PORTUSplus_the Journal of RETE N. 9 – 2020, Year X Issue “Research Themes” RETE Publisher, Venice, ISSN: 2039-6422 ABSTRACT The paper tackles the problem of “coast consumption” and “sea consumption”, understood as the density of use by man expressed by the relationship between boats and water surface. Considering the sea-coast-ports and the maritime culture system as a “maritime cultural landscape”, the research aims to overcome the critical issue of coast-sea consumption by using the theory of the “commons”. Focusing on the fair use of the coast and sea, the maritime cultural landscape is intended, by the community, as common good. This implies the need to involve the urban and maritime communities both in its care and protection. Starting from this assumption, we consider the maritime cultural landscape as a “cultural ecosystem”, as an expression of the heterogeneity of urban and maritime communities and their interrelationships. In this perspective, the paper proposes to consider “ecosystem cultural values” and “ecosystem cultural services” in activating the “coastal community” for a collaborative governance model. Furthermore, the research framework has been tested on Cilento maritime cultural ecosystem, in the province of Salerno (Campania region) overlooking the Tyrrhenian coast south of Naples. We examine a coastal portion of Cilento Camerota, Centola and San Giovanni a Piro Municipalities - considered as a maritime cultural sub-ecosystem. Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente1, Gaia Daldanise2, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole3, Simona Stella4 1 Research Director. National Research Council (CNR), Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development (IRISS). Naples, Italy 2 Research Fellow. National Research Council (CNR), Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development (IRISS). Naples, Italy 3 Researcher. National Research Council (CNR), Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development (IRISS). Naples, Italy 4 PhD Student. Department of Engineering, Luigi Vanvitelli University. Aversa (CE), Italy KEYWORDS Maritime cultural landscape; Commons; Collaborative governance; Cultural ecosystem PORTUSplus | www.portusplus.org RETE Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Introduction: Maritime cultural landscape and sea consumption The sea is an identification element for a large part of the world's population who, by more than 50%, live within 200 km of the coast. In the first decades of the 2000s, particular attention has been paid to port cities and the recovery of abandoned port areas (Hein, 2020; Ducruet, Cuyala, & El Hosni, 2018; Salmona, 2010; Bruttomesso, 2006; Dovey, 2005; Marshall, 2001; Savino, 2010; Greco, 2009). Further research pointed to a growing consensus around seeing the port, the city and the waterfront as a unitary system (Hein, 2019; Clemente & Giovene di Girasole, 2017; Clemente, 2013; Carta, 2012; Ochoa, 2012; Sánchez, 2012; Kalaora & Konitz, 2004; Soriani, 2002). At the same time, sensitivity to environmental issues has been growing (Estaban Chapapría, 2012; Estrada Llaquet, 2012; Giovinazzi & Moretti, 2009; Billé, 2008), the concept of the cultural landscape have been asserted as a set of material and immaterial values (Veldpaus & Pereira Roders, 2013; Fusco Girard, 2013; UNESCO, 2011) and the ecosystemic reading of cities and territories spread (Cerreta, Giovene di Girasole, Poli, Regalbuto, 2020;Cerreta & Poli, 2017; Hogan, Shapiro, Karp, & Wachter, 2014). The coastal areas, which have always been crossroads for the exchange of goods among people, places and cultural capital, are characterized by key resources linked to “maritime identity” in terms of history, culture, traditions, architectures, environmental peculiarities (Clemente, 2011: 2013). This is described by Konvitz (1978; 2020) as an “urban maritime culture” which is the common heritage of both urban and maritime communities. In this perspective, it is possible to consider the sea-coast-ports and maritime culture system as a “maritime cultural landscape”. In the maritime cultural landscape ports act as territorial poles for local development but have a strong ecological footprint also in terms of negative externalities. The network of all ports, in their various sizes and types, is generally characterized by an excessive anthropogenic pressure. This holds true both in commercial and tourist ports or, even more in areas with highly valuable landscapes. Pleasure crafts gather in marinas, harbours, landings and buoy fields, overcoming any reasonable density levels and certainly the coast regulations. During the summer and on public holidays, boaters move to a few bays of great landscape value, distorting the landscape and producing visual, acoustic and sea pollution. On the mainland, the excessive consumption of land - which all landscape masterplans, at various levels, try to reign in - is worrying. From the sea-centered perspective, the problem of “coast consumption” concerns the density of man-made use of the coastal strip. This use takes place both through the construction of buildings and infrastructures works within, for example, 500 meters from the coast, and through the physical presence of