## 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
\[\text{AEPV}=\Sigma\ (\text{PVCi}\times\text{PWFi})+\Sigma\ (\text{NVCi}\times\text{PWFi}) \tag{3}\]  
In the fourth step, we estimated the extended phytobiological value (EPV) as the result of subtracting from the absolute extended phytobiological value (AEPV) (Equation (3)) the absolute presented phytobiological value (APPV) (Equation (1)) calculated in the previous section. \[\text{EPV}=\text{AEPV}-\text{APPV} \tag{4}\]  
The fifth step was to calculate the percentage of the extended phytobiological value (PEPV) as the percentage of the extended phytobiological value (EPV) with respect to the absolute presented phytobiological value (APPV) calculated in the previous section (Equation (1)). \[\text{PEPV}=(\text{EPV}/\text{APPV})\ \times 100 \tag{5}\]  
Finally, the percentage of the extended phytobiological value (PEPV) allows us to assign the final extended phytobiological value (FEPV) to each environmental land unit according to the categories defined in Table 7. Furthermore, this table indicates the color to be used to represent each category on maps, the general use, the loss of heritage, and, most importantly, the land capacity for a proposed activity in each environmental land unit. The use of land capacity as a concept for the assessment of ecosystems prior to their utilization and exploitation [30] should be augmented by the incorporation of additional factors, such as the legal status of the land. In this novel model, which incorporates the aforementioned considerations, the land capacity that takes into account the presence of endemism defines the compatibility of the implementation of specific proposed activities within each environmental land unit. This is determined from the final extended phytobiological value (FEPV) (Table 7) in such a way that it can be compatible (positive value), incompatible (negative value), or indifferent (null value) with each activity. As illustrated in Table 7, if the value is negative, it signifies that the proposed activity diminishes the degree of conservation and is incompatible. Conversely, if the value is positive, it implies that the proposed activity enhances the degree of conservation and is compatible. Finally, the subsequent step was the assignment of land use and management categories to the environmental land units based on the outcomes obtained. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l l l l l} \hline
**PEPV** & **FEPV** & **Color on the Map** & **General Use** & **Loss of Heritage** & **Land Capacity** \\ \hline \(>\)+100 & Very favorable & Dark green & Protection & Low & High \\ \hline +100–0 & Favorable & Light green & Extensive use & Medium & Medium \\ \hline
0 & Indifferent & Yellow & - & - & Indifferent \\ \hline \(-\)100–0 & Unfavorable & Orange & Extensive use & High & Low \\ \hline \(<\)\(-\)100 & Very unfavorable & Red & Intensive use & Very high & Very low \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Final extended phytobiological value (FEPV) categories. Application of the Systematic Impact/Aptitude Land Planning Assessment to the Endemism _Vella lucentina_ in Spain  
In this section, we apply the methodology to the case of the presence of local endemism of the endemic shrub _Vella lucentina_ in land planning based on current land uses in the study area.