. 2356 of 9th of March 1961, the directives for the preparation of regulatory plans were issued. So that the plans for the various agglomerations were started. As can be guessed at a certain point the question of the survival of the constraints preordained for expropriation (of an original ten-year durationFootnote 1) and their eventual renewal would have arisen. In some situations, this did not happen due to a jumble of administrative and political-social reasons, which is why it was necessary to identify alternative means to guarantee the territory the availability of areas to be used for productive investments. In this scenario, the reacquisition of unused properties opens important prospects in a moment of hoped-for revival of the industrial sector, given the contingent availability of public funding of European origin. Furthermore, the use of funds already integrated in the production circuit (even if to a different extent depending on whether it is free areas or already built) is also combined with the need imposed by the UN recommendations on the containment of use of the soil (Sustainable Development Goals - UN 2015), already supported by the European Commission (2012) in the guidelines for limiting, mitigating and compensating the waterproofing of the territory. Thus, in this case, a condition of necessity consistently prepared itself with the broadest expectations of environmental sustainability.

This work has been set up to guarantee the maximum reliability of the results in terms of the probatority of the referred mercantile sources to and the intelligibility of the mathematical calculations performed. In this sense, the original data will be made available to the reader and processed with basic computational procedures suitable for all. Precisely so that econometric modeling does not represent the easy pretext for subjectivation or for the questionability of the results. Since the study answers for the scope of the values at stake to stakeholders different each other for interests, skills and knowledge, it is designed and implemented with respect to the different skills in their possession, so that it can be immediately understood in the method adopted and in the implemented process, without claiming to be exhaustive also given the planning framework in strong evolution precisely in the period of elaboration of the study.

3 Urban-Economic Issue

To understand the scope of the issue, the Territorial Coordination Plan of the Industrial Development Areas in Campania Region can be used as a reference. The Plan was approved on February 14, 1992, and, by virtue of Presidential Decree 218/78, was effective for ten years until February 14, 2002. In particular, as highlighted by the Sentence of the State Council, Section IV n. 8710/19, the preordained constraint to expropriation decays, while the conforming uses of the urban planning regime survive. However, while the Plan was still effective, the regional law n. 168/98 extended its effectiveness by three years. Therefore, the deadline has been moved to the 14th of February 2005. Then the regional law n. 10/01 extended the life of Plan of one year to the 14th of February 2006. Finally, in 2007, when the Plan was no longer effective, the regional law n. 1/07 established that “is confirmed and extended the validity of the Industrial Development Areas’ regulatory plans in force at the date of entry into force of the regional law 22 December 2004, n. 16 up to the enforceability of the TPCP (Territorial Provincial Coordination Plan) which, pursuant to article 18 of the aforementioned regional law, have the value and scope of the regulatory plan of the areas of industrial consortia referred to in regional law no. 16”.

Therefore, the last provision has postponed the forfeiture of the Plan until the implementation of the TPCP to be done. In the specific case, the TPCP was approved on the 30th of December 2012 but - for the part relating to the reiteration of the expropriation constraints, it was stopped by the aforementioned Sentence. It follows that to date the expropriation restrictions have lapsed and therefore to proceed with the exercise of its functions, the Industrial Development Consortium must reacquire abandoned areas and assign them to subjects who request them. Leaving aside the issue of extension of compressive constraints on private property for a period of over fifteen years with no indemnity provisions (as instead envisaged by the Constitutional Court, Sentence n. 179/99), it should be highlighted how the situation leads to a natural alignment of the consortium activity (already interested in sustainability issues) towards the principles of reuse and re-functionalization of what has already been man-made.

4 The Ruling of the State Council

As mentioned, the highest Italian administrative justice body has sanctioned the impossibility of continuing to operate under an expropriation regime in the consortium agglomeration of the interested Municipality.

The claimant stated that the area he owned had already been affected by three previous expropriation procedures, the second of which had led to a dispute before the State Council for Campania, which with decision no. 429/2007, had cancelled the expropriation measures, “ascertaining the irreversible expiry of the Consortium Plan as of 14.2.2006”. According to what the claimant presented before the regional administrative court, the company had however “stubbornly proposed a fourth assignment request (cadastral unit 443, approximately 4,500 square meters) for the establishment of the same activity”, which was followed by the resolution of the Consortium no. 279/2017, which had approved a new authorization, subject to appeal. Against all the acts relating to the expropriation procedure previously highlighted, the complaints were deduced, which the first judge summarized as follows. With the first reason for burden, the measures challenged for excess of power for violation of the judgment formed between the parties, by virtue of the sentence of the Regional Administrative Court of Campania, detached section of Salerno, n. 429 of 2007.

