G Model

ECOIND-1650; No. of Pages 10

Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy)
Elisa Morri a,∗ , Fabio Pruscini a,1 , Rocco Scolozzi b , Riccardo Santolini a
a b

Department of Earth, Life and Environment (DISTEVA), Carlo Bo University of Urbino, campus scientifico Enrico Mattei, 61029 Urbino, Italy Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Minho University, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Many coastal communities benefit from a lively and profitable economy based on tourism but, simultaneously, cannot rely on the ecosystem services (ESs) provided locally, which have become insufficient because of increasing demand. In the Apennines, a mountain range in central Italy, coastal areas are characterised by growing population and tourist demands and upstream lands mainly supply ecosystem goods and services. Mechanisms to re-distribute resources or payments for ESs would be helpful to foster the sustainability of regional systems. However, currently, there is neither an appreciation for such services nor institutions responsible for addressing this problem. In this paper, we analyse and rank the ecosystem services provided by the forests of two river basins to assign economic values to four ecosystem services relevant for distinguishing provision and benefit areas: soil protection, water retention, drinking water supply and CO2 sequestration. A simplified methodology was developed for contexts with poor environmental datasets. The aim was to provide ecological information to recognise ESs and encourage effective governance of ESs at a regional level. The results showed that the indirect value of the considered ecosystem services was three times higher than the direct value, and a spatial mismatch emphasised a “debt” in coastal areas from upstream areas for selected ecosystem services. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 18 May 2012 Received in revised form 31 July 2013 Accepted 20 August 2013

1. Introduction Ecosystem functions are recognised as services when there are human beneficiaries (Fisher et al., 2008), and their supply affects stakeholders at all institutional levels (Hein et al., 2006). Although the ecological understanding of ecosystem services (ESs) remains limited (Kremen, 2005), policy makers are quickly becoming aware of their connection to well-being and local economies. Several international institutions and academics are involved in worldwide initiatives (e.g., IPBES) and research projects (e.g., TEEB, 2008; MEA, 2005). According to the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (COM 2011/244), local administrations (regional and municipal) must acknowledge the importance of ESs, and associated values should be integrated into environmental accounting and report systems. Particularly at the local level, many processes threaten ecosystem functioning, and decision makers may be effective in impact prevention and ecological value maintenance.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0721304303; fax: +39 0541392935. E-mail address: elisa.morri@uniurb.it (E. Morri). 1 Tel.: +390721304303. 1470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.08.016

The main obstacle is often that the ES value is not recognised and the data do not specifically support local environmental decisions. ESs are not equally distributed in space (Costanza, 2008) and do not flow at identical rates, which causes a common spatial and temporal mismatch between ecosystems services and their beneficiaries (Ruhl et al., 2007; Fisher et al., 2008). The relative positions of local populations in the landscape determines the benefits from several services, e.g., communities residing at the bottom of a river basin depend on upland areas for a water supply (Hein et al., 2006; Brauman et al., 2007). Several evaluations of ecosystem services on the river basin scale have been applied to ecosystem management and planning (Pires, 2004) according to the desired set of ecosystem services and involving the concept of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) (e.g., Borsuk et al., 2001; Jewitt, 2002; Cavatassi, 2004; Van der Keur et al., 2008; Cosman et al., 2012). Indirect and direct drivers of ecosystem change may impair ES provision from upstream to downstream areas. The driving forces may be demographic, economic, socio-political, technological, physical or biological (Nelson et al., 2006). The main physical driver is land conversion, but in many cases, decision makers responsible for such changes may be unaware of its effects on ES provisioning. Land use conversion always affects the mix of services provided by ecosystems;

Please cite this article in press as: Morri, E., et al., A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy). Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.08.016

The remnant forest areas in this section are mainly located along the rivers. the basin sections were drawn according to municipality territories included in each elevation zone.). Indicat.1016/j. may help decision makers and the community of ES users focus on ecosystem functions (Gret-Regamey and Kytzia. Although the IWRM’s definitions and concepts focus on and influence “thinking about sustainability”.. and the basin is approximately 610 km2 . The relatively high concentration of settlements. balance and integration is achievable in practice (Gooch and Stålnacke. 2010.org/10. etc. such as water regulation. inland hill (300–600 m) as a Medium region (M). we sketched the current balance within the river basin between emissions by local communities and sequestration by local forest ecosystems. there are irrigation. and downstream water users should compensate upstream landowners for maintaining their forested areas for water regulation goals. River basins with a high proportion of land covered by forests and wetlands are particularly effective at decreasing and delaying runoff (Bosch and Hewlett. Ecol. The economic values were calculated for three areas within each river basin according to the National Institute for Statistics (ISTAT. such as indirect market pricing. drinking and industry demands and water quality problems (namely.800 inhabitants (ISTAT... 1). Reyes and Mates. 2012). of which 28% is forested (20. 2009) have shown that increased stream flow is correlated with deforestation or forest conversion in small-scale river basins (<1 km2 ) and larger catchments (>700 km2 ).. We also considered CO2 sequestration because. Simultaneously.. beneficiaries and flows are identified and recognised in environmental policies (Syrbe and Walz. 2006) and purifying water supplies (Postel and Thompson. natural and semi-natural grasslands and patches of European hop hornbeam woodlands (Ostrya carpinifolia) or (Salix spp.. 2009. 2006). 1997.ecolind. et al. frequently damages residential areas and agriculture in regard to solid transport accumulation at the bottom of the basin catchment (Nittrouer et al.. 1958): coastal hill or plain (0–300 m) as a Low region (L). and its basin is 700 km2 . but only a few were developed in Italy (Gatto et al. Fisher et al. The lower section of both basins is characterised by settlements and intensive cropland. soil retention and formation.. 2011). Palomo et al. Important quantitative relationships have been shown between drinking water treatment costs and the amount of forest cover: a portion of the variation in operating treatment costs could be explained by a percentage of the forest cover in the water source area.016 . The objective of this breakdown was to study the supply and demand distribution of ecosystem services in different areas of the river basins. Materials and methods Four ecosystem services provided by the forests (Table 1) in the selected river basins were valued using economic techniques. Howarth and Farber. 2007). Several studies about forest ecosystem services were conducted worldwide at dif˜ et al.doi. 2012). roads and industrial and zoo-technical activities with 48 sewage treatment systems (urban and industrial).2013.. Previous studies (Bosch and Hewlett. The study area and current problems The study area is located in the northern region of the Apennine Mountains in Italy and included the Foglia River Basin situated in the northern Marche Region and the Marecchia River Basin in the southern Emilia Romagna Region (Fig. ferent scales (Chiabai et al. and the increase in cost for water treatment was based on a decrease in forest cover (Ernst. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxx–xxx ecosystem service trade-offs may occur without premeditation or even understanding that they are occurring (Rodríguez et al. Monetary evaluation.. The general objective was to understand whether and how much the coastal areas depended on the upstream ecosystem to understand the spatial mismatch between source areas and beneficiaries of ecosystem services. firewood. E.. In this paper. we focused on relatively small river basins on the eastern side of the Apennine Mountains in Italy. Water retention is particularly relevant in Mediterranean regions because of the significant temporal difference between the recharging ground water period (spring. although controversial (Kelman. Inland mountain (>600 m) as a High region (H) (Fig. 1982. 2012). Further methodological details are specified below following the description of the study area. Because economic data are available at a municipality level. two landfills and eight quarries cause qualitative degradation of underground and runoff water. (2006) for regulating ecosystem service.. 2012) or other Mediterranean areas (Merlo and Croitoru.. the landscape is more heterogeneous and is characterised by a combination of agricultural areas. We then identified the associated local beneficiaries and quantified the related demand.. may facilitate a spatial redistribution of resources. tourism). particularly along the Apennine range.G Model ECOIND-1650.g. 2007). http://dx. as suggested by de Groot et al. which is crucial in maintaining ecosystem services for an equitable distribution of costs and benefits (Costanza et al. we estimated the value of ecosystem services. The Marecchia River is 70 km long. 2012. autumn) and maximum water consumption level in the summer used for drinking water by tourists and in agriculture. although this service benefits the global community and demand was not spatially variable (Luck et al. the forest ecosystems are often the main providers of a range of ESs (Quine et al.. of Pages 10 2 ARTICLE IN PRESS E. 2009. 2006).697 ha) with approximately 200. 2011). pollution by nitrates and eutrophication)..542 ha) with 22 small municipalities and 204. (2002) and Farber et al. Forests are common in the High regions and characterised by xerofile mesic deciduous forests. Gunatilake and Vieth. Please cite this article in press as: Morri. food production and recreational services. timber. 2013). avoided cost (Kremen et al. Abildtrup et al. 2005).08. This process is particularly relevant for coastal areas. 2005). 2. Zhao et al. drinking water supply. (2013).. typically where richer areas on shorelines may benefit from a flourishing economy (e. 2000. A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy). 2002). The Foglia River is 90 km long. 2000. The monetary values associated with ecosystem providing services may be pivotal in the formulation and evaluation of environmental policies (de Groot et al. particularly close to the coast. 1998. These river basins are representative of many others reaching the Adriatic Sea in terms of geo-morphology and socio-economic dynamics. considering that the effects of the decision to alter the landscape become much more tangible because service values or degradation can be attributed to specific landowners or land managers (Villa et al.. supply of habitat..000 inhabitants (ISTAT. 2005) and replacement cost (Brauer and Marggraf.. 2004. 1982) but always approximate (Costanza et al.. 2008). 2001). Scolozzi et al. such as water retention.) gallery forest along the rivers. 2001) and 12 municipalities. runoff and associated soil erosion.. 2002) and to perform a supply/demand budget (Burkhard et al. Schuler.. climate regulation. No. Farber et al. 2.. On a river basin scale.. 1982. 2004). The two rivers have a torrential regime with drought periods in summer and two precipitation peaks in spring and autumn. 2008. and ecosystem services provided by the entire river basin. In the middle and lower regions. 2004. Goio et al. The perspective of ecosystem services. Ming et al. soil protection and carbon sequestration. Precisely. 2008. The valuation of ESs can support the involvement of all ES stakeholders (users and providers).g. Morri et al. of which 33% is forested (18.1. it does not appear to indicate how this proposed co-ordination. and compared indirect to direct use values (e. wherein ES providers. Pina 2004). In the middle section of the river basins. Merlo and Croitoru. 1).

