IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ovi/oviste/vxxiiy2022i2p189-197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Touristic Capitalisation of Cultural Services Offered by Natura 2000 Sites. Experiences from Romanian Less Developed Regions

Author

Listed:
  • Mihai Talmaciu

    („Alexandru Ioan Cuza“ University of Iasi)

  • Irina Teodora Manolescu

    („Alexandru Ioan Cuza“ University of Iasi)

  • Mioara Mihăilă

    („Ion Ionescu de la Brad“ Iasi University of Life Sciences)

Abstract

In order to protect the geographical areas with valuable ecosystems and for their sustainable valorisation in economic purposes, in the last 20 years in Romania have been delimited many protected natural areas, which were integrated into the European network of Natura 2000 sites. This study aims to identify solutions for a better capitalization of the tourist potential offered by Natura 2000 sites, located in non-traditional tourist areas. At the same time, using the results of the evaluation of ecosystem services we aim to provide policy makers an instrument to integrate environmental objectives, into the development policies of neighbouring communities with the Natura 2000 sites. To this end, the authors realised an adaptation of the integrated European system of tools for assessing ecosystem services, to the case of cultural services identified in 15 Natura 2000 sites, located in the North East Development Region of Romania.

Suggested Citation

  • Mihai Talmaciu & Irina Teodora Manolescu & Mioara Mihăilă, 2022. "The Touristic Capitalisation of Cultural Services Offered by Natura 2000 Sites. Experiences from Romanian Less Developed Regions," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(2), pages 189-197, Decembrie.
    • Handle: RePEc:ovi:oviste:v:xxii:y:2022:i:2:p:189-197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://stec.univ-ovidius.ro/html/anale/RO/2022-issue2/Section%201%20and%202/24.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria TATARUSANU & Cornelia-Mirela MEDELEANU, 2022. "Cultural Values Influence On The Nature - Based Tourism Development," Management Intercultural, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 48, pages 7-15, July.
    2. Angelica-Nicoleta NECULAESEI (ONEA), 2016. "Intercultural Competence Between Desirability And Necessity," CrossCultural Management Journal, Fundația Română pentru Inteligența Afacerii, Editorial Department, issue 1, pages 7-16, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Irina-Teodora MANOLESCU & Mihai TALMACIU, 2021. "Resilience and adaptability of tourism in EaP region - a systematic literature review," CES Working Papers, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 13(3), pages 260-290, November.
    5. Mihai TALMACIU & Irina Teodora MANOLESCU & Stanislav PERCIC, 2020. "The Implications Of European Neighbourhood Policy On Sustainable Development Of Tourism In Eastern European Countries," EURINT, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 7, pages 9-26.
    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. 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.
    2. Rocío del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez & Jorge H. Maldonado & Camilo Andrés Gutiérrez & Melissa Rubio, 2013. "Valoración de Áreas Marinas Protegidas desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de recursos: conciliando enfoques cuantitativos individuales con enfoques cualitativos colectivos," Documentos CEDE 11936, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    3. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    4. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    5. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy--a case study of the Chinese society 1981-2001," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 355-376, March.
    6. Yoann Verger, 2015. "Sraffa and ecological economics: review of the literature," Working Papers hal-01182894, HAL.
    7. 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.
    8. Nils Droste & Bartosz Bartkowski, 2018. "Ecosystem Service Valuation for National Accounting: A Reply to Obst, Hein and Edens (2016)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 205-215, September.
    9. Admiraal, Jeroen F. & Wossink, Ada & de Groot, Wouter T. & de Snoo, Geert R., 2013. "More than total economic value: How to combine economic valuation of biodiversity with ecological resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 115-122.
    10. Olivier Petit & Franck-Dominique Vivien, 2015. "When economists and ecologists meet on Ecological Economics: two science paths around two interdisciplinary concepts," Post-Print halshs-01249774, HAL.
    11. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Daniel Muller, 2018. "Economics of Human-AI Ecosystem: Value Bias and Lost Utility in Multi-Dimensional Gaps," Papers 1811.06606, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2018.
    14. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Chen, G.Q. & Chen, B., 2007. "Resource analysis of the Chinese society 1980-2002 based on energy--Part 5: Resource structure and intensity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2087-2095, April.
    16. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2009. "Governing of agro-ecosystem services - modes, efficiency, perspectives," MPRA Paper 99870, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.
    18. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    19. 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.
    20. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ecosystem services; economic valorisation; sustainable tourism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Z32 - Other Special Topics - - Tourism Economics - - - Tourism and Development

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ovi:oviste:v:xxii:y:2022:i:2:p:189-197. 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: Gheorghiu Gabriela (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feoviro.html .

    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.