IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v6y2016i4p49-d79652.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining Multifunctionality and Ecosystem Services into a Win-Win Solution. The Case Study of the Serchio River Basin (Tuscany—Italy)

Author

Listed:
  • Massimo Rovai

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Agro-Environmental Sciences, University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy)

  • Maria Andreoli

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Agro-Environmental Sciences, University of Pisa, Pisa 56124, Italy)

Abstract

Post-war development—characterized by intensive processes of urbanization, concentration of agriculture on the most fertile lands, and abandonment of mountainous and marginal areas—brought about negative environmental and socio-economic consequences. They have been particularly severe in terms of increase of hydrogeological risk, which is high in most Italian regions. Over time, there has been an increasing awareness of the multiple functions played by agriculture in terms of provision of Ecosystem Services (ES), which contribute fundamentally to human well-being. In particular, some ES provided by farmers may help to reduce the hydrogeological risk of territories prone to landslides and floods. In this framework, the paper presents as a case study the project “Farmers as Custodians of a Territory.” This project was implemented in the Serchio River basin, Tuscany (Italy), and combines a multifunctional farm strategy of diversification with the provision of Ecosystem Services related to the hydraulic and hydrogeological protection of the river-basin territory. Although this case study should be read within the framework of the theories of agricultural multifunctionality and ES provision, it nevertheless took a very pragmatic and innovative approach, which differentiates it from most of the case studies given in the literature. Results of our analysis show that, by involving farmers as custodians of the territory, it is possible to reach a “win-win” solution characterized, on the one hand, by better services for the community at a lower cost for the Land Reclamation Consortia involved with hydrogeological risk prevention, thus improving the effectiveness and efficiency of ES provision; and on the other hand, by improving the economic situation and survival chances of local farms.

Suggested Citation

  • Massimo Rovai & Maria Andreoli, 2016. "Combining Multifunctionality and Ecosystem Services into a Win-Win Solution. The Case Study of the Serchio River Basin (Tuscany—Italy)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-25, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:6:y:2016:i:4:p:49-:d:79652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/6/4/49/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/6/4/49/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    3. Gutman, Pablo, 2007. "Ecosystem services: Foundations for a new rural-urban compact," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 383-387, May.
    4. Siti Nuryanah & Sardar M. N. Islam, 2015. "The Context of the Case Study," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Corporate Governance and Financial Management, chapter 5, pages 145-156, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Unesco Unesco, 2015. "Water for a Sustainable World," Working Papers id:6657, eSocialSciences.
    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. Marek Zieliński & Piotr Koza & Artur Łopatka, 2022. "Agriculture from Areas Facing Natural or Other Specific Constraints (ANCs) in Poland, Its Characteristics, Directions of Changes and Challenges in the Context of the European Green Deal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Concetta Cardillo & Orlando Cimino & Marcello De Rosa & Martina Francescone, 2023. "The Evolution of Multifunctional Agriculture in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Fastelli, Laura & Rovai, Massimo & Andreoli, Maria, 2018. "A Spatial Integrated Database for the Enhancement of the Agricultural Custodianship Role (SIDECAR)—Some preliminary tests using Tuscany as a case-study Region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 791-802.
    4. Giaime Berti, 2020. "Sustainable Agri-Food Economies: Re-Territorialising Farming Practices, Markets, Supply Chains, and Policies," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-9, March.

    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. Alireza Daneshi & Mostafa Panahi & Saber Masoomi & Mehdi Vafakhah & Hossein Azadi & Muhammad Mobeen & Pinar Gökcin Ozuyar & Vjekoslav Tanaskovik, 2021. "Assessment of non-monetary facilities in Urmia Lake basin under PES scheme: a rehabilitation solution for the dry lake in Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 10141-10172, July.
    2. Marangon, Francesco & Troiano, Stefania, 2013. "New tools for THE EU agricultural sector and rural areas. What role for public policy in promoting Payments for Ecosystem Services?," Politica Agricola Internazionale - International Agricultural Policy, Edizioni L'Informatore Agrario, vol. 2013(2), April.
    3. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    4. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. 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.
    6. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    7. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah & Lurie, Susan & Duncan, Sally, 2014. "Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 56-64.
    8. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    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. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. Deal, Robert L. & Cochran, Bobby & LaRocco, Gina, 2012. "Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 69-76.
    14. Yin, Runsheng & Zhao, Minjuan, 2012. "Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socioeconomic processes—China's experience as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 56-65.
    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. Grillos, Tara & Bottazzi, Patrick & Crespo, David & Asquith, Nigel & Jones, Julia P.G., 2019. "In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: A randomized trial in Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Báliková, Klára & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2022. "Are silvicultural subsidies an effective payment for ecosystem services in Slovakia?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    18. Authelet, Manon & Subervie, Julie & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Asquith, Nigel & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2021. "Economic, pro-social and pro-environmental factors influencing participation in an incentive-based conservation program in Bolivia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    19. Muñoz Escobar, Marcela & Hollaender, Robert & Pineda Weffer, Camilo, 2013. "Institutional durability of payments for watershed ecosystem services: Lessons from two case studies from Colombia and Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 46-53.
    20. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Vásquez, William F., 2012. "The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 169-176.

    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:jagris:v:6:y:2016:i:4:p:49-:d:79652. 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.