IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10698-d899719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Benefit Produced by Marine Protected Areas: The Case of Porto Cesareo Marine Protected Area (Italy)

Author

Listed:
  • Francesca Visintin

    (eFrame Ltd., Via Linussio 51, 33100 Udine, Italy)

  • Elisa Tomasinsig

    (eFrame Ltd., Via Linussio 51, 33100 Udine, Italy)

  • Maurizio Spoto

    (WWF Foundation, Miramare Marine Protected Area, Via Beirut 2/4, 34151 Trieste, Italy)

  • Francesco Marangon

    (Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Udine, Via Tomadini 30/a, 33100 Udine, Italy)

  • Paolo D’Ambrosio

    (Stazione Zoologica “Anton Dohrn”, Contrada Torre Spaccata, 87071 Amendolara, Italy)

  • Luciana Muscogiuri

    (Porto Cesareo Marine Protected Area, Via Alessandro Manzoni 30, 73010 Porto Cesareo, Italy)

  • Sergio Fai

    (Porto Cesareo Marine Protected Area, Via Alessandro Manzoni 30, 73010 Porto Cesareo, Italy)

  • Stefania Troiano

    (Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Udine, Via Tomadini 30/a, 33100 Udine, Italy)

Abstract

The article focuses on the integrated environmental accounting model called ‘eValue’, developed for protected areas and applied in the research programme coordinated by the Italian Ministry of the Environment and aimed at implementing an environmental accounting system for Italian Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). eValue adopts a cost-benefit analysis approach. Financial accounting based on costs and revenues is integrated with environmental accounting, which reflects environmental costs and environmental revenues, i.e., environmental benefits. The environ-mental costs assess the impacts related to human activities in the MPA expressed by calculating the carbon footprint and the environmental benefits of the marine ecosystem services calculated by applying monetary valuation techniques. The values thus estimated flow into the annual flow account, where the value produced (or consumed) by the MPA is estimated by difference. The eValue model was applied to the Porto Cesareo MPA (Italy). eValue showed that the annual benefit-cost ratio reaches a value of 3.4. Furthermore, the ratio of net benefit to public funding is 3.7, completely covering the number of public transfers and thus summarizing the MPA overall value for money.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesca Visintin & Elisa Tomasinsig & Maurizio Spoto & Francesco Marangon & Paolo D’Ambrosio & Luciana Muscogiuri & Sergio Fai & Stefania Troiano, 2022. "Assessing the Benefit Produced by Marine Protected Areas: The Case of Porto Cesareo Marine Protected Area (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10698-:d:899719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10698/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10698/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vassallo, P. & Paoli, C. & Buonocore, E. & Franzese, P.P. & Russo, G.F. & Povero, P., 2017. "Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: A biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 355(C), pages 12-17.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    3. Müller, Felix & Burkhard, Benjamin, 2012. "The indicator side of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 26-30.
    4. Tol, Richard S.J., 2013. "Targets for global climate policy: An overview," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 911-928.
    5. Francesca Visintin & Francesco Marangon & Maurizio Spoto, 2016. "Assessing the value for money of protected areas," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 49-69.
    6. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    7. Buonocore, Elvira & Donnarumma, Luigia & Appolloni, Luca & Miccio, Antonino & Russo, Giovanni F. & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2020. "Marine natural capital and ecosystem services: An environmental accounting model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 424(C).
    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. Chiara Paoli & Paolo Povero & Ilaria Rigo & Giulia Dapueto & Rachele Bordoni & Paolo Vassallo, 2022. "Two Sides of the Same Coin: A Theoretical Framework for Strong Sustainability in Marine Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    3. Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
    4. Zhang, Can & Su, Bo & Beckmann, Michael & Volk, Martin, 2024. "Emergy-based evaluation of ecosystem services: Progress and perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    5. Lopes, Rita & Videira, Nuno, 2017. "Modelling feedback processes underpinning management of ecosystem services: The role of participatory systems mapping," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 28-42.
    6. Useche, Pilar & Blare, Trent, 2014. "The Sustainable Choice: How Gendered Difference in the Importance of Ecological Benefits Affect Production Decisions of Smallholder Cacao Producing Households in Ecuador," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 174285, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Mattei, F. & Buonocore, E. & Franzese, P.P. & Scardi, M., 2021. "Global assessment of marine phytoplankton primary production: Integrating machine learning and environmental accounting models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 451(C).
    8. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    9. Martin, Lawrence, 2014. "The use of ecosystem services information by the U.S. national estuary programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 139-154.
    10. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    12. Michael-Bitton, Geula & Gal, Gideon & Corrales, Xavier & Ofir, Eyal & Shechter, Mordechai & Zemah-Shamir, Shiri, 2022. "Economic aspects of fish stock accounting as a renewable marine natural capital: The Eastern Mediterranean continental shelf ecosystem as a case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    13. Vassallo, P. & Paoli, C. & Buonocore, E. & Franzese, P.P. & Russo, G.F. & Povero, P., 2017. "Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: A biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 355(C), pages 12-17.
    14. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    15. Aaron M. Eger & Ezequiel M. Marzinelli & Rodrigo Beas-Luna & Caitlin O. Blain & Laura K. Blamey & Jarrett E. K. Byrnes & Paul E. Carnell & Chang Geun Choi & Margot Hessing-Lewis & Kwang Young Kim & Na, 2023. "The value of ecosystem services in global marine kelp forests," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Ye, Sufen & Zhang, Luoping & Feng, Huan, 2020. "Ecosystem intrinsic value and its evaluation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 430(C).
    17. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
    18. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    19. Richard S. J. Tol & In Chang Hwang & Frédéric Reynès, 2012. "The Effect of Learning on Climate Policy under Fat-tailed Uncertainty," Working Paper Series 5312, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    20. Arts, Bas, 2014. "Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple G’ perspective: Government, governance, governmentality⁎⁎This article belongs to the Special Issue: Assessing Forest Governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 17-22.

    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:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10698-:d:899719. 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.