people in the same coastal strip, on the waterfront, beaches, bathing establishments, etc. Like coast consumption, we could define “sea consumption” as a density of human use expressed by the relationship between boats and water surface. In this perspective, it become crucial using the theory of commons considering maritime cultural landscape as common heritage and focusing on fair use of the coast and sea (Clemente & Giovene di Girasole, 2015). The common good, in fact, does not present only material, economic aspects, but also includes a side that concerns the immaterial, relational and emotional world linked to the relationship we have with others - family, friends, fellow citizens and consequently, the places where these relationships take place: the home, the neighborhood, the city, the territory, etc. (Inghilleri, 2014). This implies the need to involve the members of the urban and maritime PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 2 Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella communities both in its care and protection, and in the decisions and actions that concern it, becoming “commons” for managing this landscape in an alternative way. In this perspective, the maritime cultural landscape can therefore be considered as a “cultural ecosystem” (Antrop, 2001), as an expression of the heterogeneity of urban and maritime communities and their interrelationships. Starting from this assumption, we take into account “ecosystem cultural values” and “ecosystem cultural services” for the activation of a collaborative governance model. Maritime cultural landscape as a commons Although in the last two centuries coastal areas have profited economically from the sea, anthropic pressure has generated unbalanced growth processes which require protection measures for the most fragile regions. The development goal of economic activities clashed with the need to preserve and protect the marine ecosystem. Such a protection requires us to rethink the relationship between economy, sea and territory in an innovative way and to review the effectiveness of traditional urban planning and territorial resource management tools. In other words, it requires us to identify which processes are most conducive to changing social processes and conditions in ways that lead to broader social justice and better environmental quality (Healey, 1997). The main issue revolves around the conflict between the “urban community” and the “maritime community” and around the weight they each attribute to the cultural maritime landscape as bearers of different interests. In this context, collaborative decision-making processes (Rifkin, 2014; Ostrom, 2006; Healey, 2003, 1997; Ostrom, Gardner, Walker, 1994) are capable of affecting transformation processes: an approach that implies the passage from a "vertical" to a "horizontal" vision (Clemente and Giovene di Girasole, 2015; Toffler and Toffler, 2007; Toffler, 2006; Rifkin, 2014; Tapscot, 2015) in which the urban community and maritime, share objectives, rules and values. Building processes to develop and protect the maritime cultural landscape, therefore, traverse the urban and maritime culture and communities primarily as a cultural project. On the sea, in fact, we can simultaneously find the defining traits of the commons, or those ecological characters (which distinguish a wetland from a fishing bench, the global climate from the local microclimate), or intrinsic qualities appreciated by humankind (often they directly contribute to the existence of man or are necessary conditions for man's life on earth); or the quality of social facts (products of human interaction and history) that the human mind has produced, or is capable of appreciating or recognizing as something that is valid, for the individual as well as for the whole humankind (Donolo, 2010, p.24, own translation). Recognising the maritime cultural landscape as a common good is the first step to build those common ground conditions which Elinor Ostrom (Ostrom, 2006; Ostrom et al., 1994) considered fundamental for creating trust, reliability and reciprocity among the members of a community who identifies shared rules for the use of the property. Doing so means engaging in collaborative governance processes in which political institutions recognize the importance of “non-state stakeholders” (Ansell, Gash, 2007, p.544) and the need for their direct commitment in the decision-making process and not simply for consultation. Collaboration implies a two-way communication and the mutual influence between all stakeholders (understood as public bodies and organized groups), through a deliberative and multilateral or collective process. The maritime cultural landscape can, therefore, become a common good in which institutions, the urban and the maritime communities are recognized as commons (Clemente, Arcidiacono, Giovene di Girasole, Procentese, 2015) for the coastal governance: a “coastal community” that is able, through collective actions and shared plans, to identify goals and rules, to combine environmental protection with the cultural enhancement of the maritime resource. The coastal communities, thus defined, can have a significant role in triggering strategies for a fair use of the coast