The case of Phlegraean Fields coastal area on the Mediterranean Sea

The Phlegraean Fields represent a dynamic landscape characterised by interaction between natural phenomena and anthropic factors. Such interaction, however, has showed juxtaposition and heavy alteration in the recent decades instead of sustainable development and respect of landscape identity that is linked to the volcanism and the historical component. Therefore, the current image denotes the subordination of natural and historical components to the anthropic transformations. At present, the ecosystem is highly degraded and fragmented, and it requires effective tools and actions to recover. There would be a great benefit not only from ecological networks in a narrow sense, but also from innovative tools such as green infrastructures, conceived to implement ecosystem services and biodiversity. Archaeology is an essential discipline to comprehend the identity of the Phlegraean Fields. The archaeological interest for this territory noticeably increased in the Renaissance. At that time, architects used to visit the Phlegraean area to study the constructive techniques of the Romans, whose ruins did not show as many alterations as the ones occurred in Rome during the Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, but only a process of natural ageing and the consequences of volcanic phenomena. The Phlegraean Fields are also well known for their peculiar land morphology, mainly shaped by the intense volcanism. It has created several landmarks and it is still active in secondary events such as Pozzuoli’s Solfatara and the springs of Agnano’s Baths. It would be sensible to pose a question on which of those hallmarks are still contributing to qualify the Phlegraean landscape. Urban sprawl has changed the physiognomy of the settlements and the territory itself. Data on the land use prove that the two halves of the 20th century were characterised by different phenomena. Between 1900 and 1954, woodland surface decreased of 30% and some 10% of lake shores were lost in favour of crops, but only 7.5% of agricultural land was urbanised; pastoralism ceased. Later, in the period 1954-1998 urban surface quintuplicated, partly due to unplanned or unauthorized new developments; agricultural land drastically decreased and the surface of uncultivated areas was nearly eight times as large. However, it must be noted that the since the 1990s some natural areas of the territory were protected by law (Regional Park of Phlegraean Fields). The recent two decades have shown the slowdown of population trends and other kinds of urban transformation, such as disuse of factories, revitalisation of historic centres, yet far from activating a “sustainable urban metabolism”. Despite the chaotic urban sprawl, which may threaten the very existence of the environmental and cultural heritage, it is still possible to observe volcanic and water landscapes of outstanding beauty, glimpses of sunsets on tufa cliffs, sudden finds of huge Roman cisterns and other monuments, orchards and vines, woods and Mediterranean scrub. The three main archaeological settlements of Cuma, Puteoli-Pozzuoli, and Baia-Bacoli-Misenoare located inthe three most representative Phlegraean municipalities (Pozzuoli, Bacoli, and Monte di Procida), but not necessarily each cultural park is fully comprised in one territory. Such circumstance, together with the overall geomorphological features, contribute to envisage an overall district concept of the area rather than individual development proposals