Ecosystem Services for Spatial

Planning Silvia Ronchi

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/ecosystem-services-for-spatial-planning-silvia-ronchi/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Ecosystem Services and Green Infrastructure:

Perspectives from Spatial Planning in Italy Andrea
Arcidiacono

https://textbookfull.com/product/ecosystem-services-and-green-
infrastructure-perspectives-from-spatial-planning-in-italy-
andrea-arcidiacono/

Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities Davide

Geneletti

https://textbookfull.com/product/planning-for-ecosystem-services-
in-cities-davide-geneletti/

Ecosystem Services for Well-Being in Deltas Robert J.

Nicholls

https://textbookfull.com/product/ecosystem-services-for-well-
being-in-deltas-robert-j-nicholls/

Integrative Biological Control Ecostacking for Enhanced

Ecosystem Services Yulin Gao

https://textbookfull.com/product/integrative-biological-control-
ecostacking-for-enhanced-ecosystem-services-yulin-gao/
Ecosystem Services: Economics and Policy Stephen
Muddiman

https://textbookfull.com/product/ecosystem-services-economics-
and-policy-stephen-muddiman/

Urbanization: Challenge and Opportunity for Soil

Functions and Ecosystem Services Viacheslav Vasenev

https://textbookfull.com/product/urbanization-challenge-and-
opportunity-for-soil-functions-and-ecosystem-services-viacheslav-
vasenev/

Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes Ajith H.

Perera

https://textbookfull.com/product/ecosystem-services-from-forest-
landscapes-ajith-h-perera/

Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services Marion

Potschin (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/routledge-handbook-of-ecosystem-
services-marion-potschin-editor/

Ecosystem Services of Headwater Catchments 1st Edition

Josef K■e■ek

https://textbookfull.com/product/ecosystem-services-of-headwater-
catchments-1st-edition-josef-krecek/
Green Energy and Technology

Silvia Ronchi

Ecosystem
Services
for Spatial
Planning
Innovative Approaches and Challenges
for Practical Applications
Green Energy and Technology
Climate change, environmental impact and the limited natural resources urge
scientific research and novel technical solutions. The monograph series Green
Energy and Technology serves as a publishing platform for scientific and
technological approaches to “green”—i.e. environmentally friendly and sustain-
able—technologies. While a focus lies on energy and power supply, it also covers
“green” solutions in industrial engineering and engineering design. Green Energy
and Technology addresses researchers, advanced students, technical consultants as
well as decision makers in industries and politics. Hence, the level of presentation
spans from instructional to highly technical.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8059

Silvia Ronchi

Ecosystem Services
for Spatial Planning
Innovative Approaches and Challenges
for Practical Applications

123
Silvia Ronchi
Department of Architecture
and Urban Studies
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy

ISSN 1865-3529 ISSN 1865-3537 (electronic)

Green Energy and Technology
ISBN 978-3-319-90184-8 ISBN 978-3-319-90185-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90185-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018939134

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing AG
part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Less is More

Allo stare in provincia

Foreword

New Priorities for Spatial Planning: The Challenge

of an Ecosystem Services-Based Approach

Ecological and environmental issues are increasingly highlighted as current prior-

ities for territorial and urban planning. Not only because currently more than half
world’s population lives in urban areas of the planet (with a projection of 75% for
2050), causing more and more intense pressures on the quality of life condition.
However, mainly due to a spatial planning model again widely based on expensive
growth strategies. The constant and persistent increase of urbanisation areas is
causing irreversible impacts on the natural resources availability (air, water, soil);
which greatly effect on hydrogeological structure, air quality, soil vulnerability,
food security, climate change, and generally on human well-being.
A condition that requires urban planning to assume: 1) a different paradigm, able
to address the new challenges for the contemporary city and territory; 2) a new
planning approach demanding an understanding of current social dynamics and
critical environmental, ecological and climatic issues in order to redefine the spatial
governance agenda; 3) an innovative methods to maintenance and redevelopment
of the urban environment, and to design of urban and regional open space network.
An approach where the open spaces design and regulation form the structural features
of the plan in order to limit urbanisation and land take phenomena and to achieve new
ecological, environmental and landscape performances for urban quality.
Nevertheless, to face the impacts of urbanisation on Natural capital are required
integrated approaches considering not only the social, economic and ecological
complexity of urbanisation phenomena but also interdependencies between causes,
pressures, and responses to these processes. Therefore, an innovative paradigm for
planning strongly urges the explicit assumption of a trans-disciplinary approach in
which the different knowledge (environmental, hydraulic, pedological, ecological,
etc.), traditionally relegated to play a secondary role in planning process, become
active and primary in the definition of land use strategies. In this sense, the inte-
gration of ecosystem service (ES) thinking into spatial planning is considered an

vii
viii Foreword

original approach, able to improve the environmental management and to enhance

planning resilience and sustainability, through the inclusion of ES evaluation in the
decision-making process, whereas ES has been already proven and relatively
exhaustively discussed as a useful integrated method.
The evident deterioration of ES due to land take processes requires the under-
standing of the drivers and impacts of changes in modelling future dynamics and in
developing management strategies to prevent further decline of natural resources.
Spatial planning provides a prescriptive framework of land uses and their functions,
also providing zoning regulations and urban transformation that involves land use
conversion/substitution. The impacts delivered by spatial planning decisions must
include consideration and assessment on the ES performances, regarding state and
trends, providing solutions and/or strategies for avoiding ES decline and ensuring
their conservation, protection and enhancement.
The book “Ecosystem Services for Spatial Planning” has explored the current
dynamics between Planning and ES, highlighting critical issues that have limited or
prevented their interaction, and introduced practical proposals not only for guar-
anteeing ES implementation in the planning/assessment process but also for
including ES in defining planning strategies.
Mapping ES becomes a key tool in guiding and supporting decision-making for
ES management from a global to local scale. The recognised importance of map-
ping has determined considerable progress in ensuring high quality of ES maps
essential in providing the most accurate information, even if remains a tool for
“expert side”. This has caused a significant and a recent proliferation of software
and tools to estimate the current state and trends of ES (mainly with a spatial
distribution). The book has highlighted such crucial issues that affect the integration
of ES in planning process. One of the main topics is the scale issue of ES con-
sidered a key “knot to untangle”.
The “lack of fit” or “mismatches” between the scales at which ES is delivered,
demanded and governed is recognised as one of the most important causes of
failures in natural resource management (as a cause of environmental conflict) and
also a critical question in the adoption of an ES approach for spatial planning.
The investigations on the scale definition denote that ES assessment cannot fail
to consider the ecological processes that ensure the provision of goods and services,
and the reference scale is central to any ES evaluation and in the analyses of
environmental changes.
Addressing mismatches requires the adjustment between the ecological pro-
cesses that provide ES, with the scale of management and planning. The adoption
of a multi-scale approach could contribute to surpass or at least reduce this critical
issue.
Mapping and scale issues must be investigated together for ES implementation
in planning and assessment processes considering that often ES assessment and
mapping are not adequately included or considered during the decision-making
process. Therefore, if, on the one hand, significant insights have been made for ES
mapping and assessment; on the other, few experiences were focused on the process
of integration of the ES assessment into the planning process. This limited
Foreword ix

