Tempesta cembra 2013(eng)


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tempesta cembra 2013(eng)

  1. 1. The economic value oftraditional landscapesTiziano TempestaPadua UniversityWORKING THE LANDSCAPESterraces and dry-stone walls between identity and valuesAlbiano (TN) – May 4, 2013
  2. 2. By means of Decree n. 17070 of 19/11/2012 the MIPAF(Ministry of Agriculture and Forest Policy) established the“National Observatory for rural landscape, agriculturalpractices, and traditional knowledge”According to the Decree (art. 2) the expression “RuralTraditional Landscape” indicates either parts and parcelsof a territory classified as rural, or linear/specific elementsthat, while still subject to an evolutionary process, holdevident traces of their origin and history, keeping a role insociety and the economy.
  3. 3. From a technical-economic standpoint, traditionallandscape environments are generally characterized by thepresence of high labour intensity and a lower degree ofcapital intensit. Energy inputs external to the enterprise arein general also low.Consequently:-Labour is characterized by low productivity andremuneration.- Production costs are high and output low.- Enterprises employing traditional techniques do notachieve competitiveness on the market, and are oftenforced to abandon activity or convert to different productiontechniques (often with consequences for the landscape).
  4. 4. Lower or no possibility to recourse to external energysources forces enterprises to re-organize their overallspace management and seek a greater degree ofadaptation to the external natural environment.Traditional materials are utilized in manufacture.A benefit comes to traditional landscapes. Particularly froman aestethic standpoint.
  5. 5. Traditional landscapes preservation can only be assured if:- Society acknowledges their intrinsic cultural value, andagrees to devote financial resources to their maintenance.- Consumers are willing to pay a higher price for localgoods (agricultural products, local services in the tourismsector)
  6. 6. Research on the social value of traditionallandscapes’ preservationIn Italy, several studies have been conducted which aimedto quantify, in financial terms, the social benefits derivingfrom traditional landscapes’ maintenance andpreservation.The Contingent Valuation survey-based technique hasbeen employed, as more recently has the Discrete ChoiceExperiments method.The valuation of social benefits is typically determined bythe sum of money consumers’ are willing to pay not to seethe landscapes damaged.
  7. 7. Results obtained through Contingent ValuationAuthors and Year Area Interviewees Landscape’scharacteristicsAverage utility (euro2011)Per family Per haTempesta, 1998Plain between the Isonzo andTagliamento rivers (UD) Local residents Grassland plains 3.2 533Tempesta, 1998Plain between the Isonzo andTagliamento rivers (UD) Local residents Grasslands, meadows 6.3 3466Marangon e Tempesta, 2001 Collio Area (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Local residents Traditional vinyards 88.7 374Marangon e Tempesta, 2001 Colli Orientali (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Local residents traditional vinyards 138.2 700Tempesta e Thiene, 2004 Cortina dAmpezzo (BL) Tourists Mountain meadows 5.0 854Signorello et al., 2001 Etna Area (CT) Local residentsTraditional pistachiocultivations 3.2 308Torquati e Musotti, 2007 Hills and Mountains in Umbria Residents in the RegionPastures, meadows,hedges, olive-trees, dry-stone walls 52.9 1904Antonelli et al., 2006 Hills and Mountains in Umbria Residents in the RegionPastures, meadows,hedges, dry-stone walls 83.6 4480On average, utilities per hectar are higher than Regionalbenefits.
