Public Policy Making in the Coastal Zone of the Venice Lagoon: Is There a Good Balance between Economic Development, the Social Dimension and Environmental Protection?

doi:10.4236/ojps.2013.34019

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Open Journal of Political Science

2013. Vol.3, No.4, 134-142

Published Online October 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojps) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2013.34019

134

Public Policy Making in the Coastal Zone of the Venice Lagoon:

Is There a Good Balance between Economic Development, the

Social Dimension and Environmental Protection?

Maria Sabrina De Gobbi*

University of London, London, UK

Email: sabrina. degobbi@gmail.com

Received July 22nd, 2013; revised August 26th, 2013; accepted September 15th, 2013

mons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, pro-

vided the original work is p roperly cited.

This paper shows how much citizens’ views are taken into account in local policy decision-making con-

cerning the management of the coastal area of the Venice Lagoon. Through the application of a somewhat

innovative version of the contingent valuation method (CVM), it is possible to understand how to set a

good balance among economic development, the social dimension and environmental protection in a

coastal zone. The methodology allows for a clear assessment of the economic value of non-use values. In

2010, an online survey was conducted in the Venice area to find out how local much citizens value two

protected areas in the Venice Lagoon. Four hypotheses were tested to find out whether the age of respon-

dents, the municipality where they live, their income level, and the visited and protected sites are factors

determining a different willingness to pay for environmental protection. The economic, social and envi-

ronmental situation of the coastal zone of the Venice Lagoon in 2010 was then compared to that of 2012

to try to draw conclusions on the level of sustainability of the management of the Venice coastal area. The

comparison indicates that there have been some improvements in citizens’ participation in deci-

sion-making processes through political events.

Keywords: CVM; Lagoon; Sustainable Development; Tourism

Introduction

Objective

The objective of this paper is to show how, through the ap-

plication of a somewhat innovative version of the contingent

valuation method (CVM), it is possible to understand how to

set a good balance among economic development, the social

dimension and environmental protection in a coastal zone. The

methodology is innovative that it allows for a clear assessment

of the economic value of both use and non-use environmental

values. The case of the Venice Lagoon is presented, not be-

cause it constitutes good practice, but rather shows a concrete

application of the method and how it can be used to try to

achieve sustainable development in the management of a

coastal area, including citizens’ participation in local policy

decision-making.

The research question that this paper addresses is:

 How much do local citizens value protected areas in the

Venice Lagoon?

An online survey was conducted in the Venice area to answer

this question. Four hypotheses were tested to find out whether

the age of respondents, the municipality where they live, their

income level, and having visited the protected sites are factors

determining a different willingness to pay for environmental

protection.

The following sections of this chapter will provide some

background information on the social and economic develop-

ment of the Venice area, on the Venice Lagoon, and on pro-

tected areas. The methodology used and the results will be de-

scribed in specific chapters. An additional chapter will focus on

findings and compare them to the present situation to show to

what extent the Venice Lagoon is being managed in a sustain-

able way. Some g e n e ral remarks wil l c on c l u de the pap er .

Economic and Social Development

The Venice Lagoon is located within the territory of the Ve-

neto region. Veneto is one of the richest regions in Italy and

economically one of the fastest growing in Europe (Regione del

Veneto, 2009e). In 2006, Veneto was the region in the country

with the highest level of openness to trade and international

exchanges with a high volume of exports (Regione del Veneto,

2008a). In 2010, Veneto was the second region in Italy with the

highest volume of exports (Regione del Veneto, 2011). The

development of infrastructure plays a pivotal role in favouring

trade flows. The Port of Venice has historically been and con-

tinues to be a major agent for trade development in the region.

*The author is a research economist at the International Labour Organi-

zation. However, this paper is based on research work which the author

conducted when she was studying at the University of London. Neitherthe

ILO’s nor the University of London’s affiliations are to be used. In

particular, the views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility o

the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ILO. The economy of the Venice area traditionally and largely

M. S. DE GOBBI

depends on industry, including the chemical, metal and oil sec-

tors, as well as the production of ships and aircrafts (Ibid).

These sectors have been and are being negatively affected by

the unfavourable international economic situation of the past

few years which is causing widespread unemployment. The

only economic sector which has been consistently recording a

positive trend is tourism (Autorità Portuale di Venezia, 2011).

The most recent data (2009) indicate that Veneto has been

the first Italian region in terms of tourism flows for several

years (Regione del Veneto, 2011). The province of Venice

hosts the largest share of tourists, comprising 56 per cent of the

region’s tourists in 2009. In the same year, 54 per cent of newly

recruited employees in the Venice area found a job in this sec-

tor (Ibid). Over two million passengers visited Venice in 2010

with a 9.1 per cent increase compared to 2009. If only cruise

passengers are considered, that increase reaches 12.5 per cent

(Autorità Portuale di Venezia, 2011). The good economic per-

formance of tourism has made regional and local authorities

prioritize investments aimed at further boosting the develop-

ment of this sector1.

The Venice Lagoon

When Venice and its surrounding territories were an inde-

pendent republic up until the XVIII century, the lagoon was

considered as an invaluable common good because it secured

independence, protection from external attacks and prosperity.

Even well-justified private interests to use and exploit the la-

goon were strongly opposed in the name of public interests

(Comune di Venezia, 2009).

The Venice Lagoon comprises very heterogeneous, closely

interconnected and interacting habitats. It consi sts of open water-

bodies, river mouths, shallow waters, water-bodies of lower

salinity, and canals. A total of 79 species of fish and 300 spe-

cies of microalgae have been identified (Solidoro et al., 2010).

Eel-grass zostera and Ruppia cover the bottoms of the water-

bodies. Sea-lettuce Ulva and Enteromorpha, and cord-grass

Spartina are common in these areas (BirdLife International,

2009).

Flat islands which are often covered by water are typical and

fundamental for birds of many species, several of which are

endemic. These areas host some 100,000 wintering water birds

such as Fulica Atra and Calidris Alpina. Breeding herons and

post-breeding terns, such as Sterna albifrons and Chlidoniasni-

ger, record their largest populations in Europe in the Venice

Lagoon (Ambito Territoriale di Caccia Lagunare Venezia, 2009;

BirdLife International, 2009).

A priority plant species in need of protection according to the

EU Habitat Directive, Salicornia veneta, can be found in this

area (Regione del Veneto, 2009c). Two globally threatened

species are also present: pygmy cormorant or Phalacrocorax

pygmaeus, and redshank or Tringa totanus (Smart & Vinals,

2004).

Morphological changes due to sediment variations and sea

level rise, natural and anthropogenic subsidence, land reclama-

tion, and dredging of channels for industrial development de-

termine varying physical, chemical, biogeochemical, and bio-

logical conditions which favour or hinder the presence of dif-

ferent species in the Venice Lagoon (Solidoro et al., 2010). The

area of the Venice Lagoon is almost entirely covered by a

management plan and benefits from conservation measures

(Regione del Veneto, 2009f, g). It is nonetheless to be noted

that, although some management plans for sites which are pro-

tected under EU legislation have been prepared, they cannot be

implemented due to the poor organizational capacity of desig-

nated authorities.

The main threats to the lagoon ecosystems are fish farming,

aquaculture, hunting, tourism by boat, coastal erosion, wastes

from agriculture, and industrial activities. A major industrial

area comprising chemical and oil activities was established

along the coastal zone in Porto Marghera causing significant

negative environmental impacts. New deep navigation channels

were dredged and part of the lagoon was modified for the dis-

charge of effluent water (casse di colmata) which caused heavy

pollution (Solidoro et al., 2010). In the 1960s, a reclamation

process began and the area was spontaneously colonised by

local species, including trees like poplars (Ambito Territoriale

di Caccia Lagunare Venezia, 2009; BirdLife International, 2009;

Regione del Veneto, 2009c).

In its Triennial Plan (Piano Triennale) 2008-2011, the Venice

Port Authority announced a considerable expansion of the ex-

isting Port of Venice in order to enhance economic develop-

ment and meet increasing national and international trade needs.

To meet the increasing demand for cruise ships services, in

2010 the Venice Port Authority envisaged the creation of a side

tourism harbour for cruise ships. One possibility was to estab-

lish such a harbour on the coastal area of the Mira Municipality

(Autorità Portuale di Venezia, 2008a, b).

The administration of the Mira municipality maintained a

rather ambiguous position with respect to this project (Regione

del Veneto, 2008d; Autorità Portuale di Venezia, 2008a, b, c;

Comune di Mira, 2010). To estimate how much local inhabi-

tants value their territory, a survey was conducted using a sam-

ple of 4307 citizens living in the Venice area. Obviously, if

local citizens do not much value their surrounding territory, the

idea of creating a new harbour to enhance economic activity in

the area cannot be considered as politically wrong, although

what makes political sense often results in environmental mis-

management and failure (Amizaga & Santamaría, 2000; Turner

et al., 2000).

Protected Areas

Following the adoption of EU directives 1979/409/EC and

1992/43/EC, two types of protected areas have been established.

