No. 2 (2023): Ecosystem-based Planning. The contribution of ecosystem services to Urban and Regional Planning innovation
Ricerche

Un’infrastruttura verde regionale basata sulla domanda e offerta di Bundles di Servizi Ecosistemici. Una sperimentazione per le Marche

PDF
  • Matteo Giacomelli,
  • Ilenia Pierantoni,
  • Paolo Perna
Matteo Giacomelli
Politecnico di Milano

Published 2024-05-07

How to Cite

Giacomelli, M., Pierantoni, I., & Perna, P. (2024). Un’infrastruttura verde regionale basata sulla domanda e offerta di Bundles di Servizi Ecosistemici. Una sperimentazione per le Marche . Contesti. Città, Territori, Progetti, (2), 108–127. Retrieved from https://oajournals.fupress.net/index.php/contesti/article/view/14823

Copyright (c) 2024 Matteo Giacomelli, Ilenia Pierantoni, Paolo Perna

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

I paesaggi sono il risultato di una continua interazione società-natura, i cui elementi sono interconnessi al punto che dovrebbero essere concepiti come un unico sistema socio-ecologico. In questo contesto, la pianificazione si trova davanti alla sfida di conciliare interessi settoriali concorrenti, al fine di garantire la multifunzionalità dei paesaggi ed il loro sviluppo sostenibile. In ambito accademico, il concetto di “Bundles” sta attirando interesse per la sua capacità di identificare insiemi di Servizi Ecosistemici (SE) che appaiono ripetutamente insieme nel tempo o nello spazio. Ad oggi, poche applicazioni tengono conto della prospettiva domanda-offerta e mancano dimostrazioni su come le caratteristiche dei sistemi locali influenzino i Bundles. Questa ricerca propone una nuova caratterizzazione funzionale dei paesaggi basata sulla domanda e offerta di Bundles di SE, associandoli ad asset socio-economici locali nel caso studio della Regione Marche.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Albert, C., Aronson, J., Fürst, C., Opdam, P., 2014. Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landscape Ecol 29, 1277–1285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0085-0
  2. Albert, C., Galler, C., Hermes, J., Neuendorf, F., von Haaren, C., Lovett, A., 2016. Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: The ES-in-Planning framework. Ecological Indicators 61, 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029
  3. Antrop, M., 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning, Rural Landscapes: past processes and future strategies 70, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002
  4. Aretano, R., Petrosillo, I., Zaccarelli, N., Semeraro, T., Zurlini, G., 2013. People perception of landscape change effects on ecosystem services in small Mediterranean islands: A combination of subjective and objective assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 112, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.010
  5. Balzan, M.V., Sadula, R., Scalvenzi, L., 2020. Assessing Ecosystem Services Supplied by Agroecosystems in Mediterranean Europe: A Literature Review. Land 9, 245. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9080245
  6. Barca, F., 2009. An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations (Barca Report). European parlament, Bruxelles.
  7. Baró, F., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., 2017. Ecosystem service bundles along the urban-rural gradient: Insights for landscape planning and management. Ecosystem Services 24, 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.021
  8. Bennett, E.M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Díaz, S., Egoh, B.N., Geijzendorffer, I.R., Krug, C.B., Lavorel, S., Lazos, E., Lebel, L., Martín-López, B., Meyfroidt, P., Mooney, H.A., Nel, J.L., Pascual, U., Payet, K., Harguindeguy, N.P., Peterson, G.D., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Reyers, B., Roebeling, P., Seppelt, R., Solan, M., Tschakert, P., Tscharntke, T., Turner, B., Verburg, P.H., Viglizzo, E.F., White, P.C., Woodward, G., 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007
  9. Bevilacqua, P., 2013. Marche, in: Agnoletti, M. (Ed.), Italian Historical Rural Landscapes: Cultural Values for the Environment and Rural Development. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5354-9_15
  10. Binder, C., Hinkel, J., Bots, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2013. Comparison of Frameworks for Analyzing Social-ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426
  11. Blondel, J., 2006. The ‘Design’ of Mediterranean Landscapes: A Millennial Story of Humans and Ecological Systems during the Historic Period. Hum Ecol 34, 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9030-4
  12. Bruno, D., Sorando, R., Álvarez-Farizo, B., Castellano, C., Céspedes, V., Gallardo, B., Jiménez, J.J., López, M.V., López-Flores, R., Moret-Fernández, D., Navarro, E., Picazo, F., Sevilla-Callejo, M., Tormo, J., Vidal-Macua, J.J., Nicolau, J.M., Comín, F.A., 2021. Depopulation impacts on ecosystem services in Mediterranean rural areas. Ecosystem Services 52, 101369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101369