and of the sea. Furthermore, they can help define new urban-maritime development strategies as bearers of PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 3 Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella not only environmental but also cultural, historical, economic values that reveal new possible productive vocations of the coastal area. Through the activation of collaborative decision-making processes, it is possible to build relationships between the various actors of the coastal community (institutions, urban community, tourists, stakeholders, shipping companies etc.) and to bring together the various instances (of conservation, protection, development, etc.), thus promoting conflict resolution and developing "shared projects" (Clemente, Arcidiacono, Giovene di Girasole, Procentese, 2015). Maritime cultural ecosystem: methodological approach If we consider the maritime cultural landscape as a “maritime cultural ecosystem” (Antrop, 2001), this implies the need to identify cultural “functions” and “services” that contribute, directly or indirectly, to the well-being of individuals within an ecosystem. Generally, these functions are related to the identification of “ecosystem services” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - MEA, 2005; Costanza & Folke, 1997) which are the multiple functions of the landscape (Cerreta & Poli, 2017; Bastian, Grunewald, Syrbe, Walz, & Wende, 2014; Wu, 2013). In this context, referring to “ecosystem services” is useful as they are defined as the result of an evolution over time of natural processes, uses, rules of use and social norms (Chan, Satterfield, & Goldstein, 2012; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - MEA, 2005). We can classify ecosystem services into: habitat, regulation, production and information services (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - MEA, 2005). Habitat services are linked to the ability of the natural system to preserve biological and genetic diversity in the evolution processes; regulations concern the ecological processes necessary for maintaining the life of the systems; production functions (from food to energy resources, to genetic material) are necessary for the survival of populations; the information functions contribute to the maintenance of human health by creating opportunities for cognitive development, spiritual enrichment and recreation. Internationally, various classification systems have been proposed, such as the MEA system (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), the TEEB system (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), and the CICES system (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services). In order to build a new point of view for the planning and governance of the maritime cultural landscape, it is useful to consider “cultural ecosystem services” identified by the three main classifications through the selection of some categories of “values” (Haines-Young, Potschin, & Fish, 2012) upon which research can be based: 1. spiritual and religious value, cultural diversity, aesthetic value, knowledge systems and values of education, recreation and ecotourism (MEA classification); 2. culture and art, information for cognitive development, spiritual experience, aesthetic information, recreation and tourism (TEEB classification); 3. spiritual, aesthetic, informative, community and recreational activities (CICES classification v4). These three categories of values allow researchers to identify the different dimensions linked to a cultural service and the relationships generated with the cultural ecosystem (Cerreta, Daldanise, Regalbuto, 2018). This interpretative framework may help to carry out capillary analyses on coastal landscape in order to bring out social, cultural and economic values – on top of ecological and environmental capable of enhancing them as a “maritime cultural ecosystem”. In the MEA classification (1), a key role is attributed to the spiritual and religious value, as well as to the cultural diversity and education values that material and immaterial cultural goods generate. The TEEB classification (2), in particular, focuses on its experiential part linked to cultural and tourist activities and, at the same time, on the information function that these experiences trigger. PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 4 Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella Finally, the CICES v4 (3) classification, adds a relational dimension, inserting in the values’ system those generated by the community and by recreational activities. For this purpose, it is necessary to identify the various actors, both institutional and noninstitutional, involved in the construction of the cultural services and related values of the coastal ecosystem. This process is based on a “collaborative governance” model as: “A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets” (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p.544). This definition highlights 6 important criteria to define this governance: (1) the model started from agencies or public institutions, (2) the participants include non-state actors, (3) the participants engage directly in the decision-making process and are not simply “consulted”, (4) the model is formally organized and meets collectively, (5) aims to make decisions by consensus, and (6) the focus of collaboration is on public policies or public management. Figure 1. The maritime cultural ecosystem: methodological approach. (Copyright: elaboration of authors). PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 5 Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella Starting from these considerations, we consider, on the one hand, “cultural ecosystem services” (together with the related cultural, social and economic values put in place) to tackle the problem of coast and sea consumption by promoting a more equitable use, and on the other hand, the collaborative governance model of the coastal cultural ecosystem (commons). In this sense, coevaluation is taken into account to analyze “ecosystem cultural values” (cultural, social and economic) while co-planning for defining “ecosystem cultural services” through the activation of “costal community” (Figure 1). Using 3 classifications described above (MEA, CICES v4, TEEB) a key role is attributed to three categories of “values” and related “services”: spiritual and religious value, cultural diversity and education values that are associated with the services offered by material and cultural heritage and intangible; social and community values related to community and recreational activities; cultural, experiential and information values that generate cultural and tourist experiences. To enable and make these values and services effective and recognized, a commons is necessary, once which is capable of generating a productive dialogue between different actors and users of both maritime and urban communities. Analysing maritime cultural landscape: a case study in Cilento The coastal landscape of Campania is characterized by different uses and transformations made by man to adapt it to their needs (Legambiente, 2012). This applies to the two main ports of Campania in Naples and Salerno, in tourist ports such as Marina di Stabia, Marina di Arechi, etc. and with different weights and impacts in the smaller ports of Castellammare, Torre Annunziata, Torre del Greco, Sorrento, etc. Let’s consider the amount of the boats moored in the waters of the region: Campania is among the five Italian regions in which the boat seats are highest, reaching more than 10,000 units and covering, together with Liguria, Sardinia, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Sicily, almost 50% of the total number of berths in Italy. If we also consider the buoy fields, on the basis of the official data of the competent Ministry (MIT, 2018), over 15,000 boats are estimated to be in the Campania sea, including marinas, dockings and moorings (Table 1). The use of these berths is not homogeneous throughout the year, but is concentrated from May to October with a peak in the summer months of June, July, August and September. Campania Region Tourist ports Tourist docks Berths 5055 4029 5960 Table 1. Moorings along the Campania coast by type of structure as of Dec. 31st, 2017. (Source: Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport). The analysis of a maritime cultural ecosystem, in the proposed definition, can be developed for partial areas that can be defined as cultural sub-ecosystems on which to carry out explorative research and implement innovative strategies for the active protection of the maritime cultural landscape. In this case, we examine the maritime cultural ecosystem of Cilento, a territory in the province of Salerno (Campania region) overlooking the Tyrrhenian coast south of Naples, between the Gulf of Salerno and the Gulf of Policastro. The territory, declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO, is a cultural landscape of extraordinary value with evidence of settlements dating back to 250,000 years ago. It represents a very large area that includes the Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park, the archaeological sites of Paestum and Velia and the Padula Charterhouse. We want to identify the main cultural resources present there, in terms of eco-systemic cultural services and values and the main stakeholders, in order to build a possible framework of actors to be activated for the collaborative governance. PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 6 Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella In a first phase, we use the main categories of cultural resources corresponding to the three classifications of ecosystem cultural services: 1. Tangible and intangible cultural assets to identify spiritual and religious value, cultural diversity, aesthetic value, knowledge systems and education values (MEA classification). 2. Experiences and cultural and tourist activities to identify culture and art, information for cognitive development, spiritual experience, aesthetic information, recreation and tourism (TEEB classification). 3. Community, social and recreational activities to identify spiritual, aesthetic, informative, community and recreational values (CICES classification v4). The coastal territory of three municipalities of Cilento - Camerota, Centola and San Giovanni a Piro - is considered here as a maritime cultural sub-ecosystem. The main resources of the aforementioned territory have been inferred from official sources such as the Territorial Information System of the Campania Region (Campania Region, 2020) and the sites of the 3 Municipalities (Municipality of Camerota, 2020; Municipality of Centola, 2020; Municipality of San Giovanni a Piro, 2020) and with the support of local stakeholders. Within 3 km from the coast line, 106 main cultural resources were identified: 39 tangible and intangible cultural assets, 41 cultural and tourist experiences, 26 community, social and recreational activities. Of these, 18 poles, considered more attractive in terms of people and economic flows, were highlighted on the map (Figure 2). Figure 2. Location of the main cultural resources of the Camerota, Centola and San Giovanni a Piro sub-systems. (Copyright: elaboration of Benedetta Ettorre). PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 7 Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella The heterogeneity of these resources is closely related to the variegated landscapes, coastal communities and the value systems that is linked to ecosystem cultural services. We argue that, were these resources interpreted as an interconnected system, within a horizontal governance, a greater enhancement of the entire coastal landscape could ensue. With this focus, in a second phase of analysis, a stakeholders map was drawn (Figure 3). These were identified through official databases of the three Municipalities and thanks to the support of local associations. Stakeholders can be sorted in three broad categories (core, direct and indirect) in order to build a framework of relevant actors in the decision-making process for the maritime cultural sub-ecosystem chosen here as an example. The classification in “core”, “direct” and “indirect” stakeholders helps to understand which of actors are directly affected by the possible collaborative strategies of the plan and which can indirectly benefit from them. Figure 3. Stakeholders map for a collaborative governance of the Camerota, Centola and San Giovanni a Piro sub-systems. (Copyright: elaboration of Benedetta Ettorre). The “core” category includes those actors who exercise a significant influence in choices oriented towards the common good. The “direct” stakeholders include the actors who can influence directly, or not mediated, such as associations or groups of citizens with common interests (for example, yachting). Finally, the “indirect” stakeholders are the subjects who interact in a mediated way, such as citizens, cooperatives and other local organizations. The vision from the sea (Clemente, 2011) shows a different perspective of the Neapolitan and Campania coast, where the waterfront is not a dividing line between land and sea but is transformed into an intangible infrastructure connecting the ports, the landscape and the city. The sea, the coast, the port and the city thus become a complex ecosystem of social, cultural, economic and environmental values, which should be monitored, evaluated and planned also through the activation of an observatory on the consumption of the coast and the sea. PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 8 Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella Research direction for coastal areas Today's separation between maritime and coastal communities can therefore be overcome by developing models in which socio-cultural and economic forces work together to reconstruct maritime cultural landscape as commons. This path should be implemented through a governance process in which the institutions with the two communities work together. On the basis of the research scheme introduced here, the transition from a vertical (government) to a horizontal (governance) seems important in order to achieve, on the one hand, a unified vision of the coast starting from its cultural value and, on the other, to overcome the problem of fragmentation of plans and projects on the coastal system. In a possible model of collaborative governance, the system of institutional and non-institutional actors, of their cross-cutting interests, is fundamental. Both kinds of actors should be entrusted with the responsibility for planning and acting through a common strategic vision. Through a governance process that points to a collaboration between “prosumers” (Rifkin, 2014) of the coastal community, a heritage can be identified in the local culture, in particular urban maritime culture, to be protected and enhanced due to its central role in the coastal landscape. In conclusion, it is considered important that public and research bodies, cultural organizations, citizens, associations and companies collaboratively outline the guidelines for the enhancement of the coast line, understood as a maritime cultural landscape, in order to improve the competitiveness and quality of the entire Campania coastal ecosystem in cultural, environmental, economic and social contexts. Note Massimo Clemente curated section 1, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole section 2, Gaia Daldanise section 3, Simona Stella section 4. Benedetta Ettorre collected and analysed the data used for the case study. All authors contributed to the conclusions (section 5). Acknowledgment Special thanks to Benedetta Ettorre, Internship at National Research Council (CNR), Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development (IRISS). References ANSELL, C., & GASH, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18.4, 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 ANTROP, M. (2001). The language of landscape ecologists and planners: A comparative content analysis of concepts used in landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning, 55(3), 163–173. BASTIAN, O., GRUNEWALD, K., SYRBE, R.