Chapter 5

Final Considerations and Open Scenarios

Abstract European river contract experiences demonstrate a growing integration

between these contractual agreements and the other instruments of water resources

management, and urban and territorial planning. Therefore, river contracts represent

innovative places for a new governance of river ecosystems and territories, also in

compliance with subsidiarity principle. The twofold nature of these contractual

agreements—technical dimension and concertative approach—together with their

expected wide evolution, allow to identify river contracts not only as sectoral tools

for water resource protection and management, but also as catalysts of a new

culture of water, recalling the deep interrelationships exist ing between hydrogra-

phy, hydrogeology, ecology, sociology, economics, public health and cultural

values.

The diffusion of river contracts (RC) in the European scenario is a phenomenon of

great interest for the implementation of integrated water management policies.

Starting from the ﬁrst experiences in the 1980s, RC have acquir ed considerable

ﬂexibility and offered original solutions for problematic issues related to river basin

management. The analysis of the experiences both completed and still underway

illustrates a growing trend towards integration between RC and other instruments of

basin management and urban and territorial planning.

Interest in RC heightened after the Second World Water Forum held in The

Hague in 2000, where, for the ﬁrst time, such contractual agreements were iden-

tiﬁed on a global level as suitable processes for promoting sustainable development

of territories at the river basin scale. During the Forum, the formal deﬁnition of RC

conﬁrmed its relevance in terms of integrating the dimensions of public interest,

economic performance, social values and environmental sustainability. The

European Water Framework Directive (WFD), also in 2000, gave new impetus to

water resources management, stressing the importance of appropriately organized

forms of river basin management and participatory processes. Arguably, both the

Second World Water Forum and the WFD have rendered the breeding ground

fertile for the diffusion and adoption of RC as implementation tools for purpos es of

river basin planning, indeed through participatory and inclusive approaches.

M.L. Scaduto, River Contracts and Integrated Water Management in Europe,

UNIPA Springer Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42628-0_5

109

Across the board, the underlying theme of the river basin as the reference unit for

the implementation of integrated water management policies, has characterized all

major cases of RC. This reference unit, however, often involves territories which

are extremely complex and diverse from a geographic, environmen tal, social and

political viewpoint, all features that can affect the breadth and scope of the RC.

Notwithstanding the local environmental and geo-political territorial differences, the

river basin has contributed to characterizing these voluntary agreements as highly

concerted and inclusive instruments. In this sense, the all but secondary role that RC

have taken on in restoring physiographic, administrative and management identities

to river basins, has also contributed to helping rebuild up-stream and down-stream

relationships, and orienting actions towards a territorial dimension modeled on the

tenets of bioregionalism (Magnaghi 2011).

In this light, RC are capable of prompting new participatory processes that

primarily constitute important forums for dialogue and knowledge shari ng between

public institutions, associations and local communi ties. Indeed, during the actual

implementation of the RC, such venues for consultation are transformed into new

forms of exerci sing governance over the territory and new ways of transposing

European and national integrated water management policies into the different local

contexts. For example, in the course of the dialogue among institutions and local

stakeholders, RC may give rise to original innovations serving to generate more

effective solutions for innovative water management policies (Allain 2010; Berry

and Mollard 2010).

The interactions between public and private actors that may be achieved thanks

to RC are virtually limitless, given the host of combinations possible among players

and any number of forms of association between local authorities and individuals.

In fact, State, regional and local institutions, as well as non-institutional stake-

holders having some level of expertise, or that somehow interact in a given river

ecosystem, may all partake in these contractual agreements. At the inter-municipal

level, in particular, RC are able to promote extremely advantageous forms of

association between the different local communities, especially where there is a

need of consensus and cooperation, often due to geo-political fragmentation and/or

low popula tion density, abandonment phenomena of traditional productive activi-

ties and overall underdevelopment of the territory.

Thus, the subsidiarity principle too may ﬁnd in the RC an important venue for its

re-afﬁrmation and concrete implementation, provided the institutionally agreed plan

of actions be aptly designed with due consideration for local territorial identities and

its realization take into account the different institutional competences and

decision-making levels, revolving around a speciﬁc river basin/sub-basin.

