- freely available
Geosciences 2018, 8(4), 141; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8040141
2.1. Territorial Framework
2.2. Hazard: East Sicily from the Climatic Point of View
2.3. Identification and Analysis of Risky Areas
- Very high hazard areas (P4) with 69 instabilities for a total surface of 157.91 ha;
- High hazard areas (P3) with 230 instabilities for a total surface of 196.67 ha;
- Medium hazard areas (P2) with 151 instabilities for a total surface of 304.27 ha;
- Moderate hazard areas (P1) with 108 instabilities for a total surface of 56.49 ha;
- Low hazard areas (P0) with seven instabilities for a total surface of 11.20 ha.
- R1—moderate risk: social, economic and environmental damage is low;
- R2—medium risk: probability of minor damage to buildings, infrastructure, environment, not including human safety, use and economic activities;
- R3—high risk: envisaged problems to human safety; damage to buildings and infrastructures including their use, and causing hold-up of socio-economic activities and severe damage to the environment;
- R4—very high risk: envisaged loss of human lives and severe injuries to persons; severe damage to buildings, infrastructures and the environment and socio-economic activities destruction.
- A total of € 60 million to the Delegate Commissioner (Article 4 OPCM No 3815/2009), divided into: € 20 million to the Sicilian Region under the FAS 2000/2006 and PAR-FAS 2007–2013 funds; € 20 million from the funds of the Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of Territory and the Sea; € 20 million to the Civil Protection Fund specifically supplemented by the Ministry of Economy and Finance;
- A total of € 45 million art. 9 OPCM n. 3865/2010 from the PAR-FAS fund 2007–2013, approved by the Resolution of the Sicilian Regional Council No 315 12-08-2009, intended for the continuation of urgent initiatives;
- A total of € 10 million to the Delegated Commissioner, President of the Sicilian Region;
- A total of € 24 million for assistance to the population.
- € 20 million for reimbursements to the population and production activities;
- € 25 million for repayment for damaged buildings;
- € 10 million for housing construction;
- € 15 million for urbanization works and network facilities;
- € 22.4 million for assistance to the population and management of the Commissioner structure;
- € 15.4 million to the various institutions for the expenses of the first emergency phase;
- € 212.2 million for security measures.
- On technical function allowing us to foresee in which extent current prevention works will reduce the future expenditures;
- On probability of the future expenditures;
- On social discount rate (SDR), i.e., inter-generational degree.
- Prevention and recovery expenditures;
- Increase (or decrease) in SDR and decrease (or increase) of prevention measures expenditures;
- Increase (or decrease) in probability of catastrophe and increase (or decrease) in prevention measures expenditures.
3.2. The Imputed Preferences
- A certain degree of intra-generational solidarity, shown by the entity of public expense and its territorial allocation;
- A certain degree of inter-generational solidarity, shown by the social discount rate.
3.3. The Inter-Temporal Solidarity and the Approaches to the Social Discount Rate
3.4. The Calculation Pattern
- is the Net Present Value of the area calculated according to the imputed preference;
- is the assumed time span;
- is the stream (Cash Flow) of the public expenditure that is function of ;
- is time (years).
- is the expenditure of the year;
- is the generic Department devoted to welfare according to its own role;
- is the expenditure of the Department;
- is the percentage of the expenditure that the Department directly or indirectly allocates for land protection.
- is the expenditure attributed to the damaged area;
- is the imputation index, i.e., the percentage of attributed to ;
- indicates the damaged area.
- is the characteristic of the damaged area to be referred to the criterion ;
- is the characteristic of the whole regional territory to be referred to the criterion ;
- is the weight of the criterion .
- is the above-mentioned index, calculated as the average between hydraulic and geomorphological risk indexes:
- is the hydraulic risk index;
- is the geomorphological risk index;
- is the index of the number of hydraulic or geomorphological risky areas;
- is the index of the surface of hydraulic or geomorphological risky areas;
- is the relative importance of the class of each hydraulic risky area;
- is the relative importance of the class of each geomorphological risky area.
- and represent the relative importance of number of instabilities and surface of the hydraulic and geomorphological risky areas measured as percentage.
3.5. Methodological Conclusions
- For equal social discount rate , if as effect of the progressive climatic change probability increases—therefore increases as well—and , then results as insufficient because the value of safety is underestimated compared to the perception of risk; then, proactive policy can be considered insufficient and it should be increased, enhanced and better finalized;
- For equal social discount rate, if event probability decreases—therefore decreases—and , then results as redundant because the value of safety is overestimated compared to the perception of risk.
- As for inter-generational solidarity, the relation reflects the preference for reactive policies over proactive, therefore requiring a lower consideration for safety than the expense needed for increasing it, and in conclusion a preference for present than future;
- As for intra-generational solidarity, the same relation reflects the underestimation of the coefficient of imputation , which is the underestimation of the importance of the affected area compared to the other ones in the regional territory.
4. Applications and Results
4.1. Regional Government Departments’ Balance Sheets
- The Department for Territory and Environment deals entirely with land development; therefore, the related expenditure is entirely charged: in Equation (3) ;
- The Department for Agriculture deals with land protection for the part concerning the Forestry Office action: ;
- The Presidency of the Regional Government can be considered indirectly involved in land protection, as it coordinates the action of all Departments; therefore, the related expenditure has been calculated according to the ratio between the amount of the annual expenditure by the Department and the total annual regional expenditure, and of course varies yearly: , , and so on;
- The same applies to the Department for the Economic and Financial Affairs.
4.2. Imputed Expenditures
- The ratio between the surface of the river basin and the total surface of Sicily; the river basin n. 102 surface is about 4136 ha, corresponding to 0.69% of the regional territory.
- The ratio between the length of the river network of the basin and the overall length of all Sicilian river basins; the total length of the entire river system of the river basin n. 102 is approximately 71.2 km, which corresponds to 0.55% of the entire regional hydraulic network (Figure 7).
- Anthropological importance is referred to the land uses, including the capital invested in stable assets [64,65,66]; each of them scored as reported in the above-mentioned RLTP Guidelines, taking into account the territorial value . The scores measure the importance of each land use in terms of economic, functional, vegetation and agricultural performance; the imputation index of the River Basin n. 102 is 0.91%, lower than the median of the entire Sicilian territory (0.98%) (Figure 8 and Figure 9).
- Ecological, eco-systemic and naturalistic importance [68,69] is referred to the surface of the river basin occupied by protected areas (Sites of Community Importance—SCI—and Zones of Special Protection—ZSP); the river basin comprises the protected areas ITA030008, ITA030010 and ITA030011 (3768 ha) corresponding to 21.6% of its total surface, above the median of the river basins of the entire regional territory (Figure 10).
- Overall hydraulic-geomorphological risk is given by the ratio between the risk coefficient of each basin and the sum of the risk coefficients of all basins. The risk coefficient of each basin in calculated as ratio between the surfaces of the total risky area and the total area of the river basin.The imputation ratio is 1.54% (Figure 11).
4.3. Overall Economic Valuation
- The comparison of the different areas involved has been carried out by charging different quotas of the overall imputed amount to the five municipalities, proportionally to the risk level of each of the municipalities involved. According to the following percentages: Messina 71.0%, Scaletta Zanclea 11.1%, Itala 7.3%, Alì Terme 5.2%, Alì 5.4%.
- Within a range from 3.00% to 5.50% (as recommended by the European Cost-Benefit Analysis Guidelines) a different SDR has been attributed to each of the five municipalities in inverse proportion to the risk level of the above-mentioned areas: Messina 3.00%, Scaletta Zanclea 4.8%, Itala 5.42%, Alì Terme 5.50%, Alì 5.49%. The overall SDR, 3.69%, has been calculated as average SDR weighted taking into account the number of instabilities as well.
- The value of land protection in each municipality has been calculated by discounting the related cash flows.