With the second ground of appeal, it was pointed out that the preordained constraint on expropriation could not even derive from the approval of the TPCP of Salerno which “has no value of Regulatory Plan and, therefore, has not validly renewed or extended the expropriation constraints of the Industrial Development Consortium…. The TPCP of Salerno has not approved a new area Plan of Industrial Development Consortium”.

According to the claimant, in fact, pursuant to art. 18 paragraph 9 of the regional law, n. 16 of 2004, “… The TPCP, to take on the value and scope of the Regulatory Plan of the Areas and Industrial Consortia, ex regional law n. 16/98, [must] be approved in agreement with the Industrial Development Consortia”. In point 2.2 of the ground of appeal, moreover, it was pointed out that “Nor is it worth recalling, on the contrary, art. 8 co. 2 of thetechnical standard of the TPCP, in which it is generally prescribed that “pending the conclusion of the agreements”, the TPCP operates a “dynamic reference to existing specialist plans”.

This is because it is the regional legislature that requires the agreement as a means of concertation so that the TPCP can also take on a value in the industrial consortium area, failing which, if it were possible to obtain this effect through a unilateral planning imposition, the mechanism provided for by the regional law would be frustrated and, in substance, the latter would be violated, where “a norm of the technical standard (art.8) can never derogate from the binding provisions of the regional law n. 16/2004” (page 20 of the appeal).

According to the claimant, then, if it is believed that art. 8 can automatically extend the lapsed restrictions of the Industrial Development Consortium's Regulatory Plan, nevertheless this provision would be illegitimate:

  • for violation of art. 18 paragraph 8, of the regional law n. 16/2004, because the agreements (with the Industrial Development Consortium and with the other competent bodies) must precede and not follow the approval of the TPCP;

  • for violation of the law (articles 52 - 53 Presidential Decree no. 218/78 and article 8 paragraph 8, regional law, no. 19/2013), because the renewal of the expropriation constraints requires an adequate and justified re-evaluation of the territorial structure of the Industrial Development Consortium areas through a complete review of the specific public interest, otherwise violating the constitutional principles on property (Article n. 42 of the Constitution);

  • for violation of the law (articles 2 and 8 regional law n.19/2013, art.7 regional law n.16/2004) and incompetence, because the province does not have the power to unilaterally regulate the Industrial Development Consortium agglomerates, renewing the expropriation bonds outside of an unfailing co-planning form with the Industrial Development Consortium (the agreements);

  • for misuse and violation of the law, because the atypical renewal of the constraints pending the agreements had resulted in an elusive form of the typical and mandatory legal models, imposing constraints preordained for expropriation, which cannot be separated from the renewed evaluation urban planning needs;

  • for further diversion, because through this elusive form the bonds, descending from the Industrial Development Consortium's Regulatory Plan (lapsed), prejudicing private property beyond any reasonable term;

  • due to the absence of an adequate motivation.

With the third ground of appeal, it was also deduced that “The validity of the Industrial Development Consortium's Regulatory Plan, an indefectible prerequisite of the expropriation procedure, cannot even derive from the new consortium legislation variant (art.1.1 of the technical standards of the Industrial Development Consortium's Regulatory Plan) that the Consortium and the Province have recently approved (Presidential Decree of the Province n. 79/2017)”. This variant (Article 1, paragraph 1) was certainly to be considered illegitimate because it was also ordered after the expropriation constraints expired (March 30, 2017) in contrast with the principle, of constitutional rank, according to which the time extension of efficacy necessarily presupposes that the constraint has not expired.

With the fourth, it was deduced that the reiteration of the constraint preordained for expropriation, implemented through the variant, was unmotivated and in any case approved without an adequate investigation that gave account of the motivation of the industrial interest over that of private property.

With the fifth ground of appeal, he complained of the illegitimacy of the acts that had extended the substantial constraint sine die, due to the “lack of a deadline in the provision of law or regulation of a deadline for the approval of the agreements”.

With the sixth reason, he complained, again, a defect in the procedure for the approval of the Industrial Development Consortium's plan, which would have consisted in the failure to acquire the Strategic Environmental Evaluation or, in any case, in the failure to carry out the verification of eligibility.

With the seventh reason, specifically concerning the authorization of the consortium, the illegitimacy of the deed for the defects that concerned “upstream” the planning acts from which the preordained obligation to expropriation would derive was highlighted.

It was also deduced that the project presented by the claimant was not even compliant in terms of urban planning with the planning tool, which provides for the construction of a road in the area where the plant should be built.

Furthermore, the possibility of a different location of the structure, with less burden of private ownership, would not have been evaluated. Neither the deductions presented by the appellant had been adequately considered nor the technical and economic reliability of a subject who had not already given proof of reliability in the past been tested.

The Regional Administrative Court, in the resistance of the Industrial Development Consortium and of the opposing company, rejected the appeal and compensated the expenses.

The sentence was challenged, reproposing the questions rejected by the Regional Administrative Court, and, critically, the reasons articulated in the first instance.

Finally, the appeal was taken in decision at the public hearing on October 10, 2019.

With regard to the events of the planning in question, it is sufficient to refer to the exhaustive examination carried out by the Regional Administrative Court, which was previously reported.

It is only worth adding that the Constitutional Court has already had the opportunity to deal with the regulatory plans of the Industrial Development Consortia of the Campania Region, and with the legislative extensions of their effectiveness, implemented with regional laws (provision).

With reference to the time extensions established by article 10, paragraph 9, of the law of the Campania Region n. 16 (Structure of the Consortia for industrial development areas), and by article 77, paragraph 2, of the law of the Campania Region n. 10/2001 (Provisions of regional finance year 2001), the Constitutional Court (sentence n. 314 of July 20, 2017) resolved the question.

Thus, the State Council was able to resolve the dispute based on the following assumptions.

On a systematic level, it must be agreed with the claimant that the promotion of the agreement, if the TPCP also has the value of a sector plan, is by no means re-placed at the mere discretion of the province.

In this sense, within the framework of the aforementioned regulatory framework, art. 18, paragraph, 9, of the law n. 16 of 2004, which, in attributing to the approval of the TPCP, “value and scope of the master plan of the areas and industrial consortia referred to in the regional law of August 13, 1998, n. 16”, disposes expressly that “For the purposes of defining the relevant provisions of the TPCP, the province promotes [….] agreements with consortia for industrial development areas and with other subjects envisaged by regional law n. 16/1998”.

From this provision the definition of the agreements (or in any case the completion of the procedural scans provided for overcoming the dissent) is a constitutive element of the adoption phase of the Plan.

In the same sense, they lay down, on a procedural level, both the subsequent art. 20 (which provides for the calling of a service conference “at the start of the procedure for forming the proposal of the TPCP”), and Regulation no. 5/2011 which, even more clearly establishes “the agreement is promoted before the adoption of the plan referred to in paragraph 1 of article 3”.

Basically, the adoption of the TPCP - in the part in which it has the value of a Regulatory Plan for areas and for industrial consortia - is the result of a co-decision process, in which “consortia for industrial development areas must necessarily participate “together with” the other subjects provided for by regional law n. 16/1998”.

In this regard, the claimant's findings appear to be shared even in the part in which he pointed out that, like law n. 16 of 1998, the subsequent regional law n. 19 of December 6, 2013, confirmed the competence of the consortia for industrial development areas to adopt the plan for the organization of the industrial areas.

This law too - mirroring the provisions of the regional law n. 16 of 2004 for the TPCP - has in fact established a co-decision procedure, the impulse of which belongs to the Province (see, in particular, art. 8, paragraph 2, according to which “The final adoption is preceded from the convocation of the conference of services by the territorially competent province, in which local authorities and institutionally competent bodies and subjects are invited to participate”).

As far as it may be necessary, it is also useful to remember that the “equalization” between the master plan of the areas and industrial development nuclei and the territorial coordination plan dates to art. 51, paragraph 8, of the Presidential Decree n. 218 of 1978, according to which “The approved plans produce the same legal effects as the territorial coordination plan referred to in law n. 1150”.

Therefore, the expiration of the ten-year term of effectiveness only leads to the termination of the effects of the declaration of public utility (as expressly provided for by art. 52, paragraph 1, of the same Presidential Decree n. 218 of 1978), while the industrial development areas’ plan is valid and effective with reference to urban destinations, in accordance with the provisions of art. 6 of the law n. 1150/1942 according to which the territorial coordination plan has an indefinite value (State Council, section IV, March 5, 2008, n. 930).

