- Email: [email protected]
Assessing natural capital value in marine ecosystems through an environmental accounting model: A case study in Southern Italy
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Modelling journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel
Assessing natural capital value in marine ecosystems through an environmental accounting model: A case study in Southern Italy
T
Elvira Buonocorea,b, Luca Appollonia,b, Giovanni F. Russoa,b, Pier Paolo Franzesea,b,* a Laboratory of Ecodynamics and Sustainable Development, Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, Centro Direzionale - Isola C4, (80143) Naples, Italy b CoNISMa, Piazzale Flaminio 9, 00197 Rome, Italy
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Natural resources Marine habitats Environmental accounting Emergy
Coastal and marine natural capital stocks provide a bundle of ecosystem services vital to humans. The delivery of these benefits depends on the protection and sustainable management of natural capital through effective nature conservation strategies. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are recognized worldwide as important tools to protect biodiversity while ensuring the delivery of ecosystem services and promoting sustainable human activities. Following the results of a national project aimed at assessing the value of natural capital in the Italian MPAs, in this study we assessed the value of marine natural capital stocks in the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region (Southern Italy) based on a biophysical and trophodynamic accounting model. The assessment focused on four macro-habitats: sciaphilic hard bottom (SHB), photophilic hard bottom (PHB), soft bottom (SB), and Posidonia oceanica seagrass bed (PSB). The total biophysical value of natural capital stocks related to the total area of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region was 5.70⋅1020 sej and 3.10⋅1021 sej, while the total economic value was 795.92 and 4323.16 M€. Although the SHB habitat only represents about 4% and 1% of the total marine area of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region, it contributes by 28% and 7% to the total value of natural capital. These figures reflect the high convergence of natural input flows into the marine ecosystem for the generation of the SHB habitat, highlighting the importance of proper measures and actions for its protection. In addition, the calculated values of natural capital stocks were combined with the bionomic map of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region to show the spatial distribution of natural capital value. The outcomes of this study can support local managers and policy makers in charge for implementing nature conservation strategies aimed at ensuring the sustainable use of marine resources.
1. Introduction Marine and coastal ecosystems are recognized as among the most productive ecosystems in the world (UNEP, 2006; Hattam et al., 2015). The interactions between biotic and abiotic components of marine ecosystems generate ecosystem functions and a bundle of ecosystem services vital for human well-being (Häyhä and Franzese, 2014; Pauna et al., 2018; Townsend et al., 2018). The delivery of benefits to humans depends on the protection of natural capital stocks through effective conservation actions (Guidetti et al., 2008; Hoffmann et al., 2018). In the last decades, the awareness on the importance of biodiversity for natural ecosystems and human economy has considerably increased. In fact, biodiversity loss influences ecosystem functions in turn altering the capability of natural ecosystems to deliver goods and services (Cardinale et al., 2012; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010; Vihervaara
et al., 2019). Marine ecosystems are heavily exploited by human activities, removing, altering or destroying natural habitats. The anthropogenic pressures on marine ecosystems cause biodiversity loss and, as a consequence, can seriously affect the capability of marine natural capital stocks to provide benefits to humans (Halpern et al., 2008; Pauna et al., 2019). To protect and effectively manage natural resources at local, regional, and national scales, decision makers require quantitative data on the value of natural capital stocks which, in turn, support the delivery of ecosystem services flows (Norton et al., 2018). In the last decades, there has been an increasing interest towards the need for tools capable of assessing the value of natural capital stocks to convey their importance to local managers and policy makers (Buonocore et al., 2018; Hooper et al., 2019; Neugarten et al., 2018;
⁎ Corresponding author at: Laboratory of Ecodynamics and Sustainable Development, Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, Centro Direzionale - Isola C4, (80143) Naples, Italy. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (P.P. Franzese).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.108958 Received 12 December 2019; Received in revised form 15 January 2020; Accepted 17 January 2020 0304-3800/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
2. Materials and methods
TEEB, 2010). Several authors estimated the value of natural capital and related services in different marine and terrestrial ecosystems by using economic evaluation methods (Costanza et al., 1997, 2014; Häyhä et al., 2015; Nikodinoska et al., 2018; Quaas et al., 2019; UN et al., 2014). Other authors focused on biophysical accounting methods to assess the value of natural capital and ecosystem services, providing a complementary perspective to the economic assessment of natural resources (Buonocore et al., 2019; Mancini et al., 2017; Mellino et al., 2015; Pulselli et al., 2011; Ulgiati et al., 2011; Vassallo et al., 2017). The assessment of the biophysical and economic value of natural capital is particularly useful in those contexts where a protection regime is established in support of conservation strategies. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are recognized across multiple international policy processes - including the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - as important tools for protecting biodiversity while contributing to human well-being and sustainable development (Ban et al., 2019; Rasheed, 2020). When effective management measures are in place, MPAs are capable of meeting the multitude of objectives they are designed for, supporting the achievement of sustainability goals at local, regional, and global scale. Italy is one of the Mediterranean country with the highest concentration of MPAs. The Italian network of MPAs includes 29 sites protecting about 47,000 km2 and covering about 9% of the total national marine surface (UNEP-WCMC, 2019). Following the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 guidelines, the Italian Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea has launched a research programme entitled “Environmental Accounting in Italian Marine Protected Areas” aimed at the implementation of an environmental accounting system for all the Italian MPAs. The purpose of the project was to carry out a biophysical and economic assessment of natural capital stocks and ecosystem services flows (Franzese et al., 2015). In the context of this project, a biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model was developed and applied to assess the value of natural capital stocks in selected MPAs (Vassallo et al., 2017). In particular, Franzese et al. (2017) used this environmental accounting model to assess the biophysical and economic value of autotrophic and heterotrophic natural capital stocks in the MPA “The Islands of Ventotene and S. Stefano” (Central Italy). Picone et al. (2017) assessed the biophysical value of natural capital stocks in the Egadi Islands MPA, integrating environmental accounting with spatial data on main human uses to account for the trade-offs between conservation measures and human activities. Paoli et al. (2018) estimated the value of natural capital stocks in terms of natural resources invested for their generation and maintenance in two MPAs located in Liguria Region (Northern Italy). Buonocore et al. (2019) integrated the emergy and eco-exergy methods to account for the value of natural capital stocks in two MPAs located in Campania Region (Southern Italy), highlighting that such integration resulted in a useful approach to measure different nature values based on a biophysical perspective. In this study, we assessed the value of marine natural capital stocks in the Gulf of Naples and at the larger scale of Campania Region (Southern Italy) based on a biophysical and trophodynamic accounting model. The assessment focused on four main habitats: sciaphilic hard bottom (coralligenous bioconstruction), photophilic hard bottom, soft bottom, and Posidonia oceanica seagrass bed. In addition, the biophysical values of natural capital stocks were also expressed into monetary units, to complement the biophysical assessment with an economic perspective.
