- Email: [email protected]
Evaluation of payment for ecosystem services in Mediterranean forest: An empirical survey
Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Engineering journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng
Evaluation of payment for ecosystem services in Mediterranean forest: An empirical survey Filippo Sgroi ∗ , Mario Foderà, Léo-Paul Dana, Giacomo Mangiapane, Salvatore Tudisca, Anna Maria Di Trapani, Riccardo Testa Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, Edificio 4, 90128 Palermo, Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 8 October 2015 Accepted 6 February 2016 Available online 20 February 2016 Keywords: Adventure park Environmental economics Forest Willingness to pay
a b s t r a c t The relationship between humans and the forest has always been an important element, sometimes characterizing in the history of man himself. During the last years, the socio-economic context is profoundly changed, diversifying economic services provided by the forest. In the past, in fact, the primary function of the forest was the firewood production, while nowadays it grants several socio-economic benefits such as climate change mitigation, soil protection, protection and conservation of biodiversity, landscaping and recreational value. So, in recent decades a new type of socio-economic interest was developed in order to create a market of goods and services for the forests, called as payments for ecosystem services (PES). This paper, through a survey conducted in a wooded area of Sicily where recently was established a typical example of PES (Ecocampus), aimed at determining the actual satisfaction by users of the various services provided by forest, the reasons that lead them to visit it and their willingness to pay. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Forests contain many habitats for plants, animals and microorganisms, which help to preserve the stability of the environment in terms of biodiversity (Fedrowitz et al., 2014; Marshalek et al., 2014), also playing a key role in mitigating climate change through the capture and storage of carbon (Ximenes et al., 2012; Klein et al., 2013; Liu and Yin, 2012). Forests are considered a major asset for the socio-economic growth of rural areas, but often environmental protection has been pushed aside for tourism development, determining huge impacts on ecosystems, influencing their ability to generate services and externalities (Sukhdev et al., 2014). Therefore, a new forest management is considered necessary, in order to reconcile its several functions. The ability of forests to produce several goods and services, many of them are externalities, in addition to wood biomass is fully recognized (Deal et al., 2012). In recent decades, environmental economics was interested in developing a particular type of mechanisms in order to create a new market for goods and services (Bennett and Gosnell, 2015), denominated payments for ecosystem services (PES).
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: fi[email protected] (F. Sgroi). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.02.004 0925-8574/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
According to the latest available data (SIAN, 2015), the Italian forest area in amounted to 10.9 million hectares, showing in the last decade an increase of 600,000 ha (+6.1%). The highest increase of forest area was in the central and southern Italian regions, above all in Molise (+16.5%) and Sicily (+13.2%) (Fig. 1). The most representative species in the Italian forests are spruce, larch, white fir, Scots pine, beech, chestnut tree, oak, Turkey oak, black hornbeam, Holm oaks, Cork oak, the Maritime pine and Aleppo pine (Ubaldi, 2008). So, this paper through an empirical survey conducted in a wooded area of Sicily where recently was established a typical example of PES (Casaboli Ecocampus), aimed at determining the actual satisfaction by users of the various services provided by forest, the reasons that lead them to visit it and their willingness to pay. 2. Payments for environmental services Human welfare depends on ecosystems and the benefits they provide (Costanza et al., 1997) but, in recent decades, human activities have had enormous impacts on the environment by influencing the evolution of ecosystems and the their ability to deliver services and externalities (Kull et al., 2015). Externalities related to forest resources play an increasingly important role in forest economy, as a natural consequence of the growing gap between the demand for public goods (water
400
F. Sgroi et al. / Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
Fig. 1. Evolution of forest area in Italy.
availability, air quality, protection of the landscape and biodiversity) and supply of goods and services provided by forests. The cultural growth and increase of environmental sensibility by the community highlighted more and more the role of forest ecosystems, including those of urban and peri-urban sector as public goods (Lanfranchi et al., 2015). This involves a growing trend of users, with an increase in the complexity of management aimed at enhancing the forest multifunctionality and with the recognition of new ethical and socio-economic values, all within a framework that ensures its sustainable development (Lanfranchi and Giannetto, 2014; Tomao et al., 2013). The Ecosystem Services (ES) are defined as the benefits that result directly or indirectly from ecosystems (MEA, 2005). The agriculture, and more generally, the agro-forestry territory, plays a complex role in respect of ES. In fact, if on one hand the agricultural production processes using the ES generated from the surrounding area, on the other hand, agriculture can provide ES to society. Biophysical quantification and monetary evaluation of services allows, in addition to assessing the environmental costs associated with changes of agro-ecosystems (land-use changes, technological innovations), to define and plan properly the public intervention and particularly the agricultural and environmental policies for the conservation of biodiversity (Vatn, 2015). Several studies (Srinivasan, 2015; Di Trapani et al., 2014) have analyzed the possibility of adopting new tools based on the creation of markets for specific goods and services in order to increase the attractiveness of forest, the so-called payment for environmental services (PES). The potential impacts of payments for environmental services (PES) on environmental outcomes and local livelihoods in several countries are numerous and have been widely debated (Clements and Milner-Gulland, 2015). PES represents new ways of moving from land degradation toward sustainable land management through the development of economic mechanisms (Reed et al., 2015). PES, in fact, are tools created to correct “market failures” related to traditional modalities of environmental goods and services supply, stimulating the production of positive environmental externalities and transforming them into real
