The Multidimensional Benefits of Terraced Landscape Regeneration: An Economic Perspective and Beyond

  • Luigi Fusco Girard
  • Antonia GravagnuoloEmail author
  • Fortuna De Rosa
Part of the Environmental History book series (ENVHIS, volume 9)


Terraced landscapes represent a particular type of multifunctional, historic–cultural agrarian landscapes, today at risk of abandonment due to socio-economic changes. These landscapes are an ancient example of a “circular” model in using resources, able to be productive in multiple dimensions, providing many ecosystem services to local communities and thus contributing to human well-being. Terraced landscapes have a complex value for society: sociocultural, environmental and economic values, which can become a driver of territorial regeneration, if a systemic economic–territorial perspective is adopted. This paper proposes the circular economy as a viable model of sustainable territorial development that can support terraced landscapes regeneration, exploiting their structural multifunctionality and thus enhancing the multidimensional territorial productivity. The ecosystem services’ assessment framework, which includes economic, spatial, quantitative and qualitative evaluation tools, can be integrated in agri-environmental policies to make operational the “circular” paradigm of regeneration. A selection of economic tools and case studies is presented to show how circular processes can be activated in terraced landscapes, reducing costs and waste of resources, increasing multidimensional productivity, and finally attracting more investments towards a new systemic urban-rural “circular” development model.


