Problems and Purpose

A public debate is a process of learning, discussion, and comparison that develops with regard to works, projects, or interventions that take on particular importance for the regional community, in environmental, territorial, landscape, social, cultural and economic matters. The Region of Tuscany, with Law 46/2013, introduced the obligation to submit public or private initiatives involving a total investment of more than 50 million euros to public debate (Dibattito Pubblico, DP). [1]

The object of the Livorno DP was two port works projects (Platform Europe and the Maritime Station) which were programmed in the Port Regulatory Plan (PRP). Approved by the Municipality and the Port Authority in March 2015, the PRP is a real strategic plan for the future of the city and the port; the two port works were fundamental in planning the strategy. These are two different areas that will determine the future evolution of two sectors that are fundamental for port activities (commercial traffic and passenger traffic) and for the harmonious development of the port with respect to the city.[2] So the general object of the Public Debate is the development and redevelopment project of the port of Livorno, and in particular: [2]

• The first phase of construction of the Europa Platform
• The project for the area of the Maritime Station

The most important is undoubtedly the so-called Europe Platform—that is, the expansion of the port of Livorno which will practically double the extension of the port area. The work was the subject of an in-depth Feasibility Study in February 2016 and the Livorno Port Authority—in the DP phase—aimed to compare its hypotheses with respect to the best solution from a functional and implementation point of view (including the subdivision into functional sections) and an economic-financial one. Another area of transformation envisaged by the PRP concerns the area of the Maritime Station, a fundamental hinge between the port area intended for cruise and ferry traffic and the historic center of the city of Livorno.[3]

Background History and Context

The public debate is not an absolute novelty in the Italian panorama. Introduced in France in 1994, Italy first considered public debates with regional law 69/2007, the regional policy dedicated to participatory processes and deliberative democracy in Europe [4]. However, regional public debates were not initially activated in Tuscany. Only in early 2009 was it tested for the first time in the Italian context, with Liguria using public debate for projects to upgrade the motorway system for crossing the Genoese metropolitan area, called "Gronda di Genova".

Currently the regional law 69/2007 has lapsed and with the new law (46/2013), public debate has been made mandatory for public or private initiatives, or the localization forecasts contained in regional plans in relation to national works, which involve overall investments exceeding 50 million euros. [1] With resolution n.260 of the Regional Council of 16 July 2014, the opportunity presented by the request for activation of the DP on the case of the expansion of the Florence Airport, was then not granted, the resulting interpretation being that the law, for private initiative works, does not require compulsory public debate. However, for the works concerning the new port of Livorno which have as a proponent a Public Body, the Port Authority, and an estimated amount exceeding 50 million euros, the debate was activated. After about 60 years of discussion, the new Port Regulatory Plan (PRP) of Livorno was approved in March 2015 at the same time as the forecast of construction of municipal planning works, the most significant of which was the so-called Europe Platform.[3]

The city of Livorno has an important port on the Mediterranean (freight and passenger port) and the Naval Academy is located there. Handling goods amount to 28 million tons (2013) and passengers are about 2.5 million, of which 730 thousand are cruise passengers. The population of the city grew gradually from 1861 to 1981 by about 70,000 people, reaching 175,000 residents, and then falling, until 2016, to 159,000 inhabitants. For centuries, many religious and cultural communities of the Mediterranean and Europe have coexisted in Livorno, which have characterized some places and buildings in the city. The presence of foreigners exceeds 7%. A seat of important chemical and port factories, the city inherits a now disintegrated workers' presence.