1016/j.. A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy). (2008). The location of the Marecchia and Foglia river basins among similar others (the 1st and 2nd orders refer to river Strahler order). 2. In addition to these problems. However. Regione Emilia Romagna and ARPA. groundwater accounts for approximately 23 and 21% derives from other sources (Marche Multiservizi. E. 2007). evaluation method and the variables considered. No. The selected study areas have interlinked problems that are common not only in Italy: the question of water quantity and quality and its distribution for different uses. Rusco et al. and it was approximated by the difference between precipitation input and potential Fig. respectively.. Regarding the CO2 balance.2. Hümann et al. In the Foglia River Basin. (2008). In the Marecchia River Basin. surface water is the main source (56%). Morri et al. The timing of water demands and water availability critically depend on forests in the upper regions of the basins. http://dx. et al.7 million tourists. (2008) Table 1 Forest ecosystem services. Hao et al. 2009).1. 2007). whereas 8% derives from surface and spring water (ATO. (2013). approximately 62% of the consumed water is derived from groundwater and distributed for different uses: approximately 10 Mm3 /yr for domestic drinking water. Ecosystem services Water retention Evaluation method Avoided cost Drinking water supply Direct market price Soil protection Replacement cost Annual soil protection by erosion Hao et al. (2011) Hao et al.016 . and the largest contribution of emissions is because of road transportation (Regione Marche. in addition to the approximately 200. the main precipitation occurs in April and September–December at 100–150 mm/month (the average for 1990–2001) (ARPA. The grey patches represent forest cover in the High. in the upper regions. Guo et al. Medium and Low regions (right).08.ecolind. the Foglia and Marecchia river basin areas contribute approximately 10 and 3% of the total regional emissions. Please cite this article in press as: Morri. a high percentage of the two basins risk soil erosion: 33 and 28% of land use types in the Foglia and Marecchia river basins are at a relatively high erosion risk (5–20 t/ha/yr. Water demand in the Marecchia River Basin reaches approximately 17. (2008) CO2 sequestration Market value Annual rate of atmospheric carbon added to existing biomass carbon pools Goio et al.5 million m3 during June–September with approximately 5. Indicat. of Pages 10 ARTICLE IN PRESS E. 2007). Approximately 30% of the consumed water is imported from other areas (artificial basins or reservoirs). 2009.G Model ECOIND-1650. 1.2.000 residents. Water retention The value of water retention services was estimated as the volume of water retained from runoff (Table 1). thus requiring physical and chemical treatments.. progressive deterioration in groundwater quality and increasing demand has generated a greater use of surface water. However. The valuation of selected forest ecosystem services 2. 2011).doi.org/10. drinking water is obtained from groundwater with fewer treatments. 4 Mm3 /yr for agriculture and 120 Mm3 /yr for the industrial sector (generated from the River Basin Authority of Marecchia). (2001). / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3 Indicator Annual water retained by woodland in regulating runoff Water price Variables • Water retention of forest (% of runoff) • Cost for unit volume of water (D /m3 ) • Forest area (ha) • Water retention of forest (% of runoff) • Cost of drinking water (D /m3 ) • Forest area (ha) • Erosion difference between forest land and non-forest land (ha) • Cost for transporting and restoring a unit volume of soil (D /m3 ) • Forest area (ha) • Soil density (g/cm3 ) • Biomass average growth (m3 /ha) • Wood density of trees (t/m3 ) • The ratio of total above-ground dry biomass to dry biomass of inventoried volume (BEF) • Ratio of elemental carbon from mass to dry biomass (CF) • Root/shoot parameter (R) • woodland area (ha) • CO2 tradable emission permit value (D /tCO2 ) References Xue and Tisdell (2001).2013. Ecol. Xue and Tisdell (2001) Since the 1980s.

