The land of Silvi: a fifth of the territory is already covered, and what matters is what happens next

Silvi · Land consumption 2006-2025

A fifth of the territory is already covered

• 415.89 haof artificial surface
• 20.3%of the territory
• +1.66 hain 2024-25

What was measured

On 27 October 2026 SNPA and ISPRA (the public system of environmental agencies) presented the report Land consumption, urban ecosystems and state of the territory. 2026 edition. The measurement starts from a national 10-metre map, updated every year since 2006 with satellite images and visual checks.

By "land consumption" the report means artificial cover: buildings, roads, yards, but also building sites and other non-sealed surfaces (extraction areas, ground-mounted photovoltaic plants). Unpaved greenhouses and bridges are tracked separately and do not count as consumption. Consumption is "net" if what is restored is subtracted.

Two caveats from the report: each year the previous year is also revised, so past figures can change; and the report gives no minimum threshold in hectares below which a transformation goes undetected, but refers to the SNPA 2024 Guidelines, which we have not yet read.

Silvi in figures

The share is a ratio between two values in the ISPRA file; from the two values a municipal territory of about 2,050 hectares follows (our calculation). Silvi is therefore a small municipality: a few hectares weigh a lot, which is why the share is more informative than absolute hectares.

For comparison, the average share across Abruzzo's municipalities is 5.72% (median 3.93%); the value for the whole region, weighted by area, is 5.07%; for the province of Teramo, 6.73%. By share of consumed land Silvi ranks 11th of 305 Abruzzo municipalities and 5th of 47 in the province of Teramo; by hectares consumed in the last year it ranks 41st in Abruzzo and 13th in the province.

The top places of the regional ranking by share include many municipalities on the Adriatic coast, among them Pescara (51.7%), Montesilvano (34.4%), Martinsicuro (33.2%), Alba Adriatica (31.9%) and Giulianova (23.0%). The neighbours Roseto degli Abruzzi (15.1%) and Pineto (14.1%) are below Silvi; Atri is at 6.0%. The report does not explain these differences, and neither do we: they are comparisons between numbers, not judgements on choices.

How it went over time

Annual net increase in consumed land in Silvi, in hectares

One-year periods; a negative value means restoration exceeded new consumption. Source: ISPRA-SNPA, Land consumption report 2026. 2006-2012 and 2012-2015 are multi-year periods and are not shown.

The first two periods are multi-year: 13.75 hectares in 2006-2012 (six years) and 0.35 net hectares in 2012-2015 (three years, with 0.18 hectares restored). From 2015 on there are annual values. In two years the net figure is negative: in 2015-16 (−2.03 hectares) and 2018-19 (−0.85) restoration exceeded new consumption. The highest annual value is 2.19 hectares in 2020-21; in the last year the net is 1.66 hectares, with no restoration.

The data do not say why one year is higher than another: building sites, roads, plants or reclassifications are hypotheses, not results. A negative value does not say where the restoration took place either.

What the data say, plainly

• A fifth of the territory is artificial surface. 415.89 hectares out of about 2,050: 20.3%, against 6.0% for Atri and 5.07% for the whole region.
• More than half of the new cover dates from 2006-2012. Of the 23.67 hectares covered (gross) between 2006 and 2025, 13.75 fall in 2006-2012; in the decade 2015-2025 the newly covered hectares are 9.39.
• Restoration matters, but not every year. In the decade 2015-2025, 4.20 hectares were restored, 45% of what was covered in the same period; the net for the decade is 5.19 hectares. Restoration occurred in three years out of ten (2015-16, 2018-19 and 2023-24); in the other seven it is zero.
• The last year is in the recent high range, not off the scale. The 1.66 net hectares of 2024-2025 are the second-highest annual value since 2015-16, after 2020-21 (2.19); there was no restoration.
• A share that is already high leaves less room. With 20.3% covered, each new hectare weighs more than in a municipality with a lower share: that, not the hectare itself, is why it is worth looking first at what can be reused before covering more.

Municipal data are totals: they do not say where, or for which work. To know that we need the acts, which is what we will ask the Municipality for below.

What we do not have yet

For Atri we compared the new covers indicated by Copernicus with the regional land-use map to understand what kind of land it was. For Silvi this analysis has not been done: for now we lack Silvi's satellite data and the land-use map. So we do not know what kind of land was covered, or where. We make no guesses and name no places: aerial photos and acts would be needed.

On this site, the page Fields and gardens of Atri reports the Copernicus HRL Imperviousness figure for Atri; for Silvi there is no equivalent figure yet. When we have it, it will have to be read separately: the two measures use different methods and are neither added nor subtracted.

The UN indicator, calculated for Silvi

For Abruzzo the report gives a UN indicator (SDG 11.3.1) of −11.27, the highest negative value in Italy: it is the ratio between the percentage change in consumed land and that in population. For Silvi the report does not give the value; we calculated it ourselves with the same formula, so it is not an official figure.

The UN guidelines associate sustainability with values between zero and one: in Silvi the value is above one, meaning that in the last year the covered surface grew faster than the number of residents. The sign is positive, unlike Abruzzo, because in Silvi residents rose slightly, while in the region they fell.

It must be read with caution. The number depends on a small denominator: with only 27 more residents, 5 more would give about 12 and 50 more would give about 1.2. The report itself warns that extreme values can come from limited demographic changes. So it does not measure "severity" and cannot be compared literally with other municipalities.

The residents' dates are our choice: the report speaks of change "between 2024 and 2025" without giving dates. Applying the same formula to Abruzzo with ISTAT residents at the end of 2023 and end of 2024 (1,269,571 and 1,269,118, i.e. −453) gives about −11.2, very close to the report's −11.27: that is why we think the choice is right. The resident data are ISTAT figures at 31 December, as reported by the Tuttitalia website; we have not yet checked them on the ISTAT site.

A greener future is possible, and it starts with today's choices

With a fifth of the territory already covered, the sensible way is to start again from what exists: empty houses and warehouses to reuse, paved yards to free up, roofs to fill with panels before fields. The report gives precise numbers for Silvi too: it estimates between 19.5 and 25.4 hectares of roofs potentially usable for photovoltaics (a national estimate, based on shares of suitable roofs and excluding historic centres), a surface that alone is eleven to fifteen times the 1.66 hectares covered in the last year. For urban green spaces the file on potential restoration areas gives Silvi 72.0 hectares, of which 4.1 predominantly public and 67.0 predominantly private; for tree cover, 70.2 hectares. These are estimates of potential, not projects or obligations: they say how much space exists on paper, not whether it is available. The European Nature Restoration Regulation also asks that no further urban green be lost from 2030.

Let us imagine a Silvi where, in ten years, every hectare covered is matched by a hectare given back to the land; where clean energy comes from roofs; where school courtyards and squares have more shade and less asphalt, and rain finds soil that holds it instead of a surface that sends it towards the roads and downhill. A Municipality that publishes its own numbers every year and compares them with regional ones, and that sets itself a measurable goal. It is a proposal, ours: it accuses no one and takes for granted nothing the acts do not say.

To understand where to start we will ask the Municipality, in writing, for the list of building permits and public works started in 2024-2025 with the area involved, to compare with the 1.66 hectares; and whether there is a survey of unused or recoverable buildings and yards. Not to look for blame, but to know how much can be returned to soil and how much can become an example of reuse.

How we worked

Figures taken from the public files of the 2026 report (SNPA, CC BY 4.0 IT licence) and from the potential-restoration file; the processing (rankings, averages, sums, comparisons) is ours and reproducible. The text judges data, not people or administrative choices. If the Municipality answers the request, the answer will be published in full.