The political tradition of Livorno has always been left-wing with PCI-led (Italian Communist Party) juntas until 1985, then changed to the center-left parties: PDS, DS and PD. In the 2014 elections, the PD, SEL, PSI, IdV coalition, despite having prevailed in the first round by obtaining 39.97% of votes, was then defeated by the M5S candidate FIlippo Nogarin who obtained 35,899 votes with 53.6% (he had taken 16,216 in the first round) while the PD candidate Marco Ruggeri, obtained 31,759; the decrease in turnout marked 15 percentage points less (50.45%) than in the first round (64.45%), indicating a sharp drop in interest in the population. In Ruggeri's platform, the term "participation" occurs 18 times and also "participatory" once. Broad centrality is given to the concept but distributed within the traditional discourses on decentralization, maintenance, and welfare. The discourse on the port, a legacy of the outgoing administration, is understood as acquired and ample space is given to the addresses that are already in the Port Master Plan, strongly supporting the need, including a clearer separation of the activities of the two port sectors: freight and passengers, dock upgrade and railway connection infrastructures. [5]

Nogarin's program introduces criticism with respect to the regional law on the participation of Tuscany and its effects:

"[translated from original Italian] In our city the word "participation” has long been abused, so much so that its meaning has been emptied. From the experience of Cisternino 2020 to that of Pensare Big, in Livorno, the most successful of participatory processes is represented by the surveys on the sports hall (carried out by Il Tirreno): the first to choose the colour of the roof of the structure, the second for the name. This has happened in Tuscany itself which, first, adopted a regional law for participation, only to deny its validity as in the emblematic case of the Castelfranco pyrogasifier: the Region denied the results of the participatory process that opposed the plant, thus favouring the NSE, the company that intended to build it. [6]

Also with regard to the port, the program writes that "the policy that managed it in the last seventy years gives us a big hand, clearly showing us what NOT to do." [6] The economic crisis is recognized for its importance in terms of decreasing consumption and transport "but, in addition to this, many errors and delays in infrastructure projects have led the city to be excluded from almost all the important traffic it had". [6]

A chapter of Nogarin's program is on participation and some measures are indicated: adoption of the proactive and deliberative referendum without quorum in the municipal regulation; transparency in operations; participatory budgeting and periodic public meetings with citizens; enhancement of city connectivity and free Wi-Fi; with regard to the work chapter, the need for synergy between all port operators for a general redevelopment of the port is mentioned [3].

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Immediately after the approval of the Port Regulatory Plan (PRP), in the spring of 2015, the Port Authority made available to the Regional Authority for Participation a report on the works planned for the expansion and redevelopment of the port of Livorno. After some preliminary meetings, the Regional Authority for Participation approved the calling of the Public Debate. The Port Authority and the Regional Authority for Participation have signed an agreement identifying the reciprocal tasks and collaborating both in the realization of the Public Debate and in its financing.

The Regional Authority for Participation has therefore identified a Head of the Public Debate through a public tender procedure. The task was entrusted to Sophie Guillain, hired by the Authority. Dr. Guillain is a consultant of the Res Publica company in Paris, with many years of experience in French Public Debates. The remuneration for the appointment to the person in charge was 20,000 euros gross [7]. An additional figure, not provided for by Tuscan law, but present in the French model, has been identified to assist the Head of the DP, the General Secretary of the Debate, Dr. Irene Rossetti.[8] Subsequently, the staff of the DP was formed for the training. Contracts were stipulated with the Livorno facilitation agency, Simurg Ricerche SNC and the communication agency Frankenstein, in addition to the support of nine expert consultants from the Port Authority.[9]

As a whole, the two Authorities co-financed the DP, 40% by the Participation Authority. [10] The subject selected for the realization of the project is typically asked to contribute voluntarily with a sum to be established. [11] The Port Authority therefore contributed with 80,000 euros for a total cost of the DP of 130,000 euros.[12] In addition to numerous human resources, the Port Authority has made available the spaces it owns at the Port Center / Fortezza Vecchia and at the Cruise Terminal.[13]

Participant Recruitment and Selection

First, a coordination table of the promoting authorities was formed, made up of the Port Authority, the Regional Participation Authority, the Tuscany Region, the Municipality and the Province of Livorno.[14] It met prior to and in the most significant moments of the DP to adapt the path to the needs of the moment.