integration is also related to the ES concept that is still unknown in practice or not
yet perceived by broader society as applicable for decision making.
The scale mismatch for ES assessment finds a possible solution (or a suitable
compromise) in the adoption of the “Landscape” as the logical setting due to the
mixture of historical, social, cultural and environmental aspects and dynamics. In
this sense, a “Landscape approach” allows going beyond administrative limits
focusing on the conservation of the homogeneity of the landscape structure.
Moreover, landscape metrics can help assess which benefiting areas rely on which
provisioning areas for the delivery of services.
Despite the scale issue, other key topics emerge in this book: the importance to
include ES consideration in the strategic environmental assessment
(SEA) providing a window of opportunity to formally mainstream ES into
decision-making processes and planning, and the adoption of an ecological com-
pensation method to redefine and improve proposals for land use changes. The
compensation measures are investigated and implemented as a method to sustain or
restore the overall capacity of soils in a certain area to fulfil—most of—their
functions.
These considerations have guided the last part of the book, which includes the
practical proposal methodology called “RES—Restart from Ecosystem Services”.
RES provides an operative methodology for assessing the ecological balance
(based on the ecosystem services capacity) of forecasted Land Uses and Land
Covers (LULC) changes derived by planning decisions based on the ESC as an
indicator of the multifunctional quality forecasting the environmental effects of land
take process on the ES provided by soils.
The ESC assessment was successively integrated with the adoption of three
incremental and hierarchical actions for soil sealing and land take control suggested
by the European Commission (limit, mitigate and compensate). RES acts within
this framework recommending an operative proposal to practically implement these
three actions. The strategy is already defined both at European and national/regional
levels, but, nowadays, does not find suitable application in planning due to the lack
of tools, procedures and methods to apply it.
The adoption of incremental actions has been settled considering the impact of
LULC changes on the ESC. The limitation threshold was identified considering the
statistical correlation between LULC of the forecasted urban transformations and
the weighted average of the ESC, while the definition of what measure should be
taken (mitigative or compensative) considers the adoption of urban planning
parameters for the transformation areas. SEA could be (used as) a tool to guarantee
the implementation of ES and RES methodology in the planning process, consid-
ering that each RES step fits with the SEA process stage in a systematic and
integrated way. More than that, RES acts as a trait d’union between planning and
SEA giving more effectiveness to both processes. The practical integration of the
RES methodology in the planning process is assured by inclusion in the SEA
identifying the main stage in which the cohesion is evident and providing robust
support for the definition of the planning strategies and the evaluation of alternative
scenarios.
x Foreword

The scenario analysis, a typical framework of impact assessment, was fully

criticised for its lack of consideration of reasonable alternatives as one of the key
recurring problems within the environmental assessment.
RES provides consistency to the alternative scenarios analysis, testing it with a
sample case study highlighting the possibility of predicting and understanding
current trends and possible future changes on ES.
The application of RES offers an ex-ante estimation of the predicted impact on
ESC and the appropriate measure to adopt in restoring it giving the possibility of
quantifying the possible economic costs of the interventions. In perspective, a
further relevant contribution from the evaluation and mapping of ecosystem ser-
vices is related to the construction of Green infrastructures (GI), as an innovative
structure for the contemporary planning. Whereas GI constitutes a field of design
experimentation, performing many differentiated functions related to the territorial
characteristics and spatial scale. While implementing an established ecological
network methodological and planning tradition, designed to ensure biodiversity and
connection between highly natural spatial areas, GI go beyond and realigns the
network concept including urban and peri-urban open areas and spaces, of varying
degrees of naturalness, characterised by accessibility and an ecosystem condition
that influences not only structures supporting naturalness but also regulation of
biological soil cycles, verifying its permeability and porosity ratios. An approach
which is able to enhance the different vocations and potential that the soil can play
in improving the environmental conditions of the territory; in which the protection
and valorisation actions are motivated in relation to the actual functionality of the
soils in supplying multiple benefits in terms of regulating, supporting, provisioning
and cultural services, biocultural diversity in cities and nature-based solutions.
The potential of innovative approach through the concept of the green and blue
infrastructures is becoming increasingly important for planning, where these net-
works can shape the new frame of the contemporary urban and territorial structure,
in which systems of open spaces (public and private), urban and peri-urban areas,
agricultural and natural soil, are integrated as pieces of a recreative and environ-
mental project, ecologically oriented and socially inclusive. GI permit moreover the
experimentation of an “inter-scalar” approach to the project, in which the
wide-scale design of the green networks is downscaled at the intercommunal and
local level, able to activate forms of governance and social sharing of the project,
within a common perspective of improving the quality of living conditions.

Milan, Italy Andrea Arcidiacono

Associate Professor of Urban Planning
Department of Architecture
and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano
Preface

The book investigated the relationship between ecosystem services (ES) and spatial
planning questioning possible ways of integrating the two concepts and approaches.
The implementation of ES in Planning requires a precise method of obtaining
significant evidence to aid the decision-making process because the provision of ES
depends on the importance this is given in spatial planning.
In recent years, knowledge on ES mainstream approaches to spatial planning has
increased through research and includes existing mindsets and technical procedures.
Many of these proposals often remain limited to specific aspects of spatial planning
or, in many cases, focused on only a few components of an existing tool. These
modalities, are surely essential in improving the knowledge system but without
impacting the planning process, only acting as tools used in the planning process.
The integration of ES demands operational frameworks in the Planning process that
today is still in its infancy and has precluded its full inclusion.
The book acted within this framework, investigating the reasons behind this gap
and advancing proposals to bridge ES into the planning process to support decision
makers. The work provided a proposal for ensuring the inclusion of ES in Planning
process using the incremental measures of limiting, mitigating and compensating
soil sealing and land take process promoting operational strategies in applying it.
The proposal is supported by a practical application to demonstrate the results, the
limits, the opportunities and further new developments.
The book introduced the main notions of the book as a starting point for further
discussion, as a common basis for all the next considerations. It is dedicated to
presenting important issues that must be considered when dealing with ES in terms
of methodology, approaches and practical experiences. The issues explored concern
the scale, the assessment methods, and the management of Ecosystem Services.
Each topic is investigated always considering the planning perspective, hence
having as a framework that of planning and territorial governance. This part ended
presenting experiences on assessment and mapping ES with two modalities: the first
collected the practical case study elaborated by the book author in order to test and
verify directly opportunities, criticisms and possible improvements in ES

xi
xii Preface

assessment/mapping for planning support; the second presented such innovative

aspects that affect the integration of ES in planning.
The last chapters are the operative proposal called “RES—Restart from
Ecosystem Services”. In this part, all the contents learnt in the previous phases
converged to try to solve such critical aspects and to improve others (e.g. the scale
issues, the methods for ES assessment, and the tools for ES integration) by defining
a methodology (step by step) of adopting ecosystem services for planning support.
The steps of the methodology are explained in a theoretical section and an operative
application in order to give more essence to all the processes and to validate RES.
As a conclusion, the book provided critical reflection on the actual behaviour
of the topics in ES and planning focusing on the social recognition of ES based
essentially on their proper acknowledgement and increased awareness.

Milan, Italy Silvia Ronchi

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Andrea Arcidiacono, Erika Bianchi, Mattia Brambilla,

Jürgen Breuste, Davide Geneletti, Giulio Giordano, Angela Hof, Carlo
Manfredi, Paolo Pileri, Stefanie Pirker, Stefano Salata, Dirk Tinne, Grazia Zulian
for helpful comments and suggestions provided during the writing of the book.

xiii
Contents

1 Ecosystem Services and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Definitions, Classifications and Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Necessity of Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.1 Land Use Changes and Soil Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.2 Spatial Planning, Land Use Management
and Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 19
1.2.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . ........ 20
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 23
2 Methodology, Approaches and Innovative Experiences . . . . . . . . ... 27
2.1 The Scale-Dependent of Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 27
2.1.1 Scale for Managing Ecosystem Services: A Literature
Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 Ecosystem Services Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.1 The Importance of Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3 Ecosystem Services Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.4 Experiences on Assessment and Mapping Ecosystem Services . . . 51
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3 Practical Integration of Ecosystem Services in the Planning
and Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77
3.1 The Application of RES|Restart from Ecosystem Services:
The Case Study of the Metropolitan Area of Milano . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.2 The Methodological Proposal Step by Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.2.1 Scale Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.2.2 Ecosystem Services Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.2.3 Ecosystem Services Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.2.4 Impact Assessment of Land Take Process on Ecosystem
Services Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96

xv
xvi Contents

3.2.5 Incremental Measures to Govern Land Take Process . . . . . 100

3.2.6 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4 The Adoption of RES Methodology in Strategic
Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.1 Validation of RES Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.2 Economic Feasibility of Mitigation and
Compensation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
4.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Chapter 1
Ecosystem Services and Planning

Abstract The concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) was investigated with a

historical overview of the definitions, methods of classification and approaches
proposed over the years, from different disciplines regarding the Services provided
by Ecosystem for Human wellbeing. The concept of ES is strictly related to Land
Use/Land Cover changes that affect ES provision determining a decline of the
global environmental conditions and loss of biodiversity. The generalised decline
requires putting in place governance systems that guarantee long-term delivery and
use of ES. Hence, information on ES is fundamental to support Spatial planning
processes and Strategic Environmental Assessment can be the tool used to integrate
ES in Planning for Sustainable Land use management.

In the last 50 years, humans have altered and modified ecosystems more rapidly
and extensively than in any comparable period and wider impacts are expected
(Daily 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Most of these impacts are
related to Land Use—Land Cover (LULC) changes and their effect on adjacent
lands. The transformation of land has been recognised as one of the main factors in
the decline of the global environmental conditions (Foley et al. 2005) and the major
driving force for biodiversity loss (Vitousek et al. 1997). Changes in LULC are
considered as one of the clearest informative indicators on the state and charac-
teristics of the natural resources and environmental systems.
The ES potentially provided by the LULC is acknowledged as a necessary
framework for linking human and natural systems in environmental management
(Balmford et al. 2002; Howarth and Farber 2002; Daily et al. 2009) for guiding
Spatial planning towards a more sustainable approach (Pileri and Maggi 2010). The
implementation of ES assessment may effectively support societal and political
choices in the Planning process (Farber et al. 2002) for conservation, protection and
management of natural resources.

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 1

S. Ronchi, Ecosystem Services for Spatial Planning, Green Energy
and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90185-5_1
2 1 Ecosystem Services and Planning

1.1 Definitions, Classifications and Approaches

According to the definition of Ecosystem provided in Article 2 of the United Nation

Convention on Biological Diversity,1 ratified by Italy with Law 124/1994:
“Ecosystem means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and microorganism com-
munities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit”. Each
ecosystem contains complex relationships between living (biotic) and non-living
(abiotic) components (resources), sunlight, air, water, minerals and nutrients.
The quantity, quality and diversity of species (regarding richness, rarity, and
uniqueness) perform an important role in a given ecosystem. It is often that func-
tioning centres on some species, or groups of species that achieve a specific
function for example; pollination, defoliation, grazing, predation, seed dispersal or
nitrogen fixing. The functioning of ecosystems depends on Earth system processes
that are understood as changes or reactions occurring in ecosystems (physical,
chemical or biological) as well as decomposition, production, nutrient cycling and
fluxes of nutrients and energy (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Ecosystem functions are defined as the capacity of ecosystems to provide goods and
services that satisfy human needs, directly and/or indirectly, that are called
Ecosystem Services (ES). The provision of ES depends on biophysical conditions
and changes over space and time due to human-induced changes (Burkhard et al.
2012). In this sense, the two concepts (functions and services) are different.
Ecosystem functions are natural process or characteristic exchanges of energy that
take place in the various animal and plant communities in a biome of the world (for
example the dead organic matter decomposes into humus), while ES are related to
the capacity of an Ecosystem to provide good and services that are directly bene-
ficial to humans (for instance Humus from decomposition of organic matter serve as
natural fertilizer in areas cleared for agricultural uses).
In the scientific literature, ES are commonly defined as “the benefits that humans
obtain from Ecosystem functions (de Groot et al. 2002; Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005), or as direct and indirect contributions from Ecosystems to
Human Well-being” (TEEB 2009). At the least, ES are the set of processes and
conditions that make possible the survival of human life in Natural Ecosystems.
As previously explained, the term “service” is associated to Ecosystem only when
its functions produce benefits for people; this concept is useful to understand the
human relationships with the environment and the dependence of Human wellbeing
on the functioning of ecosystems.
The definition of ES was for a long time at the centre of the scientific debate. The
origins of the concept of ES were to be probably found with Marsh who suggested
that the Earth’s natural resources not be unlimited by pointing to changes in Soil
fertility in the Mediterranean. His observation was taken into consideration until the
late 1940s (Marsh 1864). Following that, an evolution of the concept of ES was

1
http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml.
1.1 Definitions, Classifications and Approaches 3

(established) in the 1970s and related to the utilitarian framing of those Ecosystem
functions that are beneficial to society and in those years the notion of “nature’s
services” has been discussed in the academic literature.
In chronological order, the functioning of an Ecosystem in terms of delivering
services was firstly investigated in 1970 in the Report “Man’s Impact On The Global
Environment” by Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP) sponsored by
the MIT—Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Study of Critical Environmental
Problems (SCEP) 1970).
Originally, scholars have used the term “environmental functions/services” to
capture the concept that now we call Ecosystem services. In 1992, de Groot sug-
gested defining environmental services as “the capacity of natural processes and
components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs (directly and/or
indirectly)” (de Groot 1992). The goods (e.g. resources) are usually provided by the
Ecosystem components (plants, animals, minerals, etc.); the services (e.g. waste
recycling) by the Ecosystem processes (biogeochemical cycling).
De Groot faced the issue of ES at various times during his studies starting from
attempted classification. In 2002 de Groot, Wilson and Boumans (de Groot et al.
2002) expanded the four categories of ES (Regulation functions, Habitat functions,
Production functions, Information functions) into 23 functions and updated the
concept assuming that there is no one-to-one correspondence between Ecosystem
processes and services but multiple and interrelated connections. More recently, in
2006, de Groot introduced another category in addition to the four: the carrier
function as a physical support arguing that “The use of carrier functions usually
involves permanent conversion of the original ecosystem, thus, the capacity of
natural systems to provide carrier functions on a sustainable basis is usually limited
(exceptions are certain types of shifting cultivation and transportation on water-
ways, which, on a small scale, are possible without permanent damage to the
Ecosystem)”(de Groot 2006).
In addition to de Groot studies, in 1990 Pearce and Turner, while working on the
CRITING project—CRITIcal Natural Capital, subdivided environmental functions
into source, sink and service functions (Pearce and Kerry Turner 1990).
At the same time, Noël and O’Connor define the “the five S’s” theory (Noël and
O’Connor 1998) dividing the last of these categories of Scenery, Site and Life
Support functions in order to classify “the specific roles or services provided by
natural systems that support economic activity and human welfare”.
In 1997, Costanza, reorganized the categories proposed by de Groot into sev-
enteen services: gas regulation, climate regulation, disturbance regulation, water
regulation, water supply, erosion control and sediment retention, soil formation,
nutrient cycling, waste treatment, pollination, biological control, refugia, food
production, raw materials, genetic resources, recreation and cultural (Costanza et al.
1997). Daily in 1999 proposed an ES framework suggesting classification of pro-
duction of goods, regeneration processes, stabilising processes, life-fulfilling
functions, preservation of options (Daily 1999).
Until this moment, the uncertainties surrounding ES were related to their defi-
nitions and classification, the international debate was focused on providing a
4 1 Ecosystem Services and Planning

common reference standard for naming and defining ES. As will be explained later,
the achievement of a recognised definition has moved the debate to another issue:
ES mapping.
The beginning of the 21st century brought the start of the experiences of
international projects based on ES assessment considering the assumption that ES
analysis could orient the decision makers. Firstly, there was the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA)—a project called for by the United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000 and carried out between 2001 and 2005—
with the aim to assess the consequences of Ecosystem change for Human
Well-being and the scientific basis for enhancing the conservation and sustainable
use of those systems and their contribution to Human Well-being (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
The MA was a global assessment aimed at supporting better decision-making at
different levels, 34 regional, national and local scale evaluations (or sub-global
assessments) were included and considered as core project components. The
assessment distinguishes four kinds of ES that provide benefits to people:
“Provisioning services, which are the products obtained from ecosystems; regu-
lating services, which are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem
processes including for example air quality regulation and climate regulation;
cultural services, which are the non-material benefits that people obtain from
ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recre-
ation and aesthetic experiences; supporting services, which are necessary for the
production of all other ecosystem services” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005).
The first three categories of services directly affect people, whereas the sup-
porting services are there to maintain the other services. These categories are similar
to the ones introduced in de Groot’s first proposal in 1992 (de Groot 1992), in spite
of the regulation function theorised by de Groot it also comprises the support
function proposed in the MA’ classification, where it is distinct and separate with its
validity. In the MA project, the influence of the ES to Human wellbeing is explicit
and well-articulated and it is referred to as basic material for good life, health, social
relationship, security, freedom of choice and action. People are perceived as inte-
gral part of the Ecosystems.
Despite the practical results, the MA stimulated the international debate on the
links between ecosystems and Human wellbeing, “the project was unable however
to provide adequate scientific information to answer a number of important policy
questions related to ecosystem services and human well-being” (Vandewalle et al.
2008) (Fig. 1.1).
The MA classification can be applied with the use of spatial and temporal
features of ES to identify when and where they are delivered. Fisher and other
scholars in 2008 argued that the MA’s definition of ES be meant as multiple benefits
provided to society by the Ecosystem, including tangible goods such as food,
regulation of the environment, cultural benefits such as recreation and maintenance
of Ecosystem integrity and resilience (Fisher and Turner 2008). Thus, they pro-
posed to define ES as “the aspects of Ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to
1.1 Definitions, Classifications and Approaches 5

Fig. 1.1 Ecosystem Services and their links to Human wellbeing. Source (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005)

produce Human Well-being” and suggested “the qualifiers intermediate and final as
used in conventional economic accounting systems. For example, food provision is
a final service, whereas pollination is an intermediate service. The benefit here is
food for consumption. In short, ES are the ecological phenomena, and the benefit is
the thing that has a direct impact on human welfare” (Fisher and Turner 2008).
On the same topic, Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) argued that the distinction between
intermediate service, final services, and benefits not be strict, rigid and fixed as
services are often a function of the beneficiary’s perspective.
6 1 Ecosystem Services and Planning

In addition to this, Boyd and Banzhaf and Wallace pointed out that in the MA
classification the concepts “ends” and “means” are listed under the same category
level and therefore the typologies cannot be used for effective decision-making
(Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Wallace 2007). Moreover, the classification does not
provide accountable information and landscape management guidelines. In this
regard, the scientific community proposed a framework introducing an accounting
system for ES which suggested directly consumed ecological components of
Ecosystems. Consequently, it was debated that further action of turning a con-
ceptual framework into an operational system of accounting is required, shifting
from theory to practical meanings which correspond to the accounting of those
services.
In this context, the landscape perspective has become more relevant, stimulating
first studies on the topic were not carried out until the late 90s in Germany wherein
several landscape surveys base their classification approach on de Groot’s article
“Functions of nature” (de Groot 1992).
The landscape knowledge related to land assessment, landscape functions, and
natural potentials are fundamental for including for a biophysical dimension also
the social aspects and, for consequence, to the Cultural ES related to the aesthetic,
spiritual and enrichment factors.
The Landscape was considered in a multifunctional way as a crucial concept to
consider the biophysical and social issue considering that people are part of the
landscape and that landscapes are changed for their benefit.
This awareness has produced several studies on how the spatial distribution of
human activities influences important landscape processes/structures, and consid-
ering the analysis of landscape processes and the assessment of landscape func-
tionality as a precondition for land use planning (Hermann et al. 2011).
Bastian and Schreiber, for instance, developed a framework for the assessment
of landscape functions to support sustainable land use management (Bastian and
Schreiber 1999). They distinguished the functions provided by the landscape in
three groups: production functions (economic functions), regulation functions
(ecological functions) and habitat function (social function). Each group is again
classified into core functions and sub-functions.
Wallace in 2007 was interested in managing landscape and ecological processes
delivering ES; he proposed two ways of classifying ES taking into consideration the
MA definition of ES: classification according to spatial characteristics and classi-
fication according to “excludability/rivalry” status.
In this case, services could be “excludable” to the same degree as an individual
can be excluded from benefiting from these services, for example in a private
market. Contrary, it is quite impossible to exclude others from the benefits provided
by public goods like air, and heat of the sun.
Similarly, goods and services are perceived as “rival” because the use of certain
goods or services by a person often precludes and confines others from exploiting
these benefits. For that reason, Wallace suggested that it is essential to clearly
separate means (processes) and ends (services) in the original MA classification.
1.1 Definitions, Classifications and Approaches 7

Costanza did not sustain Wallace’s assumption totally but argued that ES not be
ends, while Ecosystem processes are means. This argumentation is “a gross over-
simplification of a complex reality. In the messy world, we do inhabit, we need
multiple classification systems for different purposes. Ecosystems are complex,
dynamic, adaptive systems with non-linear feedbacks, thresholds, hysteresis effects,
etc” (Costanza 2008).
Other authors have investigated the possibility of merging some categories of the
ES trying to find a common agreement on ES classification, for example combining
the regulating and provisioning service categories into a single class of regulating
services, avoiding possible underpinning (Hein et al. 2006). In recent years, new
approaches of ES have been developed by various schools of thought including
methods of mapping and spatialization.
In 2008, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project
identified 22 types of ES and grouped into four categories, slightly adjusting the
MA ones: provisioning, regulating and cultural and amenity services and a newly
introduced category called “habitat services” that replace the supporting services
defined by MA (due to the fact that they do not directly produce benefits for the
society). The TEEB classification considers these services as “biophysical structure,
processes and functions”. This proposal does not achieve a consensus in the aca-
demic and scientific institutions especially due to the risk of overlooking the role of
Soils in providing services.
As previously mentioned, the need to investigate ES has become a necessity
since the European Biodiversity Strategy requires all European Member States “to
map and assess the state of Ecosystems and their services in their national territory
by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of
these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by
2020 (Target 2: Maintain and restore Ecosystems and their services, Action 5:
Improve knowledge of Ecosystems and their services in the EU)” (European
Commission 2011a). In this regard, a working group on “Mapping and Assessment
of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES)” was created with the main objective to
support the European Member States in undertaking the necessary work.
The MAES working group decided to apply CICES—Common International
Classification of Ecosystem Services2 which will be used throughout Europe (Maes
et al. 2016) considering the need for coherence and compatibility among assess-
ments and to support the integration of ES within environmental accounting.
The CICES was launched by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and
coordinated by the University of Nottingham that would allow MAES within the
European framework of the Biodiversity 2020 Strategy offering a more integrated
and holistic perspective through which to analyse ES.
The initiative also proposed the integration of economic values of ES and
reporting systems at EU and national level. The framework also provides
cross-reference with ES categories used in assessments as a new standard

2
http://cices.eu.
8 1 Ecosystem Services and Planning

classification of ES that is consistent with accepted categorizations and, at the same

time, allows an easy communicative translation of some statistical data.
The classification recognizes the provisioning, regulating and maintenance
(corresponding to the Regulating services theorized in the TEEB project and the
Regulating and supporting services proposed in the MA classification), and cultural
services, but fails to acknowledge the so-called “supporting services” originally
theorized in the MA experience because the supporting services are treated as part
of the underlying structures, process and functions that characterize Ecosystems
(Potschin and Haines-Young 2013). CICES provides a hierarchical system, build-
ing on the MA and TEEB classifications but predisposed to accounting.
In conclusion, three international classification systems are available: MA,
TEEB and CICES.MA provides a classification that is globally recognised and used
in sub-global assessments, TEEB offers an updated classification, based on the MA,
which is used in current national TEEB studies across Europe and finally, CICES
delivers a hierarchical system, building on the MA and TEEB classifications but
tailored to accounting.
CICES divide ES into three sections articulated in the division and group (at
third level), the classification is explained below and the classes are provided in
Fig. 1.2.

1.2 Necessity of Integration

1.2.1 Land Use Changes and Soil Ecosystem Services

Considering the impact of humans on ecosystem occurred in the last 50 years and
the wider impacts expected (Daily 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005),
LULC changes3 are recognised as one of the main factors in the decline of the
global environmental conditions (Foley et al. 2005) and the major driving force for
biodiversity loss (Vitousek et al. 1997).
At European level, CORINE Land Cover (CLC)4 database shows significant
changes in land use with an impact on Soil (European Environment Agency 2006)
causing Soil sealing and land take process and, for consequence, an effect in the
provision of ES. LULC changes and relative practices influence Natural capital
stocks, the processes that build and degrade these stocks, and on the flow of ES
from the use of these stocks (Dominati et al. 2010). Understanding and adopting an
ES approach to making a decision that involves LULC changes could contribute to

3
Land Use and Land Cover changes are mainly related to the transition from agricultural/natural
areas into artificial surface. Land cover refers to the physical surface characteristics of land (for
example, the vegetation found there or the presence of built structures), while land use describes
the economic and social functions of that land.
4
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover.
1.2 Necessity of Integration 9

Fig. 1.2 Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services, version 4.3 at the “three
digital level”. Source (Haines-Young and Potschin 2011)

forecasting the potential impacts and the consequences of the Human wellbeing
influence derived from specific choices/decisions.
The Soils are major suppliers of critical ES because they contain one-quarter to
one-third of all living organisms on the planet. Only around 1% of Soil microor-
ganisms have been identified compared to 80% of plants (Jeffery et al. 2010).
The Soil is commonly considered as a non-renewable resource, due to its extre-
mely slow rate of regeneration processes and because of its capability to perform
several functions crucial for society and ecosystems. The regeneration process of a
Soil is rare, complex, and requires a significant contribution in terms of energy and a
very long time in restoring the Soil conditions (Pileri 2007) considering that to restore
just 2.5 cm of degraded Soil requires up to 500 years (Pimentel et al. 2010).
As estimated in the European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity, “99% of the world’s
food comes from the terrestrial environment—crops are grown in Soil and livestock
maintained on it. Soils have a real role in shaping our planet. They can absorb
10 1 Ecosystem Services and Planning

rainwater and act as a buffer against both floods and droughts. Soils also hold more
than twice the amount of carbon that is currently contained in the atmosphere”
(Jeffery et al. 2010). Despite that, “most people are unaware that the key drivers of
Soil ecosystems that control fertility and terrestrial global nutrient cycles are the
quantity and quality of living organisms within the Soil” (Jeffery et al. 2010).
Soil organisms contribute to a wide range of services essential to sustainable
functioning of all Ecosystems (also called Soil functions) (Blum 2005; Commission
of the European Communities 2006), they act as the primary driving agents for
nutrient cycling, water purification, regulating the dynamics of Soil organic matter
and structure, Soil carbon sequestration, and greenhouse gas emissions (Breure
et al. 2012). Moreover, Soil is the foundation of all Terrestrial Ecosystems and the
agricultural and forestry provisioning services, as well as being the structural
medium for supporting the earth’s biosphere and human infrastructure (Fig. 1.3).
In 1997, Daily suggested that Soils are one of the important determinants of a
nation’s economic status and that the inclusion of Soils in ES frameworks and
policy and decision-making is essential (Daily 1997).
The same idea has also been emphasised by other authors promoting a linkage
between Soil ES and land use policy. Soil ES depend obviously on Soil properties
and characteristics, and their interaction (through Soil processes) (Robinson et al.
2013; McBratney et al. 2014), that are mostly influenced by its use and manage-
ment (European Environment Agency 2016).
Soil functions strictly depend on the multi-functionality of Soils and each type
performs specific functions. For example, some Soils have a higher capacity to produce
fuel or fibre than others, depending on their chemical, physical and pedogenetic
characteristics and on the agroclimatic environment, while some Soils differ in their
capacity to filter water, to store carbon, to provide a habitat for biodiversity, and so on.
The capacity of Soils to perform each of Soil functions depends on land use, for
example, carbon sequestration rates are typically higher under grassland than
seminative or agricultural areas.
In addition to this, Soil functions are the basis for Soil quality interpretation.
Following the reasoning of Vrščaj et al. (2008), “The main questions which must be
answered regarding the quality assessment of a particular Soil are: What function is
the Soil performing?, What functions could it perform?, Are these functions the ones
that we want it to perform?, Is this the best use of this Soil?”(Vrščaj et al. 2008).
The Soil capacity to perform functions was defined by (Tóth et al. 2007) as Soil
Functional Ability (SFA). SFA depends on characteristics, both intrinsic and external,
of Soils: the former are defined by physical, biological and chemical parameters (e.g.
texture, organic matter content, PH, cation exchange capacity, porosity etc.), the latter
by natural (e.g. slope, steepness) and/or anthropogenic (Land use and management)
characteristics. In addition to SFA, the Soil Response Properties (SRP) represents the
Soil capability of responding to a disturbance or change, moreover, it is defined as
those “Soil characteristics that determine the Soil’s response to environmental or
human influences and thus mark different potentials of SFA” (Tóth et al. 2007).
 1.2 Necessity of Integration
11

Fig. 1.3 Soil Ecosystem services and functions. Source (Haygarth and Ritz 2009)
12 1 Ecosystem Services and Planning

Soil Functional Ability can be defined as:

SFA ¼ ðFi, n  EFi, nÞ=n

where:
Fi, n are the considered functions from i to n
E is the efficiency (level) of how functions from i to n are performed individually
N is the number of functions included in the evaluation
Instead, Soil Response Properties can be defined as:
SRP ¼ Rfi, nðRSCÞ

where:
f is a (non-linear) function describing the response (in both direction and
magnitude) to an impact, determined by the sum of the soil characteristics RSC
The combination of both describes the Soil Quality (SQ) as an indicator of the
“goodness” of Soil with regard to functions and responses.
SQI ¼ SFA  SRP

SQI is an account of the ability of Soil to provide Ecosystem and social service
through its capacities to perform functions and respond to external influences.
In other terms, Soil quality is basically “fitness for use”(Pierce and Larson 1993) that
is, the long-term capacity of Soil to perform its functions effectively. SQI is necessary
to understand if: urban transformation occurs on good or bad locations (referring to Soil
quality); how land use changes impact on the environmental condition of Soil; miti-
gation, compensation or restoration occur (Arcidiacono et al. 2015).
Soil quality affects the state of the environment (analogously also to air and water
quality) and thus the provision of ES. Therefore, the concept of Soil functions is an
applied approach to estimate Soil Quality principally for land use and administration
purposes, for assessment of the impact of land use change on the Soil resource.
Indeed, the most common approach to ES mapping for planning is the creation
of a multilayer analysis of SQI, such analyses are focused on the environmental
effect of land take processes to ES provided by natural Soils (Helian et al. 2011),
especially the ones that request integrative analysis across different disciplines
(Breure et al. 2012 ). Besides this indicator, it is possible to also add an evaluation
on the ES of the one-unit area for each land use category obtained by multiplying
the area of each land category by the value coefficient. This indicator, called
Ecosystem Service Capacity (ESC) can be defined as:

ESC ¼ RðAi  VCiÞ

1.2 Necessity of Integration 13

where:
ESC is the estimated ESC, Ai is the area (ha) and VCi is the value coefficient for
land use category “i” (Helian et al. 2011; Arcidiacono et al. 2015)
The link of ESC to land use transition matrix allows us to verify the transformations
of LULC as it transitions from one status to another and to extract the compositions, the
permanence, the losses, the gains and the net changes. The square transition matrix
(n  n, with n = the number of LULC classes) has the LULC at time t1 as the entry
flow (rows), with the LULC at time t2 as the exit flow (columns).
The matrix sets out the transformations (regarding area) that a certain LULC
existing at time t1 undergoes in a time interval Dt = (t2 − t1). The cells of the matrix
state the value of the area (in hectares or m2) transformed from a cover (a) at time t1
to a cover (b) at time t2 (Pileri and Maggi 2010; Pileri 2012).
With transition matrices, notable changes on ESC can be observed including the
loss (in economic or ecological terms) of specific transitions (for e.g. the reduction
of agricultural or natural covers in favour of newly urbanised land).
New indicators (as the percent decrease of the total ESC) can enforce the evi-
dence of economical long-term effect of land use change and urbanisation. Even
simplified, such method could improve the knowledge of the qualitative effect of
land use changes, thus increasing the attention of cause-effect mechanisms due to
planning options. Moreover, conflicts between different land uses also impact the
shaping of land cover in general and in particular, some impervious surfaces.
For instance, Land use changes influence the provision of several ES such as
(a) nutrient cycling, climate regulation, erosion control and genetic resources;
(b) recreation activities and opportunities; (c) climate regulation and erosion control
and finally (d) Soil fertility and water availability.
Two main threats related to land use changes are:
Soil sealing is understood as the transformation of open areas (natural,
semi-natural or agricultural) into areas for settlement (residential, industrial, tertiary,
etc.) or transport. In other words, when a Soil is permanently covered by an imper-
meable artificial material (for e.g. asphalt or concrete), in such a way that the uppermost
Soil layer, which provides most of the ES, is removed (Prokop 2011; European
Commission 2012). The only part of a settlement area is that remains unsealed are
areas, like gardens, parks and other urban green spaces are not impervious surfaces.
Land take process, defined according to (European Environment Agency 2013),
like the “Change of the amount of agriculture, forest and other semi-natural and
natural land taken by urban and other artificial land development. It includes areas
sealed by construction and urban infrastructure as well as urban green areas and
sport and leisure facilities”.
Hence Land take is the increase of artificial surfaces (such as housing areas;
urban green areas; industrial, commercial and transport units; road and rail net-
works; etc.) over time. Recent Soil sealing has become a most intense form of Land
take, although the UE population is decreasing, the amount of sealed land still rises
(European Commission 2012). Soil sealing as the most visible form of land take is
particularly critical considering the limited exchanges between the pedosphere and
atmosphere which is strongly affected by the coverage of soils, determining an
14 1 Ecosystem Services and Planning

