Integrated Multi-Level Assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES): The Case of the Casal del Marmo Agricultural Park Area in Rome (Italy)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The Research Design
- Mapping and assessment of the potential ES provision according to MAES approach [19].
- ES ranking and evaluation through an expert-based analysis.
- ES ranking and evaluation based on residents’ perception.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Description of the Study Area and Planning Context
3.2. ES Assessing Methods
- Resource needed/costs: costs related to each methodology;
- Preconditions/needs: skills, activities, previous information and ex-ante analysis needed to carry out the methodology;
- Output/products: typology of output and related considerations deriving from each methodology;
- Results: insights from the results’ analysis, providing considerations deriving from the research.
3.2.1. The Analysis of the ES (Potential Provision)
3.2.2. Expert-Based Analysis
3.2.3. Residents’ Perception
4. Results
4.1. Mapping and Assessing ES (Potential Provision)
4.2. Expert-Based Analysis
4.3. Residents’ Perception
4.4. Overall Results
5. Discussion
5.1. ES Values Evaluation
5.2. Policy Implications
6. Conclusions
6.1. Research Limitations
6.2. Suggestions for Further Research
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, (ST/ESA/SER.A/420); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- EEA. The European Environment—State and Outlook 2015: Synthesis Report; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 155, p. 40. [Google Scholar]
- Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, D.; DeFries, R.S.; Diaz, S.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Oteng-Yeboah, A.; Pereira, H.M.; et al. Science for managing ES: Beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 1305–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bagstad, K.J.; Semmens, D.J.; Waage, S.; Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ES quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brinkley, C. Evaluating the benefits of Peri-Urban Agriculture. J. Plan Lit. 2012, 27, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cinà, G. Aree Agricole Periurbane: Lavori in Corso; INU edizioni: Rome, Italy, 2016; Urbanistica informazioni. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The values of the world’s ES and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilhelm, J.A.; Smith, R.G. ES and land sparing potential of urban and peri-urban agriculture: A review. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2017, 33, 481–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clinton, N.; Stuhlmacher, M.; Miles, A.; Uludere, N.; Wagner, M.; Georgescu, M.; Herwig, C.; Gong, P. A Global Geospatial ES Estimate of Urban Agriculture. Earth’s Future 2018, 6, 40–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doron, G. Urban agriculture: Small, medium, large. Archit. Des. 2005, 75, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plieninger, T.; Dijks, S.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Bieling, C. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ES at community level. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Whitfield, J. Seeds of an edible city architecture. Nature 2009, 459, 914–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services: An analytical Framework for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020; Discussion Paper, Technical Report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Succhiarelli, C. Passaggio a nord ovest—Risanamento ambientale e realizzazione di un’area naturalistica a Casal del Marmo; Dipartimento alle Politiche della Programmazione e Pianificazione del Territorio—Roma Capitale: Rome, Italy, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Municipality of Rome. The Casal del Marmo Agricultural Park: An Implementation Hypothesis; Ecomed: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Suškevičs, M.; Roche, P.K. Evaluating Ecosystem Services Capacity: Guidelines and Recommendations for Cooking an Ecosystem Service and Ecosystem Disservice Capacity Matrix; Imagine Biodiversa 3, “Cookbook” Series n°1; INRAe: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. MEANS Collection—Evaluation of Socio-Economic Programmes; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 1999; ISBN 92-828-6626-2 CX-10-99-000-EN-C. [Google Scholar]
- Schirpke, U.; Scolozzi, R.; De Marco, C. Analysis of Ecosystem Services in the Pilot Sites. Part 2: Analysis of the Pilot Sites; Report of the Making good Natura project (LIFE+11 ENV/IT/000168); EURAC Research: Bolzano, Italy, 2013; p. 93. [Google Scholar]
- Schirpke, U.; Scolozzi, R.; De Marco, C. Application of the Demonstrative Model of Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of Ecosystem Services in the Pilot Sites. Part 1: Quantification of Ecosystem Services; Report of the Making Good Natura Project (LIFE+11 ENV/IT/000168); EURAC Research: Bolzano, Italy, 2015; p. 116. [Google Scholar]