Furthermore, a scientific table was formed which met on 25 May 2016 on the initiative of the managing entity. It was established to link the DP and its communication / observation on a larger scale, given that at the national level, with the new procurement code (Legislative Decree 50/2016, art.22), the introduction of the DP was foreseen, and Livorno could be observed as a pilot case.[14] The DP is generally open to all interested parties and this case is no exception.

During the DP, the representatives and the staff of the proposer attended the meetings; the Port Authority, the Region, members of the Participation Authority, and the municipal council were represented at every public event and several councillors and officials followed the process from the inside. In addition, an official from the transport area of the Province of Livorno took part in all the meetings.[9]

Publication of the DP was broad, widespread and pro-active (outreach). Various traditional means of diffusion were used: the reception point of the DP at the Old Fortress, formerly the seat of the Port Center, which was the place where most of the events took place, website, flyers, press, radio, TV, posters, social media, (Facebook (320 likes and 2,520 friends) and Twitter), e-mail, personal contacts, and direct telephone lines (which recorded 300 incoming calls; contacts and meetings in the Pisa area, and itinerant listening points).[15]

In the two workshops dedicated to stakeholders, some associations and university bodies, local administrations of municipalities bordering Livorno, and the capital itself participated; the workshops also included local public institutions and were prompted by requests for individual meetings from them.

Overall, 440 people attended, 40% of whom attended at least 3 meetings. The inspections involved 211 participants. In addition, 18 Papers of the stakeholders were drawn up, produced at the request of the curators towards the last phase of the path.

All the categories and occupational and associative affiliations of the participants have been listed, which see a wide representation of the active population involved.[16] Thanks to a questionnaire administered during the meetings, filled in by 189 people, it was possible to have a demographic picture of the participants, which saw a majority presence of the over-50 age group (57%) while those who were under the age of 35 were only 10% of participants.[17]

Methods and Tools Used

The Débat Public (Public Debate) was introduced, by law, by the French government in 1994. Following the virulent protests of local populations against the route of the Lyon-Marseille high-speed line (TGV), the French government decided that the design of major works should be subjected in advance to a public debate among all interested parties. With the Barnier law of 1994, partially modified in 2002, an independent authority was established called Commission Nationale du Débat Public (CNDP), which has the task of opening the public debate on all preliminary projects of large infrastructures that meet certain requirements. The debate lasts four months and concerns not only the characteristics of the project, but also the opportunity to carry out the work. The public debate is preceded by a broad information campaign, characterized by pluralistic information; all citizens, associations and groups who wish to can participate in it. The next phase involves public meetings, with various names (workshop or laboratories, terms in Italy that generally mean an exchange of arguments between people, some of which have technical-political decision-making roles) and written forms (e.g. Les Cahiers des Acteurs - The Notebooks of the Actors). In this dialogue phase, the contributions are then classified by category. At the end of the public debate, the president of the commission draws up a report in which they illustrate the arguments for and against that emerged over the course of the four months. Within three months of the publication of the report, the proponent of the work must communicate whether they intend to continue the project, modify it, or withdraw it. The procedure of Débat Public suffers from an excessive uncertainty of the results, and instruments for measuring the representativeness of preferences are not usually applied.

The Public Debate was introduced in Italy with the regional law 69/2007 of Tuscany. Once Law 69/2007 lapsed, it was renewed with regional law 46/2013, in which the debate became a mandatory process to be activated in the case of public works exceeding 50 million euros (Regional Law 46/2013, art.8 , co. 1). The method was explicitly inspired by and does not differ much from the French model except for the figures who supervise it. In Italy, a regional rather than a national scale policy remains and instead of the Commission Nationale du Débat Public (CNDP), the Tuscan law establishes the Regional Authority for Participation composed of three members, experts in the field, appointed by the Regional Council, two by the majority and one from the minority. [4]

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The process opened with a public presentation meeting which followed: [15]

• 3 thematic workshops on the Europe Platform, the Maritime Station, and the Impacts of the projects;
• 2 workshops with stakeholders, as well as individual meetings at the request of some associations and universities;
• 3 afternoons dedicated to inspections by bus and on foot, in the port areas and the ReFACT exhibition (architecture), the silos, the Old Fortress, and the exhibition of historic boats;
• 1 closing meeting of the DP.

