IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i4p1516-d322081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge Models for Spatial Planning: Ecosystem Services Awareness in the New Plan of Bari (Italy)

Author

Listed:
  • Stefania Santoro

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Land, Construction and Chemistry (DICATECh), Polytechnic University of Bari, 70125 Bari, Italy)

  • Pasquale Balena

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Land, Construction and Chemistry (DICATECh), Polytechnic University of Bari, 70125 Bari, Italy)

  • Domenico Camarda

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Land, Construction and Chemistry (DICATECh), Polytechnic University of Bari, 70125 Bari, Italy)

Abstract

The concept of ecosystem services (ES) arises as a formal outcome of historical processes of understanding and interpreting settlements as complex ecological systems. Because of a straightforward, bottom-up demand for environment enhancement, this concept increasingly occurs in discourses, in narratives, in the demands of common people, triggering a new urban environmental awareness. This is now often arising spontaneously in the protocols of participatory plan processes, especially when planning for the future of complex environments such as city areas. The present study tries to elicit reflections around the significance of ES issues awareness in the case study of Bari (Italy), which is experiencing an inclusive and participatory process of construction of shared knowledge for the new master plan. Starting from an initial campaign of civic walks (CWs) along the urban neighborhoods and a subsequent semi-structured interview to the community, the paper carries out comparative analyses using problem-structuring methods (PMs), in order to evaluate and reflect on community behaviors and expectations about ES. Then the paper ends by emphasizing the role of structured knowledge-raising approaches, as critical activities to enhance ecosystem awareness in planning settlements as complex ecological systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefania Santoro & Pasquale Balena & Domenico Camarda, 2020. "Knowledge Models for Spatial Planning: Ecosystem Services Awareness in the New Plan of Bari (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1516-:d:322081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1516/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1516/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. Ferretti, Valentina & Pluchinotta, Irene & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2019. "Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 353-363.
    3. Elsa T.A. Berthet & C�cile Barnaud & Nathalie Girard & Julie Labatut & Guillaume Martin, 2016. "How to foster agroecological innovations? A comparison of participatory design methods," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 280-301, February.
    4. Hansen, Rieke & Frantzeskaki, Niki & McPhearson, Timon & Rall, Emily & Kabisch, Nadja & Kaczorowska, Anna & Kain, Jaan-Henrik & Artmann, Martina & Pauleit, Stephan, 2015. "The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 228-246.
    5. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 241-257.
    6. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    7. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    8. Vogdrup-Schmidt, Mathias & Strange, Niels & Olsen, Søren B. & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2017. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem service provision in nature networks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 165-173.
    9. Ascough, J.C. & Maier, H.R. & Ravalico, J.K. & Strudley, M.W., 2008. "Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 383-399.
    10. Holt, Alison R. & Mears, Meghann & Maltby, Lorraine & Warren, Philip, 2015. "Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-46.
    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. Dario Esposito & Stefania Santoro & Domenico Camarda, 2020. "Agent-Based Analysis of Urban Spaces Using Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition Approaches: A Case Study in Bari, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, June.

    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. Maria Susana Orta Ortiz & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Mismatches in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services to Support Spatial Planning: A Case Study on Recreation and Food Supply in Havana, Cuba," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Chiara Garau & Alfonso Annunziata, 2019. "Smart City Governance and Children’s Agency: An Assessment of the Green Infrastructure Impact on Children’s Activities in Cagliari (Italy) with the Tool “Opportunities for Children in Urban Spaces (OC," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-24, September.
    3. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2019. "A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Hooper, Tara & Cooper, Philip & Hunt, Alistair & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 65-74.
    5. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    6. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    7. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    8. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    9. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    10. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    11. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    12. Hahn, Thomas & McDermott, Constance & Ituarte-Lima, Claudia & Schultz, Maria & Green, Tom & Tuvendal, Magnus, 2015. "Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 74-82.
    13. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    14. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    15. Sun, Ranhao & Chen, Liding, 2017. "Effects of green space dynamics on urban heat islands: Mitigation and diversification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 38-46.
    16. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    17. M. Skourtos & D. Damigos & D. Tsitakis & A. Kontogianni & C. Tourkolias & N. Streftaris, 2015. "In Search of Marine Ecosystem Services Values: The V-MESSES Database," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1-27, December.
    18. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    19. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    20. Sipei Pan & Jiale Liang & Wanxu Chen & Jiangfeng Li & Ziqi Liu, 2021. "Gray Forecast of Ecosystem Services Value and Its Driving Forces in Karst Areas of China: A Case Study in Guizhou Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-20, November.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1516-:d:322081. 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.