Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Research paper

People perception of landscape change effects on ecosystem services in small

Mediterranean islands: A combination of subjective and objective assessments
Roberta Aretano, Irene Petrosillo ∗ , Nicola Zaccarelli, Teodoro Semeraro, Giovanni Zurlini
Lab. of Landscape Ecology, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences and Technologies, Ecotekne, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

 We coupled objective and subjec-

tive assessments of landscape and
ecosystem services’ flow change.
 Tourism is the main driving force
affecting Vulcano Island.
 There is concordance between objec-
tive and subjective assessments of
landscape change and ecosystem
services’ flow.
 There is discordance between objec-
tive and subjective assessments of
the landscape effects of tourism.
 The conventional urban planning
tools do not always guarantee the
application of conservation policies
and the maintenance of natural and
social capital in an island.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Humans constantly modify their environment to better fit their needs. These changes are even more
Received 4 May 2012 important in small Mediterranean islands, where the flow and type of ecosystem services (ES) is con-
Received in revised form strained by insularity and heavily exploited by economic activities. We evaluated the dynamics of ES
10 December 2012
from 1954 to 2007 linked to the changes of the landscape of the Vulcano Island (southern Italy) and
Accepted 18 December 2012
related such transformation to the perception of the local communities. We estimated the changes in the
Available online 22 January 2013
total economic value of ES and we coupled this objective assessment with a survey among inhabitants
to measure the perception of driving forces and ES. The results show that agriculture was replaced by
Keywords:
Ecosystem services
tourism, which simultaneously has profoundly affected the landscape and brought economic benefits
Small islands to local population. Despite the urban-sprawl related to tourism development there is an increase of
Landscape change perception the flow of ES over time because of the conversion of some land-cover classes into others that provide
Landscape values a greater amount of ES. Local communities are aware of landscape and ES dynamics, but they do not
Sensitivity analysis perceive tourism as a driving force, which affects the natural attractiveness and cultural identity of their
island. This approach integrates a commonly accepted objective technique to assign value to ES, with
a subjective assessment taking into account how local people value the flow of ES. Effective strategies
for ES management and governance need to address and incorporate local population expectations so to
empower local stakeholders in the achievement of higher level of quality of life.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

∗ Corresponding author at: Lab. of Landscape Ecology, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences and Technologies, Ecotekne, University of Salento, Prov.le
Lecce Monteroni 73100 Lecce, Italy. Tel.: +39 0832 298896; fax: +39 0832 298626.
E-mail addresses: roberta.aretano@unisalento.it (R. Aretano), irene.petrosillo@unisalento.it (I. Petrosillo), nicola.zaccarelli@unisalento.it (N. Zaccarelli),
teodoro.semeraro@unisalento.it (T. Semeraro), giovanni.zurlini@unisalento.it (G. Zurlini).