The meetings were all facilitated by the manager and the professional facilitators involved from Simurg. Representatives of the institutions involved were present at all meetings (see Participant Recruitment and Selection). The thematic workshops consisted of a presentation of the theme by representatives of the proponent and critical interventions by some authorities (such as the Municipality of Livorno) or Universities, who had been specifically contacted and met both individually and in the preceding workshop.

After the presentation, the participants, already arranged in the numbered tables (e.g. in the second workshop, there were 8 tables), indicated on a simplified 3D map the positive or negative points of the project, with black or red markers. After the plenary return for each table, the initial presenters gave further answers to questions posed. These meetings were organized from 19:00 to 22:00 on weekdays.[18]

Analysis and return of the DP

The fundamental document of the DP is the Dossier, drawn up by the consultants of the Port Authority and made available both online and in print right from the start. A report was prepared for each meeting, accessible from the website.

During the meetings, the online communications, the actors' notebooks, and the questions, proposals, and solicitations of the participants were collected and organized by category in a qualitative database.[19] From 681 contributions, 246 frequently asked questions (FAQs) were elaborated by the DP staff, then made available to the public in the dedicated sections. 374 contributions concerned the Maritime Station and 307 the Europa Platform.[19] The thematic categories identified were: (1) Environment and landscape; (2) Project characteristics and functions; (3) Governance; (4) Infrastructure for mobility; and (5) Economic and territorial development. Most of the contributions relating to the Maritime Station (MS) focused on theme 2, while for the Europe Platform (PE), they concentrated on theme 5.[20] Of the FAQs elaborated, 36% concerned theme 3 for PE while 39% concerned MS. All other categories were more or less equally distributed.[20] Finally, all the accounts, including the answers given to the FAQ, were again elaborated on the basis of a partially new categorization differentiated for the two projects.

The accounts were then exhibited in the final public meeting on June 14 and went on to compose the central part of the Final Report (Burt, 2016). For each category, the summary of the issues that emerged was reported in the Final Report, occupying 30 central pages.[21] For example, in relation to the Europa Platform, the summary of the discussion on the development model of the port and its integration with the other Italian ports of the Tyrrhenian Sea is reported. In this case, critical interventions are cited with respect to the continuous statements that refer to competitive logic rather than collaboration and division of roles, with other ports. The answers concern dredging and the depth of the seabed because current ships, much more capacious than in the 1980s, require it for docking.[22] This adaptation to the dominant development models is not necessarily the only one and one expert points out the lack of discussion on this choice because the Port of Livorno could instead choose to continue its history as a minor port, for other types of users. But the issue of the development model was not under discussion for the Authority and the choices of the Ministry of Transport, so it was not addressed. This type of solicitation has led to concerns among the general public regarding the possible gigantism of the planned works and their territorial repercussions.[22]

This theme was in fact highlighted in the final chapter by the Head of the DP, again reporting the concerns about the unsustainability of the global transport system and the requests to move towards a more endogenous and European trading system that leads to a reduction of commercial exchanges.[23] The Authority argued that despite the estimates of future traffic being cautious, operators have shown a high interest in the Livorno project.[23] The theme is thus concluded by the Manager: "[translated from original Italian] Our considerations: in the future it will therefore be important that the Port Authority and the winner of the tender demonstrate the appropriateness of their development model choices in relation to large ships, to the increase in traffic and the concentration of industrial, freight and cruise functions in Livorno. They must at the same time supervise, together with local authorities, that the compensation of the impacts and the distribution of the repercussions on the whole of the territory are appropriately planned, of two projects that will benefit partly of public investments, studies, infrastructures, services, etc."[24] Other windows dedicated to the considerations will follow infrastructural concerns, environmental impact, and the urban insertion of the Maritime Station.