-U., WALZ, U., & WENDE, W. (2014). Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landscape Ecology, 29(9), 1463–1479. BERTACCHINI, E., BRAVO, G., MARRELLI, M., SANTAGATA, W. (Eds), Cultural Commons. A New Perspective on the Production and Evolution of Cultures, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK 2012, p. 3. BILLÉ, R. (2008). Integrated coastal zone management: four entrenched illusions. S.A.P.I.EN. S. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society, 5. BRUTTOMESSO, R. (2006). Città-Porto/City-Port, Catalogue of the section of the 10th International Architecture Exhibition. La Biennale di Venezia, Palermo, 2006- 2007. Venezia: Marsilio Editore. PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 9 Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella CARTA, M. (2012). Waterfronts between Sicily and Malta: an integrated and creative planning approach. PortusPlus, (3). CERRETA, M., GIOVENE DI GIRASOLE, E., POLI, G., REGALBUTO, S. (2020). “Operationalizing the Circular City Model for Naples City-Port: A Hybrid Development Strategy”. In Sustainability, 12(7), Switzerland, MDPI, 2927; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072927. CERRETA, M., DALDANISE, G., & REGALBUTO, S. (2017). “Collaboriamo per Crapolla”: una strategia di governance innovativa per una gestione integrata e adattiva. In AA.VV. Supporto tecnico-scientifico a programmi di conservazione, miglioramento della fruizione e valorizzazione dell’Abbazia di San Pietro a Crapolla. CERRETA, M., & POLI, G. (2017). Landscape services assessment: a hybrid multi-criteria spatial decision support system (MC-SDSS). Sustainability, 9(8), Switzerland, MDPI, 1311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081311. CHAN, K. M. A., SATTERFIELD, T., & GOLDSTEIN, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. CLEMENTE, M. (2011). Città dal mare. L’arte di navigare e di costruire le città. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica. CLEMENTE, M. (2013). Identità marittima e rigenerazione urbana per lo sviluppo sostenibile delle città di mare. BDC. Bollettino Del Centro Calza Bini, 13(1), pp. 181–194. CLEMENTE M., GIOVENE DI GIRASOLE E., (2015), “La rigenerazione collaborativa della Costa Metropolitana di Napoli: verso un piano condiviso”, in GUIDA G. (a cura di), Città Meridiane. La questione metropolitana al Sud, La Scuola di Pitagora Editrice, pp. 149-160, ISBN 978-88-6542-415-5. CLEMENTE, M., ARCIDIACONO, C., GIOVENE DI GIRASOLE E., PROCENTESE, F. (2015). Transdisciplinary approach to maritime-urban regeneration in the case study "Friends of Molo San Vincenzo", port of Naples, Italy, in SANTOS CRUZ, S., BRANDO ALVES, F., PINHO, P. (eds.), Book of proceedings Citta 8th annual conference on planning research Aesop tg / public spaces & urban cultures meeting Generative places, Smart approaches, Happy people, vol. 2, Clássica - Artes Gráficas. CLEMENTE, M., & GIOVENE DI GIRASOLE, E. (2017). Cultura marittima e cultura urbana per la rilettura e la valorizzazione delle città di mare: Napoli, il mare, la costa metropolitan, in AVETA A. (Ed.), La Baia di Napoli (Paparo). Napoli. CLEMENTE, M., & GIOVENE DI GIRASOLE, E. (2017). Friends of Molo San Vincenzo: Action Research and Collaborative Planning. PORTUS: The Online Magazine of RETE, 34. Retrieved from http://portusonline.org/category/this_issue/34/focus-this-issue-34/ COMUNE DI CAMEROTA (2020). Comune di Camerota. Retrieved from https://www.comune.camerota.sa.it/ COMUNE DI CENTOLA (2020). Comune di Centola. Retrieved from http://www.comune.centola.sa.it/ COMUNE DI SAN GIOVANNI A PIRO (2020). Comune http://www.comune.sangiovanniapiro.sa.it/hh/index.php di San Giovanni a Piro. Retrieved from COSTANZA, R., & FOLKE, C. (1997). Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency, fairness and sustainability as goals. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, 49–70. DOVEY, K. (2005). Fluid city: transforming Melbourne’s urban waterfront. London: Routledge. DONOLO, C. (2010), Identificare i beni comuni, http://www.labsus.org/media/Carlo_Donolo3.pdf. DUCRUET, C., CUYALA, S., & EL HOSNI, A. (2018). Maritime networks as systems of cities: The long-term interdependencies between global shipping flows and urban development (1890–2010). Journal of Transport Geography, 66, 340-355. ESTEBAN CHAPAPRÍA, V. (2012). Medio ambiente y cambio climático, la encrucijada de los puertos. PORTUS: The Online Magazine of RETE, 24, pp. 26–29. PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 10 Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella ESTRADA LLAQUET, L. J. (2012). La sostenibilidad ambiental en los puertos. Una visión panorámica Environmental Sustainability of Ports. An Overview. PORTUS: The Online Magazine of RETE, 24. EUROPEAN UNION (2014). Maritime Spatial Planning 2014/89/UE. lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0089&from=EN Retrieved from https://eur- FUSCO GIRARD, L. (2013). Toward a Smart Sustainable Development of Port Cities/Areas: The Role of the “Historic Urban Landscape” Approach. Sustainability, 5(10), 4329– 4348. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5104329 GIOVINAZZI, O., & MORETTI, M. (2009). Città portuali e waterfront urbani: trasformazioni e opportunità. Tema. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 2(3). GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN, E., GREN, A., BARTON, D. N., LANGEMEYER, L., MCPHEARSON, T., O’FARRELL, P., …., KREMER, P. (2013). Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. Cities as Urban Ecosystem Services. GRECO, N. (2009). La città e i suoi mari. Il waterfront tra sostenibilità e governance. Milano: Franco Angeli. HAINES-YOUNG, R., POTSCHIN, M., & FISH, R. (2012). Classifying Ecosystem Services: An Ecosystems Knowledge Network Briefing Paper. Ecosystems Knowledge Network. Retrieved from https://ecosystemsknowledge.net/sites/default/files/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/EKN_Classification_briefing1_R1.pdf HEALEY, P. (2002). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places, in Fragmented Societies, Paperback, vol. 1 HEALEY, P. (2003). Collaborative Planning in Perspective, in Planning Theory, n. 2, pp. 101-123 HEIN, C. (2019). The port cityscape: Spatial and institutional approaches to port city relationships. PORTUSplus, 8 (Special Issue). HEIN, C. (Ed.). (2020). Adaptive Strategies for Water Heritage: Past, Present and Future. 13 Springer Nature. HOGAN, D. M., SHAPIRO, C. D., KARP, D. N., & WACHTER, S. M. (2014). Urban eco system services and decision making for a green Philadelphia. US Geological Survey. INGHILLERI P. (2014), Verso un’architettura dei beni comuni e dell’identità, in Lotus n.153, Editoriale Lotus, Milano. KALAORA, B., & KONITZ, A. (2004). Le Conservatoire du littoral: entre patrimonialisation et mediation, in Annales de géographie (Vol. 113, pp. 87–99). Société de géographie. KONVITZ, J. W. (1978). Cities & the sea: port city planning in early modern Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. KONVITZ, J. W. (2020). Cities & the sea: port city planning in early modern Europe. JHU Press. LEGAMBIENTE (2012). Il consumo delle aree costiere italiane. La costa campana, da Sapri a Baia Domizia: l’aggressione del cemento e i cambiamenti del paesaggio. Retrieved from https://www.legambiente.it/sites/default/files/docs/il_consumo_delle_aree_costiere_o3__campania.pdf MARSHALL, R. (2001). Waterfronts in post-industrial cities. London: Spon editions. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island, Washington, DC. MIT. (2018). Conto Nazionale delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti. Roma. OCHOA, R. (2012). Port & city relation on contemporary Lisbon: the articulator role of public space, In PortusPlus, 3. ODUM, H. T. (1977). The ecosystem, energy, and human values. Zygon, 12(2), 109–133. ONU (2015). Sostainable Development GOALS. OSTROM, E. (1990). Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OSTROM, E., GARDNER, R., WALKER, J. (1994). Rules, Games, and Common Pool Resources, The University of Michigan Press, USA, available on line https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472065462-fm.pdf. PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 11 Maritime Cultural Landscape collaborative governance Massimo Clemente, Gaia Daldanise, Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, Simona Stella REGIONE CAMPANIA (2007). Difesa del http://www.difesa.suolo.regione.campania.it/content/category/6/24/1/ REGIONE CAMPANIA (2020). Geoportale https://sit2.regione.campania.it/node della suolo. Regione Campania. Retrieved Retrieved from from RIFKIN, J. (2014). La nuova società a costo marginale zero. Edizioni Mondadori. SALMONA, P. (2010). The urban coastline and waterfront development. In D. R. Green (Ed.), Coastal zone management (pp. 361–395). Thomas Telford Ltd. SÁNCHEZ, J. M. P. (2012). Urban voids and waterfront, a new approach to city‐port relation. PortusPlus, 3. SAVINO, M. (2010). Waterfront d’Italia. Piani, politiche e progetti. Milano: Franco Angeli. SORIANI, S. (2002). Porti, città e territorio costiero: le dinamiche della sostenibilità. Società editrice il Mulino Bologne. TAPSCOTT D. (2015). The Digital Economy – 20 Th Anniversary Edition, McGraw-Hill (first edition: Tapscott D (1995) The Digital Economy, McGraw-Hill). TOFFLER A. (1987) The third wave, Sperling e Kupfer. TOFFLER I., TOFFLER H. (2015). Revolutionary Wealth, Knopf, New York City. UNESCO (2011). UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. VELDPAUS, L., & PEREIRA RODERS, A. R. (2013). Historic urban landscapes: an assessment framework part II. VIOLA, P., & COLOMBO, E. (2010). Porti turistici. Approcci multidisciplinari per una strategia progettuale integrata. Palermo: Dario Flaccovio Editore. WU, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 999–1023. PORTUSplus | Journal of RETE | N. 9 - 2020 | RETE Publisher, Venice | ISSN: 2039-6422 12