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.010
64 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73
1. Introduction
European landscapes are the result of the complex interaction
and co-evolution between ecosystems and societies over millen-
nia (Antrop, 2005; Käyhkö & Skånes, 2006). This is particularly
evident in the Mediterranean area, one of the world’s biodiver-
sity hotspots (Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, da Fonseca, & Kent,
2000) and a crossroad for humans (Blondel, 2006), where the
present Mediterranean landscapes are the consequence of the spa-
tial and temporal interaction of natural and human disturbances
over millennia (Blondel, 2006; Naveh, 1994; Zurlini et al., 2006).
Landscapes are complex and adaptive systems (Levin, 1998), where
ecological processes and patterns, economic-manufacturing pro-
cesses and administrative political organization of society interact
with each other. Landscapes are also multifunctional as they are
characterized by various functions and values in space and time
(Haines-Young & Potschin, 2004; Haines-Young, Watkins, Wale,
& Murdock, 2006; Mander, Helming, & Wiggering, 2007), provid-
ing goods and services to human societies, such as food and clean
water, climate regulation, recreation opportunities (Costanza et al.,
1997; Daily, 1997; MEA, 2005), and supporting human quality of life
(Costanza, Fisher, Mulder, Liu, & Christopher, 2007). These benefits
depend on the needs, choices and values of people (subjective per-
spective of change) and are also place-related since they tend to
vary in space (Fagerholm, Käyhkö, Ndumbaro, & Khamis, 2012).
Considered the importance of taking into account ecological
(objective) and social (subjective) assessments, the main aim of this
paper is to compare and contrast the objective (through change
detection) and subjective (through perception analysis) assess-
ments of change in landscape and ecosystem service flow in a small
Mediterranean island. This with the intent to investigate possible
mismatches between these two kinds of assessment that can make
people not able to take effective management decisions to mitigate
tourism pressure and the related urban sprawl.
1.1. Land-use change: objective and subjective perspectives
Ecosystem services, in a multifunctional landscape framework,
are supported by a mosaic of different land-use/land-cover patches
that can change, in their amount or in their spatial configuration
(objective perspective of change), as a result of both ecological
processes and human activities (Koniak, Noy-Meir, & Perevolotsky,
2011; Zaccarelli, Li, Petrosillo, & Zurlini, in press).
Currently, land-use/land-cover changes are the underlying
causes of fragmentation and natural habitat loss (Alcamo & Bennett,
2003), they can significantly affect ecosystem processes and func-
tions and, as consequence, they can alter the capacity of landscapes
to provide the flow of ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 2007;
de Groot, 2006). Many factors contributed to Mediterranean land-
scapes changes such as, for instance, population migration from
hilly and mountain areas with consequent land abandonment,
urban-sprawl in plains and along the coasts, mechanization of
rural system, grazing intensity, and tourism (Ales, Martin, Ortega,
& Ales, 1992; Gellrich & Zimmermann, 2007; MacDonald et al.,
2000; Tzanopoulos & Vogiatzakis, 2011). These changes are even
more important when they occur in small Mediterranean islands,
characterized by a mosaic of many land-covers and landscapes
with exceptional cultural values (Vogiatzakis, Mannion, & Pugnetti,
2008). In addition, the insularity trait leads to a strengthening of
the linkages between ecosystem services and inhabitants as well
as among inhabitants. However, in many Mediterranean islands,
the traditional activities, which have been shaping islands land-
scapes along the centuries, are usually almost exclusively related to
subsistance production such as mining, agriculture, wood cutting,
fishery, but in the last 50 years these activities declined (Dominey-
Howes & Minos-Minopoulos, 2004; Margaris, Koutsidou, & Giourga,
Table 1
Possible combinations between “objective” and “subjective” assessments of changes
in ecosystem services flow (modified after Zurlini and Müller, 2008).
Objective assessment of
change in ES flow
Subjective assessment + + (a) + − (b)
of change in ES flow − + (c) − − (d)
1996; Petanidou, Kizos, & Soulakellis, 2008; Schmitz, de Aranzabal,
Aguilera, Rescia, & Pineda, 2003). On the other hand, tourism
increased, becoming the most important sector able to dominate
the local economies of Mediterranean small islands (Conlin & Baum,
1995; Ioannides, Apostolopoulos, & Sonmez, 2001; Kousis, 2001).
In the Mediterranean area tourism represent an opportunity for
promoting economic and social development but, without effec-
tive planning and management actions, can turn into a driving
force able to deeply affect the natural and cultural identity of an
area (Christ, Hillel, Matus, & Sweeting, 2003; Petrosillo, Zurlini,
Corlianò, Zaccarelli, & Dadamo, 2007; Rossi & Zurlini, 1995). This is
particularly evident in the case of mass tourism, which character-
izes the majority of Mediterranean islands, often leading to severe
degradation of natural ecosystems, in terms of lack of water supply,
pollution of coastal zones and building of infrastructure (Gossling,
2002).
Humans constantly modify their landscape to improve its func-
tioning and to obtain additional ecological, social and economic
benefits (Termoschuizen & Opdam, 2009). These changes can be
objectively assessed through the application of the environmental
impact assessment directive (85/337/EEC). However, the percep-
tion that these changes can become extremely devastating and
that many heritage values and resources can be irreversibly lost,
has led many researchers and policy makers to look for new forms
of management (Antrop, 2004; de Groot, 2006; Merlo & Briales,
2000; Naveh, 1978; Verburg, van de Steeg, Veldkamp, & Willemen,
2009). Landscape management is any measure introduced to steer
changes brought about by economic, social or environmental needs
and should be dynamic and adaptive and to seek to improve
landscape quality on the basis of the local population’s expecta-
tions (Council of Europe, 2000; Gunderson, 1999; Rescia, Willaarts,
Schmitz, & Aguilera, 2010). In this perspective, the perception of
landscapes users (residents) is crucial and needs to be taken into
account (Daily, 1997, 2000; Schnurr & Holtz, 1998) through sub-
jective assessments, as they could have different and sometimes
conflicting opinions and desires. Understanding the diversity of
perception and values related to the landscape is fundamental
because people interact with the landscape bilaterally, the way
the landscape influences their perceptions may in turn affect how
people act and behave in the landscape (Tress & Tress, 2001).
The usual way to assign value to ecosystem services is based on
ecological and economic assessments (e.g., Costanza et al., 1997;
Daily, 1997; De Groot, Wilson, & Boumans, 2002), mainly through
a “benefit transfer” approach (Plummer, 2009; Wilson & Hoehn,
2006). However, those assessments do not take into account the
values of people living in an area (Fagerholm et al., 2012). This is
fundamental as people are ecosystem service users, thus ecosystem
services and their changes must be assessed both objectively and
subjectively, since the value of a service arises only when humans
appreciate or benefit from it. As an example, changes in ecosystem
service provisioning at the same location could be differently evalu-
ated in objective and subjective terms (Table 1). In cases (a) and (d),
there is concordance between objective and subjective evaluations
of ES flow changes; in the first case people perceive changes that
are taking place, whereas for case (d) people perceive that there are
not changes affecting ES flow.
 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73
Fig. 1. Study area.
In contrast, cases (b) and (c) are the most interesting, as they
are discordant; in the first case, the ES flow is changed but people
do not perceive it. This is the most dangerous but also common
situation, because in the real world people often do not perceive
ecosystem services’ delivery (e.g., external unmarked services) that
are not treated in the market (externalities). For example, certain
Mediterranean beaches are often naturally covered by seaweed
leaves (Posidonia oceanica), which is an indicator of good coastal
ecosystem quality and delivers ESs such as protection of coastline
beaches against erosion, reduction of wave energy, and building
of coastal sandy bottoms. However, most tourists and residents
wrongly perceive beaches covered by leaves as ‘dirty’ and ‘inse-
cure’, so leaves are removed becoming a waste and a significant cost
for beach fruition, with consequent changes of coastline beaches.
Finally, case (d) sees accordance between the absence of changes
and the perception shown by people. This conceptual model allows
identifying possible accordances/discordances between objective
and subjective perspectives to better focus the management of the
small island under study.
Therefore, approaches able to integrate expert knowledge and
field data are needed. In this context, some recent studies are test-
ing the use of Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) to integrate expert
opinions and field data for detecting drivers of land-use change and
for valuing alternative planning scenarios (McCloskey, Lilieholm, &
Cronan, 2011).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
Vulcano Island is a small Mediterranean island of the Aeolian
Archipelago (Sicily region, Italy). In 2000 the Aeolian Archipelago
has been included in the UNESCO World heritage list, as a part
of the patrimony of humanity, because of its exceptional cultural
65
and natural value and for its peculiar volcanic aspects. Vulcano
Island is a small island with a maximum altitude of 500 m and an
extent of 2070 ha, of which 1555 ha have been declared as a Site of
Community Importance (European code: ITA030027) called “Vul-
cano Island” in 1998. Its volcanic origin has strongly conditioned
the emerging spatial pattern of the landscape. The population of
about 700 inhabitants, mainly live in three plane zones of the
island (Fig. 1): the “Piano” area, characterized by discontinuous
urban agglomerations and agricultural areas, the peninsula of “Vul-
canello” and the “Port” area, where most of the economic and
tourism activities of the island are carried out. The island represents
a tourist destination, by offering recognized attractive landscapes
(Petrosillo et al., 2007) and creating several tourist activities asso-
ciated with the presence of a volcano, such as geothermal spas and
climbing the crater. Seaside tourism is the most important form
of tourism typifying the island. Currently, tourism activity is the
main driving force affecting landscape transformations and char-
acterizing the area both from the economic and employment point
of view. For this reason, every year many people move from Sicily
region to Vulcano Island during the April–October period, because
of their involvement in economic activities related to tourism, rep-
resenting additional (seasonal) residents to those who live there
during the whole year.
2.2. Data analysis: objective assessments of landscape and
ecosystem service change
The objective assessments have been made through change
detection analysis by compiling a time series of land cover maps
elaborated by interpreting 1 m × 1 m orthorectified aerial photos,
referred to the month of July for the years 1954, 1974, 1995 and
2007. The scale used for digitalization has been 1:1000. The CORINE
Land Cover classification (I level, Table 2) has been used to describe
both spatial and temporal landscape dynamics, to assess the effect
66 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73

Table 2
Land cover categories identified in the study area according to the CORINE Land Cover classification (I, II and III level), the most representative biome used as a proxy for each
land-use/land-cover category, and the corresponding ecosystem services coefficient (US $ × ha−1 per year).