The sentence of the State Council must instead be confirmed in the part in which it declared inadmissible, due to lack of interest, the challenge of the variant to the Industrial Development Consortium's Regulatory Plan approved in 2017 (resolution of the President of the Province n.79 of July 14, 2017).

In fact, the claimant's criticisms did not manage to undermine the findings of the first judge according to which, the variant in question “concerns aspects that do not concern the modification of planning in the Industrial Development Areas or, in any case, profiles that have some effect on the expropriation constraints and, therefore, on the disputed procedure”.

From a different point of view, it must then be highlighted that in part here the sentence of first instance, despite having a content device - declaratory of inadmissibility - formally unfavorable for the claimant, constitutes a ruling, albeit in rite, substantially favorable to the same, because it ascertains and excludes that the aforementioned resolution of the President of the Province n. 79 of July 14, 2017 has, as far as it is of interest, some efficacy that is detrimental to its legal position and can therefore be applied and/or interpreted in the sense for these prejudicial. The reason for the appeal with which this part of the sentence is criticized, contesting a part of the first instance ruling sentence that substantially is in favor of the appellant, is therefore, in any case, inadmissible due to lack of interest in the appeal.

Ultimately, for what has just been argued, the appeal must be accepted in part and within the limits set out in the motivation.

As a result, the cancellation of the TPCP must be ordered - limited to the part in which it reiterated the expropriation constraints provided for by the Industrial Development Areas Plan of the Municipality - and of any consequent contested deed, and of the authorization issued by the Industrial Development Areas Consortium to the claimant.

5 The Process of Repurchasing the Areas

The operating method in the reacquisition and reassignment of land granted and never transformed or of settled and built properties, starts from the regulatory reconnaissance on the subject.

The state law n. 448 of 23.12.1998, in art. 63 establishes that:

  1. a)

    have the right to repurchase the property of the areas sold for industrial or artisanal ventures in the event that the transferee does not build the plant within five years of the sale and to buy back the sold areas jointly to the industrial or handcrafted establishments built in the event that the industrial or handicraft activity has ceased for more than three years;

  2. b)

    the consortia (in Fig. 1 the areas of industrial settlement belonging to the Industrial Development Consortium) must pay the transferee the discounted purchase price of the areas and, as regards the establishments, the value of the latter as determined by an expert appointed by the President of the competent Tribune for the territory, reduced by discounted public contributions received by the transferee for the construction of the establishment.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

The areas of industrial settlement belonging to the Industrial Development Consortium in the Campania Region.

Full size image

Therefore, the question arises of the fair estimation of the repurchase value (also in consideration of the Campania law n. 19/13) in relation to the concept of actualization in its various meanings.

Furthermore, during the reassignment phase, the theme of the price at which the properties must be relocated on the market is emerging [13,14,15,16,17,18,19], creating a synallagmatic relationship between conditions and characteristics influencing the price of the first historical assignment and the status of the same variables at time of the current placement. In particular, with regard to the full and complete construction of the infrastructures essential to the settlement, to their state of functionality and maintenance, to the microeconomic and macroeconomic conditions that characterize the current business scenario.

Also remains open the question of settling spaces that will not plausibly respect a logic of strict rationality such as that of a virgin industrial settlement on which to flexibly project the needs of different companies according to the goods produced, the industrial processes implemented and the spaces who are necessary for the logistic specification [20,21,22,23]. With attention also to the infrastructures that will have been designed illo tempore with respect to all free settlements and not to the residual ones currently available and distributed in a patchworked way (think of the different needs of newly established industries compared to the most modern service distribution networks which could instead be unusable for old and persistent residents) [24].

5.1 The Price to be Paid to the Transferee

The delicate issue of the price to be paid to the transferee should also be highlightedFootnote 2. Starting from paragraph n. 3Footnote 3, art. 63 of law n. 448/98 the jurisprudence clarifies that the criterion of discounting the original purchase price must be applied both to areas granted through consortium procedure and to those directly acquired by the entrepreneur on the free market (obviously areas on which he was authorized to realize a productive settlement). Furthermore, the repurchase must take place in conditions of parity between what is received and what is to be returned, without there being objective clarity on the formal or substantial scopeFootnote 4 of the financial balance imposed by the law.

Reconnecting with the tenor of the regional law (implementing the state law), in whichFootnote 5 the repurchase “without the price increase” is envisaged, it concludes according to two main guidelines (which also connotes questionability):

  • The regional law, as the implementing law of the national provision, must respect its basic principles (discounting of the price);

  • The principle of the price increase is a different concept from the discounting of the price;

So that the synallagmatic balance between the two sources would be achieved by aligning the regional law with the national one, with the sharing of monetary discounting (without which the Consortium would use a possible undue enrichment due to specific macroeconomic conditions) but with the exclusion of any alternative hypothesis of alignment of the historical price with those current at the time of the repurchase (principle not etymologically denied by the national law)Footnote 6.

5.2 How to Reassign the Areas

On the point of how to reassign the areas- of no direct relevance with the issue of this work - it should be highlighted the prevailing belief according to which the power to repurchase/reacquisition of abandoned areas must be exercised directly by the ConsortiumFootnote 7, but also considerate the possibility of regulating a procedure of repurchase intended to be initiated also at the request of the private individual concerned, in order, among other things, to have the financial coverage to carry out the repurchase.

5.3 Evaluative Criteria for Appraisal the Reassignment Price

There are certain constraints to expressly mercantile interpretations:

  • the reassignment price must take into account the principles of efficiency and economy that must govern the activity of any public administration;

  • must be no less than the repurchase priceFootnote 8;

  • must take into account the charges and general expenses incurred by the Consortium for the reassignment procedures.

The object of attention must be the possibility of integrating the reallocation price with rates relating to the costs incurred for the infrastructural works on these areas, which have not already been fully amortized the calibration of the price with respect to the Consortium's Development Program. In fact, for free areas these costs are already included in concession fees and, in particular, in urbanization costs; for built areas, it would be a completion of the latter, already paid when the original building permit was issued. As well as any exogenous component (contribution to the consortium program) would discount the guidelines of the Constitutional Court on the matter.

6 The Hypothesized Model

As is known, the market value of building land depends on macroeconomic variables (fiscal policy, cost of money, reliability of the government system, foreign policy, etc.) and on local predictors (position, logistics, geomorphological data, accessibility, etc.). However, each mercantile segment (residential, commercial, productive, touristic, etc.) is affected by conditions also related to the characteristics of the specific land rent and the particular methods of exploitation of this.

In particular, the production areas sector [25] is certainly the least subject to building speculation traditionally devoted to the urban transformation of the funds into new buildings (industrial warehouses) to be placed on the construction market.

Indeed, the technological specificity that characterizes the production plants and, therefore, the related building containers means that construction activities are frequently conducted by the same economic operators who will then implement industrial production. It is not common that the production areas are built by real estate brokers who intend to place the already completed warehouses on the market.

Conversely, the implementation methods provide for the sale of the lots to the applicants, which are often ad hoc conformed to the executive expectations of the investors.

From this prospect it follows that in the construction of a lot for production use the builder is not interested in the profitability of the building operation, being instead projected towards the optimization of the industrial investment as a whole [26].

This paradigm can influence the specific real estate market by varying its cycle with respect to that of ordinary segments such as residential and commercial. The analyst must take this into account without in any way removing the basis of the price postulate [27] in the construction of the Judgment of Estimate.

The need to define an operational protocol identified by the following figure (Fig. 2) then emerges.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

The operational protocol identified by the study.

Full size image

Therefore, in Phase 1 it is necessary to identify the different agglomerations that belong to the Consortium. In fact, in addition to the location characteristics, these can discount mercantile conditions depending on the affiliation to different urban reality.

Secondly, the urban connotation of the various agglomerations must be investigated; in fact, it should not be forgotten that within each agglomeration there are various intended uses allowed with repercussions on the settlement lots.

A morphological-functional characterization of the agglomerations must also be performed as the lots will be affected by the different conditions as orography, infrastructure in terms of equipment and obsolescence, accessibility, etc.

Finally, in the first phase, the typification of the settlements is of importance: number of companies, type of production, active and discontinued companies.

Phase 2 is then aimed at estimating the market values ​​of the funds.

All the individual areas under investigation must be surveyed and classified in order to create homogeneous clusters for: morphology of the lot, accessibility, functional destination, characteristics of the companies located in the surrounding area, etc.

Finally, by setting up a price database (purchase agreement, expropriation decrees, voluntary transfers, final judgments, etc.) it will be possible to construct the price estimation function.

The functional form can be defined using linear and nonlinear multivariate regression analysis models, such as:

$$ {\text{y}}_{{\text{i}}} = \upbeta_{0} + \upbeta_{{1}} {\text{x}}_{{{\text{1i}}}} + \, . \, . \, . \, + \upbeta_{{\text{p}}} {\text{x}}_{{{\text{pi}}}} + \varepsilon $$

in respect of

$$ {\text{H}}_{0} :\upbeta_{{1}} = \upbeta_{{2}} = \, . \, . \, . \, = \upbeta_{{\text{p}}} = \, 0 $$
$$ {\text{H}}_{{1}} :{\text{ any}}\;\beta_{{\text{j}}} \ne \, 0,\, {\text{j }} = { 1}, \, . \, . \, . \, ,{\text{ p}} $$

and of

$$ {\text{H}}_{0} : \, \upbeta_{{\text{j}}} = \, 0 \,{\text{j }} = { 1}, \, . \, . \, . \, ,{\text{ p}} $$
$$ {\text{H}}_{{1}} : \, \upbeta_{{\text{j}}} \ne \, 0. $$

7 One of the Agglomerations of Analysis and the Market for Soils

Among the four agglomerations under study (see Fig. 1), the one in a Municipality in the South of Campania Region is described below as an example. The nucleus extended for 450 hectares of total land area is divided into two sections.

The main compartment is located south of the residential area, the railway line separates the two different areas. It is also confined to the north by the state road and the motorway. It appears longitudinally marked by another railway connection. It is equipped with a road network characterized by different service levels and a waste treatment area (see Fig. 3) as well as purification (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Waste treatment area entrance.

Full size image
Fig. 4.
figure 4

Plants of the purification sector.

Full size image

It also welcomes iperstructures for civil use (for example a higher education institution) within its perimeter. On the eastern side, the residential urban fabric alternates with the consortium area, specifically for commercial use. The current state of the road infrastructure is largely obsolete (see Fig. 5–6), except in the northern region (see Fig. 7) where there are modernized sections.

Mobility exchangers programmed and built with public funding remain inactive now (Fig. 8, terminal bus).

Fig. 5.
figure 5

Southern section of the sector.

Full size image
Fig. 6.
figure 6

Eastern section of the sector.

Full size image
Fig. 7.
figure 7

East area.

Full size image
Fig. 8.
figure 8

Bus terminal conceived within a European funding program.

Full size image

The second area of the agglomeration, much smaller in size, is located towards the South. Today it is established in limited percentages.

From a constraint point of view, the entire industrial area is not affected by landscape constraints and, with respect to the hydrogeological risk conditions, there are no areas classified with high and very high levels of danger and risk.

Over the years, the real estate market has followed the trend in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9.
figure 9

(Source: Real Estate Market Observatory of the Revenue Agency).

Trend in unit prices of industrial buildings in the agglomeration under study. On the abscissa the semesters of the survey, on the ordinate in prices in euros per square meter

Full size image

These are the average market values ​​for industrial buildings. Evidently, based on the correlation between building values and soil values, the diagram can also be used to reason on the trend of the land.

The maximum values are recorded between 2008 and 2009, with a subsequent decrease in prices. Today a substantial stabilization of the market is visible, on values lower than those of the last twenty years.

The data in the diagram may be useful for conducting time alignment operations on precise data arranged over the period considered.

8 Conclusions

The problem of the reuse of urbanized or built areas for the purpose of a sustainable exploitation of the soil that guarantees the possibility of settlement to the growing demand coming from the companies in a time of abundance of public financing for private investments, finds an important opportunity in the mechanism of repurchase and reassignment of industrial areas and of pertinent buildings abandoned by the original concessionaires.

The model for a correct and adequate relocation of these assets on the market must deal with appraisal profiles connected with the right value to be attributed to these assets in order to respect the social function of the Industrial Development Consortia appointed to this activity, but also with profiles of urban planning [28,29,30,31,32] correlated with infrastructural and morphological constraints that GIS systems concur to confront with perceptual and informative simplifications.

This study outlines an operational protocol useful for rationalizing the process, in order to arrive at recognizable, verifiable, and comparative solutions for strategic approaches, even potentially divergent ones.