IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v22y2020i3d10.1007_s10668-018-0276-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing outdoor recreation and biodiversity through payments for ecosystem services: emerging potentials from selected Natura 2000 sites in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Uta Schirpke

    (Eurac Research
    University of Innsbruck)

  • Rocco Scolozzi

    (University of Trento)

  • Riccardo Da Re

    (University of Padova
    Spin-Off of University of Padova)

  • Mauro Masiero

    (University of Padova
    Spin-Off of University of Padova)

  • Davide Pellegrino

    (Sapienza University)

  • Davide Marino

    (University of Molise)

Abstract

Efforts in preserving natural and seminatural ecosystems and associated ecosystem services are affected by scarce financial resources. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are increasingly recognised for creating additional funding, as in protected areas, and outdoor recreation is one important ecosystem service that is promising for successfully implementing PES. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and evaluate potentials for PES schemes related to recreational services in Natura 2000 sites. For 10 sites in different Italian regions, the study first assessed the ecosystem service outdoor recreation and analysed managerial and economic aspects of Natura 2000 sites. Then, various options for PES schemes were defined in a participatory process. Furthermore, we developed a dynamic model for evaluating the effects of PES on ecosystems and related recreational ES. Whereas the provision of recreational opportunities was mostly at a high level, the potential demand varied greatly among the sites, depending on the spatial distribution of potential beneficiaries. Moreover, we found great differences in visitation rates and consequently the actual recreational value. The PES schemes included small payments (€1) via mobile phone by visitors, contributions from regional government and tourism businesses, and visitor fees or tourist taxes among others. This study highlights how economic agreements, such as PES schemes, may support funding of Natura 2000 sites for biodiversity conservation by valorising the benefits of recreational ecosystem services; however, further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of PES in the long term.

Suggested Citation

  • Uta Schirpke & Rocco Scolozzi & Riccardo Da Re & Mauro Masiero & Davide Pellegrino & Davide Marino, 2020. "Enhancing outdoor recreation and biodiversity through payments for ecosystem services: emerging potentials from selected Natura 2000 sites in Italy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2045-2067, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-018-0276-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-018-0276-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-018-0276-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-018-0276-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    2. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    3. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    4. D. Pellegrino & U. Schirpke & D. Marino, 2017. "How to support the effective management of Natura 2000 sites?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(3), pages 383-398, March.
    5. Arnberger, Arne & Eder, Renate & Allex, Brigitte & Sterl, Petra & Burns, Robert C., 2012. "Relationships between national-park affinity and attitudes towards protected area management of visitors to the Gesaeuse National Park, Austria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 48-55.
    6. Peña, Lorena & Casado-Arzuaga, Izaskun & Onaindia, Miren, 2015. "Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 108-118.
    7. Marino, Davide & Gaglioppa, Pierluca & Schirpke, Uta & Guadagno, Rossella & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita & Pellegrino, Davide & Gusmerotti, Natalia, 2014. "Governance of Ecosystem Services: insights from Life+ Making Good Natura project," 2014 Third Congress, June 25-27, 2014, Alghero, Italy 173099, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    8. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & De Marco, Claudio & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2014. "Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 170-179.
    9. Fleming, Christopher M. & Cook, Averil, 2007. "The recreational value of Lake McKenzie: An application of the travel cost method," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10382, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Uta Schirpke & Rocco Scolozzi & Benedetta Concetti & Bruna Comini & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2017. "Supporting the Management of Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas: Trade-Offs Between Effort and Accuracy in Evaluation," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(02), pages 1-30, June.
    11. Pirard, Romain & Lapeyre, Renaud, 2014. "Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: A guide to the literature jungle," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 106-114.
    12. Staes, Jan & Broekx, Steven & Van Der Biest, Katrien & Vrebos, Dirk & Olivier, Beauchard & De Nocker, Leo & Liekens, Inge & Poelmans, Lien & Verheyen, Kris & Jeroen, Panis & Meire, Patrick, 2017. "Quantification of the potential impact of nature conservation on ecosystem services supply in the Flemish Region: A cascade modelling approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 124-137.
    13. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    14. Rocco Scolozzi & Uta Schirpke & Carlo Detassis & Sabah Abdullah & Alessandro Gretter, 2015. "Mapping Alpine Landscape Values and Related Threats as Perceived by Tourists," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 451-465, May.
    15. Geitzenauer, Maria & Blondet, Marieke & de Koning, Jessica & Ferranti, Francesca & Sotirov, Metodi & Weiss, Gerhard & Winkel, Georg, 2017. "The challenge of financing the implementation of Natura 2000 – Empirical evidence from six European Union Member States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 3-13.
    16. Schirpke, Uta & Meisch, Claude & Marsoner, Thomas & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2018. "Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 336-350.
    17. James E. M. Watson & Nigel Dudley & Daniel B. Segan & Marc Hockings, 2014. "The performance and potential of protected areas," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 67-73, November.
    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. Ali Akbar Jamali & Ramin Tabatabaee & Timothy O. Randhir, 2021. "Ecotourism and socioeconomic strategies for Khansar River watershed of Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 17077-17093, November.
    2. Ramesh Neupane & Anup K C & Manoj Aryal & Kedar Rijal, 2021. "Status of ecotourism in Nepal: a case of Bhadaure-Tamagi village of Panchase area," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 15897-15920, November.

    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. Schirpke, Uta & Marino, Davide & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita, 2018. "Positive effects of payments for ecosystem services on biodiversity and socio-economic development: Examples from Natura 2000 sites in Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 96-105.
    2. Báliková, Klára & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2022. "Are silvicultural subsidies an effective payment for ecosystem services in Slovakia?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    3. Fletcher, Robert & Büscher, Bram, 2017. "The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 224-231.
    4. Schirpke, Uta & Marino, Davide & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita & Scolozzi, Rocco, 2017. "Operationalising ecosystem services for effective management of protected areas: Experiences and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 105-114.
    5. Li, Ruiqian & van den Brink, Margo & Woltjer, Johan, 2017. "Market-based instruments for the governance of coastal and marine ecosystem services: An analysis based on the Chinese case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 71-81.
    6. Raes, Leander & Loft, Lasse & Le Coq, Jean François & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Damme, Patrick, 2016. "Towards market- or command-based governance? The evolution of payments for environmental service schemes in Andean and Mesoamerican countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 20-32.
    7. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    8. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    9. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Wunder, Sven, 2019. "Why do payments for watershed services emerge? A cross-country analysis of adoption contexts," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 111-119.
    10. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Quétier, Fabien & Calvet, Coralie & Levrel, Harold & Wunder, Sven, 2020. "Biodiversity offsets and payments for environmental services: Clarifying the family ties," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. Arriagada, Rodrigo & Villaseñor, Adrián & Rubiano, Eliana & Cotacachi, David & Morrison, Judith, 2018. "Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 116-127.
    12. Pham, Thu Thuy & Loft, Lasse & Bennett, Karen & Phuong, Vu Tan & Dung, Le Ngoc & Brunner, Jake, 2015. "Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 220-229.
    13. Mangubhai, Sangeeta & Sykes, Helen & Manley, Marita & Vukikomoala, Kiji & Beattie, Madeline, 2020. "Contributions of tourism-based Marine Conservation Agreements to natural resource management in Fiji," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    14. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    15. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    16. Brathwaite, Angelique & Pascal, Nicolas & Clua, Eric, 2021. "When are payment for ecosystems services suitable for coral reef derived coastal protection?: A review of scientific requirements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    17. Blundo-Canto, Genowefa & Bax, Vincent & Quintero, Marcela & Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Perez-Marulanda, Lisset, 2018. "The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 160-183.
    18. Philippe Coent, 2023. "Payment for environmental services related to aquifers: a review of specific issues and existing programmes," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 273-310, December.
    19. Winkel, Georg & Lovrić, Marko & Muys, Bart & Katila, Pia & Lundhede, Thomas & Pecurul, Mireia & Pettenella, Davide & Pipart, Nathalie & Plieninger, Tobias & Prokofieva, Irina & Parra, Constanza & Pülz, 2022. "Governing Europe's forests for multiple ecosystem services: Opportunities, challenges, and policy options," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    20. Haas, Johannes Christian & Loft, Lasse & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2019. "How fair can incentive-based conservation get? The interdependence of distributional and contextual equity in Vietnam's payments for Forest Environmental Services Program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 205-214.

    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:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-018-0276-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.