Assessing the Benefit Produced by Marine Protected Areas: The Case of Porto Cesareo Marine Protected Area (Italy)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Stock Account
2.2. Flow Account
2.2.1. Costs
2.2.2. Benefits
3. Results
3.1. Income Statement Revenues and Environmental Benefits
3.2. Costs Accounting: Income Statement Expenditures and Environmental Costs
3.3. Building the Annual Flow Account
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission. Study on the Economic Benefits of Marine Protected Areas: Literature Review Analysis, European Commission, Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Publications Office. 2018. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/40733 (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Burkhard, B.; de Groot, R.; Costanza, R.; Seppelt, R.; Jørgensen, S.E.; Potschin, M. Solutions for sustaining Natural Capital and Ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Naeem, S.; Limburg, K.; Paruelo, J.; O’Neill, R.V.; et al. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesys; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- The Economic of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. The Ecological and Economic Foundations; Kumar, P., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). White Cover Publication, Pre-Edited Text Subject to Official Editing. 2021. Available online: https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting (accessed on 3 March 2022).
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Burkhard, B.; Maes, J. (Eds.) Mapping Ecosystem Services. Advanced Books. 2017. Available online: https://ab.pensoft.net/book/12837/ (accessed on 26 August 2021). [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.S.; Brander, L.; van der Ploeg, S.; Costanza, R.; Bernard, F.; Braat, L.; Christie, M.; Crossman, N.; Ghermandi, A.; Hein, L.; et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Work in Support of Biodiversity 2021. 2021. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/OECD-work-in-support-of-biodiversity-2021.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2022).
- Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Technical Summary. In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate; Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D.C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Convention on Biological Diversity. Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Discussion Paper, CBD/POST2020/PREP/1/1, 25 January 2019, CBD-Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2019. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/d0f3/aca0/d42fa469029f5a4d69f4da8e/post2020-prep-01-01-en.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- European Commission. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives, Directorate-General for Environment. 2021. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/677548 (accessed on 3 March 2022).
- United Nations. SNA Handbook on Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting; Series F, No. 61; Statistical Office of the United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
- United Nations; European Commission; International Monetary Fund; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development; World Bank. Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003—Handbook of National Accounting. 2003. Available online: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envAccounting/seea2003.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- United Nations; European Commission; Food and Agriculture Organization; International Monetary Fund; Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development; The World Bank. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012. Central Framework. 2014. Available online: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/SEEA_CF_Final_en.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- United Nations; European Commission; Food and Agriculture Organization; Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development; The World Bank. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Experimental Ecosystem Accounting—Final. 2014. Available online: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/eea_final_en.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EU biodiversity strategy to 2020” COM/2011/0244 final, Brussel, 3rd May 2011. 2011. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244 (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Maes, J.; Teller, A.; Erhard, M.; Murphy, P.; Paracchini, M.L.; Barredo, J.I.; Grizzetti, B.; Cardoso, A.; Somma, F.; Petersen, J.E.; et al. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services. Indicators for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, 2nd Report; Publications office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- European Environment Agency. Natural Capital Accounting in Support of Policymaking in Europe—A Review Based on EEA Ecosystem Accounting Work; EEA Report, n. 26/2018; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019.
- La Notte, A.; Marques, A.; Pisani, D.; Cerilli, S.; Vallecillo, S.; Polce, C.; Cardoso, A.C.; Gervasini, E.; Maes, J. LInking Accounts for Ecosystem Services and Benefits THrough bridging (LISBETH), EUR 30193 EN; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; ISBN 978-92-76-18427-0. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/linking-accounts-ecosystem-services-and-benefits-economy-through-bridging-lisbeth (accessed on 26 August 2021). [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030—Bringing nature back into our lives” COM(2020) 380 Final. 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1590574123338&uri=CELEX:52020DC0380 (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Franzese, P.P.; Buonocore, E.; Paoli, C.; Massa, F.; Donati, S.; Fanciulli, G.; Miccio, A.; Mollica, E.; Navone, A.; Russo, G.F.; et al. Environmental Accounting in Marine Protected Areas: The EAMPA Project. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 2015, 3, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visintin, F.; Tomasinsig, E.; Spoto, M.; Marangon, M.; Mastrototaro, F.; Chimienti, G.; Montesanto, F.; Troiano, S. Integrated Environmental Accounting for Assessing the Value for Money in Marine Protected Areas: The Case of Tremiti Islands (Italy). J. Environ. Account. Manag. 2022, 10, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brander, L.M.; Baulcomb, C.; van der Lelij, C.J.A.; Eppink, F.V.; McVittie, A.; Nijsten, L.; van Beukering, P. The Benefits to People of Expanding Marine Protected Areas. Final Report R-15/05, May 2015; IVM—Institute for Environmental Studies: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Banking on Protected Areas-Promoting Sustainable Protected Area Tourism to Benefit Local Economies. 2021. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/35737/Banking-on-Protected-Areas-Promoting-Sustainable-Protected-Area-Tourism-to-Benefit-Local-Economies.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y (accessed on 3 March 2022).
