Pollination and the Integration of Ecosystem Services in Landscape Planning and Rural Development

  • Alessandro BonifaziEmail author
  • Pasquale Balena
  • Carlo Rega
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10408)


Mapping and assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES) is a promising field of inquiry that aims to bridge the gap between nature conservation and policy making in different sectors and contexts. Within the class of Regulating and maintenance ES, pollination has recently been the target of great interest on the side of ecologists, planners, farmers and the media alike. In this paper, we adapted a wild pollination model by: scaling it down to fit the study context (the Italian region of Puglia); testing different approaches to refine the forest, road side, semi-natural vegetation and olive farming intensity components and; discussing the spatially explicit outcomes (Pollination potential, service and deficit maps) with regard to rural development programming and landscape planning. Findings point to a mismatch between demand and supply of the pollination ES, and help shed light on some spatial configurations that either mitigate or sharpen it. The prospects of mapping and assessment of pollination as a planning-support tool seem to depend critically on input data availability and accuracy, on fine-tuning models – as well as on establishing stronger links between the ecological functions that underpin pollination, the policy measures that might enhance them (be that binding regulations, agri-environmental schemes or spatial strategies) and the socio-economic practices (e.g., farming) that interact with both.


Ecosystem services Pollination Landscape panning Rural development 


Author Contributions.

All authors contributed equally to design and conceptual background. As for data processing, C.R. took care of the forest and arable land components and of the aggregate indexes, P.B. of the olive grove and road side modules, and A.B. of crop dependency scores and regional policy assessment. Sections 1 and 2 were drafted by A.B., Sect. 3 by C.R. and Sect. 4 by P.B., while Sect. 5 was jointly written by all, who have read and approved the final manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Daily, G., Alexander, S., Naeem, S., Ehrlich, P.R., Goulder, L., Lubcheco, J., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Postel, S., Schneider, S., Tilman, D., Woodwell, G.: Ecosystem service: benefirs supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues Ecol. 4, 1–12 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Resources Institute: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J.: A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 393–408 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M.: The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D.G., Frid, C.L.J. (eds.) Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis, pp. 110–139. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bastian, O., Haase, D., Grunewald, K.: Ecosystem properties, potentials and services – the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol. Indic. 21, 7–16 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M.: Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M.: The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    TEEB: The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity for local and regional policy makers. Report 207 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kinzig, A.P., Perrings, C., Chapin, F.S., Polasky, S., Smith, V.K., Tilman, D., Turner, B.L.: Sustainability. Paying for ecosystem services–promise and peril. Science 334, 603–604 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kosoy, N., Corbera, E.: Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1228–1236 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilkinson, C., Saarne, T., Peterson, G.D., Colding, J.: Strategic spatial planning and the ecosystem services concept - an historical exploration. Ecol. Soc. 18, 37 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balena, P., Sannicandro, V., Torre, C.M.: Spatial multicrierial evaluation of soil consumption as a tool for SEA. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Torre, C., Rocha, J.G., Falcão, M.I., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) ICCSA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8581, pp. 446–458. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09150-1_32 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rega, C., Spaziante, A.: Linking ecosystem services to agri-environmental schemes through SEA: a case study from Northern Italy. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 40, 47–53 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scolozzi, R., Morri, E., Santolini, R.: Delphi-based change assessment in ecosystem service values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 21, 134–144 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Woodruff, S.C., BenDor, T.K.: Ecosystem services in urban planning: Comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landsc. Urban Plan. 152, 90–100 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Commission: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. COM/2011/244, Brussels (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenleaf, S.S., Williams, N.M., Winfree, R., Kremen, C.: Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153, 589–596 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Palma, A., Kuhlmann, M., Roberts, S.P.M., Potts, S.G., Börger, L., Hudson, L.N., Lysenko, I., Newbold, T., Purvis, A.: Ecological traits affect the sensitivity of bees to land-use pressures in European agricultural landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 1567–1577 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strona, G., Carstens, C.J., Beck, P.S.A.: Network analysis reveals why Xylella fastidiosa will persist in Europe. Sci. Rep. 7, 71 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bonifazi, A., Sannicandro, V., Attardi, R., Cugno, G., Torre, C.M.: Countryside vs city: a user-centered approach to open spatial indicators of urban sprawl. In: Gervasi, O., Murgante, B., Misra, S., Rocha, A.M.A.M.A.C., Torre, C.M.M., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O.O., Stankova, E., Wang, S. (eds.) ICCSA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9789, pp. 161–176. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-42089-9_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morano, P., Tajani, F., Locurcio, M.: Land use, economic welfare and property values: an analysis of the interdependencies of the real-estate market with zonal and socio-economic variables in the municipalities of Apulia region (Italy). Int. J. Agric. Environ. Inf. Syst. 6, 16–39 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lonsdorf, E., Kremen, C., Ricketts, T., Winfree, R., Williams, N., Greenleaf, S.: Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes. Ann. Bot. 103, 1589–1600 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zulian, G., Maes, J., Paracchini, M.: Linking land cover data and crop yields for mapping and assessment of pollination services in Europe. Land 2, 472–492 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Soille, P., Vogt, P.: Morphological segmentation of binary patterns. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 30, 456–459 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vogt, P.: GuidosToolbox - (Graphical User Interface for the Description of image Objects and their Shapes).
  26. 26.
    Weissteiner, C.J., Strobl, P., Sommer, S.: Assessment of status and trends of olive farming intensity in EU-Mediterranean countries using remote sensing time series and land cover data. Ecol. Indic. 11, 601–610 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Henriksen, C.I., Langer, V.: Road verges and winter wheat fields as resources for wild bees in agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 173, 66–71 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hopwood, J.L.: The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2632–2640 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Svensson, B., Lagerlöf, J., Svensson, B.G.: Habitat preferences of nest-seeking bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in an agricultural landscape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 247–255 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Olsson, O., Bolin, A., Smith, H.G., Lonsdorf, E.V.: Modeling pollinating bee visitation rates in heterogeneous landscapes from foraging theory. Ecol. Modell. 316, 133–143 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    European Commission: Green Infrastructure - Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. COM 2013 249 final, Brussels (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Estreguil, C., Caudullo, G., Rega, C., Paracchini, M.L.: Enhancing connectivity, improving green infrastructure. Cost-benefit solutions for forest and agri-environment. A pilot study in Lombardy. Office for Official Publications of the European Union, Luxembourg (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITERAS – Research Centre for Sustainability and Territorial InnovationBariItaly
  2. 2.Polytechnic of BariBariItaly
  3. 3.European Commission - Joint Research Centre, Directorate D - Sustainable ResourcesIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations