## 3 Description of the Systematic Impact/Aptitude Land Planning Model
### Diagnosis and Territorial Analysis
#### 3.2.3 Determination of Land Capacity for Proposed Activities in an Environmental Land Unit
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Low (\(-1\))** & **Negative Categories of Value (NVCi) Medium (\(-3\))** & **High (\(-5\))** \\ \hline Singularity & Taxa and common plant communities. & Taxa or common plant communities & Neither taxa nor common communities. \\ \hline Diversity & Far below normal. & Distributed in a timely manner. & No natural diversity (gardens, green infrastructure). \\ \hline Representativeness & Far below the expected phytobiological value. & Phytobiological value distributed in a timely manner (almost negligible). & No phytobiological value, there is no vegetation (artificial soil cover). \\ \hline Originality & Unusual vegetation in the underlying area. & Alien vegetation and unusual vegetation concerning the underlying area. & Exclusively alien or invasive vegetation. \\ \hline Landscaping & Vegetation that contributes very little to the landscape. & Vegetation that contributes invaluably to the landscape. & Vegetation with zero contribution. \\ \hline Soil protection & Exclusive herbaceous or nitrophilous vegetation. & Herbaceous vegetation of irregular and punctual distribution. & No vegetation. \\ \hline Economic–cultural value & Punctual loss of traditional or ethnobotanical use. & Total loss of traditional or ethnobotanical use. & Loss of industrial use. \\ \hline Current state of conservation & Successful stages with degraded vegetation. & Stages of succession of highly degraded vegetation or with alien species. & No vegetation. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Negative value categories for each parameter (NVCi). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **High (+5)** & **Positive Value Categories (PVCi) Medium (+3)** & **Low (+1)** \\ \hline Singularity & Unique plant taxa and communities. & Unique plant taxa or communities. & Neither taxa nor unique plant communities. \\ \hline Diversity & Higher than expected. & Within normal. & Lower than expected. \\ \hline Representativeness & A good example of maximum phytobiological value. & Sufficiently represents the expected phytobiological value. & Does not represent the expected phytobiological value. \\ \hline Originality & Rare vegetation compared to the underlying area. & Vegetation of scarce distribution concerning the underlying area. & Common vegetation concerning the underlying area. \\ \hline Landscaping & Vegetation that forms its area in the landscape as a whole. & Vegetation contributes to the richness and quality of the landscape. & Vegetation contributes little to the landscape structure. \\ \hline Soil protection & Woody vegetation with a slope gradient \textgreater{} 25\%. & Woody vegetation with a slope gradient \textless{} 25\%. & Herbaceous vegetation and woody vegetation with low cover. \\ \hline Economic–cultural value & Industrial use. & Traditional or ethnobotanical use. & No known use, but with potential capacity. \\ \hline Current state of conservation & Climax succession. & Characteristic species and dense scrub stratum. & Initial stages of vegetation. \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{p{113.8 pt}}{Source: own elaboration.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Positive value categories for each parameter (PVCi). The second step involved the assignment of parameter weighting factors (PWFi), as shown in Table 4, to each parameter, in accordance with the methodology previously described. In the third step, we calculated the absolute extended phytobiological value (AEPV) for each environmental land unit and each proposed activity. This was achieved by summing the positive or negative values of the categories of the parameters (PVCi or NVCi), which are weighted with PWFi.