*4.1. Territorial Communication: The Geo-Database*

The Geo-database basing which the Guidelines of the RTLP and the PTPL refer to, allowed us to characterize the studied area, the archaeological basin of Tornambè that has been delimited as a landscape unit as follows.

As first the 229 archaeological sites of the Province of Enna have been individuated in the PTLP. Then, each of them has been characterized as for its landscape relevance and scored according to a metric representing the value of each category of the theme, which it belongs to. Finally, relations of similarity and complementarity have been established according to which the basins have been delimited and identified [97].

Once delimited the basin, its land area is divided into parcels that can be considered homogeneous with respect to each category of the related theme. Each parcel is scored according to a standard metric, set up in the PTLP, measuring the value of the parcel. By overlapping the different themes, the weighted average score of a generic item is calculated. For example, the relevance of a category of agricultural land use, such as almond grove, olive grove, pasture, etc., is expressed through the weighted average of the values of ecological, historical and agricultural values ranging from 1 to 5. The watercourses were assessed on a scale of 1 to 3 depending on the flow rate. Other landscape elements have been classified solely on the basis of location and size.

The geodatabase for the studied area reports the landscape themes from the PTLP, such as the geo-lithological and morphological ones, consisting of 14 categories, the vegetation and fauna themes consisting of 24 categories, the agricultural theme consisting of 21 categories and the cultural, real estate and infrastructure heritage themes consisting of 10 categories (Figure 4).


**Figure 4.** Example excerpts of the Geo-database (geographical references omitted).

The thematic maps extracted from the Geo-database allowed us to outline a sort of "value-graphy" of the archaeological basin of Tornambè. Figures 5–10 display some samples of geo-graphy (as for geology, geomorphology and hydrology), historio-graphy (as for the historic land framework of the archaeological network), anthropo-graphy (as for land intended uses, urbanization and road network).

**Figure 5.** The Archaeological basin of Tornambè: Geology.

**Figure 6.** The Archaeological basin of Tornambè: Geomorphology.

**Figure 7.** The Archaeological basin of Tornambè: Hydrology.

*Historio-graphy –* Territorial Framework: National Geographical Military Institute – 1865

**Figure 8.** Historical territorial framework—IGM, 1865.

*Anthropo-graphy –* Intended uses

**Figure 9.** Intended uses.

*Anthropo-graphy –* Urbanization and road network

**Figure 10.** Urbanization and road network.

The landscape connection between these different value dimensions, or ways to be wort, concerns the direct and/or indirect experience of the territorial context, the former related to the accessibility, the latter to the intervisibility map of the different archaeological sites.

The accessibility can be represented through the matrix of the distances of the sites from each other, the intervisibility map is the land area that is visible from each site and from which each site is visible. Figures 11 and 12 sample the intervisibility maps of Montegrande and Fastuchera sites.

The key findings of this step are multiple interpretations of the territorial context given by the possibility to overlap the landscape (abiotic, biotic and anthropic) value maps and the intervisibility maps concerning the different archaeological sites included in the basin.

**Figure 11.** Intervisibility map of Montegrande archaeological site.

*Landscape-graphy –* Intervisibility map of Fastuchera site

**Figure 12.** Intervisibility map of Fastuchera archaeological site.

### *4.2. Socio-Economic Communication: Appraisal, Accounting, Assessment*

The development project was detailed grouping the actions to be carried out: (a) in the areas of research, use and enhancement, (b) on the scales of territory, basin, site, taking into account the characteristics of the archaeological settlements and the potential of the relative territorial and landscape contexts.

For each action, the investment and/or operating costs, and the annual revenues have been appraised, as summarized in Tables 2–4.

Further synthesis of the above program allows us to distinguish and compare revenues and costs by policy [98] and scale (Figure 13). The amounts and the corresponding histograms display the expected clear unbalance between the scarce annual revenues (99,293 euro) and the huge annual costs (855,932 euro)that, more in general, characterizes the cultural-landscape asset economy, due to the emotional rarefaction of the contemplative experience in such landscape contexts.

As a consequence, the DCFA has been extended only to the economic goods and services that can be placed on the market, thus considering the economic-financial profile for a private player, a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), that could coordinate and manage all the actions needed for the

development and protection of territory whose exceeding costs could be incurred by the other public players, as following explained.

Once selected the private components of the project (as proposed in the next sub-section), the cash flow has been drawn and the economic-financial results and indices have been calculated.

According to a basic hypothesis (H1), revenues have been considered constant over the entire 30-years lifetime of the project. This early simulation compares two possible distributions of the costs:


Figure 14 displays both the not-discounted and discounted costs and revenues in order to show the effect of different costs and revenues, as well as the annual and cumulated cash flow.


**Table 2.** Summary of the actions, revenues and costs of the archaeological research program.


**Table 3.** Summary of the actions, revenues and costs of the cultural-contemplative experience program.


**Table 4.** Summary of the actions, revenues and costs of the promoting program.


**Figure 13.** Summary and histogram of the main components of costs and revenues by policy and scale (EUR'000).

**Figure 14.** Variable and constant not discounted and discounted costs, revenues, annual and cumulated, cash flows (R-C) for the private player (SPV) over the 30y lifetime (abscissa: years; ordinate: EUR'000).

d-Revenues d-Costs d-R-C Cumulated d-CF

d-Revenues d-Costs d-R-C Cumulated d-CF

This early hypothesis has been evaluated according to the above-explained economic results (NPV and TRR) and financial indices (IRR, ERR, AP, DPP) calculated taking into account the four above mentioned arrangements of the cash flow (Table 5).


**Table 5.** Actions, revenues and costs of the promoting program.

These early results and the comparison between variable and constant cash flow show the advantage of the absence of interests for amortizations charges in the former hypothesis, while the comparison between not discounted and discounted cash flow shows the advantage of a zero-discount approach in the field of "landscape impact investments" in which, i.e., the public interest is the primary and original scope and the cultural heritage is the original asset of the fixed overhead capital.

At this stage is clearly shown the non-cost-effectiveness of the hypothesis that revenues keep being constant, that is contrary to the main concern of a multiscale/multiplayer process supporting the development of research (through the extension of the excavation campaigns) as the original condition to trigger a self-powering information-based economic process [99] starting from the most structural of the cultural patterns, the archaeological one.