- Marangon, F.; Spoto, M.; Visintin, F. An Environmental Accounting Model for a Natural Reserve. In Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production; Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., Jasch, C., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 267–282. [Google Scholar]
- Visintin, F.; Marangon, F.; Spoto, M. Assessing the value for money of protected areas. Rev. Stud. Sustain. 2016, 1, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Notte, A.; Vallecillo, S.; Maes, J. Capacity as “virtual stock” in ecosystem services accounting. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNI EN ISO 14007:2020; Environmental Management-Guidelines for Determining Environmental Costs and Benefits. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/70139.html (accessed on 3 March 2022).
- UNI EN ISO 14008:2020; Monetary Valuation of Environmental Impacts and Related Environmental Aspects. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/43243.html (accessed on 3 March 2022).
- UNI EN ISO 14064-1:2018; Greenhouse Gases—Part 1: Specification with Guidance at the Organization Level for Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals. 2018. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/66453.html (accessed on 3 March 2022).
- UNI EN ISO 14067:2018; Greenhouse Gases—Carbon Footprint of Products—Requirements and Guidelines for Quantification. 2018. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/71206.html (accessed on 3 March 2022).
- Brander, L.M.; Nijsten, L.v.B.; McVittie, A.; Baulcomb, C.; Eppink, F.V.; van der Lelij, C.J.A. The global costs and benefits of expanding Marine Protected Areas. Mar. Policy 2020, 116, 103953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tol, R.S.J. Targets for Global Climate Policy: An Overview. J. Econ. Dyn. Control. 2013, 37, 911–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, D. Economic Values and the Natural World; Earthscan: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis. August 2016. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2022).
- European Union. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects: Economic Appraisal Tool for Cohesion Policy 2014–2020; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. CICES V4.3—Revised Report Prepared Following Consultation on CICES Version 4, August-December 2012; EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003; University of Nottingham: Nottingham, UK, 2013; Available online: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2012/09/CICES-V4_Final_26092012.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Maes, J.; Teller, A.; Erhard, M.; Liquete, C.; Braat, L.; Berry, P.; Egoh, B.; Puydarrieux, P.; Fiorina, C.; Santos, F.; et al. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services. An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Liquete, C.; Piroddi, C.; Drakou, E.G.; Gurney, L.; Katsanevakis, S.; Charef, A.; Egoh, B. Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e67737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lillebø, A.I.; Somma, F.; Norén, K.; Gonçalves, J.; Alves, M.F.; Ballarini, E.; Bentes, L.; Bielecka, M.; Chubarenko, B.V.; Heise, S.; et al. Assessment of marine ecosystem services indicators: Experiences and lessons learned from 14 European case studies. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag 2016, 12, 726–734. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M.B. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. 2018. Available online: www.cices.eu (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Von Thenen, M.; Frederiksen, P.; Hansen, H.S.; Schiele, K.S. A structured indicator pool to operationalize expert-based eco-system service assessments for marine spatial planning. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020, 187, 105071. [Google Scholar]
- Inácio, M.; Schernewski, G.; Nazemtseva, Y.; Baltranaité, E.; Friedland, R.; Benz, J. Ecosystem services provision today and in the past: A comparative study in two Baltic lagoons. Ecol. Res. 2018, 33, 1255–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gacia, E.; Duarte, M. Sediment Retention by a Mediterranean Posidonia oceanica Meadow: The Balance between Deposition and Resuspension. Estuarine. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2001, 52, 505–514. [Google Scholar]
