IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i3p857-d1573358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided by the Primary Sector in Floodplains: A Study of Sardinia

Author

Listed:
  • Brunella Arru

    (Department of Soil, Plant and Food Sciences (DISSPA), University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Via Amendola 165/A, 70126 Bari, Italy)

  • Roberto Furesi

    (Department of Agriculture, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy)

  • Pietro Pulina

    (Department of Agriculture, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy)

  • Antonietta Bardi

    (Department of Agriculture, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy)

  • Fabio A. Madau

    (Department of Agriculture, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy
    National Biodiversity Future Centre, University of Palermo, Piazza Marina, 61, 90133 Palermo, Italy)

Abstract

Agriculture, livestock, and forestry are crucial in mitigating hydrogeological risks, such as floods, particularly severe in the Mediterranean region. Still, the ecosystem services (ESs) provided by these activities are often undervalued. However, to assign them an economic value and ensure their effective incorporation into decision-making processes and territorial planning, they must first be recognized, appreciated, and deemed necessary by society. Despite several studies on ESs in the primary sector, research on agroecosystem flood regulation is limited, leaving key aspects unaddressed for decision-makers. No previous studies explicitly address the evaluation of ESs provided by agriculture, livestock, and forestry businesses in hydrogeological risky environments, especially in flood-prone areas. This study investigates the perception of the ESs provided by the above activities, focusing on those furnished in areas subject to hydrogeological instability. It also focuses on Sardinia (Italy), which is highly susceptible to hydrogeological instability. Through a quantitative survey of 270 residents and non-residents, the research provides evidence of society’s perception of the above ESs. Supporting ESs obtain greater appreciation in crop activities, particularly concerning the preservation of pollinating insects, soil fertility, biodiversity, and water quality. Among the regulatory Ess, appreciation is most prominent in fire risk management and flood risk regulation. Similar arguments can be made for livestock activities. Forestry activities are perceived as key players in managing flood risk, landslide risk, soil erosion, and climate change. The Multiple Correspondence Analysis indicates that appreciating one ES often leads to the recognition of others. Additionally, a set of Logit Regressions showed that while age and gender do not influence ESs perception, education level and awareness of climate change-related emergencies play a significant role. Those findings support more informed decision-making and fostering sustainable practices in areas at risk of hydrogeological disasters and lead to several important implications for practitioners, academics, and policymakers.

