## 3 Results
### Landscape Metrics Analysis  
Fragstat software was used for landscape metrics analysis. Fragstat results, in the form of a.csv file, were imported into Microsoft Excel and all values were normalized, except for PLAND, as reported in Figure 9. The results allow for the recognition of landscape development in terms of land composition and configuration. In terms of the aggregation process, the patches number (PN) metric, which is the simplest measure of aggregation, shows a widespread increase for almost all the LU classes, especially for two time steps (1907 and 2009). Meanwhile, it is interesting to observe that in the 1960 time step, only the urban class grows. When compared with the mean patch size (AREA-MN), this metric also provides other useful information: as shown, in the 2009 time step, almost all the LU class types increase in number, but only the urban class also shows a significant increase in terms of mean size, in the same way that the vineyard class does in the 1907 time step. On the contrary, the 1960 time step is characterized by an increase in size of agricultural uses (both vineyards and other types) and sparse vegetation, as well as a decrease in the size of forest and urban patch types. The percentage of landscape (PLAND) metric, such as the PN one, is a fundamental measure for landscape compositions. The PLAND results show that agricultural uses have been a constant in the study area: by combining agricultural areas with vineyards, it was possible to appreciate their aggregation process, which began to decrease only in the last few decades, in favour of urban uses. These areas (the urban ones), only show an exponential increase in the last time step (2009). In terms of the compaction process, the SHAPE metric highlights a general tendency to assume more irregular forms for patches of all types in the 2009 land use map. For the previous periods, the compactness of the forms of urban patches in 1960 was noted (probably always due to the lower resolution of the map), as was the compactness of the forms of forests in 1907 and agricultural areas in 1817. The GYRATE metric shows a compaction trend for the urban LU type during the two centuries of analysis. Forest and agricultural areas present, instead, the opposite process, with a reduction in the average amplitude of the radius of gyration. Furthermore, the 1960 map shows the maximum compaction of all the LU classes, except for the urban one, whereas the 1907 map shows lower values of compaction in all LU classes. Finally, in terms of isolation or dispersion, the Euclidean nearest neighbour distance (ENN-MN) metric allows for the determination of the significant isolation of forests (due to their re-burning) and vineyards (do to their almost total disappearance) in the recent time step, with this taking place against the aggregation of the other LU classes, such as the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Land Uses in 1817 inside the**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Land Uses in 1907 inside the**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Land Uses in 1960 inside the**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Urban Areas of the 1907 Map**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Urban Areas of the 1960 Map**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Urban Areas of the 2009 Map**} \\ \hline Label & ha & \% & ha & \% & ha & \% \\ Urban & 358 & 46\% & 401 & 42\% & 693 & 17\% \\ Agricultural & 331 & 43\% & 29 & 3\% & 1743 & 42\% \\ uses & 56 & 7\% & 477 & 50\% & 1222 & 30\% \\ Vineyards & 10 & 1\% & 2 & 0\% & 169 & 4\% \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{Sparse vegetation} & 17 & 2\% & 40 & 4\% & 277 & 7\% \\ \hline TOTAL & 772 & 100\% & 949 & 100\% & 4104 & 100\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Time steps pairwise comparison in urban areas in terms of land use type. urban type. It is interesting to observe how this situation is diametrically opposed to the one in 1817, in which urban areas were characterized by isolation, while others, especially agricultural areas and forests, had a strong character of aggregation.