A chapter of the report was dedicated to the proposals on the Europe Platform. They concern:

• the invitation to dialogue with the ports of Northern Italy, in particular La Spezia and Genoa, in a logic of complementarity;
• a more interactive governance proposal with the Ministry of Transport, open to debate with the territory within the framework of the rules established by national law;
• the need for a strategic reflection that includes the vast area impacted by the project, which could include reflection on the repercussions of the Maritime Station;
• the need to continue impact studies and environmental strategies;
• the adoption of the principle of social responsibility towards the Municipality of Livorno and its territory by the Authority and by investors;
• the need to attach the results of the DP to the tender documents of the project financing for the Europe Platform.

Finally, a governance system was proposed relating to the monitoring of the proposals resulting from the DP and the reflection initiated on the effects of the two projects; it should maintain the roles of the authorities already involved and enhance the locations of the DP, the Port Center and the Urban Center, envisaged by the Municipality, to inform and animate the territory. Furthermore, it must foresee specific meetings with the actors according to a calendar and adopt flexible methods of implementation. Furthermore, the governance system must clarify the roles of the various components: authorities, stakeholders, and citizens.[25]

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Reply of the Proponent

Within the time limits established by law (90 days) on 11/14/2016, the proposer published and communicated its response to the final document of the DP.[26] In summary, the proposer decided to confirm the project relating to the Europa Platform and to partially modify the urban masterplan relating to the Maritime Station. It also welcomed "most" of the proposals that emerged from the DP regarding the management of the construction of the works and monitoring. With respect to the methods proposed in the Final Report of the DP, the Port Authority "intended to simplify the proposed scheme without however diminishing the function of each single governance device, investing the already established and active working and discussion tables with the tasks proposed in the DP".[27] The annual meeting is also welcomed, thereby including stakeholders and concerned citizens in addition to the local authorities in relation to the progress of the projects on the basis of the indications accepted in the DP. [28] Including public and private actors in the local coordination table for port works and their coherence with the municipal structural plan (the long-term strategic urban plan) was also accepted.[29] The indications on environmental monitoring have been implemented with the involvement of environmental control bodies and universities in the establishment of a specific "institutional, environmental and social observatory".[28]

The Challenge to the Development Model

With regard to the "dispute" advanced about the development model, it should be noted that this had not been questioned by the Port Authority. Despite this, it is a question that attracted various interventions and concerns and the "first question" that connotes the overall choice also emerged from the documents of the Manager. The Authority, in its Final Response, reports it (perhaps erroneously) together with a second dispute which is not necessarily connected to the first. The question is presented in a concise table. Under the heading "disputes" is written: "Challenge to the economic model underlying the port development projects, which requires large ships (gigantism) and the increase in port traffic. Traffic forecasts and the need for welcoming large ships would be overrated".[26] Alongside, under the heading "requests" it says, "In the future it will be important that the Port Authority and the winner of the tender demonstrate the appropriateness of their choices". Under the heading "response" is "The tender for Platform Europe is based on an existing authoritative study produced by Ocean Shipping Consultant and D'Apollonia; the outcome of the tender, with the interest of private parties, will confirm the consistency of forecasts. The forecasts of cruise traffic are also based on authoritative studies. The Port Authority, also in the context of the activities of the Institutional Observatory, will carry out, as an ordinary activity, a periodic reporting of investments through the evaluation of the implementation of the business of private partners. In particular, indicators relating to the implementation of the project (deeds, time schedule ...), financial flows, traffic flows, employment data will be monitored".[30] Therefore, a deliberate response is only given to a sentence of support relating to the forecasts and not to the contested development model. In fact, the sentence on the forecasts is not necessarily connected to the main thesis of the dispute. Respectively to the other contributions there is a coherence in the answers and their, sufficiently detailed, acceptance.

Post-Report Updates

As stated in the Final Report, the results relating to the survey were to be returned with an ex post questionnaire for the qualitative assessment of the path, "after the delivery of the final report".[31] To date (10/3/2017), after more than 7 months from the final report, this document has not been detected on the web pages of the DP. From the website of the DP [1] (as of 10/3/2017), there were no further updates on the progress of projects and governance, nor indications on how to follow further developments and where to find information.

On the Port Authority website (as of 10/3/2017) there was still the link to the DP, and technical updates aimed at operators and investors on the Europa Platform project. A small banner and menu item "Porto Aperto" introduced the Port Center, which, according to the responses of the Port Authority and the requests of the DP, had to continue to inform on the indications provided by the DP and implemented by the Port Authority and on the progress of the projects; with respect to these indications, it was not even updated with the contents of the DP but there were described activities prior to its organization.[32]

On the website of the Tuscan Participation Authority there is the resolution (n.26, 12/8/2016) in which the Final Report of the DP is approved, but no other updates on the projects nor where to find further information on their development.[33]

It is therefore difficult through online information to detect the progress of the projects according to the indications of the DP.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

A first analysis could result in a process of productive public debate where a concrete convergence of the intentions of all interests towards the general good with great attention to local and environmental implications has been noted.

However, the question of the "development model" of naval transport implied by these projects, as perceived by the participants, was not answered coherently and explicitly. Although the issue was not among the topics under discussion, the manager decided to list the issue in the first points of the Report. There is also a lack of response from the proposer on this aspect which should be clearly explained, for example by stating the intention not to question one's own development model, judged by the participants as "gigantist" and developmentist, or by declaring the own vision in line with the intentions undertaken. Instead, the proposer implicitly considers its model as "taken for granted" by all and unanimously accepted, through the modalities of liberal-democratic election or the authority arbitrarily assigned by the Authority to some expert paid to express evaluations of a private, mainly commercial nature. No note or public intervention by the Manager was found to question the proposer on this answer.

The DP ends with the final report and does not foresee any interventions subsequent to the proposer's reply. It could be an important option to introduce this faculty, on examples such as the one described above concerning the modalities and semantic quality of the responses of the proposers. It should go together with the overall evaluation of the DP and its results, including the responses of the proposers, to compose a final evaluation document of the DP drawn up by the manager. The indeterminacy in the results of the DP, its difficult enucleation in distinct and clear positions, and the failure to count preferences connote it as a consultation tool with a strong private prominence of the proposing subject. However, high-relevance issues, with a large deployment of communication and public involvement, compensate for this imbalance of power. It therefore reveals a practice that, although or precisely because it is also very expensive, would increase the relevance of criticisms even beyond their relative representativeness, offering them the opportunity to access and become, if properly treated and disclosed, a reason for collective reflection and public attention on "automatic" choices, never questioned by the state level and by the multinational private sector, as in this case. It is reiterated that this opportunity was not given due to the intrinsic shortcomings of the DP and specifically those of the case examined. As a consequence of this, it is evident that, also in this case, the opportunity has been lost to put the zero option and other alternatives for the projects proposed by a public state Authority, neither territorially nor nationally endowed with elected representatives, and strongly involved, due to its infrastructural nature, in private (transnational) subjects outside the territory. In this regard, it is necessary to reflect on the adequacy of the DP as currently conceived and on the possible introduction, in its discipline, of a phase of sharing the object and the project of the path, to be carried out ex-ante the organization of the DP, between Regional Participation Authorities, proponents, local authorities, and territorial actors.

See Also

Dèbat Public (Public Debate)

References

[1] Dibattito in porto - Il dibattito pubblico sul nuovo porto di Livorno http://www.dibattitoinporto.it (rel., 8/3/17).

[2] Dossier (2016), Dibattito in Porto, Dibattito pubblico sul nuovo porto di Livorno, http: //www.dibattitoinporto.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DibattitoInPor ... (rel. 8/3/17), p. 8.

[3] Dossier (2016), p. 7.

[4] See Participedia, The Tuscany Regional Participation Policy, Italy. https://participedia.net/method/5594

[5] Livorno Punto and Capo, Marco Ruggeri Mayor. (2014). Programma di mandato: “Livorno punto e a capo”. http://www.quilivorno.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/programma2014.pdf (rel., 8/3/17).

[6] Programma elettorale 2014-2019 del Movimento 5 Stelle Livorno. https://issuu.com/andreamorini/docs/programma1.0_beta (rel., 8/3/17).

[7] Participation Authority, Tuscany Region, Public Notice, Annex B, Published in the BURT of 4/11/2015, http://www.consiglio.regione.toscana.it/upload/AUTORIT

[8] Burt (2016), Bollettino Ufficiale Regione Toscana, Relazione Finale del Dibattito Pubblico sul Porto di Livorno (transl. Official Bulletin of the Tuscany Region, Final Report of the Public Debate on the Port of Livorno), Supplement to Burt, n. 35 of 31/8/2016, http://www.regione.toscana.it/documents/10180/13644103/SUPP+n.138+al+B.U.+del+31.08.2016+pII.pdf/028ee018-9d93-4a8f-a7cb-00fa185379a0, [BROKEN LINK] p. 7

Update: similar information can be found at http://www.consiglio.regione.toscana.it/oi/default?idc=47&nome=dibattito-porto-li

[9] Burt (2016), p. 9.

[10] Burt (2016), p. 8.

[11] Participation Authority, Tuscany Region, Del. 18 of 09/16/2015.

[12] Port Authority of Livorno (2016), Dibattito sullo sviluppo e riqualificazione del porto di Livorno. Risposta del proponente. (transl. Debate on the development and redevelopment of the port of Livorno. Reply of the proposer.) November, http: //www.dibattitoinporto.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Prot.-10582-Al ..., p. 7

[13] Port Authority of Livorno (2016), p. 9.

[14] Burt (2016), p. 12.

[15] Burt (2016), pp. 13-14.

[16] Burt (2016), pp. 20-22.

[17] Burt (2016), p. 23.

[18] Thematic laboratory #2, Verso il piano di Stazione Marittima, Terminal Crociere 23/5/2016, http: //www.dibattitoinporto.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/dibattitoinpor ... (rel ., 10/3/2017).

[19] Burt (2016), p. 25.

[20] Burt (2016), p. 26.

[21] Burt (2016), pp. 30-60.

[22] Burt (2016), pp. 30-1.

[23] Burt (2016), p. 61.

[24] Burt (2016), p. 62.

[25] Burt (2016), p. 68.

[26] Port Authority of Livorno (2016), Dibattito sullo sviluppo e riqualificazione del porto di Livorno. Risposta del proponente. Reply of the proposer. November, http: //www.dibattitoinporto.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Prot.-10582-Al ...

[27] Port Authority of Livorno (2016), p. 16.

[28] Port Authority of Livorno (2016), p. 17.

[29] Port Authority of Livorno (2016), p. 18.

[30] Port Authority of Livorno (2016), p. 27.

[31] Port Authority of Livorno (2016), p. 25.

[32] Port Authority of Livorno - Port Center, http://www.porto.livorno.it/it-it/homepage/livornoportcenter.aspx (rel., 8/3/17).

[33] Participation Authority Tuscany Region, http: //www.consiglio.regione.toscana.it/oi/default? Idc = 47 & nome = debate ... (rel., 10/3/17).

External Links

Notes