ELSEVIER Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63 (1997) 159-171

Agriculture Ecosystems & Enwronment

Landscape and nature production capacity of organic types of agriculture: examples of organic farms in two Tuscan landscapes

Roberto Rossi *, Dionisio Nota, Fabrizio Fossi Regione Toscana, Department o f Agriculture and Forestry, Via di Novoli 26 - 1-50127 Florence, Italy

Abstract

The criteria and constraints for sound rural landscapes worked out in the first meeting of the EU-concerted action "The landscape and nature production capacity of organic/sustainable types of agriculture" are compared with the situation of two Tuscan organic farms.

The first farm is located in the landscape system of the Coastal Plains near the boundary with the landscape system of the Antiappennino Heights in the Province of Grosseto, southern Tuscany.

The second one is located in the landscape system of the Pliocene Hills in the Province of Florence, central Tuscany. It was found that the organic farms in both regions add a considerable number of values to the surrounding landscape. Thereby a number of the criteria were criticized, though most were quite useful. © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Landscape; Organic farm; Tuscany

1. Introduction

In this paper the landscapes of two organic farms, La Selva farm and Poggio Antico farm, are com- pared with their surrounding landscapes. The evalua- tion is based on the criteria and parameters resulting from the first meeting of the EU-concerted action "The landscape and nature production capacity of organic/sustainable types of agriculture" held in Wageningen (Van Mansvelt, 1994).

For each example the main characteristics of the farm are described. Then the main features of land- scape and land use are analysed and subsequently the farm-landscape and the landscape of the surround- ings are evaluated. Finally, a first screening of pro- posed criteria and parameters is made.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39.55.438.3699; fax: + 39.55.438.3062.

0167-8809/97/$17.00 © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Pll S0167-8809(97)00012- 1

2. Example h La Selva farm

La Selva farm is an organic farm located in the landscape system of the Coastal Plains, subsystem PC6 'Plain of the Albegna and Osa rivers'; see Fig. 1 (Rossi, 1994; Rossi et al., 1994). The farm is located in the Province of Grosseto, in southern Tuscany.

2.1. Main characteristics of landscape subsystem PC6

Lithology: Recent and terraced alluvial deposits (46%), beach and recent dune deposits (28%) and old eolian deposits (19%). Relief intensity (r.i.): Plain (89%), hilly (10%: low r.i. 5%; high r.i. 5%). Land use: Agricultural crops 52%, including tree crops 3%, water bodies 24% (mainly formed by

160 R. Rossi et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Enuironment 63 (1997) 159-171

the Orbetello lagoon), urban areas 7%, woodlands 6%, pastures 5%. Land use heterogeneity: Low 54%, moderate 32%, high 14%. Hedgerow density: Low and very low 71%, mod- erate 9%, high and very high 13% (woodlands 6%). Soil degradation. Proneness to flood: Recurrent events along the Albegna and Osa rivers and in the Campo Regio area. Soil and higher water-table salinization hazard:

Moderate phenomena partly due to over-exploita- tion of deep ground water for irrigating.

2.2. Landscape components of La Selua farm and its surroundings

In the landscape of La Selva farm and its sur- roundings nine landscape components have been identified (see Fig. 2): 1. Recent fluvial deposits.

Soils: mainly calcaric and eutric fluvisols. Soil texture: silty loam over silty clay, subordi- nately sandy loam over clay loam.

Fig. 1. Location of sample farms within Tuscan landscape systems. 1, La Selva farm, in subsystem PC6 of the landscape system of Coastal Plains; 2, Poggio Antico farm, in subsystem CP5 of the landscape system of Pliocene Hills.

R. Rossi et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Em, ironment 63 (1997) 159-171 161

Slope: flat or almost flat (0-2%). Prone to flood hazard.

2. Old lagoonal deposits. Lagoonal deposits of the lower marine terrace.

Soils: soiodic planosols and vertic luvisols. Soil texture: clay loam over clay. Slope: flat to gently sloping (0-6%). Prone to flood hazard.