products sold on the market (Friess et al., 2015; Vidale et al., 2012). Wunder (2005) defines PES as “voluntary transaction that a good defined ES is purchased by a buyer who receives it from a supplier of ES on condition that the supplier will ensure the supply of ES” because you create contacts for PES. According to Wunder, in order to create contact between suppliers and buyers, five conditions must be observed: (1) the identification of an environmental service to be exchanged in the market; (2) the presence of at least one buyer; (3) the presence of at least one seller; (4) the intent between the parties to commercialize an environmental service; (5) the conditionality of the payment, according to which the producer is obliged to be actively involved to ensure the environmental service over the years. The creation of PES comes from the need to improve efficacy, efficiency and distributive equity in the production of a particular environmental service compared to a reference base (Wegner, 2015). In a global context of stagnating or even decreasing public funding for biodiversity conservation, PES have the potential both to raise some new funds, and to absorb more efficiently money previously spent otherwise (Wunder and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, 2009). PES schemes rely on payments to induce behavioral change, thus they can be considered part of the group of incentive- or market-based instruments for environmental policy (Troiano and Marangon, 2010). Moreover, the alleged capacity of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) to reach conservation policy goals, while reducing poverty in a cost-effective manner, makes it an extremely attractive development instrument for policymakers (Rodríguez de Francisco and Boelens, 2015). As regards the payment strategies of PES, they are voluntary contractual agreements, environmental permissions, direct payments to managers by users/clients or public entities, incentives and/or
F. Sgroi et al. / Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
public subsidies (RDP), certification systems, which can also be used in mixed or combined forms (Vedel et al., 2015). PES schemes differ in scale, from small local initiatives to global international agreements and can also vary the number and institutional typology of buyers of environmental services, suppliers and intermediaries (e.g.: individual landowners, communities, private companies, NGOs, public administration). Moreover, technical specifications of the service environment and land use are different as well as the mechanisms used to raise and distribute funds from buyers to suppliers (Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010). The amounts to be paid to service providers may be fixed by negotiation between buyers (small-scale PES) or by a government/intermediary institution (large-scale PES schemes). Payments should not exceed the social value of the environmental service provided (Prokofieva et al., 2012). Under certain conditions, the willingness to pay by users can create financial incentives for local actors to convert the value of natural resources into goods and services (Muradian et al., 2010; Turner et al., 2003). When the willingness to pay for an ES can generate a PES, environmental services can be introduced to the markets where they are not normally available. An interesting case of PES that has emerged recently in Italy from 2001 are the adventure parks, an experience based on the French model. These are generally trails among the trees of a forest built using wooden platforms resting on tree trunks and passages between a plant and the other through cableways. Access to adventure parks by users is permitted through buying a time or trail ticket. The ownership and management of adventure parks are, in most cases, private, although often located on public forest areas and are sold to handlers of the park by means of concession contracts. Those considerations allow the forest landscape to be recognized not only as a simple wood source, but also as a source of satisfaction of social and cultural needs (Reimoser, 2005).
3. Case study The case study analyze the Casaboli forest located in the municipality of Monreale, in northwestern of Sicily (Italy) (Fig. 2). With an extension of 970 ha, the forest area ranged from 444 to 1150 m above sea level of Gibilmesi Mountain, which has two very different fronts: the northwestern side has 200 m with steep slopes and rocky pillars rather uneven and rich vegetation while the eastern side, on the other hand, has more gentle slopes and almost completely covered with extensive pine forests. The territory is characterized almost entirely by artificial populations of Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), and pine (Pinus pinea), due to action of planting began in the early forties. In the forest area is also interesting the presence of holm oak (Quercus ilex) and downy oak (Quercus pubescens) as natural vegetation, evidence of a transformation of the natural forest in the presence of a population made up of hardwoods. Along the trails is possible to admire the bushes of dwarf spurge (Euphorbia dwarf), multiflora heather (Erica multiflora), brooms and other species typical of the Mediterranean. With regard to faunistic aspect of the forest are present species of birds such as woodpeckers (Picidae vigors), Jay (Garrulus glandarius), Red Kite (Milvus milvus) and nocturnal predators as the owl (Athene noctua) and the tawny owl (Strix aluco). While among the species of wild fauna in this area, there are wild boar (Sus scrofa), fallow deer (Dama dama), foxes (Vulpes fox), porcupines (Hystrix critata) and wild rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). The type of soil that characterizes the forest of Casaboli belongs to the order of Alfisol according to American classification of Soil Taxonomy. The forest Casaboli is a Site of Community Importance (SCI), designation that is used to define an area that participates actively and significantly to maintain or restore a habitat type, or to keep a species that contributes
401
significantly to the maintenance of biodiversity of the region where it is located (Council Directive 92/43/EEC, 1992). In 2009 in the forest of Casaboli, for about 2.5 ha was created an Ecocampus. The Ecocampus are structures that are located in areas of natural beauty, which serve to promote nature and the environment with unconventional measures that are able to attract many users in a forest and to valorize the territory. Among the different objectives of Ecocampus there is to create recreational facilities in a natural environment to promote local culture and to bring man closer to nature. Starting from the birth of Ecocampus there has been an increase in the use of the territory. In fact, according to the data provided by the handler of Ecocampus there has been an increase of about 5000 units seasonally. The Casaboli Ecocampus is a project carried out in full respect of nature, is a sportive and cultural training and aggregation center aimed at families and schools where it is possible carry out several activities: geocaching, orienteering, tented camps game, archery, mountain biking, climbing on artificial walls or trees (tree climbing). Moreover, in Casaboli Ecocampus it is also possible to participate in hiking led by geologists and naturalists, to explore and learn about the biodiversity, the natural sciences, the characteristics of the different natural environments and to understand the relationships between man and nature. As well as in every PES system, all these services are available for users that are willing to pay a ticket.