Suggested Citation

  • Brunella Arru & Roberto Furesi & Pietro Pulina & Antonietta Bardi & Fabio A. Madau, 2025. "Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided by the Primary Sector in Floodplains: A Study of Sardinia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-25, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:3:p:857-:d:1573358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/857/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/857/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberto Furesi & Fabio Madau & Pietro Pulina, 2013. "Technical efficiency in the sheep dairy industry: an application on the Sardinian (Italy) sector," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Olander, Lydia & Polasky, Stephen & Kagan, James S. & Johnston, Robert J. & Wainger, Lisa & Saah, David & Maguire, Lynn & Boyd, James & Yoskowitz, David, 2017. "So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 170-182.
    3. Martínez-García, Víctor & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Alcon, Francisco, 2022. "The economic value of flood risk regulation by agroecosystems at semiarid areas," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    4. Daniele T. P. Souza & Eugenia A. Kuhn & Arjen E. J. Wals & Pedro R. Jacobi, 2020. "Learning in, with, and through the Territory: Territory-Based Learning as a Catalyst for Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Tuğçe Anılan & Selahattin Bayram & Mahmut Cenk Sayıl & Osman Yüksek, 2024. "Statistical analysis of flood risk perception: a case study for Eastern Black Sea Basin, Turkey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 120(9), pages 8743-8760, July.
    6. Dikshit, A.K. & Birthal, Pratap Singh, 2013. "Positive Environmental Externalities of Livestock in Mixed Farming Systems of India," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 26(01), June.
    7. Wim Kellens & Teun Terpstra & Philippe De Maeyer, 2013. "Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 24-49, January.
    8. Bingham, Gail & Bishop, Richard & Brody, Michael & Bromley, Daniel & Clark, Edwin (Toby) & Cooper, William & Costanza, Robert & Hale, Thomas & Hayden, Gregory & Kellert, Stephen, 1995. "Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 73-90, August.
    9. Fabio A. Madau & Brunella Arru & Roberto Furesi & Paola Sau & Pietro Pulina, 2022. "Public perception of ecosystem and social services produced by Sardinia extensive dairy sheep farming systems," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, December.
    10. Rebecca Montrasio & Silvana Mattiello & Martina Zucaro & Dino Genovese & Luca Battaglini, 2020. "The Perception of Ecosystem Services of Mountain Farming and of a Local Cheese: An Analysis for the Touristic Valorization of an Inner Alpine Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Massimo Rovai & Maria Andreoli, 2016. "Combining Multifunctionality and Ecosystem Services into a Win-Win Solution. The Case Study of the Serchio River Basin (Tuscany—Italy)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-25, September.
    12. Iuliana Armas & Radu Ionescu & Cristina Posner, 2015. "Flood risk perception along the Lower Danube river, Romania," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 79(3), pages 1913-1931, December.
    13. Nigel Arnell & Simon Gosling, 2016. "The impacts of climate change on river flood risk at the global scale," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 387-401, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Vallecillo, Sara & Kakoulaki, Georgia & La Notte, Alessandra & Feyen, Luc & Dottori, Francesco & Maes, Joachim, 2020. "Accounting for changes in flood control delivered by ecosystems at the EU level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    16. Vecchio, Riccardo & Caso, Gerarda & Cembalo, Luigi & Borrello, Massimiliano, 2020. "Is respondents’ inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 22(01), March.
    17. Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode & Clemetsen, Morten & Eik, Lars Olav & Faccioni, Georgia & Ramanzin, Maurizio & Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon & Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Sturaro, Enrico, 2019. "Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Riccardo Vecchio & Gerarda Caso & Luigi Cembalo & Massimiliano Borrello, 2020. "Is respondents? inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(1), pages 1-18.
    19. Rutgerd Boelens & Jaime Hoogesteger & Erik Swyngedouw & Jeroen Vos & Philippus Wester, 2016. "Hydrosocial territories: a political ecology perspective," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 1-14, January.
    20. Ewa Lechowska, 2018. "What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(3), pages 1341-1366, December.
    21. P. Bubeck & W. J. W. Botzen & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2012. "A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1481-1495, September.
    22. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    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. Fabio A. Madau & Brunella Arru & Roberto Furesi & Paola Sau & Pietro Pulina, 2022. "Public perception of ecosystem and social services produced by Sardinia extensive dairy sheep farming systems," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, December.
    2. Ewa Lechowska, 2022. "Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(3), pages 2343-2378, April.
    3. Md Omar Faruk & Keshav Lall Maharjan, 2023. "The Determinants of Farmers’ Perceived Flood Risk and Their Flood Adaptation Assessments: A Study in a Char-Land Area of Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    4. 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).
    5. Ewa Lechowska, 2018. "What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(3), pages 1341-1366, December.
    6. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    7. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    8. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    9. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    10. Seunghoo Jeong & Byeong Je Kim & Young‐Joo Lee & Ji‐Bum Chung & Sung‐Han Sim, 2020. "Individual Disaster Assistance For Socially Vulnerable People: Lessons Learned From the Pohang Earthquake in the Republic of Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2373-2389, November.
    11. Hiroaki Daimon & Ryohei Miyamae & Wenjie Wang, 2023. "A critical review of cognitive and environmental factors of disaster preparedness: research issues and implications from the usage of “awareness (ishiki)” in Japan," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 117(2), pages 1213-1243, June.
    12. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    13. Schmidt, Stefan & Seppelt, Ralf, 2018. "Information content of global ecosystem service databases and their suitability for decision advice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 22-40.
    14. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    15. Michal Titko & Jozef Ristvej & Zenon Zamiar, 2021. "Population Preparedness for Disasters and Extreme Weather Events as a Predictor of Building a Resilient Society: The Slovak Republic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-24, February.
    16. Shi-yu Hu & Miao Yu & Ting Que & Gang Fan & Hui-ge Xing, 2022. "Individual willingness to prepare for disasters in a geological hazard risk area: an empirical study based on the protection motivation theory," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 110(3), pages 2087-2111, February.
    17. Wakita, Kazumi & Shen, Zhonghua & Oishi, Taro & Yagi, Nobuyuki & Kurokura, Hisashi & Furuya, Ken, 2014. "Human utility of marine ecosystem services and behavioural intentions for marine conservation in Japan," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 53-60.
    18. Ming Zhong & Lu Xiao & Qian Zhang & Tao Jiang, 2021. "Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Mitigation Actions of Flash Floods: Results from a Survey in Three Types of Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-23, November.
    19. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2015. "The Relative Weights of Direct and Indirect Experiences in the Formation of Environmental Risk Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 318-331, February.
    20. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.

    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:17:y:2025:i:3:p:857-:d:1573358. 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.