  8. 8. Results obtained through Discrete Choice ExperimentsCollio Area research study (Friuli Venezia Giulia)Features taken into consideration:-% Surface subjected to excavation-% Surface occupied by forests-% Surface occupied by wooden vinyards- Tax increases to finance maintenance operations200 interviewees on the study area
  9. 9. Variable coefficiente sign. Coeff.% bosco 43.5 0.000% bosco al quadrato -1.0 0.000% pali in legno 7.2 0.000% pali in legno al quadrato 0.0 0.000% sbancamenti 10.4 0.000% sbancamenti al quadrato -2.3 0.000costo -2.7 0.000Statistical Model(MNL)Estimation ofsurfacesmaximizingsocial utility% bosco WTP % pali in legno WTP % sbacamenti WTP2.5 38.33 40 81.6 1 3.05.0 72.14 45 88.2 2 4.37.5 101.42 50 94.0 3 3.910.0 126.17 55 98.9 4 1.812.5 146.39 60 103.1 5 -2.015.0 162.09 65 106.4 6 -7.617.5 173.26 70 109.0 7 -14.920.0 179.90 75 110.7 8 -23.822.5 182.01 80 111.6 9 -34.525.0 179.60 85 111.8 10 -46.927.5 172.66 90 111.1 11 -61.030.0 161.19 95 109.6 12 -76.832.5 145.20 100 107.3 13 -94.4
  10. 10. Estimation of social benefits related to interventionsimplemented in the context of the Veneto Region PSR2007-2013 The experimental designActionplannedPreservation ofmountainpasturesEstablishment ofmeadows (ona plain)Plantation offorests (on aplain)Preservation ofplain hedgesLevels ofInterventionHigh (80.000 ha =100%)High(+ 6.000 ha= +20%)High(+1600 ha)High(49.000 ha =100%)Medium (50.000 ha= 62%)Medium (+ 3.000ha = +10%)Medium (+800ha)Medium(24.500ha = 50%)Low (30.000 ha =37%)NO NOLow(12.000 ha =25%)Average costper family(in Veneto)60 €30 €15 €0 €555 intervistati residenti nella regione dal 2011 al 2012
  11. 11. Variables Coefficient sign.tWTP per family(euro 2012)Constant -1.639 0.000COST (euro per year per family) -0.024 0.000Preserved mountain meadows and pastures: 500 kmq 1.024 0.000 42.3Preserved mountain meadows and pastures : 800 kmq 1.404 0.000 58.0New plain meadows established: 30 kmq 0.632 0.000 26.1New plain meadows established : 60 kmq 1.199 0.000 49.6New plain forests established : 8 kmq 1.050 0.000 43.4New plain forests established : 16 kmq 0.892 0.000 36.9Preserved plain hedges: 24500 0.354 0.000 14.6Preserved plain hedges : 49000 0.363 0.000 15.0Economic estimation of utility related to meadows andpastures preservation = 1456 euro/haThe estimated statistical model (MNL)
  12. 12. Researches on the relationship between landscapeand marketing of traditional regional food productsIs the area of production of traditional regional foodsproducts a relevant factor for consumers? Does the factthat a product was realized locally make consumers willingto pay more to acquire it?What do (few) empirical studies demonstrate?
  13. 13. A blind-tasting experimentVariables taken into considerationA - WINE WUALITY: LOW – MEDIUM – HIGHB- PRICE OF THE BOTTLE: 3 EURO; 5 EURO; 7 EUROC - LANDSCAPE’S CHARACTERISTICSdecaying monotonouswell-kempt evocativeArea of Study: OrientalVenetoMethodology: conjointanalysisNumber of Interviewees:224N. of tasting sessions: 5N. Of wines tasted persession: 4
  14. 14. Wine is perceived as being of a higher quality when it ismentally associated to a better-looking natural environment0.160.36-0.27-€5€8€blemishingfeaturemonotonouswellpreservedevocativePartialpreferenceWine Price Landscape
  15. 15. Results of three distinct discreet-choice experimentsArea of study Product Features taken into consideration IntervieweesProsecco DOC and DOCGArea (Veneto)Wine - Region of Production (DOCG, DOC, Altro)- Usage of local grapes (prevalent, partial,absent)- Traceability- Traditional landscap level of preservation- Price440Friuli Venezia Giulia Wine - Region of Production (DOCG, DOC, Altro)- Area of Production (Collio, Friuli, altro)- Biological/Organic production- Traditional landscape level of preservation- Price200Veneto Olive Oil - Region of Production (DOP Veneto, Veneto,Italia, Altro)- Squeezing technique (artesanal, industrial)- Biological/Organic production- Traditional landscap level of preservation- Price476