4. Materials and methods In order to estimate the PES generated by Eco-campus located in Casaboli forest, as well as in other studies (Bartczak and MetelskaSzaniawska, 2015; Perevochtchikova and Rojo Negrete, 2015), an empirical survey on its users was carried out. The survey was conducted in 2015 by means of face-to-face interviews with a purposive sample of 78 visitors of Ecocampus, using a specific questionnaire (Dana and Dana, 2005). The sample size was chosen considering that the collected data respond only to research purposes rather than probabilistic and statistical others (Bonazzi and Iotti, 2015; Certa et al., 2015; Iotti and Bonazzi, 2015; García-Galán et al., 2012). The questionnaire was divided in two main parts: the first one regarded socio-economic characteristics of sample, while the second one gathered satisfaction degree of services offered by Ecocampus, willingness to pay of users for them and the reasons that lead visitors to Ecocampus. In order to determine the actual satisfaction by users of the various services provided by Ecocampus, the reasons that lead them to visit it and their willingness to pay, the interviewees had to assign a score to a 1–5 scale (from 1 min to 5 max) to each question of questionnaire (Trabalzi and De Rosa, 2012). This scale, better known as Likert scale (Likert, 1932), is a psychometric scale commonly involved in research that employs questionnaires. It is the most widely used approach to scaling responses in survey research (Burns and Burns, 2008). When responding to a Likert questionnaire item, respondents specify their level of agreement or disagreement (strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, strongly disagree) on a symmetric agree-disagree scale for a series of statements by attributing a score for each one. Thus, the range captures the intensity of their feelings for a given item (Norman, 2010; Allen and Seaman, 2007).
5. Results The socio-economic characteristics of Ecocampus users was reported in Table 1.
402
F. Sgroi et al. / Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
Fig. 2. Casaboli Ecocampus.
Table 1 Socio-economic characteristics of interviewed sample. Items
Number
%
Sex Male Female
44 34
56.4 43.6
Age (years) <25 25–31 32–38 39–45 > 45
29 23 13 9 4
37.2 29.5 16.7 11.5 5.1
Level of education Secondary school Higher school University degree
13 40 25
16.6 51.3 32.1
Profession Employed Student Housewife Unemployed
32 36 4 6
41.0 46.2 5.1 7.7
Annual income (D ) <10,000 10,000–19,999 20,000–29,999 >30,000
35 23 14 6
44.9 29.5 17.9 7.7
Empirical survey showed that males accounted for 56.4% of the interviewees while 43.6% were females. Results highlighted how adventure park has been visited mainly by young people with a high level of education. In particular, the majority of users (37.2%) had less than 25 years, followed by those aged between 25 and 31 years (29.5%); only 5.1% were over 45 years. As regards the level of education, 51.3% of the sample had a higher school degree, while graduates amounted to 32.1% and only 16.6% had a secondary school. With reference to the profession, the main part of sample is represented by students (46.2%), followed by employed people (41.0%). Unemployed people and housewives were, respectively, only 7.7% and 5.1%. Finally, the majority of interviewees had an annual income less than 10,000 euro (44.9%), followed by those with an income ranged from 10,000 to 20,000 euro (29.5%), while users with over that 30,000 euro represented only 7.7% of sample. The most important reasons that lead to visit the Ecocampus, were the possibility to perform both sportive-recreational and educational-environmental activities with a score, respectively, of 4.2 and 4.1, followed by natural resources (3.5) (Fig. 3). It is interesting to note how users considered also curiosity (3.4) and socialization (3.3) as important decision factors.
Fig. 3. Reasons that lead users to visit Ecocampus.
Fig. 4. Satisfactional degree of services offered by Ecocampus.
Among the services offered by Ecocampus, interviewees assigned the highest satisfaction degree to adventure park, with an average score of 4.1, followed by educational excursions led by professionals such as geologists and naturalists (3.6), archery (3.0), trekking (2.9) and Mountain bike trials (2.5) (Fig. 4). Finally, as regards the willingness to pay for the PES offered by Ecocampus, the majority of users considered that right price should be ranged from 10.00 to 12.50 euro, assigning it the highest value (3.9) (Fig. 5). This price range is confirmed by Loreggian (2008) which estimated an average consumer’s willingness to pay around 12.00 euro per visit, remembering that the payment is one of the fundamental aspects of the PES system.
F. Sgroi et al. / Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
Fig. 5. Willingness to pay by users.
By contrast, a ticket price higher than 17.50 euro should appreciated only by few respondents. 6. Conclusions The potential impacts of payments for environmental services (PES) on environmental outcomes and local livelihoods in several countries are numerous and have been widely debated. The Ecocampus creation within Casaboli forest determined a great success, resulting in an increase of social and recreational value of the forest. This PES, in fact, resulted an increase of forest seasonal use, not only by local users but also by national and foreign visitors, promoting and valorizing the entire territory. Results showed that case study can be considered an excellent tool for the management of natural areas such as in this case the forest, avoiding that this capital is abandoned or undervalued. The majority of users, in fact, decide to visit the Ecocampus especially to perform both sportive-recreational and educationalenvironmental activities and are willing to pay a ticket to access to services offered by forest. However, the time necessary for the realization of Ecocampus Casaboli was two years, highlighting how the bureaucracy of public sector and the lack of standard models play a key role for a PES realization. References Allen, I.E., Seaman, C.A., 2007. Likert scales and data analyses. Qual. Prog. 40 (7), 64–65. Bartczak, A., Metelska-Szaniawska, K., 2015. Should we pay, and to whom, for biodiversity enhancement in private forests? An empirical study of attitudes towards payments for forest ecosystem services in Poland. Land Use Policy 48, 261–269. Bennett, D.E., Gosnell, H., 2015. Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social–ecological systems framework. Ecol. Econ. 116, 172–181. Bonazzi, G., Iotti, M., 2015. Economic and financial flow generation in tomato industry in Italy. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 12 (2), 99–111. Burns, A., Burns, R., 2008. Basic Marketing Research. Pearson Education, New Jersey. Certa, A., Enea, M., Galante, G., Lupo, T., 2015. A multi-criteria group decision to support the maintenance service: a case study. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 10 (9), 22047–22055. Clements, T., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2015. Impact of payments for environmental services and protected areas on local livelihoods and forest conservation in northern Cambodia. Conserv. Biol. 29 (1), 78–87. Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., 1997. The values of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Council Directive 92/43/EEC, 1992. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043&from=EN [accessed 01.10.15]. Dana, L.P., Dana, T.E., 2005. Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 2 (1), 79–88. Deal, R.L., Cochran, B., Larocco, G., 2012. Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management. For. Policy Econ. 17, 69–76. Di Trapani, A.M., Squatrito, R., Foderà, M., Testa, R., Tudisca, S., Sgroi, F., 2014. Payment for environmental service for the sustainable development of the territory. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 10 (5), 480–488.