CORINE land CORINE land CORINE land The most Ecosystem

cover cover cover representative service
I LEVEL II LEVEL III LEVEL Biome coefficient
(US $ × ha−1
per year)a

1. Artificial 1.1 Urban fabric 1.1.1 Continuous urban fabric Urban 0

surfaces 1.1.2 Discontinuous urban fabric
1.2 Industrial, commercial and transport units 1.2.1 Industrial or commercial units
1.2.3 Port areas

2. Agricultural 2.1 Arable land 2.1.1 Non-irrigated arable land Cropland 92

areas 2.2 Permanent crops 2.2.1. Vineyards
2.2.2. Fruit trees and berry plantations
2.2.3. Olive groves

3. Forest and 3.1 Forests 3.1.1 Broad-leaved forest Forest 969

semi natural 3.2 Scrub and/or 3.2.3 Sclerophyllous vegetation
areas herbaceous vegetation 3.2.4 Transitional woodland-shrub
associations 3.2.1 Natural grassland Grassland 232
3.3 Open spaces 3.3.1 Beaches, dunes, sands Coastal Beach 4052
with little or no 3.3.2 Bare rocks Rock 0
vegetation 3.3.3 Sparsely vegetated areas

4. Wetlands 4.2 Maritime wetlands 4.2.1. Salt marshes Wetlands 14,785

a
As proposed by Costanza et al. (1997).

of drivers on structural pattern of Vulcano Island, but also to make
possible the subsequent comparison with the results of subjective
assessments.
The second step aims at identifying and characterizing the main
human activities that have shaped the landscape over time. To
this aim, we analyzed official census population data from 1951
to 2001, as well as available tourist data, because we considered
tourism as the main driving force of socioeconomic and landscape
changes over the last 50 years. In particular, the tourist data con-
sidered were: tourist international and domestic annual arrivals
and presences, accommodation capacity, expressed as number of
beds, typology of receptive structures (hotels, pensions and com-
plementary accommodations). In this study nautical tourism and
daily visitors are not taken into account because of the lack of
official data.
Finally, to estimate the change in ecosystem service flow, the
ecosystem services valuation biomes model has been used to
describe both spatial and temporal changes of ecosystem ser-
vices (Costanza et al., 1997; Kreuter, Harris, Matlock, & Lacey,
2001; Petrosillo, Zaccarelli, Semeraro, & Zurlini, 2009; Petrosillo,
Semeraro, & Zurlini, 2010; Zaho et al., 2004). According to the
CORINE Land Cover classification (III level) sixteen land-cover cat-
egories have been identified and the most representative biomes
used as a proxy for each category has been associated to each land-
cover class (Table 2).
The Ecosystem Services total Value (ESV) at time T is estimated
by multiplying the area of each land-cover category by the coeffi-
cient associated to each biome, using the following relationship:
 ative to the proportional change in the valuation coefficient, the
EVST = (Ak ∗ VCk )
where Ak is the area in hectares of land-cover category ‘k’, and VCk is
Costanza’s Value coefficient (US $ × ha−1 per year) (Costanza et al.,
1997), which we have assumed constant during the temporal range
under study.
We have used the economic coefficients proposed by Costanza
et al. (1997) even if these estimates of the value of ecosystem ser-
vices are biased (Masood & Garwin, 1998; Norgaard & Bode, 1998;
Pearce, 1998; Pimm, 1997; Toman, 1998). We lay no claim to their
veracity but they, at least, provide not only a novel insight into the
complex patterns of land-use dynamics, but also a way to quantify
the comprehensive change in the flux of natural capital in a specific
area.
However, to overpass these limitations a sensitivity analysis has
been performed in order to determine the robustness of the ecosys-
tem service value estimates to investigate (i) the uncertainty in
the proxy used for a specific land-cover class and Costanza’s value
coefficients, and (ii) the digitalization error in quantifying the area
of each land-cover class. A coefficient of sensitivity (CS) for the eco-
nomic value was calculated for each category using the standard
economic concept of elasticity as follows (Kreuter et al., 2001):
(ESVj − ESVi )/ESVi
CSk = (2)
(VCjk − VCik )/VCik
where “k” represents the biome used as proxy for land-cover cate-
gory, ESVi is the total ecosystem service value derived by using Eq.
(1), ESVj is the total ecosystem service value estimated by adjusting
the value coefficient for a specific land-cover category and main-
taining the value of the other land-covers based on Costanza’s value
coefficients, VCi is the initial value coefficient according to Costanza
and colleagues’ model and VCj is the adjusted value coefficient
(±50%). If CS is greater than one, then the estimated ecosystem
service value associated to the land-cover category is defined as
“elastic” with respect to that coefficient. This means that if the
ecosystem service value coefficient associated to a specific land-
cover category varies ±50%, also the total value of ecosystem
services provided by the total study area changes accordingly. The
greater the proportional change in the ecosystem service value rel-
(1) more critical is the use of an accurate ecosystem value coefficient
(Kreuter et al., 2001). On the contrary, if the CS is less than one,
then the estimated ecosystem service value is considered to be
“inelastic”.
In addition, for each year investigated, considering the spatial
resolution of the image and the digitizing scale of the land-cover
maps, we assumed a fixed spatial error for the geometry of the
vectorial polygon mosaic. A buffer of five meters, modeling the
fixed spatial error, was used to evaluate the uncertainty associated
to the area estimates for each land-cover category. Therefore,
given a particular land-cover category we derived three area
 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73
Fig. 2. The extent of each land cover category in 1954, 1974, 1995, 2007. On each arrow the hectares converted from one land cover category to another during each temporal
range (1954–1974, 1974–1995, 1995–2007, 1954–2007) are reported, and the land cover maps for 1954, 1974, 1995, and 2007.
extent values: one from the digitalization process, one considering
all patches of the class increased by a buffer of 5 m, and one
considering all patches decreased by a buffer of five meters. As a
consequence, the areas of other neighboring land-cover categories
were adjusted accordingly. In this case, the coefficient of sensitivity
for the area extent was calculated as:
(ESVj − ESVi )/ESVi
CSk =
(Ajk − Aik )/Aik
where “k” represents the biome used as proxy of land-cover
category, ESVi is the estimated total ecosystem service value
derived by using Eq. (1), ESVj is the total ecosystem service value
estimated by adjusting the extent of a specific land-cover category
considering a buffer of 5 m and maintaining the other land-cover
extent as derived from the digitalization process, Ai is the extent
of the biome estimated from the digitalization process, and Aj
represents the adjusted extent of the biome considering the buffer
of 5 m. If CS is greater than one, then the estimated ecosystem
service value associated to the land-cover category is defined as
“elastic” with respect to that adjusted extent. On the contrary, if
the CS is less than one, then the estimated ecosystem service value
is considered to be “inelastic”.
However, additional limitations of the approach based on
the economic coefficients remain, because we have used static
coefficients in a multi-temporal study. The reasons of these limita-
tions are threefold according to the perspective taken into account
(Petrosillo et al., 2009). From the economic viewpoint, if those
coefficients are considered in economic terms, their values change
over time and need to reflect changes in relative values as well
as changes in the general price level. These changes over a 50-
year period can be significant. From the ecological viewpoint, we
should consider the availability of the flux of natural capital, more
67
at risk recently than in the past for the intensification of human
activity, so that its ecological value is bigger now than in the past.
Finally, from the social viewpoint, currently there is more aware-
ness of the strong linkages between the flux of natural capital and
the quality of life, and this can have some effects on the values of the
coefficients used in this paper. This third concern has been overpass
somehow through the subjective assessment of ecosystem services.
(3) However, even if their values are considered constant during the
temporal range under study, they could play a role as operational
surrogates to evaluate the recent temporal dynamics of the overall
flux of natural capital in the study area, where specific field data
and information are not available.
2.3. Data analysis: subjective assessments
A survey was developed to explore both the ecological and
socio-cultural values associated by residents to island landscapes,
and their perception regarding the overall landscape change over
time and subsequently their awareness about urban, agricultural
and natural areas. Specific question about the effects of tourism
and urbanization on the landscape were also asked. Question-
naires were administered by three interviewers in a random way
through personal interviews with residents (permanent and sea-
sonal) during May 2010 simultaneously in the three most urbanized
island areas (Vulcanello, Port area and Piano) to make sure to meet
the highest number of residents (permanent and seasonal) avoid-
ing tourists. People interviewed once were not interviewed again.
Before the survey, the questionnaire was pilot tested and six ques-
tionnaires were distributed to people in the study area to establish
whether the language and the structure of questions were ade-
quate and easily understood. Consequently, the original version of
the questionnaire was properly revised and the final version of a
68 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73

