IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i10p1865-d1251949.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Use Change Scenario Building Combining Agricultural Development Policies, Landscape-Planning Approaches, and Ecosystem Service Assessment: A Case Study from the Campania Region (Italy)

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Cervelli

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici, Italy
    Interdepartmental Laboratory of Territorial Planning (LUPT), University of Naples Federico II, Via Toledo 402, 80134 Naples, Italy
    Task Force on Smart and Sustainable Mobility SUM, University of Naples Federico II, 80134 Napoli, Italy)

  • Pier Francesco Recchi

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici, Italy)

  • Ester Scotto di Perta

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici, Italy)

  • Stefania Pindozzi

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici, Italy
    Interdepartmental Laboratory of Territorial Planning (LUPT), University of Naples Federico II, Via Toledo 402, 80134 Naples, Italy
    Task Force on Smart and Sustainable Mobility SUM, University of Naples Federico II, 80134 Napoli, Italy
    BAT Center—Interuniversity Center for Studies on Bioinspired Agro-Environmental Technology, University of Naples Federico II, 80055 Portici, Italy)

Abstract

In the last two centuries, land-use change (LUC) has been the most important direct change driver for terrestrial ecosystems. In contrast with the consequent ecosystem degradation, forward-looking spatial policies and target landscape and land-use planning processes are needed from a sustainability perspective. The present paper proposes a framework of action, including different landscape-planning and ecological approaches: from spatial modelling to recognize LUC and build different scenarios, to ecosystem service (ES) assessment to evaluate possible environmental impacts. Three different scenarios were explored: Trend, No Tillage, and Energy crops. The sediment delivery ratio and carbon storage and sequestration ESs were assessed and compared for each scenario. The results show that regional development in line with past trends could lead to further land degradation (with ES value losses, in a decade, greater than 5%). Instead, the two scenarios proposed in compliance with EU policies could bring benefits, if only those related to moderate LUCs and respecting the naturally grass-vegetated land. The aim of the paper is to support decision makers and local communities in the landscape planning landscape planning process. From the local to global scale, guided and shared LUC management allows us to implement sustainable development, based not only on a deep knowledge of the physical environment but also of social and economic issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Cervelli & Pier Francesco Recchi & Ester Scotto di Perta & Stefania Pindozzi, 2023. "Land Use Change Scenario Building Combining Agricultural Development Policies, Landscape-Planning Approaches, and Ecosystem Service Assessment: A Case Study from the Campania Region (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-24, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:1865-:d:1251949
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/10/1865/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/10/1865/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    2. Davide Marino & Giampiero Mazzocchi & Davide Pellegrino & Veridiana Barucci, 2022. "Integrated Multi-Level Assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES): The Case of the Casal del Marmo Agricultural Park Area in Rome (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, November.
    3. Montanarella, Luca & Panagos, Panos, 2021. "The relevance of sustainable soil management within the European Green Deal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    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. Huihui Wang & Hanyu Xue & Yunsong Yang & Wanlin He & Suru Liu & Yuhao Zhong & Xiaoyong Gao & Tingting Xu, 2024. "Multi-Scenario Simulation and Eco-Environmental Effects Analysis of Land Use/Cover Change in China by an Integrated Cellular Automata and Markov Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-29, April.

    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. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Sergio Cappucci & Serena Nappi & Andrea Cappelli, 2022. "Green Public Areas and Urban Open Spaces Management: New GreenCAL Tool Algorithms and Circular Economy Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    3. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Tomasz Jałowiec & Henryk Wojtaszek, 2021. "Analysis of the RES Potential in Accordance with the Energy Policy of the European Union," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-33, September.
    5. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    7. Robbie Maris & Mark Holmes, 2023. "Economic Growth Theory and Natural Resource Constraints: A Stocktake and Critical Assessment," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 56(2), pages 255-268, June.
    8. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    9. Joel C. Creed & Laura Sol Aranda & Júlia Gomes de Sousa & Caio Barros Brito do Bem & Beatriz Sant’Anna Vasconcelos Marafiga Dutra & Marianna Lanari & Virgínia Eduarda de Sousa & Karine M. Magalhães & , 2023. "A Synthesis of Provision and Impact in Seagrass Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Southwest Atlantic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    10. Wanxu Chen & Guangqing Chi & Jiangfeng Li, 2020. "Ecosystem Services and Their Driving Forces in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-19, May.
    11. O'Sullivan, Jane N., 2020. "The social and environmental influences of population growth rate and demographic pressure deserve greater attention in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    12. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    13. Moreno-Llorca, R. & Vaz, A.S. & Herrero, J. & Millares, A. & Bonet-García, F.J. & Alcaraz-Segura, D., 2020. "Multi-scale evolution of ecosystem services’ supply in Sierra Nevada (Spain): An assessment over the last half-century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    14. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    16. Lau, Jacqueline D. & Hicks, Christina C. & Gurney, Georgina G. & Cinner, Joshua E., 2018. "Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 91-98.
    17. Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.
    18. Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Zheng, Hua & Yang, Yanzheng & Yang, Zihan & Peng, Chenchen, 2023. "Can sedentarization decrease the dependence of pastoral livelihoods on ecosystem services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    19. Egor Selivanov & Petra Hlaváčková, 2021. "Methods for monetary valuation of ecosystem services: A scoping review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(11), pages 499-511.
    20. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Making Intangibles Tangible: Identifying Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cultural Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.

    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:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:1865-:d:1251949. 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.