  1. Acosta A (2010) El Buen Vivir en el camino del post-desarrollo. Una lectura desde la Constitución de Montecristi. Policy Paper 9, vol 9Google Scholar
  2. Becchetti L, Bruni L, Zamagni S (eds) (2017) Le città del ben-vivere. Il manifesto programmatico dell’economia civile per le amministrazioni locali (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  3. Bignal EM, McCracken DI (2000) The nature conservation value of European traditional farming systems. Environ Rev 8:149–171. Scholar
  4. BLP (2010) The Burren LIFE project. Farming for conservation in the Burren. Final Report. Carron, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonardi L, Varotto M (2016) Paesaggi terrazzati d’Italia. Eredità storiche e nuove prospettive. Franco AngeliGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ. Scholar
  7. Common M, Stagl S (2005) Ecological economics. An introduction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costanza R, Cumberland JH, Daly H, Goodland R, Norgaard RB, Kubiszewski I, Franco C (2014) An introduction to ecological economics, 2nd edn. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Costanza R, D’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. Scholar
  10. DAFF (2010) Terms and conditions of the Burren farming for conservation programme implemented by the minister for agriculture, fisheries and food under the provisions of article 68.1(a)(i) of Council Regulating (EC) 73/2009 April 2010Google Scholar
  11. DAFM (2016) The Burren Programme—Terms and conditions. Tranche 2Google Scholar
  12. Dalberg Global Development Advisors (2014) Innovative financing for development: scalable business models that produce economic, social, and environmental outcomesGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R et al (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:8812–8819. Scholar
  14. Darvill R, Lindo Z (2016) The inclusion of stakeholders and cultural ecosystem services in land management trade-off decisions using an ecosystem services approach. Landsc Ecol 31:533–545. Scholar
  15. Defra (2007) An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. Forestry 68Google Scholar
  16. Déprés C, Grolleau G, Mzoughi N (2008) Contracting for environmental property rights: the case of Vittel. Economica 75:412–434. Scholar
  17. Dewees P, Place F, Scherr SJ, Buss C, Ajayi OC, Buck LE, Elson D et al (2011) Investing in trees and landscape restoration in Africa. What, where, and how. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) Towards a circular economy: business rationale for an accelerated transitionGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) Cities in the circular economy: an initial explorationGoogle Scholar
  20. ESPON, Interact, Interreg Europe, and URBACT (2016) Pathways to a circular economy in cities and regions. Lille, FranceGoogle Scholar
  21. European Commission (2015) Closing the loop – an EU action plan for the circular economy, vol 2. Brussels, 2.12.2015 COM(2015) 614 finalGoogle Scholar
  22. FAO (2011) Payments for ecosystem services and food securityGoogle Scholar
  23. FAO (2015) Food for the Cities Programme—Building sustainable and resilient city region food systemsGoogle Scholar
  24. FAO & Global Mechanism of the UNCCD (2015) Sustainable financing for forest and landscape restoration: Opportunities, challenges and the way forward. Italy, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Fish R, Church A, Winter M (2016) Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst Serv, 1–10. Scholar
  26. Forte F, Fusco Girard L (2009) Creativity and new architectural assets: the complex value of beauty. Int J Sustain Dev 12:160–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fujita T, Satoshi O, Dong L, Minoru F (2013) Eco-industrial development as a circularization policy framework toward sustainable industrial cities. Lesson and suggestions from the eco town program in Japan. BDC. Boll Del Centr Calza Bini 13:35–52. Scholar
  28. Fusco Girard L (1987) Risorse architettoniche e culturali: valutazioni e strategie di conservazione. Franco AngeliGoogle Scholar
  29. Fusco Girard L (2016) The city and the territory system: towards the “new humanism” paradigm. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 8:542–551. Scholar
  30. Fusco Girard L, Nijkamp P (1997). Le valutazioni per lo sviluppo sostenibile della città e del territorio. Franco Angeli, Milano, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  31. Gaitán-Cremaschi D, Palomo I, Baraibar Molina S, De Groot R, Gómez-Baggethun E (2017) Applicability of economic instruments for protecting ecosystem services from cultural agrarian landscapes in Doñana, SW Spain. Land Use Policy 61:185–195. Scholar
  32. Gravagnuolo A (2014) Una proposta metodologica per la valutazione dei landscape services nel paesaggio culturale terrazzato. BDC. Boll Del Cent Calza Bini 14(II):367–385.
  33. Gravagnuolo A (2015) La valutazione dei paesaggi culturali. Approcci e strumenti per la tutela e valorizzazione dei sistemi terrazzati. University of NaplesGoogle Scholar
  34. De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272. Scholar
  35. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG, Frid CLJ (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis, pp 110–139. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Hartel T, Fischer J, Câmpeanu C, Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Fazey I (2014) The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. Ecol Soc, 19.
  37. Hein L, Van Koppen K, De Groot RS, Van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228. Scholar
  38. Hicks C, Cinner JE, Stoeckl N, Mcclanahan TR (2015) Linking ecosystem services and human-values theory. Conserv Biol 29:1471–1480. Scholar
  39. Ingram JC, Wilkie D, Clements T, Balas Mcnab R, Nelson F, Hogan Baur E, Sachedina HT, Dean Peterson D, Andrew C, Foley H (2014) Evidence of payments for ecosystem services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods. Ecosyst Serv 7:10–21. Scholar
  40. Iverson L, Echeverria C, Nahuelhual L, Luque S (2014) Ecosystem services in changing landscapes: an introduction. Landsc Ecol 29:181–186. Scholar
  41. Lichfield N (1996) Community impact evaluation: principles and practice. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  42. MA (2005) Ecosystems and human-well-being: wetlands and waters synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleury P, Gutierrez Lazpita J, Gibon A (2000) Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. J Environ Manage 59:47–69. Scholar
  44. MEA (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessmentGoogle Scholar
  45. Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2013) Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc 18:art.44.
  46. Le Moigne R (2014) L’économie circulaire. Comment la mettre en œuvre dans l’entreprise grâce à la reverse supply chain? DunodGoogle Scholar
  47. Nahuelhual L, Carmona A, Laterra P, Barrena J, Aguayo M (2014) A mapping approach to assess intangible cultural ecosystem services: The case of agriculture heritage in Southern Chile. Ecol Ind 40:90–101. Scholar
  48. OECD (2010) Paying for biodiversity: enhancing the cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services. ParisGoogle Scholar
  49. Partnership Circular Economy (2018) Urban Agenda for the EU. Draft action planGoogle Scholar
  50. Perrot-Maître D (2006) The Vittel payments for ecosystem services: a “perfect” PES case? Environment. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  51. Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129. Scholar
  52. Plieninger T, Van der Horst D, Schleyer C, Bieling C (2014) Sustaining ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Ecol Soc. Scholar
  53. Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Bus Rev 89:62–77Google Scholar
  54. Randall A (1987) Total Economic Value as a basis for policy. Trans Am Fish Soc 116:325–335.;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rizos V, Behrens A, Kafyeke T, Hirschnitz-Garbers M, Ioannou A (2015) The circular economy: barriers and opportunities for SMEs. 412. CEPS Working DocumentGoogle Scholar
  56. Scaramellini G, Varotto M (eds) (2008) Paesaggi terrazzati dell’arco alpino. Atlante, MarsilioGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith S, Rowcroft P, Everard M, Couldrick L, Reed M, Rogers H, Quick T, Eves C, White C (2013) Payments for ecosystem services: a best practice guide. LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. TEEB (2010) In Pushpam Kumar (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London and WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  59. TEEB (2015) TEEB for Agriculture & Food: an interim report. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  60. Tempesta T (2013) Il valore economico dei paesaggi tradizionali. Lavorare il paesaggio. Terrazzamenti e muri a secco tra identità e valori. Albiano (TN)Google Scholar
  61. Thiene M, Bazzani GM, Tempesta T (2006) Le conseguenze della riforma di Politica Agricola Comunitaria sul paesaggio rurale. Econ Dirit Agroaliment 11:79–95Google Scholar
  62. United Nations (2015) Habitat III issue papers 10—Urban-rural linkages. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Varotto M (ed) (2009) Nuove Terre Alte. Dalla “montagna che scompare” alla “montagna che vive”. Riv del Club Alpino Italiano, 70–73Google Scholar
  64. Winthrop RH (2014) The strange case of cultural services: limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. Ecol Econ 108:208–214. Scholar
  65. Wynne-Jones S (2013) Connecting payments for ecosystem services and agri-environment regulation: An analysis of the Welsh Glastir Scheme. J Rural Stud 31:77–86. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigi Fusco Girard
    • 1
  • Antonia Gravagnuolo
    • 2
    Email author
  • Fortuna De Rosa
    • 1
  1. 1.Interdepartmental Research Centre in Urban Planning “A. Calza Bini”, University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development (IRISS), National Research CouncilNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations