IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i12p2173-d1301440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Land Use Changes on Ecosystem Services Supply: A Meta Analysis of the Italian Context

Author

Listed:
  • Davide Marino

    (Department of Biosciences and Territory, University of Molise, 86090 Pesche, Italy)

  • Antonio Barone

    (Department of Biosciences and Territory, University of Molise, 86090 Pesche, Italy)

  • Angelo Marucci

    (Department of Biosciences and Territory, University of Molise, 86090 Pesche, Italy)

  • Silvia Pili

    (Department of Biosciences and Territory, University of Molise, 86090 Pesche, Italy)

  • Margherita Palmieri

    (Department of Biosciences and Territory, University of Molise, 86090 Pesche, Italy)

Abstract

Changes in land use and land cover (LULC) are caused by several factors, including climate change, socio-demographic dynamics, human pressures and urban sprawl. These factors alter the structure and functionality of ecosystems and their capacity to provide ecosystem goods and services to society. The study of LULC changes is important for understanding the dynamics of relationships between environmental, social and economic components and for analyzing the factors affecting natural capital. Including ecosystem services (ES) in spatial planning tools and sectoral policies is useful for improving governance. In this paper, the impact of LULC changes on ES provision has been estimated. To this end, we carried out a literature review (Step 1) to select the biophysical and economic coefficients of ES supply by land cover classes and collect them in a database (Step 2). We subsequently aggregated the economic and biophysical coefficients by macro classes (Step 3) and, using the benefit transfer approach, we estimated the change in the supply of ESs concerning permanence and transition phenomena in Italy from 1990 to 2018 (Step 4). The transition phenomena analysis also allowed us to evaluate the consequences of urbanization and urban green space governance on ES supply. Indeed, these urban green spaces can help reduce risks to people’s health and safety and mitigate the effects induced by climate change. In total, approximately 800 coefficients (biophysical and economic) of ESs supplied by Corine Land Cover classes were acquired. The results show a reduction in the annual supply of ecosystem services of EUR 927 million (2022) caused by LULC changes between 1990 and 2018. This research proposes a methodology to improve knowledge of ESs concerning anthropogenic impacts and to support land-use planning policies regarding Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development Goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Davide Marino & Antonio Barone & Angelo Marucci & Silvia Pili & Margherita Palmieri, 2023. "Impact of Land Use Changes on Ecosystem Services Supply: A Meta Analysis of the Italian Context," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-24, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:12:p:2173-:d:1301440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/12/2173/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/12/2173/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Desvouges, William H. & Naughton, Michael C. & Parsons, George R., 1992. "Benefits transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies," MPRA Paper 36405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Davide Marino & Margherita Palmieri & Angelo Marucci & Mariangela Soraci & Antonio Barone & Silvia Pili, 2023. "Linking Flood Risk Mitigation and Food Security: An Analysis of Land-Use Change in the Metropolitan Area of Rome," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Maria L. Loureiro & Ståle Navrud & John Rolfe, 2021. "Guidance to Enhance the Validity and Credibility of Environmental Benefit Transfers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 575-624, July.
    4. Wolfgang Nentwig & Daniel Gloor & Christian Kropf, 2015. "Spider taxonomists catch data on web," Nature, Nature, vol. 528(7583), pages 479-479, December.
    5. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    6. Roshan Sharma & Bhagawat Rimal & Himlal Baral & Udo Nehren & Kiran Paudyal & Sunil Sharma & Sushila Rijal & Surendra Ranpal & Ram Prasad Acharya & Amer A. Alenazy & Prashid Kandel, 2019. "Impact of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services in a Tropical Forested Landscape," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, January.
    7. Matero, Jukka & Saastamoinen, Olli, 2007. "In search of marginal environmental valuations -- ecosystem services in Finnish forest accounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 101-114, February.
    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. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    3. Loomis, John B. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: Needed improvements in primary study design and reporting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 343-350, December.
    4. Zhang, Fan & Fogarty, James, 2015. "Nonmarket Valuation of Water Sensitive Cities: Current Knowledge and Issues," Working Papers 207694, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Rosenberger, Randall S., 2001. "Testing the Validity of Benefit Transfers: A Site Correspondence Model," Western Region Archives 321686, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    6. Wronka, T.C. & Thiele, H., 2001. "Transfer von Umweltgüterbewertungen: Möglichkeiten, Grenzen und empirsiche Evidenz," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 37.
    7. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    8. Barton, David N., 2002. "The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 147-164, August.
    9. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    10. Genty, Aurélien, 2005. "Du concept à la fiabilité de la méthode du transfert en économie de l’environnement : un état de l’art," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 77.
    11. Mendoza-González, G. & Martínez, M.L. & Lithgow, D. & Pérez-Maqueo, O. & Simonin, P., 2012. "Land use change and its effects on the value of ecosystem services along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 23-32.
    12. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Vačkářová, Davina, 2021. "The value of forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis at the European scale and application to national ecosystem accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    13. Rivas Palma, Rosa Maria & Manley, Bruce & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2012. "Environmental and Social Values from Plantation Forests: A Study in New Zealand with Focus on the Hawke’s Bay Region," 2009 Conference, August 27-28, 2009, Nelson, New Zealand 136074, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Jagoda Adamus, 2023. "How Much Are Public Spaces Worth? Non-Market Valuation Methods in Valuing Public Spaces," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 2, pages 66-89.
    15. Martin Van Bueren & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32, March.
    16. Srijana Shrestha & Khem Narayan Poudyal & Nawraj Bhattarai & Mohan B. Dangi & John J. Boland, 2022. "An Assessment of the Impact of Land Use and Land Cover Change on the Degradation of Ecosystem Service Values in Kathmandu Valley Using Remote Sensing and GIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, November.
    17. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    18. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    19. Xiao Deng & Xi Guo & Yenchun Jim Wu & Min Chen, 2021. "Perceived Environmental Dynamism Promotes Entrepreneurial Team Member’s Innovation: Explanations Based on the Uncertainty Reduction Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-12, February.
    20. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.

    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:12:p:2173-:d:1301440. 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.