2.1. Area of study Campania Region is located in Southern Italy. The region hosts a population of about 5,800,000 inhabitants on a total area of 13,671 km2 making it the second most densely populated Region of Italy (ISTAT, 2019). Its landscape and peculiar geomorphological features, the mild climate and the presence of a large number of historical and archaeological sites make Campania Region an important and well-known touristic destination. In addition, the Gulf of Naples, embracing 385 km of coastline with 25 municipalities, includes the port of Naples that represents an important commercial hub in the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, marine ecosystems are exposed to multiple anthropogenic pressures connected to maritime traffic and tourism activities (Appolloni et al., 2018a, b, Appolloni et al., 2018c). To preserve marine biodiversity while maintaining these important economic activities, several MPAs have been instituted along the coastline of Campania Region, among which Santa Maria di Castellabate (SMC), Costa deli Infreschi e della Masseta (CIM), and Punta Campanella (PC). “Santa Maria di Castellabate” and “Costa degli Infreschi e della Masseta” are two MPAs located along the coast of the National Park of “Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Alburni”. They were both established in 2009 by the Italian Ministry of the Environment. The two MPAs have an extension of 7095 and 2332 ha, with a coastline of 18 and 14 km, respectively (Buonocore et al., 2019; Donnarumma et al., 2018). “Punta Campanella” is a MPA located in the Sorrento Peninsula of the Gulf of Naples. It was established in 1997 by the Italian Ministry of the Environment. The MPA covers a total area of about 1500 ha with a coastline of about 40 km (Franzese et al., 2008). These three MPAs were chosen in this study as a benchmark for assessing natural capital value at the scale of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. 2.2. Habitat mapping and data collection At the scale of the Gulf of Naples, the area and the distribution of the benthic habitats were assessed based on a detailed bionomic map published in Appolloni et al. (2018a) (Fig. 1). In addition, the areas of the benthic habitats were also compared to those calculated by using the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) Seabed Habitats map (Table 1). At the scale of Campania region, the benthic habitats within the Italian territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the coastline) were assessed based on the EMODnet Seabed Habitats map (Fig. 2), not being available a more detailed bionomic map for the regional scale. The benthic habitats were clustered into four macro-habitats: Photophilic Hard Bottoms (PHB), Sciaphilic Hard Bottom (SHB), Soft Bottom (SB) and Posidonia oceanica beds (HP). Table 1 shows the area of the four macro-habitats calculated for the two scales of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region according to Appolloni et al. (2018a) and EMODnet. The values of natural capital for the investigated macro-habitats in the three MPAs included in Campania Region (SMC, CIM, and PC) were assessed through a biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model based on the emergy accounting method (Vassallo et al., 2017; Buonocore et al., 2019). Being the marine habitats and main environmental driving forces of these MPAs very similar, their natural capital values were averaged and used in this study to estimate the value of natural capital stocks at the scale of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. 2.3. The environmental accounting model The emergy accounting method aims at evaluating the environmental performance of a system on the global scale of the biosphere, 2
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
Fig. 1. Distribution of benthic macro-habitats in the Gulf of Naples, Southern Italy.
and their main habitats; 2 Modelling of the MPAs by means of a system diagram drawn according to a standardized energy systems language (Odum, 1996); 3 Biomass inventory of the main taxonomic groups identified in the habitats of the MPAs; 4 Trophodynamic analysis, providing an estimate of the primary productivity used to support the benthic trophic chain within the study areas; 5 Calculation of the main matter and energy flows supporting the generation of natural capital in the different habitats of the MPAs, and conversion of these flows into solar emergy units (Odum, 1996).
Table 1 Area of benthic macro-habitats included in the Gulf of Naples and in Campania Region calculated according to Appolloni et al. (2018a) and EMODnet. Area (km2)
SHB
PHB
SB
PSB
Gulf of Naples (Appolloni et al., 2018a) Gulf of Naples (EMODnet) Campania Region (EMODnet)
61.95 32.51 81.33
9.58 5.05 14.01
1562.88 1510.2 12535.3
61.89 65.29 175.22
taking into account free environmental inputs (e.g., solar radiation, wind, rain, and geothermal flow), human-driven material and energy flows, and the indirect environmental support embodied in human labor and services (Brown and Ulgiati, 2004; Brown et al., 2016a, b; Franzese et al., 2009, 2014, 2019). According to the emergy accounting method, inputs are accounted for in terms of their solar emergy, defined as the total amount of solar available energy (exergy) directly or indirectly required to make a given product or support a given flow, and measured in sej (solar emergy joules). The solar emergy required to generate one unit of product or service is referred to as Unit Emergy Value (UEV, sej J−1, sej g−1). Mass, energy, labor, and money inputs to the investigated system are converted into emergy units by using appropriate UEVs, and then summed to calculate the total emergy support. A detailed description of the emergy accounting method can be found in Odum (1988, 1996). The emergy accounting method was used to implement an environmental accounting model based on a biophysical and trophodynamic perspective (Vassallo et al., 2017). This model aimed at calculating the value of natural capital stocks for different habitats was implemented through the following steps:
A detailed explanation on the application of these five steps to SMC, CIM, and PC MPAs can be found in Vassallo et al. (2017). Biomass raw data used in the model were collected through ad hoc sampling campaigns performed on macro-benthic communities and necto-benthic fishes for each macro-habitat in the investigated MPAs (Buonocore et al., 2019). All identified species were clustered in main taxonomic groups. The matrixes of the biomass density calculated for all the main taxonomic groups in the three MPAs were the basis for assessing natural capital value using the emergy accounting method. In addition, to complement the biophysical assessment with an economic perspective, the biophysical values of natural capital were converted into equivalent monetary values by using the Emergy to Money Ratio indicator (Lou and Ulgiati, 2013; Tian et al., 2017). 3. Results Table 2 summarizes the biophysical value per unit area of natural capital stocks calculated for the three MPAs located along the coastline of Campania Region. The average value of the SHB habitat was higher compared to the other habitats. The average value of natural capital
1 Identification of the spatial and temporal boundaries of the MPAs
3
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
Fig. 2. Distribution of benthic macro-habitats in Campania Region, Southern Italy. Table 2 Value of natural capital stocks of the three MPAs located in Campania Region. Biophysical value (sej m−2)
SHB
PHB
SB
PSB
SMC CIM PC Average value (sej m−2) Average value (€ m−2)
2.06E+12 7.22E+11 4.94E+12 2.57E+12 3.60
1.54E+12 1.00E+12 2.22E+12 1.59E+12 2.22
1.97E+11 2.31E+11 2.18E+11 2.15E+11 0.30
7.92E+11 9.62E+11 1.10E+12 9.52E+11 1.33
Table 4 Economic value of marine natural capital in the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region.
stocks ranged from 2.15⋅1011 sej m−2 (for the SB habitat) to 2.57⋅1012 sej m−2 (for the SHB habitat), while the average economic value ranged from 0.30 € m−2 (for the SB habitat) to 3.60 € m−2 (for the SHB habitat). Table 3 shows the biophysical value of marine natural capital stocks calculated for the four macro-habitats in the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. The values calculated for the Gulf of Naples (based on the more detailed bionomic map published by Appolloni et al., 2018a) ranged from 1.52⋅1019 sej (for the PHB habitat) to 3.36⋅1020 sej (for the SB habitat). The total biophysical value related to the total area of the Gulf of Naples was 5.70⋅1020 sej (Table 3). The values of natural capital stocks calculated for the Gulf of Naples (based on the bionomic map derived from EMODnet) were lower for all the macro-habitats, except for the PSB habitat. The total biophysical
Economic value (M€)
SHB
PHB
SB
PSB
Total
Gulf of Naples (Appolloni et al., 2018a) Gulf of Naples (EMODnet) Campania Region (EMODnet)
222.74
21.25
469.62
82.31
795.92
116.89 292.43
11.20 31.08
453.79 3766.64
86.83 233.02
668.71 4323.16
value (4.79⋅1020 sej, Table 3) was 15% lower than the value calculated based on the detailed bionomic map of the Gulf of Naples. At regional scale, the biophysical value of marine natural capital stocks ranged from 2.23⋅1019 sej (for the PHB habitat) to 2.70⋅1021 sej (for the SB habitat). The total biophysical value related to the total area of the benthic habitats included in Campania Region was 3.10⋅1021 sej (Table 3). Table 4 shows the economic value of natural capital stocks. The value ranged from 21.25 M€ (for the PHB habitat) to 469.62 M€ (for the SB habitat) for the Gulf of Naples and from 31.08 M€ (for the PHB habitat) to 3766.64 M€ (for the SB habitat) for Campania Region. The total economic value of marine natural capital stocks in the Gulf of Naples and in Campania Region was 795.92 and 4323.16 M€ (Table 4).
Table 3 Biophysical value of marine natural capital stocks in the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. Biophysical value (sej)
SHB
PHB
SB
PSB
Total
Gulf of Naples (Appolloni et al., 2018a) Gulf of Naples (EMODnet) Campania Region (EMODnet)
1.59E+20 8.37E+19 2.09E+20
1.52E+19 8.02E+18 2.23E+19
3.36E+20 3.25E+20 2.70E+21
5.89E+19 6.22E+19 1.67E+20
5.70E+20 4.79E+20 3.10E+21
4
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
Fig. 3. Contribution of the four macro-habitats to the total value of marine natural capital in the Gulf of Naples (a) and Campania Region (b).
Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of marine natural capital value in the Gulf of Naples. (Darker red color represents areas with higher value of natural capital stocks).
4. Discussion
capital stocks was higher compared to the other investigated habitats for both the scales of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. In the case of the SB habitat, this is mainly due to the large area covered by this habitat in the Gulf of Naples (92%) and at regional scale (98%). Instead, in the case of the SHB, although it only represents about 4% and 1% of the total marine area of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region, its contribution to the total value of natural capital was 28% and 7% (Fig. 3). This outcome is due to the high value of natural input flows converging into the marine ecosystem for the generation of the SHB habitat. Considering that in the Gulf of Naples and at regional scale
Local and regional managers and policy makers play an important role in the achievement of local, regional, and global nature conservation targets. To this end, they need quantitative information and indicators to measure and monitor natural capital stocks and the services they provide to humans. In this study, the biophysical value of marine natural capital was assessed at the scale of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. The contribution of the SB and SHB habitats to the total value of natural 5
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of marine natural capital value in Campania Region. (Darker red color represents areas with higher value of natural capital stocks).
Gulf of Naples is not mapped into the EMODnet map. Moreover, some areas of high natural capital value (especially SHB) were not included or underestimated within the EMODnet map. Therefore, while large scale mapping is still useful when assessing the value of natural resources at larger scales (e.g., for the Mediterranean Basin), more detailed bionomic maps are important especially when performing local and regional scale studies aimed at providing more detailed information to local managers and policy makers in charge of ensuring the sustainable exploitation and effective management of marine resources.
only about 5% and 27% of the SHB is protected by MPAs, the outcomes of this study remark the importance of increasing proper measures and actions for its protection (Ferrigno et al., 2016, 2017; Casas-Güell et al., 2016). The conversion of the biophysical values of natural capital stocks into monetary units is useful to better convey nature’s value to local and regional managers and decision makers. These non-market monetary values of natural capital still reflect a donor-side perspective and should not be interpreted like market-based prices adopting a user-side economic perspective. It is noteworthy that the economic values calculated for the Gulf of Naples (795.92 M€, Table 4) and Campania Region (4323.16 M€, Table 4) are referred to the stocks of natural resources and do not include the value of the flows of ecosystem services that are generated by the investigated marine ecosystems. Moreover, it should be remarked that these results were calculated based on values assessed within MPAs located in Campania Region. This may lead to an overestimation of natural capital value since MPAs are designed to concentrate biodiversity, improving species abundance and density. The values of natural capital stocks calculated per unit area for the four investigated macro-habitats were also combined with the bionomic map of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region to show the spatial distribution of natural capital value in relation to the presence of different benthic habitats (Figs. 4 and 5). These maps, useful to visualize and identify areas with higher values of natural capital, can support management schemes aimed at addressing the trade-off between multiple human uses of the marine environment and conservation goals. In addition, in the case of the Gulf of Naples, the value of natural capital stocks calculated based on the EMODnet bionomic map was 15% lower than the value calculated based on the detailed bionomic map published in Appolloni et al. (2018a). This is due to two main reasons. Firstly, a large area of benthic habitats along the coast of the
5. Conclusions In this study, we assessed the biophysical and economic value of marine natural capital stocks in the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region (Southern Italy). The SHB habitat showed a high value of natural capital at both the spatial scales of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. This outcome highlights the importance of preserving this habitat through a network of marine protected areas and their effective management. The value of natural capital stocks, together with the maps showing their spatial distribution at different scales, can support local managers and policy makers in charge for implementing nature conservation strategies aimed at ensuring the sustainable use of marine resources. A future development of this study could aim at assessing the biophysical and economic value of the ecosystem services generated by the investigated natural capital stocks. Moreover, the outcomes of this study can also represent a benchmark for future studies aimed at assessing the value of natural capital in coastal and marine ecosystems at different spatial scales (e.g., the national scale of the Italian coastline).
6
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
Hattam, C., Atkins, J.P., Beaumont, N., Börger, T., Böhnke-henrichs, A., Burdon, D., et al., 2015. Marine ecosystem services: linking indicators to their classification. Ecol. Indic. 49, 61–75. Häyhä, T., Franzese, P.P., 2014. Ecosystem services assessment: a review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective. Ecol. Modell. 289, 124–132. Häyhä, T., Franzese, P.P., Paletto, A., Fath, B.D., 2015. Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests. Ecosystem Services14 12–23. Hoffmann, S., Beierkuhnlein, C., Field, R., Provenzale, A., Chiarucci, A., 2018. Uniqueness of protected areas for conservation strategies in the european union. Sci. Rep. 8, 6445. Hooper, T., Börger, T., Langmead, O., Marcone, O., Rees, S.E., Rendon, O., Beaumont, N., Attrill, M.J., Austen, M., 2019. Applying the natural capital approach to decision making for the marine Environment. Ecosyst. Serv. 38, 100947. ISTAT, 2019. Italian National Institute of Statistics. (Accessed November 2019). http:// www.istat.it. Lou, B., Ulgiati, S., 2013. Identifying the environmental support and constraints to the Chinese economic growth - an application of the Emergy Accounting method. Energy Policy 55, 217–233. Mancini, M.S., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Wackernagel, M., Bastianoni, S., Marchettini, N., 2017. Stocks and flows of natural capital: implications for Ecological Footprint. Ecol. Indic. 77, 123–128. Mellino, S., Buonocore, E., Ulgiati, S., 2015. The worth of land use: a GIS-emergy evaluation of natural and human-made capital. Sci. Total Environ. 506-507, 137–148. Neugarten, R.A., Langhammer, P.F., Osipova, E., Bagstad, K.J., Bhagabati, N., Butchart, S.H.M., Dudley, N., Elliott, V., Gerber, L.R., Gutierrez Arrellano, C., Ivanić, K.-Z., Kettunen, M., Mandle, L., Merriman, J.C., Mulligan, M., Peh, K.S.-H., RaudseppHearne, C., Semmens, D.J., Stolton, S., Willcock, S., 2018. Tools for Measuring, Modelling, and Valuing Ecosystem Services: Guidance for Key Biodiversity Areas, Natural World Heritage Sites, and Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN 70pp. Nikodinoska, N., Paletto, A., Pastorella, F., Granvik, M., Franzese, P.P., 2018. Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: the case of Uppsala (Sweden). Ecol. Modell. 368 (411-), 424. Norton, L.R., Smart, S.M., Maskell, L.C., Henrys, P.A., Wood, C.M., Keith, A.M., et al., 2018. Identifying effective approaches for monitoring national natural capital for policy use. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, 98–106. Odum, H.T., 1988. Self organization, transformity and information. Science 242, 1132–1139. Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley and Sons, New York 369 pp. Paoli, C., Povero, P., Burgos, E., Dapueto, G., Fanciulli, G., Massa, F., et al., 2018. Natural capital and environmental flows assessment in marine protected areas: the case study of Liguria region (NW Mediterranean Sea). Ecol. Modell. 368, 121–135. Pauna, V.H., Picone, F., Le Guyader, G., Buonocore, E., Franzese, P.P., 2018. The scientific research on ecosystem services: a bibliometric analysis. Ecol. Quest. 29 (3), 53–62. Pauna, V.H., Buonocore, E., Renzi, M., Russo, G.F., Franzese, P.P., 2019. The issue of microplastics in marine ecosystems: a bibliometric network analysis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 149, 110612. Picone, F., Buonocore, E., D’Agostaro, R., Donati, S., Chemello, R., Franzese, P.P., 2017. Integrating natural capital assessment and marine spatial planning: a case study in the Mediterranean sea. Ecol. Modell. 361, 1–13. Pulselli, F.M., Coscieme, L., Bastianoni, S., 2011. Ecosystem services as a counterpart of emergy flows to ecosystems. Ecol. Modell. 222 (16), 2924–2928. Quaas, M., Baumgärtner, S., De Lara, M., 2019. Insurance value of natural capital. Ecol. Econ. 165, 106388. Rasheed, A.R., 2020. Marine protected areas and human well-being – a systematic review and Recommendations. Ecosyst. Serv. 41, 101048. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers. Tian, X., Geng, Y., Viglia, S., Bleischwitz, R., Buonocore, E., Ulgiati, S., 2017. Regional disparities in the Chinese economy. An emergy evaluation of provincial international trade. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 126, 1–11. Townsend, M., Davies, K., Hanley, N., Hewitt, J.E., Lundquist, C.J., Lohrer, A.M., et al., 2018. The challenge of implementing the marine ecosystem service concept. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 359. Ulgiati, S., Zucaro, A., Franzese, P.P., 2011. Shared wealth or nobody’s land? The worth of natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 70 (4), 778–787. UN, EU, FAO, IMF, OECD, World Bank, 2014. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting. Central Framework, New York, USA. UNEP, 2006. Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Human Well-being: a Synthesis Report Based on the Findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP 76pp. UNEP-WCMC, 2019. Protected Area Profile for Italy From the World Database of Protected Areas, November 2019. Available at:. www.protectedplanet.net. Vassallo, P., Paoli, C., Buonocore, E., Franzese, P.P., Russo, G.F., Povero, P., 2017. Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: a biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model. Ecol. Modell. 355, 12–17. Vihervaara, P., Franzese, P.P., Buonocore, E., 2019. Information, energy, and eco-exergy as indicators of ecosystem complexity. Ecol. Modell. 395, 23–27.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. References Appolloni, L., Sandulli, R., Russo, G.F., 2018a. A new approach to assess marine opportunity costs and monetary values-in-use for spatial planning and conservation; the case of Gulf of Naples, Mediterranean Sea, Italy. Ocean Coast. Manag. 152, 135–144. Appolloni, L., Sandulli, R., Vetrano, G., Russo, G.F., 2018b. Assessing the effects of habitat patches ensuring propagule supply and different costs inclusion in marine spatial planning through multivariate analyses. J. Environ. Manage. 214, 45–55. Appolloni, L., Sandulli, R., Bianchi, C.N., Russo, G.F., 2018c. Spatial analyses of an integrated landscape-seascape territorial system: the case of the Overcrowded Gulf of Naples, Southern Italy. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 64, 365–380. Ban, N.C., Gurney, G.G., Marshall, N.A., Whitney, C.K., Mills, M., Gelcich, S., Bennett, N.J., Meehan, M.C., Butler, C., Ban, S., Tran, T.C., Cox, M.E., Breslow, S.J., 2019. Well-being outcomes of marine protected areas. Nat. Sustain. 2, 524–532. Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2004. Emergy analysis and environmental accounting. In: Cleveland, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy. Academic Press, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 329–354. Brown, M.T., Campbell, D.E., De Vilbiss, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016a. The geobiosphere emergy baseline: a synthesis. Ecol. Modell. 339, 92–95. Brown, M.T., Campbell, D.E., Ulgiati, S., Franzese, P.P., 2016b. The geobiosphere emergy baseline: a synthesis. Ecol. Modell. 339, 89–91. Buonocore, E., Picone, F., Russo, G.F., Franzese, P.P., 2018. The scientific research on natural capital: a bibliometric network analysis. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 6 (4), 374–384. Buonocore, E., Picone, F., Donnarumma, L., Russo, G.F., Franzese, P.P., 2019. Modeling matter and energy flows in marine ecosystems using emergy and eco-exergy methods to account for natural capital value. Ecol. Modell. 392, 137–146. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., et al., 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67. Casas-Güell, E., Cebrian, E., Garrabou, J., Ledoux, J.B., Linares, C., Teixidó, N., 2016. Structure and biodiversity of coralligenous assemblages dominated by the precious red coral Corallium rubrum over broad spatial scales. Sci. Rep. 6 (1), 1–11. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., et al., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A 26, 152–158. Donnarumma, L., Sandulli, R., Appolloni, L., Di Stefano, F., Russo, G.F., 2018. Morphostructural and ecological features of a shallow vermetid bioconstruction in the Tyrrhenian Sea (Mediterranean Sea, Italy). J. Sea Res. 131, 61–68. Ferrigno, F., Bianchi, C.N., Lasagna, R., Morri, C., Russo, G.F., Sandulli, R., 2016. Corals in high diversity reefs resist human impact. Ecol. Indic. 70, 106–113. Ferrigno, F., Russo, G.F., Sandulli, R., 2017. Coralligenous Bioconstructions Quality Index (CBQI): a synthetic indicator to assess the status of different types of coralligenous habitats. Ecol. Indic. 82, 271–279. Franzese, P.P., Russo, G.F., Ulgiati, S., 2008. Modelling the interplay of environment, economy and resources in Marine Protected Areas. A case study in Southern Italy. Ecolo. Questions 10, 91–97. Franzese, P.P., Rydberg, T., Russo, G.F., Ulgiati, S., 2009. Sustainable biomass production: a comparison between gross energy requirement and emergy synthesis methods. Ecol. Indic. 9 (5), 959–970. Franzese, P.P., Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2014. Environmental accounting: emergy, systems ecology, and ecological modelling. Ecol. Modell. 271, 1–3. Franzese, P.P., Buonocore, E., Paoli, C., Massa, F., Stefano, D., Fanciulli, G., et al., 2015. Environmental accounting in marine protected areas: the EAMPA project. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 3 (4), 324–332. Franzese, P.P., Buonocore, E., Donnarumma, L., Russo, G.F., 2017. Natural capital accounting in marine protected areas: the case of the Islands of Ventotene and S. Stefano (Central Italy). Ecol. Modell. 360, 290–299. Franzese, P.P., Liu, G., Aricò, S., 2019. Environmental accounting models and nature conservation strategies. Ecol. Modell. 397, 36–38. Guidetti, P., Milazzo, M., Bussotti, S., Molinari, A., Murenu, M., Pais, A., et al., 2008. Italian marine reserve effectiveness: Does enforcement matter? Biol. Conserv. 141 (3), 699–709. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D., Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis, BES Ecological Reviews Series. CUP, Cambridge. Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., D’Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., et al., 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319 (5865), 948–952.