irreversible degradation of soil and its functions. Therefore, Land take involves soil
sealing, which can lead to soil biodiversity loss and subsequent knock-on effects on
ecosystems, food production and the regulation of water.
Considering the differences between these two concepts, it is possible to argue
that the most dangerous consequences of Land take process is Soil sealing. The EC
(European Commission 2011b) identified eight degradation processes to which
Soils are threatened with: erosion, organic matter decline, contamination, com-
paction, salinization, Soil biodiversity loss, sealing, landslides and flooding. Most
of these threats involve not only Soils but also the landscape (e.g. loss of local
culture and rural traditions, damage of typical agricultural products and biodiver-
sity) which should also be taken into consideration. Moreover, LULC changes are
identified as key drivers of global change with impacts on ecosystems, climate and
the human sphere. Land take process is associated with location-related, accessi-
bility, socio-economic and planning code determinants and it is primarily a con-
sequence of pressure for future land development with potential impacts on the
carbon cycle, on the water cycle and microclimate, on biodiversity, and on agri-
cultural production: potential agricultural crops are heavily and progressively hin-
dered by land take and Soil sealing (Zoppi and Lai 2014). Considering that Land
take is understood as the conversion of open areas into built-up areas (that include
also non-sealed areas, such as gardens, but they are still considered anthropized
because of modification through human action) and the impact of urbanisation
depends on the area of land taken and on the intensity of land use, including Soil
sealing areas, it important to assume the Land take process is a key indicator in
evaluating and assessing its effect on ES in terms of state and trends. In fact, Land
take is often used as a proxy for Soil sealing, interrupting the exchange between the
pedosphere and the atmosphere, and thus determining changes in the natural
functioning of soils. Finally, studying Land take means also including Soil sealing
measurements of the impact on ES, not only on Soil ES, and looking at the urban
morphologies of the phenomenon (e.g. Urban sprawl, compactness, etc.). The
impact on ecosystems depends on Urban form, intentionally driven by Planning,
that could make a difference in limiting the effects of urban expansion (Inostroza
et al. 2013). Once understood, the consequences of LULC changes on the provision
of ES and looking at the causes of this phenomenon, LULC changes depend on
human-induced alterations, determining different and mostly adverse impacts on
both society and the environment. LULC changes are influenced by a variety of
factors (spatial and temporal) that act in a complex way. Initially, LULC changes
occur at the level of individual land parcels when a decision is taken to change the
actual LULC into another perceived as more desirable, mainly for economic and
social benefits, but which frequently comes at a substantial cost to the environment.
In an integrated way, individual decisions (at micro scale) produce LULC
changes at higher spatial levels (at macro scale) also influencing the broader
environmental, socio-economic, institutional, and political settings within which the
land unit is embedded. In Italy, as in many others European countries, changes in
land use are derived mainly from local planning policy/act that is the binding
regulation of land use for their inhabitants and allows a “controlled” spatial
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“She is from Havana,” said a Frenchman, who was at hand, working.
“The Raven, Captain Sudlip.”
“Captain Sudlip!” came from several of the boys.
“Was his full name Jason Sudlip?” questioned Professor Strong, with
equal interest.
“Yes. Then you knew him?”
“We did. But we didn’t know he was captain of a schooner like this.”
“It was a new command for him. At the last moment the regular
captain of the Raven was taken sick and Captain Sudlip took his
place. Poor fellow, it was a fatal trip for him.”
“Is Captain Sudlip dead?” questioned Darry.
“Not dead, but horribly burnt. They have taken him to the hospital at
Roseau, on the island of Dominica, but the doctors say he cannot
live.”
The Frenchman resumed his work, and the craft containing our
friends moved off down the coast. For some minutes nobody spoke.
Then Darry heaved a long sigh.
“It’s horrible!” he murmured. “Horrible! Captain Sudlip wasn’t our
friend, but I pity him.”
“And so do I pity him,” put in Sam. “I trust his case isn’t as bad as
reported.”
This was all that was said, but nobody forgot the matter until a long
time after. It may be as well to state here that the captain was in a
very bad way and that he died inside of the week.
It was utterly impossible to think of going ashore at St. Pierre, and
fearful of another eruption which might cost them their lives,
Professor Strong procured passage on a little ferry steamer which
had formerly run regularly between the fallen city and Fort de
France.
Turning southward again made the hearts of Mark and Frank sink
like lead within their bosoms. Their thoughts were constantly on their
parents.
“I can’t give my father up—I simply can’t!” said Frank to his chum, in
a choking voice. “It’s too awful to think of!”
“I feel exactly the same, Frank,” answered the older youth. “But what
more can we do?”
“I am going to make more inquiries when we reach Fort de France.”
“Oh, I shall do that, too.”
On the way down the coast they fell in with many vessels, all going
to St. Pierre to give aid to those who, alas, were beyond human
needs. These craft moved along silently, nobody feeling in the humor
to even discuss the situation.
As soon as they landed at the capital city they started for the post-
office, to learn if anything in the shape of a letter had been left for
one or another of the party. They found the streets crowded with
people of all nationalities and for the first time learned how Fort de
France had received a shower of dust and stones, and how
everybody had been terrorized and business brought to a standstill.
“It’s a fearful state of affairs,” said Sam. “They won’t recover from this
for years.”
“St. Pierre will never recover, Samuel,” returned the professor. “The
eruption has——”
Professor Strong stopped short, for a cry from Mark had interrupted
him. The youth was pointing up a street to their left.
“See! see! There is a crowd of negroes and they are beating a white
man! If somebody don’t help the white fellow they will kill him!”
They started forward, and were soon on the edge of the crowd which
numbered fully a dozen colored men. In the very midst was the white
man Mark had mentioned. His hat was off, his collar and tie loose,
his shirt torn, and he was fighting desperately. One cheek was
bleeding from a long cut and his left arm hung limply at his side.
“It is Dan Markel!” ejaculated Darry. “Dan Markel, the fellow who
once swindled Hockley!”
The crowd around the man was yelling fiercely and striking at every
available opportunity. Dan Markel was yelling in return, but nobody
appeared to listen to him.
“We must do something, or he’ll surely be killed,” said Frank.
By this time Professor Strong was close to the crowd. “Stop!” he
called out, in French. “Stop! What does this mean?”
“He is a rascal!” said one native, wrathfully. “He is not fit to live!”
“He robbed the dead,” said another. “We saw him doing it—up at the
Ladarosa plantation.”
“Let me go!” screamed Markel, in English. “It’s all a mistake.”
By this time the crowd was growing larger, and the shouting
continued, until to make out what one individual was saying was
impossible. Those nearest to Markel continued to strike at the man
from Baltimore, until he went down from a blow on the head, and
several in the crowd fell on top of him.
It was at this critical moment that several gens-d’armes appeared.
They were doing police duty in that neighborhood, and at once set to
work to restore peace. But it was not without great difficulty that they
succeeded in quieting the negroes, who insisted upon it that Dan
Markel be arrested.
“He is a looter—a robber of the dead,” said one of the natives. And
then he explained that he was an assistant foreman on the Ladarosa
plantation not far from St. Pierre. The master of the plantation had
been killed, along with several others of the household, while the
negroes had fled to a rocky cave for safety. On returning to the
house two days after the first eruption they had found Dan Markel
there and in the act of stealing the silverware and jewelry. Markel
had escaped them but they remembered his face well.
The man from Baltimore tried to deny this story, saying he had
reached Fort de France from La Guayra that morning, but on being
searched some jewelry which the negroes identified was found in his
pockets. He was at once marched off to the local jail, there to await
trial, the natives following the gens-d’armes to see that the prisoner
did not get away.
“It will go hard with Markel,” said Darry. “Robbery under such
circumstances becomes a double crime.”
“In some countries such looters would be hung,” answered Professor
Strong. “You may depend upon it that Markel will get the full penalty
of the law.”
“This will please Hockley,” came from Sam. “He was always sorry
the rascal got away. I wonder if Hockley is still up at the hotel?” he
continued.
“I shouldn’t be surprised if he got out of Fort de France when that
shower of dust and stones came,” returned Mark. “He was scared to
death as it was.”
A short while later found them at the post-office asking for letters.
Owing to the general disorder it was half an hour before any mail
was handed out.
The first communication proved to be from Hockley, and was
addressed to Professor Strong. It was short, and had evidently been
written while the youth was in an excited frame of mind. It ran as
follows:
“Dear Professor: It looks now as if this island was
doomed and I don’t propose to be burnt up or be drowned.
There is a steamer sailing from here to Port-of-Spain,
Trinidad, and other ports in South America, and I have
secured passage. If I stop off at Port-of-Spain you can
look for me at the hotel at which we stopped before, and if
I go further I will leave word in a letter at the post-office.
Have cabled my father to send necessary money.”
“I knew Hockley wouldn’t stay,” said Darry. “I’ll wager he was almost
paralyzed with terror.” And he was right. Hockley had acted so
thoroughly scared that he had made himself the laughing stock of all,
both at the hotel and on board the steamer on which he had secured
passage. It was to be some time before they would see their tall
traveling companion again.
 CHAPTER XXXIII
A HAPPY MEETING—CONCLUSION