CS is the cost for transporting and locating a unit volume of soil (41 D /m3 ) (Regione Marche. CF is the ratio of elemental carbon from mass to woody dry biomass (average value of 0. within the i-slope category and SD is the soil density (1. the BEF and WBD coefficients were obtained from Vitullo et al. 0. The above-described procedure was determined using the following equation: WR = CRW × j i benefit of the forest ecosystem.. the economic value of soil protection was estimated as the avoided cost of restoring soil where erosion might occur.and belowground biomass).i ) SD (3) i where A is the forest area (m2 ) with i-slope category.doi. A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy). 2008). land use (Morri. (6) and (7).).org/10. 2005. 2007) and 44/12 is the ratio of molecular weight of CO2 to carbon (tCO2 tC−1 ). http://dx.. only represented 43% of the total CO2 sequestered (TOTCO2 ) by the forest according to the Italian Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2007 (Romano et al.2013. (2013). as expressed in Eq. A is the forest area occupied by i-forest typology (ha). of Pages 10 4 ARTICLE IN PRESS E.1016/j.2. Rcj is the retaining coefficient for j-forest typology and Runoffi. (2008). scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation associations.08. DW = CDW × j i where GS is the volume of growing stock by a specific i-forest typology (m3 /ha).j j (1) GSi × BEFi × WBDi × Ai (4) where WR is the water retention services (expressed in D ). Hence.. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxx–xxx evapotranspiration (Bonan. 1996) using ArcGIS 9. 2012.8/m3 considering a cost of more than D 14. In our study. CO2 sequestration Vegetation accumulates carbon into the biomass through the absorption of atmospheric CO2 . Ecol. (4) (Federici et al. pers.5 million m3 (Pesaro–Urbino Province. 2009). Rusco et al. 2008 for Foglia River Basin and HERA for Marecchia River Basin). respectively. the value of the drinking water supply service (DW) to households. E.G Model ECOIND-1650. 2010) and forest management maps (IPLA. The precipitation and evapotranspiration calculation (by the Turc formula) considered 16 measurement stations (Didero et al. which corresponds to the average CO2 price in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (Duong.2. 2003). Carbon is stored in various pools in an ecosystem.ecolind. 5–10. Please cite this article in press as: Morri. Such forested areas were overlapped with the retained portion of runoff (Rc) per pixel to obtain the amount of water retained by forest ecosystems in the Marecchia and Foglia river basins (Table 2).. (2011) (Table 2). we interpolated the precipitation data by an inverse distance weighting (IDW) method (Bartier and Keller. comm. this value was estimated by the difference in the potential erosion between wooded and non-wooded land (Xue and Tisdell. Thus. 2007. (2008) and Xue and Tisdell (2001) using the cost of new artificial detention basins (currently in the planning stage in the study area) as the avoided cost of detention of a unit of water. IPCC.. Such a contribution was multiplied by the average cost for transporting and restoring a unit volume of soil and divided by the average soil density. such as emission market-based policy. Forest extensions in the study area were extracted from land use maps (Morri. Regione Emilia Romagna. which converts growing stock biomass (Table 3). 2009). i.4 D /m3 ) defined by a local water service company (Marche Multiservizi. modified) considering different forest typologies: above CO2 = CF × 44 × 12 i Rc∗ Runoffi. The economic value of water retention was calculated similarly to Hao et al. reflects social costs and controls the total emissions (Tol. the total living biomass as calculated by Eqs. CO2 sequestration of soil and dead organic matter was derived considering the distribution of CO2 sequestration in different pools in the study areas using Eqs. The results corresponded to the average value of potential erosion for F and non-F in the five slope classes. including the living biomass (above. CRW is the cost of a unit of retained water (D /m3 ). The value of a sequestered ton of carbon can be approximated by the value of tradable emission permits (Stern. The annual CO2 sequestration of aboveground biomass was calculated by Eq. Goio et al.j is runoff over i-pixel with j-forest typology (m). (2008). dead organic matter and soil organic matter (IPCC. 2006. Regione Emilia Romagna.5. 2010). 2007) at a scale of 1:50. expressed as t/ha/yr. 2. The runoff portion withheld by the forest was estimated using “efficiency of water conservation” coefficients for different forest typologies derived from Hümann et al. 2002) for forest land respect to croplands or other land use types. (5): below CO2 = CF × 44 × 12 i Rc∗ Runoffi. Other pools included soil (SCO2 ) and dead organic matter (DOMCO2 ). commerce and industry was derived using the above-described water retention capacity provided by the forests multiplied (Eq... 2008). 2008). in which CO2 sequestration represented 48 and 9%. the tree belowground biomass was calculated using Eq..2.2 million for the project with a potential retention volume of approximately 1. Drinking water supply Similar to Hao et al. The slope was calculated by DTM with 20 m of resolution and divided into five categories: <5.016 . BEF is the biomass expansion factor for i-forest typology. (2)) by the price of a unit of drinkable water (CDW.2. from F and non-F areas with identical slopes approximated the contribution to erosion reduction and was expressed as a where R is the root/shoot ratio.i and SEF. The GS values were derived from local data (INFC. We distinguished potential erosion levels between forests (F) and non-forests (non-F) in terms of slope using the following thematic maps: soil erosion risk (20 m pixel size.. Analogously.4. (2007) and the forest typologies were elaborated from the vegetation map (Catorci et al. The difference of soil loss.. WBD is the wood basic density of iforest typology (t of dry biomass m−3 ).4 t/m3 ) of the study area. We then calculated the potential runoff for each pixel by subtracting the relative potential evapotranspiration. The above. Precisely.i are the soil erosion risk (t/ha/yr) provided by non-forest (non-F) and forests (F). 2005).j j (2) GSi × Ri × WBDi × Ai (5) 2. we used a carbon market price expressed as the emission permit price of 20 D /t CO2 . 2010) and slope. Because forest ecosystems are the most effective in soil protection. as described in Hao et al. the average price of a unit of retained water was estimated at D 9.e. Thus. Soil protection The soil protection services provided by the forests emerge as a decrease in soil erosion (Bini et al. Fankhauser. (3): Sp = CS × Ai × (SEnon-F. (4) and (5). non-forest (non-F) mainly consisted of agricultural areas. which expands growing stock volume to the volume of aboveground woody biomass. 1990) located in the study area. 2007).000 (Table 3). 2012. SEnon-F.3. Mahmoudzadeh et al.and belowground biomass. 2001). 2.. SCO2 = TOTCO2 100 × 48 (6) DOMCO2 = TOTCO2 100 ×9 (7) As indicated by some authors (ENCAP. 2009). Indicat. et al. 20–50 and >50%.3 software. 2000).i − SEF. respectively. Morri et al. 10–20. 1995. No.

16 232.27 0.1. which were also the most extensive. agriculture and industry) is the main beneficiary of the valued ecosystem services. 2) strongly unbalanced in favour of demand in the Low region.3.91 × 106 m3 for the Marecchia and Foglia river basins. considering that all water distributed to networks must be treated to be drinkable.2013. we considered domestic use (by citizens and tourists).79 × 106 D /yr for the Marecchia River Basin and approximately 1. the associated consumption of natural resources can be considered as proxy indicator of the current ESs demand. including private citizens. the results were (Fig.doi. 2) emphasised forest support. The data from the demand supply balance at the Marecchia River Basin (Fig. from the residential.1 5.1.85 10.91 77. expressed in t/yr (2007). as indicated in the national air emission inventory (INEMAR Project.24 0.36 1.29 Please cite this article in press as: Morri. industrial and agricultural sectors. to only consider water demand and supply provided within the basin.6 Water retained Marecchia river basin (m3 × 106 ) 5. A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy).08. not reduced by 30%.41 0.. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5 Table 2 The water retained (m3 × 106 ) by forests in the Marecchia and Foglia river basins using retaining coefficients of water for different forest management typologies (elaborated from Hümann et al. The total value for soil protection services was approximately 1.60 0.53 0.23 0. Forest management Coppiced woodland Mature woodland Young woodland Unmanged woodland Reforestation Total Efficiency of water conservation (% of runoff) 88. To compare the indirect and direct use values.44 0.ecolind.3 WBD 0.016 .4 83. Morri et al.13 0.27 0. To differentiate the distribution of ES supplies and related beneficiaries. where most of the population and a high concentration of tourist activities were located. No.3. 3.. The higher values of CO2 sequestration in GS (m3 /ha yr) 4. The data showed that the greater forest performance (a higher difference between non-F and F) in soil protection mainly occurred in higher slope classes (20–50 and >50%). 2009) with a price of 30 D /t (generated from Regione Marche.8 D /m3 . the civil sector (tourism and citizens) was responsible for 70% of the water demand. Thus.39 1.67 0. The supply showed a decreasing gradient from high to low zone.43 BEF 1.5 and 0.13 0.9 × 106 D /yr and 3.62 7. The direct use value for our study area mainly consisted of the production of timber or firewood. Results 3. which was responsible for an increase of approximately 80% of the value on a local level. 2010). whereas in the Medium region.0 83. http://dx. Woodland typologies Beechwood Oak wood Oak wood 2 (Turkey oaks) Hornbeam Hygrophilous wood Other deciduous wood Coniferous wood Woodland area (ha) 1081.1016/j.35 Water retained Foglia river basin (m3 × 106 ) 6.2 0. 3. The water retention demand was estimated as the annual consumption in the civil. we considered the CO2 emissions. In this region.91 2. of which 10% of the total demand was required by industrial activities.6 4.72 million D /yr for the Foglia River Basin. The coppiced forest was the most extensive typology and retained most of the total water in the basins. E.2 3 7.35 × 106 m3 and 7. The value of the drinking water supply The total value for the drinking water supply was estimated at approximately 2.1.. industrial activities were responsible for 17% of the total water demand. industrial and agricultural sectors. Medium and Low regions.53 0.3 4.93 0. waste and energy production.69 6692.2.69 0. which is considered an important revenue for the administrative region. which corresponded to water derived from sources external to the basin (artificial reservoirs). according to a decreasing extension of forested areas. Only the water conservation of forests in the High region could support drinking water treatment demand. 3. 3. the main contributor (80%) to soil protection was provided by steeper forests.42 1. 2011). The identical trend also characterised the High region but with lower demand values. This value price was net and did not consider the cost for capital and labour. 2009). Such an amount was reduced by 30%. respectively (Table 7). (2013).2 0. Approximately 70% of the forests in the study area were managed as coppice.5 80.5 2. public institutions and productive sectors (tourism.G Model ECOIND-1650.47 1.1 89. Local demands for forest ecosystem services The local population. For the drinking water supply.1. Accordingly. we considered three regions (Fig. The value of CO2 sequestration The values of CO2 sequestration in the living biomass are presented in Table 5.76 5988.45 1. Using the price of a retained volume of water.41 0.1.57 2426. 9. Considering the demand/supply for the Marecchia River Basin. The value of water retention The amount of water retained was approximately 7.47 0.org/10.05% of the total demand in the High.1 × 106 D /yr for the Marecchia and Foglia river basins. of Pages 10 ARTICLE IN PRESS E. 1) according to the relative elevation in each basin and collected information from local statistics. and only 2% of the total demand of the drinking water supply showed an increasing downstream gradient.2 × 106 D /yr and Table 3 The forest typologies and parameters used to assess CO2 sequestration. supporting only 1. the water retention values (1) were estimated at 72.47 1.535. we considered a production of 70 t/ha (INFC.746.2. For CO2 sequestration. derived from the avoided cost of avoiding artificial water reservoir. The value of soil protection The total amount of soil loss [2] was estimated for forest (F) and non-forest (non-F) for the five slope classes (Table 4). Ecol. respectively.51 12.37 R 0. et al.7 × 106 D /yr for the Marecchia and Foglia river basins.57 7. respectively (Table 2). whereas an opposite gradient emerged in the supply trend. respectively (Table 7). 0.24 0. Indicat.24 0.

06 0.88 12. http://dx. Ecol.G Model ECOIND-1650.74 4.57 2426.000.65 Amount of CO2 sequestration in belowground biomass (t CO2 /ha yr) 0. The supply/demand values for the Marecchia and Foglia river basins. Indicat.58 4.22 Soil erosion non-F-F (t/ha/yr) −7.82 276.85 92.11 0. of Pages 10 6 ARTICLE IN PRESS E.10 1. Morri et al.02 0.821.99 0.92 1268. (2013).92 8.746.96 5.51 12.1016/j.27 1.56 20.86 F area (ha) 506.750.008.19 1. River basin Marecchia Slope (%) <5 5–10 10–20 20–50 >50 Erosion F (t/ha/yr) 9..67 0.37 Erosion non-F (t/ha/yr) 2.86 8. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxx–xxx Fig.95 7.13 33.390.72 18.54 Beechwood Oak wood Oak wood 2 (Turkey oaks) Hornbeam Hygrophilous wood Other deciduous wood Coniferous wood Total 1081..64 1. No.84 1056. 2.2 1690.29 4.23 1.08 0.50 5.54 4.03 5.89 11.17 1.27 8.08.org/10.687 <5 5–10 10–20 20–50 >50 2.72 8429.69 6692.72 14.93 5.88 3.27 0.20 1311.91 Please cite this article in press as: Morri.72 4976.09 8.82 Value of CO2 sequestration in living biomass (×106 D /yr) 0.79 −0.13 1.94 6.44 21.28 0.42 1.ecolind.23 907. Forest typologies Forest area (ha) Amount of CO2 sequestration in aboveground biomass (t CO2 /ha yr) 6. The average belowground CO2 sequestration value (tCO2 /ha yr) was 14% (average value) with respect to living biomass.85 10. E.72 Total Foglia Total below.83 5.78 4.12 3505.859.6 5640 11. Coniferous and beech wood with lower extensions represented less than 3% of the total value.542 Soil protection value 106 D /yr −0.016 .01 0.and aboveground biomasses were linked to Turkey oaks.76 5988. A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy).54 7.61 3.01 1.98 Amount of CO2 sequestration in living biomass (t/yr) 8359.29 7.43 2. Table 5 The total CO2 sequestration and its economic value for living biomass in the Marecchia and Foglia river basins.02 66.535.2013.32 1.doi. forests were responsible for the sequestration of 277 × 103 t/yr of CO2 .71 4.24 0.86 0.24 −0.65 2.70 1.25 0.42 7.85 1.86 6. In the Marecchia and Foglia river basins.36 53.16 232.247. Table 4 The soil protection values in the slope classes for the Marecchia and Foglia river basins. et al.73 0. other deciduous and hygrophilous wood that corresponded to 61% of the total value of CO2 sequestration in the living biomass.71 0.

66 Value in living biomass (×106 D /yr) 3.928 4685 Forest indirect use values (×106 D /yr) 8.66 0. the total value of CO2 sequestration was contributed by different pools (Table 6) and was estimated at 7. In the Foglia River Basin. drinking water supply.7 41. we calculated the value of water retention.32 × 106 and 6.4.123 Forest indirect use values (×106 D /yr) 2.2 Value (D /ha yr) 2085 3866 157 96 358 4477 Foglia river basin Value (×106 D /yr) 31. Medium and Low river basin regions are presented in Table 8.7 3. It should be noted that water retention and drinking water supply overlapped in the provisioning area but their economic value was distinct and did not involve double accounting. the Medium region provided a higher indirect use value.439. Ecol. the High region contained 70% of the total indirect use values. respectively. water retention was the most important ecosystem service provided by the forest. According to the Italian Greenhouse Gas Inventory. the demand was lower in the low zone of the Foglia River Basin because of less frequent road traffic.8 7.. drinking water supply. We distinguished direct and indirect use values for the ecosystem services presented in Table 7.1 Value (D /ha yr) 2379 3782 154 84 342 4362 Total indirect value Table 8 The forest ecosystem services value in High. carbon sequestration and soil protection using monetary values derived from replacement costs or (surrogate) market prices. For soil protection.. 3. The forest ecosystem service values distributed in the High. respectively. This selection was also guided by the expected (but not quantified) differences between up.60 × 106 D /yr for the Marecchia and Foglia river basins.G Model ECOIND-1650.32 6. 2).9 1. A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy).3 × 106 and 31. stability of soil). Compared to the Marecchia River Basin. we combined several methods to evaluate the indirect use of forests at the watershed level.08. Soil and living biomass were the two main pools.2 × 106 and 89. in which the forests (%) represented the proportions of forest and each region.8 Forest (%) 11 34 44 Forest extent (ha) 1929 13.50 3. Water retention of the forests provided the highest values for both river basins with values exceeding 3700 D /ha yr. supply was greater in the Medium region with a larger extension compared to the High region and contained 66% of the total forests. Type Ecosystem services Marecchia river basin Value (×106 D /yr) Direct value Indirect value Firewood Water retention Drinking water supply Soil protection CO2 sequestration 27. (2013).7 6.758 26. The values of forest ecosystem services The indirect values of forest ecosystem services of the Foglia and Marecchia river basins are presented in Table 7. Soil protection can only be Please cite this article in press as: Morri.3 Low Medium High Using a tradable permit price of 20 D /t CO2 .30 22.016 .6 10. respectively. the total value of CO2 sequestration for the living biomass was approximately 5.578.4 60. Morri et al.doi. 4. and were three times lower than the indirect values.1016/j. mainly in the tourist season. Nearly 25% of the total CO2 sequestration demand of the Marecchia River Basin and over 30% in the Foglia River Basin was satisfied by the forest ecosystem. Essentially.2013. the timber production value was estimated at 27. regarding the CO2 sequestration of dead organic matter and soil (Eqs. In all three regions. soil protection and carbon sequestration were estimated at 84. In the Marecchia River Basin.g.1 × 106 D /yr for the Marecchia and Foglia river basins. The ES values showed a gradient according to forest coverage. it was not possible to compare supply and demand because of the intrinsic difficulty in defining a possible demand for services rarely considered and paid for by lay people (e.1 × 106 D /yr for the Marecchia and Foglia river basins. approximated by consumption rates or use. artificial water basins instead of forest water retention capacity). These forest ESs were selected because they are among the most important and can be easily valued with available data. CO2 sequestration demand showed an increasing downstream gradient for both river basins (Fig.1 1. River basin Marecchia Foglia Value of TOTCO2 (×106 D /yr) 7.3 84.ecolind. Physiographic regions Marecchia river basin Extent (ha) 14.org/10.54 × 106 D /yr. which is commonly responsible for higher CO2 emissions. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 7 Value in SCO2 (×106 D /yr) 3.6 89..and downstream (coastal) areas in ES provisioning and demand. Indicat. http://dx. Discussion In this study. 2009) and Marche Region data (2010). Therefore.38 Table 6 The CO2 sequestration values of different pools.1 77.3 Foglia river basin Extent (ha) 17. considering their provision of ecosystem services for comparison with current demand.078 Forest (%) 4 24 50 Forest extent (ha) 540 5024 13. we distinguished ES values for the river basin sections according to elevation breaks with the purpose of emphasising the spatial mismatch in ES provisioning and demand and investigated the reliance of the coastal economy on the ecosystem services supplied in the upstream areas.6 59.179 20.1. Regarding the Foglia River Basin.60 Table 7 The economic values of the forest ecosystem services of the Marecchia and Foglia river basins. Based on the National Forestry Inventory (INFC. (6) and (7)). Drinking water supply was evaluated by the actual price of drinkable water for the final consumers and was considered a proxy for the linked values generated by water availability.56 Value in DOMCO2 (×106 D /yr) 0. No. The economic values of water retention.4 20. of Pages 10 ARTICLE IN PRESS E. et al. Medium and Low regions of the Marecchia and Foglia river basins.836.e. The water retention value was estimated by considering the avoided costs of artificially replacing natural function (i. E.2 2. According to the distribution of forests and urban settlements.16 2.3 72..

