IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i4p871-d1121492.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Usi Civici : Open Evaluation Issues in the Italian Legal Framework on Civic Use Properties

Author

Listed:
  • Danny Casprini

    (Politecnico di Milano, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Via Bonardi 3, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Alessandra Oppio

    (Politecnico di Milano, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Via Bonardi 3, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Francesca Torrieri

    (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Università Federico II di Napoli, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy)

Abstract

Physical spaces and assets vary in legal nature and as such can be subjected to both private and public ownership. Therefore, rights and obligations connected with the use and enjoyment of the different goods depends on the juridic nature of the good itself. In the Italian legal framework, private goods are subject to homogeneous regulation, whereas public goods might comprehend a plethora of heterogeneous categories each of them featuring a specific legal regulation. Among those, collective-owned goods present a complex case as they have the typical characteristics of common goods but might be the object of specific rival and exclusive rights that are guaranteed to certain communities with the system of “civic use rights” ( usi civici ). This peculiar legal regime is typical of rural areas, where, traditionally, common ownership of the land was pursued and encouraged resulting in the creation of a common agri-sylvan-pastoral heritage. As such, the areas susceptible to being left behind or even abandoned due to a lack of public resources or initiatives that can foster their intrinsic cultural, social, and economic value. We intend collective goods to be long-term physical assets that trigger ecosystems of social entrepreneurial, innovative partnerships, and impact investing that can meet long-lasting and/or emerging social and collective needs. This paper aims to achieve two objectives. Firstly, we investigate the Italian juridical regime of “shared-ownership rights” and “civic use rights” aiming to define a taxonomy that provides support in categorising these goods according to pre-defined legal clusters. Secondly, we explore the evaluation issues related to land appraisal processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Danny Casprini & Alessandra Oppio & Francesca Torrieri, 2023. "Usi Civici : Open Evaluation Issues in the Italian Legal Framework on Civic Use Properties," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:871-:d:1121492
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/871/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/871/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fabrizio Battisti & Carlo Pisano, 2022. "Common Property in Italy. Unresolved Issues and an Appraisal Approach: Towards a Definition of Environmental-Economic Civic Value," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-21, October.
    2. Kareiva, Peter & Tallis, Heather & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Daily, Gretchen C. & Polasky, Stephen (ed.), 2011. "Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199589005.
    3. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    4. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    3. Brady, Mark & Hedlund, Katarina & Cong, Rong-Gang & Hemerik, Lia & Hotes, Stefan & Machado, Stephen & Mattsson, Lennart & Schulz, Elke & Thomsen, Ingrid K., 2015. "Valuing Supporting Soil Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: a Natural Capital Approach," MPRA Paper 112303, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Ruijs, A. & Wossink, A. & Kortelainen, M. & Alkemade, R. & Schulp, C.J.E., 2013. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 82-94.
    5. Watson, Stephen C.L. & Paterson, David M. & Queirós, Ana M. & Rees, Andrew P. & Stephens, Nicholas & Widdicombe, Stephen & Beaumont, Nicola J., 2016. "A conceptual framework for assessing the ecosystem service of waste remediation: In the marine environment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 69-81.
    6. 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.
    7. Davide Geneletti, 2015. "A Conceptual Approach to Promote the Integration of Ecosystem Services in Strategic Environmental Assessment," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1-27, December.
    8. Andrea Früh-Müller & Stefan Hotes & Lutz Breuer & Volkmar Wolters & Thomas Koellner, 2016. "Regional Patterns of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Fletcher, Ruth & Baulcomb, Corinne & Hall, Clare & Hussain, Salman, 2014. "Revealing marine cultural ecosystem services in the Black Sea," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PA), pages 151-161.
    10. Kelly A. Burks-Copes & Gregory A. Kiker, 2014. "Uncovering lines of evidence hidden in complex problems: using conceptual models to inform ecosystem-based management of the Missouri River cottonwoods," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 425-442, September.
    11. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    12. Pickard, Brian R. & Daniel, Jessica & Mehaffey, Megan & Jackson, Laura E. & Neale, Anne, 2015. "EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 45-55.
    13. Jean-Michel Salles, 2011. "Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why linking economic values with Nature?," Working Papers 11-24, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2011.
    14. Ferdinando Villa & Ken Bagstad & Gary Johnson & Brian Voigt, 2012. "Towards a Comprehensive Approach to Quantifying and Mapping Ecosystem Services Flows," Working Papers 2012-07, BC3.
    15. Xiaolong Gao & Binbin Huang & Ying Hou & Weihua Xu & Hua Zheng & Dongchun Ma & Zhiyun Ouyang, 2020. "Using Ecosystem Service Flows to Inform Ecological Compensation: Theory & Application," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-16, May.
    16. Fabio Pranovi & Gianluca Sarà & Piero Franzoi, 2013. "Valuing the Unmarketable: An Ecological Approach to the Externalities Estimate in Fishing Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-11, February.
    17. Keyu Qin & Jing Li & Xiaonan Yang, 2015. "Trade-Off and Synergy among Ecosystem Services in the Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Region of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, November.
    18. Magnus Tuvendal & Johan Elmberg, 2015. "A Handshake between Markets and Hierarchies: Geese as an Example of Successful Collaborative Management of Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-18, December.
    19. Juanjo Galan, 2020. "Towards A Relational Model for Emerging Urban Nature Concepts: A Practical Application and an External Assessment in Landscape Planning Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.
    20. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.

    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:4:p:871-:d:1121492. 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.