IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aiea14/173099.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Governance of Ecosystem Services: insights from Life+ Making Good Natura project

Author

Listed:
  • Marino, Davide
  • Gaglioppa, Pierluca
  • Schirpke, Uta
  • Guadagno, Rossella
  • Marucci, Angelo
  • Palmieri, Margherita
  • Pellegrino, Davide
  • Gusmerotti, Natalia

Abstract

The Natura 2000 network is the cornerstone of EU Biodiversity Strategy aimed at halting the loss of biodiversity and services natural and semi-natural ecosystems provide to human populations. The Member States are mainly responsible to implement conservation strategies through management plans and conservation measures, but in many cases the level of development and execution of these instruments is very low due to scarce financial resources, and management effectiveness is rarely achieved. This paper presents first insights from Life+ Making Good Natura (MGN) project and highlights costs and benefits associated to 2 out of 21 Natura 2000 study sites in Italy in order to define the basis for a new governance approach relied on the qualitative and quantitative valuation of ecosystem services (ES) and suitable for reaching management effectiveness. To date, the habitat cover of the agro-forest sites and socio-economic data for the core area and a buffer zone of 20 km, gathered through questionnaires to management authority, have been analyzed. After mapping and assessing the most important ES for each site based on spatial data and on the information from the questionnaires, meetings with local public and private stakeholders were organized in order to discuss the identified ES and their social and economic importance for the area. Preliminary results suggest that quantification of costs related to the Natura 2000 network is a crucial point within a systematic approach to environmental accountability that allows to measure and assess management bodies’ management strategy effectiveness and efficiency and to redefine Natura 2000 sites conservation priorities. Furthermore, in a general context of stagnant and uncertain funding for biodiversity conservation, also the need of defining a wide range of governance and management tools, referring to the policy mix instruments, seems urgent.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aiea14:173099
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.173099
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/173099/files/Governance%20of%20Ecosystem%20Services%20insights%20from%20Life_%20Making%20Good%20Natura%20project%20_%20Marino_%20D_%20Gaglioppa_%20P_%20Guadagno_%20R_%20Marucci_%20A_%20Palmieri_%20M_%20Pellegrino_%20D_%20Gusmerotti%20N..pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.173099?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. Muradian, Roldan & Rival, Laura, 2012. "Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 93-100.
    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. 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.
    2. Marino, Davide & Gaglioppa, Pierluca & Schirpke, Uta & Guadagno, Rossella & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita & Pellegrino, Davide & Gusmerotti, Natalia, 2014. "Assessment and governance of Ecosystem Services for improving management effectiveness of Natura 2000 sites," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.

    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. 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.
    2. Cooke, Benjamin & Corbo-Perkins, Gabriella, 2018. "Co-opting and resisting market based instruments for private land conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-181.
    3. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Polard, Audrey & Melindi-Ghidi, Paolo, 2015. "The role of network bridging organisations in compensation payments for agri-environmental services under the EU Common Agricultural Policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 24-38.
    4. Scemama, Pierre & Levrel, Harold, 2019. "Influence of the Organization of Actors in the Ecological Outcomes of Investment in Restoration of Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 71-79.
    5. Bremer, Leah L. & Farley, Kathleen A. & Lopez-Carr, David & Romero, José, 2014. "Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What is the potential for ‘win–win’?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 148-165.
    6. Oliver Schöttker & Frank Wätzold, 2022. "Climate Change and the Cost-Effective Governance Mode for Biodiversity Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(2), pages 409-436, June.
    7. Bellanger, Manuel & Fonner, Robert & Holland, Daniel S. & Libecap, Gary D. & Lipton, Douglas W. & Scemama, Pierre & Speir, Cameron & Thébaud, Olivier, 2021. "Cross-sectoral externalities related to natural resources and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Thais Thiesen & Mahadev G. Bhat & Hong Liu & Roberto Rovira, 2022. "An Ecosystem Service Approach to Assessing Agro-Ecosystems in Urban Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-23, March.
    9. Suhardiman, Diana & Wichelns, Dennis & Lestrelin, Guillaume & Thai Hoanh, Chu, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services in Vietnam: Market-based incentives or state control of resources?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 94-101.
    10. Lapeyre, Renaud & Froger, Géraldine & Hrabanski, Marie, 2015. "Biodiversity offsets as market-based instruments for ecosystem services? From discourses to practices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 125-133.
    11. Marino, Davide & Gaglioppa, Pierluca & Schirpke, Uta & Guadagno, Rossella & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita & Pellegrino, Davide & Gusmerotti, Natalia, 2014. "Assessment and governance of Ecosystem Services for improving management effectiveness of Natura 2000 sites," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Benjamin S. Thompson, 2021. "Corporate Payments for Ecosystem Services in Theory and Practice: Links to Economics, Business, and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    13. Barraclough, Alicia D. & Cusens, Jarrod & Måren, Inger Elisabeth, 2022. "Mapping stakeholder networks for the co-production of multiple ecosystem services: A novel mixed-methods approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    14. Svartzman, Romain & Dron, Dominique & Espagne, Etienne, 2019. "From ecological macroeconomics to a theory of endogenous money for a finite planet," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 108-120.
    15. Barral, Stéphanie & Guillet, Fanny, 2023. "Preserving peri-urban land through biodiversity offsets: Between market transactions and planning regulations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    16. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara, 2022. "Collective action across boundaries: Collaborative network initiatives as boundary organizations to improve ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    17. Kluvánková, Tatiana & Brnkaľáková, Stanislava & Špaček, Martin & Slee, Bill & Nijnik, Maria & Valero, Diana & Miller, David & Bryce, Rosalind & Kozová, Mária & Polman, Nico & Szabo, Tomáš & Gežík, Ver, 2018. "Understanding social innovation for the well-being of forest-dependent communities: A preliminary theoretical framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 163-174.
    18. Verburg, René & Selnes, Trond & Verweij, Pita, 2016. "Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 186-197.
    19. Alain Karsenty & Driss Ezzine-De-Blas, 2016. "PES, markets and property rights: a comment on Wunder's revisited concept of PES and a proposal of conceptual framework," Working Papers hal-01262380, HAL.
    20. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:aiea14:173099. 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.