Advertisement

Investigating Territorial Specialization in Tourism Sector by Ecosystem Services Approach

  • Francesco Scorza
  • Beniamino Murgante
  • Giuseppe Las Casas
  • Ylenia Fortino
  • Angela Pilogallo
Chapter
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

From the beginning of the 21st century, following major European and global initiatives such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity, the idea that Ecosystem services could be used as a decision support tool, gained considerable importance in several fields: from economy to public policy, from territorial planning to environmental assessment. This research is part of the methodological framework of an important strategic reference: the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, an international project that defines ecosystem services and assesses the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being. According to the MA, ecosystem services are grouped into four categories: supplying services, regulation services, cultural services, and support services. Starting from this, the present work contributes to build interpretative models for the evaluation of a relevant part of the fourth class of ecosystem services: the territorial touristic attractiveness. The InVEST model, an open source toolkit, has been applied to assess attractiveness of the Basilicata Region considering both natural and cultural heritage in order to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the investigated methodology.

Keywords

Ecosystem services Millennium ecosystem assessment Tourist attractiveness 

References

  1. Amato, F., Pontrandolfi, P., & Murgante, B. (2015). Supporting planning activities with the assessment and the prediction of urban sprawl using spatio-temporal analysis. Ecological Informatics, 30, 365–378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.07.004.
  2. Amato, F., Maimone, B. A., Martellozzo, F., Nolè, G., & Murgante, B. (2016). The effects of urban policies on the development of urban areas. Sustainability, 8(4), 297,  https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040297.
  3. Amato, F., Nolè, G., Martellozzo, F., & Murgante, B. (2017). Preserving cultural heritage by supporting landscape planning with quantitative predictions of soil consumption. Journal Cultural Heritage, 23, 44–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2015.12.009.
  4. Antognelli, S., & Vizzari, M. (2016). Ecosystem and urban services for landscape liveability: A model for quantification of stakeholders’ perceived importance. Land Use Policy, 50, 277–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antognelli, S., & Vizzari, M. (2017). Landscape liveability spatial assessment integrating ecosystem and urban services with their perceived importance by stakeholders. EcologicalIndicators, 72, 703–725. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.015.
  6. Bagstad, K. J., Darius, J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., & Winthrop, R. (2013). A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services, 5, 27–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004.
  7. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Barca Report, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/policy/future/barca_en.htm. Accessed 28 Aug 2017.
  8. Bulkeley, H., & Jordan, A. (2012). Transnational environmental governance: New findings and emerging research agendas. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 556–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cannas, I., & Zoppi, C. (2017). Ecosystem services and the Natura 2000 network: A study concerning a green infrastructure based on ecological corridors in the metropolitan city of Cagliari. In O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, G. Borruso, C. M. Torre, A. M. A. C. Rocha, D. Taniar, B. O. Apduhan, E. Stankova, & A. Cuzzocrea (Eds.), Computational science and its applications (pp. 379–400). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Cowell, R., & Lennon, M. (2014). The utilisation of environmental knowledge in land-use planning: Drawing lessons for an ecosystem services approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(2), 263–282.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c12289j.
  11. De Groot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., et al. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 50–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dvarioniene, J., Grecu, V., Lai, S., & Scorza, F. (2017). Four perspectives of applied sustainability: Research implications and possible integrations. In O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, G. Borruso, C. M. Torre, A. M. A. C. Rocha, D. Taniar, B. O. Apduhan, E. Stankova, & A. Cuzzocrea (Eds.), Computational science and its applications (pp. 554–563). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. EC. (2008). Green paper on territorial cohesion—turning territorial diversity into strength. Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament, the committee of the regions and the European economic and social committee, European commission COM. (2008). 616 final. Brussels, 6(10), 2008.Google Scholar
  14. EC. (2010). Investing in Europe’s future: Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Report from the Commission. Brussels: Directorate General for Regional Policy, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion5/pdf/5cr_part1_en.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2017.
  15. EC. (2010a). EUROPE 2020—a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: Communication from the Commission, COM(2010)2020, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 29 August 2017.
  16. European Union. (2011). The EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg, ISBN 978–92-79-20762-4.  https://doi.org/10.2779/39229.
  17. Floris, M., & Ruggeri, D. (2017). Planning with ecosystem services in the Natura 2000 network of the metropolitan city of Cagliari. In O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, G. Borruso, C. M. Torre, A. M. A. C. Rocha, D. Taniar, B. O. Apduhan, E. Stankova, & A. Cuzzocrea (Eds.), Computational science and itsapplications (pp. 401–415). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Garau, C., & Pavan, V. M. (2018). Evaluating urban quality: indicators and assessment tools for smart sustainable cities. Sustainability, 10(3), 575.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gennaro, I., & Lucio, A. (2014). Capitale Europea della Cultura 2019. Un’analisidelle candidature italiane. Economia Della Cultura, 2, 141–158 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1446/78862.
  20. Haines-Yong, R., & Potschin, M. (2013). CICES V4.3—Revised report prepared following consultation on CICES, Version 4, Aug–Dec 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.Google Scholar
  21. Jordan, A., & Russel, D. (2014). Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? The utilisation of ecological knowledge in different policy venues. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(2), 192–207.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c3202ed.
  22. Kumar, P. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations (TEEB). London and Washington: Earthscan, http://www.teebweb.org/publication/the-economics-of-ecosystems-and-biodiversity-teeb-ecological-and-economic-foundations/. Accessed 26 Sept 2017.
  23. Las Casas, G., & Scorza, F. (2009). Un approccio “contexbased” e “valutazione integrata” per il futuro della programmazione operativa regionale in Europa. In A. Bramanti & C. Salone (Eds.), Lo sviluppo territoriale nell’economia della conoscenza: Teorie, attori strategie (Vol. 42, pp. 253–274). FrancoAngeli Editore.Google Scholar
  24. Las Casas, G., Lombardo, S., Murgante, B., Pontrandolfi, P., & Scorza, F. (2014). Open data for territorial specialization assessment—territorial specialization in attracting local development funds: an assessment procedure based on open data and open tools. TEMA—Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 582–595 (2014), Special Issue.  https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/2557.
  25. Las Casas, G., & Scorza, F. (2016). Sustainable planning: A methodological toolkit. In O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, G. Borruso, C. M. Torre, A. M. A. C. Rocha, D. Taniar, B. O. Apduhan, E. Stankova, & A. Cuzzocrea (Eds.), Computational science and its applications (Part I) (pp. 627–635). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Las Casas, G., & Scorza, F. (2017). A renewed rational approach from liquid society towards anti-fragile planning. In O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, G. Borruso, C. M. Torre, A. M. A. C. Rocha, D. Taniar, B. O. Apduhan, E. Stankova, & A. Cuzzocrea (Eds.), Computational science and itsapplications (pp. 517–526). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Leone, F., & Zoppi, C. (2016). Conservation measures and loss of ecosystem services: A study concerning the Sardinian Natura 2000 network. Sustainability, 8(10), 1061.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101061.
  28. Martellozzo, F., Amato, F., Murgante, B., & Clarke, K. C. (2018). Modelling the impact of urban growth on agriculture and natural land in Italy to 2030. Applied Geography, 91, 156–167 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.12.004.
  29. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European union cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.799769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKenzie, E., Posner, S., Tillmann, P., Bernhardt, J. R., Howard, K., & Rosenthal, A. (2014). Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 32(2), 320–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press. ISBN 9781597260404.Google Scholar
  32. Mininni, M., & Dicillo, C. (2015). Politiche urbane e politiche culturali per Matera verso il 2019. Territorio, 73, 86–93.  https://doi.org/10.3280/tr2015-073013.
  33. Natural Capital Project (NCP). (2015). InVEST User Guide, http://data.naturalcapitalproject.org/nightly-build/invest-users-guide/html/. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.
  34. Owens, S. (2005). Making a difference? Some perspectives on environmental research and policy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(3), 287–292.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2005.00171.x.
  35. Pontrandolfi, P., & Scorza, F. (2016). Sustainable urban regeneration policy making: Inclusive participation practice. In O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, A. -M. A. C. Rocha, C. M. Torre, D. Taniar, B. O. Apduhan, E. Stankova, & S. Wang (Eds.), Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 9788, Part III, pp. 552–560). Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42111-7_44.
  36. Sanderson, I. (2002). Making sense of what works. Public Policy and Public Administration, 17(3), 61–75.  https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670201700305.
  37. Scorza, F., & Grecu, V. (2016). Assessing sustainability: Researchdirections and relevantissues. In: O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, A. -M. A. C. Rocha, C. M. Torre, D. Taniar, B. O. Apduhan, E. Stankova, & S. Wang (Eds.), Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 9786, Part I, pp. 642–647). Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42085-1_55.
  38. Scorza, F., Fortino, Y., Giuzio, B., Murgante, B., & Las Casas, G. (2017). Measuring territorial specialization in tourism sector: The Basilicata region case study. In: O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, G. Borruso, C. M. Torre, A. -M. A. C. Rocha, D. Taniar, B. O. Apduhan, E. Stankova, A. Cuzzocrea (Eds.) Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2017. ICCSA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 10409, pp. 540–553). Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62407-5_38.
  39. Stratigea, A., Papadopoulou, C. -A., & Panagiotopoulou, M. (2015). Tools and technologies for planning the development of smart cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(2), 43–62 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2015.1018725.
  40. Vizzari, M., & Modica, G. (2013). Environmental effectiveness of swine sewage management: a multicriteria AHP-based model for a reliable quick assessment. Environmental Management, 52(4), 1023–1039.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0149-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waylen, K. A., & Young, J. (2014). Expectations and experiences of diverse forms of knowledge use: the case of the UK national ecosystem assessment. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (2), 229–246.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c1327j

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Scorza
    • 1
  • Beniamino Murgante
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Las Casas
    • 1
  • Ylenia Fortino
    • 1
  • Angela Pilogallo
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Urban and Regional Systems Engineering, School of EngineeringUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations