R

PM

RL

h

�

�

�

�

�

a

ARR1A

KESLLS

L

t

0h

Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

jou rn al h om epa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

esearch paper

eople perception of landscape change effects on ecosystem services in smallediterranean islands: A combination of subjective and objective assessments

oberta Aretano, Irene Petrosillo ∗, Nicola Zaccarelli, Teodoro Semeraro, Giovanni Zurliniab. of Landscape Ecology, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences and Technologies, Ecotekne, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy

i g h l i g h t s

We coupled objective and subjec-tive assessments of landscape andecosystem services’ flow change.Tourism is the main driving forceaffecting Vulcano Island.There is concordance between objec-tive and subjective assessments oflandscape change and ecosystemservices’ flow.There is discordance between objec-tive and subjective assessments ofthe landscape effects of tourism.The conventional urban planningtools do not always guarantee theapplication of conservation policiesand the maintenance of natural andsocial capital in an island.

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

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 4 May 2012eceived in revised form0 December 2012ccepted 18 December 2012

eywords:cosystem servicesmall islandsandscape change perceptionandscape values

a b s t r a c t

Humans constantly modify their environment to better fit their needs. These changes are even moreimportant in small Mediterranean islands, where the flow and type of ecosystem services (ES) is con-strained by insularity and heavily exploited by economic activities. We evaluated the dynamics of ESfrom 1954 to 2007 linked to the changes of the landscape of the Vulcano Island (southern Italy) andrelated such transformation to the perception of the local communities. We estimated the changes in thetotal economic value of ES and we coupled this objective assessment with a survey among inhabitantsto measure the perception of driving forces and ES. The results show that agriculture was replaced bytourism, which simultaneously has profoundly affected the landscape and brought economic benefitsto local population. Despite the urban-sprawl related to tourism development there is an increase ofthe flow of ES over time because of the conversion of some land-cover classes into others that provide

ensitivity analysis a greater amount of ES. Local communities are aware of landscape and ES dynamics, but they do notperceive tourism as a driving force, which affects the natural attractiveness and cultural identity of theirisland. This approach integrates a commonly accepted objective technique to assign value to ES, witha subjective assessment taking into account how local people value the flow of ES. Effective strategies

for ES management and governempower local stakeholders in

∗ Corresponding author at: Lab. of Landscape Ecology, Department of Biological and Eecce Monteroni 73100 Lecce, Italy. Tel.: +39 0832 298896; fax: +39 0832 298626.

E-mail addresses: roberta.aretano@unisalento.it (R. Aretano), irene.petrosillo@unisaleeodoro.semeraro@unisalento.it (T. Semeraro), giovanni.zurlini@unisalento.it (G. Zurlini)

169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.010

ance need to address and incorporate local population expectations so to the achievement of higher level of quality of life.

© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

nvironmental Sciences and Technologies, Ecotekne, University of Salento, Prov.le

nto.it (I. Petrosillo), nicola.zaccarelli@unisalento.it (N. Zaccarelli),.

6 d Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73

1

anes2ptoLecwc(&iw1(dsv

(pdmMmpt

1

at(p2

c2ttdshur&2mcw2tatssfiH

Table 1Possible combinations between “objective” and “subjective” assessments of changesin ecosystem services flow (modified after Zurlini and Müller, 2008).

Objective assessment ofchange in ES flow

Subjective assessment + + (a) + − (b)

4 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape an

. Introduction

European landscapes are the result of the complex interactionnd co-evolution between ecosystems and societies over millen-ia (Antrop, 2005; Käyhkö & Skånes, 2006). This is particularlyvident in the Mediterranean area, one of the world’s biodiver-ity hotspots (Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, da Fonseca, & Kent,000) and a crossroad for humans (Blondel, 2006), where theresent Mediterranean landscapes are the consequence of the spa-ial and temporal interaction of natural and human disturbancesver millennia (Blondel, 2006; Naveh, 1994; Zurlini et al., 2006).andscapes are complex and adaptive systems (Levin, 1998), wherecological processes and patterns, economic-manufacturing pro-esses and administrative political organization of society interactith each other. Landscapes are also multifunctional as they are

haracterized by various functions and values in space and timeHaines-Young & Potschin, 2004; Haines-Young, Watkins, Wale,

Murdock, 2006; Mander, Helming, & Wiggering, 2007), provid-ng goods and services to human societies, such as food and clean

ater, climate regulation, recreation opportunities (Costanza et al.,997; Daily, 1997; MEA, 2005), and supporting human quality of lifeCostanza, Fisher, Mulder, Liu, & Christopher, 2007). These benefitsepend on the needs, choices and values of people (subjective per-pective of change) and are also place-related since they tend toary in space (Fagerholm, Käyhkö, Ndumbaro, & Khamis, 2012).

Considered the importance of taking into account ecologicalobjective) and social (subjective) assessments, the main aim of thisaper is to compare and contrast the objective (through changeetection) and subjective (through perception analysis) assess-ents of change in landscape and ecosystem service flow in a smallediterranean island. This with the intent to investigate possibleismatches between these two kinds of assessment that can make

eople not able to take effective management decisions to mitigateourism pressure and the related urban sprawl.

.1. Land-use change: objective and subjective perspectives

Ecosystem services, in a multifunctional landscape framework,re supported by a mosaic of different land-use/land-cover patcheshat can change, in their amount or in their spatial configurationobjective perspective of change), as a result of both ecologicalrocesses and human activities (Koniak, Noy-Meir, & Perevolotsky,011; Zaccarelli, Li, Petrosillo, & Zurlini, in press).

Currently, land-use/land-cover changes are the underlyingauses of fragmentation and natural habitat loss (Alcamo & Bennett,003), they can significantly affect ecosystem processes and func-ions and, as consequence, they can alter the capacity of landscapeso provide the flow of ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 2007;e Groot, 2006). Many factors contributed to Mediterranean land-capes changes such as, for instance, population migration fromilly and mountain areas with consequent land abandonment,rban-sprawl in plains and along the coasts, mechanization ofural system, grazing intensity, and tourism (Ales, Martin, Ortega,

Ales, 1992; Gellrich & Zimmermann, 2007; MacDonald et al.,000; Tzanopoulos & Vogiatzakis, 2011). These changes are evenore important when they occur in small Mediterranean islands,

haracterized by a mosaic of many land-covers and landscapesith exceptional cultural values (Vogiatzakis, Mannion, & Pugnetti,

008). In addition, the insularity trait leads to a strengthening ofhe linkages between ecosystem services and inhabitants as wells among inhabitants. However, in many Mediterranean islands,he traditional activities, which have been shaping islands land-

capes along the centuries, are usually almost exclusively related toubsistance production such as mining, agriculture, wood cutting,shery, but in the last 50 years these activities declined (Dominey-owes & Minos-Minopoulos, 2004; Margaris, Koutsidou, & Giourga,

of change in ES flow − + (c) − − (d)

1996; Petanidou, Kizos, & Soulakellis, 2008; Schmitz, de Aranzabal,Aguilera, Rescia, & Pineda, 2003). On the other hand, tourismincreased, becoming the most important sector able to dominatethe local economies of Mediterranean small islands (Conlin & Baum,1995; Ioannides, Apostolopoulos, & Sonmez, 2001; Kousis, 2001).In the Mediterranean area tourism represent an opportunity forpromoting economic and social development but, without effec-tive planning and management actions, can turn into a drivingforce able to deeply affect the natural and cultural identity of anarea (Christ, Hillel, Matus, & Sweeting, 2003; Petrosillo, Zurlini,Corlianò, Zaccarelli, & Dadamo, 2007; Rossi & Zurlini, 1995). This isparticularly evident in the case of mass tourism, which character-izes the majority of Mediterranean islands, often leading to severedegradation of natural ecosystems, in terms of lack of water supply,pollution of coastal zones and building of infrastructure (Gossling,2002).

