IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i23p10286-d1528282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Birds as Cultural Ambassadors: Bridging Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Conservation in Wetland Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Michela Ingaramo

    (Biodiversity and Rural Landscape Lab, Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources and Engineering, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy
    Centro Studi Naturalistici, Pro Natura, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

  • Anna Rita Bernadette Cammerino

    (Biodiversity and Rural Landscape Lab, Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources and Engineering, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy)

  • Vincenzo Rizzi

    (Centro Studi Naturalistici, Pro Natura, 71121 Foggia, Italy
    Natural History Museum of Foggia, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

  • Maurizio Gioiosa

    (Biodiversity and Rural Landscape Lab, Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources and Engineering, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy
    Centro Studi Naturalistici, Pro Natura, 71121 Foggia, Italy
    Natural History Museum of Foggia, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

  • Massimo Monteleone

    (Biodiversity and Rural Landscape Lab, Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources and Engineering, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy)

Abstract

Coastal wetlands deliver essential ecosystem services, including cultural services, which provide non-material benefits such as recreation, education, and spiritual enrichment that are crucial for human well-being. This study investigates the cultural ecosystem services provided by a 40 ha coastal wetland in the Gulf of Manfredonia, southern Italy, within the Gargano National Park. By integrating an ecological survey of the bird community with a social survey of visitors to the King’s Lagoon Nature Reserve, the content of tailored planning strategies and management tools for the conservation of wetland biodiversity was developed. An ecological analysis of the bird community was carried out on the assumption that it could be representative of the total biodiversity observed in the wetland. On the other hand, a questionnaire was used to collect information from visitors to the reserve, highlighting the aspects of the wetland that they found most interesting and attractive according to their judgement and beliefs, and thus targeting a specific set of cultural ecological services. The two approaches were then combined to develop a comprehensive strategy. The bird community analysis led to the identification of the mixed biotope category (a combination of wetlands, aquatic/riparian ecosystems, semi-natural vegetated areas, and meadows together with agricultural areas) as the reference biotope for prioritizing wetland management. The Ardeidae family was chosen as a bird flagship group because of its high visibility, ease of identification, attractiveness to visitors, wide local distribution, and fairly constant presence in the study area throughout the year. Flagship species have a dual function: to guide conservation measures and actions by wetland managers, and to attract the interest, curiosity and active participation of potential visitors to the wetland. Based on the results, a list of guidelines for improving the birds’ habitats and providing them with resources (feeding, breeding, shelter, roosting, etc.) has been proposed. The aim of these measures is to optimize the presence and abundance of Ardeidae as flagship species, thereby preserving the biodiversity heritage in general and increasing the provision of cultural ecosystem services in the wetland. The resulting dynamic interplay ensures that both natural and cultural resources are fully and appropriately valued, protected, and maintained for the benefit of present and future generations.

Suggested Citation

  • Michela Ingaramo & Anna Rita Bernadette Cammerino & Vincenzo Rizzi & Maurizio Gioiosa & Massimo Monteleone, 2024. "Birds as Cultural Ambassadors: Bridging Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Conservation in Wetland Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-25, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:23:p:10286-:d:1528282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10286/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10286/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ajwang’ Ondiek, Risper & Kitaka, Nzula & Omondi Oduor, Steve, 2016. "Assessment of provisioning and cultural ecosystem services in natural wetlands and rice fields in Kano floodplain, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 166-173.
    2. Kumar, Manasi & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 808-819, February.
    3. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Tudor, Marian & Doroftei, Mihai & Covaliov, Silviu & Năstase, Aurel & Onără, Dalia-Florentina & Mierlă, Marian & Marinov, Mihai & Doroșencu, Alexandru-Cătălin & Lupu, Gabriel &, 2019. "Changes in ecosystem services from wetland loss and restoration: An ecosystem assessment of the Danube Delta (1960–2010)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    4. Sarah Marie Müller & Jasmin Peisker & Claudia Bieling & Kathrin Linnemann & Konrad Reidl & Klaus Schmieder, 2019. "The Importance of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Landscape Visitors in the Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, May.
    5. Unai Pascual & Patricia Balvanera & Christopher B. Anderson & Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer & Michael Christie & David González-Jiménez & Adrian Martin & Christopher M. Raymond & Mette Termansen & Arild Vatn, 2023. "Diverse values of nature for sustainability," Nature, Nature, vol. 620(7975), pages 813-823, August.
    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. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Gerd Lupp & Bernhard Förster & Valerie Kantelberg & Tim Markmann & Johannes Naumann & Carolina Honert & Marc Koch & Stephan Pauleit, 2016. "Assessing the Recreation Value of Urban Woodland Using the Ecosystem Service Approach in Two Forests in the Munich Metropolitan Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Burdon, D. & Barnard, S. & Strong, J.A. & Atkins, J.P., 2024. "Linking marine habitats and economic values: A spatial scaling methodology for valuing societal benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    5. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    7. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Berglihn, Elisabeth Cornelia & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2021. "Ecosystem services from urban forests: The case of Oslomarka, Norway," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    9. 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).
    10. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    11. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    12. Jianxiang Song & Jiafu Liu & Xinyue Zhang & Xin Chen & Yingtao Shang & Fengjie Gao, 2024. "Spatio-Temporal Fluctuation Analysis of Ecosystem Service Values in Northeast China over Long Time Series: Based on Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-20, June.
    13. Elwell, Tammy L. & López-Carr, David & Gelcich, Stefan & Gaines, Steven D., 2020. "The importance of cultural ecosystem services in natural resource-dependent communities: Implications for management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    14. Wen Li & Jianwei Geng & Jingling Bao & Wenxiong Lin & Zeyan Wu & Shuisheng Fan, 2023. "Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Variations in Ecosystem Service Functions and Drivers in Anxi County Based on the InVEST Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, June.
    15. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    16. Houdet, Joël & Trommetter, Michel & Weber, Jacques, 2012. "Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-46.
    17. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    18. Tianlin Zhai & Jing Wang & Ying Fang & Jingjing Liu & Longyang Huang & Kun Chen & Chenchen Zhao, 2021. "Identification and Prediction of Wetland Ecological Risk in Key Cities of the Yangtze River Economic Belt: From the Perspective of Land Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, January.
    19. Jones, Laurence & Milne, Alice & Hall, Jane & Mills, Gina & Provins, Allan & Christie, Michael, 2018. "Valuing Improvements in Biodiversity Due to Controls on Atmospheric Nitrogen Pollution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 358-366.
    20. Jianfang Liu & Qian Zhang & Qianyi Wang & Yaoping Lv & Yingqi Tang, 2023. "Gross Ecosystem Product Accounting of a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System: The Longxian Rice–Fish Symbiotic System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, July.

    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:16:y:2024:i:23:p:10286-:d:1528282. 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.