IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v6y2014i11p7906-7920d42141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Evaluation Approaches in Landscape Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Saverio Miccoli

    (University of Rome La Sapienza, DIAP, P.zza Borghese 9, 00186 Rome, Italy)

  • Fabrizio Finucci

    (University of Roma Tre, Department of Architecture, Via della Madonna dei Monti 40, 00184 Rome, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Rocco Murro

    (University of Rome La Sapienza, DIAP, P.zza Borghese 9, 00186 Rome, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Landscape is a crucial component of world heritage and, in the last few years, landscape projects have played a vital role in the development of sustainable scenarios. As reported in the European Landscape Convention, landscape means an area, as perceived by people, of which the character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors. Therefore, in landscape planning and assessment, the community is necessarily involved. In order to improve the effectiveness of a project for landscape enhancement, this study suggests strategies for an integrated project, taking into account the numerous, heterogeneous variables involved. A landscape project, therefore, is a complex project that requires structured valuation stages, open to the community dimension. The qualitative, intergenerational, and inclusive characteristics of landscapes suggest that the limits of traditional economic analysis should be exceeded by adopting new assessment methods. With this aim in mind, this paper proposes social evaluation approaches, which operate by combining deliberative processes with total economic and multidimensional approaches. In this paper, we present: (1) a brief overview of the main features and issues concerning landscape projects; (2) strategies for integrated projects in landscape enhancement; and (3) social approaches in landscape assessment that account for complexity and social inclusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Saverio Miccoli & Fabrizio Finucci & Rocco Murro, 2014. "Social Evaluation Approaches in Landscape Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:11:p:7906-7920:d:42141
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/11/7906/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/11/7906/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    2. David S. Brookshire & Larry S. Eubanks & Alan Randall, 1983. "Estimating Option Prices and Existence Values for Wildlife Resources," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(1), pages 1-15.
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    4. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Javier Calatrava‐Requena, 2005. "Designing Policy for Reducing the Off‐farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 81-95, March.
    5. Blazy, Jean-Marc & Carpentier, Alain & Thomas, Alban, 2011. "The willingness to adopt agro-ecological innovations: Application of choice modelling to Caribbean banana planters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 140-150.
    6. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    7. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Dugald Tinch & Andrew Black & Ashar Aftab, 2006. "Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(3), pages 391-413, September.
    8. Morey, Edward & Thiene, Mara & De Salvo, Maria & Signorello, Giovanni, 2008. "Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 536-546, December.
    9. Eliane Gomes & Marcos Lins, 2002. "Integrating Geographical Information Systems and Multi-Criteria Methods: A Case Study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 116(1), pages 243-269, October.
    10. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(3), pages 321-344, September.
    11. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    12. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    13. Jose M.L. Santos, 1998. "The Economic Valuation of Landscape Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1469.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna Wojewnik-Filipkowska & Joanna Węgrzyn, 2019. "Understanding of Public–Private Partnership Stakeholders as a Condition of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Katia Talento & Miguel Amado & Josè Carlos Kullberg, 2019. "Landscape—A Review with a European Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-28, May.
    3. Saverio Miccoli & Fabrizio Finucci & Rocco Murro, 2015. "Measuring Shared Social Appreciation of Community Goods: An Experiment for the East Elevated Expressway of Rome," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-25, November.
    4. Seul-Ye Lim & Ho-Young Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2016. "Public Willingness to Pay for Transforming Jogyesa Buddhist Temple in Seoul, Korea into a Cultural Tourism Resource," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-13, September.
    5. Paola Gullino & Gabriele Loris Beccaro & Federica Larcher, 2015. "Assessing and Monitoring the Sustainability in Rural World Heritage Sites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-25, October.
    6. Erda Wang & Nannan Kang & Yang Yu, 2017. "Valuing Urban Landscape Using Subjective Well-Being Data: Empirical Evidence from Dalian, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Luisa Sturiale & Alessandro Scuderi, 2018. "The Evaluation of Green Investments in Urban Areas: A Proposal of an eco-social-green Model of the City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    2. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    3. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.
    4. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    5. Useche, Pilar & Blare, Trent, 2014. "The Sustainable Choice: How Gendered Difference in the Importance of Ecological Benefits Affect Production Decisions of Smallholder Cacao Producing Households in Ecuador," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 174285, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    7. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.
    8. de Ayala, Amaia & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2014. "Transferring landscape values using discrete choice experiments: Is meta-analysis an option?," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(01), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    11. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Ruto, Eric, 2009. "Modeling Farmers Prefences For Agrienvironmental Scheme Design: A Spanish Case Study," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Evidence-based Research in Environmental Choice Experiments," Working Papers 153335, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    13. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    14. Chanjin Chung & Tracy Boyer & Sungill Han, 2009. "Valuing Quality Attributes and Country of Origin in the Korean Beef Market," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 682-698, September.
    15. Blackman, Allen & Dissanayake, Sahan & Martinez Cruz, Adan & Corral, Leonardo & Schling, Maja, 2022. "Benefits of Titling Indigenous Communities in the Peruvian Amazon: A Stated Preference Approach," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12633, Inter-American Development Bank.
    16. Lucia Rocchi & Anastasija Novikova & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2022. "Assessing Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Landscape Attributes in Lithuania," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    18. Ridier, Aude & Roussy, Caroline & Chaib, Karim, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(1), April.
    19. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    20. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:11:p:7906-7920:d:42141. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.