ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 2021, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 411–431 https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1946155 RESEARCH Ecosystem services and justice of protected areas: the case of Circeo National Park, Italy a,b c,d Stefania Benetti and Johannes Langemeyer a Department of Methods and Models for Economy, Territory and Finance (MEMOTEF), University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy; b Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy; cInstitute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain; dHumboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Geography, Berlin, Germany ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Protected areas are key instruments for conserving biodiversity and landscapes. Yet, conservation Received 28 May 2020 initiatives are still often struggling to accommodate people’s needs, provoking conflicts, and Accepted 15 June 2021 lacking support from local communities. Our study combines environmental justice and ecosys­ EDITED BY tem services approaches to provide a critical understanding of trade-offs between people’s Matthias Schröter interests and conservation goals in the case study of Circeo National Park (Italy). Applying a qualitative content analysis of different materials and using a survey of local residents, we focus KEYWORDS on three main objectives: analysing the implementation of the ecosystem services framework in Environmental conservation; policy documents and exploring how different people value benefits from nature; investigating social-ecological systems; the decision-making process in terms of participation, information and communication strate­ social equity; natural resources management; gies; and identifying how conservation policies generated different allocations of benefits, shifting ecologic values; burdens and inequalities among social groups. The integrated approach applied in our study stakeholder perceptions; highlights ways to systematically uncover perceived injustices and identifies potential conflict Aichi Target 11 lines. In the long run, this approach might help to increase the public acceptance of protected areas by fostering sustainability also in its often-overlooked social dimension. 1. Introduction The designation of protected areas (PA) is one of the exclusion of people from PAs (Mcdonald et al. 2008; most important environmental conservation strate­ Martin et al. 2016), generating the perception of gies globally (Palomo et al. 2013). PAs not only con­ a conflicting vision of conservation versus develop­ tribute to habitat provision for endangered wildlife ment (Palomo et al. 2011). This nature-people dichot­ but also climate change mitigation, carbon emission omy poorly reflects the reality of many PAs, where reductions and the generation of economic benefits, people are essential as stewards of biodiversity (Reed such as the promotion of tourism (Andam et al. 2010; 2008; Andrade and Rhodes 2012; Palomo et al. 2015), Watson et al. 2014). The United Nation’s Convention and protected ecosystems are essential to people’s on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that PAs must be well-being and livelihoods through the provision of managed effectively and equitably by 2020 (Aichi multiple ecosystem goods and services (Trzyna 2007; Target 11), framing PAs as well-connected and inte­ UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2016). As a consequence, grated systems within wider land and seascapes PAs often lack support by local communities (CBD, 2010, p. 9). Furthermore, the Post-2020 (MacDonald et al. 2013; García-Llorente et al. 2018), Global Biodiversity Framework, currently in ongoing and may be perceived as unjust in the face of people’s development, recommend safeguarding PAs in part­ capacities to flourish in equal terms (Fabinyi et al. nership with indigenous peoples, local communities, 2014; Gurney et al. 2014). and other owners or managers, underlining the A better understanding of perceived (in)justice importance of protected sites for both biological and with regard to benefits and burdens of PAs is sug­ cultural diversity (CDB, 2020, p. 12). gested as a key mechanism through which a more Yet, a major criticism of PAs is the focus on integrated social-ecological vision and collective geographically limited and static ecosystems action can be fostered (Zafra-Calvo et al. 2017). (Petrosillo et al. 2009; Palomo et al. 2013; While the social-ecological interdependencies charac­ García-Llorente et al. 2018). For decades, environ­ terizing PAs are increasingly accounted for, mental conservation followed the paradigm to safe­ a divergent understanding of how PAs impact differ­ guard biodiversity from human threats through the ent social groups and whether this is perceived as fair CONTACT Stefania Benetti stefania.benetti@unimib.it Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here. © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 412 S. BENETTI AND J. LANGEMEYER is still widely lacking (but see Dawson et al. 2017; The main purpose of this article is to empirically Ward et al. 2018). As a consequence, local PAs man­ investigate a case study in which the integration of EJ agers often do not share the conservation objectives, thinking into ES-based management was applied, and social acceptance for conservation remains low with the aim of increasing social support for nature among local communities, which hampers the effec­ conservation through PAs. Following this general tiveness of PAs or requires top-down enforcement. In aim, we address the case study of Circeo National the long run, conservation strategies are jeopardized, Park (CNP) in Italy under three specific objectives: or at least rendered less efficient, without community (a) understanding the implementation of ES concepts support and trust (Hockings et al. 2006; Palomo et al. and exploring ES socio-cultural values (recognition 2013). justice); (b) investigating decision-making procedures Counteracting inefficient PAs requires an integra­ behind them in terms of participation and informa­ tion of ecological goals alongside social justice objec­ tion and communication approaches (procedural jus­ tives across different spatial and temporal scales (cf. tice); and (c) identifying how conservation policies García-Llorente et al. 2018; Langemeyer and generate social inequalities and spatial burden shift­ Connolly 2020). In this context, the spread of ecosys­ ing (distributional justice). tem services (ES) governance, accounting for the benefits people obtain from ecosystems and whether and how a PA affects them, may support effective and 2. Conceptual framework lasting conservation strategies (Sikor et al. 2014). ES Social diversity in a community implies diversity in approaches support broad and diverse accounting for terms of those who benefit (or not) from ES, as well multiple direct and indirect benefits of PAs for local as in terms of what is considered fair, both for the people’s well-being, including a sense of place, oppor­ distribution of ES and their governance (Lau et al. tunities to learn about nature, the mitigation of cli­ 2018). Building on established EJ scholarship, this mate change, the protection of threatened species and study addresses the three main pillars of justice that habitats that have meaning for people, while support­ have previously been related to ES (Sikor et al. 2014; ing local economies through nature tourism (Trzyna Martin et al. 2015; Zafra-Calvo et al. 2017; Chaudhary 2014). ES assessments can support decision-making, et al. 2018): recognition justice, procedural justice, policy design, and action with respect to natural and distributional justice. The study aims to contri­ resource management (Primmer et al. 2015; Sattler bute to the growing research area of ‘ecosystem ser­ et al. 2018), by visualizing social-ecological depen­ vices justice’ (e.g. Sikor 2013; Baró et al. 2021; dencies across space and scales (Barnaud et al. Calderón-Argelich et al. 2021) by proposing and 2018), and thereby, reducing the risk of narrow eco­ operationalizing an integrated and empirical investi­ logical objectives in the management of PAs (Palomo gation to ES and EJ, as shown in the conceptual et al. 2013). framework in Figure 1. However, while ES management is on the rise, ES Within this framework, recognition justice refers approaches tend to have a blind spot for social injus­ to which stakeholders (and their objectives) are con­ tices and trade-offs among different groups of society sidered in ES management (Chaudhary et al. 2018), (Chaudhary et al. 2018; Turkelboom et al. 2018), acknowledging people’s distinct identities (He and neglecting social diversity in demands and power Sikor 2015) and differences in their understanding structures determining access to ES benefits (Iniesta- of ES benefits and needs, as well as preferences Arandia et al. 2014; Chaudhary et al. 2018; Díaz et al. related to ES (Langemeyer and Connolly 2020). 2018; with the exception of literature on payments for Diverse socio-cultural or ecological values preferences ES, e.g. Sikor 2013). To overcome these limitations can often be a cause of conflict (Dawson et al. 2017; deeply rooted in ES scholarship (e.g. Gómez- Hanaček and Rodríguez-Labajos 2018), as stake­ Baggethun et al. 2010; Díaz et al. 2018; Langemeyer holders have differing views on the environment. and Connolly 2020), we suggest a combination of ES Furthermore, in PAs, understanding relational values and environmental justice (EJ) approaches (cf. is essential (Vos et al., 2018), expressing how people Schlosberg 2001; Chaudhary et al. 2018). EJ thinking appreciate nature through their relations and interac­ can extend ES assessments towards the analysis of the tions with it, by means such as place attachment, distribution of benefits and burdens to different people cultural identity and social cohesion (Arias-Arévalo (e.g. Lele 2013; Sikor et al. 2014; Dawson et al. 2017), et al. 2017; Chan et al. 2018; Himes and Muraca and supports the acknowledgement and incorporation 2018). The lack of recognition of different percep­ of diverse interests in conservation strategies, in order tions of and interests in the benefits provided by to uncover and manage open and latent social conflicts a local ecosystem can lead to recognitional injustices (Kovács et al. 2015; Hanaček et al. 2021). (Sikor et al. 2014; Spangenberg 2015; Cáceres et al. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 413 Figure 1. The integrated ecosystem service and environmental justice framework, adapted based on Langemeyer and Connolly (2020). The study addresses the three main pillars of environmental justice: recognition justice, procedural justice, and distributional justice. 2015). Hence, identifying how different people value (Hanaček and Rodríguez-Labajos 2018). Distributive and prioritize ES is a crucial foundation for equitable fairness is related to the consideration of those who ES management (Sikor et al. 2014). benefit from ES and who incur costs as a result of Procedural justice instead refers to how decisions protecting the generation of ES (Aragão et al. 2016; are made and enacted, including the framing of deci­ Fleischer et al. 2018). sion-making, transparent management and commu­ nication approaches, practices of conflict resolution, as well as the participation of stakeholders in deci­ 3. Methods sion-making processes (Gustavsson et al. 2014; Zafra- Calvo et al. 2017). Environmental management inevi­ 3.1. Study area tably involves trade-offs among different objectives, The case study is focused on Circeo National Park values, and stakeholders (Daw et al. 2015), and deci­ (CNP), which is a typical example of nature conser­ sions concerning ES are reflected in ecosystem gov­ vation through the creation of a PA. The area covers ernance and management tools. Therefore, 8,917 hectares and is located 100 km south of Rome procedural injustice may occur in cases with a lack on the Tyrrhenian Coast of Italy (Figure 2). In the of public participation in decision-making processes, past, the so-called Pontine Plain was characterized by vulnerable groups or different stakeholders are a thick forest, marshland, and coastal lakes. This wild excluded from environmental management, or landscape remained unchanged until 1928 when drai­ where there is ineffective communication and a lack nage and clearing of the area began. In 1934, a small of transparency and access to environmental infor­ area of this plain forest was officially designated as mation (Sikor 2013; Sikor et al. 2014; Aragão et al. protected under Italian National Law (L. 285/1934) in 2016; Hanaček and Rodríguez-Labajos 2018). order to improve the flora and fauna, preserve the Finally, distributional justice focuses on the alloca­ special geological formations and the beauty of the tion of benefits and burdens to different groups of landscape, as well as to develop tourism. a society (Schlosberg 2004; Boone et al. 2009; Martin Up until the establishment of a separate CNP et al. 2015; Chaudhary