At this stage of decision-making. This study was useful for grounding the criteria for a priority definition in landscape planning and management. firewood production). although the economy of the lower regions was increasingly dependent on ES from upstream areas. and fire were neglected. et al. The produced value-based information can support compensation mechanism definitions or PES schemes to promote the re-distribution of resources or different types of decision-making for conservation and resource management planning. with the cutting cycle (approximately 15 years for coppice). precipitation and temperature).e. this study provided useful insights suitable for fostering informed debate concerning the definition of regional policies. the use of replacement costs or market prices related to the specific regional context better supported the assessment reliability with respect to the benefit transfer approach (as in Scolozzi et al. which range from forest management scattered by private small landownership to the regional water cycle and water use regimes.it for his support on slope map analysis. slope.1016/j. market prices and environmental variables (such as land cover. the supply exceeded the demand in the higher watershed section.The analysis of supply and demand of the selected ecosystem services showed a spatial mismatch. 2006).g. 2011.e. land use change. generally the residents of higher basin sections.. Morri et al. Stenger. which were not dependent on the respondents’ perceptions or surveys (as opposed to contingent valuations) and were more easily replicable in other contexts. Terre.2013. some underestimation may be because of different CO2 sequestration by forest typologies. which rely on available basic data from variables sensitive to land use change and forest management (forest typologies). target management rules for existing forests and expressly address ES cumulative returns (i. farmers) when this service is absent.Our study described a simplified procedure for the evaluation of selected ecosystem services provided by forests using a set of replacement costs or avoided costs.. Hence. Currently. industry).doi. The final results. mapping the ES supply and demand and representing the spatial mismatch along the three sections of watershed helped identify providers and beneficiaries.. . we estimated that it would be necessary to build at least five artificial reservoirs (similar to the one mentioned in Section 2. forest owners or managers. benefited from natural resources but also generated the most ESs at the watershed level. agriculture. some examples in Italy are described in the context of water management (Pettenella et al. References Abildtrup. This information also focused on the value of ecosystem processes not previously considered in natural resources management.. economic equity among territories in terms of benefit redistribution from ESs.. could partially support the total demand of ecosystem services in the river basin.g. thus emphasizing a “debt” in coastal areas from upstream areas.G Model ECOIND-1650. Simultaneously. We are grateful for interesting suggestions allowing for manuscript improvement...016 . in the study area. Acknowledgement This research was funded by the Pesaro Urbino and Rimini Provinces. Such coordination could be a component of adaptive and multi-level governance seeking policy definitions for ecological-economic sustainability (e. because they provided comparable values to real market prices. The observed mismatch in ES supply and demand was both spatial and chronological and involved two groups of beneficiaries related to the public (citizens and tourists) and private sectors (forestry. agriculture). E. showed that the indirect use values exceeded those related to direct use. 2005)..org/10. We thank the anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxx–xxx perceived by specific land users (i. The greatest values were related to the water retention service.The results showed that the indirect use values of the selected ecosystem services were three times higher than the direct use values (i. 2012). Within a hypothetical scenario in which the forest was not present. the capacity of forest ecosystems to satisfy local drinking water demand and water retention supply appeared to be low and only contributed to 4% of the total consumption in the Marecchia River Basin.This approach can be easily applied in similar contexts and in the planning scenarios assessment as indicators at different levels. (2013). Indicat. Surprisingly. particularly concerning drinking water supply and CO2 sequestration. Currently. whereas the opposite occurred in the low and medium sections.08. as suggested in previous studies (de Groot et al. 2002. i.... A. avoided costs were particularly notable to local administrators who must use public funds to repair ecosystem damages resulting from development. Garcia. such as urban planning (e. similar to many cases in the literature (Merlo and Croitoru. The main contribution to the soil protection value was provided by forests located in higher slope classes. although they are mentioned in some of the latest policies (e.ecolind. Concerning CO2 sequestration. The effect of forest land use on the cost of drinking water supply: a spatial econometric analysis. No. . The authors are also grateful to ASSAM (Agenzia Servizi Settore Agroalimentare Marche) for support with local soil data knowledge. 5. Ecol. In: International Please cite this article in press as: Morri.2) to have the identical water retention. there are no mechanisms to pay for the selected ecosystem services. http://dx. which represented approximately 86% of the total indirect value for both study areas. A weak link between the up. considering the peak water demands in the dry season) and in particular.. Only in the High region of watershed the drinking water demand was satisfied by local supply. A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy). Most benefits from ESs flowed continuously over time. whereas the benefits related to direct forest use (forestry sector) ran out periodically. Notwithstanding the methodological limitations and result uncertainties linked to the needed simplification of ecological processes. Farber et al. A multi-level perspective is required to understand and manage different scales of the different processes involved in ES provisioning. characterized by extensive forests. . for example. Conclusions . in which the upstream region. S.e.. such a mismatch was not considered by local institutions.. Replacement costs or market prices related to the specific regional context are expected to support assessment reliability to reward provisioning areas where ecosystem services are maintained or compensate losses in ecosystem benefits. Further specific calculations may guide the definition of payments for ecosystem services at the river basin scale. We observed a downstream positive gradient of demand and opposite upstream gradient of supply.. future benefits from ESs). cutting.e. J. urban green functions) and environmental effect evaluations.. Moreover.and downstream areas was because of recreation value and nature-based tourism. The obtained information supported the need of ESs governance at the watershed level to promote the coordination of more detailed valuations and actions. 2012). The economic assessments relied on avoided cost and replacement cost methods. The uncertainty of value-based information could be considered acceptable for scoping a strategic spatial plan at the river basin scale. as expected. The carbon sequestration service was likely to be overestimated as CO2 release because mortality. of Pages 10 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS E.g. The tourist flow from the coast reaches the upper regions of the watershed by guided tours. ISSI (Istituto Sviluppo Sostenibile Italia) for support on carbon sequestration valuation methodologies. coppice is more efficient than a natural mixed-age forest. In this perspective.

