IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aiea16/242326.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

First economic assessment of ecosystem services from Natura 2000 network in Lombardy (Northern Italy)

Author

Listed:
  • Pettenella, Davide
  • Thiene, Mara
  • Scarpa, Riccardo
  • Masiero, Mauro
  • Mattea, Stefania
  • Franceschinis, Cristiano

Abstract

Natura 2000 network is a cornerstone for biodiversity conservation and the implementation of the European Union Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Despite this, the great potential of the ecosystem service (ES) concept to add value to current conservation approaches remains insufficiently explored and there is a lack of quantitative and monetary data for the potential socio-economic benefits associated to the network. Information gaps on the economic value of ES provided by Natura 2000 are relevant in the case of Italy and, in particular, Lombardy, the Italian region hosting the highest number of Natura 2000 sites (242). The study considers the main potential ES delivered by the Natura 2000 network in Lombardy and performs a choice experiment exercise on two pilot areas (Adamello and Ticino Regional Parks) involving about 3,000 resident panellists at regional scale. Value function benefit transfer based on individual characteristics of respondents, land use and socio-economic characteristics of all regional municipalities has been performed as well. With few exceptions, results show an increase in willingness-to-pay (WTP) values that is consistent with the increase in the levels for attributes covered by the surveys. Besides providing some preliminary economic values, the research contributes to the development of a methodology for assessing and monitoring ES over time, with the aim to inform future policies and decision-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Pettenella, Davide & Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Masiero, Mauro & Mattea, Stefania & Franceschinis, Cristiano, 2016. "First economic assessment of ecosystem services from Natura 2000 network in Lombardy (Northern Italy)," 2016 Fifth AIEAA Congress, June 16-17, 2016, Bologna, Italy 242326, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aiea16:242326
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.242326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/242326/files/AIEAA_2016_Pettenella-et-al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.242326?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kamakura, Wagner A & Wedel, Michel, 2004. "An Empirical Bayes Procedure for Improving Individual-Level Estimates and Predictions from Finite Mixtures of Multinomial Logit Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22(1), pages 121-125, January.
    2. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    3. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    5. Louviere, Jordan J., 1991. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 291-297, December.
    6. Viorel D Popescu & Laurentiu Rozylowicz & Iulian M Niculae & Adina L Cucu & Tibor Hartel, 2014. "Species, Habitats, Society: An Evaluation of Research Supporting EU's Natura 2000 Network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-22, November.
    7. ., 2016. "Adam Smith and the System of Natural Liberty," Chapters, in: Liberty and Equality in Political Economy, chapter 3, pages 28-44, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Ruckelshaus, Mary & McKenzie, Emily & Tallis, Heather & Guerry, Anne & Daily, Gretchen & Kareiva, Peter & Polasky, Stephen & Ricketts, Taylor & Bhagabati, Nirmal & Wood, Spencer A. & Bernhardt, Joanna, 2015. "Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 11-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Masiero, Mauro & Franceschinis, Cristiano & Mattea, Stefania & Thiene, Mara & Pettenella, Davide & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Ecosystem services’ values and improved revenue collection for regional protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 136-153.
    2. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    4. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Settele, Josef, 2016. "Value pluralism and economic valuation – defendable if well done," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 100-109.
    5. Lüthi, Sonja & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2012. "The price of policy risk — Empirical insights from choice experiments with European photovoltaic project developers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1001-1011.
    6. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    7. Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 150-157.
    8. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. Kevin Boyle & Semra Özdemir, 2009. "Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 247-264, February.
    10. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.
    13. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    14. Surendran Arumugam & Ramu Govindasamy & James E. Simon & Emil Wyk & Burhan Ozkan, 2022. "Market outlet choices for African Indigenous Vegetables (AIVs): a socio-economic analysis of farmers in Zambia," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Hilger, James & Hanemann, Michael, 2006. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Water Quality: A Finite Mixture Model of Beach Recreation in Southern California," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0565c0b2, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    16. Campbell, Elliott T., 2018. "Revealed social preference for ecosystem services using the eco-price," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 267-275.
    17. Krausse, Michael & Alexander, Robert R., 1999. "Valuing Indigenous Biodiversity," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 123828, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. G. Concu, 2004. "A choice modelling approach to investigate biases in individual and aggregated benefit estimates due to omission of distance," Working Paper CRENoS 200412, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    19. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Sirén, Elina & Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Weibel, Bettina, 2017. "Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 306-315.
    20. Cundill, Georgina & Bezerra, Joana Carlos & De Vos, Alta & Ntingana, Nokuthula, 2017. "Beyond benefit sharing: Place attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding communities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 140-148.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aiea16:242326. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aieaaea.html .

    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.