- In the first scenario—0 discount—equilibrium is at a 64% risk rate;
- In the second scenario, supposing a SDR decreasing by step starting from 3.69%, equilibrium is at 49% risk rate;
- In the third scenario, supposing a SDR hyperbolically decreasing starting from 3.69% as well, equilibrium is at 43% risk rate;
- In the fourth scenario, supposing a constant SDR of 3.69%, equilibrium is at 35% risk rate.
- As mentioned in Section 3.4, the relative importance of each river basin, measured by imputation coefficient , formula (4), can be assumed to drive the public expense to the best allocation in view of the territory vulnerability reduction; such coefficient has been calculated according to the above-mentioned five criteria (Section 4.2) to which specific weights have been attributed;
- As mentioned in Section 3.5, the condition means that, with a fixed budget, the critical areas, such as the studied one, need to be more equally imputed, by modifying the weights of the criteria, in particular, in favor of risk and land use, reaching up to the equilibrium condition ; as a consequence the given budget will be differently allocated according to the new arrangement of the imputation indexes attributed to each of the Sicilian river basins;
- If, yet, the total amount of the public expense need to be increased.
- An imputation model identifying the intra-generational solidarity degree, which the allocation of the expense over regional territory is based on;
- A discounting model identifying the inter-generational solidarity degree, which the allocation of the budget between protection and emergency is based on.
Conflicts of Interest
- Giuffrida, S.; Ferluga, G.; Trovato, M.R. Flood Risk and Land Resilience: A Socio-Systemic Approach to valuation. In Proceedings of the 19th IPSAPA/ISPALEM International Scientific Conference: The Turning Point of the Landscape-Cultural Mosaic: Renaissance Revelation Resilience; Reggio Calabria, Italy, 6–7 July 2016; Piccinini, L.C., Ed.; 2016; pp. 29–41. [Google Scholar]
- Tremmel, J.C. (Ed.) Handbook of Intergenerational Justice; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Torjman, S. What Is Policy? Caledon Institute of Social Policy: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2005; ISBN 1-55382-142-4. [Google Scholar]
- Hauser, J.R.; Rao, V.R. Conjoint Analysis, Related Modeling, and Applications. In Advances in Marketing Research: Progress and Prospects; A Tribute to Paul Green’s Contributions to Marketing Research Methodology; MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Signorello, G.; Cucuzza, G.; De Salvo, M. Valutazione contingente del paesaggio agrario della Costa Viola. In Gli Interventi Paesaggistico-Ambientali nelle Politiche Regionali di Sviluppo Rurale; Marangon, F., Ed.; FrancoAngeli: Milano, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Huber, J. What We Have Learned from 20 Years of Conjoint Research; Fuqua School of Business, Duke University: Durham, NC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Cimnaghi, E.; Roscelli, R. Dalla valutazione ex-post del danno ambientale alla convenienza econmica delle politiche di prevenzione: Una proposta metodologica per le aree protette. Valori e Valutazioni 2012, 9, 61–90. [Google Scholar]
- Pimentel, D.; Wilson, C.; McCullum, C.; Huang, R.; Dwen, P.; Flack, J.; Tran, Q.; Saltman, T.; Cliff, B. Economic and Environmental benefits of Biodiversity. Bioscience 1997, 47, 747–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kremen, C.; Niles, J.O.; Daltonm, G.; Dailyg, C.; Ehrlich, R.; Fay, J.P.; Grewal, D.; Guillery, R.P. Economic Incentives for Rain Forest Conservation Across Scales. Science 2000, 288, 1828–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Merlo, M.E.; Croitoru, L. Valuating Mediterranean Forests-Towards Total Economic Value; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bateman, I.J.; Turner, R.K. Valuation of the environment methods and techniques: The contingent valuation method. In Sustainable Environmental Economics and MANAGEMEnt: Principles and Practice; Turner, R.K., Ed.; Belhaven Press: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, A.M., III. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Gios, G.; Notaro, S. La Valutazione Economica dei Beni Ambientali: Introduzione al Metodo della Valutazione Contingente; Cedam: Padova, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Hansoon, K.; Danielson, M.; Ekenberg, L. A framework for evaluation of flood management strategies. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kramer, R.A.; Richter, D.D.; Subhrendu, P.E.; Sharma, N.P. Ecological and economic Analysis of watershed protection in eastern Madagascar. J. Environ. Manag. 1995, 49, 277–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, D.W.; Turner, R.K. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environmental; Harvest Wheatseaf: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Naselli, F.; Trovato, M.R.; Castello, G. An evaluation model for the actions in supporting of the environmental and landscaping rehabilitation of the Pasquasia’s site mining (EN). In ICCSA 2014, LNCS 8581; Murgante, B., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; Part III; pp. 26–41. [Google Scholar]
- Drago, A. Climatological Atlas of Sicily. Riv. Ital. Agrometeorol. 2005, 2, 67–83. [Google Scholar]
- Osservatorio delle acque. Available online: http://osservatorioacque.it/ (accessed on 22 April 2018).
- Assessorato Regionale dell’Energia e dei Servizi di Pubblica Utilità. Rapporto Annuale di Monitoraggio Regionale della Siccità e della Disponibilità Idrica degli Invasi; Assessorato Regionale dell’Energia e dei Servizi di Pubblica Utilità: Palermo, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Regione Siciliana, Assessorato Territorio e Ambiente, Piano Stralcio di Bacino per l’Assetto Idrogeologico (P.A.I.) 2006. Available online: http://www.sitr.regione.sicilia.it/pai/ (accessed on 12 December 2017).
- Holbrook, M.B.; Moore, W.L.; Dodgen, G.N.; Havlena, W.J. Nonisomorphism, Shadow Features and Imputed Preferences. Market. Sci. 1985, 4, 215–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mercier, H.; Sperber, D. Why Do Human Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Behav. Brain Sci. 2011, 34, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Labinaz, P. La Razionalità; Carocci: Roma, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Arrow, K.; Bolin, B.; Costanza, R.; Dasgupta, P.; Folke, C.; Holling, C.S.; Jansson, B.O.; Levin, S.; Maler, K.G.; Perrings, C.; et al. Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 15, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bresso, M. Per Un’economia Ecologica; NIS: Roma, Italy, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Giuffrida, S.; Trovato, M.R.; Falzone, M. The information value for territorial and economic sustainability in the enhancement of the water management process. In ICCSA 2017, LNCS 10406; Borruso, G., Ed.; Springer: London, UK, 2017; Volume III, pp. 575–590. [Google Scholar]
- Giuffrida, S.; Casamassima, G.; Trovato, M.R. Le norme EMAS-ISO nella valutazione della qualità del servizio idrico integrato. In AESTIMUM; Firenze University Press: Firenze, Italy, 2017; Volume 70, pp. 109–134. [Google Scholar]
- Ramsey, F.P. A mathematical theory of saving. Econ. J. 1928, 38, 543–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, D.W.; Ulph, D. A Social Discount Rate for the United Kingdom. In Environmental Economics: Essays in Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development; Pearce, D.W., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1999; pp. 268–285. [Google Scholar]
- Oxera, A. A Social Time Preference Rate for Use in Long-Term Discounting; The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Department for transport and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2002.
- Pearce, D.W.; Groom, B.; Hepburn, C.; Koundoury, P. Valuing the future. Recent advances in social discounting. Word Econ. 2003, 4, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, N.; Peters, S.; Bakhshi, V.; Bowen, A.; Cameron, C.; Catovsky, S.; Crane, D.; Cruickshank, S.; Dietz, S.; Edmonson, N.; et al. Stern Review: The Economic of Climate Change; HM Treasury: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Page, T. Conservation and Economic Efficiency: An Approach to Materials Policy. In Resources for the Future; John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Page, T. On the Problem of Achieving Efficiency and Equity, Intergenerationally. Land Econ. 1997, 73, 580–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broome, J. Weighting Goods: Equality Uncertainty and Time; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- O’Neil, J. Ecology. Policy and Politics: Human Wellbeing and the Natural World; Routledge: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Van den Bergh, J.C.; Hofkes, M.W. Theory and Implementation of Economic Model for Sustainable Development; Kluver: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, G.E.; Davies, B.; Hussian, S. Ecological Economics; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, A.C.; Krutilla, J.V. Resources Conservation, Environmental Preservation and the Rate of Discount. Q. J. Econ. 1975, 89, 358–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slow, R.M. The Economics of Resources or the Resources of Economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 1974, 64, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Rochet, J.C.; Gollier, C. Discounting an Uncertain Future; Mimeo, Université de Touloise: Touloise, France, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Weitzaman, M.L. On the Environmental Discount Rate. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994, 26, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weitzaman, M.L. Why the far distance future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1998, 36, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weitzaman, M.L. Gamma discounting. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weitzaman, M.L.; Martin, L. Review of the “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change”. J. Econ. Lit. 2007, 45, 703–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weitzaman, M.L. Risk-Adjusted Gamma Discounting. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2010, 60, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gollier, C. Time Horizon and Discount Rate; Mimeo, Université de Touloise: Touloise, France, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Gollier, C. Discounting an uncertain future. J. Public Econ. 2002, 85, 149–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gollier, C. Discounting with fat-tailed economic growth. J. Risk Uncertain. 2008, 37, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gollier, C. Ecological Discounting. J. Econ. Theory 2010, 145, 812–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gollier, C. Discounting and Risk Adjusting Non-Marginal Investment Project. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2011, 38, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gollier, C. On the underestimation of the precautionary effect in discounting. Geneva Risk Insur. Rev. 2011, 36, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Newell, R.G.; Pizer, W.A. Discounting the distant future: How much do uncertain rates increase valuations? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2003, 46, 52–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alamansa, C.; Calatrava, J. Reconciling Sustainability in Cost Benefit Analysis: A methodological Proposal. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 712–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hepburn, C.; Groom, B. Gamma Discounting and Expected net Future values. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2007, 53, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kogel, T. On the Relation between Dual-Rate Discounting and sustainability. Economics 2009, 28, 2009–2027. [Google Scholar]
- Kula, E.; Evans, D. Dual Discounting in Cost-benefit Analysis for Environmental Impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2011, 31, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alamansa, C.; Martinez Paz, J.M. Intergenerational Equity and Dual Discounting. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2011, 16, 685–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gollier, C. The Economics of Risk and Time; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- European Union. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- HM Treasury. Intergenerational Wealth Transfer and Social discounting: Supplementary Green Book Guidance; Lowe, J., Ed.; HM Treasury: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- HM Treasury. The Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government; HM Treasury: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Giuffrida, S.; Ventura, V.; Trovato, M.R.; Napoli, G. Axiology of the historical city and the cap rate. The case of the old town of Ragusa Superiore. Valori e Valutazioni 2017, 18, 41–55. [Google Scholar]
- Napoli, G.; Giuffrida, S.; Trovato, M.R.; Valenti, A. Cap Rate as the Interpretative Variable of the Urban Real Estate Capital Asset: A Comparison of Different Sub-Market Definitions in Palermo, Italy. Buildings 2017, 7, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nesticò, A.; Galante, M. An estimate model for the equalisation of real estate tax: A case study. Int. J. Bus. Intell. Data Min. 2015, 10, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giuffrida, S.; Trovato, M.R. A Semiotic Approach to the Landscape Accounting and Assessment. An Application to the Urban-Coastal Areas. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food and Environment (HAICTA 2017), Chania, Greece, 21–24 September 2017; pp. 696–708. [Google Scholar]
- Calabrò, F. Local Communities and Management of Cultural Heritage of the Inner Areas. An Application of Break-Even Analysis. In Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2017; Gervasi, O., Ed.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Della Spina, L. Integrated Evaluation and Multi-methodological Approaches for the Enhancement of the Cultural Landscape. In ICCSA 2017. LNCS; Gervasi, O., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
|Inter-Generational Solidarity Scenarios||Event Probability Rate|
|Decreasing by steps discount||155||49||−58||−165|
© 2018 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).