Humans constantly modify their landscape to improve its func-tioning and to obtain additional ecological, social and economicbenefits (Termoschuizen & Opdam, 2009). These changes can beobjectively assessed through the application of the environmentalimpact assessment directive (85/337/EEC). However, the percep-tion that these changes can become extremely devastating andthat many heritage values and resources can be irreversibly lost,has led many researchers and policy makers to look for new formsof management (Antrop, 2004; de Groot, 2006; Merlo & Briales,2000; Naveh, 1978; Verburg, van de Steeg, Veldkamp, & Willemen,2009). Landscape management is any measure introduced to steerchanges brought about by economic, social or environmental needsand should be dynamic and adaptive and to seek to improvelandscape quality on the basis of the local population’s expecta-tions (Council of Europe, 2000; Gunderson, 1999; Rescia, Willaarts,Schmitz, & Aguilera, 2010). In this perspective, the perception oflandscapes users (residents) is crucial and needs to be taken intoaccount (Daily, 1997, 2000; Schnurr & Holtz, 1998) through sub-jective assessments, as they could have different and sometimesconflicting opinions and desires. Understanding the diversity ofperception and values related to the landscape is fundamentalbecause people interact with the landscape bilaterally, the waythe landscape influences their perceptions may in turn affect howpeople act and behave in the landscape (Tress & Tress, 2001).

The usual way to assign value to ecosystem services is based onecological and economic assessments (e.g., Costanza et al., 1997;Daily, 1997; De Groot, Wilson, & Boumans, 2002), mainly througha “benefit transfer” approach (Plummer, 2009; Wilson & Hoehn,2006). However, those assessments do not take into account thevalues of people living in an area (Fagerholm et al., 2012). This isfundamental as people are ecosystem service users, thus ecosystemservices and their changes must be assessed both objectively andsubjectively, since the value of a service arises only when humansappreciate or benefit from it. As an example, changes in ecosystemservice provisioning at the same location could be differently evalu-ated in objective and subjective terms (Table 1). In cases (a) and (d),there is concordance between objective and subjective evaluationsof ES flow changes; in the first case people perceive changes that

are taking place, whereas for case (d) people perceive that there arenot changes affecting ES flow.

R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73 65

Study

adseaMlebowcfFaias

fiiofC

2

2

Aho

Fig. 1.

In contrast, cases (b) and (c) are the most interesting, as theyre discordant; in the first case, the ES flow is changed but peopleo not perceive it. This is the most dangerous but also commonituation, because in the real world people often do not perceivecosystem services’ delivery (e.g., external unmarked services) thatre not treated in the market (externalities). For example, certainediterranean beaches are often naturally covered by seaweed

eaves (Posidonia oceanica), which is an indicator of good coastalcosystem quality and delivers ESs such as protection of coastlineeaches against erosion, reduction of wave energy, and buildingf coastal sandy bottoms. However, most tourists and residentsrongly perceive beaches covered by leaves as ‘dirty’ and ‘inse-

ure’, so leaves are removed becoming a waste and a significant costor beach fruition, with consequent changes of coastline beaches.inally, case (d) sees accordance between the absence of changesnd the perception shown by people. This conceptual model allowsdentifying possible accordances/discordances between objectivend subjective perspectives to better focus the management of themall island under study.

Therefore, approaches able to integrate expert knowledge andeld data are needed. In this context, some recent studies are test-

ng the use of Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) to integrate expertpinions and field data for detecting drivers of land-use change andor valuing alternative planning scenarios (McCloskey, Lilieholm, &ronan, 2011).

. Materials and methods

.1. Study area

Vulcano Island is a small Mediterranean island of the Aeolianrchipelago (Sicily region, Italy). In 2000 the Aeolian Archipelagoas been included in the UNESCO World heritage list, as a partf the patrimony of humanity, because of its exceptional cultural

area.

and natural value and for its peculiar volcanic aspects. VulcanoIsland is a small island with a maximum altitude of 500 m and anextent of 2070 ha, of which 1555 ha have been declared as a Site ofCommunity Importance (European code: ITA030027) called “Vul-cano Island” in 1998. Its volcanic origin has strongly conditionedthe emerging spatial pattern of the landscape. The population ofabout 700 inhabitants, mainly live in three plane zones of theisland (Fig. 1): the “Piano” area, characterized by discontinuousurban agglomerations and agricultural areas, the peninsula of “Vul-canello” and the “Port” area, where most of the economic andtourism activities of the island are carried out. The island representsa tourist destination, by offering recognized attractive landscapes(Petrosillo et al., 2007) and creating several tourist activities asso-ciated with the presence of a volcano, such as geothermal spas andclimbing the crater. Seaside tourism is the most important formof tourism typifying the island. Currently, tourism activity is themain driving force affecting landscape transformations and char-acterizing the area both from the economic and employment pointof view. For this reason, every year many people move from Sicilyregion to Vulcano Island during the April–October period, becauseof their involvement in economic activities related to tourism, rep-resenting additional (seasonal) residents to those who live thereduring the whole year.