  16. 16. Researches suggest that the determinant factors forwillingness to purchase food products are the area ofproduction, and the presence of DOC or DOP certifications.In the case of wine, landscape contexts were also relevantIn the case of oil, landscape contexts were relevant foraporximately 50% of the interviewees.The importance accorded by interviewees to other factorssuch as biological/organic production techniques wasinferior, as were the techniques employed throughout theproductin process.Prices are occasionally interpreted as implicit indicators ofquality
  17. 17. Researches on the relationship between landscapeand tourism activitiesResearch carried out in Italy over the year 2011Fonte: nostra elab. su dati RSE 2011In the context of choosing the destination for a daily or weekend-trip, whatdegree of importance does the landscape play?N. %It is a determinant factor1644 42.7I keep it into acount, but not as much as other factors suchas costs, on-site recreational activities, etc…1121 29.1Not much, since I repute every hypothetical destinationattractive662 17.2Non lo ritengo importante176 4.6Uncertain/ Not answering243 6.3Total 3846 100.0
  18. 18. The demand for traditional local serviceCaratteristiche gradite di unazienda agrituristica. Fonte ISMEA, 2009. 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0Vicinanza a località turisticheScarso affollamentoVicinanza a luoghi naturali protettiPartecipazione alle attività agricoleEdifici rustici tradizionaliComfortProdotti biologiciPresenza di attività agricolePulizia/igienePiatti tipici del luogoAccoglienzaPresenza di animaliZona circostante tranquillaCucina buonaProdotti sani e genuiniImmerso nel verdeClients’ opinions
  19. 19. Fattori che rendono attrattivo un agriturismo nellopinione degli agricoltori. Fonte:INEA, 2010.13.223.926.135.042.950.851.551.861.074.10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Possibilità di fare agricampeggio e sostare con il camperpossibilità di partecipare ad attività agricoleAttività a ridotto impatto ambientaleAttività didattiche, ricreative e culturaliServizi AggiuntiviRistorazioneVendita diretta di prodotti aziendaliComfort spazi e alloggiProfessionalità e qualificazione del titolareUn contesto paesaggistico tipicamente ruraleEntrepreneurs’ opinions
  20. 20. What is the weight of a landscape’s quality over thedecision/predisposition to spend the night in a specificlocation, during a holiday vacation?A SWG survey’s results (research carried out on behalf ofColdiretti and Italia Nostra in the year 2012)How much would you be ready to pay, in order to havethe same offer-package, minus one of the followingelements?:
  21. 21. Component substracted fromthe packageSum consumer is still willingto payComponent added valueUncontaminated environment,with a number of noteworthylanscapes54 euro 46 euroWell-kempt cultural heritage 61 euro 39 euroHigh-quality local cuisine 64 euro 36 euroHigh-level hotel structures andservices64 euro 36 euroWellness and sport structuresand services71 euro 29 euroLively night-life and places togo out74 euro 26 euro
  22. 22. ConclusionTraditonal landscapes generate social utilities. It isnecessary that the entire local community take theirpreservation seriously (not leaving the burden on the solecultivators’ shoulders)It is mandatory that the CAP to invest greater financialresources into the preservation of traditional landscapes.Financial contributions should be accorded in proportion toutilities generated.Further and deeper analysis on the topic should beconducted. How can landscape quality contribute to amore efficient market allocation of local traditional foodproducts? How can it improve the tourism/recreationalservices offer?
  23. 23. Every local community must be granted the possibility torecover traditional landscapes, even where significantreafforestation has been taken place (reafforestation is asignificant form of landscape decay)The ban to vinyards plantation in those terraced areaswhere the vine was originally cultivated must be lifted.The ban should be kept in place in plain areas.Recovery shoul be carried out with great respect of thelandscape balance.With regards to tourism, it is mandatory that those whobenefit directly from landscape maintenance contributeactively to its preservation.
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.