7
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Modelling journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel
Assessing natural capital value in marine ecosystems through an environmental accounting model: A case study in Southern Italy
T
Elvira Buonocorea,b, Luca Appollonia,b, Giovanni F. Russoa,b, Pier Paolo Franzesea,b,* a Laboratory of Ecodynamics and Sustainable Development, Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, Centro Direzionale - Isola C4, (80143) Naples, Italy b CoNISMa, Piazzale Flaminio 9, 00197 Rome, Italy
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Natural resources Marine habitats Environmental accounting Emergy
Coastal and marine natural capital stocks provide a bundle of ecosystem services vital to humans. The delivery of these benefits depends on the protection and sustainable management of natural capital through effective nature conservation strategies. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are recognized worldwide as important tools to protect biodiversity while ensuring the delivery of ecosystem services and promoting sustainable human activities. Following the results of a national project aimed at assessing the value of natural capital in the Italian MPAs, in this study we assessed the value of marine natural capital stocks in the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region (Southern Italy) based on a biophysical and trophodynamic accounting model. The assessment focused on four macro-habitats: sciaphilic hard bottom (SHB), photophilic hard bottom (PHB), soft bottom (SB), and Posidonia oceanica seagrass bed (PSB). The total biophysical value of natural capital stocks related to the total area of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region was 5.70⋅1020 sej and 3.10⋅1021 sej, while the total economic value was 795.92 and 4323.16 M€. Although the SHB habitat only represents about 4% and 1% of the total marine area of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region, it contributes by 28% and 7% to the total value of natural capital. These figures reflect the high convergence of natural input flows into the marine ecosystem for the generation of the SHB habitat, highlighting the importance of proper measures and actions for its protection. In addition, the calculated values of natural capital stocks were combined with the bionomic map of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region to show the spatial distribution of natural capital value. The outcomes of this study can support local managers and policy makers in charge for implementing nature conservation strategies aimed at ensuring the sustainable use of marine resources.
1. Introduction Marine and coastal ecosystems are recognized as among the most productive ecosystems in the world (UNEP, 2006; Hattam et al., 2015). The interactions between biotic and abiotic components of marine ecosystems generate ecosystem functions and a bundle of ecosystem services vital for human well-being (Häyhä and Franzese, 2014; Pauna et al., 2018; Townsend et al., 2018). The delivery of benefits to humans depends on the protection of natural capital stocks through effective conservation actions (Guidetti et al., 2008; Hoffmann et al., 2018). In the last decades, the awareness on the importance of biodiversity for natural ecosystems and human economy has considerably increased. In fact, biodiversity loss influences ecosystem functions in turn altering the capability of natural ecosystems to deliver goods and services (Cardinale et al., 2012; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010; Vihervaara
et al., 2019). Marine ecosystems are heavily exploited by human activities, removing, altering or destroying natural habitats. The anthropogenic pressures on marine ecosystems cause biodiversity loss and, as a consequence, can seriously affect the capability of marine natural capital stocks to provide benefits to humans (Halpern et al., 2008; Pauna et al., 2019). To protect and effectively manage natural resources at local, regional, and national scales, decision makers require quantitative data on the value of natural capital stocks which, in turn, support the delivery of ecosystem services flows (Norton et al., 2018). In the last decades, there has been an increasing interest towards the need for tools capable of assessing the value of natural capital stocks to convey their importance to local managers and policy makers (Buonocore et al., 2018; Hooper et al., 2019; Neugarten et al., 2018;
⁎ Corresponding author at: Laboratory of Ecodynamics and Sustainable Development, Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, Centro Direzionale - Isola C4, (80143) Naples, Italy. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (P.P. Franzese).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.108958 Received 12 December 2019; Received in revised form 15 January 2020; Accepted 17 January 2020 0304-3800/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
2. Materials and methods
TEEB, 2010). Several authors estimated the value of natural capital and related services in different marine and terrestrial ecosystems by using economic evaluation methods (Costanza et al., 1997, 2014; Häyhä et al., 2015; Nikodinoska et al., 2018; Quaas et al., 2019; UN et al., 2014). Other authors focused on biophysical accounting methods to assess the value of natural capital and ecosystem services, providing a complementary perspective to the economic assessment of natural resources (Buonocore et al., 2019; Mancini et al., 2017; Mellino et al., 2015; Pulselli et al., 2011; Ulgiati et al., 2011; Vassallo et al., 2017). The assessment of the biophysical and economic value of natural capital is particularly useful in those contexts where a protection regime is established in support of conservation strategies. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are recognized across multiple international policy processes - including the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - as important tools for protecting biodiversity while contributing to human well-being and sustainable development (Ban et al., 2019; Rasheed, 2020). When effective management measures are in place, MPAs are capable of meeting the multitude of objectives they are designed for, supporting the achievement of sustainability goals at local, regional, and global scale. Italy is one of the Mediterranean country with the highest concentration of MPAs. The Italian network of MPAs includes 29 sites protecting about 47,000 km2 and covering about 9% of the total national marine surface (UNEP-WCMC, 2019). Following the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 guidelines, the Italian Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea has launched a research programme entitled “Environmental Accounting in Italian Marine Protected Areas” aimed at the implementation of an environmental accounting system for all the Italian MPAs. The purpose of the project was to carry out a biophysical and economic assessment of natural capital stocks and ecosystem services flows (Franzese et al., 2015). In the context of this project, a biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model was developed and applied to assess the value of natural capital stocks in selected MPAs (Vassallo et al., 2017). In particular, Franzese et al. (2017) used this environmental accounting model to assess the biophysical and economic value of autotrophic and heterotrophic natural capital stocks in the MPA “The Islands of Ventotene and S. Stefano” (Central Italy). Picone et al. (2017) assessed the biophysical value of natural capital stocks in the Egadi Islands MPA, integrating environmental accounting with spatial data on main human uses to account for the trade-offs between conservation measures and human activities. Paoli et al. (2018) estimated the value of natural capital stocks in terms of natural resources invested for their generation and maintenance in two MPAs located in Liguria Region (Northern Italy). Buonocore et al. (2019) integrated the emergy and eco-exergy methods to account for the value of natural capital stocks in two MPAs located in Campania Region (Southern Italy), highlighting that such integration resulted in a useful approach to measure different nature values based on a biophysical perspective. In this study, we assessed the value of marine natural capital stocks in the Gulf of Naples and at the larger scale of Campania Region (Southern Italy) based on a biophysical and trophodynamic accounting model. The assessment focused on four main habitats: sciaphilic hard bottom (coralligenous bioconstruction), photophilic hard bottom, soft bottom, and Posidonia oceanica seagrass bed. In addition, the biophysical values of natural capital stocks were also expressed into monetary units, to complement the biophysical assessment with an economic perspective.
2.1. Area of study Campania Region is located in Southern Italy. The region hosts a population of about 5,800,000 inhabitants on a total area of 13,671 km2 making it the second most densely populated Region of Italy (ISTAT, 2019). Its landscape and peculiar geomorphological features, the mild climate and the presence of a large number of historical and archaeological sites make Campania Region an important and well-known touristic destination. In addition, the Gulf of Naples, embracing 385 km of coastline with 25 municipalities, includes the port of Naples that represents an important commercial hub in the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, marine ecosystems are exposed to multiple anthropogenic pressures connected to maritime traffic and tourism activities (Appolloni et al., 2018a, b, Appolloni et al., 2018c). To preserve marine biodiversity while maintaining these important economic activities, several MPAs have been instituted along the coastline of Campania Region, among which Santa Maria di Castellabate (SMC), Costa deli Infreschi e della Masseta (CIM), and Punta Campanella (PC). “Santa Maria di Castellabate” and “Costa degli Infreschi e della Masseta” are two MPAs located along the coast of the National Park of “Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Alburni”. They were both established in 2009 by the Italian Ministry of the Environment. The two MPAs have an extension of 7095 and 2332 ha, with a coastline of 18 and 14 km, respectively (Buonocore et al., 2019; Donnarumma et al., 2018). “Punta Campanella” is a MPA located in the Sorrento Peninsula of the Gulf of Naples. It was established in 1997 by the Italian Ministry of the Environment. The MPA covers a total area of about 1500 ha with a coastline of about 40 km (Franzese et al., 2008). These three MPAs were chosen in this study as a benchmark for assessing natural capital value at the scale of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. 2.2. Habitat mapping and data collection At the scale of the Gulf of Naples, the area and the distribution of the benthic habitats were assessed based on a detailed bionomic map published in Appolloni et al. (2018a) (Fig. 1). In addition, the areas of the benthic habitats were also compared to those calculated by using the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) Seabed Habitats map (Table 1). At the scale of Campania region, the benthic habitats within the Italian territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the coastline) were assessed based on the EMODnet Seabed Habitats map (Fig. 2), not being available a more detailed bionomic map for the regional scale. The benthic habitats were clustered into four macro-habitats: Photophilic Hard Bottoms (PHB), Sciaphilic Hard Bottom (SHB), Soft Bottom (SB) and Posidonia oceanica beds (HP). Table 1 shows the area of the four macro-habitats calculated for the two scales of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region according to Appolloni et al. (2018a) and EMODnet. The values of natural capital for the investigated macro-habitats in the three MPAs included in Campania Region (SMC, CIM, and PC) were assessed through a biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model based on the emergy accounting method (Vassallo et al., 2017; Buonocore et al., 2019). Being the marine habitats and main environmental driving forces of these MPAs very similar, their natural capital values were averaged and used in this study to estimate the value of natural capital stocks at the scale of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. 2.3. The environmental accounting model The emergy accounting method aims at evaluating the environmental performance of a system on the global scale of the biosphere, 2
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
Fig. 1. Distribution of benthic macro-habitats in the Gulf of Naples, Southern Italy.
and their main habitats; 2 Modelling of the MPAs by means of a system diagram drawn according to a standardized energy systems language (Odum, 1996); 3 Biomass inventory of the main taxonomic groups identified in the habitats of the MPAs; 4 Trophodynamic analysis, providing an estimate of the primary productivity used to support the benthic trophic chain within the study areas; 5 Calculation of the main matter and energy flows supporting the generation of natural capital in the different habitats of the MPAs, and conversion of these flows into solar emergy units (Odum, 1996).
Table 1 Area of benthic macro-habitats included in the Gulf of Naples and in Campania Region calculated according to Appolloni et al. (2018a) and EMODnet. Area (km2)
SHB
PHB
SB
PSB
Gulf of Naples (Appolloni et al., 2018a) Gulf of Naples (EMODnet) Campania Region (EMODnet)
61.95 32.51 81.33
9.58 5.05 14.01
1562.88 1510.2 12535.3
61.89 65.29 175.22
taking into account free environmental inputs (e.g., solar radiation, wind, rain, and geothermal flow), human-driven material and energy flows, and the indirect environmental support embodied in human labor and services (Brown and Ulgiati, 2004; Brown et al., 2016a, b; Franzese et al., 2009, 2014, 2019). According to the emergy accounting method, inputs are accounted for in terms of their solar emergy, defined as the total amount of solar available energy (exergy) directly or indirectly required to make a given product or support a given flow, and measured in sej (solar emergy joules). The solar emergy required to generate one unit of product or service is referred to as Unit Emergy Value (UEV, sej J−1, sej g−1). Mass, energy, labor, and money inputs to the investigated system are converted into emergy units by using appropriate UEVs, and then summed to calculate the total emergy support. A detailed description of the emergy accounting method can be found in Odum (1988, 1996). The emergy accounting method was used to implement an environmental accounting model based on a biophysical and trophodynamic perspective (Vassallo et al., 2017). This model aimed at calculating the value of natural capital stocks for different habitats was implemented through the following steps:
A detailed explanation on the application of these five steps to SMC, CIM, and PC MPAs can be found in Vassallo et al. (2017). Biomass raw data used in the model were collected through ad hoc sampling campaigns performed on macro-benthic communities and necto-benthic fishes for each macro-habitat in the investigated MPAs (Buonocore et al., 2019). All identified species were clustered in main taxonomic groups. The matrixes of the biomass density calculated for all the main taxonomic groups in the three MPAs were the basis for assessing natural capital value using the emergy accounting method. In addition, to complement the biophysical assessment with an economic perspective, the biophysical values of natural capital were converted into equivalent monetary values by using the Emergy to Money Ratio indicator (Lou and Ulgiati, 2013; Tian et al., 2017). 3. Results Table 2 summarizes the biophysical value per unit area of natural capital stocks calculated for the three MPAs located along the coastline of Campania Region. The average value of the SHB habitat was higher compared to the other habitats. The average value of natural capital
1 Identification of the spatial and temporal boundaries of the MPAs
3
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
Fig. 2. Distribution of benthic macro-habitats in Campania Region, Southern Italy. Table 2 Value of natural capital stocks of the three MPAs located in Campania Region. Biophysical value (sej m−2)
SHB
PHB
SB
PSB
SMC CIM PC Average value (sej m−2) Average value (€ m−2)
2.06E+12 7.22E+11 4.94E+12 2.57E+12 3.60
1.54E+12 1.00E+12 2.22E+12 1.59E+12 2.22
1.97E+11 2.31E+11 2.18E+11 2.15E+11 0.30
7.92E+11 9.62E+11 1.10E+12 9.52E+11 1.33
Table 4 Economic value of marine natural capital in the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region.
stocks ranged from 2.15⋅1011 sej m−2 (for the SB habitat) to 2.57⋅1012 sej m−2 (for the SHB habitat), while the average economic value ranged from 0.30 € m−2 (for the SB habitat) to 3.60 € m−2 (for the SHB habitat). Table 3 shows the biophysical value of marine natural capital stocks calculated for the four macro-habitats in the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. The values calculated for the Gulf of Naples (based on the more detailed bionomic map published by Appolloni et al., 2018a) ranged from 1.52⋅1019 sej (for the PHB habitat) to 3.36⋅1020 sej (for the SB habitat). The total biophysical value related to the total area of the Gulf of Naples was 5.70⋅1020 sej (Table 3). The values of natural capital stocks calculated for the Gulf of Naples (based on the bionomic map derived from EMODnet) were lower for all the macro-habitats, except for the PSB habitat. The total biophysical
Economic value (M€)
SHB
PHB
SB
PSB
Total
Gulf of Naples (Appolloni et al., 2018a) Gulf of Naples (EMODnet) Campania Region (EMODnet)
222.74
21.25
469.62
82.31
795.92
116.89 292.43
11.20 31.08
453.79 3766.64
86.83 233.02
668.71 4323.16
value (4.79⋅1020 sej, Table 3) was 15% lower than the value calculated based on the detailed bionomic map of the Gulf of Naples. At regional scale, the biophysical value of marine natural capital stocks ranged from 2.23⋅1019 sej (for the PHB habitat) to 2.70⋅1021 sej (for the SB habitat). The total biophysical value related to the total area of the benthic habitats included in Campania Region was 3.10⋅1021 sej (Table 3). Table 4 shows the economic value of natural capital stocks. The value ranged from 21.25 M€ (for the PHB habitat) to 469.62 M€ (for the SB habitat) for the Gulf of Naples and from 31.08 M€ (for the PHB habitat) to 3766.64 M€ (for the SB habitat) for Campania Region. The total economic value of marine natural capital stocks in the Gulf of Naples and in Campania Region was 795.92 and 4323.16 M€ (Table 4).