2.2. Data analysis: objective assessments of landscape andecosystem service change

The objective assessments have been made through changedetection analysis by compiling a time series of land cover mapselaborated by interpreting 1 m × 1 m orthorectified aerial photos,

referred to the month of July for the years 1954, 1974, 1995 and2007. The scale used for digitalization has been 1:1000. The CORINELand Cover classification (I level, Table 2) has been used to describeboth spatial and temporal landscape dynamics, to assess the effect

66 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73

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

CORINE landcoverI LEVEL

CORINE landcoverII LEVEL

CORINE landcoverIII LEVEL

The mostrepresentativeBiome

Ecosystemservicecoefficient(US $ × ha−1

per year)a

1. Artificialsurfaces

1.1 Urban fabric 1.1.1 Continuous urban fabric Urban 01.1.2 Discontinuous urban fabric

1.2 Industrial, commercial and transport units 1.2.1 Industrial or commercial units1.2.3 Port areas

2. Agriculturalareas

2.1 Arable land 2.1.1 Non-irrigated arable land Cropland 922.2 Permanent crops 2.2.1. Vineyards2.2.2. Fruit trees and berry plantations2.2.3. Olive groves

3. Forest andsemi naturalareas

3.1 Forests 3.1.1 Broad-leaved forest Forest 9693.2 Scrub and/orherbaceous vegetationassociations

3.2.3 Sclerophyllous vegetation3.2.4 Transitional woodland-shrub3.2.1 Natural grassland Grassland 232

3.3 Open spaceswith little or novegetation

3.3.1 Beaches, dunes, sands Coastal Beach 40523.3.2 Bare rocks Rock 03.3.3 Sparsely vegetated areas

4.2.1

opa

htttcsabpdo

edv2SCeuc

bc

E

wC1u

evPv

4. Wetlands 4.2 Maritime wetlands

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

f drivers on structural pattern of Vulcano Island, but also to makeossible the subsequent comparison with the results of subjectivessessments.

The second step aims at identifying and characterizing the mainuman activities that have shaped the landscape over time. Tohis aim, we analyzed official census population data from 1951o 2001, as well as available tourist data, because we consideredourism as the main driving force of socioeconomic and landscapehanges over the last 50 years. In particular, the tourist data con-idered were: tourist international and domestic annual arrivalsnd presences, accommodation capacity, expressed as number ofeds, typology of receptive structures (hotels, pensions and com-lementary accommodations). In this study nautical tourism andaily visitors are not taken into account because of the lack offficial data.

Finally, to estimate the change in ecosystem service flow, thecosystem services valuation biomes model has been used toescribe both spatial and temporal changes of ecosystem ser-ices (Costanza et al., 1997; Kreuter, Harris, Matlock, & Lacey,001; Petrosillo, Zaccarelli, Semeraro, & Zurlini, 2009; Petrosillo,emeraro, & Zurlini, 2010; Zaho et al., 2004). According to theORINE Land Cover classification (III level) sixteen land-cover cat-gories have been identified and the most representative biomessed as a proxy for each category has been associated to each land-over class (Table 2).

The Ecosystem Services total Value (ESV) at time T is estimatedy multiplying the area of each land-cover category by the coeffi-ient associated to each biome, using the following relationship:

VST =∑

(Ak ∗ VCk) (1)

here Ak is the area in hectares of land-cover category ‘k’, and VCk isostanza’s Value coefficient (US $ × ha−1 per year) (Costanza et al.,997), which we have assumed constant during the temporal rangender study.

We have used the economic coefficients proposed by Costanza

t al. (1997) even if these estimates of the value of ecosystem ser-ices are biased (Masood & Garwin, 1998; Norgaard & Bode, 1998;earce, 1998; Pimm, 1997; Toman, 1998). We lay no claim to theireracity but they, at least, provide not only a novel insight into the

. Salt marshes Wetlands 14,785

complex patterns of land-use dynamics, but also a way to quantifythe comprehensive change in the flux of natural capital in a specificarea.

However, to overpass these limitations a sensitivity analysis hasbeen performed in order to determine the robustness of the ecosys-tem service value estimates to investigate (i) the uncertainty inthe proxy used for a specific land-cover class and Costanza’s valuecoefficients, and (ii) the digitalization error in quantifying the areaof each land-cover class. A coefficient of sensitivity (CS) for the eco-nomic value was calculated for each category using the standardeconomic concept of elasticity as follows (Kreuter et al., 2001):

CSk = (ESVj − ESVi)/ESVi

(VCjk − VCik)/VCik(2)

where “k” represents the biome used as proxy for land-cover cate-gory, ESVi is the total ecosystem service value derived by using Eq.(1), ESVj is the total ecosystem service value estimated by adjustingthe value coefficient for a specific land-cover category and main-taining the value of the other land-covers based on Costanza’s valuecoefficients, VCi is the initial value coefficient according to Costanzaand colleagues’ model and VCj is the adjusted value coefficient(±50%). If CS is greater than one, then the estimated ecosystemservice value associated to the land-cover category is defined as“elastic” with respect to that coefficient. This means that if theecosystem service value coefficient associated to a specific land-cover category varies ±50%, also the total value of ecosystemservices provided by the total study area changes accordingly. Thegreater the proportional change in the ecosystem service value rel-ative to the proportional change in the valuation coefficient, themore critical is the use of an accurate ecosystem value coefficient(Kreuter et al., 2001). On the contrary, if the CS is less than one,then the estimated ecosystem service value is considered to be“inelastic”.

In addition, for each year investigated, considering the spatialresolution of the image and the digitizing scale of the land-covermaps, we assumed a fixed spatial error for the geometry of the

vectorial polygon mosaic. A buffer of five meters, modeling thefixed spatial error, was used to evaluate the uncertainty associatedto the area estimates for each land-cover category. Therefore,given a particular land-cover category we derived three area

R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73 67

F ow thr cover

eaccwf

C

wcdeceoros“ti

tct(coays

ig. 2. The extent of each land cover category in 1954, 1974, 1995, 2007. On each arrange (1954–1974, 1974–1995, 1995–2007, 1954–2007) are reported, and the land

xtent values: one from the digitalization process, one consideringll patches of the class increased by a buffer of 5 m, and oneonsidering all patches decreased by a buffer of five meters. As aonsequence, the areas of other neighboring land-cover categoriesere adjusted accordingly. In this case, the coefficient of sensitivity

or the area extent was calculated as:

Sk = (ESVj − ESVi)/ESVi

(Ajk − Aik)/Aik(3)

here “k” represents the biome used as proxy of land-coverategory, ESVi is the estimated total ecosystem service valueerived by using Eq. (1), ESVj is the total ecosystem service valuestimated by adjusting the extent of a specific land-cover categoryonsidering a buffer of 5 m and maintaining the other land-coverxtent as derived from the digitalization process, Ai is the extentf the biome estimated from the digitalization process, and Ajepresents the adjusted extent of the biome considering the bufferf 5 m. If CS is greater than one, then the estimated ecosystemervice value associated to the land-cover category is defined aselastic” with respect to that adjusted extent. On the contrary, ifhe CS is less than one, then the estimated ecosystem service values considered to be “inelastic”.

However, additional limitations of the approach based onhe economic coefficients remain, because we have used staticoefficients in a multi-temporal study. The reasons of these limita-ions are threefold according to the perspective taken into accountPetrosillo et al., 2009). From the economic viewpoint, if thoseoefficients are considered in economic terms, their values change

ver time and need to reflect changes in relative values as wells changes in the general price level. These changes over a 50-ear period can be significant. From the ecological viewpoint, wehould consider the availability of the flux of natural capital, more

e hectares converted from one land cover category to another during each temporal maps for 1954, 1974, 1995, and 2007.

at risk recently than in the past for the intensification of humanactivity, so that its ecological value is bigger now than in the past.Finally, from the social viewpoint, currently there is more aware-ness of the strong linkages between the flux of natural capital andthe quality of life, and this can have some effects on the values of thecoefficients used in this paper. This third concern has been overpasssomehow through the subjective assessment of ecosystem services.However, even if their values are considered constant during thetemporal range under study, they could play a role as operationalsurrogates to evaluate the recent temporal dynamics of the overallflux of natural capital in the study area, where specific field dataand information are not available.

2.3. Data analysis: subjective assessments

A survey was developed to explore both the ecological andsocio-cultural values associated by residents to island landscapes,and their perception regarding the overall landscape change overtime and subsequently their awareness about urban, agriculturaland natural areas. Specific question about the effects of tourismand urbanization on the landscape were also asked. Question-naires were administered by three interviewers in a random waythrough personal interviews with residents (permanent and sea-sonal) during May 2010 simultaneously in the three most urbanizedisland areas (Vulcanello, Port area and Piano) to make sure to meetthe highest number of residents (permanent and seasonal) avoid-ing tourists. People interviewed once were not interviewed again.Before the survey, the questionnaire was pilot tested and six ques-

tionnaires were distributed to people in the study area to establishwhether the language and the structure of questions were ade-quate and easily understood. Consequently, the original version ofthe questionnaire was properly revised and the final version of a

68 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73

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

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

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

Vulcano Island 413 356 434 464 729 715 304 1491

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

Year 1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006

Total presences 4927 8153 50,341 76,030 123,044 95,950Number of beds in hotels and pensions – 301 – 724 – 923

pf

ttsmett

3

3

ssgwidiaouo(ted

TEE

Number of beds in complementary accommodations –

re-coded questionnaire was used during each interview lastingrom 20 to 30 min.

The five possible alternative categorical answers to each ques-ion were subsequently rated using a five-point Likert scale, fromhe most negative (score 1) to the most positive (score 5), to allowtatistical analysis. Differences between the answers given by per-anent and seasonal residents were analyzed by means of Fisher’s

xact test for rxc contingency tables (Sokal & Rohlf, 1995). The sta-istical software R (R Development Core Team, 2010) was used toest each answer independently, using a fixed type one error of 0.05.

. Results

.1. Objective assessments: change detection

Land-cover changes over the 50-year period show that the land-cape of Vulcano island is mainly characterized by “Forest andemi-natural areas”, as specified in Table 2, because this coarse-rained class covers more than 80% of the total area in all four timeindows (Fig. 2). The second most important class in 1954 and

n 1974 is represented by “Agricultural areas” even if this class hasecreased over time its extent by 58% mainly through its conversion

nto “Artificial surfaces” in 1974 and into “Forest and semi-naturalreas” in 1995 (Fig. 2). The class “Artificial surfaces” has expandedver this period by 100%. It was almost absent in 1954 without anyrban agglomeration. In 1974 and in 1995 there was an expansionf the class both in the Port area and in the peninsula of Vulcanello

Fig. 2). There are not so many differences in the amount and spa-ial configuration of the landscape in 1995 and 2007 (Fig. 2). Thextent of “Forest and semi-natural areas” seems to be constanturing the study period, however it has seen changes due to the

able 5xtent (ha) and ecosystem service value (ESV, $) related to the different biomes used asSV from 1954 to 2007 (%).

Year Extent (ha) ESV ($) Coastal Beach Cropland Forest

1954 Extent 10.4 313.5 42.8

ESV 42,065.2 28,844.4 41,505.7

1974 Extent 6.5 312.6 67.8

ESV 26,374.6 28,760.6 65,667.5

1995 Extent 4.1 152.8 171.6

ESV 16,427.5 14,053.3 166,287.42007 Extent 4.1 156.3 171.2

ESV 16,427.5 14,377.8 165,875.1

Change of ESV from 1954 to 2007 (%) −61% −50% 300%

– – 1811 – 264

conversion into artificial areas and at the same time it has gainedfrom “Agricultural areas” (Fig. 2).

3.2. Objective assessment: characterization of the main humandrivers

Census data referred to inhabitants living in Vulcano Island from1951 to 2001 highlight that until the ‘70s, the island was inhabitedby a small community who lived mainly in the Piano area (Table 3).Since ‘80s, there was a slight increase of residents’ number, whichreaches 715 inhabitants in 2001. Currently, the Port area is the mostpopulated, followed by the Piano area, but also the peninsula ofVulcanello starts to be inhabited. In addition, from the census datait is evident that in 2001 the number of houses exceeds the numberof families especially in the peninsula of Vulcanello and in the Portarea (Table 3).

For what concerns tourism, observing the domestic and inter-national tourists’ data it is possible to highlight that the number oftotal tourist presences has increased over time reaching a max-imum in ‘90s exceeding over 100,000 total presences (Table 4).Official data regarding tourist structures, in terms of number ofbeds, are scarce and fragmented and, when they were available,they are reported in Table 4. In particular, it is indicated that thenumber of beds in hotels and pensions for the year 1966, 1986 and2006, and in complementary accommodations only for the year1986 and 2006. It is important to highlight that the 1811 beds incomplementary accommodations in the year 1986 (Table 4) referto private accommodations. Table 4 shows an increasing trend ofhotels receptive capacity, while the complementary accommoda-

tions decrease. This can be explained by the fact that since 1987 theofficial statistics excluded the private accommodations from com-plementary structures. Therefore, since 1987 there is a lack of datarelated to tourism in second houses.

proxies of land-cover categories characterizing Vulcano Island, and the change of

Grassland Rock Urban Wetland Total

1463.9 263.4 5.6 3.7 2103.2339,615.5 0.0 0.0 54,168.6 506,199.51481.4 169.9 61.6 1.9 2101.6343,678.1 0.0 0.0 27,450.5 491,931.41404.9 175.3 191.8 1.7 2102.1

325,933.6 0.0 0.0 25,479.7 548,181.51405.4 169.9 193.5 1.7 2102.1

326,063.8 0.0 0.0 25,479.7 548,224.0

−4% 0.0 0.0 −53% 8%

R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73 69

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

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

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

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

Coastal Beach ±50% ±4.16 0.08 ±2.68 0.05 ±1.5 0.03 ±1.5 0.03Cropland ±50% ±2.85 0.06 ±2.92 0.06 ±1.28 0.03 ±1.31 0.03

±6±34±2

3

lttEstv“

TPt

Forest ±50% ±4.10 0.08

Grassland ±50% ±33.55 0.67

Wetland ±50% ±5.35 0.11

.3. Objective assessment: change in ecosystem service flow

Looking at the initial extents of the biomes used as proxies ofand-cover categories, changes have been mainly associated withhe reduction of “coastal beach”, “cropland”, “rock” and “wetland”ogether with an evident growth of “forest” and “urban” (Table 5).ven if “grassland” seems to be constant during the study period, it

uffered changes due to its conversion into “forest” but at the sameime it gained from “rock”. The increase of 8% in ecosystem servicesalue from 1954 to 2007 is mainly associated with the growth offorest” (Table 5). More in detail, Fig. 3 shows the temporal change

able 7ercentage of change in the extent of biomes (Area), used as proxies of land-covers classhe coefficient of sensitivity (CS) resulting from the adjustment of extent considering the

Biome 1954 1974

Areachange (%)

ESV change(%)

CS Areachange (%)

ESV change(%)

CS

Coastal Beach 18.96 0.98 0.05 27.03 1.42 0Coastal Beach −19.00 −0.97 0.05 −26.88 −1.42 0Cropland 3.91 −0.59 −0.15 4.76 −0.45 −0Cropland −4.14 0.59 −0.14 −5.01 0.44 −0Forest 5.63 0.38 0.07 4.50 0.49 0Forest −5.62 −0.38 0.07 −5.27 −0.59 0Grassland 1.85 −0.84 −0.45 2.12 −0.54 −0Grassland −1.87 0.81 −0.43 −2.19 0.55 −0Wetland 15.34 1.47 0.10 21.49 1.18 0Wetland −15.29 −1.47 0.10 −20.51 −1.13 0

.67 0.13 ±15.17 0.30 ±15.13 0.30

.93 0.70 ±29.73 0.59 ±29.74 0.59

.79 0.06 ±2.32 0.05 ±2.32 0.05

of the total ESV associated to Vulcano Island with the identificationof the different official recognitions of its natural and cultural value,highlighting a constant trend from 1954 to 1974, followed by anincreasing trend from 1974 to 1995 and a constant trend from 1995to 2007 (Fig. 3). The recognition of the island as Site of CommunityImportance in 1998 and its inclusion in the UNESCO world heritagelist in 2000, apparently did not produce any relevant positive effect

on the ESV (Fig. 3), but probably contributed to the safeguarding ofecosystem services.

To determine the robustness of the ecosystem service value asensitivity analysis has been performed. Table 6 shows the change

es, percentage of change in the estimated total ecosystem service value (ESV) and digitalization error.

1995 2007

Areachange (%)

ESV change(%)

CS Areachange (%)

ESV change(%)

CS

.05 27.88 0.69 0.02 27.88 0.69 0.02

.05 −26.82 −0.66 0.02 −26.82 −0.66 0.02

.09 7.90 −0.31 −0.04 8.20 −0.29 −0.04

.09 −8.18 0.25 −0.03 −8.57 0.23 −0.03

.11 5.51 1.10 0.20 5.98 1.22 0.20

.11 −5.67 −1.14 0.20 −6.13 −1.26 0.21

.26 2.40 0.27 0.11 2.48 0.22 0.09

.25 −2.47 −0.30 0.12 −2.57 −0.26 0.10

.05 19.74 0.86 0.04 19.74 0.86 0.04

.05 −19.41 −0.85 0.04 −19.41 −0.85 0.04

70 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73

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

Questions Respondents (%) Type of resident

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Do you agree that the landscape ischanged?

14 1 8 2 75 –

Do you agree that there are morebuildings?

9 1 4 4 82 –

Do you agree that there are morearable lands?

69 3 15 1 12 –

Do you agree that there are morenatural areas?

54 3 23 5 15 –

Urban sprawl is a problem with livingon Vulcano Island?

22 3 8 7 60 –

Tourism is a problem with living onVulcano Island?

82 1 5 1 11 –

Does the island present a valuablescenery?

2 0 5 5 88 –

Is the island of value just because itexists, independently from humanuses?

5 0 2 2 91 –

Does the island provide places for avariety of plants and animals?

8 2 4 14 72 –

Does the island provide and maintainthe quality of air, soil and water?

25 5 12 19 39 –

Does the island provide enough foodand materials to sustain the lives ofpeople?

44 8 9 8 32 –

Does the island provide economicopportunities?

11 4 4 13 68 –

Does the island provide places foroutdoor recreational activities?

19 4 9 12 56 –

Can people living on the islandcontinue to pass down wisdom,

36 9 9 8 38 *

(cvsitPabe

sfctegoyTaeCccofitdoot

traditions and their life style?

* p-value < 0.05.

%) of the estimated total ecosystem service value (ESV) and theoefficient of sensitivity (CS) resulting from a 50% adjustment of thealue of the economic coefficient used in each time window. Theensitivity analysis indicates that the estimation in the study areas robust despite the limitations concerning the method used forhe economic estimates (for more details see Costanza et al., 1997;etrosillo et al., 2009). The results show an “inelastic” behavior,s in all cases CSs are less than one (Table 6). This indicates thaty changing each economic coefficient by 50%, the total value ofcosystem services estimates varies by about or less than 5%.

Table 7 shows the change (%) of estimated total ecosystemervice value (ESV) and the coefficient of sensitivity (CS) resultingrom adjusting the area of each biome, used as proxy of land-coverlass, by considering the digitizing error. The range of variability inhe class area is in absolute value between 2% and 28%. The differ-nce between external and internal change is due to the differenteometry of patches and buffers. But the value is always less thanne and lower than that used for the economic sensitivity anal-sis, because changes of the 50% of the area are quite unlikely.he changes of ESV show values generally less or equal to 1% inbsolute value, pointing to a small effect on the pure economicvaluation (Table 7). What it is important to notice is that we haveSs with a negative value deriving from the interplay between areahanges and economic valuation. For instance, even if grasslandslass increased of about 2% in 1954, it has a CS of −0.45 becausef the reduction of forests and wetlands classes, which result in anal decrease of the total economic estimate. On the other hand,he negative value of CS when grasslands are decreased is only

ue to the sign of percentage extent change (−1.87). In the casef wetlands, the increasing of its area corresponds to an increasingf the ecosystem service value, therefore the CS is positive. Whenhe extent of wetlands is reduced, even the ecosystem service value

decreases, because the other land-cover classes are characterizedby an economic coefficient lower than that of wetlands. Therefore,they cannot compensate the loss of wetlands with the increase oftheir extent. Also in this case CS is positive.

3.4. Subjective assessment landscape values and perception oflandscape changes

A total of 91 questionnaires were collected over the total pop-ulation living in Vulcano Island, distinguishing them in permanentand seasonal residents. In particular, 60% of the sample is repre-sented by permanent residents and 40% by seasonal residents. Therepresentativeness of the sample is not possible to be accuratelydetermined, because the number of permanent residents that liveon the island is about 700, but some of them were not interviewedfor their young age, and some others officially declare the islandas their place of residence only to obtain economic (tax) advan-tages, even if they do not live there. Therefore, the real number ofpermanent residents is less than 500. In addition, there are not offi-cial census data regarding the number of seasonal residents, evenif some informal estimates report that they are more or less 200.

Concerning the perception of landscape change, interviewedwere asked whether they have noticed an overall transformationof the landscape over time with particular reference to three mainland-cover classes: built up areas, agricultural areas and naturalareas (Table 8). Most of the interviewees (77%) are aware that land-scape is changed during the time. In particular, 86% of respondentsperceived that the built up areas have increased, 72% noticed that

the agricultural areas have declined, while 57% have recognized areduction in natural areas. In addition, residents’ answers show that67% of interviewees agree that urban sprawl is a problem of Vul-cano Island, and 83% of respondents do not consider tourism a force

d Urb

dta

diepamvIsttpinarcptdasccbdwt

4

tcccttaydacbbhctbacTfihl

sdtfps

R. Aretano et al. / Landscape an

riving landscape change. The statistical analysis highlights thathere are not statistically significant differences between seasonalnd permanent residents in any case.

Table 8 highlights that interviewees are able to recognize theifferent values that could be associated to the landscape of the

sland. In particular, they associate an esthetic value (93%), and anxistence value (93%) to the landscape. From an ecological view-oint, they recognize the biological value (86%), because they areware that the island provides places for a variety of plants and ani-als. On the contrary, interviewees do not recognize the life sustain

alue and the subsistence value that can be associated to the island.n the first case, only 58% of respondents believe that the islandupports and maintains the quality of air, soil and water, while inhe second case only 40% of respondents consider the island ableo provide enough food and materials to sustain the lives of peo-le. Concerning the socio-economic-cultural values related to the

sland, respondents associate an economic value (81%), for the eco-omic opportunities provided by the island (tourism sector), and

recreational value (68%) for the presence of places for outdoorecreational activities. However, respondents do not agree on theultural value, which divides them in those who believe that peo-le living in Vulcano Island can continue to pass down wisdom,raditions and a particular life style (46%), and those in completeisagreement with this view (45%). In particular, the statisticalnalysis highlights statistically significant differences between sea-onal and permanent residents for what concerns the possibleultural values associated to the island (Table 8), with a higher per-entage of negative responses given by seasonal residents. This cane probably explained by the shortness of the period seasonal resi-ents spend in the island, which regards only the summer seasonhen the high number of tourists could mask somehow the cultural

raditions and the life style of permanent residents.

. Discussion and conclusions

People play an important role in shaping landscapes becausehey have always adapted their environment to better fit theirhanging needs (Antrop, 2005). This is particular evident in Vul-ano Island, which represents a distinctive example of interrelatedultural and natural aspects, where its volcanic origin and the his-oric presence of man have strongly conditioned the landscape overime. In this study landscape change analysis has highlighted thatgriculture was the traditional driving force but, in the last 50ears, this activity has declined as a consequence of land aban-onment processes and the conversion of croplands into urbanreas (Fig. 2). During the period under study, the urbanization pro-ess has shown an almost exponential development that cannote explained only by the growth rate of residents. This is evidenty comparing census data referred to inhabitants, families andouses, putting in evidence that the number of houses is signifi-antly greater than the number of families. This allows assuminghat these houses are used during the tourist season. Vulcano Island,y offering recognized attractive landscapes and creating severalctivities associated with the presence of a volcano, provides manyultural ecosystem services that attract many tourists every year.he development of tourism has certainly brought economic bene-ts to the local population, but the absence of past urban planningas resulted in an urban sprawl that has profoundly affected the

andscape.The European Landscape Convention recognizes that the land-

cape has developed in a co-evolutionary process with people,efining it as “an area as perceived by people, whose character is

he result of the action and interaction of natural and/or humanactor”. Thus, there is the recognition of the importance of humanerception, because whenever people get in touch with the land-capes, they respond with their minds through reflection, feelings

an Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73 71

and imagination (Tress & Tress, 2001). In addition, perceptionis influenced by the social and cultural contexts of individualsand society (Muir, 1999), therefore, the same landscape can beperceived differently by different observers according to theirinterests and feelings. In this study, by comparing the results oflandscape change detection also in terms of ecosystem serviceflow (objective assessment) with the investigation on peopleperception (subjective assessment), it is possible to highlight thatboth permanent and seasonal residents perceive landscape changeand the negative effects of urban sprawl. If we refer to Table 1,this should seem a typical example of case (a), where there isconcordance between the objective (there is landscape change)and subjective (people perceive landscape change) assessments.However, they do not consider tourism as the driving force ofurban sprawl that is the main cause of landscape change, probablybecause local residents perceive it as the main motor of economicdevelopment. This moves Vulcano Island from case (a) to case(b) of Table 1, which is the most dangerous case, because peopleprobably will not take effective management decisions to mitigatetourism pressure and the related urban sprawl.

Despite the urban sprawl due to tourism development, the flowof ecosystem services has seen an increase over time. It can be prob-ably explained because the reduction of some land-cover classeswas balanced by a contextual increase in size of forest, according tothe classification in Table 2, due to the forestation process of aban-doned areas, providing a higher level of ecosystem services. Thesensitivity analysis has shown that in addition to the uncertain-ties due to the economic coefficients (Kreuter et al., 2001), it is alsoimportant to consider the uncertainty in the extent of each land-cover class. Area estimates can be affected by a variety of errorsthat can alter the total value of ecosystem services, even if in thisresearch the order of magnitude is lower than the economic evalu-ation estimated by adjusting the Costanza’s value coefficients (VC)(Tables 6 and 7). In this paper a way to cope with this kind of prob-lem in the case of vector land-cover maps has been proposed, whilefor raster data other options are available, mainly based on the useof error matrix and bootstrap methods (Hess & Bay, 1997).

The case of a volcanic island is important also to emphasize thatvolcanic slope and craters are here classified as bare rocks, sincethey do not have an ecological value, being inhospitable placesfor living organisms due to the continuous fumaroles emissions.Conversely, they have recreational, esthetic and intrinsic values;therefore, the use of the biome “rock” as a proxy of bare rocksis not properly correct in the case of a volcanic island. In addi-tion, in terms of proxy identification, the inclusion of some landcover classes into one only biome, even if can be justified fromthe normative perspective (see CORINE Land Cover classification),it cannot be justified totally from the ecological perspective. Forinstance, the classes “Sclerophyllous Vegetation” and “TransitionalWoodland Scrub” are both included in the biome “forest” even ifthey do not match exactly with the characteristics of forests. How-ever, they can provide ecosystem services more in common withthe biome “forest” than with other biomes. This approximation canaffect the final economic value of the study area, even if the sensi-tivity analysis carried out in this research has reduced strongly thisuncertainty.

The analysis of values, also non-material such as the intrinsicvalue associated with the landscape, shows a high perception ofthe ecosystem services provided by the land-cover mosaic of theisland as described in Table 2, without differences between sea-sonal and permanent residents. However, the high consideration oftourism for its role in guaranteeing residents’ well-being and not

for its capacity in destroying natural and cultural identity of thissmall island, could lead to discordant landscape and urban plan-ning actions with severe consequences on the flow of ecosystemservices (Koniak et al., 2011).

7 d Urb

tfl(siTapdeso

Sirareo

mobieacpeaupmwUiirramaaeipfsaep

A

ce

A

i2

2 R. Aretano et al. / Landscape an

Therefore, to improve the management of an area in order toake into account not only the single natural resource but theow of ecosystem services, new actions need to be undertakenTurner, Lambin, & Reenberg, 2007). Decisions on land-use caneverely affect ecosystem services and consequently human qual-ty of life (Petrosillo, Costanza, Aretano, Zaccarelli, & Zurlini, 2013).he integration of objective and subjective assessments is a firstttempt in dealing with the planning and management of cou-led human–environmental systems. For effective managementecisions the human sub-system should maintain the provision ofcosystem services that society values from environmental sub-ystem (Turner et al., 2007), through a sustainable land architecturef an area (Wu, Jones, Li, & Loucks, 2006).

Finally, the official identification of Vulcano Island as Europeanite of Community Importance and the inclusion of Aeolian Islandsn the UNESCO list are important international recognitions of natu-al and cultural values of this island that deserves to be maintainednd managed accordingly over time. Even if in this study theseecognitions did not generate any positive effect on the flow ofcosystem services, they probably have contributed to preserve itsverall natural and cultural value.

In the context of small islands it is fundamental an adaptiveanagement of their landscape dynamics, to expand the approach

f “learning by doing” to include “learning from what has alreadyeen done” (Jones et al., in press), and to enhance their value,

dentifying appropriate government interventions for the socio-conomic development, which should be able to predict short-nd long-term effects on the flow of ecosystem services. In thisontext, the management plan for UNESCO Aeolian Archipelagoroposed in 2008, is a good and suitable approach for the gov-rnance of small islands, with the aim to achieve a sustainablend dynamic balance between economic development and nat-ral and cultural conservation. The success of the managementlan essentially depends on its ability to enhance the involve-ent of several stakeholders (decision-makers, residents, NGO)ith the aim to preserve the area. Consequently, according toNESCO (2008) the involvement of stakeholders is crucial dur-

ng the planning of landscape conservation, where the landscapes considered as an environmental, economic and social–culturalesource. In this framework, the approach used in this paperepresents both a first example of stakeholders’ involvementnd an assessment of the results of past planning and manage-ent choices. Currently, the conventional urban planning tools

t different institutional scales do not always guarantee thepplication of conservation policies and, therefore, they are notnough for the maintenance of natural and social capital in ansland. In this context, the need to conjugate the conservationolicies with multiple scales governance is of great importanceor a small island. Attempts to develop a holistic view of theocial–ecological landscape can benefit from decision tools thatllow for comparisons of the consequences and trade-offs of differ-nt land-use alternatives, in order to support the decision-makingrocess.

cknowledgements

We strongly thank the anonymous reviewers for their usefulomments and suggestions on the initial version of the paper. Theirfforts have been very much appreciated by the authors.

ppendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,n the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.012.12.010.

an Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73

References

Alcamo, J., & Bennett, E. M. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being. In Millenniumecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Ales, R. F., Martin, A., Ortega, F., & Ales, E. E. (1992). Recent changes in landscapestructure and function in a Mediterranean region of SW Spain (1950–1984).Landscape Ecology, 7, 3–18.

Antrop, M. (2004). Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Land-scape and Urban Planning, 67, 9–26.

Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 70, 21–34.

Blondel, J. (2006). The ‘design’ of Mediterranean landscapes: A millennial story ofhumans and ecological systems during the Historic Period. Human Ecology, 34,713–729.

Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S., & Sweeting, J. (2003). Tourism and biodiversity: Mappingtourism’s global footprint. Washington, DC: Conservation International., pp. 53

Conlin, M. V., & Baum, T. (1995). Island tourism: Management principles and practices.Chichester: Wiley.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997).The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387,253–260.

Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Mulder, K., Liu, S., & Christopher, T. (2007). Biodiversity andecosystem services: A multi-scale empirical study of the relationship betweenspecies richness and net primary production. Ecological Economics, 61, 478–491.

Council of Europe (2000). The European landscape convention. Strasbourg, URL:http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm

Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services, societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Wash-ington, DC: Island Press.

Daily, G. C. (2000). Management objectives for protection of ecosystem services.Environmental Sciences & Policy., 3, 333–339.

de Groot, R. S. (2006). Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land useconflicts in planning for sustainable, multifunctional landscapes. Landscape andUrban Planning, 75, 175–186.

De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the classi-fication, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services.Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408.

Dominey-Howes, D., & Minos-Minopoulos, D. (2004). Perceptions of hazard and riskon Santorini. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 137, 285–310.

Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., & Khamis, M. (2012). Community stakehol-ders’ knowledge in landscape assessment – Mapping indicators for landscapeservices. Ecological Indicators, 18, 421–433.

Gellrich, M., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2007). Investigating the regional scale patternof agricultural land abandonment in the Swiss mountains: A spatial statisticalmodelling approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 65–76.

Gossling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environ-mental Change, 12, 283–302.

Gunderson, L. (1999). Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management– Antidotes for spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology, 3(7). URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art7

Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2004). Valuing and assessing multifunctional land-scapes: An approach based on the natural capital concept. In J. Brandt, & H. Vejre(Eds.), Multifunctional landscapes. Theory, values and history (pp. 181–192). WITPress: Southampton.

Haines-Young, R., Watkins, C., Wale, C., & Murdock, A. (2006). Modelling natural cap-ital: The case of landscape restoration on the SouthDowns, England. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 75, 244–264.

Hess, G. R., & Bay, J. M. (1997). Generating confidence intervals for composition-based landscape indexes. Landscape Ecology, 12, 309–320.

Ioannides, D., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Sonmez, S. (2001). Mediterranean islands andsustainable tourism development: Practice, management, and policies. London:Continuum Publisher.

Jones, K.B., Zurlini, G., Kienast, F., Petrosillo, I., Edwards, T., Wade, T.G., et al.Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining ecosystem ser-vices from existing spatial patterns and knowledge. Landscape Ecology,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9794-4, in press.

Käyhkö, N., & Skånes, H. (2006). Change trajectories and key biotopes – Assessinglandscape dynamics and sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75,300–321.

Koniak, G., Noy-Meir, I., & Perevolotsky, A. (2011). Modelling dynamics of ecosystemservices basket in Mediterranean landscapes: A tool for rational management.Landscape Ecology, 26, 109–124.

Kousis, M. (2001). Tourism and the environment in Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily andCrete. In D. Ioannides, Y. Apostolopoulos, & S. Sonmez (Eds.), Mediterraneanislands and sustainable tourism development: Practice, management, and policies(pp. 214–233). London: Continuum Publisher.

Kreuter, U. P., Harris, H. G., Matlock, M. D., & Lacey, R. E. (2001). Change in ecosystemservice values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecological Economics, 39, 333–346.

Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems.Ecosystem, 1, 431–436.

MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J. R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., et al.(2000). Agriculture abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental

consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, 59,47–69.

Mander, U., Helming, K., & Wiggering, H. (2007). Multifunctional land use: Meetingfuture demands for landscape goods and services. In U. Mander, H. Wiggering, &K. Helming (Eds.), Multifunctional land use (pp. 1–13). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

d Urb

M

M

M

M

M

MM

N

N

N

PP

P

P

P

P

PP

R

R

R. Aretano et al. / Landscape an

argaris, N. S., Koutsidou, E., & Giourga, C. H. (1996). Changes in traditional Mediter-ranean land-use systems. In C. J. Brandt, & J. B. Thornes (Eds.), Mediterraneandesertification and land use (pp. 29–42). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

asood, E., & Garwin, L. (1998). Costing the Earth: When ecology meets economics.Nature, 395, 426–427.

cCloskey, J. T., Lilieholm, R. J., & Cronan, C. (2011). Using Bayesian belief networksto identify potential compatibilities and conflicts between development andlandscape conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101, 190–203.

erlo, M., & Briales, E. R. (2000). Public goods and externalities linked to Mediter-ranean forests: Economic nature and policy. Land Use Policy, 17, 197–208.

illennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being.Washington, DC: Island Press.

uir, R. (1999). Approaches to landscape. Houndmillis: Mcamillan Press.yers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000).

Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.aveh, Z. (1978). Model of multipurpose ecosystem management for degraded

Mediterranean uplands. Environmental Management, 2, 31–37.aveh, Z. (1994). The role of fire and its management in the conservation of Mediter-

ranean ecosystems and landscapes. In J. Moreno, & W. C. Oechel (Eds.), The role offire in mediterranean-type ecosystems (pp. 163–185). New York: Springer-Verlag.

orgaard, R. B., & Bode, C. (1998). Next, the value of God, and other reactions.Ecological Modelling, 25, 37–39.

earce, D. (1998). Auditing the earth. Environment, 40(2), 23–28.etanidou, T., Kizos, T., & Soulakellis, N. (2008). Socioeconomic dimensions of

changes in the agricultural landscape of the Mediterranean basin: A case studyof the abandonment of cultivation terraces on Nisyros Island, Greece. Environ-mental Management, 41, 250–266.

etrosillo, I., Costanza, R., Aretano, R., Zaccarelli, N., & Zurlini, G. (2013). Theuse of subjective indicators to assess how natural and social capital supportresidents’ quality of life in a small volcanic island. Ecological Indicators, 24,609–620.

etrosillo, I., Semeraro, T., & Zurlini, G. (2010). Detecting the ‘conservation effect’on the maintenance of natural capital flow in different natural parks. EcologicalEconomics, 69, 1115–1123.

etrosillo, I., Zaccarelli, N., Semeraro, T., & Zurlini, G. (2009). The effectiveness ofdifferent conservation policies on the security of natural capital. Landscape andUrban Planning., 89, 49–56.

etrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Corlianò, M. E., Zaccarelli, N., & Dadamo, M. (2007). Touristperception of recreational environment and management in a marine protectedarea. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 29–37.

imm, S. L. (1997). The value of everything. Nature, 387, 231–232.lummer, M. L. (2009). Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem

services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 38–45. and Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical

computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.escia, A. J., Willaarts, B. A., Schmitz, M. F., & Aguilera, P. A. (2010). Changes in

land uses and management in two Nature Reserves in Spain: Evaluating the

an Planning 112 (2013) 63– 73 73

social–ecological resilience of cultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Plan-ning, 98, 26–35.

Rossi, O., & Zurlini, G. (1995). Recent trends of tourism in Italy. In F. Vellas (Ed.), Anencyclopaedia of international tourism (pp. 117–131). Paris: Serdi.

Schmitz, M. F., de Aranzabal, I., Aguilera, P., Rescia, A., & Pineda, F. D. (2003). Rela-tionship between landscape typology and socioeconomic structure. Scenariosof change in Spanish cultural landscapes. Ecological Modelling, 168, 343–356.

Schnurr, J., & Holtz, S. (1998). The cornerstone of development: Integrating environ-mental, social and economic policies. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, J. F. (1995). Biometry. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Termoschuizen, J. W., & Opdam, P. (2009). Landscape services as a bridge

between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology,24, 1037–1052.

Toman, M. (1998). Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem servicesand natural capital. Ecological Economics, 25, 57–60.

Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2001). Capitalising on multiplicity: A transdisciplinary systemsapproach to landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 143–157.

Turner, B. L., II, Lambin, E. F., & Reenberg, A. (2007). The emergence of land changescience for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of theNational Academic of Sciences, 104(52), 20666–20671.

Tzanopoulos, J., & Vogiatzakis, I. (2011). Processes and patterns of landscape changeon a small Aegean island: The case of Sifnos, Greece. Landscape and Urban Plan-ning, 99, 58–64.

Verburg, P. H., van de Steeg, J., Veldkamp, A., & Willemen, L. (2009). From landcover change to land function dynamics: A major challenge to improve landcharacterization. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1327–1335.

Vogiatzakis, I. N., Mannion, A. M., & Pugnetti, G. (2008). Introduction to Mediter-ranean landscapes. In I. N. Vogiatzakis, G. Pugnetti, & A. M. Mannion (Eds.),Mediterranean island landscapes: Natural and cultural approaches. Landscapeseries (pp. 3–14). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Wilson, M. A., & Hoehn, J. P. (2006). Valuing environmental goods and servicesusing benefit transfer: The state-of-the art and science. Ecological Economics,60, 335–342.

Wu, J., Jones, K., Li, H., & Loucks, O. L. (Eds.). (2006). Scaling and uncertainty analysisin ecology: Methods and applications. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Zaccarelli, N., Li, B.L., Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G. Order and disorder in ecologi-cal time-series: Introducing normalized spectral entropy. Ecological Indicators,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.008, in press.

Zaho, B., Kreuter, U., Li, B., Ma, Z., Chen, J., & Nakagoshi, N. (2004). An ecosystemservice value assessment of land-use change on Chongming Island. China. LandUse Policy, 21, 139–148.

Zurlini, G., & Müller, F. (2008). Environmental Security. In S. E. Joergensen, & B. D.

Fath (Eds.), System ecology, Vol. 2 of encyclopaedia of ecology (pp. 1350–1356).Oxford: Elsevier.

Zurlini, G., Riitters, K., Zaccarelli, N., Petrosillo, I., Jones, K. B., & Rossi, L. (2006).Disturbance patterns in a socio-ecological system at multiple scales. EcologicalComplexity, 3, 119–128.