Table 3
Official census data regarding the number of residents living in the different urban areas of Vulcano Island from 1951 to 2001 and the number of families and houses in 2001.

Urban areas 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 Families 2001 Houses 2001

Piano area 280 264 203 150 273 287 107 240
Port area 82 92 213 294 387 363 166 982
Peninsula of Vulcanello – – – 3 39 60 29 256
Discontinuous urban area 51 – 18 17 30 5 2 13

Vulcano Island 413 356 434 464 729 715 304 1491

Table 4
International and domestic tourist presences in Vulcano Island from 1956 to 2006 and the number of beds in receptive structures.

Year 1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006

Total presences 4927 8153 50,341 76,030 123,044 95,950

Number of beds in hotels and pensions – 301 – 724 – 923
Number of beds in complementary accommodations – – – 1811 – 264

pre-coded questionnaire was used during each interview lasting
from 20 to 30 min.
The five possible alternative categorical answers to each ques-
tion were subsequently rated using a five-point Likert scale, from
the most negative (score 1) to the most positive (score 5), to allow
statistical analysis. Differences between the answers given by per-
manent and seasonal residents were analyzed by means of Fisher’s
exact test for rxc contingency tables (Sokal & Rohlf, 1995). The sta-
tistical software R (R Development Core Team, 2010) was used to
test each answer independently, using a fixed type one error of 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Objective assessments: change detection
Land-cover changes over the 50-year period show that the land-
scape of Vulcano island is mainly characterized by “Forest and
semi-natural areas”, as specified in Table 2, because this coarse-
grained class covers more than 80% of the total area in all four time
windows (Fig. 2). The second most important class in 1954 and
in 1974 is represented by “Agricultural areas” even if this class has
decreased over time its extent by 58% mainly through its conversion
into “Artificial surfaces” in 1974 and into “Forest and semi-natural
areas” in 1995 (Fig. 2). The class “Artificial surfaces” has expanded
over this period by 100%. It was almost absent in 1954 without any
urban agglomeration. In 1974 and in 1995 there was an expansion
of the class both in the Port area and in the peninsula of Vulcanello
(Fig. 2). There are not so many differences in the amount and spa-
tial configuration of the landscape in 1995 and 2007 (Fig. 2). The
extent of “Forest and semi-natural areas” seems to be constant
during the study period, however it has seen changes due to the
conversion into artificial areas and at the same time it has gained
from “Agricultural areas” (Fig. 2).
3.2. Objective assessment: characterization of the main human
drivers
Census data referred to inhabitants living in Vulcano Island from
1951 to 2001 highlight that until the ‘70s, the island was inhabited
by a small community who lived mainly in the Piano area (Table 3).
Since ‘80s, there was a slight increase of residents’ number, which
reaches 715 inhabitants in 2001. Currently, the Port area is the most
populated, followed by the Piano area, but also the peninsula of
Vulcanello starts to be inhabited. In addition, from the census data
it is evident that in 2001 the number of houses exceeds the number
of families especially in the peninsula of Vulcanello and in the Port
area (Table 3).
For what concerns tourism, observing the domestic and inter-
national tourists’ data it is possible to highlight that the number of
total tourist presences has increased over time reaching a max-
imum in ‘90s exceeding over 100,000 total presences (Table 4).
Official data regarding tourist structures, in terms of number of
beds, are scarce and fragmented and, when they were available,
they are reported in Table 4. In particular, it is indicated that the
number of beds in hotels and pensions for the year 1966, 1986 and
2006, and in complementary accommodations only for the year
1986 and 2006. It is important to highlight that the 1811 beds in
complementary accommodations in the year 1986 (Table 4) refer
to private accommodations. Table 4 shows an increasing trend of
hotels receptive capacity, while the complementary accommoda-
tions decrease. This can be explained by the fact that since 1987 the
official statistics excluded the private accommodations from com-
plementary structures. Therefore, since 1987 there is a lack of data
related to tourism in second houses.

Table 5
Extent (ha) and ecosystem service value (ESV, $) related to the different biomes used as proxies of land-cover categories characterizing Vulcano Island, and the change of
ESV from 1954 to 2007 (%).

Year Extent (ha) ESV ($) Coastal Beach Cropland Forest Grassland Rock Urban Wetland Total

1954 Extent 10.4 313.5 42.8 1463.9 263.4 5.6 3.7 2103.2
ESV 42,065.2 28,844.4 41,505.7 339,615.5 0.0 0.0 54,168.6 506,199.5
1974 Extent 6.5 312.6 67.8 1481.4 169.9 61.6 1.9 2101.6
ESV 26,374.6 28,760.6 65,667.5 343,678.1 0.0 0.0 27,450.5 491,931.4
1995 Extent 4.1 152.8 171.6 1404.9 175.3 191.8 1.7 2102.1
ESV 16,427.5 14,053.3 166,287.4 325,933.6 0.0 0.0 25,479.7 548,181.5
2007 Extent 4.1 156.3 171.2 1405.4 169.9 193.5 1.7 2102.1
ESV 16,427.5 14,377.8 165,875.1 326,063.8 0.0 0.0 25,479.7 548,224.0

Change of ESV from 1954 to 2007 (%) −61% −50% 300% −4% 0.0 0.0 −53% 8%
 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73 69

Fig. 3. Temporal change of ecosystem service value (ESV, $) in Vulcano Island from 1954 to 2007, highlighting the different official recognitions of its natural value (SCI: site
of community importance, in 1998) and cultural value (UNESCO: inclusion in the UNESCO World heritage list, in 2000). Bars represent the ESV variability range due to an
estimated 5 m average digitalization error.

Table 6
Percentage of change in the estimated total ecosystem service value (ESV) and the coefficient of sensitivity (CS) resulting from the adjustment of ecosystem service value
coefficients (VC).