3. Flat-terraced fluvial deposits• Fine-textured de- posits of the flat parts of fluvial terraces.

Soils: vertic and calcic luvisols. Soil texture: sandy loam over clay. Slope: flat or almost flat (0-2%).

4. Scarps of fluvial terraces. Soils: vertic, orthic and calcic luvisols. Soil texture: sandy loam over clay.

lOCI 0 100 300 500 700 900 m

k ~ l ~ L ~ , I , 1 I , I 1

I

\ i

£ 7 ,

R " ~ R °~

•i

D

n~

\ \

d~

/ ;

K ¸

\ \

R

Fig. 3. Land use of La Selva farm (for the legend see the text).

•2

162 R. Rossi et a l . / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63 (1997) 159-171

Slope: sloping (6-13%). Prone to erosion haz- ard.

5. Eolian sands of old dunes. Thick eolian sands and thin eolian sands on lagoonal deposits of the lower marine terrace.

Soils: albic, chromic, vertic and ferric luvisols, eutric planosols and eutric nitosols. Soil texture: sandy loam over sandy loam or sandy clay. Slope: gently sloping (6-13%). Prone to ero- sion hazard.

6. Woodland. Mainly on fluvial terraces and eolian deposits.

7. Windbreaks and hedgerows. 8. Main water courses. Osa river, Albegna river,

tributaries. 9. Settlements.

2.3. Characteristics of La Selva farm

Type of farm: La Selva farm is a 100% biological farm (Naturland), active for 12 years. It is a capitalistic farm.

P (

tOO 0 1 0 0 I,,,~ ~ ~,1 I I

3 0 0 5OO ~ 0 0 I I I I

~ t ~~ -~

I

f

i ~ B

1

1 H

ti

'°2

( - - - i . e ! t l ~ j

Fig. 2. Landscape components of La Selva farm (for the legend see the text).

, " 7 . . - o - " ~

15

Tab

le 1

C

ompa

riso

n of

lan

d us

e ch

arac

teri

stic

s of

La

Sel

va f

arm

and

its

sur

roun

ding

s

Lan

dsca

pe c

ompo

nent

s L

and

use

char

acte

rist

ics

of L

a S

elva

far

m

Lan

d us

e ch

arac

teri

stic

s of

sur

roun

ding

s w

ithi

n th

e la

ndsc

ape

(1)

Rec

ent

fluv

ial

depo

sits

(A

) In

rot

atio

n: a

lfal

fa m

eado

w-g

rass

, cer

eal,

(A)

Mon

ocul

ture

, m

ainl

y of

cer

eals

, ve

geta

bles

and

le

gum

inou

s cr

op, c

erea

l, ve

geta

bles

in

dust

rial

cro

ps

Par

tly

irri

gate

d P

artl

y ir

riga

ted

Fer

tili

zati

on:

man

ure;

gre

en m

anur

e F

erti

liza

tion

: hi

gh l

evel

use

of

chem

ical

fer

tili

zers

and

pes

tici

des

Mec

hani

zati

on:

min

imum

till

age

wit

hout

tur

ning

the

clod

s M

echa

niza

tion

: de

ep p

loug

hing

(2)

Old

lag

oona

l de

posi

ts

(3)

Flat

-ter

race

d fl

uvia

l de

posi

ts

(4)

Scar

ps o

f fl

uvia

l te

rrac

es

(B)

Sub

ordi

nate

ly t

ree

crop

s (v

iney

ards

and

orc

hard

s),

wit

h ch

emic

al f

erti

liza

tion

and

wee

ding

(A

) M

onoc

ultu

re o

f an

nual

cro

ps,

as a

bove

(A

) M

onoc

ultu

re o

f an

nual

cro

ps,

as a

bove

(B

) T

ree

crop

s (v

iney

ards

, orc

hard

s an

d ol

ive

grov

es),

as

abov

e (A

) M

onoc

ultu

re o

f an

nual

cro

ps,

as a

bove

(B

) T

ree

crop

s, a

s ab

ove

(5)

Eol

ian

sand

s of

old

dun

es

(6)

Woo

dlan

d (7

) W

indb

reak

s an

d he

dger

ows

(8)

Mai

n w

ater

cou

rses

(9)

Set

tlem

ents

(A)

Ann

ual c

rops

and

fod

der

crop

s in

rot

atio

n, a

s ab

ove

(A)

Ann

ual c

rops

and

fod

der

crop

s in

rot

atio

n, a

s ab

ove

(A)

Ann

ual c

rops

and

fod

der

crop

s in

rot

atio

n, a

s ab

ove

(B)

Tre

e cr

ops

(vin

eyar

ds a

nd o

rcha

rds,

sub

ordi

nate

ly

oliv

e gr

oves

) P

artl

y ir

riga

ted

Fer

tili

zati

on:

man

ure,

gre

en m

anur

e w

ith

a le

gum

inou

s cr

op (

soil

cov

ered

for

a l

ong

peri

od)

Mec

hani

zati

on:

min

imum

till

age

wit

hout

tur

ning

the

clo

ds

(A)

Ann

ual c

rops

and

fod

der

crop

s in

rot

atio

n, a

s ab

ove

(B)

Tre

e cr

ops,

as

abov

e (A

) S

mal

l co

ppic

e w

oods

, un

man

aged

T

hey

occu

r, m

ainl

y as

win

dbre

aks

In t

he w

este

rn p

art

they

are

few

: th

e fa

rmer

is

plan

ning

to

crea

te s

peci

fica

lly

desi

gned

hed

gero

ws

Em

bank

ed (

'can

aliz

ed')

W

itho

ut s

trea

m-c

orri

dors

F

arm

bui

ldin

gs,

incl

udin

g th

ose

for

com

plem

enta

ry

acti

viti

es (

agri

turi

smo)

. St

able

s

(A)

Mon

ocul

ture

of

annu

al c

rops

, as

abo

ve

(B)

Tre

e cr

ops,

as

abov

e (A

) M

ainl

y sm

all

copp

ice

woo

ds,

unm

anag

ed

The

ir o

ccur

renc

e is

poo

r on

flu

vial

ter

race

s an

d ol

d eo

lian

dep

osit

s T

hey

virt

uall

y en

tire

ly l

ack

in t

he f

lood

pla

ins

Mai

nly

emba

nked

('c

anal

ized

')

Mai

nly

wit

hout

str

eam

-cor

rido

rs

Far

m b

uild

ings

, ev

entu

ally

inc

ludi

ng th

ose

for

com

plem

enta

ry

acti

viti

es

c,o I

164 R. Rossi et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63 (1997) 159-171

Location: La Selva farm is located at the northern border of the coastal plain, on the southern side of the Osa river. Farm size: Total surface 95 ha; utilized agricul- tural surface 90 ha. Land use: The land use of La Selva farm is mapped in Fig. 3: rotation (R) of fodder crops (40-42 ha), cereals (20-21 ha), vegetables (rotat- ing summer and winter vegetables and medicinal plants 20-21 ha); vineyards (V), orchards (F) and olive groves (O, totally 8 ha); woodland (W, coppice 3.5 ha); unproductive land (buildings, farmyards, roads, hedgerows, ponds, etc. 1.5 ha). Livestock: Cows and sheep, specifically kept for the production of manure. Main income sources: Vegetables (including medicinal plants), fruits and cereals. Other income sources: Meat; marmalades and pre- serves; 'agriturismo' (hospitality for tourists on the farm). Water sources: Artesian wells (with problem of salinization of ground water). Irrigation: 25-30 ha irrigated each year (in rota- tion). Drip irrigation, low and high intensity sprin- kler irrigation. Fertilization: Complete reutilization of by-prod- ucts: pressing of all plant remains for producing manure; manure and green manure. Rotation: Eight to ten years: manuring, 3-5 years of alfalfa meadow-grass, cereal, green manure leguminous crop, cereal, manuring, vegetable.

Mechanization. High level; minimum tillage with- out turning the clods.

2.4. Evaluation of the landscape of La Selva farm and its surroundings

2.4.1. Evaluation of the landscape In Table 1 the land use characteristics of La Selva

farm are compared with those of its surroundings. The following conclusions are possible (see also

Table 5). 1. In the surroundings there is a strong trivialization

of the landscape, which in many places becomes a flat homogenous monoculture.

2. In the surrounding farms, as soil conservation practices are not adopted, soil erosion occurs with a certain degree on the scarps of the fluvial terraces, due to the slope, and on the eolian sands, due to the high erodibility of the soils. The effects of erosion are easily observed after storms, when the ditches of the fields and the smaller canals become filled with sediments.

3. The high level use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in the surrounding farms causes a cer- tain degree of pollution of water bodies (this source of pollution is anyway much more impor- tant than the eventual loss of sewage from stables and manure).

4. The over-exploitation of ground waters by many farms (including La Selva) causes their depletion and their salinization, because of the intrusion of sea waters.

Table 2 Functions of landscape components of La Selva farm and its surroundings

Landscape components Ecological functions Economical functions Social functions Aesthetic functions

(1) Recent fluvial deposits (2) Old lagoonal deposits (3) Flat-terraced fluvial deposits (4) Scarps of fluvial terraces (5) Eolian sands of old dunes (6) Woodland (7) Windbreaks and hedgerows (8) Main water courses (9) Settlements

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X

X X

X × X

X

× x , main function; × , secondary function.

R. Rossi et al. /Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63 (1997) 159-171 165

2.4.2. Definitions of functions of landscape compo- nents

The fol lowing definitions of landscape functions are proposed: • Ecological functions: relating to biological and

natural aspects, to off-site effects of physio-

graphic processes and to the ecological balance of the landscape.

• Economical functions: relating to the economic aspects of production and to people's income sources•

• Social functions: relating to social relationships

!'3

5 . . . . . . . ~:-

T

tOO 0 I00 300 ~ 700 900 m ~ .~ I , J t i I I I 'l I

Fig. 4. Landscape components of Poggio Antico farm (for the legend see the text).

"k

166 R. Rossi et aL /" Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63 (1997) 159-171

and recreation of inhabitants and other 'actors' in the landscape; also relating, e.g., to special rights of use of a certain component.

• Aesthetic functions: relating to visual and con- templative aspects.

Pesa and the Elsa rivers; recurrent and non-recur- rent events along the Egola river and other tribu- taries. Off-site degradation effects: Siltation of canals and water courses.

2.4.3. Identification of functions of landscape com- ponents of La Selva farm and its surroundings

Within the identification of functions of the vari- ous components of a landscape, it is necessary to find out the most relevant functions of each compo- nent. It is important to find a balance, avoiding the identification of any function of minimal relevance. In the latter case, scoring every function, the repre- sentation may result as 'overexposed' and be of limited use.

In Table 2 the functions of the landscape compo- nents of La Selva farm and its surroundings are identified following these criteria.

3. Example 2: Poggio Antico farm

Poggio Antico farm is an organic farm located in the landscape system of the Pliocene Hills, subsys- tem CP5 'Pesa Valley, Egola Valley and lower Elsa Valley'; see Fig. 1 (Rossi, 1994; Rossi et al., 1994). The farm is located in the Province of Florence, in central Tuscany.

3.1. Main characteristics of landscape subsystem CP5

Lithology: Pliocene sands (51%), Pliocene clays (19%), Pliocene conglomerates (18%) and recent alluvial deposits (8%). Relief intensity: Hilly (high r.i. 91%, low r.i. 6%). Land use: Agricultural crops (63%; including tree crops 29%; vineyards 14%), woodlands (26%), urban areas (5%). Land use heterogeneity: Moderate 47%, high 45%, low 7%. Hedgerow density: Low and very low 18%, mod- erate 8%, high and very high 48% (woodlands 26%). Soil degradation. Proneness to flood: Recurrent events along the

3.2. Landscape components of Poggio Antico farm and its surroundings

In the landscape of Poggio Antico farm and its surroundings seven landscape components have been identified (see Fig. 4): 1. Settlements on crests.

Lithology: Pliocene sands. Slope: gently sloping (2-6%).

2. Crests and backslopes with tree crops. Crests and higher parts of slopes mainly with tree crops.

Lithology: Pliocene sands and Pliocene clays interbedded with sands. Slope: gently sloping to sloping (2-13%). Prone to erosion hazard.

3. Woodland on slopes. Coppice woods and, subor- dinately, scrubland, mainly on slopes.

Lithology: Pliocene sands and Pliocene clays interbedded with sands. Slope: gently sloping to steep (2-55%). Prone to erosion hazard.

4. Calanque-badlands. Calanque-badlands (sensu lato) with various degrees of erosion activity and of vegetation land cover.

Lithology: Pliocene clays, generally covered by sands. Slope: sloping to very steep (> 13%).

5. Foot slopes and narrow valley-bottoms with herbaceous crops. Lower part of slopes and val- ley-bottoms mainly with herbaceous and fodder crops.

Lithology: Pliocene clays and colluvial de- posits. Slope: gently sloping to moderately steep (13- 25%). Prone to erosion hazard.

6. Stream corridors. Riparian forest and scrubland in valley-bottoms.

Lithology: mainly fluvial and colluvial de- posits. Slope: flat to sloping (0-13%). Prone to flood hazard.

R. Rossi et al.// Agriculture, Ecosystems and Enuironment 63 (1997) 159-171 167

7. Wider valley-bottoms without stream-corridors. Parts of wider valley-bottoms not occupied by stream-corridors.

Lithology: Alluvial and colluvial deposits. Slope: flat or almost flat (0-2%). Prone to flood hazard.

3.3. Characteristics of Poggio Antico farm

Type of farm: Poggio Antico farm is a 100% biodynamic farm (Demeter), active for about 12 years. The members of the cooperative farm live communally.

. ! , ,o

:, : z . ~ [

7 i l ,

l " i -

|b t

..-,

I.. ~ N

> .

I - S

i tOO 3 0 0 50O 7GG

I I " V 1 I , I #am r laa

Fig. 5. Land use of Poggio Antico farm (for the legend see the text).

9 0 0 m

I

Tab

le 3

C

ompa

riso

n of

lan

d us

e ch

arac

teri

stic

s of

Pog

gio

Ant

ico

farm

and

its

sur

roun

ding

s

Lan

dsca

pe c

ompo

nent

s L

and

use

char

acte

rist

ics

of P

oggi

o A

ntic

o fa

rm

Lan

d us

e ch

arac

teri

stic

s of

sur

roun

ding

s w

ithi

n th

e la

ndsc

ape

(1)

Sett

lem

ents

on

cres

ts

Part

ly h

isto

rica

l se

ttle

men

t H

isto

rica

l se

ttle

men

ts:

vill

as, p

aris

hes

Far

m b

uild

ings

, in

clud

ing

thos

e fo

r co

mpl

emen

tary

act

ivit

ies:

F

arm

bui

ldin

gs;

occa

sion

ally

for

com

plem

enta

ry a

ctiv

itie

s:

chee

se m

akin

g; b

arle

y ro

asti

ng; m

arm

alad

e an

d pr

eser

ve m

akin

g;

'agr

itur

ism

o'

woo

l han

dicr

aft

Stab

les

Vin

eyar

ds:

not

plan

ted

alon

g th

e m

axim

um s

lope

gra

dien

t in

sl

opin

g gr

ound

s; g

reen

man

ure;

fre

sh c

ompo

st f

erti

liza

tion

O

live

gro

ves:

loc

aliz

ed f

resh

com

post

fer

tili

zati

on

Veg

etab

les:

rip

ened

com

post

fer

tili

zati

on.

Cop

pice

: un

man

aged

; pa

rtly

gra

zed

(in

sum

mer

) S

brub

land

(br

oom

): p

artl

y gr

azed

(2)

Cre

sts

and

back

slop

es w

ith

tree

cro

ps

(3)

Woo

dlan

d on

slo

pes

(4)

Cal

anqu

e-ba

dlan

ds

(5)

Foot

slop

es a

nd n

arro

w

vall

ey-b

otto

ms w

ith

herb

aceo

us c

rops

(6)

Stre

am-c

orri

dors

(7)

Wid

er v

alle

y-bo

ttom

s w

itho

ut

stre

am-c

orri

dors

In r

otat

ion:

alf

alfa

mea

dow

-gra

ss, c

erea

l, b

arle

y,

gree

n m

anur

e le

gum

inou

s cr

op,

mea

dow

or

hay

fiel

d

Fer

tili

zati

on w

ith

fres

h co

mpo

st;

man

ure;

gre

en m

anur

e en

rich

ed w

ith

liqu

id m

anur

e M

echa

niza

tion

: m

inim

um ti

llag

e w

itho

ut t

urni

ng t

he c

lods

; pa

rtia

l us

e of

ani

mal

tra

ctio

n T

ruff

les

Part

ly g

raze

d (i

n su

mm

er)

Vin

eyar

ds:

mai

nly

alon

g th

e m

axim

um s

lope

gra

dien

t;

chem

ical

wee

ding

; m

oder

ate

use

of f

erti

lize

rs

Oli

ve g

rove

s: m

oder

ate

use

of c

hem

ical

fer

tili

zers

and

pes

tici

des

Cop

pice

: m

ainl

y un

man

aged

S

hrub

land

in

aban

done

d fi

elds

V

ario

us d

egre

es o

f er

osio

n ac

tivi

ty a

nd o

f ve

geta

tion

lan

d co

ver

Mon

ocul

ture

of

cere

als

Fert

iliza

tion

: m

oder

ate

use

of c

hem

ical

fer

tili

zers

Mec

hani

zati

on:

deep

plo

ughi

ng;

fiel

ds w

ith

very

lon

g sl

ope-

leng

ths

(bar

e so

il f

or a

lon

g pe

riod

) T

ruff

les

Mon

ocul

ture

of

cere

als

and

indu

stri

al c

rops

Fer

tili

zati

on:

high

lev

el u

se o

f ch

emic

al f

erti

lize

rs a

nd p

esti

cide

s M

echa

niza

tion

: de

ep p

loug

hing

t~

c~ 2.

g~

t~

I

R. Rossi et al. /Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment63 (1997) 159-171 169

Location: La Selva farm is located roughly in the middle of the hilly area of the landscape subsys- tem, in the watershed of the Pesciola di Sticciano stream. Farm size: Total surface 102 ha; utilized agricul- tural surface 71 ha. Land use: The land use of La Selva farm is mapped in Fig. 5: arable crops and fodder crops in rotation (R, 45 ha); olive groves (O, 17 ha); vineyards (V, 9 ha); woodland (W, coppice 26 ha); scrubland (S, broom 3 ha); unproductive land (buildings, farmyards, roads, hedgerows, ponds, etc. 2 ha). Livestock: 40 cows (dairy breed), 20 sheep (for wool), 12 horses (draught and riding horses). Main income sources: Grapes (for juice) and olive oil. Other income sources: Cheese (from cow milk), cereals (wheat and barley), roasted barley, wool handicraft, vegetables (partly for household con- sumption), sparse fruit trees (partly for household consumption). Water sources: One well, in the upper part of the farm land, for human and animal consumption; two very small artificial ponds, in the lower part. Fertilization: Complete reutilization of by-prod- ucts: composted manure; stubble preserving, with the addition of liquid manure; green manure. Rotation: Four to five years of alfalfa meadow- grass; 7 years of rotation: cereal, barley, green manure leguminous crop, meadow or hay field.

Mechanization: Moderate, animal traction too; minimum tillage without turning the clods.

3.4. Evaluation of the landscape of Poggio Antico farm and its surroundings

3.4.1. Evaluation of the landscape In Table 3 the land use characteristics of Poggio

Antico farm are compared with those of its surround- ings.

The following conclusions are possible (see also Table 5). 1. In the surroundings there is a stronger trivializa-

tion of the landscape. Even at the macro scale, the landscape is characterized by a fair degree of complexity and, partly, of biological diversity.

2. In the farms of the surroundings the soil erosion is notably higher. The erosion is particularly re- markable for the off-site effects of siltation of rivers and canals and of floods, which in the last few years have become recurrent.

3. The farms in the surroundings cause a higher degree of pollution. The off-site pollution of wa- ter bodies is relevant, mainly due to the washing away of chemical fertilizers and pesticides (this source of pollution is, however, much more im- portant than the eventual loss of sewage from stables and manure).

4. The woodland that is developing in abandoned fields as secondary succession does not represent a problem for the landscape: an essential compo-

Table 4 Functions of landscape components of Poggio Antico farm and its surroundings

Landscape components Ecological Economical Social Aesthetic functions functions functions functions

(1) Settlements on crests × X X X X (2) Crests and backslopes with tree crops x X X (3) Woodland on slopes X X x X (4) (Calanque-badlands) ( X ) (5) Footslopes and narrow valley-bottoms with x x herbaceous crops (6) Stream-corridors x x X x (7) (Wider valley-bottoms without stream-corridors) ( x X )

X X, main function; X, secondary function; (..), not present in the farm-landscape.

170 R. Rossi et al. /Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63 (1997) 159-171

nent of the landscape is not lost; the expansion of 'natural' surfaces may also be useful.

3.4.2. Identification of functions of landscape com- ponents of Poggio Antico farm and its surroundings

In Table 4 the functions of the landscape compo- nents of Poggio Antico farm and its surroundings are identified following the criteria pointed out in Sec- tion 2.4.2.

4. Final evaluation and comments on the pro- posed criteria for a 'sound' landscape

In Table 5 the criteria and parameters proposed in the first meeting of the concerted action (Van Mansvelt, 1994) have been checked to see if they could be used, more or less directly, in the two examples presented in this paper.

Table 5

Tentat ive evaluat ion o f landscapes ( for the notes see the text)

C r i t e r i a and parameters L a Selva L a Selva Pogg io Ant ico Pogg io Ant ico

f a rm sur rounding fa rm sur rounding

landscape landscape landscape landscape

Clean environment + - + + +

M i n i m a l l y n e e d e d flora and fauna (species) + + + +

Biotope d ive r s i t y + / - + + +

I n t e r n a l r e c y c l i n g + + - + + +

E c o - s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n + + + + + / -

Eco-divers i ty + + + +

Eco-coherence + + + + / -

Envi ronmenta l qual i ty (1)

Nitrate and phosphate levels in water (2) + * - + + ~ + / - *

A m o u n t o f wood land (presence of) (3) + / - + + + +

Presence o f g r a s s / c l o v e r swards + + - + + -

Presence o f natural e lements (hedgerows) + + + + / -

Lack o f phys ica l degradat ion + - + + -

Lack o f n a t u r a l / b i o l o g i c a l degradat ion + + + + / -

Number , space, distr ibution o f character is t ic biotopes and species

in a region

Sufficient (agricultural) production (economic wel fa re ) + + + + + +

Aes the t i cs , h a r m o n y ( r e c r e a t i o n a l va lue) + + / - + + + +

H a r m o n i c i n t e g r a t i o n o f f u n c t i o n s , inc luding the h u m a n actors + - + + + / -

P a r t i c i p a t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t + + + +

Flexibil i ty ( t ime) and mul t i funct ional i ty (space) + + - + + + / -

Spatial or ientat ion (5)

Tempora l or ientat ion (5)

Beauty (6)

Size o f space (5)

Opinions and values o f the people involved

Presence o f funct ions for all landscape componen t s + + + / - + + -

N u m b e r o f componen t s that bui ld up the landscape + - + + +

Harmon ic distr ibution o f the landscape + - + + +

Intensity o f land use - * + / - * - *

Visual sensit ivity (7)

I n d i v i d u a l si te / r e g i o n characteristics species and habitats Consistency (part and whole) + + + +

Coherent development + + + + + / -

Incomparab leness (7)

Gesture, o rgan ic whole (7)

Sustainability, the site/region in its surrounding/ + - - + + + / -

w i d e r ecosystem Uni ty , coherence and c o n t i n u i t y o f (h i s to r ica l ) d e v e l o p m e n t + + / -

+ + , very p o s i t i v e / * low; + , p o s i t i v e / * low; + / - , n e u t r a l / * intermediate; - , n e g a t i v e / * high; - - , very n e g a t i v e / * high.

R. Rossi et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63 (1997) 159-171 171

No attention has been payed to eventual overlap- ping of criteria and parameters.

The following observations can be made about them: 1. 'Environmental quality': it is difficult to find an

agreement on a certain index for this parameter. 2. 'Nitrate and phosphate level in water': some pa-

rameters related to off-site effects, such as 'pollu- tion of water bodies', 'sediment yield and silting', 'occurrence of floods', are relevant for assessing the quality of a landscape, but it may be difficult to use them for assessing a single farm. In a subwatershed there is often more than one farm: from the data collected down-stream it is not possible to state that all the farms up-stream are polluting.

3. 'Amount of woodland': this parameter has been considered as 'presence of woodland'.

4. 'Participative development': the lay-out and orga- nization of the farm considered derive from the farmers' judgement.

5. 'Spatial orientation', 'temporal orientation', 'size of space': these parameters are relevant for an individual judgement but it is difficult to use them as general rules.

6. 'Beauty': this parameter is very uncertain. 7. 'Visual sensitivity', ' incomparableness', 'gesture,

organic whole': the meaning of these parameters is not clear. In Table 5 a tentative evaluation of the landscapes

discussed in this paper is presented. It must be stressed that no measurements have

been taken and that criteria and parameters have been considered, more or less directly, with refer- ence to a subjective evaluation. With those low pretentions stated, it can be seen from Table 5 that

the organic farms added a considerable number of values to the surrounding landscapes. This was more obvious for La Selva farm than for Poggio Antico farm.

Finally, it is important to stress that the goal of selected criteria and parameters is to allow 'relative' evaluations among farm-landscapes within a certain geographical situation, to address efforts towards the most appropriate solution. 'Absolute' evaluations of landscapes in different situations are much more subjective and should be excluded from the scope of the concerted action.

For example, the goal should not be to finance a 'beautiful' landscape instead of an 'ugly' landscape, but to finance the appropriate solution for the man- agement of any kind of landscape.

References

Rossi, R., 1994. Land information systems for the identification of landscape conservation and production measures. In: D.J. Sto- bbelaar and J.D. van Mansvelt (Editors), Proceedings of the First Plenary Meeting of the EU-Concerted Action "The landscape and nature production capacity of organic/sustaina- ble types of agriculture". Department of Ecological Agricul- ture, Agricultural University Wageningen, Wageningen, pp. 34-43.

Rossi, R., Merendi, G.A. and Vinci, A., 1994. I Sistemi di Paesaggio della Toscana. Tipografia della Giunta Regionale Toscana, Florence, 157 pp.

Van Mansvelt, J.D., 1994. Survey of landscape-perceptions, as presented by the participants of the concerted action. In: D.J. Stobbelaar and J.D. van Mansvelt (Editors), Proceedings of the First Plenary Meeting of the EU-Concerted Action "The landscape and nature production capacity of organic/sustaina- ble types of agriculture". Department of Ecological Agricul- ture, Agricultural University Wageningen, Wageningen, pp. 173-182.