RC are ch aracterized in particular by a complex, essentially twofold nature

whereby a technical and sectoral dimension coexists with the other of the concer-

tative territorial governance (Bobbio and Saroglia 2008). These contractual and

voluntary agreement are, therefore, capable of activating new processes of inte-

gration between river basin and spatial planning. This is one of the domains in

which RC reveal their vast potential, in contrast both to the widespread structural

weaknesses of the interrelationships between local systems of urban and territorial

110 5 Final Considerations and Open Scenarios

planning, and to the absence of true coordination between all sectoral instruments

concerning rivers, and surface and underground waters management. In this sense,

the RC is identiﬁed as a liaising tool between the two spheres of planning, as well

as a solution to any possible overlap in institutional and legal competences of the

actors involved, or between the actions and interventions envisaged by different

programs and plans.

Undoubtedly, the speciﬁc potential inherent to RC must also come to terms with

the different national and local regulatory frameworks that establish the degree of

integration between integrated basin management and spatial planning. For

example, in France the relations between contrats de rivière (CdR) and urban and

territorial planning tools are decidedly strengthened by the constraint that the latter

be coherent with the Schémas Directeurs d’Aménagement et Gestion des Eaux

(SDAGE) and Sché mas d’Aménagement et Gestion des Eaux (SAGE), as seen in the

previous chapters. Therefore, basin plans give every assurance of effective synergy

between the different sectoral programming instruments, representing the common

regulatory framework of reference for both CdR and spatial planning tools.

The French example illustrates how RC prove instrumental in operatively and

progressively assembling the functional mosaic of integrated basin planning and

management, enabling an effective and lasting restructuring of an entire system of

territorial, social, economic and cultural relations between up-stream and

down-stream areas and communities. Moreover, in those contexts in which a SAGE

is not yet in force, the reﬂection and actions underlying the implementation of a

CdR may actually serve as the groundwork that sets the stage for the procedures that

may bring to the adoption of a SAGE.

The analysis of experiences carried out in Europe, especially in France and Italy,

clearly shows how RC should hardly be considered a mere sectoral tool, relevant

only to the protection and management of water resources, but rather a generative

process that spans the domains of hydrography, hydrogeology, ecology, sociology,

economics, public health and culture.

Inasmuch as they constitute contractual agreements among public and private

promoters and other participating stakeholders, RC can be tailored, depending on

the case, to multiple ﬁelds of action relative to the thematic areas of speciﬁc local

interest. For example, in addition to actions aimed at safeguarding and re-qualifying

ﬂuvial environments, initiatives for improving the quality standards of water

resources may also be prompted along with others to sustain the production

capacity of the agricultu ral, ﬁshing and energy sectors. Similarly, purely technical

measures related to contrasting geological risks can be coupled to initiatives seeking

to bridge gaps in the overall knowledge base regarding speciﬁc hydrographic and

territorial regions. For example, through an interdisciplinary approach, the struc-

tural and infrastructural dimension of a RC plan of actions may be integrated by

conducting a census and determining the collective recognition of the component

parts of individual entities of naturalistic interest (biodiversity, ecological networks,

parks, reserves), anthr opological and cultural interest (cultural herit age, historic

built-up areas, cultural landscapes) and social interest (identity elements, gathering

places, recreational areas), and their interdependencies (Magnaghi 2011). In

5 Final Considerations and Open Scenarios 111

particular, with reference to the cultural interrelations, which in fact underlie all

others, it is interesting to point out how RC are able to build new awareness, on the

part of local communities, by fostering a new culture of water, via a commitment to

promoting education concerning ecosystems and forms of concerted dialogue, and,

thus, to achieving a heightened collective awareness of the values underlying the

water resources they share.

In this perspective, RC represent viable means for agencies and local commu-

nities to avail themselves of ﬁnancial resources, otherwise seldom accessible, to be

allotted for safeguarding and developing river territor ies and their natural and

anthropic ecosystems as well as for promoting sustainable development, via

apposite integrated action plans. In a number of cases its signiﬁcant potential could

bring to fruition integrated intervent ions for the comprehensive requaliﬁcation of

territorial areas, whether intensely populated or suburban, whereas the latter are

otherwise all too commonly subject to processes of abandonment and marginal-

ization, if anything.

Evidently, this inherent potential of RC must nevertheless come to terms with

some principal limits that the analysis herein conducted on actual experiences in

Europe has highlighted.

The reference to the territorial, ecologic and hydrogeological unit of the river

basin, although addressing the natural context to which RC should refer, at times

ﬁnds itself at odds with the concerns of an administrative, institutional, economic,

social and political nature that distinctly characterize each territory. For example,

hydrographic units of greater territorial extension may, per se, represent a limit to

reaching adequate levels of internal cooperation amongst local actors and, thus, to

achieving the planned objectives.

The complexity and the time scales of river dynamics are additional potentially

critical points with respect to the application of RC, especially in relation to the total

duration of the action plan. For example, the experiences in France prove that the

average period of 5–7 years required for the implementation, of interventions may

in some cases result inadequate for achieving the planned objectives above all in

terms of contrasting geological risk and the environmental requaliﬁcation of river

contexts.

The most characterizing feature of RC is howe ver still legal in nature and

consists in the signing of the negotiated agreement on a voluntary basis. In other

words, the territorial actors in a given hydrographic context are without any obli-

gation to adhere to RC, although promoted in most cases by State and local

institutions, thus only take part according to their speciﬁc interests and effective

political biases. In this sense, RC as yet are devoid of any regulatory bearing unlike

spatial planning and other integrated basin management tools. The non-binding

nature of RC may result in partial success in terms of stakeholder involvement in a

given river area, with the consequence of action plans being less than fully shared,

if contrasted with cases enjoying full participation of private parties within the

ﬁnancial and planning framework of a RC.

The process of territorial consultation and the active participation of stakeholders

are the two crucial factors in the implementation of RC. Almost without exception,

112 5 Final Considerations and Open Scenarios

the problems speciﬁc to a given local context require lengthy phases of shared

analysis and d emanding negotiations before reaching a deﬁnition of contents and

objectives of the project, and the signing of the contract.

The time requirements for activating the contractual procedure, which almost

invariably amount to approximately ten years, increase the overall probability of

signiﬁcant variations within the scenario of application of a given RC. Changes

having most bearing can occur in terms of the composition of the partnership, the

political representatives of the local authorities involved, the subject of interven-

tions, the availability of ﬁnancial resources and the natural dynamics of the

hydrographic context. These consultation processes can prove drawn out and

burdensome in terms of coordination of actors, conﬂict resolution and effective

achievement of objectives.

Given the different evolution that RC have experienced in the European sce-

nario, as well as the particularities of the experiences within each national context,

the different renditions of such contractual agreements a re directly linked to the

legislative, institutional and local administration framework in matters of protection

and management of water resour ces and of the territory. The differences in terms of

normative references, procedures and contents, as well as the role of promoters and

implementing subjects, may represent considerable limitations for the realization of

RC impacti ng cross-border or interregional areas. For example, in the case of the

Segre River Contract, whose hydrographic basin in extended across the border

between France and Spain, in the central part of the Pyrenees, there were short-

comings in the effective coordination and true interaction among actors on either

side of the border (Maury and Richard 2011). In actuality, for the realization of the

Segre River Contract, signed in 2001, a managing body and a comité de rivière

were instituted for each partner State, while each comité de rivière housed a college

of representatives on behalf of its institutional counterpart. Although the synergy

between the two managing entities and the corresponding comité de rivière proved

instrumental in securing both local and European funding, the cross-border

dimension was ultimately percei ved more as a hindrance and a drawback than as an

actual advantage. In this regard, the case of the Segre River Contract reveals the

potential issues that may occur in the ambit of cross-border RC, in the presence of

situations of contention linked to the contrasting uses of water resources, absent an

effective degree of underlying institutional and cultural synergy among up-stream

and down-stream stakeholders.

The example mentioned also conﬁrms that features of political, administrative

and technical steadfastness on the part of the organization that assumes the project

manager role in a RC, represent other key aspects of the potential success of these

negotiated and participatory processes. The crucial points, in this case, are closely

tied to the actual capacity of the managing bodies to (I) implement, promote and

support the dialogue between the parties involved, (II) coordinate the implemen-

tation of program of interventions, (III) be skilled in steering action plans

throughout, and (IV) monitor, even ex post , the actual outcomes of interventions in

the territories concerned. These aspects are particularly relevant in cases where the

managing bodies are individual or groupings of local authorities, which may easily

5 Final Considerations and Open Scenarios 113

be subject to periodic variations of their political representatives and interlocutors,

especially as a consequence of local rounds of voting. Conversely, State-instituted

technical organisms, or those, in any case, lacking a predominant political com-

ponent, are probably the best institutional candidates for the role of project manager

in RC implementation. In Italy, for example, the State-instituted no n-political

bodies of the Basin Authorities, accountable for hydrographic units management,

could take on a more decisive role in the promotion and implementation of RC,

albeit in collaboration with the regional and local authorities, and in strict adherence

to the princ iple of subsidiar ity. This would tend to maximize the synergy between

institutional competences, managerial, technical a nd ﬁnancial capabilities, thus

ensuring greater long-term administrative and management stability to activated

RC.