Table 3 Biophysical value of marine natural capital stocks in the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. Biophysical value (sej)
SHB
PHB
SB
PSB
Total
Gulf of Naples (Appolloni et al., 2018a) Gulf of Naples (EMODnet) Campania Region (EMODnet)
1.59E+20 8.37E+19 2.09E+20
1.52E+19 8.02E+18 2.23E+19
3.36E+20 3.25E+20 2.70E+21
5.89E+19 6.22E+19 1.67E+20
5.70E+20 4.79E+20 3.10E+21
4
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
Fig. 3. Contribution of the four macro-habitats to the total value of marine natural capital in the Gulf of Naples (a) and Campania Region (b).
Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of marine natural capital value in the Gulf of Naples. (Darker red color represents areas with higher value of natural capital stocks).
4. Discussion
capital stocks was higher compared to the other investigated habitats for both the scales of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. In the case of the SB habitat, this is mainly due to the large area covered by this habitat in the Gulf of Naples (92%) and at regional scale (98%). Instead, in the case of the SHB, although it only represents about 4% and 1% of the total marine area of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region, its contribution to the total value of natural capital was 28% and 7% (Fig. 3). This outcome is due to the high value of natural input flows converging into the marine ecosystem for the generation of the SHB habitat. Considering that in the Gulf of Naples and at regional scale
Local and regional managers and policy makers play an important role in the achievement of local, regional, and global nature conservation targets. To this end, they need quantitative information and indicators to measure and monitor natural capital stocks and the services they provide to humans. In this study, the biophysical value of marine natural capital was assessed at the scale of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. The contribution of the SB and SHB habitats to the total value of natural 5
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of marine natural capital value in Campania Region. (Darker red color represents areas with higher value of natural capital stocks).
Gulf of Naples is not mapped into the EMODnet map. Moreover, some areas of high natural capital value (especially SHB) were not included or underestimated within the EMODnet map. Therefore, while large scale mapping is still useful when assessing the value of natural resources at larger scales (e.g., for the Mediterranean Basin), more detailed bionomic maps are important especially when performing local and regional scale studies aimed at providing more detailed information to local managers and policy makers in charge of ensuring the sustainable exploitation and effective management of marine resources.
only about 5% and 27% of the SHB is protected by MPAs, the outcomes of this study remark the importance of increasing proper measures and actions for its protection (Ferrigno et al., 2016, 2017; Casas-Güell et al., 2016). The conversion of the biophysical values of natural capital stocks into monetary units is useful to better convey nature’s value to local and regional managers and decision makers. These non-market monetary values of natural capital still reflect a donor-side perspective and should not be interpreted like market-based prices adopting a user-side economic perspective. It is noteworthy that the economic values calculated for the Gulf of Naples (795.92 M€, Table 4) and Campania Region (4323.16 M€, Table 4) are referred to the stocks of natural resources and do not include the value of the flows of ecosystem services that are generated by the investigated marine ecosystems. Moreover, it should be remarked that these results were calculated based on values assessed within MPAs located in Campania Region. This may lead to an overestimation of natural capital value since MPAs are designed to concentrate biodiversity, improving species abundance and density. The values of natural capital stocks calculated per unit area for the four investigated macro-habitats were also combined with the bionomic map of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region to show the spatial distribution of natural capital value in relation to the presence of different benthic habitats (Figs. 4 and 5). These maps, useful to visualize and identify areas with higher values of natural capital, can support management schemes aimed at addressing the trade-off between multiple human uses of the marine environment and conservation goals. In addition, in the case of the Gulf of Naples, the value of natural capital stocks calculated based on the EMODnet bionomic map was 15% lower than the value calculated based on the detailed bionomic map published in Appolloni et al. (2018a). This is due to two main reasons. Firstly, a large area of benthic habitats along the coast of the
5. Conclusions In this study, we assessed the biophysical and economic value of marine natural capital stocks in the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region (Southern Italy). The SHB habitat showed a high value of natural capital at both the spatial scales of the Gulf of Naples and Campania Region. This outcome highlights the importance of preserving this habitat through a network of marine protected areas and their effective management. The value of natural capital stocks, together with the maps showing their spatial distribution at different scales, can support local managers and policy makers in charge for implementing nature conservation strategies aimed at ensuring the sustainable use of marine resources. A future development of this study could aim at assessing the biophysical and economic value of the ecosystem services generated by the investigated natural capital stocks. Moreover, the outcomes of this study can also represent a benchmark for future studies aimed at assessing the value of natural capital in coastal and marine ecosystems at different spatial scales (e.g., the national scale of the Italian coastline).
6
Ecological Modelling 419 (2020) 108958
E. Buonocore, et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
Hattam, C., Atkins, J.P., Beaumont, N., Börger, T., Böhnke-henrichs, A., Burdon, D., et al., 2015. Marine ecosystem services: linking indicators to their classification. Ecol. Indic. 49, 61–75. Häyhä, T., Franzese, P.P., 2014. Ecosystem services assessment: a review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective. Ecol. Modell. 289, 124–132. Häyhä, T., Franzese, P.P., Paletto, A., Fath, B.D., 2015. Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests. Ecosystem Services14 12–23. Hoffmann, S., Beierkuhnlein, C., Field, R., Provenzale, A., Chiarucci, A., 2018. Uniqueness of protected areas for conservation strategies in the european union. Sci. Rep. 8, 6445. Hooper, T., Börger, T., Langmead, O., Marcone, O., Rees, S.E., Rendon, O., Beaumont, N., Attrill, M.J., Austen, M., 2019. Applying the natural capital approach to decision making for the marine Environment. Ecosyst. Serv. 38, 100947. ISTAT, 2019. Italian National Institute of Statistics. (Accessed November 2019). http:// www.istat.it. Lou, B., Ulgiati, S., 2013. Identifying the environmental support and constraints to the Chinese economic growth - an application of the Emergy Accounting method. Energy Policy 55, 217–233. Mancini, M.S., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Wackernagel, M., Bastianoni, S., Marchettini, N., 2017. Stocks and flows of natural capital: implications for Ecological Footprint. Ecol. Indic. 77, 123–128. Mellino, S., Buonocore, E., Ulgiati, S., 2015. The worth of land use: a GIS-emergy evaluation of natural and human-made capital. Sci. Total Environ. 506-507, 137–148. Neugarten, R.A., Langhammer, P.F., Osipova, E., Bagstad, K.J., Bhagabati, N., Butchart, S.H.M., Dudley, N., Elliott, V., Gerber, L.R., Gutierrez Arrellano, C., Ivanić, K.-Z., Kettunen, M., Mandle, L., Merriman, J.C., Mulligan, M., Peh, K.S.-H., RaudseppHearne, C., Semmens, D.J., Stolton, S., Willcock, S., 2018. Tools for Measuring, Modelling, and Valuing Ecosystem Services: Guidance for Key Biodiversity Areas, Natural World Heritage Sites, and Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN 70pp. Nikodinoska, N., Paletto, A., Pastorella, F., Granvik, M., Franzese, P.P., 2018. Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: the case of Uppsala (Sweden). Ecol. Modell. 368 (411-), 424. Norton, L.R., Smart, S.M., Maskell, L.C., Henrys, P.A., Wood, C.M., Keith, A.M., et al., 2018. Identifying effective approaches for monitoring national natural capital for policy use. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, 98–106. Odum, H.T., 1988. Self organization, transformity and information. Science 242, 1132–1139. Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley and Sons, New York 369 pp. Paoli, C., Povero, P., Burgos, E., Dapueto, G., Fanciulli, G., Massa, F., et al., 2018. Natural capital and environmental flows assessment in marine protected areas: the case study of Liguria region (NW Mediterranean Sea). Ecol. Modell. 368, 121–135. Pauna, V.H., Picone, F., Le Guyader, G., Buonocore, E., Franzese, P.P., 2018. The scientific research on ecosystem services: a bibliometric analysis. Ecol. Quest. 29 (3), 53–62. Pauna, V.H., Buonocore, E., Renzi, M., Russo, G.F., Franzese, P.P., 2019. The issue of microplastics in marine ecosystems: a bibliometric network analysis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 149, 110612. Picone, F., Buonocore, E., D’Agostaro, R., Donati, S., Chemello, R., Franzese, P.P., 2017. Integrating natural capital assessment and marine spatial planning: a case study in the Mediterranean sea. Ecol. Modell. 361, 1–13. Pulselli, F.M., Coscieme, L., Bastianoni, S., 2011. Ecosystem services as a counterpart of emergy flows to ecosystems. Ecol. Modell. 222 (16), 2924–2928. Quaas, M., Baumgärtner, S., De Lara, M., 2019. Insurance value of natural capital. Ecol. Econ. 165, 106388. Rasheed, A.R., 2020. Marine protected areas and human well-being – a systematic review and Recommendations. Ecosyst. Serv. 41, 101048. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers. Tian, X., Geng, Y., Viglia, S., Bleischwitz, R., Buonocore, E., Ulgiati, S., 2017. Regional disparities in the Chinese economy. An emergy evaluation of provincial international trade. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 126, 1–11. Townsend, M., Davies, K., Hanley, N., Hewitt, J.E., Lundquist, C.J., Lohrer, A.M., et al., 2018. The challenge of implementing the marine ecosystem service concept. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 359. Ulgiati, S., Zucaro, A., Franzese, P.P., 2011. Shared wealth or nobody’s land? The worth of natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 70 (4), 778–787. UN, EU, FAO, IMF, OECD, World Bank, 2014. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting. Central Framework, New York, USA. UNEP, 2006. Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Human Well-being: a Synthesis Report Based on the Findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP 76pp. UNEP-WCMC, 2019. Protected Area Profile for Italy From the World Database of Protected Areas, November 2019. Available at:. www.protectedplanet.net. Vassallo, P., Paoli, C., Buonocore, E., Franzese, P.P., Russo, G.F., Povero, P., 2017. Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: a biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model. Ecol. Modell. 355, 12–17. Vihervaara, P., Franzese, P.P., Buonocore, E., 2019. Information, energy, and eco-exergy as indicators of ecosystem complexity. Ecol. Modell. 395, 23–27.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. References Appolloni, L., Sandulli, R., Russo, G.F., 2018a. A new approach to assess marine opportunity costs and monetary values-in-use for spatial planning and conservation; the case of Gulf of Naples, Mediterranean Sea, Italy. Ocean Coast. Manag. 152, 135–144. Appolloni, L., Sandulli, R., Vetrano, G., Russo, G.F., 2018b. Assessing the effects of habitat patches ensuring propagule supply and different costs inclusion in marine spatial planning through multivariate analyses. J. Environ. Manage. 214, 45–55. Appolloni, L., Sandulli, R., Bianchi, C.N., Russo, G.F., 2018c. Spatial analyses of an integrated landscape-seascape territorial system: the case of the Overcrowded Gulf of Naples, Southern Italy. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 64, 365–380. Ban, N.C., Gurney, G.G., Marshall, N.A., Whitney, C.K., Mills, M., Gelcich, S., Bennett, N.J., Meehan, M.C., Butler, C., Ban, S., Tran, T.C., Cox, M.E., Breslow, S.J., 2019. Well-being outcomes of marine protected areas. Nat. Sustain. 2, 524–532. Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2004. Emergy analysis and environmental accounting. In: Cleveland, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy. Academic Press, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 329–354. Brown, M.T., Campbell, D.E., De Vilbiss, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016a. The geobiosphere emergy baseline: a synthesis. Ecol. Modell. 339, 92–95. Brown, M.T., Campbell, D.E., Ulgiati, S., Franzese, P.P., 2016b. The geobiosphere emergy baseline: a synthesis. Ecol. Modell. 339, 89–91. Buonocore, E., Picone, F., Russo, G.F., Franzese, P.P., 2018. The scientific research on natural capital: a bibliometric network analysis. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 6 (4), 374–384. Buonocore, E., Picone, F., Donnarumma, L., Russo, G.F., Franzese, P.P., 2019. Modeling matter and energy flows in marine ecosystems using emergy and eco-exergy methods to account for natural capital value. Ecol. Modell. 392, 137–146. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., et al., 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67. Casas-Güell, E., Cebrian, E., Garrabou, J., Ledoux, J.B., Linares, C., Teixidó, N., 2016. Structure and biodiversity of coralligenous assemblages dominated by the precious red coral Corallium rubrum over broad spatial scales. Sci. Rep. 6 (1), 1–11. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., et al., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A 26, 152–158. Donnarumma, L., Sandulli, R., Appolloni, L., Di Stefano, F., Russo, G.F., 2018. Morphostructural and ecological features of a shallow vermetid bioconstruction in the Tyrrhenian Sea (Mediterranean Sea, Italy). J. Sea Res. 131, 61–68. Ferrigno, F., Bianchi, C.N., Lasagna, R., Morri, C., Russo, G.F., Sandulli, R., 2016. Corals in high diversity reefs resist human impact. Ecol. Indic. 70, 106–113. Ferrigno, F., Russo, G.F., Sandulli, R., 2017. Coralligenous Bioconstructions Quality Index (CBQI): a synthetic indicator to assess the status of different types of coralligenous habitats. Ecol. Indic. 82, 271–279. Franzese, P.P., Russo, G.F., Ulgiati, S., 2008. Modelling the interplay of environment, economy and resources in Marine Protected Areas. A case study in Southern Italy. Ecolo. Questions 10, 91–97. Franzese, P.P., Rydberg, T., Russo, G.F., Ulgiati, S., 2009. Sustainable biomass production: a comparison between gross energy requirement and emergy synthesis methods. Ecol. Indic. 9 (5), 959–970. Franzese, P.P., Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2014. Environmental accounting: emergy, systems ecology, and ecological modelling. Ecol. Modell. 271, 1–3. Franzese, P.P., Buonocore, E., Paoli, C., Massa, F., Stefano, D., Fanciulli, G., et al., 2015. Environmental accounting in marine protected areas: the EAMPA project. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 3 (4), 324–332. Franzese, P.P., Buonocore, E., Donnarumma, L., Russo, G.F., 2017. Natural capital accounting in marine protected areas: the case of the Islands of Ventotene and S. Stefano (Central Italy). Ecol. Modell. 360, 290–299. Franzese, P.P., Liu, G., Aricò, S., 2019. Environmental accounting models and nature conservation strategies. Ecol. Modell. 397, 36–38. Guidetti, P., Milazzo, M., Bussotti, S., Molinari, A., Murenu, M., Pais, A., et al., 2008. Italian marine reserve effectiveness: Does enforcement matter? Biol. Conserv. 141 (3), 699–709. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D., Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis, BES Ecological Reviews Series. CUP, Cambridge. Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., D’Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., et al., 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319 (5865), 948–952.
7