The letter from Hockley read, they waited patiently until some mail
matter which had just come in should be sorted out. This took the
best part of an hour—a wait which to Mark and Frank seemed an
age.
But at last the little window was opened once more and the crowd
surged forward. Professor Strong was well to the front and presently
they saw him turn from the window with half a dozen
communications held aloft.
“Letters!” cried Frank. “Oh, if only they bring good news!”
The professor was soon beside them. There were letters for all, but
just then the interest was concentrated on a communication
addressed to Mark and another addressed to Frank. Both bore the
postmark of Kingstown, St. Vincent.
“My father’s handwriting!” cried Mark, in a trembling voice.
“And this is in my father’s hand!” came from Frank, falteringly. His
hand shook so he could not open the envelope. “Yo—you read it,
professor.”
Professor Strong did so. The communication had been written the
day before and ran in this wise:
“My dear son Frank:
“I am writing this in the hope that you are safe despite the
fearful volcano eruptions which have taken place in this
quarter of the globe. I know you were bound for St. Pierre,
but I have learned that by the goodness of an all-wise
Providence the Vendee escaped the eruption that
destroyed St. Pierre and all the shipping in that harbor.
 “Mr. Robertson and myself have had a narrow escape
from death, and we do not yet know if we are entirely safe,
for the volcano on this island is now as active as that on
Martinique. We were within four miles of Mont Pelee when
the eruption of May 8th occurred. We escaped by what
was little short of a miracle, and were lucky enough to get
on a trading vessel bound for this port. I had my lower
limbs and feet considerably burnt, and Mr. Robertson
suffered from burns on his feet and on his left arm. But
none of the burns are serious, and we are resting here
quite comfortably. If we were well enough we would set
out in search of you, but as it is neither of us can do any
walking at present.
“I am sending this letter in duplicate to half a dozen ports
in this territory, and Mr. Robertson is sending similar letters
addressed to Mark. As soon as you receive a letter let me
hear from you, as both of us are anxious for news. And
also send word home if you are safe. Address me at the
Windsor Hotel, Kingstown, Island of St. Vincent.”
“Oh, how glad I am that they are safe!” murmured Frank, and then
he looked at Mark, who had been reading his own letter. There were
tears in the eyes of both and that look meant more than any words of
mine can tell.
“I must go to Kingstown at once,” said Mark. “I can’t be satisfied until
I see for myself just how they are faring.”
“And I will go with you,” answered Frank. “Perhaps the burns are
worse than we imagine. I know father. He wouldn’t want to worry
me.”
The matter was talked over by all, and in the end Professor Strong
agreed to see about passage to St. Vincent. Darry and Sam wanted
to keep with Frank and Mark, and the whole party sailed southward
the next morning at sunrise.
The run to St. Vincent, past the Island of St. Lucia, which, strange to
say, had entirely escaped the eruptions on both sides of it, was
made without anything unusual occurring. While still some miles
north of the island for which they were bound they could see the
smoke of La Soufriere and through the marine glasses took note of
some of the terrible damage done.
“It is very fortunate that no large city was located near this volcano,”
said Professor Strong. “No living thing could have escaped such an
outburst as has taken place here.”
When the vessel reached Kingstown harbor the boys could scarcely
wait to get ashore. They learned that the Windsor Hotel was in a
suburb, and hired a carriage to take them to the hostelry.
“There is father now!” cried Frank, as they entered the beautiful
grounds, and he pointed to a figure reclining in an invalid chair on
the veranda.
“And my father is there, too!” exclaimed Mark.
In another moment they were out of the carriage and rushing up the
veranda steps. As they came closer both Mr. Newton and Mr.
Robertson sat up to greet them.
“My boy!” cried Mr. Newton, and flung his arms around Frank. “My
own boy!”
“Mark!” came from Mr. Robertson, and his face broke out into a
warm smile of welcome. “We were just talking about you and
wondering if we would get a letter.”
“You don’t know how glad I am to see you, even like this, father,”
answered Mark. “We were afraid you had been burnt up.”
“Yes, and we went on a regular search for both of you,” broke in
Frank.
“And they came pretty close to losing their own lives in that search,”
came from the professor, as he shook hands.
“Then you went ashore—” began Mr. Newton, in wonder.
“Yes, we went volcano exploring,” said Darry.
“And we climbed Mont Pelee,” finished Sam. “I don’t believe we’ll
ever want to do it again.”
“No,” finished Mark. “Once was enough. Now we are all safe away
from it, I never want to see the island of Martinique again.”
And the others agreed with him.
Let me add a few words more, and then we will bring to a close this
tale of sight-seeing and adventures in the West Indies.
What Mr. Newton and Mr. Robertson had written in their letters
concerning their injuries was true. Although painful, none of the
burns were serious, and they were both doing as well as could be
expected. In a few days each was able to walk a little, and inside of a
month both were practically as well as ever.
For the time being all business in Martinique, and a good part of that
in St. Vincent, came to a standstill, and this being so nothing could
be done regarding the dyewood scheme the two gentlemen had had
in mind. Consequently the pair returned to the United States at the
first available opportunity.
“Take good care of yourselves in the future, boys,” said Mr.
Robertson, on leaving.
“And let the active volcanoes alone,” added Mr. Newton.
And all of the party agreed to heed the advice.
During the time spent in St. Vincent the boys made one trip
northward toward La Soufriere. But though they inspected the great
volcano from a distance they took good care to keep out of the zone
of fire.
“It’s a fearful spot,” said Mark. “Worse even than around Mont Pelee.
It’s a regular Inferno on earth,” and the others said the same.
At last came the day for the young explorers to leave St. Vincent.
Anxious to learn what had become of Hockley, who had not
answered a letter sent to Trinidad by him, Professor Strong engaged
passage on a vessel bound for Port-of-Spain.
“Hurrah, we are off at last!” cried Darry, as they set sail. “Good-bye to
the West Indies.”
“After all, the trip through the islands wasn’t so bad,” said Sam. “We
saw lots of interesting things.”
“I guess we shall see even more interesting things in the future,”
came from Mark.
“Of course, our sight-seeing isn’t half over yet,” added Frank. He was
right, and what the immediate future held in store for our young
friends will be told in the next volume of this “Pan-American Series.”
In that book we shall meet all our boys and the professor once more,
and learn of many things as interesting, curious, or exciting as those
related in these pages.
But for the present we will leave them, and also these ill-fated
islands of the Lesser Antilles, the fate of which even to-day seems
uncertain. Our friends made a happy group as they steamed rapidly
southward, and here let us say good-bye.
THE END
 TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.
Inconsistencies in hyphenation have been
standardized.
Archaic or variant spelling has been retained.
New original cover art included with this eBook is
granted to the public domain.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE YOUNG
VOLCANO EXPLORERS ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.