403
Fedrowitz, K., Koricheva, J., Baker, S.C., Lindenmayerand, D.B., Palik, B., 2014. Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 51 (6), 1669–1679. Friess, D.A., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2015. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the face of external biophysical stressors. Global Environ. Change 30, 31–42. García-Galán, M.M., del Moral-Agúndez, A., Galera-Casquet, C., 2012. Assessing the introduction and development of a designation of origin from the firm’s perspective: the case of the Ribera del Guadiana wine PDO. Span. J. Agric. Res. 10 (4), 890–900. Iotti, M., Bonazzi, G., 2015. Application of ICRs with a net financial position (NFP) repayment approach in the Parma PDO ham sector. J. Food Agric. Environ. 13 (1), 109–114. Klein, D., Höllerl, S., Blaschke, M., Schulz, C., 2013. The contribution of managed and unmanaged forests to climate change mitigation-a model approach at stand level for the main tree species in Bavaria. Forests 4, 43–69. ˜ Kull, C.A., Arnauld de Sartre, X., Castro-Larranaga, M., 2015. The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum 61, 122–134. Lanfranchi, M., Giannetto, C., De Pascale, A., 2015. The link between economic growth and environmental quality in the case of coastal tourism in the rural areas. Appl. Math. Sci. 9 (33), 1745–1755. Lanfranchi, M., Giannetto, C., 2014. Sustainable development in rural areas: the new model of social farming. Qual. Access Success 15 (Suppl. 1), 219–223. Liu, P., Yin, R., 2012. Sequestering carbon in china’s forest ecosystems: potential and challenges. Forests 3, 417–430. Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 1–55. Loreggian, F., (PhD thesis) 2008. I parchi avventura. Un’opportunità per i gestori forestali. University of Padova. Marshalek, E.C., Ramage, B.S., Potts, M.D., 2014. Integrating harvest scheduling and reserve design to improve biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Modell. 287, 27–35. MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C, Available from: http://www. [accessed millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf 01.10.15]. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., May, P., 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for under standing payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1202–1208. Norman, G., 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics”. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 15 (5), 625–632. Perevochtchikova, M., Rojo Negrete, I.A., 2015. The perceptions about payment schemes for ecosystem services: study case of the San Miguel and Santo Tomás Ajusco community. Mexico Ecosyst. Serv. 14, 27–36. Prokofieva, I., Wundel, S., Vidale, E., 2012. Payments for environmental services: a way forward for Mediterranean forests? EFI Policy Brief. 7, 16-16. Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Perkins, J.S., Atlhopheng, J.R., Mulale, K., Favretto, N., 2015. Reorienting land degradation towards sustainable land management: linking sustainable livelihoods with ecosystem services in rangeland systems. J. Environ. Manag. 151, 472–485. Reimoser, F., 2005. Il ruolo della selvicoltura nella gestione faunistica. Sherwood 112, 19–24. Rodríguez de Francisco, J.C., Boelens, R., 2015. Payment for Environmental Services: mobilising an epistemic community to construct dominant policy. Environ. Polit. 24 (3), 481–500. SIAN (National Agricultural Information System), 2015. Statistical data, Available from: http://www.sian.it/inventarioforestale/jsp/01tabelle superficie.jsp [accessed 15.09.15]. Srinivasan, S., 2015. Economic valuation and option-based payments for ecosystem services. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Global Change 20 (7), 1055–1077. Sukhdev, P., Wittmer, H., Miller, D., 2014. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): challenges and responses. In: Helm, D., Hepburn, C. (Eds.), Nature in the Balance: The Economics ofBiodiversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Available from: http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ TEEB-Challenges-and-Responses.pdf [accessed 12.09.15]. Tomao, A., Carbone, F., Marchetti, M., Santopuoli, G., Angelaccio, C., 2013. Forest, trees, externalities and ecosystem services. Ital. J. For. Mt. Environ. 68, 57–73. Trabalzi, F., De Rosa, M., 2012. Market and state-supported sustainability: a tale of two rural communities in Iowa and Italy. Sociol. Ruralis 52 (1), 115–133. Troiano, S., Marangon, F., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: development opportunities from landscape and environmental resources management. Econ. Policy Energy Environ. 3, 87–113. Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., 2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 46, 493–510. Ubaldi, D., 2008. Le vegetazioni erbacee e gli arbusteti italiani. Tipologie fitosociologiche ed ecologia, Aracne, Bologna. Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environ. Sci. Policy 13 (8), 785–792. Vatn, A., 2015. Markets in environmental governance. From theory to practice. Ecol. Econ. 117, 225–233. Vedel, S.E., Jacobsen, J.B., Thorsen, B.J., 2015. Forest owners’ willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality. Ecol. Econ. 113, 15–24. Vidale, E., Pettenella, D., Secco, L., Gatto, P., 2012. Pagamenti per i servizi ambientali -Teoria, sistema giuridico e implementazione. Sherwood 180, 21–26.
404
F. Sgroi et al. / Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
Wegner, G.I., 2015. Payments for ecosystem services (PES): a flexible, participatory, and integrated approach for improved conservation and equity outcomes. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9673-7. Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., 2009. Payments for ecosystem services: a new way of conserving biodiversity in forests. J. Sustain. For. 28 (3–5), 576–596.
Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occas. Pap. 42, 24. Ximenes, F.A., George, B.H., Cowie, A., Williamsand, J., Kelly, G., 2012. Greenhouse gas balance of native forests in New South Wales, Australia. Forests 3, 653–683.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Engineering journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng
Evaluation of payment for ecosystem services in Mediterranean forest: An empirical survey Filippo Sgroi ∗ , Mario Foderà, Léo-Paul Dana, Giacomo Mangiapane, Salvatore Tudisca, Anna Maria Di Trapani, Riccardo Testa Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, Edificio 4, 90128 Palermo, Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 8 October 2015 Accepted 6 February 2016 Available online 20 February 2016 Keywords: Adventure park Environmental economics Forest Willingness to pay
a b s t r a c t The relationship between humans and the forest has always been an important element, sometimes characterizing in the history of man himself. During the last years, the socio-economic context is profoundly changed, diversifying economic services provided by the forest. In the past, in fact, the primary function of the forest was the firewood production, while nowadays it grants several socio-economic benefits such as climate change mitigation, soil protection, protection and conservation of biodiversity, landscaping and recreational value. So, in recent decades a new type of socio-economic interest was developed in order to create a market of goods and services for the forests, called as payments for ecosystem services (PES). This paper, through a survey conducted in a wooded area of Sicily where recently was established a typical example of PES (Ecocampus), aimed at determining the actual satisfaction by users of the various services provided by forest, the reasons that lead them to visit it and their willingness to pay. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Forests contain many habitats for plants, animals and microorganisms, which help to preserve the stability of the environment in terms of biodiversity (Fedrowitz et al., 2014; Marshalek et al., 2014), also playing a key role in mitigating climate change through the capture and storage of carbon (Ximenes et al., 2012; Klein et al., 2013; Liu and Yin, 2012). Forests are considered a major asset for the socio-economic growth of rural areas, but often environmental protection has been pushed aside for tourism development, determining huge impacts on ecosystems, influencing their ability to generate services and externalities (Sukhdev et al., 2014). Therefore, a new forest management is considered necessary, in order to reconcile its several functions. The ability of forests to produce several goods and services, many of them are externalities, in addition to wood biomass is fully recognized (Deal et al., 2012). In recent decades, environmental economics was interested in developing a particular type of mechanisms in order to create a new market for goods and services (Bennett and Gosnell, 2015), denominated payments for ecosystem services (PES).
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: fi[email protected] (F. Sgroi). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.02.004 0925-8574/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
According to the latest available data (SIAN, 2015), the Italian forest area in amounted to 10.9 million hectares, showing in the last decade an increase of 600,000 ha (+6.1%). The highest increase of forest area was in the central and southern Italian regions, above all in Molise (+16.5%) and Sicily (+13.2%) (Fig. 1). The most representative species in the Italian forests are spruce, larch, white fir, Scots pine, beech, chestnut tree, oak, Turkey oak, black hornbeam, Holm oaks, Cork oak, the Maritime pine and Aleppo pine (Ubaldi, 2008). So, this paper through an empirical survey conducted in a wooded area of Sicily where recently was established a typical example of PES (Casaboli Ecocampus), aimed at determining the actual satisfaction by users of the various services provided by forest, the reasons that lead them to visit it and their willingness to pay. 2. Payments for environmental services Human welfare depends on ecosystems and the benefits they provide (Costanza et al., 1997) but, in recent decades, human activities have had enormous impacts on the environment by influencing the evolution of ecosystems and the their ability to deliver services and externalities (Kull et al., 2015). Externalities related to forest resources play an increasingly important role in forest economy, as a natural consequence of the growing gap between the demand for public goods (water
400
F. Sgroi et al. / Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
Fig. 1. Evolution of forest area in Italy.
availability, air quality, protection of the landscape and biodiversity) and supply of goods and services provided by forests. The cultural growth and increase of environmental sensibility by the community highlighted more and more the role of forest ecosystems, including those of urban and peri-urban sector as public goods (Lanfranchi et al., 2015). This involves a growing trend of users, with an increase in the complexity of management aimed at enhancing the forest multifunctionality and with the recognition of new ethical and socio-economic values, all within a framework that ensures its sustainable development (Lanfranchi and Giannetto, 2014; Tomao et al., 2013). The Ecosystem Services (ES) are defined as the benefits that result directly or indirectly from ecosystems (MEA, 2005). The agriculture, and more generally, the agro-forestry territory, plays a complex role in respect of ES. In fact, if on one hand the agricultural production processes using the ES generated from the surrounding area, on the other hand, agriculture can provide ES to society. Biophysical quantification and monetary evaluation of services allows, in addition to assessing the environmental costs associated with changes of agro-ecosystems (land-use changes, technological innovations), to define and plan properly the public intervention and particularly the agricultural and environmental policies for the conservation of biodiversity (Vatn, 2015). Several studies (Srinivasan, 2015; Di Trapani et al., 2014) have analyzed the possibility of adopting new tools based on the creation of markets for specific goods and services in order to increase the attractiveness of forest, the so-called payment for environmental services (PES). The potential impacts of payments for environmental services (PES) on environmental outcomes and local livelihoods in several countries are numerous and have been widely debated (Clements and Milner-Gulland, 2015). PES represents new ways of moving from land degradation toward sustainable land management through the development of economic mechanisms (Reed et al., 2015). PES, in fact, are tools created to correct “market failures” related to traditional modalities of environmental goods and services supply, stimulating the production of positive environmental externalities and transforming them into real