- Marbà, N. Loss of seagrass meadows from the Spanish Coast: Results of the Praderas project. In Global Loss of Coastal Habitats, Rates Causes and Consequences; Duarte, C.M., Ed.; Fundación BBVA: Madrid, Spain, 2009; pp. 61–90. [Google Scholar]
- Ondiviela, B.; Losada, I.J.; Lara, J.L.; Maza, M.; Galván, C.; Bouma, T.J.; Van Belzen, J. The role of seagrasses in coastal pro-tection in a changing climate. Coast. Eng. 2014, 87, 158–168. [Google Scholar]
- Hattam, C.; Atkins, J.P.; Beaumont, N.; Börger, T.; Böhnke-Henrichs, A.; Burdon, D.; De Groot, R.; Hoefnagel, E.; Nunes, P.A.L.D.; Piwowarczyk, J.; et al. Marine ecosystem services: Linking indicators to their classification. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 49, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almela, D.E. Estudio del Valor Socioeconómico de las Praderas de Posidonia oceanica de Andalucía como Sumideros de Carbo-no y Oportunidades de Financiar su Conservación a Través de Fondos para la Mitigación del Cambio Climático. Proyecto LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534, Granada, Septiembre 2012 (revisado y actualizado en junio de 2014). Available online: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/portal/documents/20151/397194/AnejoC13_estudiovaloreconomicopraderascomosumideroCO2.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Mateo, M.A.; Serrano, O. Chapter C1: The carbon sink associated to Posidonia oceanica. In Mediterranean Seagrass Meadows: Resilience and Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation; Pergent, G., Bazairi, H., Bianchi, C.N., Eds.; IUCN Mediterranee: Malaga, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Pergent, G.; Bazairi, H.; Bianchi, C.N.; Boudouresque, C.F.; Buia, M.C.; Clabaut, P.; Harmelin-Vivien, M.; Mateo, M.A.; Montefalcone, M.; Morri, C.; et al. Mediterranean Seagrass Meadows: Resilience and Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation, A Short Summary/Les herbiers de Magnoliophytes marines de Méditerranée: Résilience et Contribution à L’atténuation des Changements Climatiques, Résumé; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Malaga, Spain, 2012; 40p. [Google Scholar]
- ISTAT. Available online: http://www3.provincia.le.it/statistica/economia/tab13.htm (accessed on 21 November 2019).
- Becheri, E.; Nuccio, I. Puglia. Il turismo che non appare. Turistica 2013, 1–2, 72–87. [Google Scholar]
- Grilli, G.; Balest, J.; Garegnani, G.; Paletto, A. Exploring Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Supply: Evidences from an Italian Case Study. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 2016, 4, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, R.C.; Carson, R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. The Contingent Valuation Method, 1st ed.; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Hanemann, W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1984, 66, 332–341. [Google Scholar]
- Nikodinoska, N.; Paletto, A.; Franzese, P.P.; Jonasson, C. Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas: The Case of the Abisko National Park (Sweden). J. Environ. Account. Manag. 2015, 3, 355–369. [Google Scholar]
- Fletcher, J.E. Input-output analysis and tourism impact studies. Ann. Tour. Res. 1989, 16, 514–529. [Google Scholar]
- Becheri, E.; Maggiore, G. Il Turismo Nell’economia Italiana, Rapporto sul Turismo Italiano, XX Edizione 2015/2016; Rogiosi Editore: Napoli, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Consorzio di Gestione Area Marina Protetta Porto Cesareo. Available online: www.ampportocesareo.it (accessed on 8 June 2022).
- Terlizzi, A.; Tedesco, P.; Mangia, D.; Izzi, C. Progetto S.A.M.P.E.I.—Progetto Pilota per il Miglioramento della Selettività degli Attrezzi da Posta All’interno dell’Area Marina Protetta di Porto Cesareo, per la Riduzione delle Catture Accessorie e dei Rigetti in Mare. Relazione Finale, Febbraio 2015. Available online: http://www.ampportocesareo.it/attivita/progetti/item/s-a-m-p-e-i (accessed on 15 April 2018).
- Consorzio di Gestione Area Marina Protetta Porto Cesareo. Documento Programmatico per il Contrasto del Fenomeno Erosivo dell’Area Marina Protetta Porto Cesareo; Technical Report: Porto Cesareo, Italy, 2016; Available online: http://www.ampportocesareo.it/documenti/progetti/POR_puglia/Allegato_01_Relazione_illustrativa.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2018).