Change of ecosystem service value coefficient (VC) 1954 1974 1995 2007

ESV change (%) CS ESV change (%) CS ESV change (%) CS ESV change (%) CS

Coastal Beach ±50% ±4.16 0.08 ±2.68 0.05 ±1.5 0.03 ±1.5 0.03
Cropland ±50% ±2.85 0.06 ±2.92 0.06 ±1.28 0.03 ±1.31 0.03
Forest ±50% ±4.10 0.08 ±6.67 0.13 ±15.17 0.30 ±15.13 0.30
Grassland ±50% ±33.55 0.67 ±34.93 0.70 ±29.73 0.59 ±29.74 0.59
Wetland ±50% ±5.35 0.11 ±2.79 0.06 ±2.32 0.05 ±2.32 0.05

3.3. Objective assessment: change in ecosystem service flow
Looking at the initial extents of the biomes used as proxies of
land-cover categories, changes have been mainly associated with
the reduction of “coastal beach”, “cropland”, “rock” and “wetland”
together with an evident growth of “forest” and “urban” (Table 5).
Even if “grassland” seems to be constant during the study period, it
suffered changes due to its conversion into “forest” but at the same
time it gained from “rock”. The increase of 8% in ecosystem services
value from 1954 to 2007 is mainly associated with the growth of
“forest” (Table 5). More in detail, Fig. 3 shows the temporal change
of the total ESV associated to Vulcano Island with the identification
of the different official recognitions of its natural and cultural value,
highlighting a constant trend from 1954 to 1974, followed by an
increasing trend from 1974 to 1995 and a constant trend from 1995
to 2007 (Fig. 3). The recognition of the island as Site of Community
Importance in 1998 and its inclusion in the UNESCO world heritage
list in 2000, apparently did not produce any relevant positive effect
on the ESV (Fig. 3), but probably contributed to the safeguarding of
ecosystem services.
To determine the robustness of the ecosystem service value a
sensitivity analysis has been performed. Table 6 shows the change

Table 7
Percentage of change in the extent of biomes (Area), used as proxies of land-covers classes, percentage of change in the estimated total ecosystem service value (ESV) and
the coefficient of sensitivity (CS) resulting from the adjustment of extent considering the digitalization error.

Biome 1954 1974 1995 2007

Area ESV change CS Area ESV change CS Area ESV change CS Area ESV change CS
change (%) (%) change (%) (%) change (%) (%) change (%) (%)

Coastal Beach 18.96 0.98 0.05 27.03 1.42 0.05 27.88 0.69 0.02 27.88 0.69 0.02
Coastal Beach −19.00 −0.97 0.05 −26.88 −1.42 0.05 −26.82 −0.66 0.02 −26.82 −0.66 0.02
Cropland 3.91 −0.59 −0.15 4.76 −0.45 −0.09 7.90 −0.31 −0.04 8.20 −0.29 −0.04
Cropland −4.14 0.59 −0.14 −5.01 0.44 −0.09 −8.18 0.25 −0.03 −8.57 0.23 −0.03
Forest 5.63 0.38 0.07 4.50 0.49 0.11 5.51 1.10 0.20 5.98 1.22 0.20
Forest −5.62 −0.38 0.07 −5.27 −0.59 0.11 −5.67 −1.14 0.20 −6.13 −1.26 0.21
Grassland 1.85 −0.84 −0.45 2.12 −0.54 −0.26 2.40 0.27 0.11 2.48 0.22 0.09
Grassland −1.87 0.81 −0.43 −2.19 0.55 −0.25 −2.47 −0.30 0.12 −2.57 −0.26 0.10
Wetland 15.34 1.47 0.10 21.49 1.18 0.05 19.74 0.86 0.04 19.74 0.86 0.04
Wetland −15.29 −1.47 0.10 −20.51 −1.13 0.05 −19.41 −0.85 0.04 −19.41 −0.85 0.04
70 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73

Table 8
Percentage distribution of alternative categorical answers to the questions related to the landscape change and to the values associated to island’s landscape (strongly
disagree = 1; strongly agree = 5), with the results of statistical analysis.

Questions Respondents (%) Type of resident

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Do you agree that the landscape is 14 1 8 2 75 –

changed?
Do you agree that there are more 9 1 4 4 82 –
buildings?
Do you agree that there are more 69 3 15 1 12 –
arable lands?
Do you agree that there are more 54 3 23 5 15 –
natural areas?
Urban sprawl is a problem with living 22 3 8 7 60 –
on Vulcano Island?
Tourism is a problem with living on 82 1 5 1 11 –
Vulcano Island?
Does the island present a valuable 2 0 5 5 88 –
scenery?
Is the island of value just because it 5 0 2 2 91 –
exists, independently from human
uses?
Does the island provide places for a 8 2 4 14 72 –
variety of plants and animals?
Does the island provide and maintain 25 5 12 19 39 –
the quality of air, soil and water?
Does the island provide enough food 44 8 9 8 32 –
and materials to sustain the lives of
people?
Does the island provide economic 11 4 4 13 68 –
opportunities?
Does the island provide places for 19 4 9 12 56 –
outdoor recreational activities?
*
Can people living on the island 36 9 9 8 38
continue to pass down wisdom,
traditions and their life style?
*
p-value < 0.05.