products sold on the market (Friess et al., 2015; Vidale et al., 2012). Wunder (2005) defines PES as “voluntary transaction that a good defined ES is purchased by a buyer who receives it from a supplier of ES on condition that the supplier will ensure the supply of ES” because you create contacts for PES. According to Wunder, in order to create contact between suppliers and buyers, five conditions must be observed: (1) the identification of an environmental service to be exchanged in the market; (2) the presence of at least one buyer; (3) the presence of at least one seller; (4) the intent between the parties to commercialize an environmental service; (5) the conditionality of the payment, according to which the producer is obliged to be actively involved to ensure the environmental service over the years. The creation of PES comes from the need to improve efficacy, efficiency and distributive equity in the production of a particular environmental service compared to a reference base (Wegner, 2015). In a global context of stagnating or even decreasing public funding for biodiversity conservation, PES have the potential both to raise some new funds, and to absorb more efficiently money previously spent otherwise (Wunder and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, 2009). PES schemes rely on payments to induce behavioral change, thus they can be considered part of the group of incentive- or market-based instruments for environmental policy (Troiano and Marangon, 2010). Moreover, the alleged capacity of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) to reach conservation policy goals, while reducing poverty in a cost-effective manner, makes it an extremely attractive development instrument for policymakers (Rodríguez de Francisco and Boelens, 2015). As regards the payment strategies of PES, they are voluntary contractual agreements, environmental permissions, direct payments to managers by users/clients or public entities, incentives and/or
F. Sgroi et al. / Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
public subsidies (RDP), certification systems, which can also be used in mixed or combined forms (Vedel et al., 2015). PES schemes differ in scale, from small local initiatives to global international agreements and can also vary the number and institutional typology of buyers of environmental services, suppliers and intermediaries (e.g.: individual landowners, communities, private companies, NGOs, public administration). Moreover, technical specifications of the service environment and land use are different as well as the mechanisms used to raise and distribute funds from buyers to suppliers (Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010). The amounts to be paid to service providers may be fixed by negotiation between buyers (small-scale PES) or by a government/intermediary institution (large-scale PES schemes). Payments should not exceed the social value of the environmental service provided (Prokofieva et al., 2012). Under certain conditions, the willingness to pay by users can create financial incentives for local actors to convert the value of natural resources into goods and services (Muradian et al., 2010; Turner et al., 2003). When the willingness to pay for an ES can generate a PES, environmental services can be introduced to the markets where they are not normally available. An interesting case of PES that has emerged recently in Italy from 2001 are the adventure parks, an experience based on the French model. These are generally trails among the trees of a forest built using wooden platforms resting on tree trunks and passages between a plant and the other through cableways. Access to adventure parks by users is permitted through buying a time or trail ticket. The ownership and management of adventure parks are, in most cases, private, although often located on public forest areas and are sold to handlers of the park by means of concession contracts. Those considerations allow the forest landscape to be recognized not only as a simple wood source, but also as a source of satisfaction of social and cultural needs (Reimoser, 2005).
3. Case study The case study analyze the Casaboli forest located in the municipality of Monreale, in northwestern of Sicily (Italy) (Fig. 2). With an extension of 970 ha, the forest area ranged from 444 to 1150 m above sea level of Gibilmesi Mountain, which has two very different fronts: the northwestern side has 200 m with steep slopes and rocky pillars rather uneven and rich vegetation while the eastern side, on the other hand, has more gentle slopes and almost completely covered with extensive pine forests. The territory is characterized almost entirely by artificial populations of Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), and pine (Pinus pinea), due to action of planting began in the early forties. In the forest area is also interesting the presence of holm oak (Quercus ilex) and downy oak (Quercus pubescens) as natural vegetation, evidence of a transformation of the natural forest in the presence of a population made up of hardwoods. Along the trails is possible to admire the bushes of dwarf spurge (Euphorbia dwarf), multiflora heather (Erica multiflora), brooms and other species typical of the Mediterranean. With regard to faunistic aspect of the forest are present species of birds such as woodpeckers (Picidae vigors), Jay (Garrulus glandarius), Red Kite (Milvus milvus) and nocturnal predators as the owl (Athene noctua) and the tawny owl (Strix aluco). While among the species of wild fauna in this area, there are wild boar (Sus scrofa), fallow deer (Dama dama), foxes (Vulpes fox), porcupines (Hystrix critata) and wild rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). The type of soil that characterizes the forest of Casaboli belongs to the order of Alfisol according to American classification of Soil Taxonomy. The forest Casaboli is a Site of Community Importance (SCI), designation that is used to define an area that participates actively and significantly to maintain or restore a habitat type, or to keep a species that contributes
401
significantly to the maintenance of biodiversity of the region where it is located (Council Directive 92/43/EEC, 1992). In 2009 in the forest of Casaboli, for about 2.5 ha was created an Ecocampus. The Ecocampus are structures that are located in areas of natural beauty, which serve to promote nature and the environment with unconventional measures that are able to attract many users in a forest and to valorize the territory. Among the different objectives of Ecocampus there is to create recreational facilities in a natural environment to promote local culture and to bring man closer to nature. Starting from the birth of Ecocampus there has been an increase in the use of the territory. In fact, according to the data provided by the handler of Ecocampus there has been an increase of about 5000 units seasonally. The Casaboli Ecocampus is a project carried out in full respect of nature, is a sportive and cultural training and aggregation center aimed at families and schools where it is possible carry out several activities: geocaching, orienteering, tented camps game, archery, mountain biking, climbing on artificial walls or trees (tree climbing). Moreover, in Casaboli Ecocampus it is also possible to participate in hiking led by geologists and naturalists, to explore and learn about the biodiversity, the natural sciences, the characteristics of the different natural environments and to understand the relationships between man and nature. As well as in every PES system, all these services are available for users that are willing to pay a ticket.