- Grizzetti, B.; Liquete, C.; Pistocchi, A.; Vigiak, O.; Zuliana, G.; Bouraoui, F.; De Roo, A.; Cardoso, A.C. Relationship between ecological condition and ecosystem services in European rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 452–465. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Summary for Policymakers of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Christie, M., Baptiste, B., González-Jiménez, D., Anderson, C.B., Athayde, S., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Jacobs, S., Kelemen, E., Eds.; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2022. [CrossRef]
- Beaumont, N.J.; Mongruel, R.; Hooper, T. Practical application of the Ecosystem Service Approach (ESA): Lessons learned and recommendations for the future. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2018, 13, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farber, S.C.; Costanza, R.; Wilson, M.A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 375–392. [Google Scholar]
- Hein, L.; Bagstad, K.; Edens, B.; Obst, C.; de Jong, R.; Lesschen, J.P. Defining ecosystem assets for natural capital accounting. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0164460. [Google Scholar]
- Jørgensen, S.E. Ecosystem services, sustainability and thermodynamic indicators. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 311–313. [Google Scholar]
- Müller, F. Indicating ecosystem and landscape organization. Ecol. Indic. 2005, 5, 280–294. [Google Scholar]
- Müller, F.; Burkhard, B. The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
- Odum, H.T. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1996; 370p. [Google Scholar]
- Vassallo, P.; Paoli, C.; Buonocore, E.; Franzese, P.P.; Russo, G.F.; Povero, P. Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: A biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model. Ecol. Modell. 2017, 355, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- Buonocore, E.; Donnarumma, L.; Appolloni, L.; Miccio, A.; Russo, G.F.; Franzese, P.P. Marine natural capital and ecosystem services: An environmental accounting model. Ecol. Modell. 2020, 424, 109029. [Google Scholar]
- Office for National Statistics. Marine Accounts, Natural Capital, UK: 2021. Stat. Bull. 2021, 1–25. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/marineaccountsnaturalcapitaluk/2021 (accessed on 8 June 2022).
- Thornton, A.; Luisetti, T.; Grilli, G.; Donovan, D.; Phillips, R.; Hawker, J. Initial Natural Capital Accounts for the UK Marine and Coastal Environment. Final Report; Report for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs; Joint Nature Conservation Committee: Peterborough, UK, 2019. Available online: http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ (accessed on 8 June 2022).
- Graveland, C.; Remme, R.; Schenau, S. The Hague; Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2017. Available online: https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/_pdf/2018/02/nca%20north%20sea%20-%20dcs_version_08.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2022).
- Institute for the Development of Environmental-Economic Accounting. Synthesis Report, Ocean Accounting Pilot for Geographe Marine Park; IDEEA Group: Victoria, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Sultan, R. Economic value of marine ecosystem services for sustainable ocean management: The case of Mauritius. In Handbook on the Economics and Management of Sustainable Oceans; Nunes, P.A.L.D., Svensson, L.E., Markandya, A., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017; pp. 152–173. [Google Scholar]
- Nicolls, W.; Franks, C.; Gilmore, T.; Goulder, R.; Mendelsohn, L.; Morgan, E.; Adkins, J.; Grasso, M.; Quigley, M.; Zhuang, J.; et al. Defining and Measuring the U.S. Ocean Economy; Bureau of Economic Analysis and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Suitland, MD, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2021-06/defining-and-measuring-the-united-states-ocean-economy.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022).
- Statistics Portugal. Satellite Account for the Sea—2010–2013. Methodological Report; Statistics Portugal and Directorate-General for Maritime Policy: Lisbon, Portugal, 2016. Available online: https://www.ine.pt/ (accessed on 8 February 2022).
- Zhang, J.; Sun, W. Measurement of the ocean wealth of nations in China: An inclusive wealth approach. Mar. Policy 2018, 89, 85–99. [Google Scholar]
Stock Account | Flow Account | |
---|---|---|
Costs | Benefits | |
- ES capacity indicators (biophysical and quantitative metric) | (C1) Expenses - Income statement expenses (monetary metric) (C2) Environmental costs - Impact indicator (biophysical and quantitative metric) - Environmental cost indicator (monetary metric) (C) Total costs = (C1) + (C2) | (B1) Revenues - Income statement revenues (monetary metric) (B2) Environmental benefits - ES flow indicator (biophysical and quantitative metric) - ES benefit indicator (monetary metric) (B) Total benefits = (B1) + (B2) |
(NB) Net benefit = (B) − (C) |
Section | CICES V4.3 Nomenclature (from [42]) | CICES V5.1 Nomenclature (Integrated by [45]) | Code | Capacity Indicator (from [42]) | Flow Indicator (from [42]) | Benefit Indicator (from [42]) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Provisioning | Wild animals and their outputs | Wild marine animals used for nutritional purposes | 1.1.6.1 | Fish abundance | Commercial and artisanal fish and shellfish landing (t/y) | Fish and shellfish sales (€/y) |
Regulation and Maintenance | Mass stabilization and control of erosion rates | Control of erosion rate (1) Buffering and attenuation of mass movement (2) | 2.2.1.1 (1) 2.2.1.2 (2) | Indices based on extent of selected emerged, submerged and intertidal habitats (seagrass/seaweed cover (%), vegetation cover and properties (density, stiffness, height)) 2 Coastline slope and coastal geomorphology 2 | Indices based on wave regime, tidal range, relative sea level, storm surge 2 | Indices based on population density, infrastructure, artificial surface, UNESCO sites 2 Replacement cost for damaged infrastructures (€/ha, €/y) 2 Avoided cost for shoreline protection (€/ha, €/y) 2, Avoided loss of human lives (€/ha, €/y) 2 |
Global climate regulation by reduction in greenhouse gas concentrations | Regulation of chemical composition of atmosphere and oceans | 2.2.6.1 | Carbon sequestration potential (g/C/y), Carbon biomass (t/y) 2 | Primary production uptake (gC/m2/y) 2 Seagrass stock -storage (gC/m2/y) | Market values of carbon (€) | |
Cultural | Experiential use of plants, animals and land/sea-scapes in different environmental settings | Characteristics of living systems that enable activities promoting health, recuperation or enjoyment through active or immersive interactions | 3.1.1.1 | Extent of marine protected areas (km 2) Presence of iconic species | Whale watching, possibility of snorkelling, swimming, boating activities (recreation trips/y) | Willingness to pay Importance and specificity of aesthetic values based on expert knowledge 2 |
Physical use of land/sea-scapes in different environmental settings | Characteristics of living systems that enable activities promoting health, recuperation or enjoyment through passive or observational interactions | 3.1.1.2 | Marine protected areas coverage (a) | Recreational fishing activities (t/y) Yearly participation rate in recreational activity (% of country population) 2 | Yearly total expenditures generated (USD) Employment supported (full-time equivalents) Importance and specificity of aesthetic values based on expert knowledge 2 | |
Scientific | Characteristics of living systems that enable scientific investigation or the creation of traditional ecological knowledge | 3.1.2.1 | n.a. 1 | n.a. 1 Peer reviewed articles (n/y, impact factor) 3 -National and international projects (n/y) | n.a. 1 Yearly total project budget generated (€/y) 3 Employment supported (full-time equivalents) in research field | |
Educational | Characteristics of living systems that enable education and training | 3.1.2.2 | n.a. 1 Educational activity (events/y) 3 Educational publications (publication/y) 3 | n.a. 1 Participation in educational events (visits/y) 3 Educational visits (visits/y) 3 | n.a. 1 Participation in educational events (budget/y 3 Educational visits (budget/y) 3 |
Activity | Tourist Presence | Sample | WTP | Benefit—WTP and Market Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
(n) | (n) | (€/y) | (€/y) | |
Sunbathing | 1,460,530 | 523 | 4.29 | 302,840.98 |
Diving | 10,784 | 232 | 7.04 | 36,441.29 |
Boating | 378,202 | 251 | 36.21 | 36,525.75 |
Recreational fishing | 82,866 | 308 | 1.87 | 599.47 |
Recreational fishing—fish catches | 671,869.86 | |||
Total | 1,932,383 | 1314 | 1,048,277.34 |
Expenditure Category | Tourism Expenditure |
---|---|
(€/y) | |
Main expenditure (accommodation, food, transport, parking) | 21,510,434.63 |
Bathhouse | 6,092,506.15 |
Diving guide and equipment | 410,313.77 |
Mooring and general boat maintenance | 3,245,853.21 |
Fishing license and general boat maintenance | 3,352,383.47 |
Local products | 3,058,459.29 |
Total tourism expenditure—direct effect | 37,669,950.52 |
Total tourism impact—direct, indirect and induced effect | 70,442,807.47 |
Activities | CO2 Emission | Environmental Cost |
---|---|---|
(kgCO2eq/y) | (€/y) | |
MPA institutional activity | 28,200 | 1041.14 |
Professional fishing (economic operators) | 1,025,949 | 37,878.04 |
Bathing (economic operators and tourists) | 4,569,640 | 168,711.11 |
Diving (economic operators and tourists) | 103,763 | 3830.93 |
Boating (economic operators and tourists) | 3,645,783 | 134,602.31 |
Recreational fishing (tourists) | 664,595 | 24,536.85 |
Total environmental costs | 10,037,930 | 370,600.38 |
Costs | (€/y) | Benefits | (€/y) |
---|---|---|---|
Expenditures | 580,652.44 | Revenues | 783,479.93 |
Current expenditures | 453,103.21 | Current transfers | 627,091.50 |
Capital expenditures | 91,820.10 | Non-tax revenue | 43,982.75 |
Third Party expenditures | 35,729.13 | Capital transfers | 57,966.97 |
Third party revenue | 54,438.70 | ||
Environmental costs | 370,600.38 | Environmental benefits | 2,476,725.98 |
MPA institutional activity | 1041.14 | Wild marine animals used for nutritional purposes | 1,013,771.94 |
Professional fishing | 37,878.04 | Control of erosion rate and Mass flows | -- |
Bathing | 168,711.11 | Regulation of chemical composition | 412,436.70 |
Diving | 3830.93 | Ch. that enables active or immersive interactions | 1,048,277.34 |
Boating | 134,602.31 | Ch. that enables scientific investigation1 | 372,161.35 |
Recreational fishing | 24,536.85 | Ch. that enables education and training (MPA)1 Ch. that enables education and training (ec. operators) | 2500.00 2240.00 |
Total costs | 951,252.82 | Total benefits | 3,260,205.91 |
Net benefit | 2,308,953.10 | ||
Tourism impact | 70,442,807.47 | ||
Total | 72,751,760.57 |
Economic Indicator | Unit of Measurement | Value |
---|---|---|
Benefits/Costs | (n) | 3.4 |
Net benefits/public funding | (n) | 3.7 |
Self-financing | (€/y) | 12,880.00 |
Self-financing/Total expenditures | (%) | 2.2 |
Social Indicator | Unit of Measurement | Human Resources | FTE |
---|---|---|---|
Scientific and institutional activity | (n) | 20 | 10.3 |
Economic operators | (n) | 162 | n.a. |
Environmental Indicator | Unit of Measurement | Value |
---|---|---|
CO2eq emission (Carbon footprint) | (tCO2eq/y) | 10,037 |
of which bathing | (tCO2eq/y) | 4570 |
of which boating | (tCO2eq/y) | 3646 |
CO2eq fixation | (tCO2/y) | 3044 |
CO2eq fixation/CO2eq emission | (%) | 30.3 |
Catches (professional fishing) | (kg/y) | 93,500 |
Catches (recreational fishing) | (kg/y) | 107,726 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Visintin, F.; Tomasinsig, E.; Spoto, M.; Marangon, F.; D’Ambrosio, P.; Muscogiuri, L.; Fai, S.; Troiano, S. Assessing the Benefit Produced by Marine Protected Areas: The Case of Porto Cesareo Marine Protected Area (Italy). Sustainability 2022, 14, 10698. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710698
Visintin F, Tomasinsig E, Spoto M, Marangon F, D’Ambrosio P, Muscogiuri L, Fai S, Troiano S. Assessing the Benefit Produced by Marine Protected Areas: The Case of Porto Cesareo Marine Protected Area (Italy). Sustainability. 2022; 14(17):10698. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710698
Chicago/Turabian StyleVisintin, Francesca, Elisa Tomasinsig, Maurizio Spoto, Francesco Marangon, Paolo D’Ambrosio, Luciana Muscogiuri, Sergio Fai, and Stefania Troiano. 2022. "Assessing the Benefit Produced by Marine Protected Areas: The Case of Porto Cesareo Marine Protected Area (Italy)" Sustainability 14, no. 17: 10698. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710698