- Gaglioppa, P.; Marino, D. (Eds.) Manual for the Valuation of ES and Implementation of PES Schemes in Agricultural and Forest Systems—Application of the Governance Model “Making Good Natura” in Natura 2000 Sites and Other Areas; CURSA: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ES. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corine Land Cover. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc2018 (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- Bastian, O. The role of biodiversity in supporting ES in Natura 2000 sites. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 24, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bastian, O.; Haase, D.; Grunewald, K. Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISPRA. Consumo di Suolo, Dinamiche Territoriali e Servizi Ecosistemici; ISPRA: Rome, Italy, 2016; Rapporti 248/2016; ISBN 978-88-448-0776-4. [Google Scholar]
- Marino, D.; Palmieri, M.; Marucci, A.; Tufano, M. Comparison between Demand and Supply of Some Ecosystem Services in National Parks: A Spatial Analysis Conducted Using Italian Case Studies. Conservation 2021, 1, 36–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peh, K.S.H.; Balmford, A.; Bradbury, R.B.; Brown, C.; Butchart, S.H.; Hughes, F.M.; Stattersfield, A.; Thomas, D.H.L.; Walpole, M.; Bayliss, J.; et al. TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of ES at sites of biodiversity conservation importance. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kandziora, M.; Burkhard, B.; Müller, F. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 28, 54–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milcu, A.I.; Hanspach, J.; Abson, D.; Fischer, J. Cultural ES: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sherrouse, B.C.; Clement, J.M.; Semmens, D.J. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ES. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 748–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertram, C.; Rehdanz, K. Preferences for cultural urban ES: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asah, S.T.; Guerry, A.D.; Blahna, D.J.; Lawler, J.J. Perception, acquisition and use of ES: Human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 10, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunford, R.; Harrison, P.; Smith, A.; Dick, J.; Barton, D.N.; Martín-López, B.; Kelemen, E.; Jacobs, S.; Saarikoski, H.; Turkelboom, F.; et al. Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 499–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Copas, R.; Philips, I. Green Infrastructure—An Integrated Approach to Land Use; Landscape Institute Position Statements: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Darvill, R.; Lindo, Z. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 13, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Nieto, A.P.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Montes, C.; Martín-López, B. Collaborative mapping of ES: The role of stakeholders’ profiles. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 13, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Montag, J.M.; Lyon, K. Public Participation GIS: A Method for Identifying ES. Soc. Nat. Res. 2012, 25, 633–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholes, R.; Reyers, B.; Biggs, R.; Spierenburg, M.J.; Duriappah, A. Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social-ecological systems and their ES. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colavitti, A.M.; Floris, A.; Serra, S. Urban Standards and ES: The Evolution of the Services Planning in Italy from Theory to Practice. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Geneletti, D. Reasons and options for integrating ES in strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2011, 7, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salvati, L.; Munafo, M.; Gargiulo Morelli, V.; Sabbi, A. Low-density settlements and land use changes in a Mediterranean urban region. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kopperoinen, L.; Itkonen, P.; Niemelä, J. Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: An insight into a new place-based methodology. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1361–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langemeyer, J.; Gòmez-Baggethun, E.; Haase, D.; Scheuer, S.; Elmqvist, T. Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 62, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, E.; Mendoza, G.; Regetz, J.; Polasky, S.; Tallis, H.; Cameron, D.; Chan, K.M.A.; Daily, G.C.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; et al. Modeling multiple ES, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and trade-offs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Environment Agency (EAA). Updated CLC Illustrated Nomenclature Guidelines. 2019. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/docs/pdf/CLC2018_Nomenclature_illustrated_guide_20190510.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2022).
