## 3 Results and Discussion  
The values of the PWIs for the different CTs and the diverse PAs are shown in Table 2. After several investigations (using the QGIS database, visits to farms, and contacts with farmers of the area) and after all the calculations (concerning the PWIs for the different scenarios and the attribute tables in QGIS) were performed using the properties of the plastic material and the results of some field surveys from farmers, the APW in the area was characterized. It was found that bags for fertilizers and plastics used for the packing of agricultural products are utilized in all types of crops. It recorded the highest values for nurseries, both vegetables and ornamental, with 307 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\) and 154 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y of plastic waste, respectively, since the nurseries have a large amount of material arriving each year packed in plastic films and directly unfolded and thrown away. Overall, plastic films used to cover greenhouses, vineyards, orchards, and nurseries had the highest contribution to APW, with PWI ranging from 565 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\) to 764 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\), in addition to the plastic nets, mulding films, and seeding trays with values ranging from 43 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\) to 192 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\). The smallest contribution to APW was recorded from the bags used for fertilizers, the containers for pesticidal application, and irrigation pipes, with values ranging from 0.5 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\) (bags for olive collection) to 75 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\) (irrigation pipes for greenhouses). In a study conducted by [PERSON] et al. [17] on mapping APW using GIS in Italy, the results were in accordance with the results of our study, wherein the highest contribution was recorded for plastic films (613 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\) to 764 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\)), followed by plastic nets (141 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\) to 192 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\)), irrigation pipes (50 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\) to 104 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\)), and finally fertilizers bags and agrochemical containers (0.5 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\) to 4 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\)). Similar results were obtained by [PERSON] et al. [14], who considered only plastic films, mulding films, and irrigation pipes in mapping APW through the provinces of Italy on some protected and open-field crops. The highest values were assimilated to the plastic films, followed by the mulding films and the irrigation pipes, with corresponding values of 1500 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\), 100 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\), and 40 kg ha\({}^{-1}\) y\({}^{-1}\), respectively. The application of the PWIs for each CT of the area allowed the obtention of the overall APW yearly produced per surface unit (Figure 2) in the four municipalities. The municipality with the highest APW density was Conversano, where farms are mainly orchards and vineyards, characterized by higher PWIs. In this actual scenario the total amount of APW yearly produced in the area was equal to about 11,103 tons. Although olive groves cover most of the area (39.1%), the highest contribution to the APW does not come from them. The most impactful farms are orchards, contributing 60.6% to the annual APW, followed by vineyards (28.8%) and then olive groves (9.1%) (Figure 3). The extension of the useful life (1 st scenario) of some plastics (Table 1) allowed the obtention of the first improved scenario (Figure 4). In this 1 st scenario, the highest reduction of the PWI was achieved for olive groves (25.4%), followed by orchards (25.2%) and vineyards (24.6%), which are the farms producing most of the APW. It had no impact on cereals and a negligible effect on vegetables (2.1%). The APW state was positively and significantly influenced by such strategy. By pursuing the second strategy (2 nd scenario), improvements were observed, but they were less significant than those made by the first strategy (Figure 5).