et al. 2018). It is a critical Management Authority in 2005, the CNP was mana­ component of successful PAs management since ged by the State Forestry Corps. In 2005, a new Park unequal access to natural resources and ES constitu­ Authority was created (under Italian Law 394/1991, tes a major cause for environmental conflicts ‘Framework Law on Protected Areas’) for decision- 414 S. BENETTI AND J. LANGEMEYER Figure 2. Location and land cover map of the Circeo National Park, Italy. Land cover information is based on the 1st hierarchical level of the Corine Land Cover legend (data source: MATTM, 2017; ISPRA, 2018). making and the management of the National Park, dunes, promontory, wetlands, coastal lakes, as well as the replacing its previous governance structure. The Park island of Zannone. In numerical terms, about 6.5% of the Authority is composed of a President, the Governing area of the CNP is characterized by artificial surfaces and Council, the Director, the Executive Council, and the urban areas (Garcia et al. 2013), while about 18% of the Auditors Council, who are directly appointed and territory is allocated for agriculture activities (Ente Parco supervised by the government’s Minister of the Nazionale del Circeo 2011a). Moreover, one of the lakes Environment, in coordination with other national (Paola Lake) is private and, from 2007, the family owning and regional institutions. The Park Authority also it implemented a project for the environmental and includes the Park Community, an advisory body productive restoration of the area, focused on some composed of elected representatives, including the economic activities, such as aquaculture and tourism. Presidents of the Regions, Presidents of the The total CNP population is 9.6% of the entire Provinces and Mayors of the municipalities intersect­ municipal population and is more concentrated in ing the CNP territory. The principal tools of the Park the municipality of Sabaudia and San Felice Circeo Authority are the development of the CNP-Statute, (see Appendix II for more details). For this reason, the CNP-Regulation, the CNP-Plan, as well as the this study focuses on these two municipalities of the Long-term Economic and Social Plan, whereby the CNP. From an economic point of view, the main Park Authority guarantees citizens, associations, and activities of the study area are agriculture, trade, and collective subjects the right of requests, petitions, and tourism, which are carried out in both municipalities, proposals. The Park Authority and its instruments including some zones of CNP (e.g. the agricultural are described in further detail in Appendix I. surfaces, highlighted in light yellow on Figure 2, are The CNP extends over four municipalities and is both inside the CNP boundaries and in the surround­ characterized by five different ecosystems: forest, coastal ing areas). ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 415 3.2. Data collection and analysis recognition of ES (cf. Wilkinson et al. 2013). We selected documents dealing with park strategies par­ The research applied a mixed-methods approach ticularly important to the society and economy of the consisting of a qualitative content analysis of different study area: the CNP-Plan and the Environmental materials – laws, policy documents, institutional web­ Strategic Assessment (Parco Nazionale Del Circeo sites, secondary data, grey literature and literature 2016, 2017). We used the MAXQDA computer pro­ about the CNP case study – and a survey of 375 gram to code the content of 16 documents (nine local residents, to address the three specific objectives belonged to the CNP-Plan and seven to the of the study. First, and in order to analyse the recog­ Environmental Strategic Assessment) and we counted nition justice dimension, we used the content analysis the frequencies of the terms ‘ecosystem services’, to examine the implementation of the ES framework ‘benefits’, ‘human well-being’. Moreover, we codified in various CNP policy documents to identify the and quantified the words associated with the concept consideration of ‘human well-being’, ‘values’, and of ‘values’ (for instance: naturalistic, historical, intrin­ ‘beneficiaries’; we complemented this information sic values, etc.) and we differentiated these words into with insights from the survey on the local residents’ two typologies: those related to the environmental awareness and appreciation of ES. Second, the con­ sphere and those related to the socio-economic tent analysis served to understand the decision- sphere. Then, we systematically analysed the docu­ making processes regarding the CNP, who partici­ ments with the purpose to explore which potential pated, and which information and communication beneficiaries of ES and which values of different approaches were adopted; while the survey was used social groups have been recognised by the Park to contrast with the citizens’ perceptions of these Authority. We systematically searched for specific processes, in combination exploring the procedural keywords (N 40) to identify potential beneficiaries justice dimension. Finally, the content analysis, as of ES (for instance, general categories, such as ‘local well as the survey information, was used to examine populations’, ‘civil society’, ‘associations’, ‘economic the distributional justice of ES and the allocation of operators’, or specific social groups, such as ‘farmers’, benefits and burdens among different stakeholder ‘fishermen’, ‘young people’, ‘women’, etc.). Once we groups. identified the sentences which referred to potential beneficiaries, we verified if these sentences were 3.2.1. Qualitative content analysis related to specific values (for instance, the ‘economic We used a qualitative content approach (cf. Bryman value of the CNP for farmers’). The qualitative con­ 2012, p. 557–559, 714) for the analysis of different tent analysis further examined to which extent the materials (Appendix III summarizes the references CNP documents considered the potential negative used in this step). In particular, we selected the effects on people’s livelihood implied by the conser­ most recent official Italian laws about PAs and the vation regime of the CNP. Finally, we coded the CNP, policy documents available on the CNP institu­ policies’ objectives into ES categories (Appendix tional website, and the literature about the case study IV), comparing them with international ES classifica­ (excluding biological and zoological researches). The tions (Common International Classification of criterion of the most recent document has been Ecosystem Services – CICES, Haines-Young and applied also for secondary data about the study area Potschin 2011; The Economics of Ecosystems and obtained from the Ministry of the Environment and Biodiversity – ; TEEB 2010). This exercise supported Protection of the Territory and the Sea, the National the definition of ES that would enter the valuation Institute of Statistics and the Higher Institute for survey in the consecutive methodological step. Environmental Protection and Research websites, Addressing the procedural sphere of ES justice and from some personal communications. requires the involvement of different stakeholders Furthermore, we used the CNP institutional website and an examination of the social-political context, to read the online grey literature available for the institutions, governance structures, and power rela­ period January 2016 – December 2018. Before focus­ tions of the decision-making processes (cf. ing on the justice spheres, an initial screening of these Langemeyer and Connolly 2020). Therefore, we materials was conducted in order to support revised Italian laws on National Parks and all policy a baseline understanding of the CNP. documents related to the CNP – including the reg­ First, to address the recognition justice dimension, ulation and the CNP-Plan – to compile background our analysis investigated the level of implementation information on the past and current design of deci­ of the concepts related to ES within the core policy sion-making processes and the incorporation of dif­ instruments of the CNP, while the longitudinal ana­ ferent stakeholder groups and their interests. We lysis of policy documents allowed examining the past identified institutions, regulations, and tools for the 416 S. BENETTI AND J. LANGEMEYER management of PA, and we verified their implemen­ could be coded and processed quickly, and two open- tation in the CNP, in particular on the CNP-Plan. ended questions, which aimed to capture the inter­ Finally, the analysis related to the distributional viewee’s point of view through detailed and qualita­ justice aimed at identifying the existence of conflicts tive answers (McLafferty 2010; Bryman 2012). The concerning the delivery and the conservation of dif­ entire questionnaire is available in Appendix VI. ferent ES, as well as trade-offs between different soci­ The survey addressed the three dimensions of EJ, etal groups regarding the benefits and burdens related starting with recognition justice, in particular, related to the protection measures of the CNP. First, we to the disaggregated recognition of ES values for examined the content of the park policy documenta­ different societal groups (Langemeyer and Connolly tions (Strategic Environmental Assessment and the 2020). Before exploring respondents’ values about ES, CNP-Plan), identifying whether the conservation the questionnaire included a set of multiple-choice goals affected some specific social groups. Next, we questions regarding awareness of the benefits pro­ deepened the information by selecting the pertinent vided by the CNP, to evaluate respondents’ familiar­ grey literature available online (news and press review ity with the local context. For instance, in order to on the CNP website, Parco Nazionale del Circeo define the awareness of ES environmental education 2018a, 2018b), and by searching for keywords and science, the questionnaire asked ‘Do you con­ (N 20) like ‘erosion of the dune’ or ‘agriculture’ sider the statement “some areas of Circeo National and ‘wild boars’. Lastly, we integrated the contents Park have educational and scientific value” is true?’ with complementary information from scientific pub­ and had the possible answers, ‘yes’, ‘no’, and ‘I don’t lications about the case study. know’. The appreciation of ES by citizens was assessed by means of a socio-cultural valuation 3.2.2. Survey approach that used Likert-scale rankings (e.g. The second step of our methodological approach Martín-López et al. 2012; Oteros-Rozas et al. 2014; consisted of designing and conducting a survey to Camps-Calvet et al. 2016). The socio-cultural assess­ local stakeholders and users of the CNP. Survey ment allowed us to explore respondents’ values research is particularly useful for eliciting people’s regarding ES and to identify social groups that differ­ attitudes and opinions about social, political, and ently evaluated ES. Since people were not assumed to environmental issues and is a tool for gathering infor­ be familiar with the term ‘ecosystem services’ (cf. mation about people’s lives that is not available from Plieninger et al. 2013), respondents received the fol­ published sources (McLafferty 2010). The survey was lowing brief explanation: ‘The objective of this section conducted in the form of questionnaires, that were is to evaluate the importance of benefits provided by pre-tested (N = 20) and distributed online, as well as the Circeo National Park for societal and individual in a paper version between December 18th, 2018 and well-being [. . .]’. Pre-testing showed this explanation February 18th, 2019. The survey URL link was pub­ to be sufficient to introduce a rough understanding of lished on the CNP website, and on Facebook profiles the ES concept; the actual questionnaire thus did not and community bulletin boards. Furthermore, it was refer explicitly to the term ‘ecosystem services’. Pre- sent by private messages to Facebook contacts and testing also showed the need to simplify the technical pages of associations, commercial and touristic activ­ language used for the description of ES. For this ities. It is important to note that Facebook is more reason, the questionnaire presented four tables, widely used in Italy compared to other European using simple descriptions and presenting examples countries. In order to reach people who do not use and pictures of groups and single ES, identified the internet, which we assumed to be primarily through the grey literature review. The questionnaire related to advanced age, the paper version of the examined the socio-cultural values attached to ES and questionnaire was distributed in three elderly centres their importance at the individual level, asking within the study area.1 Overall, 375 anonymous respondents to score each ES according to its impor­ responses were collected, of which 52 were obtained tance for their personal well-being (not important = 1, from the elderly centres and 323 online. The compo­ minor importance = 2, significant = 3, or strong sition of the sample population, restricted to indivi­ importance = 4). The survey further included a sec­ duals older than 18 years, is reported in Appendix tion on the socio-demographic characteristics of the V. Incomplete questionnaires (N = 10) were excluded respondents, including gender, age, place of resi­ from the analysis, resulting in 365 questionnaires that dency, sector of employment, and type of work of have been considered in this study. The questionnaire the respondents. The data analysis followed the meth­ combined 15 multiple choice questions, nine multiple ods applied in Oteros-Rozas et al. (2014). We used choice questions with multiple answers, and seven a minimum-maximum normalization to standardize Likert scale questions, which generated answers that data on a 0 to 1 scale (Willemen et al. 2010; Castro ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 417 et al. 2015), and we calculated the mean values and the universe population of the study area and the the standard deviation for each ES. The Pearson chi- sample population based on the municipality of resi­ square test (Bewick et al. 2003; Mchugh 2013) was dence, gender, and age. We calculated weights based used to explore associations between values of groups on the ratios between the universe population and the and single ES and some characteristics of respondents sample population and weighted the responses of the (proximity of residency to the CNP, gender, age, and sample population accordingly. business sectors). For all the tests, the significance level was fixed at 0.05. Secondly, the survey addressed the procedural 4. Results dimension of justice in terms of participation and 4.1. Recognition justice relation with the CNP management from the respon­ dents’ perspective. Respondents were asked about 4.1.1. Implementation of ecosystem services their participation in the CNP-Plan design and even­ concepts tually why they did not participate. To this end, we First, addressing the objective to explore the imple­ developed a multiple-choice approach, with multiple mentation of the ES context in CNP documents, our answers to questions regarding the participation in results reveal a fairly generic use of these concepts. In park initiatives and events and the reason for the fact, the documents examined often referred to the eventual non-participation. Moreover, respondents conservation of ‘ecosystem services’ (N = 91 in were asked to evaluate the framing and communica­ Figure 3), guaranteed by biodiversity or by various tion from CNP management in advertising and pro­ ecosystems of the park, but without going into detail, moting participatory initiatives using Likert-scale specifying, for instance, the typology or the value. rankings, which were also used to determine the Likewise, the concept of ‘human well-being’ respondents’ level of trust in the management of the (N = 55) was not fully explored. The main reference park and in the resolution of problems and tensions was to the park’s goal of halting biodiversity loss and with citizens. supporting ES for human well-being, without any Thirdly, the survey addressed the distributional additional detailed information. The term ‘benefits’ justice dimension to examine potential negative had fewer citations (N = 20), nevertheless, its use was impacts on citizen groups due to the protection less vague, with references to benefits in the manage­ regime of the park. Using a multiple-choice question, ment of tourist presences, benefits of future genera­ we asked whether and how the CNP had impacted tions, and benefits, such as the production of energy the respondents or their family. Then, we left an from waste material. However, even in this case, open-ended question to the respondent to give them quantitative references were lacking. The concept of the chance to explain the reasons for the previous ‘value’ was also used in a generic way, underlining, in answer. The open answers were analysed using an particular, the natural (N = 60), environmental interpretative analytical approach (cf. Thematic ana­ (N = 55), and historical (N = 44) value of the park, lysis by Bryman 2012, p. 578–581, 717), in which but without describing for whom this applied or different responses were reviewed and coded to iden­ quantifying it. What can be clearly seen in Figure 3 tify the main topics suggested by respondents; for is the dominance of the environmental sphere asso­ instance, we coded the answer ‘the presence of the ciated with the idea of ‘value’ rather than the socio- CNP limits tourism’ as ‘limitations for production economic field. activities and economic development’, or the The qualitative content analysis revealed that response ‘the management is too bureaucratic and potential beneficiaries of ES are partially accounted inefficient’ both in the topics ‘inefficiency of Park for in the CNP documents. We identified references Authority’ and ‘high bureaucracy for permissions’. to overall categories, such as ‘local populations’ for Two major limitations in the data collection were provisioning services, ‘populations of adjacent urban related to the online sampling method, as well as the settlements’ for air purification and ‘future genera­ sampling within elderly centres, which can be framed tions ‘ for cultural services. Explicit references were as selection bias resulting from the volunteer sam­ made to the recognition of economic benefits for pling approach (Baltar and Brunet 2012). Selection certain categories, such as ‘farmers and breeders’, bias concerns the tendency of some individuals to ‘tour operators’, ‘commercial operators of fishing respond to an invitation to participate in a survey, tourism’, and ‘the owners of Paola Lake’ (cf. Ente while others ignore it, leading to a systematic bias Parco Nazionale del Circeo 2011b; Parco Nazionale (Wright 2006). In an attempt to address this limita­ Del Circeo 2016). However, the content analysis of tion and to make the sample more representative, we the documents did not reveal whether the strategies applied post-stratification (Little 1993). We stratified adopted by the park generated burdens or 418 S. BENETTI AND J. LANGEMEYER Figure 3. The word count in 16 documents of the Circeo National Park. On the left side, the frequencies of the terms ‘ecosystem services’, ‘benefits’, and ‘human well-being’. On the right side, the frequencies and the typologies of words associated with the concept of ‘values’. disadvantages in relation to the various ES, neither purification, nature recreation activities, aesthetic for the community as a whole nor for some specific value and tranquillity of nature, as well as environ­ social groups. mental education and scientific interests. In terms of specific ES, the CNP-Plan and the Strategic Environmental Assessment strictly referred 4.1.2. Socio-cultural values of ecosystem services to cultural ES as a specific conservation objective as The qualitative content analysis in the previous section vaguely defined benefits of future generations. For revealed a general consideration of ES with regard to the instance, one of the CNP-Plan goals concerns the importance of ecosystems functions, while a more com­ preservation of the landscape, archaeological, histor­ prehensive and differentiated understanding of people’s ical and cultural assets, while the Strategic values with regard to ES was lacking. The survey results Environmental Assessment highlighted the impor­ presented in this paragraph are meant to fill this gap by tance of the CNP for different touristic activities, highlighting the appreciation of ES by different groups including ecotourism, environmental education, and of the local society. research, thus focusing on benefits mainly provided Firstly, local residents were showed to be broadly to people distant to the CNP region. Other policies, aware of the multifunctionality of the CNP in terms for example, those addressing sustainable agriculture, of the provision of diverse ES (Table 1). The most agritourism activities, aquaculture, and sustainable widely recognised benefits were air purification mushroom harvest in the forest, were related to pro­ (93.4%) and habitat for species (91.8%), while the visioning ES with strong cultural connotations for awareness for the provision of other services, such local communities, particularly agricultural food pro­ as water purification (59.2%), food from agriculture duction, aquaculture, and mushroom picking. Except (68.8%), and food from aquaculture (75.2%) was con­ for air purification – mainly benefiting the popula­ siderably lower. What stands out is a high apprecia­ tion in adjacent urban settlements – the CNP policy tion of the ES that were not fully recognised. For strategies did not clearly consider the benefits pro­ instance, although water purification was the least vided to people from habitat and regulating services. recognised service in the free listing of the survey Most official documents did not explicitly refer to (59.2%), it was still considered very important for the ES framework; four of 16 analysed documents did people’s individual well-being (0.85 on a scale from not refer to ‘ecosystem services’, ‘benefits’, or ‘human 0 to 1). Similarly, food from agriculture was well-being’ terms, while eight documents did not use the second least recognised ES (68.8%), but still con­ any of these terms more than twice. However, our sidered quite relevant (0.78). Regulating ES were con­ study revealed that ten different ES were acknowl­ sidered most important for the local population edged in the literature about the CNP. These included (0.86), with air purification (0.88) and soil erosion food from agriculture, food from aquaculture, food control (0.86) rendering the highest importance levels from mushroom picking, habitats for species, soil overall. Cultural ES (0.83), follow the regulating erosion control, air purification, and water group, were given stronger importance in ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 419 Table 1. Awareness (%) and appreciation of ecosystem services for personal well-being (mean value, normalized according to residents’ answers: (no = 1, minor = 2, significant = 3, strong importance = 4), and standardised using a minimum-maximum normalization [observation-min)/(max-min)] and considering 1 = 0 and 4 = 1). Awareness (%) Importance for personal well-being (0–1) Groups of Ecosystem don’t Mean for single SD for single Average of ES Services Ecosystem services Yes No know ES ES groups Provisioning Food from agriculture 68.8 11 20.2 0.78 0.29 0.66 Food from aquaculture 75.2 12 12.7 0.66 0.29 Food from mushrooms picking 89.8 3.2 7.1 0.54 0.30 Regulating Habitat for species 91.8 3.2 5 0.85 0.23 0.86 Soil erosion control 87 4.2 8.8 0.86 0.23 Air purification 93.4 1.5 5.1 0.88 0.20 Water purification 59.2 9.3 31.5 0.85 0.25 Cultural Nature recreation activities 85 5.8 9.2 0.82 0.23 0.83 Aesthetic value and tranquillity of 81.2 5.7 13.2 0.81 0.25 nature Environmental education and science 89.7 1.6 8.7 0.87 0.21 environmental education and science (0.87). strongly appreciated food from aquaculture and Provisioning ES resulted in the lowest value on aver­ food from mushroom picking, while workers in the age (0.66). hotel and catering sectors tended to give lower scores We disaggregated the survey data with regard to for food from agriculture, food from aquaculture, and different social groups (Table 2) in order to reveal food from mushroom picking. Moreover, although a more differentiated understanding of the ES values. these workers gave slightly lower values for nature For example, analysing the spatial component, recreation activities, 74% of them perceived these respondents living in the park area tended to see benefits as ‘quite important’. What is striking in habitat for species as less relevant than respondents Table 2 is the general pattern of lower appreciation not living within the National Park. Focusing on the for the public administration and defence area, with age differences, the oldest respondents tended to pro­ statistically significant data for all the provisioning vide lower scores for aesthetic value and tranquillity services, aesthetic values and tranquillity of nature, of nature, environmental education and science, as and air and water purification. Finally, we found well as for all regulating services, all of which were differences in the valuation of respondents from much more highly valued by the youngest group of other activities, such as health, assistance, and sport­ respondents. Differently, the youngest respondents ing sectors. These respondents perceived aesthetic tended to provide lower scores for nature recreation values and tranquillity of nature and environmental activities. A different pattern was only observed for education and science as very important benefits. food from mushroom picking, which was least appre­ ciated by the mid-range age classes (45–54 and 55– 64 years). 4.2. Procedural justice In terms of gender difference, female respondents tended to give higher scores for all the ES compared 4.2.1. Participation to male respondents, with statistical significance for The qualitative content analysis explored decision- food from agriculture, water purification, and nature making processes in order to understand the involve­ recreation activities. Table 2 shows that there is also ment of different stakeholders in the CNP manage­ a different appreciation based on the respondents’ ment. The most interesting result emerged from the educational level. In particular, as the level of educa­ strong emphasis in the CNP-Plan regarding proce­ tion increased, so did the value assigned to nature dural justice as the plan is meant to guarantee – in recreation activities and aesthetic values and tranquil­ its development, definition, and its subsequent imple­ lity of nature augmented. mentation – a shared and participative approach with When looking at business sectors, we found statis­ local administrations and stakeholders, at any level tically significant differences in respondents engaged interested in the CNP territory and its surroundings in different working areas. Respondents from the (Ente Parco Nazionale del Circeo 2011a). The CNP- industry and crafts sectors tended to give lower Plan was developed through an interactive process, importance to habitat for species and air purification, conducted by groups of experts from different disci­ while workers in the building sector tended to give plines and with the involvement of the inhabitants, lower scores for food from agriculture, aesthetic their associations, institutional bodies, businesses, and values and tranquillity of nature. Differently, respon­ civil society located within the CNP. The process con­ dents working in fishing and aquaculture more stituted a continuous and open process of governance, Table 2. Appreciation of ecosystem services for personal well-being for different groups of stakeholders (mean value, normalized according to residents’ answers: (no = 1, minor = 2, significant = 3, strong importance = 4), and standardised using a minimum-maximum normalization [observation-min)/(max-min)] and considering 1 = 0 and 4 = 1). Significant associations between stakeholders’ characteristics and ecosystem services perceived values by respondents and determined by Pearson chi-square test (values in bold are significance level<0.05). 420 Provisioning Regulating Cultural Food from Habitat Soil Nature Environmental Food from Food from mushroomS for erosion Air Water recreation Aesthetic value and education and agriculture aquaculture picking species control purification purification activities tranquillity of nature science Personal Gender Male (N = 190) 0.74 0.64 0.54 0.85 0.84 0.86 0.82 0.80 0.81 0.84 Characteristics Female 0.82 0.68 0.55 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.88 0.84 0.82 0.90 (N = 175) X2 value 9.658 3.000 2.289 6.810 3.478 4.940 15.546 9.372 7.066 6.071 X2 significance 0.022 0.392 0.515 0.078 0.324 0.176 0.001 0.025 0.070 0.108 Age 18–24 (N = 28) 0.70 0.61 0.70 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.88 0.74 0.88 0.94 25–34 (N = 55) 0.82 0.69 0.61 0.86 0.84 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.82 0.87 35–44 (N = 67) 0.84 0.72 0.55 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.86 45–54 (N = 70) 0.80 0.62 0.48 0.83 0.85 0.89 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.90 55–64 (N = 54) 0.69 0.62 0.47 0.84 0.80 0.84 0.80 0.77 0.79 0.80 S. BENETTI AND J. LANGEMEYER 65–74 (N = 48) 0.79 0.70 0.53 0.80 0.87 0.94 0.89 0.86 0.81 0.89 >75 (N = 42) 0.73 0.61 0.56 0.79 0.81 0.80 0.75 0.77 0.67 0.82 X2 value 35.349 35.156 50.519 34.858 37.384 53.591 53.325 44.272 42.778 37.808 X2 significance 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.010 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.004 Residence Sabaudia 0.76 0.64 0.54 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.87 (N = 243) San Felice 0.80 0.70 0.54 0.88 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.79 0.87 Circeo (N = 122) 2 X value 3.875 4.444 1.354 7.308 4.773 6.919 10.284 5.757 1.864 0.525 X2 significance 0.275 0.217 0.716 0.063 0.189 0.075 0.016 0.124 0.601 0.913 Education Low (N = 76) 0.79 0.68 0.57 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.78 0.79 0.84 Medium 0.76 0.65 0.53 0.85 0.84 0.88 0.83 0.79 0.80 0.87 (N = 169) High (N = 120) 0.80 0.65 0.54 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.86 0.88 0.84 0.89 X2 value 3.163 9.768 3.542 11.139 8.521 2.352 3.499 15.510 13.341 3.337 X2 significance 0.788 0.135 0.738 0.084 0.202 0.885 0.744 0.017 0.038 0.766 Proximity to the House Park Area 0.78 0.67 0.52 0.83 0.86 0.87 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.86 Park (N = 228) Outside 0.77 0.64 0.58 0.89 0.85 0.90 0.87 0.81 0.82 0.88 (N = 137) X2 value 1.028 4.625 4.827 8.137 7.750 3.462 2.607 6.526 0.156 1.232 X2 significance 0.794 0.201 0.185 0.043 0.051 0.326 0.456 0.089 0.984 0.745 Work Park Area 0.80 0.65 0.49 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.85 (N = 111) Outside 0.77 0.66 0.57 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.86 0.82 0.81 0.87 (N = 254) X2 value 2.354 1.159 5.439 2.316 7.769 3.260 3.857 3.647 0.971 1.074 2 X significance 0.502 0.763 0.142 0.510 0.051 0.353 0.277 0.302 0.808 0.783 House and Work Park Area 0.82 0.67 0.49 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.87 (N = 89) Outside 0.77 0.65 0.56 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.85 0.81 0.80 0.87 (N = 276) X2 value 4.086 1.223 4.710 3.192 13.849 0.298 4.391 2.540 5.299 1.091 X2 significance 0.252 0.748 0.194 0.363 0.003 0.960 0.222 0.468 0.151 0.779 Economic Agriculture Yes (N = 36) 0.81 0.65 0.53 0.84 0.81 0.87 0.88 0.81 0.81 0.88 Activities No (N = 329) 0.77 0.66 0.54 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.87 X2 value 1.893 7.182 1.056 0.376 4.383 2.805 3.075 4.409 1.299 0.941 (Continued ) Table 2. (Continued). Provisioning Regulating Cultural Food from Habitat Soil Nature Environmental Food from Food from mushroomS for erosion Air Water recreation Aesthetic value and education and agriculture aquaculture picking species control purification purification activities tranquillity of nature science X2 significance 0.595 0.066 0.788 0.945 0.223 0.423 0.380 0.221 0.729 0.816 Fishing Yes (N = 5) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.96 No (N = 360) 0.78 0.65 0.54 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.85 0.82 0.81 0.87 X2 value 2.270 8.787 17.818 4.373 0.952 0.619 0.956 2.143 0.745 0.859 X2 significance 0.518 0.032 0.000 0.224 0.813 0.892 0.812 0.543 0.863 0.835 Industry and Crafts Yes (N = 32) 0.76 0.65 0.48 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.82 0.85 0.83 0.85 No (N = 333) 0.78 0.66 0.55 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.87 X2 value 2.098 0.678 6.314 11.281 6.083 10.816 5.029 1.098 0.871 5.832 X2 significance 0.522 0.878 0.097 0.010 0.108 0.013 0.170 0.778 0.832 0.120 Building Yes (N = 4) 0.64 0.59 0.56 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.77 0.63 0.83 No (N = 361) 0.78 0.66 0.54 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.85 0.82 0.82 0.87 X2 value 8.766 2.568 1.029 1.019 1.096 1.274 1.408 0.431 9.780 1.001 X2 significance 0.033 0.463 0.794 0.797 0.778 0.742 0.704 0.934 0.021 0.801 Wholesale and retail trade Yes (N = 23) 0.90 0.85 0.59 0.87 0.84 0.91 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.90 No (N = 342) 0.77 0.64 0.54 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.87 X2 value 4.750 12.195 1.284 0.799 5.621 1.000 2.206 2.475 1.489 1.208 X2 significance 0.191 0.007 0.733 0.850 0.132 0.801 0.531 0.480 0.645 0.751 Hotel and catering sector Yes (N = 23) 0.71 0.59 0.49 0.79 0.86 0.84 0.80 0.75 0.85 0.84 No (N = 342) 0.78 0.66 0.55 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.85 0.82 0.81 0.87 X2 value 21.925 12.460 10.386 6.154 2.009 5.585 6.095 13.368 0.628 6.674 X2 significance 0.000 0.006 0.016 0.104 0.571 0.134 0.107 0.004 0.890 0.083 Real estate activities Yes (N = 12) 0.85 0.60 0.57 0.89 0.82 0.80 0.74 0.79 0.84 0.88 No (N = 353) 0.78 0.66 0.54 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.85 0.82 0.81 0.87 X2 value 1.698 1.274 2.173 3.137 8.706 5.601 7.536 3.381 1.850 4.524 X2 significance 0.637 0.735 0.537 0.371 0.033 0.133 0.057 0.336 0.604 0.210 Professional, scientific, and Yes (N = 36) 0.72 0.69 0.50 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.79 0.76 0.84 technical activities No (N = 329) 0.78 0.65 0.55 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.85 0.82 0.82 0.87 X2 value 1.890 1.595 1.175 6.704 2.876 4.564 0.548 2.995 2.226 3.688 X2 significance 0.595 0.660 0.759 0.082 0.411 0.207 0.908 0.392 0.527 0.297 Public administration and Yes (N = 59) 0.70 0.66 0.51 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.76 0.80 0.77 0.83 defence No (N = 306) 0.79 0.65 0.55 0.85 0.86 0.89 0.87 0.82 0.82 0.87 X2 value 20.510 11.996 8.330 5.747 2.739 11.183 10.668 5.238 10.420 2.874 X2 significance 0.000 0.007 0.040 0.125 0.434 0.011 0.014 0.155 0.015 0.416 Education Yes (N = 44) 0.75 0.63 0.59 0.79 0.85 0.90 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.88 No (N = 321) 0.78 0.66 0.54 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.85 0.82 0.81 0.87 X2 value 8.185 0.968 2.796 5.054 6.740 1.814 4.380 7.315 3.181 2.964 X2 significance 0.042 0.829 0.424 0.168 0.081 0.612 0.223 0.062 0.365 0.397 All Other Activities Yes (N = 86) 0.74 0.60 0.48 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.83 0.83 0.90 (Communication, Health, ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE Sport, etc.) No (N = 279) 0.46 0.34 0.23 0.51 0.51 0.55 0.52 0.48 0.48 0.52 X2 value 3.488 7.452 4.785 1.969 6.448 4.977 0.647 2.800 8.787 9.207 X2 significance 0.322 0.059 0.188 0.579 0.092 0.174 0.886 0.423 0.032 0.027 421 422 S. BENETTI AND J. LANGEMEYER aimed at building the general framework of the CNP 4.3. Distributional justice area, defining conservation goals, but also addressing 4.3.1. Social inequalities the needs of local people. In detail, in 2017, the CNP As underlined by results about the recognitional jus­ Authority organised six open thematic forums tice, strategies adopted by the CNP neither consid­ intended for different local groups (associations, tra­ ered whether they generated burdens or ders and hoteliers, bathing establishments, sports asso­ disadvantages in relation to different ES for the com­ ciations, tour operators, farmers and breeders) for munity as a whole, nor whether this applied for some a total of about 120 participants; four participatory societal groups. Addressing our goal to examine working groups with about 30 participants of the potential negative impacts on citizen groups due to municipalities representatives and farmers and bree­ the protection regime of the park, we asked whether ders associations; and three open assembly meetings the CNP impacted survey respondents’ well-being for the presentation of the preliminary and the com­ positive or negatively. To this question, more than pleted CNP-Plan, with a turnout of about 90 people half (56%) of the respondents defined the general (Parco Nazionale del Circeo 2020). Yet, the identifica­ impact as positive, 37% as neutral and only 7% as tion of interlocutors from various sectors involved in negative. Yet, in accordance with the documents the planning process was not explained in the CNP- review, most of the respondents who stated to be Plan, leaving the reference to stakeholders’ needs negatively affected live and/or work within the CNP vague. Moreover, when contrasted with the survey boundaries (live 72%, work 44.5%, live and work results on local people’s perception of the participatory 37%) and perceive conservation to limit the develop­ process, the level of procedural justice seems to be ment of their activities (37.6% in Table 3). lower compared to what we revealed from official The first group that sees itself negatively affected policy documents. This seems primarily to be related by the CNP are people working in the tourism sector. to a lack of information and communication. The intensification of tourism, which includes instal­ lations, trampling, and parking, has been documented 4.2.2. Information and communication as the principal cause of severe degradation of the Three items on the questionnaire examined respondents’ coastal dune system and other ecosystems, which level of participation, their perception about CNP infor­ reduces their capacity to provide ES, such as soil mation and communication strategies, and their level of erosion control (Acosta et al. 2000; Aretano et al. confidence in CNP Authority. Despite the rich participa­ 2017). In response, the Park Authority adopted dif­ tory process described above and the attempt to incorpo­ ferent conservation strategies, such as the installation rate different stakeholders and their interests, our of walkways to reach the beach, as well as regulatory questionnaire results indicated that 75% of the local limitations for new buildings and the expansion of respondents were not aware of these participatory initia­ existing buildings, which have contributed to the tives, while 12% of the respondents had engaged in the stabilization of coastal ecosystems (Aretano et al. development of the CNP-Plan at least at one of the stages 2017), and augmented cultural ES. Yet, the tourism of the participatory process. Among the non-participants, sector perception was that they bore the burdens of 64% declared they would have been interested in partici­ these measures (for instance, losing earnings for pating if they had been properly informed, while only 11% a smaller number of tourists presence or due to of the respondents stated they would not have been inter­ limitations on accommodation capacity). ested in participating in the CNP-Plan development at all. When further asked to evaluate the communication strat­ egy for the CNP initiatives, respondents highlighted the Table 3. The questionnaire asked whether and how the low level of information and lacking diversity of commu­ Circeo National Park have impacted survey respondents’ well- being. Here we resume the main reasons for respondents nication. Our findings also revealed a relatively low level of (7%) who defined the presence of the park as negative for confidence in the general management capacities by the their life and activity. CNP Authority, including decision-making processes, but Reasons for the negative impact % also the resolution of problems and tensions with citizens. Limitations for production activities and economic development 37.6 While 34% indicated a high (27%) or very high (7%) level Inefficiency of Park Authority 20.8 High bureaucracy for permissions (ex: tree cutting) 19.4 of confidence in the park management, 66% of the respon­ Sense of prohibition and not protection 18.5 dents indicated low (39%) or very low levels of confidence No maintenance (fences, roots, trees, drains, paths, walkways, 15.0 etc.) (27%). Again, the social group with the lowest levels of Limitations to urbanization 14.4 confidence in the park management was the respondents Privatization of Paola Lake 5.9 Inability of Park Authority to enforce regulations (ex: illegal cut 3.9 living in the park area (70%), confirming the findings and waste in the park area) under the recognition dimension which underlined No animals control 3.6 a spatial injustice. No answer 19.0 ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 423 The other social group that felt most negatively 4.3.2. Spatial-temporal burden shifting affected were local farmers situated within the park Our last objective of the distributive section was to area. The primary goal of the CNP to preserve identify how conservation policies generated social biodiversity, for instance, by providing suitable liv­ inequalities between different stakeholders’ groups, ing and nursing places for wild species, was assumed in particular according to the different land use to stand in opposition to the farmers’ interests. This within and outside the park area. With the aim of group pinpointed the negative effects of the CNP in making the socio-economic activities compatible with relation to the ‘limitations for production activities conservation objectives, the Park Authority, through and economic development’ (Table 3). The CNP the CNP-Plan and the zoning map (Ente Parco regulation disciplines agricultural and pastoral activ­ Nazionale del Circeo 2011c), regulates the general ities in the park area, for instance, requiring farmers organization of the territory and defines restrictions, to adopt organic farming methods, while intensive rules, destinations for public and private use. For agriculture was developed in the direct surroundings instance, agricultural, pastoral, as well as fishing of the park, creating an important discrepancy and activities, are allowed according to the traditional inequality between farmers inside and outside the uses or according to methods of organic farming, in CNP. In the general oriented reserves (see compliance with the criteria established by the Park Appendix VII for more details), only pesticides Authority. Finally, in the areas of economic and using biological and integrated control techniques social promotion, activities in line with establishing are permitted, except with specific authorization the park and aimed at improving the socio-cultural issued by the Park Authority for serious and demon­ life of local communities are allowed, with the highest strable reasons. In these areas of protection, the use enjoyment of the park by visitors. Nevertheless, the of pesticides and chemical fertilizers is permitted. CNP surrounding areas (Figure 2) have undergone an Furthermore, the use of permanent greenhouses is important intensification process that stands in sharp allowed only if the farm surface and structures con­ contrast to the activities permitted within the park, cerned comply with certain parameters relating to and which can also be related to burden shifting, i.e. dimensions, boundaries, roofing material, or irriga­ negatively affecting activities within the PA. Intensive tion systems, while the creation of new structures is agriculture and the use of pesticides have led to the only allowed for organic production. This is in line pollution of the soil and consequently the ground and with the negative impacts stated by most respon­ surface waters (Sappa et al. 2005; Manca 2014). dents, primarily related to injustices in the distribu­ Additionally, groundwater pumping to supply water tion of benefits from provisioning ES, namely food for intensive agriculture has caused the depletion of production. This perception goes hand-in-hand with groundwater sources; especially in springtime, agri­ a general sense of prohibition and regulatory limita­ cultural production is intense and the strain on tions for economic development, and especially for groundwater resources is large (Manca 2014). The agricultural production. It has further been related absence of a regional water regulation (Manca 2014) to inefficiencies in the CNP Authority to make and uncontrolled withdrawals have been reported as decisions and high bureaucratic burdens for permis­ endangering the natural system, amplifying the deple­ sions (Table 3). Another problem frequently stated tion of groundwater and degradation of the quality of by local farmers regards the expansion of wild boars underground water resources due to the progressive causing damage for local crop production, and increase in the phenomenon of seawater intrusion together with fallow deer, they were also reported (Sappa et al. 2005; Manca 2014). Another damaging as a risk for road traffic. In response to these pro­ impact was the pollution of the CNP lakes, resulting blems, the Park Authority proposed the creation of in problems for aquaculture production in Paola the ‘Park Mark’ as an identity, characterization, and Lake. Together with an increase in temperature, pol­ promotion tool for the products and services of the lution and nutrient loads from intensive agriculture territories within the CNP (Ente Parco Nazionale del and civil waste decreased the oxygen of the waters, Circeo 2011a, 2011b). The goals of the ‘Park Mark’ creating a habitat crisis. This caused the disastrous are to promote and certify the environmental quality death of fish in July 1979, and other similar phenom­ of organic farming and breeding, fishing and aqua­ ena, though less intense, in 2003 and 2015 (Parco culture, hotel and non-hotel structures, as well as Nazionale del Circeo 2018c). These phenomena nega­ touristic services. While this could be a possible way tively affect food production from aquaculture, redu­ to give more visibility to the economic activities cing the economic benefits for the owners of Paola within the CNP territories, compensating for some Lake. Yet, as shown in Tables 3, 5.9% of the respon­ distributive inequalities, it will probably not solve dents who declared a negative impact, perceived the them. privatization of Paola Lake as an injustice. 424 S. BENETTI AND J. LANGEMEYER Table 3: The questionnaire asked whether and how environmental management (Tyrväinen et al. 2007; the Circeo National Park have impacted survey Bryan et al. 2010, 2011; Iniesta-Arandia et al. 2014). respondents’ well-being. Here we resume the main ES, thus, could provide an anthropocentric approach reasons for respondents (7%) who defined the presence for pursuing preservation goals and, simultaneously, of the park as negative for their life and activity. improving the social acceptance for conservation, allowing a better understanding of PAs in their social-ecological complexity and under a more equi­ 5. Discussion table point of view. One of the principal recommendations of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment for PAs was to 5.1. Recognising diverse values for just PAs develop policies and other effective means based on planning the benefits and values of the services PAs provide (MA, 2005). Embracing an ES approach can help As observed elsewhere, the lack of awareness for ES does conservation strategies to integrate multiple policy not necessarily mean that specific benefits are of lower or objectives, including diverse social interests in parallel of no value for local communities (cf. Asah and Blahna with preserving ecosystem integrity and health 2020). Our results about the socio-cultural assessment (Agrawal and Redford 2009; Dawson et al. 2017; underlined that social actors’ different values of ES need García-Llorente et al. 2018). However, although PAs to be recognised (Cáceres et al. 2015), in order to uncover shall be designed and managed to provide benefits to potential conflict lines and perceived injustices in PAs society, they are often not understood in that sense strategies. However, our study revealed a general mis­ (Palomo et al. 2011), ES are still not explicitly con­ match between the CNP goals and people’s values, which sidered in many PAs (Geijzendorffer et al. 2017), and may indicate perceived injustices and a latent conflict conservation approaches are still primarily driven by (Hanaček et al. 2021), and which might undermine an an exclusionary model, in which people are separated efficient protection regime. For instance, in terms of from nature (Martin et al. 2016). The CNP mirrors provisioning ES, stronger importance was given in the these problems, with very few conservation objectives CNP policies than by the respondents. Similarly, regulat­ that consider benefits provided to people or quantify ing ES, which play a minor role in the policies for the values from the ecosystems. We analysed the CNP- interests of the society, were considered most important Plan and the Environmental Strategic Assessment for the local population. Next to the generic biodiversity documents. The former regulates the use of the ter­ conservation objectives, PAs should improve the under­ ritory, defining restrictions and rules and establishing standing of the ES provided to human well-being criteria for interventions on flora and fauna. The (García-Llorente et al. 2018), especially the needs of latter aims at integrating environmental considera­ those living and within the park boundaries that do not tions into development plans to improve overall deci­ seem to be properly acknowledged. Our results indicate sion-making quality. Despite their participatory and that there may be an ongoing shift regarding the rele­ inclusive nature, we found an important lack of expli­ vance of certain ES, as age was a significant factor influ­ cit inclusion of the human dimension (e.g. benefici­ encing the appreciation of ES, with the main differences aries, peoples’ values and needs) and a limited being between young and old respondents. In fact, while understanding of the socio-economic aspects of PA. the CNP policies well reflect the interests of older people, Nevertheless, implementing an ES framework may they didn’t consider likewise the preference of younger extend conservation objectives beyond moral and people. If younger people maintain their preference as intrinsic values, i.e. to protect biodiversity for its they grow older, and if CNP policies are not able to adapt own sake (Cowling et al. 2008; García-Llorente et al. accordingly, this will likely lead to a stronger fissure in 2018), considering in addition both relational values recognition of justice. The disaggregated analysis further that emotionally attach people to the environment, indicates a potential temporal shift in ES values widening and assigned values, including purely instrumental the gap in recognition justice. Similar to observations by benefits nature provides to people, for instance, rev­ Oteros-Rozas et al. (2014), while elders enjoy recreation, enues from nature tourism (Arias-Arévalo et al. 2017; the younger more strongly value regulating services Chan et al. 2018). Moreover, conservation strategies (potentially related to more formal environmental edu­ that consider social values can result in examining cation), which is, however, insufficiently reflected in perceived environmental qualities in local contexts, CNP policies. In effect, the human use of ecosystems identifying priority ES for management objectives, and their services also raises fundamental questions of recognising vulnerable stakeholders, decreasing con­ intra-generational justice; and an empirical investigation flicts over land use, and increasing community of ES justice must also consider ES trade-offs between the engagement in cost-sharing, volunteerism, and current and future generations (Glotzbach 2013). A key ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 425 policy priority should therefore be to plan for long-term environmental impacts caused outside the PA bound­ conservation goals, involving, young people in the future aries. At the same time, CNP farmers can be assumed CNP-Plan together with traditional economic stake­ critical for any conservation strategy as they act as holders. This is a critical finding as recognising stake­ important stewards of the cultural landscapes within holders’ needs can be assumed as a prerequisite for fair the CNP. If they remain in a state of latent conflict, planning processes. Some examples related to the work­ opposition to the conservation efforts may raise and ing sector also highlighted the importance of framing its effectiveness decline (Palomo et al. 2011; Hanaček perceived injustices within a temporal perspective. For and Rodríguez-Labajos 2018). ES have effects across instance, the tourism sector can be primarily assumed to different spatial scales which must be accounted for, have followed an unsustainable business model based on both, regarding the distribution of benefits, as well as degradation and this required intervention in the form of potential costs for their production and beneficiaries regulations. At the same time, farmers can be assumed to (Ernstson 2013; Jax et al. 2013). As a matter of fact, be affected because their problems were not properly the distributive analysis highlighted different inequal­ addressed by the park management. Additionally, our ities due to negative impacts of the CNP policies, disaggregated results about gender mirror previous find­ trade-offs between nature conservation and benefits ings on gender-specific ES preferences, though recogni­ to people, and different planning interventions and tion injustices were not evident. For instance, in different strategies in adjacent territories. These observations studies, such as Martín-López et al. (2012), Oteros-Rozas call for a dedicated spatial approach to ES justice in et al. (2014), or Asah and Blahna (2020), females typically PAs management that goes beyond PAs boundaries. perceived regulating and cultural services as more valu­ The negative effects of land use change and intensi­ able and exhibited more environmental behaviour than fication occurring outside a PA, which create border men, while males mostly perceived provisioning services. effects that impinge upon the ES delivery within a PA Langemeyer et al. (2018a) assumed that female socializa­ have been described elsewhere (García-Llorente et al. tion might positively influence the awareness of benefits 2018). It has also been commonly found that per­ from nature and confirmed the view that different values ceived injustices are primarily attributed to bad PA might be rooted in gender differences (Dietz et al. 2002). management rather than to ecologically inappropriate Nevertheless, so far, gender differences in ES values have activities by farmers in areas surrounding a PA (cf. still not properly been explained and require additional Turkelboom et al. 2018; Langemeyer et al. 2018b). research, also adopting a justice lens. Lastly, the disag­ That means a spatial ES justice approach needs to gregated recognition of different societal groups’ values align activities in the surrounding of a PA with the allowed us to underline the interdependence between ES protection goals and regulations within a PA in order and some economic activities, such as the case of fisher­ to resolve injustices. Regulations should consider the men and tourism operators. However, this was not true land uses surrounding a PA, and the extent of its for the agriculture sector: responses by farmers were isolation from or connectivity to other natural areas more heterogeneous and not statistically significant. (Hockings et al. 2006). Management should confront Although these stakeholders were partially accounted the problem of managing the entire complexity of for in the CNP documents, their needs and preferences social-ecological landscapes, which often consists of do not seem to be properly acknowledged. This finding is interactions among different habitats and ecosystems, consistent with that of Martín-López et al. (2019) in and integrating phenomena across multiple spatial, which some local actors (e.g. farmers and fishermen) temporal and organizational scales (Petrosillo et al. were strongly dependent on ES, but their representation 2009). Still, PAs are too often not understood and in decision-making was low, which affected both proce­ managed to provide benefits to society (Palomo et al. dural and distributional justice. 2011), and tend to focus on their main mission to preserve biodiversity. Incorporating the idea of ES and EJ into conservation may help to identify and 5.2. Socio-spatial implications of unequal overcome conflicts given in PAs and increase the distributions of ES benefits and burdens acceptance of conservation measures. The intensive land use around many PAs emphasises another important issue: PAs cannot be managed as 5.3. Procedural justice is more than participation isolated and static entities (Palomo et al. 2013). In the CNP, this was primarily the case for farmers from Over the last few decades, authors have argued that within the PA and identified by the results of all three sustainable management of natural resources cannot spheres of justice as the group that felt unequally and be achieved without the involvement of the affected negatively treated compared to their peers outside the communities, participating in the management of PA. They also suffered from burden shifting and PAs (e.g. Palomo et al. 2011; Gustavsson et al. 2014; 426 S. BENETTI AND J. LANGEMEYER Setti et al. 2016). Stakeholder engagement has been in decision-making processes (Pascual et al. 2017; seen as a way to guarantee that plural values held by Dawson et al. 2018). Fair procedures are assumed to stakeholders are considered (Shrader-Frechette 2002; better integrate people’s needs and preferences, in Kenter 2016), thereby linking recognition with pro­ terms of recognition, which ultimately is meant to cedural justice consideration. Moreover, embracing lead to the just distribution of benefits and burdens an ES approach in PAs management requires enga­ generated by PAs. ging people. Indeed, different authors (e.g. Chan et al. 2012; Bennett et al. 2015; Sattler et al. 2018), have underlined the need to include participatory 6. Conclusions approaches in ES governance in order to identify The purpose of this study was to empirically investi­ priority ES on the basis of stakeholders’ inputs and gate the case of a PA, combining the ES and EJ viewpoints. However, the CNP, as analysed here, frameworks. The integrated ES and EJ approach follows a typical top-down decision-making and applied in this study allowed us to gain management process, which tends to overlook local a differentiated understanding of the distribution of practices and neglect local interests, thus enhancing benefits and burdens among different social groups the conservation versus development model dichot­ and the underlying reasons for perceived injustices, omy and bringing about conflicts that undermine which primarily lay in the lack of recognition of ES conservation goals (West et al. 2006; Palomo et al. preferences and insufficient procedural justice, espe­ 2011), which tends to overlook local practices and cially in terms of communication. If, on the one neglect local interests, thus enhancing the conserva­ hand, the distributive issues are rooted in recogni­ tion versus development model dichotomy and tional and procedural omissions, on the other, the bringing about conflicts that undermine conservation lack of recognition of ES beneficiaries is strongly goals. This underlines the importance of streamlining related to the dated vision of safeguarding biodiver­ participatory processes and improving communica­ sity and excluding people from PAs in terms of tion strategies. As highlighted by Buono et al. (2012), procedural injustice. These findings have significant ineffective provision of information and failed com­ implications for the understanding of how future munication can hamper the acceptance of decisions analysis about EJ cannot consider three classical made by PAs managers, similar to the effect of inap­ dimensions separately. Moreover, our research propriate participation procedures. Indeed, this has further indicates that temporal and spatial dimen­ been confirmed also by our findings, showing a low sions of ES justice are interwoven within classical EJ level of information and communication perceived by dimensions; for instance, in the shifting preferences respondents and, consequently, a low level of trust in for ES over time indicated by our study, which have the management of the CNP Authority. Effective not yet been properly addressed by CNP manage­ management approaches should consider involving ment. The issue of spatial and temporal spheres is local communities and should at least record the an intriguing one that should be usefully explored in quality of relationships between PAs managers and further research. Finally, our study contributes in local people (Hockings et al. 2006). PAs policies several ways to the understanding of possible per­ should include the development of a common under­ ceived injustices and conflict lines in PAs and pro­ standing of ES and agreements that are reached, vides a basis for management decisions in developing which consider the interests of all stakeholder groups, fairer and more sustainable socioecological systems. especially when many actors with their different per­ For example, our findings suggest several courses of ceptions and needs are involved (Hauck et al. 2013; action for the CNP, such as the improvement of Fabinyi et al. 2014), with particular emphasis on the strategies for citizen’s involvement and effective com­ most vulnerable groups – which in our study and munication, or more inclusive planning that takes across all three dimensions of justice, were people into account people’s needs, as well as the areas living within the park boundaries. Succinctly, proce­ surrounding the park. Along with conservation objec­ dural justice requires approaches beyond participa­ tives, ensuring support for local communities should tion and a critical understanding of the framing of be a priority for all PAs. decision-making (Langemeyer and Connolly 2020). Where our study has primarily highlighted the importance of information and communication (in Note line with Connolly and Steil 2009), others have indi­ 1. We followed the ethical principles of anonymity, right cated the need to create equitable spaces of engage­ to privacy, and informed consent of respondents ment (Martin et al. 2016; Nunan et al. 2018) and to (Bryman 2012). At the beginning of the questionnaire, strengthen measures that account for power relations we provided a short informative paragraph, in order to ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 427 give sufficient information about the aim of the perceptions to enhance environmental conservation and research, what respondents were being asked and management effectiveness. Mar Pollut Bull. 123(1–2):142– how their responses would have been used. In the 155. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.09.003. sheet, we guaranteed anonymity and compliance with Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E. the law on privacy of the survey, in as much as 2017. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational respondents were completely free to withhold their values for sustainable management of social-ecological names and data collected have been treated in an systems. Ecol Soci. 22(4):43. doi:10.5751/ES-09812- aggregate manner. For more information, see the 220443. entire questionnaire in Appendix VI. Asah ST, Blahna DJ. 2020. Involving stakeholders’ knowl­ edge in co-designing social valuations of biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for decision- Acknowledgments making. Ecosystems. 23:324–337. doi:10.1007/s10021- 019-00405-6. This research is part of the doctoral studies of the first Baltar F, Brunet I. 2012. Social research 2.0: virtual snow­ author at the University of Rome “La Sapienza”. The ball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Res. 22 authors thank the Circeo National Park employees, the (1):57–74. doi:10.1108/10662241211199960. participants to the questionnaire, and all the people who Baró F, Langemeyer J, Łaszkiewicz E, Kabisch N. 2021. helped in finding documents and references: their time and Editorial to the special issue: “Advancing urban eco­ availability made this study possible. Many thanks to system service implementation and assessment consid­ Isabella Santini, Professor from the Department of ering different dimensions of environmental justice”. Methods and Models for Economy, Territory and Finance Environ Sci Policy. 