J. 41.... Müller. Dalton. Econ. Norgaard. Soc.M. http://dx. R.. O’Neill.. 2002. Ethics.. 000) per la progettazione e la gestione della rete ecologica regionale. C. 120385. Milano. L. 63. R. Oceanography 17. Kremen. pp. J. Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by Biodiversity Conservation: An Integrated Hydrological and Economic Model to Value the Enhanced Nitrogen Retention in Renaturated Streams. Bioscience 56 (2.. M. L. Tulipano. 2. of Pages 10 ARTICLE IN PRESS E... INFC. IPCC Technical Support Unit. Fitosociologia 44. J. A. 3–23. R... Internal report of Urbino-Pesaro Province. Y. F. M.. M. IPCC.1-17... B. B. Costanza.. Goio. Trust for Public Land.. G. Environ. 2009.K. S.D. DC. K. Gatti. J. Z... No. 2008. Didero.. 2003.. J. 1–5.. S. The value of eco system service: putting the issues in perspective.. I caratteri quantitativi 2005–parte 1.. Biol.W. Complexity 7. Farber. A. L. 4... Daily. Ding.08. Grewal.P.A. M. 1996. Agricultural and Development Economics Division. 2000. Nakicenovic. 468–479. Schüler.G Model ECOIND-1650. Annu. In: Swartzman. www. 1. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Policies. 2007. P. and the climate benefits of forests. Conserv. 2008. Calcagnini.. 2006... Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 115–118. C.. B. J. 2004.M. The Economics of the Greenhouse. Please cite this article in press as: Morri. S. M.. M. 2001. Seufert. Burkhard. and Methods. R.. Ecosyst. I. Farber. 46–57. CABI Publishing. Keller. R. Myers. R.... G. Science 320. vers.. Maguire. 57. ARPA.. Zilocchi. Sediment yields and soil loss rates from native forest. Second Quarter. J.. Bilancio di sostenibilità (Balance of sustainability). B.. C. 61.M. van den Belt. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. Li-Juan. 2012. 375–392.. R. Econ. R. G. An approach to estimate carbon stocks change in forest carbon pools under the UNFCCC: the Italian case. R. A typology for the classification. Wilson. Mahmoudzadeh. Catorci. M. 2011. Sci. Levy.. Morri et al.doi. X.ipcc. Caspari. 887–895. 21....emr.doi.. Hannon. D.. Nunes. 38. Harlow..P.. Biondi. Franca...S. J... MiPAAF–Ispettorato Generale Corpo Forestale dello Stato. S.1016/j. P.. Marco. ShaoNing. Klein.. P. R. Schneider. L. Forests and climate change: forcings. F. E. Nelson. services and their values – a case study in Xingshan County of China. 2050–2067. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. M. Lo stato ambientale del bacino del fiume Foglia: Funzionalità Fluviale e Servizi Ecosistemici (Environmental state of Foglia river basin: river functionality and ecosystem services). 195–799..H. Decis. 253–260. Grove. Pesaresi. Wilson.doi.R.. How water utilities can spearhead natural capita accounting. G. Spatial scales. Washington. ISTAT. URL: http://www. G. S. M. C. http://www. Secco...org/vol11/iss2/art29/ Nittrouer. 86–95. Group. A. http://dx. Troy.C. Farber. pp.1111/j. 2008. DC. 2005. Dobson. Haines-Young.org/ 10. 2007. R. Appl. Farber. INEMAR Project. R.atorimini.. Bini. A. Pettenella. S.. A. Borsuk. P..eu/xwiki/bin/view/Inemar/ WebHome INFC. Earth A/B/C 27. Economic incentives for rain forest conservation across scales. K. 14.. A. Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. (2013).. Bennett. Markandya. Mooney. Costanza. The development of forest accounting in the province of Trento (Italy). GuangDong. London.. Identifying spatial priorities for protecting ecosystem services.. 2006.. Ferraro. Grasso.2013. Kanagawa.xKremen. European Association of Agricultural Economists.. 04-01. Ecol. Vitanzi.. ISTAT. http://www..2005. W.. Willemen. S. Montes.. E. Ventrone. B. T. Foglia.arpa. J. Earthscan..C. C. 1997. N. S. Metodi e norme Serie C (1). 637–649. Paruelo. Regione Marche).). G. Hidrol. London. 2000.04. 29. E. 55 (2). M.. R. J. FEEM Working Paper No.R. Serv. 1990. S. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol.. P.. Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. 369. P. Naeem. Potschin.. F.. Inventario Nazionale delle Foreste e dei Serbatoi Forestali di Carbonio (National Inventory of Forests and Forest Carbon Sinks). 54. FAO.541106 Brauman.. L. K. 2009..1461-0248. R. Kremen. d’Arge. Multivariate interpolation to incorporate thematic surface data using inverse distance weighting (IDW). Zurek. The Conservation Foundation. F1000 Res. G.. R. 2008... Nature 387. R. Trento.. M. Bing. L. R. D.it (accessed September 2011). D.. T.. 32.. Gan. R. Liroff.. N. Marche Multiservizi S. Naeem.. ESA Working Paper No..R.v1. H. Sutton. iForest 2. Dobermann. 355–373. 1. New South Wales. 67–72. Ecol... 2006. Trento. T. Cost–Benefit Analysis and Environmental Regulations: Politics. Groot. Available on line on the web site http://www. description and valuation of ecosystem functions. E. Johst. H. Clemen. C Life Sci.. 2010. Pingali. G. Angelini. Ecosystem and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment.. M. 65. Sutton. Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services: Methodology and Monetary Estimates. Hümann... R. Howarth. J.. Xiao.. 18.inemar. Ecol. 67L 98. Casavecchia. R. Chan. Croke.. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 9 Gooch. Schmidt.M. Mapping ecosystem service supply. Ecol.it Bartier.gruppomarchemultiservizi.. S.... R. ENCAP.. 2011... Ecol... J. Gross. Estimation of on-site cost of soil erosion: a comparison of replacement and productivity change methods.. Guo. I.00751. R. CRA-MPF. Miserocchi. M. http://www. Cesaretti. http://dx. B. La Carta della vegetazione e degli elementi di paesaggio vegetale delle Marche (scala 1:50. Evaluation of ecosystem services of Chinese pine forests in China. I. R. Econ. P.. Shouzheng.V. Indicat. Pinzi. Wilson. G... L. Land-Use Change and Forestry. 2008. Valuing Climate Change. 2012... P. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services.. iForest 1.org/10. goods and services. Aust... Environ... A. S. Guillery. Effect of different land use on soil erosion in the pre-alpine fringe (North-East Italy): ion budget and sediment yield.. Gatto. de Groot. Batker. X. IPCC.D.. Soil Water Conserv.. S. 1982. Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Y. S. Raskin. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. 2001.. K. Geosci. Costanza. Pincetl.. de Groot. Piano di conservazione della risorsa idrica (Water conservation plan). Hein. Resour. Stakeholder values and scientific modeling in the Neuse River watershed. Enhanced capture of CO2 . Anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem change: an overview.doi.. A.. E. Xian-Guo. Congress.. 2005. Kroll. P. de Groot. J..A.. March 2004.org/ 10. What is the price of carbon? Five definitions. Duarte. (Eds. Kelman.org Ernst. Cost-benefit analysis and environmental safety and health regulation: ethical and philosophical considerations. Indic. Limburg.. D.A... J. S..). 2000. 1828–1832.M.org/10. et al. Fay.. 393–408. R.. 2012. 17–29. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use. Valuing Mediterranean Forests-Towards Total Economic Value.. 141–154. K. Müller. Identification of runoff processes – the impact of different forest types and soil properties on runoff formation and floods. 2006. Hopkinson. A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy). 2007. C.. T. d’Arge.. 662–670. Payment for forest environmental services: organisational models and related experiences in Italy. O’Neill.. Fankhauser. R. E. ATO. 8. Nedkov. Bräuer..)..S..G. Brouwer.P. Econ. van Ierland. Marche Multiservizi. Palomo. Bilancio di Sostenibilità 2008..B. 104–116. Ecosystem functions. Comput.. G. Hein.. 53–85.. Niles. Land Conservation and the Future of America’s Drinking Water: Protecting the Source.... J.ecolind. Paruelo. 2007... Kytzia.. 1958. 28–31. 350–352. Morri. Cambridge.. stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Pesaro and Urbino Province. D. Berhe.. XiangQian. Boumans.A.. 41. Farina.. C. Martín-López... 25. K.L. IWA Publisher. 2012. Stålnacke.. M. 433–440. 2005. Zurich.. pasture and cultivated land in the Bathurst area... 197–204. Cosman.. 2002.. Childers. 119. Grasso. Bianchelli. L.. General Department–National Forest Service. Cassman. G.ecologyandsociety. Bosch.V... J. Urbino University.. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn. Cavatassi. Marggraf. Ecol... Farber. Galassi. Circoscrizioni statistiche (District statistics).C. M. Limburg. K. Ecol. Erickson. Raskin. J. Petschel-Held. G. Solutions 2.. Watson..D. P. 41. W. R. Climate change 2007: the scientific basis. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. 17. D. C. Warren.. O’Neill. 73–80. S.. Econ. 51. 2006. 2007... Kahn. M. Ehrlich. Ming. 14◦ C ensimento generale della popolazione e delle abitazioni (Housing and population census)... Green. A. Science 9.A. 10. Washington.encapco2. K. Japan. Perspect. S. Hydrol. 2008. demand and budgets. Studio delle risorse idriche sotterranee presenti nel territorio provinciale in relazione al loro stato di compromissione (Study of groundwater resources in the province related to their impaired state.. Travisi. Total Environ.. 1444–1449. 2004..O.. Gunatilake. For. Rome. Gret-Regamey. National Parks. 2009.L. Hannon. M. D. 2005. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. 41. Lin-Shu. 421–429.A. 2002. van den Belt. MEA. CRA–MPF. Rev. Integrating the valuation of ecosystem services into the input–output economics of an Alpine region. National Inventory of Forests and Forest Carbon Sinks.. R. Harrison-Cox. A. Can integrated water resources management sustain the provision of ecosystem goods and services? Phys. August 30–September 2. Z. Croitoru. MA.. R.. Surv. Farber. Ojima. E. D. Gios. Available at http://www. management and decision making.. Dietz. Marche Multiservizi.3410/f1000research..it Merlo.A. 2007... 22. 409. In: IPCC 4th Assessment Report. Braat. 2007.016 . Zylstra.. Econ. 133–139. 2011. 2002.. S... R. De Lauretis. 2005. I tipi forestali delle Marche-2001–2002 (Forestry typologies of Marche Region. Federici.G.. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 1995. Econ. R. S. P. Ecol. L. Zheng. R. 2002. G. E. Integrated Transboundary Water Management in Theory and Practice: Experiences from the New EU Eastern Border. buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Switzerland.. K. Lett. Valuation Methods for Environmental Benefits in Forestry and Watershed Investment Projects. Ecol.. Reckhow. Fisher. C. S. Hadley. Erskin. Negot. Ecol. Luck. Econ. de Groot. A. 55. Sci. The PASTA project investigation of Po and Apennine sediment transport and accumulation. 2001. van Koppen. 2009. C. Trincardi. Daily. Chiabai.. 1982. F. Turner. S.. C. M. Hao.. M.. G. 1998. A. Pollini. C. Vitullo. 177–196. R. San Francisco. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning. M.com/abstract=541106 or http://dx.G. L. Chem. Econ. M. R.. 2009. Working Group I. 209–228. Alchemade.D. Costanza... Ecol. Bonan. Ecol. K. Integr. Vieth. Hewlett. Soc. China Ser. Gemignani. For. Jewitt. 2004. S.. D. Janetos. Island Press. feedbacks. 7–10.. 4. 260–272. 217–223. 2013. CA.ch IPLA. de Groot.C. Flood mitigation benefit of wetland soil – a case study in Momoge National Reserve in China. Costanza. R. Duong... M. DeFries. Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei. 2007. 11 (2). M. Special issue: the dynamics and value of ecosystem services: integrating economic and ecological perspectives..2139/ssrn.C. Ecol. H.