As previously highlighted, RC can contribute to apply the principle of sub-

sidiarity as they are operational tools capable of being tailored to the requirements

of each hydrographic territory. In this sense, in order to stave off the emergence of

conﬂicting situations, it is beﬁtting that the politico-institutional dimension of a RC

uphold this principle, thereby ensuring that planning and operational orientations

actually be deﬁned at appropr iate administrative levels. In other words, the pur-

ported action plans must take into account the effective authority and

decision-making powers of the lower-level government bodies among st local

institutions.

The principle of subsidiarity also refers to the theme of integration between

integrated basin management and urban and territorial planning, although the

interactions between the respective implementation tools remain beset with sys-

temic frailty. In some contexts of application, however, the fact that the requirement

of mutual compatibility between management tools still awaits a clear legislative

and normative characterization, may entail difﬁculties in formalizing effective and

synergistic relationships among RC, basin manag ement plans and local spatial

planning instruments. These substantial interdependences have to become some-

thing more than the mere, mutual mentions of the various tools and plans in their

respective technical and normative documents.

The extent of actual integration among RC, basin plans and spatial planning

tools reﬂects the internal consistency and, thus, validity of action program of each

contractual agreement. In fact, whenever effective synergy between the various

planning tools and a RC is maintained, the thematic structuring of the plan of

interventions tends to be well-balanced and better integrated with the theoretical

and operational orientations of basin plans, on the one hand, and with the plans for

governing the territor y at the regional, provincial or municipal levels, on the other.

Furthermore, this speciﬁc integration aspect is all the more relevant in those con-

texts concerned with the issues of Integrated Coastal Management (Granit et al.

2014), recently promoted in Europe by Directive 2014/89/EC entitled Directive

Establishing a framework for maritime, and Community-based Coastal

Management (Harvey et al. 2001).

Another potentially crucial point in the current scenario of RC concerns the

sources of funding and its appropriate use. At present, in most experiences

114 5 Final Considerations and Open Scenarios

implemented or still underway, the total investment required to bring the planned

interventions to fruition has been guaranteed by public funding, while the ﬁnancial

contributions from the private sector have been quite limited. After all, given the

inherent prevailing public interest in RC, it is quite understandable that the bulk of

the budget derive from State and/or European funds allotted for Regional devel-

opment and environmental expendi tures. Under these circumstances, however, it is

possible to focus on two potential pitfall s or areas of concern, the ﬁrst regarding the

redistribution of the allocated funds amongst the various implementing bodies, the

other represented by the inherent potential for political speculation, in the form of

tapping public resources for actions and interventions that are at times incons istent,

in part or in whole, with the objectives of a RC. In the ﬁrst case, the greatest risks

may present u nder untoward conditions of conﬂict arising between the actors

involved or whenever there is any existing disproportion in the ﬁnancial resources

inequitably allocated among the various territorial contexts and social groups

concerned. In the second case, the initiation of a RC could underlie local political

interests, even in stark contrast with the purported goals of the RC paradigm and, if

anything, more oriented to securing funds for interventions, all but entirely con-

sistent with the ends of integrated management of river basins and matters per-

taining thereto.

In light of the considerations expounded thus far, the realization of the potential

of RC and, at the same time, the progressive troubleshooting of the crucial points,

may actually be accomplished through (I) a greater legislative and ﬁnancial support

for their dissemination and implementation, (II) a deeper analysis of every under-

taken RC experience and, conseque ntly, a greater dissemination and sharing of

consolidated knowledge and know-how, (III) true incentives for transferring

methodological, technological and management skills matured in an increasingly

uniﬁed European context, to the beneﬁt of communities and territories within and

without Europe.

Undoubtedly, at the European level the deﬁnition of an EC legislative and

ﬁnancial framework speciﬁcally dedicated to RC, appears as the ﬁrst step towards a

true evolution of these instruments. This innovation should clearly operate both in

the sense of a greater normative alignment with other sectoral planning tools, as

well as on a legal and regulatory plane by ﬁne-tuning their contractual and par-

ticipatory nature.

At present, the molding of such a European framework cou ld already draw on

the ample repertoire of RC, either completed or underway, as well as on relevant

elements taken from various national and regional laws and regulation. In this

respect, the issue of a speciﬁc EC directive seems a reasonable aspiration, specif-

ically in terms of the regulation of RC and on the identiﬁcation of appropriate

funding sources. The transposition of such a directive would hasten the legal

standardization of RC in all national contexts and the acknowledgment of their role

in the implementation of integrated water management policies at the scale of the

hydrographic basin.

The purpose of such a directive should also be to identify adequate programs and

EC funding sources to support the dissemination and implementation of RC,

5 Final Considerations and Open Scenarios 115

especially to those contexts where they are as yet limited. On the ﬁnancial front, the

same directive could induce Member States to, in turn, identify the national and

local budget sections to be allocated speciﬁcally for RC, also through eventual

co-founding partnerships between public and private entities. Moreover, the

establishment of European and nati onal funds speciﬁcally earmarked for the

implementation of water policies through RC could substantially contribute to

limiting potential cases of political speculation aimed at securing public funds for

interventions that are anything but wholly consistent with the ends of RC.

Another key issue for the evolution of the RC model, at the European level,

consists in expanding the forms and vehicles for sharing knowledge, either con-

solidated or in the making, throughout the various national contexts. Speciﬁcally, it

is a matter of fostering more effective analyses of the RC experiences both com-

pleted and still underway, through opportune methods, whether single or multiple,

of systematization of knowledge frameworks, executive projects, shared and par-

ticipatory processes, inclusive of the actual results achieved by each action pro-

gram. Organizing such knowledge bases within national and regional information

networks, while allowing access to them via a dedicated portal at the European

level, is of utmost importance when one considers the prospect of more effective

exchanges of best practices and know-how, both among different Member States

and among the various regional and local contexts more closely concerned with the

speciﬁcs of river basin management. The main goal, far from trying to uniform the

variety and diversity of local declensions of RC according to a single abstract

standard, should be, above all, to disseminate knowledge and permit mutual

comparisons between the various local frameworks of reference. In all likelihood,

only by providing potential promoters of RC with straightforward and effective

access to the complete proﬁles of the experiences already implemented and those

still underway, it will be possible to optimize the local declensions, while increasing

the acceptance and adoption of such contractual instruments.

The considerations above make it seem only appropriate that an institutional and

research network be activated, ideally comprising a European observatory together

with similar observatories at each national level, for purposes of conducting

advanced studies and promoting the diffusion of RC.

There are already some examples of active institutional observatories concerned

with RC, such as the one operating at the national level in France, namely Gest’eau

(http://www.geste au.eaufrance.fr), and another at the regional level in Italy, to wit

Contrattidiﬁume.it (http://www.contratt idi ﬁume.it), established by the Regione

Lombardia. Of particular interest are also two initiatives being conducted, as of late,

in the Italian scenario, speciﬁcally the National Board on River Contracts and the

European Action Group named Participatory European Network on Water

Governance—Smart Rivers Network, promoted as of 2015 by the same National

Board.

The National Table on River Contracts was established in 2007 as a national

organism linked to the Italian Coordination of Local Agendas 21, with the aim of

creating a venue for the exchange of best practices in integrated water management

and for the promotion of RC in Italy. This body originally included the Regione

116 5 Final Considerations and Open Scenarios

Umbria, several municipalities adhering to Agenda 21, local authorities whi ch had

already taken part in RC, environmental authorities responsible for managing ﬂu-

vial wat ers as well as other associations. Before long, the National Board had

received extensive approval from the State central administrations responsible for

the management of water and the environment, regional and provincial adminis-

trations, and several municipal authorities, as well as from research centers and

universities, professionals and trade associations. A ﬁrst signiﬁcant result was

achieved in 2010, at the 5th Annual Meeting of the National Board where the

National Charter of River Contracts was presented as the declaration and ofﬁcial

guidelines for the realization of new intervent ions aimed to re-qualify and enhance

the quality status of river basins, through the application of the RC operational

model.

At present, the National Board on River Contracts represents a valid prototype

of a local observatory, characterized by the interaction of the skills and expertise of

researchers, scholars, experts, technicians, professionals and representatives from

the institutions, the research and academia communities, professional associ ations,

as well as educational, civic and environmentalist groups. Under its roof, in fact, the

modus operandi for promotion and dissemination incorporates the fundamental

constituents of the methodological and procedural model of the RC, such as an

interdisciplinary approach, active dialogue between the various stakeholders and

regard for consultation and participatory processes.

From the experience of this National Board directly descended the second

initiative, even more focused on the European scenario of RC. The above men-

tioned European Action Group Participatory European Network on Wate r

Governance—Smart Rivers Network, in addition to members of the Italian Board,

includes representatives and experts from other Member States. The intent of this

working group is to promote forms of participatory governance throughout

European hydrographic territories by creating a network for institutional coopera-

tion, so as to promote greater awareness of the role of RC in the context of

participatory proces ses applied to integrated water management policies, while

expanding their diss emination to areas of more limited application, such as Eastern

Europe. Currently, this emerging workgroup is part of the Water Action Groups

within the framework of the European Innovation Partnerships. In this facet, it may

hopefully pave the way for a new network of observatories on RC in Europe.

From the perspective of the next implementation of such a network of special-

ized observatories, it is also possible to identify, even at the technological level,

some reference paradigms useful for more advanced sharing of consolidated

knowledge, required for in-depth analyses of all cases in which RC have been

applied. In fact, the realization of one or more technological platforms based on the

potential of the web, the GIS (Geographical Information System) and related

webGIS applications, the interopera bility between computing systems and

social-networking servic es for users, typical of social media, together may represent

the optimal approach to achieve the objectives of sharing, disseminating and

updating new common knowledge bases on RC.

5 Final Considerations and Open Scenarios 117

Nowadays, the methodological and technological scenario offers applications of

great interest and potential, for instance Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) that

represent a particular adaptation of GIS-based technologies. Speciﬁcally, a PPGIS

combines the management and mapping of geospatial and thematic information,

typical of GIS applications, with full support of participatory processes relied on in

many sectors, such as sectoral planning, project design and management of speciﬁc

territorial facets of public interest (Brown and Kyttä 2014).

The PPGIS paradigm offers diverse features of interest for all those procedures

which require, in the ﬁrst instance, the mapping out and consolidation o f general

and thematic knowledge frameworks to be shared and collaboratively updated by

numerous stakeholders having institutional authority and operational expertise,

scientiﬁc and technical skills, and their own resources, differentiated according to

their territorial roles as well as their political, social and economic interests. Indeed,

the main potential of PPGIS lies in its ability to reach and involve a host of

territorial actors, interest groups and even single individua ls, in a manner ada ptable

to the single citizen proﬁles and skills of each, at the same time ampliﬁed due to the

interactivity offered by such web 2.0-based tools.

As such, it is evident that PPGIS can be a valid methodological, technological

and procedural solution to support the activation and promotion processes of RC,

ﬁrstly for mapping out the knowledge frameworks and deﬁning the plans of actions

and, subsequently, for the actual implementation phases and the continuous mon-

itoring of interventions. Therefore, having recourse to PPGIS within the ambit of

the implementation process for RC could represent an apt alternative, especially for

the engagement of local communi ties, and for the development of new forms of

communication and sharing of knowledge and common languages, made accessible

to different types of stakeholders in an easier and well-delineated way. In this

perspective, PPGIS could product ively collect through an integrated representation

different procedures and practices that have already been developed during the

implementation of numerous RC, and those that are still being developed within the

ambit of national technical boards and observatories dedicated to this speciﬁc

matter.

The possible forms of integration of PPGIS within the preparatory and imple-

mentation pathways of a given RC should include, ﬁrst of all, activities of a

methodological and technological nature shared among the promoters of the ini-

tiative and the other relevant players responsible for integrated basin management,

spatial planning, Information Communication Technologies (ICT) and GIS, aimed

at the implementation of dedicated public information plat forms. Within these

virtual collaborative spaces, general and thematic knowledge bases would then be

opportunely systematized and updated in order to ensure that all players are allowed

full access to the information base and to the different planning scenarios of the

project, via dedicated web-based applications, also integrate d with typical social

media services.

As well-known advantages accruing from GIS-based technology are numer ous,

particularly regarding the logical organization and integration of data made

available through various planning tools in use within a speciﬁc territory

118 5 Final Considerations and Open Scenarios