Cited by 36Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesBioenergy crop production and managementAgroforestry and silvopastoral systems

Energy crops in marginal areas: scenario-based assessment through ecosystem services, as support to sustainable development

Open access
Cervelli, Elena, Scotto di Perta, Ester, Pindozzi, Stefania·2020·Ecological Indicators

Abstract

Starting from the identification of marginal areas, this work presents a possible physical–mathematical approach as a support to landscape planning, based on the pragmatic determination of the predictable environmental effects connected to land use changes (LUC) and related to objective and quantitative ecological indicators for environmental impact assessment. “Fringe areas”, which are more suitable to change in a medium-short time frame, were determined through a spatial multicriteria decision analysis (S-MCDA) process. Three land use changes scenarios were identified and analysed, namely: the current situation, energy crop cultivation in marginal lands, and the possible abandonment of lands such as these. Energy crop cultivation in marginal lands is widely considered to be a useful opportunity for farmers, against the progressive risk of under-utilization or abandonment; nevertheless, the large areas needed can cause important environmental side-effects. In order to assess the possible variations in environmental components in the ex-ante planning phase, scenarios were assessed in terms of habitat and biodiversity ecosystems services (using both monetary and indexes approach), focusing also on possible environmental fragmentation analysis by means of landscape metrics, which are simple measures used to deepen landscape configuration and structure. The S-MCDA process allowed about 10% of the study area with less favourable environmental conditions to be defined, where land use change is desirable in a medium-short time frame. For the energy crops scenario, the ecosystem services (ESs) approach highlights positive repercussions in terms of habitat quality and biodiversity value. Similar trends are highlighted by different ESs assessment methods adopted (monetary and indexes), confirming themselves. Also, landscape pattern analysis confirmed positive habitat connectivity trends: the delineation of fringe areas has preserved, in energy crops scenario, natural and semi-natural classes, reducing the risk of disturbance with respect to the biodiversity and habitat. This condition assumes that adopted S-MCDA method can contribute positively and significantly to the definition of LUC scenarios and land management. In conclusion, marginal lands can become an opportunity to improve socio-economic conditions and to enhance land image, while respecting the environment. LUC scenarios building, and their assessment by means of ecological indicators become a dynamic and structured tool in the land use planning /management process to support decision maker choices and to re-calibrate interventions, with the aim of contributing to sustainable policies of land management (ecological corridors, compensation and / or mitigation measures, etc.), emphasizing land sustainable management benefits (such as climate change adaptation or disaster risk reduction).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106180

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Cardille, J.A., Turner, M.G., 2017. Understanding landscape metrics. In Learning land- scape ecology. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 45-63.
  2. Cramp, S., (Ed) 1985. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. 4 Terns to Wood-peckers. Oxford University Press. 970 pages.
  3. Cramp, S., (Ed) 1988. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. 5 Tyrant Flycatchers to Thrushes. Oxford University Press. 1136 pages.
  4. Cramp, S. (Ed) 1992. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. 6 Warblers.
  5. Cramp, S., Perrins, C.M. (Eds.), 1994. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Palearctic Vol. 8 Oxford University Press, Crows to Finches.
  6. Cramp, S., Perrins, C.M. (Eds.), 1994. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Palearctic Vol. 9 Oxford University Press, Buntings and New World Warblers.
  7. Cramp, S., Simmons, K.E.L. (Eds.), 1977. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Palearctic Vol. 1 Oxford University Press, Ostrich to Ducks.
  8. Cramp, S., Simmons, K.E.L. (Eds.), 1980. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Palearctic Vol. 2 Oxford University Press, Hawks to Bustards.
  9. Cramp, S., Simmons, K.E.L. (Eds.), 1983. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Palearctic Vol. 3 Oxford University Press, Waders to Gulls.
  10. Forman, R., Godron, M., 1986. Landscape Ecology. Wiley, New York.
  11. Frank S (2010) Chances and limits of using landscape metrics within the interactive planning tool "Pimp Your Landscape". In: C.-C.-I.-.Inra (Ed.), Proceedings LandMod2010, Montpellier, France, p. 13 (www.symposcience.org/, accessed at 28. 11.2010).
  12. Gallagher, E., 2008. The Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuels production. Renewable Fuels Agency (July 2008).
  13. Giove, S., Brancia, A., Satterstrom, F.K., Linkov, I., 2009. Decision support systems and environment: Role of MCDA. In Decision support systems for risk-based management of contaminated sites. Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 1-21.
  14. Guarino, F.M., Aprea, G., Caputo, V., Maio, N., Odierna, G., Picariello, O. (Eds.), 2012. Atlante degli Anfibi e dei Rettili della Campania. Massa Editore, Napoli, Italy, pp. 344.
  15. Spagnesi, M., De Marinis, A.M. (Eds.) 2002. Mammiferi d'Italia. Quad. Cons. Natura, 14, Fauna Selvatica. Min. Ambiente -Ist. Naz. Fauna Selvatica.
  16. Turley D, Taylor M, Laybourn R, Hughes J, Kilpatrick J, Procter C, Wilson L (2010) Assessment of the Availability of Marginal and Idle Land for Bioenergy Crop Production, vol. 5, London.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cervelli, E., Scotto di Perta, E., & Pindozzi, S.
Affiliations
University of Naples Federico II (IT)
Corresponding author
Pindozzi, Stefania
Venue
Ecological Indicators
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
113
Pages
106180
ISSN
1470-160X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3008395278
Cited by
33
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecological Indicators (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Regione Campania
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agroforestry and silvopastoral systems
Keywords
energy crops, marginal land, land use change scenarios, ecosystem services, biodiversity, habitat quality, landscape fragmentation, landscape metrics, habitat connectivity, fringe areas, land abandonment, landscape planning, sustainable land management, ecological corridors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review