4. Materials and methods In order to estimate the PES generated by Eco-campus located in Casaboli forest, as well as in other studies (Bartczak and MetelskaSzaniawska, 2015; Perevochtchikova and Rojo Negrete, 2015), an empirical survey on its users was carried out. The survey was conducted in 2015 by means of face-to-face interviews with a purposive sample of 78 visitors of Ecocampus, using a specific questionnaire (Dana and Dana, 2005). The sample size was chosen considering that the collected data respond only to research purposes rather than probabilistic and statistical others (Bonazzi and Iotti, 2015; Certa et al., 2015; Iotti and Bonazzi, 2015; García-Galán et al., 2012). The questionnaire was divided in two main parts: the first one regarded socio-economic characteristics of sample, while the second one gathered satisfaction degree of services offered by Ecocampus, willingness to pay of users for them and the reasons that lead visitors to Ecocampus. In order to determine the actual satisfaction by users of the various services provided by Ecocampus, the reasons that lead them to visit it and their willingness to pay, the interviewees had to assign a score to a 1–5 scale (from 1 min to 5 max) to each question of questionnaire (Trabalzi and De Rosa, 2012). This scale, better known as Likert scale (Likert, 1932), is a psychometric scale commonly involved in research that employs questionnaires. It is the most widely used approach to scaling responses in survey research (Burns and Burns, 2008). When responding to a Likert questionnaire item, respondents specify their level of agreement or disagreement (strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, strongly disagree) on a symmetric agree-disagree scale for a series of statements by attributing a score for each one. Thus, the range captures the intensity of their feelings for a given item (Norman, 2010; Allen and Seaman, 2007).
5. Results The socio-economic characteristics of Ecocampus users was reported in Table 1.
402
F. Sgroi et al. / Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
Fig. 2. Casaboli Ecocampus.
Table 1 Socio-economic characteristics of interviewed sample. Items
Number
%
Sex Male Female
44 34
56.4 43.6
Age (years) <25 25–31 32–38 39–45 > 45
29 23 13 9 4
37.2 29.5 16.7 11.5 5.1
Level of education Secondary school Higher school University degree
13 40 25
16.6 51.3 32.1
Profession Employed Student Housewife Unemployed
32 36 4 6
41.0 46.2 5.1 7.7
Annual income (D ) <10,000 10,000–19,999 20,000–29,999 >30,000
35 23 14 6
44.9 29.5 17.9 7.7
Empirical survey showed that males accounted for 56.4% of the interviewees while 43.6% were females. Results highlighted how adventure park has been visited mainly by young people with a high level of education. In particular, the majority of users (37.2%) had less than 25 years, followed by those aged between 25 and 31 years (29.5%); only 5.1% were over 45 years. As regards the level of education, 51.3% of the sample had a higher school degree, while graduates amounted to 32.1% and only 16.6% had a secondary school. With reference to the profession, the main part of sample is represented by students (46.2%), followed by employed people (41.0%). Unemployed people and housewives were, respectively, only 7.7% and 5.1%. Finally, the majority of interviewees had an annual income less than 10,000 euro (44.9%), followed by those with an income ranged from 10,000 to 20,000 euro (29.5%), while users with over that 30,000 euro represented only 7.7% of sample. The most important reasons that lead to visit the Ecocampus, were the possibility to perform both sportive-recreational and educational-environmental activities with a score, respectively, of 4.2 and 4.1, followed by natural resources (3.5) (Fig. 3). It is interesting to note how users considered also curiosity (3.4) and socialization (3.3) as important decision factors.
Fig. 3. Reasons that lead users to visit Ecocampus.
Fig. 4. Satisfactional degree of services offered by Ecocampus.
Among the services offered by Ecocampus, interviewees assigned the highest satisfaction degree to adventure park, with an average score of 4.1, followed by educational excursions led by professionals such as geologists and naturalists (3.6), archery (3.0), trekking (2.9) and Mountain bike trials (2.5) (Fig. 4). Finally, as regards the willingness to pay for the PES offered by Ecocampus, the majority of users considered that right price should be ranged from 10.00 to 12.50 euro, assigning it the highest value (3.9) (Fig. 5). This price range is confirmed by Loreggian (2008) which estimated an average consumer’s willingness to pay around 12.00 euro per visit, remembering that the payment is one of the fundamental aspects of the PES system.
F. Sgroi et al. / Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
Fig. 5. Willingness to pay by users.
By contrast, a ticket price higher than 17.50 euro should appreciated only by few respondents. 6. Conclusions The potential impacts of payments for environmental services (PES) on environmental outcomes and local livelihoods in several countries are numerous and have been widely debated. The Ecocampus creation within Casaboli forest determined a great success, resulting in an increase of social and recreational value of the forest. This PES, in fact, resulted an increase of forest seasonal use, not only by local users but also by national and foreign visitors, promoting and valorizing the entire territory. Results showed that case study can be considered an excellent tool for the management of natural areas such as in this case the forest, avoiding that this capital is abandoned or undervalued. The majority of users, in fact, decide to visit the Ecocampus especially to perform both sportive-recreational and educationalenvironmental activities and are willing to pay a ticket to access to services offered by forest. However, the time necessary for the realization of Ecocampus Casaboli was two years, highlighting how the bureaucracy of public sector and the lack of standard models play a key role for a PES realization. References Allen, I.E., Seaman, C.A., 2007. Likert scales and data analyses. Qual. Prog. 40 (7), 64–65. Bartczak, A., Metelska-Szaniawska, K., 2015. Should we pay, and to whom, for biodiversity enhancement in private forests? An empirical study of attitudes towards payments for forest ecosystem services in Poland. Land Use Policy 48, 261–269. Bennett, D.E., Gosnell, H., 2015. Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social–ecological systems framework. Ecol. Econ. 116, 172–181. Bonazzi, G., Iotti, M., 2015. Economic and financial flow generation in tomato industry in Italy. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 12 (2), 99–111. Burns, A., Burns, R., 2008. Basic Marketing Research. Pearson Education, New Jersey. Certa, A., Enea, M., Galante, G., Lupo, T., 2015. A multi-criteria group decision to support the maintenance service: a case study. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 10 (9), 22047–22055. Clements, T., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2015. Impact of payments for environmental services and protected areas on local livelihoods and forest conservation in northern Cambodia. Conserv. Biol. 29 (1), 78–87. Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., 1997. The values of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Council Directive 92/43/EEC, 1992. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043&from=EN [accessed 01.10.15]. Dana, L.P., Dana, T.E., 2005. Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 2 (1), 79–88. Deal, R.L., Cochran, B., Larocco, G., 2012. Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management. For. Policy Econ. 17, 69–76. Di Trapani, A.M., Squatrito, R., Foderà, M., Testa, R., Tudisca, S., Sgroi, F., 2014. Payment for environmental service for the sustainable development of the territory. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 10 (5), 480–488.
403
Fedrowitz, K., Koricheva, J., Baker, S.C., Lindenmayerand, D.B., Palik, B., 2014. Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 51 (6), 1669–1679. Friess, D.A., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2015. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the face of external biophysical stressors. Global Environ. Change 30, 31–42. García-Galán, M.M., del Moral-Agúndez, A., Galera-Casquet, C., 2012. Assessing the introduction and development of a designation of origin from the firm’s perspective: the case of the Ribera del Guadiana wine PDO. Span. J. Agric. Res. 10 (4), 890–900. Iotti, M., Bonazzi, G., 2015. Application of ICRs with a net financial position (NFP) repayment approach in the Parma PDO ham sector. J. Food Agric. Environ. 13 (1), 109–114. Klein, D., Höllerl, S., Blaschke, M., Schulz, C., 2013. The contribution of managed and unmanaged forests to climate change mitigation-a model approach at stand level for the main tree species in Bavaria. Forests 4, 43–69. ˜ Kull, C.A., Arnauld de Sartre, X., Castro-Larranaga, M., 2015. The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum 61, 122–134. Lanfranchi, M., Giannetto, C., De Pascale, A., 2015. The link between economic growth and environmental quality in the case of coastal tourism in the rural areas. Appl. Math. Sci. 9 (33), 1745–1755. Lanfranchi, M., Giannetto, C., 2014. Sustainable development in rural areas: the new model of social farming. Qual. Access Success 15 (Suppl. 1), 219–223. Liu, P., Yin, R., 2012. Sequestering carbon in china’s forest ecosystems: potential and challenges. Forests 3, 417–430. Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 1–55. Loreggian, F., (PhD thesis) 2008. I parchi avventura. Un’opportunità per i gestori forestali. University of Padova. Marshalek, E.C., Ramage, B.S., Potts, M.D., 2014. Integrating harvest scheduling and reserve design to improve biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Modell. 287, 27–35. MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C, Available from: http://www. [accessed millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf 01.10.15]. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., May, P., 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for under standing payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1202–1208. Norman, G., 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics”. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 15 (5), 625–632. Perevochtchikova, M., Rojo Negrete, I.A., 2015. The perceptions about payment schemes for ecosystem services: study case of the San Miguel and Santo Tomás Ajusco community. Mexico Ecosyst. Serv. 14, 27–36. Prokofieva, I., Wundel, S., Vidale, E., 2012. Payments for environmental services: a way forward for Mediterranean forests? EFI Policy Brief. 7, 16-16. Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Perkins, J.S., Atlhopheng, J.R., Mulale, K., Favretto, N., 2015. Reorienting land degradation towards sustainable land management: linking sustainable livelihoods with ecosystem services in rangeland systems. J. Environ. Manag. 151, 472–485. Reimoser, F., 2005. Il ruolo della selvicoltura nella gestione faunistica. Sherwood 112, 19–24. Rodríguez de Francisco, J.C., Boelens, R., 2015. Payment for Environmental Services: mobilising an epistemic community to construct dominant policy. Environ. Polit. 24 (3), 481–500. SIAN (National Agricultural Information System), 2015. Statistical data, Available from: http://www.sian.it/inventarioforestale/jsp/01tabelle superficie.jsp [accessed 15.09.15]. Srinivasan, S., 2015. Economic valuation and option-based payments for ecosystem services. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Global Change 20 (7), 1055–1077. Sukhdev, P., Wittmer, H., Miller, D., 2014. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): challenges and responses. In: Helm, D., Hepburn, C. (Eds.), Nature in the Balance: The Economics ofBiodiversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Available from: http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ TEEB-Challenges-and-Responses.pdf [accessed 12.09.15]. Tomao, A., Carbone, F., Marchetti, M., Santopuoli, G., Angelaccio, C., 2013. Forest, trees, externalities and ecosystem services. Ital. J. For. Mt. Environ. 68, 57–73. Trabalzi, F., De Rosa, M., 2012. Market and state-supported sustainability: a tale of two rural communities in Iowa and Italy. Sociol. Ruralis 52 (1), 115–133. Troiano, S., Marangon, F., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: development opportunities from landscape and environmental resources management. Econ. Policy Energy Environ. 3, 87–113. Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., 2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 46, 493–510. Ubaldi, D., 2008. Le vegetazioni erbacee e gli arbusteti italiani. Tipologie fitosociologiche ed ecologia, Aracne, Bologna. Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environ. Sci. Policy 13 (8), 785–792. Vatn, A., 2015. Markets in environmental governance. From theory to practice. Ecol. Econ. 117, 225–233. Vedel, S.E., Jacobsen, J.B., Thorsen, B.J., 2015. Forest owners’ willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality. Ecol. Econ. 113, 15–24. Vidale, E., Pettenella, D., Secco, L., Gatto, P., 2012. Pagamenti per i servizi ambientali -Teoria, sistema giuridico e implementazione. Sherwood 180, 21–26.
404
F. Sgroi et al. / Ecological Engineering 90 (2016) 399–404
Wegner, G.I., 2015. Payments for ecosystem services (PES): a flexible, participatory, and integrated approach for improved conservation and equity outcomes. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9673-7. Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., 2009. Payments for ecosystem services: a new way of conserving biodiversity in forests. J. Sustain. For. 28 (3–5), 576–596.
Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occas. Pap. 42, 24. Ximenes, F.A., George, B.H., Cowie, A., Williamsand, J., Kelly, G., 2012. Greenhouse gas balance of native forests in New South Wales, Australia. Forests 3, 653–683.