115:43–46. doi:10.1016/j. (MEMOTEF), Sapienza University of Rome, for her gui­ envsci.2020.10.008. dance and feedback on statistical analysis and for her sup­ Barnaud C, Corbera E, Muradian R, Salliou N, Sirami C, port and encouragement. We would also like to thank Vialatte A, Choisis JP, Dendoncker N, Mathevet R, Dr Cary Yungmee Hendrickson and the anonymous refer­ Moreau C, et al. 2018. Ecosystem services, social inter­ ees for their useful comments on an earlier draft of this dependencies, and collective action. Ecol Soci. 23(1):15. paper. doi:10.5751/ES-09848-230115. Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, Geijzendorffer IR, Krug CB, Lavorel S, Disclosure statement Lazos E, et al.. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for No potential conflict of interest was reported by the designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin author(s). Environ Sust. 14:76–85. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J. 2003. Statistics review 8: quali­ tative data – tests of association. Crit Care. 8(1):46–53. ORCID doi:10.1186/cc2428. Stefania Benetti http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1442-6697 Boone CG, Buckley GL, Grove JM, Sister C. 2009. Parks Johannes Langemeyer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0558- and people: an environmental justice inquiry in 8486 Baltimore, Maryland. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 99 (4):767–787. doi:10.1080/00045600903102949. Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, King D. 2011. References Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation Acosta A, Blasi C, Stanisci A. 2000. Spatial connectivity and strategies. Conserv Biol. 25(1):172–181. doi:10.1111/ boundary patterns in coastal dune vegetation in the j.1523-1739.2010.01560.x. Circeo National Park, Central Italy. J Veg Sci. 11 Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH. (1):149–154. doi:10.2307/3236787. 2010. Targeting the management of ecosystem services Agrawal A, Redford K. 2009. Conservation and displace­ based on social values: where, what, and how? Landsc Urb­ ment: an overview. Conserv Soci. 7(1):1–10. doi:10.4103/ an Plan. 97(2):111–122. doi:10.1016/j. 0972-4923.54790. landurbplan.2010.05.002. Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Sims KRE, Healy A, Holland MB. Bryman A. 2012. Social research methods. 4th ed. New 2010. Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and York: OXFORD University Press; p. 1–766. ISBN Thailand. PNAS. 107(22):9996–10001. doi:10.1073/ 9780199588053. pnas.0914177107. Buono F, Pediaditi K, Carsjens GJ. 2012. Local community Andrade GSM, Rhodes JR. 2012. Protected areas and local participation in italian national parks management: the­ communities: an inevitable partnership toward success­ ory versus practice. J Environ Policy Plan. 14 ful conservation strategies? Ecol Soci. 17(4):14. (2):189–208. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2012.683937. doi:10.5751/ES-05216-170414. Cáceres DM, Tapella E, Quetier F, Diaz S. 2015. The social Aragão A, Jacobs S, Cliquet A. 2016. What’s law got to do value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the with it? Why environmental justice is essential to eco­ perspectives of different social actors. Ecol Soci. 20 system service valuation. Ecosyst Serv. 22(Part (1):62. doi:10.5751/es-07297-200162. B):221–227. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.012. Calderón-Argelich A, Benetti S, Anguelovski I, Aretano R, Parlagreco L, Semeraro T, Zurlini G, Petrosillo I. Connolly JJT, Langemeyer J, Baró F. 2021. Tracing and 2017. Coastal dynamics vs beach users attitudes and building up environmental justice considerations in the 428 S. BENETTI AND J. LANGEMEYER urban ecosystem service literature: a systematic review. services and poverty alleviation: trade-offs and govern­ Landsc Urban Plan. 214:104130. doi:10.1016/j.landurbp ance. Edited by, Schreckenberg K, Mace G, Poudyal M. lan.2021.104130. London: Routledge; p. 22–38. doi:10.4324/97804295 Camps-Calvet M, Langemeyer J, Calvet-Mir L, Gómez- 07090. Baggethun E. 2016. Ecosystem services provided by Dawson NM, Grogan K, Martin A, Mertz O, Pasgaard M, urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: insights for policy Rasmussen LV. 2017. Environmental justice research and planning. Environ Sci Policy. 62:14–23. doi:10.1016/ shows the importance of social feedbacks in ecosystem j.envsci.2016.01.007. service trade-offs. Ecol Soci. 22(3):12. doi:10.5751/ES- [CBD] Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Decision 09481-220312. adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the De Vos A, Bezerra JC, Roux D. 2018. Relational values Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth meeting. about nature in protected area research. Curr Opin Decision X/2. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020. Environ Sust. 35:89–99. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.018. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02- Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, en.pdf. Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, [CBD] Convention on Biological Diversity. 2020. Report of Brauman KA, et al.. 2018. Assessing nature’s contribu­ the open-ended working group on the post-2020 global tions to people. Science. 359(6373):270–272. biodiversity framework on its second meeting. https:// doi:10.1126/science.aap8826. www.cbd.int/doc/c/b14d/6af5/a97c4f2c9d58203f5e2e059c/ Dietz T, Kalof L, Stern PC. 2002. Gender, Values, and wg2020-02-04-en.pdf. Environmentalism. Soc Sci Q. 83(1):353–364. Castro AJ, Martín-López B, López E, Plieninger T, Alcaraz- doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00088. Segura D, Vaughn CC, Cabello J. 2015. Do protected Ente Parco Nazionale del Circeo. 2011a. Piano del Parco areas networks ensure the supply of ecosystem services? Nazionale del Circeo. Relazione Generale –Tomo 1 Spatial patterns of two nature reserve systems in (Circeo National Park Plan. General Report – volume 1). semi-arid Spain. Appl Geogr. 60:1–9. doi:10.1016/j. http://www.parcocirceo.it/pagina.php?id=110. apgeog.2015.02.012. Ente Parco Nazionale del Circeo. 2011b. Piano del Parco Chan KM, Gould RK, Pascual U. 2018. Editorial overview: Nazionale del Circeo. Relazione Generale –Tomo 2 relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss (Circeo National Park Plan. General Report – volume 2). about? Curr Opin Environ Sust. 35:A1–A7. http://www.parcocirceo.it/pagina.php?id=110. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003. Ente Parco Nazionale del Circeo. 2011c. Tavola 2 – carta Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, della zonizzazione (Table 2 – map of the Zoning). http:// Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, www.parcocirceo.it/pagina.php?id=110. Halpern BS, et al.. 2012. Where are cultural and social in Ernstson H. 2013. The social production of ecosystem ecosystem services? A framework for constructive services: a framework for studying environmental justice engagement. BioScience. 62(8):744–756. doi:10.1525/ and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. bio.2012.62.8.7. Landsc Urban Plan. 109(1):7–17. doi:10.1016/j. Chaudhary S, McGregor A, Houston D, Chettri N. 2018. landurbplan.2012.10.005. Environmental justice and ecosystem services: Fabinyi M, Evans L, Foale SJ. 2014. Social-ecological sys­ a disaggregated analysis of community access to forest tems, social diversity, and power: insights from anthro­ benefits in Nepal. Ecosyst Serv. 29(Part A):99–115. pology and political ecology. Ecol Soci. 19(4):28. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.020. doi:10.5751/ES-07029-190428. McLafferty SL. 2010. Conducting Questionnaire Surveys. In: Fleischer A, Felsenstein D, Lichter M. 2018. A spatially Key methods in geography. Second ed. Edited by, Clifford accurate method for evaluating distributional effects of N, Shaun F, Valentine G. London: SAGE; p. 77–88. ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 145:451–460. doi:10.1016/ Available at: ISBN 978-1-4129-3508-1. j.ecolecon.2017.11.019. Connolly J, Steil J. 2009. Introduction: finding justice in the Garcia DA, Bruschi D, Cinquepalmi F, Cumo F. 2013. An city. In: Searching for the just city: debates in urban estimation of urban fragmentation of natural habitats: theory and practice. Edited by, Marcuse P, Connolly J, case studies of the 24 Italian National Parks. Chem Novy J, Olivo I, Potter C, Steil J. London: Routledge; p. Process Eng. 32:49–54. doi:10.3303/CET1332009. 21–36. ISBN 9780415687614. García-Llorente M, Harrison PA, Berry P, Palomo I, Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Iniesta-Arandia I, Montes C, Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A. García-del-Amo D, Martín-López B. 2018. What can 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming eco­ conservation strategies learn from the ecosystem services system services for implementation. Proc National approach? Insights from ecosystem assessments in two Acad Sci. 105(28):9483–9488. doi:10.1073/ Spanish protected areas. Biodivers Conserv. pnas.0706559105. 27:1575–1597. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1152-4. Daw TM, Coulthard S, Cheung WWL, Brown K, Abunge Geijzendorffer IR, Cohen-Shacham E, Cord AF, C, Galafassi D, Peterson GD, McClanahan TR, Omukoto Cramer W, Guerra C, Martín-López B. 2017. JO, Munyi L. 2015. Evaluating taboo trade-offs in eco­ Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies. systems services and human well-being. Proceedings of Environ Sci Policy. 74:40–48. doi:10.1016/j.envsc the National Academy of Sciences, 112(22):6949–6954. i.2017.04.017. doi:10.1073/pnas.1414900112. Glotzbach S. 2013. Ecosystem services and distributive Dawson NM, Coolsaet B, Martin A. 2018. Justice and justice: considering access rights to ecosystem services equity: emerging research and policy approaches to in theories of distributive justice. Ethics Policy Environ. address ecosystem service trade-offs. In: Ecosystem 16(2):162–176. doi:10.1080/21550085.2013.801203. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 429 Gómez-Baggethun E, De Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C. Kovács E, Kelemen E, Kalóczkai Á, Margóczi K, Pataki G, 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic Gébert J, Málovics G, Balázs B, Roboz Á, Kovács EK, et al.. theory and practice: from early notions to markets and 2015. Understanding the links between ecosystem service payment schemes. Ecol Econ. 69(6):1209–1218. trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas. Ecosyst Serv. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007. 12:117–127. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.012. Gurney GG, Cinner J, Ban NC, Pressey RL, Pollnac R, Langemeyer J, Baraibar S, Palomo I, Gómez-Baggethun E. Campbell SJ, Tasidjawa S, Setiawan F. 2014. Poverty 2018b. Participatory multi-criteria decision aid: a way to and protected areas: an evaluation of a marine integrated operationalize ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. 30(Part conservation and development project in Indonesia. A):49–60. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.012. Global Environ Change. 26:98–107. doi:10.1016/j. Langemeyer J, Camps-Calvet M, Calvet-Mir L, Barthel S, gloenvcha.2014.04.003. Gómez-Baggethun E. 2018a. Stewardship of urban eco­ Gustavsson M, Lindström L, Jiddawi NS, de la Torre- system services: understanding the value(s) of urban Castro M. 2014. Procedural and distributive justice in a gardens in Barcelona. Landsc Urban Plan. 170:79–89. community-based managed marine protected Area in doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.013. Zanzibar, Tanzania. Marine Policy. 46:91–100. Langemeyer J, Connolly JJT. 2020. Weaving notion of doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.005. justice into planetary urban ecosystem service research Haines-Young R, Potschin M 2011. Common international and practice. Environ Sci Policy. 109:1–14. doi:10.1016/j. classification of ecosystem services (CICES): 2011 envsci.2020.03.021. update. European Environment Agency. https://cices. Lau JD, Hicks CC, Gurney GG, Cinner JE. 2018. eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2009/11/CICES_Update_ Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities Nov2011.pdf. by wealth, age, and education. Ecosyst Serv. 29(Part Hanaček K, Langemeyer J, Bileva T, Rodríguez-Labajos B. A):91–98. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.005. 2021. Understanding environmental conflicts through Lele S. 2013. Environmentalisms, justices and the limits of cultural ecosystem services – the case of rural Bulgaria. ecosystem services frameworks. In: The justices and Ecol Econ. 179. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106834. injustices of ecosystem services. Edited by, Sikor Hanaček K, Rodríguez-Labajos B. 2018. Impacts of land- T. London: Routledge; p. 119–139. ISBN use and management changes on cultural agroecosystem 9780415825405. services and environmental conflicts – a global review. [MA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems Global Environ Change. 50:41–59. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvc and human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): ha.2018.02.016. Island Press; p. 1–137. World Health Organization. Hauck J, Görg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamäki O, Jax K. 2013. Little RJA. 1993. Post-stratification: a modeler’s perspec­ Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services con­ tive. J Am Stat Assoc. 88(423):1001–1012. doi:10.1080/ cept in environmental policy and decision making: some 01621459.1993.10476368. stakeholder perspectives. Environ Sci Policy. 25:13–21. MacDonald DH, Bark R, MacRae A, Kalivas T, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.001. Grandgirard A, Strathearn S. 2013. An interview meth­ He J, Sikor T. 2015. Notions of justice in payments for ecosystem odology for exploring the values that community leaders services: insights from China’s Sloping Land Conversion assign to multiple-use landscapes. Ecol Soci. 18(1):29. Program in Yunnan Province. Land Use Policy. doi:10.5751/ES-05191-180129. 43:207–216. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.011. Manca F 2014. Study of seawater intrusion in the coastal Himes A, Muraca B. 2018. Relational values: the key to areas of Circeo National Park and Litorale Romano pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Curr Opin Natural Reserve, for the implementation of numerical Environ Sust. 35:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005. modeling methods. Università Degli Studi Roma Tre. Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F, Dudley N, Courrau J. Thesis volume. http://hdl.handle.net/2307/4368. 2006. Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing Martin A, Akol A, Gross-Camp N. 2015. Towards an management effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd ed. explicit justice framing of the social impacts of Gland (Switzerland and Cambridge, UK): IUCN; p. conservation. Conserv Soci. 13(2):166–178. doi:10.4103/ 1–105. doi:10.2305/IUCN.CH.2005.PAG.14.en. 0972-4923.164200. [ISPRA] Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Martin A, Coolsaet B, Corbera E, Dawson NM, Fraser JA, Ambientale. 2018. Corine land cover 2018. http://group Lehman I, Rodriguez I. 2016. Justice and conservation: ware.sinanet.isprambiente.it/uso-copertura-e-consumo- the need to incorporate recognition. Biol Conserv. di-suolo/library/copertura-del-suolo/corine-land-cover 197:254–261. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021. /corine-land-cover-2018-iv-livello. Martín-López B, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Aguilera PA, Norström A, Peterson G, Plieninger T, . . . Locatelli B. Montes C, Martín-López B. 2014. Socio-cultural valua­ 2019. A novel telecoupling framework to assess social tion of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between relations across spatial scales for ecosystem services values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol research. J Environ Manage. 241(July 2018):251–263. Econ. 108:36–48. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.029. Jax K, Barton DN, Chan KMA, de Groot R, Doyle U, Eser U, Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Görg C, Gómez- Baggethun E, Griewald Y, Haber W, et al.. Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo DG, Gómez- 2013. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecol Econ. Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, 93:260–268. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008. Willaarts B, et al.. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service Kenter JO. 2016. Integrating deliberative monetary valua­ bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE. 7(6): tion, systems modelling and participatory mapping to e38970. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038970. assess shared values of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. [MATTM] Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del 21(Part B):291–307. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.010. Territorio e del Mare. 2017. Directory aree protette 430 S. BENETTI AND J. LANGEMEYER (Directory protected areas). ftp://ftp.minambiente.it/ participatory scenario development in the Swabian PNM/. Alb, Germany. Ecol Soci. 18(3):39. doi:10.5751/ES- Mcdonald RI, Kareiva P, Forman RTT. 2008. The implica­ 05802-180339. tions of current and future urbanization for global pro­ Primmer E, Jokinen P, Blicharska M, Barton DN, Bugter R, tected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv. Potschin M. 2015. Governance of Ecosystem Services: 141(6):1695–1703. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.025. a framework for empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv. Mchugh ML. 2013. The Chi-square test of independence 16:158–166. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.002. Lessons in biostatistics. Biochemia Medica. 23 Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmen­ (2):143–149. doi:10.11613/BM.2013.018. tal management: a literature review. Biol Conserv. 141 Nunan F, Menton M, McDermott C, Schreckenberg K. 2018. (10):2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014. Governing for ecosystem health and human wellbeing. In: Sappa G, Rossi M, Coviello M. 2005. Effetti ambientali Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation. Edited by, del sovrasfruttamento degli acquiferi della Pianura Schreckenberg K, Mace G, Poudyal M. London: Rouledge; Pontina (Lazio) (Environmental effects of the aquifers p. 159–173. doi:10.4324/9780429507090. overexploitation in the Pontine Plain (Lazio)). In: Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, González JA, Aquifer Vulnerability and Risk 2nd International Plieninger T, López CA, Montes C. 2014. Socio- Workshop. p. 1–16. https://www.researchgate.net/pub cultural valuation of ecosystem services in lication/260257063_Effetti_ambientali_del_sovrasfrutta a transhumance social-ecological network. Reg Environ mento_degli_acquiferi_della_Pianura_Pontina_Lazio Change. 14:1269–1289. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0571-y. Sattler C, Loft L, Mann C, Meyer C. 2018. Methods in ecosystem Palomo I, Martín-López B, López-Santiago C, Montes C. services governance analysis: an introduction. Ecosyst Serv. 34 2011. Participatory scenario planning for protected areas (Part B):155–168. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.007. management under the ecosystem services framework: Schlosberg D. 2001. Three dimensions of environmental the Doñana social-ecological system in Southwestern and ecological justice. In: The Nation-State and the Spain. Ecol Soci. 16(1):23. doi:10.5751/ES-03862-160123. Ecological Crisis: Sovereignty, Economy and Ecology Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Workshop. p. 6–11. https://ecpr.eu/Events/PaperDetails. Montes C. 2013. National parks, buffer zones and sur­ aspx?PaperID=5323&EventID=45 rounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Schlosberg D. 2004. Reconceiving environmental justice: Ecosyst Serv. 4:104–116. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.0 global movements and political theories. Env Polit. 13 9.001. (3):517–540. doi:10.1080/0964401042000229025. Palomo I, Quinlan A, Hill R, Butler JRA, Beach DM, Setti AFF, Ribeiro H, Azeiteiro UM, Gallo E. 2016. Governance Peterson GD. 2015. Participatory scenario planning in and the promotion of sustainable and Healthy territories: place-based social-ecological research: insights and the experience of bocaina, Brazil’. J Integr Coast Zone experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soci. 20(4):32. Manag. 16(1):57–69. doi:10.5894/rgci612. doi:10.5751/es-07985-200432. Shrader-Frechette K. 2002. Environmental justice: creating Parco Nazionale del Circeo. 2017. Piano del Parco Adottato equality, reclaiming democracy. Oxford: Oxford University (Park Plan Adopted). http://www.parcocirceo.it/pagina. Press; p. 1–288. doi:10.1093/0195152034.001.0001. php?id=110. Sikor T. 2013. The justices and injustices of ecosystem Parco Nazionale del Circeo. 2018a. News. http://www.par services. London: Routledge; p. 1–224. doi:10.4324/ cocirceo.it/nov.php. 9780203395288. Parco Nazionale del Circeo. 2018b. Rassegna stampa (Press Sikor T, Martin A, Fisher J, He J. 2014. Toward an empirical review). http://www.parcocirceo.it/rassegna.php. analysis of justice in ecosystem governance. Conservation Parco Nazionale del Circeo. 2018c. Dall’Europa gli aiuti per Letters. 7(6):524–532. doi:10.1111/conl.12142. il lago, in Rassegna stampa (From Europe, help for the Spangenberg JH. 2015. Environmental justice conflicts and lake, in Press review). http://www.parcocirceo.it/ras the ecosystem service cascade: further developing the segna-dettaglio.php?id=48594. metaphor to accommodate real world challenges. 11th Parco Nazionale del Circeo. 2020. Personal communication International ESEE Conference, “Transformations”, 30 from the Circeo National Park about data of the Park June - 3 July 2015. University of Leeds. doi:10.13140/ Plan initiatives in 2017. Sabaudia (LT), Italy. RG.2.1.2204.5284. Parco Nazionale Del Circeo. 2016. Piano Del Parco – valu­ TEEB. 2010. Chapter 1: integrating the ecological and eco­ tazione Ambientale Strategica – rapporto Ambientale nomic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service 12/2016. (Park plan – environmental strategic assess­ valuation. In: The economics of ecosystems and biodi­ ment – environmental report 12/2016). http://www.par versity ecological and economic foundations. London cocirceo.it/pagina.php?id=110. and Washington: Routledge; p. 1–40. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Trzyna T. 2007. Global urbanization and protected areas. Stenseke M, Watson R, Dessane E, Islar M, Kelemen E, Sacramento (California): California Institute of Public et al.. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the Affairs; p. 1–52. IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sust. 26–27:7–16. Trzyna T. 2014. Urban protected areas profiles and best practice doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006. guidelines. Gland (Switzerland): IUCN. Best Practice Petrosillo I, Zaccarelli N, Semeraro T, Zurlini G. 2009. The Protected Area Guidelines, Series No. 22. 1–110. effectiveness of different conservation policies on the Turkelboom F, Leone M, Jacobs S, Kelemen E, security of natural capital. Landsc Urban Plan. 89(1– García-Llorente M, Baró F, Termansen M, Barton DN, 2):49–56. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.10.003. Berry P, Stange E, et al.. 2018. When we cannot have it Plieninger T, Bieling C, Ohnesorge B, Schaich H, all: ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial Schleyer C, Wolff F. 2013. Exploring futures of ecosys­ planning. Ecosyst Serv. 29(Part C):566–578. doi:10.1016/ tem services in cultural landscapes through j.ecoser.2017.10.011. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 431 Tyrväinen L, Mäkinen K, Schipperijn J. 2007. Tools for Wilkinson C, Saarne T, Peterson GD, Colding J. 2013. mapping social values of urban woodlands and other Strategic spatial planning and the ecosystem services green areas. Landsc Urban Plan. 79(1):5–19. concept–an historical exploration. Ecol Soci. 18(1):37. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.003. doi:10.5751/ES-05368-180137. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. 2016. Protected planet report Willemen L, Hein L, Verburg PH. 2010. Evaluating the impact of 2016. In: How protected areas contribute to achieving regional development policies on future landscape services. global targets for biodiversity. Cambridge UK and Gland Ecol Econ. 69(11):2244–2254. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06 (Switzerland): UNEP-WCMC and IUCN; p. 1–73. .012. Ward C, Stringer LC, Holmes G. 2018. Protected area co- Wright KB. 2006. Researching internet-based populations: management and perceived livelihood impacts. advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, J Environ Manage. 228:1–12. doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN online questionnaire authoring software packages, and .2018.09.018. web survey services. J Comput-Mediat Comm. 10(3): Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M. 2014. The JCMC1034. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x. performance and potential of protected areas. Nature. Zafra-Calvo N, Pascual U, Brockington D, Coolsaet B, Cortes- 515:67–73. doi:10.1038/nature13947. Vazquez JA, Gross-Camp N, Palomo I, Burgess ND. 2017. West P, Igoe J, Brockington D. 2006. Parks and Peoples: the Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management Social Impact of Protected Areas. Annu Rev Anthropol. in protected areas. Biol Conserv. 211(Part A):134–141. 35:251–277. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.014.