(%) of the estimated total ecosystem service value (ESV) and the
coefficient of sensitivity (CS) resulting from a 50% adjustment of the
value of the economic coefficient used in each time window. The
sensitivity analysis indicates that the estimation in the study area
is robust despite the limitations concerning the method used for
the economic estimates (for more details see Costanza et al., 1997;
Petrosillo et al., 2009). The results show an “inelastic” behavior,
as in all cases CSs are less than one (Table 6). This indicates that
by changing each economic coefficient by 50%, the total value of
ecosystem services estimates varies by about or less than 5%.
Table 7 shows the change (%) of estimated total ecosystem
service value (ESV) and the coefficient of sensitivity (CS) resulting
from adjusting the area of each biome, used as proxy of land-cover
class, by considering the digitizing error. The range of variability in
the class area is in absolute value between 2% and 28%. The differ-
ence between external and internal change is due to the different
geometry of patches and buffers. But the value is always less than
one and lower than that used for the economic sensitivity anal-
ysis, because changes of the 50% of the area are quite unlikely.
The changes of ESV show values generally less or equal to 1% in
absolute value, pointing to a small effect on the pure economic
evaluation (Table 7). What it is important to notice is that we have
CSs with a negative value deriving from the interplay between area
changes and economic valuation. For instance, even if grasslands
class increased of about 2% in 1954, it has a CS of −0.45 because
of the reduction of forests and wetlands classes, which result in a
final decrease of the total economic estimate. On the other hand,
the negative value of CS when grasslands are decreased is only
due to the sign of percentage extent change (−1.87). In the case
of wetlands, the increasing of its area corresponds to an increasing
of the ecosystem service value, therefore the CS is positive. When
the extent of wetlands is reduced, even the ecosystem service value
decreases, because the other land-cover classes are characterized
by an economic coefficient lower than that of wetlands. Therefore,
they cannot compensate the loss of wetlands with the increase of
their extent. Also in this case CS is positive.
3.4. Subjective assessment landscape values and perception of
landscape changes
A total of 91 questionnaires were collected over the total pop-
ulation living in Vulcano Island, distinguishing them in permanent
and seasonal residents. In particular, 60% of the sample is repre-
sented by permanent residents and 40% by seasonal residents. The
representativeness of the sample is not possible to be accurately
determined, because the number of permanent residents that live
on the island is about 700, but some of them were not interviewed
for their young age, and some others officially declare the island
as their place of residence only to obtain economic (tax) advan-
tages, even if they do not live there. Therefore, the real number of
permanent residents is less than 500. In addition, there are not offi-
cial census data regarding the number of seasonal residents, even
if some informal estimates report that they are more or less 200.
Concerning the perception of landscape change, interviewed
were asked whether they have noticed an overall transformation
of the landscape over time with particular reference to three main
land-cover classes: built up areas, agricultural areas and natural
areas (Table 8). Most of the interviewees (77%) are aware that land-
scape is changed during the time. In particular, 86% of respondents
perceived that the built up areas have increased, 72% noticed that
the agricultural areas have declined, while 57% have recognized a
reduction in natural areas. In addition, residents’ answers show that
67% of interviewees agree that urban sprawl is a problem of Vul-
cano Island, and 83% of respondents do not consider tourism a force
 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73
driving landscape change. The statistical analysis highlights that
there are not statistically significant differences between seasonal
and permanent residents in any case.
Table 8 highlights that interviewees are able to recognize the
different values that could be associated to the landscape of the
island. In particular, they associate an esthetic value (93%), and an
existence value (93%) to the landscape. From an ecological view-
point, they recognize the biological value (86%), because they are
aware that the island provides places for a variety of plants and ani-
mals. On the contrary, interviewees do not recognize the life sustain
value and the subsistence value that can be associated to the island.
In the first case, only 58% of respondents believe that the island
supports and maintains the quality of air, soil and water, while in
the second case only 40% of respondents consider the island able
to provide enough food and materials to sustain the lives of peo-
ple. Concerning the socio-economic-cultural values related to the
island, respondents associate an economic value (81%), for the eco-
nomic opportunities provided by the island (tourism sector), and
a recreational value (68%) for the presence of places for outdoor
recreational activities. However, respondents do not agree on the
cultural value, which divides them in those who believe that peo-
ple living in Vulcano Island can continue to pass down wisdom,
traditions and a particular life style (46%), and those in complete
disagreement with this view (45%). In particular, the statistical
analysis highlights statistically significant differences between sea-
sonal and permanent residents for what concerns the possible
cultural values associated to the island (Table 8), with a higher per-
centage of negative responses given by seasonal residents. This can
be probably explained by the shortness of the period seasonal resi-
dents spend in the island, which regards only the summer season
when the high number of tourists could mask somehow the cultural
traditions and the life style of permanent residents.
4. Discussion and conclusions
People play an important role in shaping landscapes because
they have always adapted their environment to better fit their
changing needs (Antrop, 2005). This is particular evident in Vul-
cano Island, which represents a distinctive example of interrelated
cultural and natural aspects, where its volcanic origin and the his-
toric presence of man have strongly conditioned the landscape over
time. In this study landscape change analysis has highlighted that
agriculture was the traditional driving force but, in the last 50
years, this activity has declined as a consequence of land aban-
donment processes and the conversion of croplands into urban
areas (Fig. 2). During the period under study, the urbanization pro-
cess has shown an almost exponential development that cannot
be explained only by the growth rate of residents. This is evident
by comparing census data referred to inhabitants, families and
houses, putting in evidence that the number of houses is signifi-
cantly greater than the number of families. This allows assuming
that these houses are used during the tourist season. Vulcano Island,
by offering recognized attractive landscapes and creating several
activities associated with the presence of a volcano, provides many
cultural ecosystem services that attract many tourists every year.
The development of tourism has certainly brought economic bene-
fits to the local population, but the absence of past urban planning
has resulted in an urban sprawl that has profoundly affected the
landscape.
The European Landscape Convention recognizes that the land-
scape has developed in a co-evolutionary process with people,
defining it as “an area as perceived by people, whose character is
the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human
factor”. Thus, there is the recognition of the importance of human
perception, because whenever people get in touch with the land-
scapes, they respond with their minds through reflection, feelings
71
and imagination (Tress & Tress, 2001). In addition, perception
is influenced by the social and cultural contexts of individuals
and society (Muir, 1999), therefore, the same landscape can be
perceived differently by different observers according to their
interests and feelings. In this study, by comparing the results of
landscape change detection also in terms of ecosystem service
flow (objective assessment) with the investigation on people
perception (subjective assessment), it is possible to highlight that
both permanent and seasonal residents perceive landscape change
and the negative effects of urban sprawl. If we refer to Table 1,
this should seem a typical example of case (a), where there is
concordance between the objective (there is landscape change)
and subjective (people perceive landscape change) assessments.
However, they do not consider tourism as the driving force of
urban sprawl that is the main cause of landscape change, probably
because local residents perceive it as the main motor of economic
development. This moves Vulcano Island from case (a) to case
(b) of Table 1, which is the most dangerous case, because people
probably will not take effective management decisions to mitigate
tourism pressure and the related urban sprawl.
Despite the urban sprawl due to tourism development, the flow
of ecosystem services has seen an increase over time. It can be prob-
ably explained because the reduction of some land-cover classes
was balanced by a contextual increase in size of forest, according to
the classification in Table 2, due to the forestation process of aban-
doned areas, providing a higher level of ecosystem services. The
sensitivity analysis has shown that in addition to the uncertain-
ties due to the economic coefficients (Kreuter et al., 2001), it is also
important to consider the uncertainty in the extent of each land-
cover class. Area estimates can be affected by a variety of errors
that can alter the total value of ecosystem services, even if in this
research the order of magnitude is lower than the economic evalu-
ation estimated by adjusting the Costanza’s value coefficients (VC)
(Tables 6 and 7). In this paper a way to cope with this kind of prob-
lem in the case of vector land-cover maps has been proposed, while
for raster data other options are available, mainly based on the use
of error matrix and bootstrap methods (Hess & Bay, 1997).
The case of a volcanic island is important also to emphasize that
volcanic slope and craters are here classified as bare rocks, since
they do not have an ecological value, being inhospitable places
for living organisms due to the continuous fumaroles emissions.
Conversely, they have recreational, esthetic and intrinsic values;
therefore, the use of the biome “rock” as a proxy of bare rocks
is not properly correct in the case of a volcanic island. In addi-
tion, in terms of proxy identification, the inclusion of some land
cover classes into one only biome, even if can be justified from
the normative perspective (see CORINE Land Cover classification),
it cannot be justified totally from the ecological perspective. For
instance, the classes “Sclerophyllous Vegetation” and “Transitional
Woodland Scrub” are both included in the biome “forest” even if
they do not match exactly with the characteristics of forests. How-
ever, they can provide ecosystem services more in common with
the biome “forest” than with other biomes. This approximation can
affect the final economic value of the study area, even if the sensi-
tivity analysis carried out in this research has reduced strongly this
uncertainty.
The analysis of values, also non-material such as the intrinsic
value associated with the landscape, shows a high perception of
the ecosystem services provided by the land-cover mosaic of the
island as described in Table 2, without differences between sea-
sonal and permanent residents. However, the high consideration of
tourism for its role in guaranteeing residents’ well-being and not
for its capacity in destroying natural and cultural identity of this
small island, could lead to discordant landscape and urban plan-
ning actions with severe consequences on the flow of ecosystem
services (Koniak et al., 2011).
72 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73
Therefore, to improve the management of an area in order to
take into account not only the single natural resource but the
flow of ecosystem services, new actions need to be undertaken
(Turner, Lambin, & Reenberg, 2007). Decisions on land-use can
severely affect ecosystem services and consequently human qual-
ity of life (Petrosillo, Costanza, Aretano, Zaccarelli, & Zurlini, 2013).
The integration of objective and subjective assessments is a first
attempt in dealing with the planning and management of cou-
pled human–environmental systems. For effective management
decisions the human sub-system should maintain the provision of
ecosystem services that society values from environmental sub-
system (Turner et al., 2007), through a sustainable land architecture
of an area (Wu, Jones, Li, & Loucks, 2006).
Finally, the official identification of Vulcano Island as European
Site of Community Importance and the inclusion of Aeolian Islands
in the UNESCO list are important international recognitions of natu-
ral and cultural values of this island that deserves to be maintained
and managed accordingly over time. Even if in this study these
recognitions did not generate any positive effect on the flow of
ecosystem services, they probably have contributed to preserve its
overall natural and cultural value.
In the context of small islands it is fundamental an adaptive
management of their landscape dynamics, to expand the approach
of “learning by doing” to include “learning from what has already
been done” (Jones et al., in press), and to enhance their value,
identifying appropriate government interventions for the socio-
economic development, which should be able to predict short-
and long-term effects on the flow of ecosystem services. In this
context, the management plan for UNESCO Aeolian Archipelago
proposed in 2008, is a good and suitable approach for the gov-
ernance of small islands, with the aim to achieve a sustainable
and dynamic balance between economic development and nat-
ural and cultural conservation. The success of the management
plan essentially depends on its ability to enhance the involve-
ment of several stakeholders (decision-makers, residents, NGO)
with the aim to preserve the area. Consequently, according to
UNESCO (2008) the involvement of stakeholders is crucial dur-
ing the planning of landscape conservation, where the landscape
is considered as an environmental, economic and social–cultural
resource. In this framework, the approach used in this paper
represents both a first example of stakeholders’ involvement
and an assessment of the results of past planning and manage-
ment choices. Currently, the conventional urban planning tools
at different institutional scales do not always guarantee the
application of conservation policies and, therefore, they are not
enough for the maintenance of natural and social capital in an
island. In this context, the need to conjugate the conservation
policies with multiple scales governance is of great importance
for a small island. Attempts to develop a holistic view of the
social–ecological landscape can benefit from decision tools that
allow for comparisons of the consequences and trade-offs of differ-
ent land-use alternatives, in order to support the decision-making
process.
Acknowledgements
We strongly thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful
comments and suggestions on the initial version of the paper. Their
efforts have been very much appreciated by the authors.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,
in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.
2012.12.010.
References
Alcamo, J., & Bennett, E. M. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being. In Millennium
ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ales, R. F., Martin, A., Ortega, F., & Ales, E. E. (1992). Recent changes in landscape
structure and function in a Mediterranean region of SW Spain (1950–1984).
Landscape Ecology, 7, 3–18.
Antrop, M. (2004). Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Land-
scape and Urban Planning, 67, 9–26.
Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 70, 21–34.
Blondel, J. (2006). The ‘design’ of Mediterranean landscapes: A millennial story of
humans and ecological systems during the Historic Period. Human Ecology, 34,
713–729.
Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S., & Sweeting, J. (2003). Tourism and biodiversity: Mapping
tourism’s global footprint. Washington, DC: Conservation International., pp. 53
Conlin, M. V., & Baum, T. (1995). Island tourism: Management principles and practices.
Chichester: Wiley.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997).
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387,
253–260.
Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Mulder, K., Liu, S., & Christopher, T. (2007). Biodiversity and
ecosystem services: A multi-scale empirical study of the relationship between
species richness and net primary production. Ecological Economics, 61, 478–491.
Council of Europe (2000). The European landscape convention. Strasbourg, URL:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm
Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services, societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Wash-
ington, DC: Island Press.
Daily, G. C. (2000). Management objectives for protection of ecosystem services.
Environmental Sciences & Policy., 3, 333–339.
de Groot, R. S. (2006). Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use
conflicts in planning for sustainable, multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 75, 175–186.
De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the classi-
fication, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services.
Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408.
Dominey-Howes, D., & Minos-Minopoulos, D. (2004). Perceptions of hazard and risk
on Santorini. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 137, 285–310.
Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., & Khamis, M. (2012). Community stakehol-
ders’ knowledge in landscape assessment – Mapping indicators for landscape
services. Ecological Indicators, 18, 421–433.
Gellrich, M., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2007). Investigating the regional scale pattern
of agricultural land abandonment in the Swiss mountains: A spatial statistical
modelling approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 65–76.
Gossling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environ-
mental Change, 12, 283–302.
Gunderson, L. (1999). Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management
– Antidotes for spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology, 3(7). URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art7
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2004). Valuing and assessing multifunctional land-
scapes: An approach based on the natural capital concept. In J. Brandt, & H. Vejre
(Eds.), Multifunctional landscapes. Theory, values and history (pp. 181–192). WIT
Press: Southampton.
Haines-Young, R., Watkins, C., Wale, C., & Murdock, A. (2006). Modelling natural cap-
ital: The case of landscape restoration on the SouthDowns, England. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 75, 244–264.
Hess, G. R., & Bay, J. M. (1997). Generating confidence intervals for composition-
based landscape indexes. Landscape Ecology, 12, 309–320.
Ioannides, D., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Sonmez, S. (2001). Mediterranean islands and
sustainable tourism development: Practice, management, and policies. London:
Continuum Publisher.
Jones, K.B., Zurlini, G., Kienast, F., Petrosillo, I., Edwards, T., Wade, T.G., et al.
Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining ecosystem ser-
vices from existing spatial patterns and knowledge. Landscape Ecology,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9794-4, in press.
Käyhkö, N., & Skånes, H. (2006). Change trajectories and key biotopes – Assessing
landscape dynamics and sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75,
300–321.
Koniak, G., Noy-Meir, I., & Perevolotsky, A. (2011). Modelling dynamics of ecosystem
services basket in Mediterranean landscapes: A tool for rational management.
Landscape Ecology, 26, 109–124.
Kousis, M. (2001). Tourism and the environment in Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and
Crete. In D. Ioannides, Y. Apostolopoulos, & S. Sonmez (Eds.), Mediterranean
islands and sustainable tourism development: Practice, management, and policies
(pp. 214–233). London: Continuum Publisher.
Kreuter, U. P., Harris, H. G., Matlock, M. D., & Lacey, R. E. (2001). Change in ecosystem
service values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecological Economics, 39, 333–346.
Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems.
Ecosystem, 1, 431–436.
MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J. R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., et al.
(2000). Agriculture abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental
consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, 59,
47–69.
Mander, U., Helming, K., & Wiggering, H. (2007). Multifunctional land use: Meeting
future demands for landscape goods and services. In U. Mander, H. Wiggering, &
K. Helming (Eds.), Multifunctional land use (pp. 1–13). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63–73
Margaris, N. S., Koutsidou, E., & Giourga, C. H. (1996). Changes in traditional Mediter-
ranean land-use systems. In C. J. Brandt, & J. B. Thornes (Eds.), Mediterranean
desertification and land use (pp. 29–42). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Masood, E., & Garwin, L. (1998). Costing the Earth: When ecology meets economics.
Nature, 395, 426–427.
McCloskey, J. T., Lilieholm, R. J., & Cronan, C. (2011). Using Bayesian belief networks
to identify potential compatibilities and conflicts between development and
landscape conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101, 190–203.
Merlo, M., & Briales, E. R. (2000). Public goods and externalities linked to Mediter-
ranean forests: Economic nature and policy. Land Use Policy, 17, 197–208.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Muir, R. (1999). Approaches to landscape. Houndmillis: Mcamillan Press.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000).
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.
Naveh, Z. (1978). Model of multipurpose ecosystem management for degraded
Mediterranean uplands. Environmental Management, 2, 31–37.
Naveh, Z. (1994). The role of fire and its management in the conservation of Mediter-
ranean ecosystems and landscapes. In J. Moreno, & W. C. Oechel (Eds.), The role of
fire in mediterranean-type ecosystems (pp. 163–185). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Norgaard, R. B., & Bode, C. (1998). Next, the value of God, and other reactions.
Ecological Modelling, 25, 37–39.
Pearce, D. (1998). Auditing the earth. Environment, 40(2), 23–28.
Petanidou, T., Kizos, T., & Soulakellis, N. (2008). Socioeconomic dimensions of
changes in the agricultural landscape of the Mediterranean basin: A case study
of the abandonment of cultivation terraces on Nisyros Island, Greece. Environ-
mental Management, 41, 250–266.
Petrosillo, I., Costanza, R., Aretano, R., Zaccarelli, N., & Zurlini, G. (2013). The
use of subjective indicators to assess how natural and social capital support
residents’ quality of life in a small volcanic island. Ecological Indicators, 24,
609–620.
Petrosillo, I., Semeraro, T., & Zurlini, G. (2010). Detecting the ‘conservation effect’
on the maintenance of natural capital flow in different natural parks. Ecological
Economics, 69, 1115–1123.
Petrosillo, I., Zaccarelli, N., Semeraro, T., & Zurlini, G. (2009). The effectiveness of
different conservation policies on the security of natural capital. Landscape and
Urban Planning., 89, 49–56.
Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Corlianò, M. E., Zaccarelli, N., & Dadamo, M. (2007). Tourist
perception of recreational environment and management in a marine protected
area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 29–37.
Pimm, S. L. (1997). The value of everything. Nature, 387, 231–232.
Plummer, M. L. (2009). Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem
services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 38–45.
R and Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rescia, A. J., Willaarts, B. A., Schmitz, M. F., & Aguilera, P. A. (2010). Changes in
land uses and management in two Nature Reserves in Spain: Evaluating the
73
social–ecological resilience of cultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning, 98, 26–35.
Rossi, O., & Zurlini, G. (1995). Recent trends of tourism in Italy. In F. Vellas (Ed.), An
encyclopaedia of international tourism (pp. 117–131). Paris: Serdi.
Schmitz, M. F., de Aranzabal, I., Aguilera, P., Rescia, A., & Pineda, F. D. (2003). Rela-
tionship between landscape typology and socioeconomic structure. Scenarios
of change in Spanish cultural landscapes. Ecological Modelling, 168, 343–356.
Schnurr, J., & Holtz, S. (1998). The cornerstone of development: Integrating environ-
mental, social and economic policies. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, J. F. (1995). Biometry. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Termoschuizen, J. W., & Opdam, P. (2009). Landscape services as a bridge
between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology,
24, 1037–1052.
Toman, M. (1998). Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem services
and natural capital. Ecological Economics, 25, 57–60.
Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2001). Capitalising on multiplicity: A transdisciplinary systems
approach to landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 143–157.
Turner, B. L., II, Lambin, E. F., & Reenberg, A. (2007). The emergence of land change
science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the
National Academic of Sciences, 104(52), 20666–20671.
Tzanopoulos, J., & Vogiatzakis, I. (2011). Processes and patterns of landscape change
on a small Aegean island: The case of Sifnos, Greece. Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning, 99, 58–64.
Verburg, P. H., van de Steeg, J., Veldkamp, A., & Willemen, L. (2009). From land
cover change to land function dynamics: A major challenge to improve land
characterization. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1327–1335.
Vogiatzakis, I. N., Mannion, A. M., & Pugnetti, G. (2008). Introduction to Mediter-
ranean landscapes. In I. N. Vogiatzakis, G. Pugnetti, & A. M. Mannion (Eds.),
Mediterranean island landscapes: Natural and cultural approaches. Landscape
series (pp. 3–14). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wilson, M. A., & Hoehn, J. P. (2006). Valuing environmental goods and services
using benefit transfer: The state-of-the art and science. Ecological Economics,
60, 335–342.
Wu, J., Jones, K., Li, H., & Loucks, O. L. (Eds.). (2006). Scaling and uncertainty analysis
in ecology: Methods and applications. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Zaccarelli, N., Li, B.L., Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G. Order and disorder in ecologi-
cal time-series: Introducing normalized spectral entropy. Ecological Indicators,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.008, in press.
Zaho, B., Kreuter, U., Li, B., Ma, Z., Chen, J., & Nakagoshi, N. (2004). An ecosystem
service value assessment of land-use change on Chongming Island. China. Land
Use Policy, 21, 139–148.
Zurlini, G., & Müller, F. (2008). Environmental Security. In S. E. Joergensen, & B. D.
Fath (Eds.), System ecology, Vol. 2 of encyclopaedia of ecology (pp. 1350–1356).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Zurlini, G., Riitters, K., Zaccarelli, N., Petrosillo, I., Jones, K. B., & Rossi, L. (2006).
Disturbance patterns in a socio-ecological system at multiple scales. Ecological
Complexity, 3, 119–128.