- Hanna, D.E.L.; Tomscha, S.A.; Dallaire, C.O.; Bennett, E.M. A review of riverine ecosystem service quantification: Research gaps and recommendations. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 1299–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felipe-Lucia, M.R.; Martín-López, B.; Lavorel, S.; Berraquero-Díaz, L.; Escalera-Reyes, J.; Comín, F.A. Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gould, R.K.; Ardoin, N.M.; Woodside, U.; Satterfield, T.; Hannahs, N.; Daily, G.C. The forest has a story: Cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawai’i. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Logsdon, R.A.; Chaubey, I. A quantitative approach to evaluating ecosystem services. Ecol. Model. 2013, 257, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansfield, B.; Mendes, W. Municipal Food Strategies and Integrated Approaches to Urban Agriculture: Exploring Three Cases from the Global North. Int. Plan. Stud. 2012, 18, 37–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McClintock, N.; Wooten, H.; Harper Brown, A. Toward a Food Policy “First Step” in Oakland, California: A Food Policy Council’s Efforts To Promote Urban Agriculture Zoning. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2012, 2, 15–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prové, C.; de Krom, M.; Dessein, J. Politics of scale in urban agriculture governance: A transatlantic comparison of food policy councils. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzocchi, G.; Marino, D. Rome, a policy without politics: The participatory process for a metropolitan scale food policy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Minotti, B.; Cimini, A.; D’Amico, G.; Marino, D.; Mazzocchi, G.; Tarra, S. Food Policy Processes in the City of Rome: A Perspective on Policy Integration and Governance Innovation. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 5, 786799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
ES Category | ES | Method | Value |
---|---|---|---|
Provisioning | Crops | ES mapping and assessment | 5 |
Regulating | Water flow regulation | ES mapping and assessment | 3 |
Regulating | Pollination and seed dispersal | ES mapping and assessment | 4 |
Regulating | Air purification | ES mapping and assessment | 3 |
Regulating | Habitat for biodiversity | ES mapping and assessment | 3 |
Cultural | Landscape aesthetic | ES mapping and assessment | 3 |
Total ES Value through ES mapping | 21 | ||
Provisioning | Crops | Expert-based | 2.82 |
Regulating | Water flow regulation | Expert-based | 2.14 |
Regulating | Pollination and seed dispersal | Expert-based | 2.6 |
Regulating | Air purification | Expert-based | 2.27 |
Regulating | Habitat for biodiversity | Expert-based | 2.48 |
Cultural | Landscape aesthetic | Expert-based | 2.48 |
Total ES Value through expert-based assessment | 14.79 | ||
Provisioning | Economic value | Social perception | 2.25 |
Regulating | Biodiversity value | Social perception | 2.5 |
Regulating | Life sustaining value | Social perception | 2.38 |
Cultural | Future value | Social perception | 2.5 |
Cultural | Learning value | Social perception | 3 |
Cultural | Recreational value | Social perception | 2.25 |
Total ES Value through social perception assessment | 14.87 |
ES Mapping and Assessment | Expert-Based Assessment | Social Perception | |
---|---|---|---|
Resource needed/costs | Software and technical skills; Low costs of application (no field work required) | High costs of application: field work is required | High costs of application: field work is required |
Precondition/needs | An ex-ante and/or direct knowledge of the site is not required | Gathering of the panel of experts; Guaranteeing a balanced representativeness of experts from different fields | Administration of questionnaires to a large number of individuals; Construction of a sampling plan |
Output | GIS mapping; Highly technical language and graphical output, with the risk of not being understood by residents and policy makers | ESs ranking; Qualitative evaluation of the site’s ecological interrelations | ES ranking |
Results | Objective evaluation based on informatic tools; A direct perception of the site is missing; Underestimation of cultural ES | More comprehensive evaluations of the ecosystem functions of the site; Direct perception (can be both positive and negative according to experts’ preparation and background); Ability to directly further examine ecosystem functions; Underestimation of cultural ES | Involvement of the citizens in policy making; Underestimation of Regulating ES; Correct estimation of Cultural ES; Partial evaluation; Lack of scientific and technical assessment |
Added value | Mapping of large areas, compared to expert- and social-based evaluation | Specific environmental and landscape scientific background | Stratified and “historical” knowledge of the area |
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
Marino, D.; Mazzocchi, G.; Pellegrino, D.; Barucci, V. Integrated Multi-Level Assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES): The Case of the Casal del Marmo Agricultural Park Area in Rome (Italy). Land 2022, 11, 2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11112055
Marino D, Mazzocchi G, Pellegrino D, Barucci V. Integrated Multi-Level Assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES): The Case of the Casal del Marmo Agricultural Park Area in Rome (Italy). Land. 2022; 11(11):2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11112055
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarino, Davide, Giampiero Mazzocchi, Davide Pellegrino, and Veridiana Barucci. 2022. "Integrated Multi-Level Assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES): The Case of the Casal del Marmo Agricultural Park Area in Rome (Italy)" Land 11, no. 11: 2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11112055
APA StyleMarino, D., Mazzocchi, G., Pellegrino, D., & Barucci, V. (2022). Integrated Multi-Level Assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES): The Case of the Casal del Marmo Agricultural Park Area in Rome (Italy). Land, 11(11), 2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11112055