E. 1677–1708.org/vol11/iss1/art28/ Romano. C. 134–144. R. A. Effects of vegetation cover change on streamflow at a range of spatial scales. De Lauretis. http://dx.. Johnson. Dobson. 2008. 10.. S. Guevara. Nat. http://dx. 2008. Identification of flood-generating forest areas and forestry measures for water retention.. http://www. benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Woodlands. Case study – Italy Sustainable Agriculture and Soil Conservation (SoCo Project).it/ cms3/documenti/ cerca doc/meteo/ambiente/inventario emissioni 2007. B. Ecol.ancona. BC3 Working Paper Series 2012-07. Refsgaard. Cork. 2012. G. J. New York.. Hester.. 2007. D.. Biodivers. 21. http://archiviocartografico. Valuing ecological functions of biodiversity in Changbaishan Mountain Biosphere Reserve in Northeast China. 21. Moffat. 2004. P. R. and ecosystem services. 65. C. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Identification of major sources of uncertainty in current IWRM practice. Brana. services of Mexico’s forests: analysis. Tisdell.. A. Silvae Anno III (9). Bernetti.M. G. 210–215. Tol. Caputo. A.1016/j. Inventario delle emissioni in atmosfera (Gas Emission Inventory to the Atmosphere)..P. G... Illustrated for the Rhine basin.. Ecol. C.016 . Lauretis. M.08.regione. Cambridge University Press. 99–114. Snow Landsc. Henriksen. In: JRC Technical Notes EUR 24131 EN/9.. Paying for water-related forest services: a survey on Italian payment mechanisms. ˜ J. Manage. S. Agard.. M.F. 2010. Conserv.. Economics 2 (25).. 28.. Trade-offs across space. 2009.. F. Gonella.. J. 2012. D. Gagna. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxx–xxx Ruhl. 467–481. Lant. H.. The Economics of Climate Change.. R. Please cite this article in press as: Morri. of Pages 10 10 ARTICLE IN PRESS E.P.. Tiberi. G. 22. Res. Rodríguez. 98–108. T. Ciabocco. Indicat... S. E. Bernacconi. 2007. 80–88. Ecology and Society 11 (1). New Jersey. www.. A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: Supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy). Water Res. P. Cóndor.. Federici..P. La contabilità del carbonio contenuto nelle foreste italiane [National carbon account in Italian forests]. 2010. Xue.2013. C.. Forum 29.. negotiations and results. Cairns. 2008 – Coperture vettoriali dell’uso del suolo (2008 – Land Use Cover).doi..D. Thompson. Bennett Jr.. P. The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services.asp?quale=generale Reyes. Ecol. ISPRA Institute for Environmental Protection and Research. Stern. 2008. K.. M. D. E. Pires.. Voigt. ˜ C. Ricci.. E. Brugnach.D..L. B. Vidale.bc3research. Villa. In: Proceedings of 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress. A.. B. R. Vitullo. E.org/10. L. Cambridge. E.. M. 2012. Land Use Policy 21. G.provincia.. J.... Van der Keur.it/ ecologia/Engine/RAServeFile. 80.. S.marche.S.M. 1–22. C. Secco. The Economic Value of New Jersey State Parks and Forests. F. 91–104. http://www. Beard... H. Cumming. A. Pahl-Wostl.. Scolozzi. Paying for the hydrological Pina... Postel. In: National Inventory Report 2009. 2009.ecolind. Taurino. European Communities. time.. 2007. Valatin. operepubbliche. R.. For. Torres. The social cost of carbon: trends. 2006. Buiteveld. Towards a comprehensive approach to quantifying and mapping ecosystem services flows. iForest 5.. Quine.. Spurio. 2006. URL: http://www. W. Watershed protection: capturing the benefits of nature’s water supply services. http://www.M.L. M... Peterson. Inventario delle emissioni in atmosfera (Gas Emission Inventory to the Atmosphere). N.X. 2011. E. No. Dewulf.it/defaultprezz. 2005.. Indicat. Delphi-based change assessment in ecosystem service values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Cahalan. Italy. Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing. J. outliers and catastrophes.doi. L... Maréchal. A. J... 2009. Z. Island Press. 161–175.. 2007.H. J. Syrbe.. A. Italian Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2007.G Model ECOIND-1650. Federici. Australia... Prezziario generale (General Price List).it/bookshopfe/ Regione Emilia Romagna and ARPA.D.S.php/f/PianoAria 2009 luglio allegato1. 2008. Di Cristofaro.emr.3832/ifor0626-005. E.. Ecol..html Vitullo. S. J. 2012.B. Humphrey. Regione Emilia Romagna.J. Bagstad.ecologyandsociety. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.... Resour. Kraft. U. TEEB. K. Kirby. emilia-romagna. Gatto. Santolini... Watershed protection for a world city: the case of New York.. Rusco. Arcarese. G. Morri. 725–736.. E. Liburdi. M. Pettenella. Xu. Zhao. R. Zhang... Mates...pdf Regione Marche. 64 pp.. Morri et al.U. R. A. In: Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3). et al. In: The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report.org/working papers/view.. DC.. Walz. Schuler.pdf Regione Marche.arpa... UK National Ecosystem Assessment. R. (2013). C. Indicat..org/10.. In: Interim Report European Communities. Washington. C. 2004. 2009. B... Econ. UNEP-WCMC. 2001. Contaldi.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful