IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i6p2434-d334803.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban Standards and Ecosystem Services: The Evolution of the Services Planning in Italy from Theory to Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Maria Colavitti

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture, via Santa Croce 67, 09124 Cagliari, Italy)

  • Alessio Floris

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture, via Santa Croce 67, 09124 Cagliari, Italy)

  • Sergio Serra

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture, via Santa Croce 67, 09124 Cagliari, Italy)

Abstract

Human well-being is determined by multiple factors related to health, social relations, safety, environment, landscape, cultural heritage, and quality of services. The Italian planning system provided a set of “urban standards”, in terms of threshold values of areas per inhabitant destined for public services and facilities. The application of urban standards, for a period of more than fifty years, did not result in a broad improvement of life quality in the urban areas. This paper discusses the issue of urban facilities in Italy in order to evaluate the opportunity to innovate traditional standards according to the environmental and ecological paradigm, focusing on the benefits provided to humans by natural ecosystems, the so-called ecosystem services (ESs). The paper investigates the evolution of the Italian planning practice through the introduction of quality standards and innovative tools able to meet the ever-changing social demand. The research aims to verify if the ES concept is really implemented in the Italian planning practice and if the ecosystem approach has a real impact on political decision-making. Using a comparative method, four case-studies of urban municipal plans are selected and analyzed in order to identify different approaches and possible fields of innovation. The research highlighted a lack of integration of ecosystem services approach in the land use decisions, although there is an in-depth survey on the state of conservation of ecological and environmental resources. The local experiments of qualitative standards represent an attempt to deal with specific ecological emergencies, namely flood risk, air, water, and soil pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Conclusions discuss, from an international perspective, the need to revise the traditional planning approach in the field of public services and facilities, taking into account the influence of ecosystem services on human well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Maria Colavitti & Alessio Floris & Sergio Serra, 2020. "Urban Standards and Ecosystem Services: The Evolution of the Services Planning in Italy from Theory to Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2434-:d:334803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2434/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2434/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    2. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    3. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    4. Vincent Nadin & Dominic Stead, 2013. "Opening up the Compendium: An Evaluation of International Comparative Planning Research Methodologies," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(10), pages 1542-1561, October.
    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. Claudio Fagarazzi & Carlotta Sergiacomi & Federico M. Stefanini & Enrico Marone, 2021. "A Model for the Economic Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services: The Recreational Hunting Function in the Agroforestry Territories of Tuscany (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Davide Marino & Giampiero Mazzocchi & Davide Pellegrino & Veridiana Barucci, 2022. "Integrated Multi-Level Assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES): The Case of the Casal del Marmo Agricultural Park Area in Rome (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, November.
    3. Letizia Cremonini & Marianna Nardino & Teodoro Georgiadis, 2022. "The Utilization of the WMO-1234 Guidance to Improve Citizen’s Wellness and Health: An Italian Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Xiao Chen & Xingping Wang, 2022. "From “Land-Oriented” to “Human-Oriented”: Research on Evolution Features of China’s Industrial Park Planning Standards," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Giuseppe Galiano & Laura Moretti, 2021. "Consistency of Urban Roads to Manage Emergencies: Methodology to Identify the Minimum Network with Total Connectivity at Maximum Availability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Jiří Schneider & Hana Kubíčková, 2020. "The State of the Art of Use of the Concept of Ecosystem Services within Spatial Plans in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Mara Ladu & Silvia Battino & Ginevra Balletto & Ainhoa Amaro García, 2023. "Green Infrastructure and Slow Tourism: A Methodological Approach for Mining Heritage Accessibility in the Sulcis-Iglesiente Bioregion (Sardinia, Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-24, 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. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Zuzana Drillet & Tze Kwan Fung & Rachel Ai Ting Leong & Uma Sachidhanandam & Peter Edwards & Daniel Richards, 2020. "Urban Vegetation Types are Not Perceived Equally in Providing Ecosystem Services and Disservices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    5. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    6. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    7. Donatella Valente & María Victoria Marinelli & Erica Maria Lovello & Cosimo Gaspare Giannuzzi & Irene Petrosillo, 2022. "Fostering the Resiliency of Urban Landscape through the Sustainable Spatial Planning of Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    8. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    9. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    10. Berglihn, Elisabeth Cornelia & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2021. "Ecosystem services from urban forests: The case of Oslomarka, Norway," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    11. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    12. Jonas Smit Andersen & Sara Maria Lerer & Antje Backhaus & Marina Bergen Jensen & Hjalte Jomo Danielsen Sørup, 2017. "Characteristic Rain Events: A Methodology for Improving the Amenity Value of Stormwater Control Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Jeroen Degerickx & Martin Hermy & Ben Somers, 2020. "Mapping Functional Urban Green Types Using High Resolution Remote Sensing Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-35, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Shishay Kiros Weldegebriel & Kumelachew Yeshitela, 2021. "Measuring the Semi-Century Ecosystem-Service Value Variation in Mekelle City Region, Northern Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-28, September.
    16. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    17. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    18. Luederitz, Christopher & Brink, Ebba & Gralla, Fabienne & Hermelingmeier, Verena & Meyer, Moritz & Niven, Lisa & Panzer, Lars & Partelow, Stefan & Rau, Anna-Lena & Sasaki, Ryuei & Abson, David J. & La, 2015. "A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 98-112.
    19. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    20. Hérivaux, Cécile & Grémont, Marine, 2019. "Valuing a diversity of ecosystem services: The way forward to protect strategic groundwater resources for the future?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 184-193.

    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:6:p:2434-:d:334803. 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.