  13. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, Challenges of sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services 21, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
  14. Calafati, A., 2015. Città tra sviluppo e declino, Saggi. Natura e artefatto. Donzelli Editore, [S.l.].
  15. Cumming, G.S., Buerkert, A., Hoffmann, E.M., Schlecht, E., von Cramon-Taubadel, S., Tscharntke, T., 2014. Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services. Nature 515, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13945
  16. de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7, 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
  17. Dong, S., Wen, L., Liu, S., Zhang, X., Lassoie, J., Yi, S., Li, X., Li, J., Li, Y., 2011. Vulnerability of Worldwide Pastoralism to Global Changes and Interdisciplinary Strategies for Sustainable Pastoralism. Ecology and Society 16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04093-160210
  18. Felipe-Lucia, M., Comín, F., Bennett, E., 2014. Interactions Among Ecosystem Services Across Land Uses in a Floodplain Agroecosystem. Ecology and Society 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06249-190120
  19. Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Berraquero-Díaz, L., Escalera-Reyes, J., Comín, F.A., 2015. Ecosystem Services Flows: Why Stakeholders’ Power Relationships Matter. PLOS ONE 10, e0132232. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132232
  20. Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Soliveres, S., Penone, C., Fischer, M., Ammer, C., Boch, S., Boeddinghaus, R.S., Bonkowski, M., Buscot, F., Fiore-Donno, A.M., Frank, K., Goldmann, K., Gossner, M.M., Hölzel, N., Jochum, M., Kandeler, E., Klaus, V.H., Kleinebecker, T., Leimer, S., Manning, P., Oelmann, Y., Saiz, H., Schall, P., Schloter, M., Schöning, I., Schrumpf, M., Solly, E.F., Stempfhuber, B., Weisser, W.W., Wilcke, W., Wubet, T., Allan, E., 2020. Land-use intensity alters networks between biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 28140–28149. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016210117
  21. Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Soliveres, S., Penone, C., Manning, P., van der Plas, F., Boch, S., Prati, D., Ammer, C., Schall, P., Gossner, M.M., Bauhus, J., Buscot, F., Blaser, S., Blüthgen, N., de Frutos, A., Ehbrecht, M., Frank, K., Goldmann, K., Hänsel, F., Jung, K., Kahl, T., Nauss, T., Oelmann, Y., Pena, R., Polle, A., Renner, S., Schloter, M., Schöning, I., Schrumpf, M., Schulze, E.-D., Solly, E., Sorkau, E., Stempfhuber, B., Tschapka, M., Weisser, W.W., Wubet, T., Fischer, M., Allan, E., 2018. Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. Nat Commun 9, 4839. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4
  22. García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C.A., Aguilera, P.A., Montes, C., 2012. The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. Environmental Science & Policy 19–20, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006
  23. Gebre, T., Gebremedhin, B., 2019. The mutual benefits of promoting rural-urban interdependence through linked ecosystem services. Global Ecology and Conservation 20, e00707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00707
  24. Gössling, S., 2002. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change 12, 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00044-4
  25. Grêt-Regamey, A., Weibel, B., Bagstad, K.J., Ferrari, M., Geneletti, D., Klug, H., Schirpke, U., Tappeiner, U., 2014. On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping. PLOS ONE 9, e112601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112601
  26. Haines-Young, R., Potschin-Young, M.B., 2018. Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A Policy Brief.
  27. Iniesta-Arandia, I., del Amo, D.G., García-Nieto, A.P., Piñeiro, C., Montes, C., Martín-López, B., 2015. Factors influencing local ecological knowledge maintenance in Mediterranean watersheds: Insights for environmental policies. AMBIO 44, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0556-1
  28. Kassambara, A., Mundt, F., 2020. Factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. R Package Version 1.0.7.
  29. Krasny, M.E., Russ, A., Tidball, K.G., Elmqvist, T., 2014. Civic ecology practices: Participatory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities. Ecosystem Services 7, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.11.002
  30. Krätli, S., Huelsebusch, C., Brooks, S., Kaufmann, B., 2013. Pastoralism: A critical asset for food security under global climate change. Animal Frontiers 3, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2013-0007
  31. Martín-López, B., Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Bennett, E.M., Norström, A., Peterson, G., Plieninger, T., Hicks, C.C., Turkelboom, F., García-Llorente, M., Jacobs, S., Lavorel, S., Locatelli, B., 2019. A novel telecoupling framework to assess social relations across spatial scales for ecosystem services research. Journal of Environmental Management 241, 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.029
  32. Mascarenhas, A., Ramos, T.B., Haase, D., Santos, R., 2014. Integration of ecosystem services in spatial planning: a survey on regional planners’ views. Landscape Ecol 29, 1287–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0012-4
  33. MIBACT, 2017. Piano Strategico Di Sviluppo Del Turismo. Rome.
  34. Morri, E., Santolini, R., 2022. Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, Italy). Land 11, 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010057
  35. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
  36. Nieto-Romero, M., Oteros-Rozas, E., González, J.A., Martín-López, B., 2014. Exploring the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services assessments in Mediterranean agroecosystems: Insights for future research. Environmental Science & Policy 37, 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.003
  37. Oksanen, F., Blanchet, F.G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., Minchin, P., O’Hara, R., Simpson, G., Solymos, P., 2017. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.4-4. http s. CRAN. R-pro j ect. org/pack age= vega n.
  38. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., González, J.A., Plieninger, T., López, C.A., Montes, C., 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Reg Environ Change 14, 1269–1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0571-y
  39. Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Poesen, J., Ballabio, C., Lugato, E., Meusburger, K., Montanarella, L., Alewell, C., 2015. The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy 54, 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.012
  40. Pe’er, G., Zinngrebe, Y., Moreira, F., Sirami, C., Schindler, S., Müller, R., Bontzorlos, V., Clough, D., Bezák, P., Bonn, A., Hansjürgens, B., Lomba, A., Möckel, S., Passoni, G., Schleyer, C., Schmidt, J., Lakner, S., 2019. A greener path for the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Science 365, 449–451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3146
  41. Peng, J., Wang, X., Liu, Y., Zhao, Y., Xu, Z., Zhao, M., Qiu, S., Wu, J., 2020. Urbanization impact on the supply-demand budget of ecosystem services: Decoupling analysis. Ecosystem Services 44, 101139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101139
  42. Queiroz, C., Meacham, M., Richter, K., Norström, A.V., Andersson, E., Norberg, J., Peterson, G., 2015. Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio 44 Suppl 1, S89-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0601-0
  43. Quintas-Soriano, C., García-Llorente, M., Norström, A., Meacham, M., Peterson, G., Castro, A.J., 2019. Integrating supply and demand in ecosystem service bundles characterization across Mediterranean transformed landscapes. Landscape Ecol 34, 1619–1633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00826-7
  44. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 5242–5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107
  45. Sharp, R., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A., Wood, S.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Olwero, N., 2014. InVEST user’s guide. The Natural Capital Project: Stanford, CA, USA.
  46. SINAB, 2020. Biologico in cifre.
  47. Sonderegger, G., Oberlack, C., Llopis, J., Verburg, P., Heinimann, A., 2020. Telecoupling visualizations through a network lens: a systematic review. Ecology and Society 25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11830-250447
  48. Taiyun, W., Viliam, S., 2021. R package “corrplot”: Visualization of a Correlation Matrix.
  49. Tscharntke, T., Grass, I., Wanger, T.C., Westphal, C., Batáry, P., 2021. Beyond organic farming – harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36, 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.010
  50. Turkelboom, F., Leone, M., Jacobs, S., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., Baró, F., Termansen, M., Barton, D.N., Berry, P., Stange, E., Thoonen, M., Kalóczkai, Á., Vadineanu, A., Castro, A.J., Czúcz, B., Röckmann, C., Wurbs, D., Odee, D., Preda, E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Rusch, G.M., Pastur, G.M., Palomo, I., Dick, J., Casaer, J., van Dijk, J., Priess, J.A., Langemeyer, J., Mustajoki, J., Kopperoinen, L., Baptist, M.J., Peri, P.L., Mukhopadhyay, R., Aszalós, R., Roy, S.B., Luque, S., Rusch, V., 2018. When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosystem Services 29, 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011
  51. UNIVPM, 2019. Valutazione e quantificazione delle emissioni in atmosfera nella regione marche. Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona.
  52. Villamagna, A.M., Angermeier, P.L., Bennett, E.M., 2013. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004
  53. Sargolini, M., Gambino, R., 2016. Mountain landscapes. List.
  54. Zulian, G., Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L., 2013. Linking Land Cover Data and Crop Yields for Mapping and Assessment of Pollination Services in Europe. Land 2, 472–492. https://doi.org/10.3390/land2030472