Based on the EC Habitat Directive, Veneto has set up 102 Sites

of Community Importance (SCIs) which contribute to the for-

mation of the Natura 2000 ecological network. For the imple-

mentation of the Wild Birds Directive, 67 Special Protection

Areas (SPAs) have been established along the migration paths

of wild birds. These two types of protected areas often overlap,

so that overall there are 128 protected sites for a total surface of

414.628 ha (Regione del Veneto, 2009b, d).

The presently protected areas are the result of institutional

tensions and conflicts which have pushed the Veneto regional

authorities to expand the size of those areas. The most recent

measure in this regard is an increase of SCIs and SPAs in the

Venice Lagoon following a 2003 decision of the EU Court of

Justice against Italy for the insufficient number and size of

protected areas (Ambito Territoriale di Caccia Lagunare

1For an overview of the negative impacts of infrastructure development,

tourism and cruise ships on coastal zones, see Davenport, J., Davenport, J.

L., 2006. The impact of tourism and personal leisure transport on coastal

environments: A review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Sc ience, 67, 280-292.

M. S. DE GOBBI

Venezia, 2009; Regione del Veneto, 2009h).

The wetland Ramsar Convention is another international le-

gal instrument which is supposed to guide actions with an im-

pact on the environment in the areas under its protection. Sev-

eral attempts have been made by local authorities and the in-

ternational community to extend the coverage of the currently

existing Ramsar site to the entire Venice Lagoon, but presently

only the natural reserve Valle Averto with a surface of 500 ha is

a Ramsar site (Ramsar Convention, 2004; Smart & Viñals,

2004).

An additional element which is to be considered for the man-

agement of the Venice Lagoon is the fact that the “City of

Venice and its Lagoon” are a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

This means that the cultural values of wetlands, including the

participation of local communities for the conservation of their

cultural heritage, are to be taken into account for the effective

management of the area (Suman et al., 2005).

Interestingly, the proposed area where the new port (an ex-

tension of the Venice harbour) should have been created over-

laps with two protected areas: a Habitat Directive priority site

and a Wild Bird Directive Special Protection Area (Regione del

Veneto, 2008b, c). Presently, cruise ships have direct access to

the city of Venice, creating damage to old historical monuments

with high and frequent waves causing the erosion of buildings

(Smart & Viñals, 2004; Italia Nostra, 2010). This is why their

access to the city should be forbidden. But should protected

areas be negatively affected instead?

Methodology

The research question which the present paper addresses is:

 How much do local citizens value protected areas in the

Venice Lagoon?

An online survey is the main method which has been used to

collect data to answer the research question above. In particular,

the contingent valuation method (CVM) was applied to find out

how much local citizens in the Venice province value their

surrounding environment. This method is an “expressed pref-

erence technique” in that surveyed individuals are asked to

express a specific level of preference for a given environmental

change. In this case, it was possible to estimate willingness to

pay (WTP) of local citizens for a concrete proposed environ-

mental change consisting of the improvement of two protected

areas as opposed to the likely creation of a new cruise ship

harbour on the same site of the Venice Lagoon. Local expert

opinions and the views of technicians working in local admini-

strations at different levels helped to deepen and further de-

velop the technical arguments.

The technique used and described in Birol et al. (2006) to

value environmental changes in a Greek wetland served as a

guiding example. As in the Greek case, the question that sur-

veyed individuals were asked is “How much would you be

willing to pay for ...?” The amount expressed indicates the an-

nual tax level they would be willing to invest to maintain the

protected areas as they are and strengthen the management plan

through the recruitment of experts to monitor flora and fauna

and to improve ecological, educational and recreational ser-

vices.

Unlike Birol et al. (2006) who used an open-ended question,

a discrete choice format was adopted, as recommended by King

and Mazzotta (2000). A total of 10 values were proposed, from

0 to 150 Euros, among which respondents were asked to choose

one.

The CVM has been chosen because it allows non-use values

to be measured in economic terms. Non-use values are becom-

ing increasingly important on a path towards sustainable devel-

opment.

Non-use values are difficult to measure (Pagiola et al., 2004;

DEFRA, 2007). To facilitate measurement, eight options cor-

responding to direct and indirect use values, as well as non-use

values were listed in the questionnaire. An additional option

could be specified by respondents to add any further value.

Respondents were asked to choose up to three options to justify

their payment or indicate their priority values. It was thus pos-

sible to attach a precise monetary value to each of the eight

values. This technique was inspired by—but not entirely based

on—the approach used by Barbier et al. (1997), Allen et al.

(2003), Brander et al. (2006), and Burton and Tiner (2009).

One last option, the tenth, indicated a lack of interest in the

protection of the sites.

The issue of double counting of values (DEFRA, 2007)

through the options in the list mentioned above was addressed

through a very simple description of each value. Those values

which may be difficult to explain, and for respondents to un-

derstand, such as “option values” as described in Birol et al.

(2006), were intentionally excluded. By so doing, what indi-

viduals are willing to pay should match specific environmental

values described in the proposed options.

A focus group discussion was conducted before launching

the survey. The focus group comprised 10 individuals from the

Venice area aged between 18 to 65, with different technical

backgrounds (e.g. environmental engineer, architect, ecologist,

etc.), and working in institutions such as local and regional

public authorities, private firms, NGOs and universities. No

major issue was raised and only minor changes were made to

the questionnaire. It became clear that the adoption of a discrete

choice format does not solve the problem of ‘protest bids’ from

those who do not accept any trade-off between money and the

environment.

The sampling frame is the population of the Venice province

who are of age and have access to online services. An informal

sampling method or a non-probability sampling approach has

been adopted. As a matter of fact, only those individuals living

in the Venice province who are of age, have access to a com-

puter and have voluntarily registered in an online database run

by the private firm which agreed to process the questionnaire

for the present report are part of the sample. Registration makes

it possible to obtain specific personal data necessary to properly

address the research question. In Italy, privacy legislation is

very strict and requires a formal agreement for the use of per-

sonal data. This approach has been chosen for convenience and

ethical reasons. Findings can be generalised to the entire popu-

lation of the Venice province in a limited way because of the

informal method used, and since the response rate is low.

Some 4307 individuals were registered at the moment when

the survey was launched. They all received invitations to fill in

the questionnaire via E-mail. Data on sex, age, occupation and

municipality /di stric t of indivi duals were al ready availa ble i n the

database. The questionnaire consisted of five questions and

included two photos of birds which served as flagship species

for the protected areas under discussion. Three maps were also

added to help respondents understand the situations described.

Four hypotheses were tested to find out whether the age of

respondents, the municipality where they live, their income

136

M. S. DE GOBBI

level, and having visited the protected sites are factors deter-

mining a different willingness to pay for environmental protec-

tion2.

A major weakness of the method applied is that the survey

has not been conducted based on random sampling. However,

findings can still be considered as useful to shed some light on

local issues which deserve more attention and research. More-

over, the method can certainly be applied in other, similar

situations where larger samples are available and more reliable

results could be obtained.

Another limitation is the fact that the sample used includes

more men than women, which is reflected in the gender break-

down of responses.

As already mentioned, the CVM offers the advantage of

measuring non-use values in economic terms, but also has sev-

eral weaknesses. One is that it may provide some biased re-

sponses (King & Mazzotta, 2000) as can be observed in the

presentation of results in the following chapter.

Results

The total number of responses received is 153, but only 127

were complete and could be used. Although low, this number

was deemed sufficient considering that Birol et al. (2006) con-

ducted their CVM analysis on 122 responses and Hanley and

Craig (1991) on 129.

Men comprise 74.8 per cent of the total, and average age is

35.2. Average WTP (mean) is 26.81 Euros. Twenty five re-

spondents opted for 0 and two did not care about the protected

areas.

Table 1 shows the total economic value that respondents on

average are willing to pay with a breakdown by environmental

value.

A distinction is made between use values, which represent

the value individuals assign to environmental resources by us-

ing them, and non-use values, which correspond to the value

derived from environmental goods even without using them.

Table 1.

Respondent willingness to pay, by environmental value.

Environmental

value as a

component of

TEV

Environmental

value Economic

value (%) Value in

Euros

Economic value

of use and

non-use values

in Euros

Direct use Recreation/

tourism 14.5 3.89

Direct use Fishing a nd

hunting 3.2 0.86

Indirect use Ecological

services 10.1 2.70

Indirect use Climate change

mitigation 6.6 1.77

9.22 (use

values)

Bequest va lue For future

generations to

visit 18.3 4,91

Altruistic val u e For other

people to visit 13.3 3.56

Existence valu e Cultural

heritage 17 4.56

Existence/

intrinsic va lue Biodiversity

conservation 17 4.56

17.59 (non-use

values)

Total 100 26.81 26.81

Note: Classification of use and non-use values adapted from Birol et al. (2006).

Source: Survey data.

Use values can then be divided into direct use which is the con-

sumptive use of an environmental resource, and indirect use

which includes indirect benefits derived from an environmental

good such as ecological services. Non-use values include exis-

tence values which aim to preserve an environmental resource

not to be used in the present or future, bequest values for future

generations to use, and altruistic values for other people in the

same generation to use (adapted from Birol et al., 2006). Fig-

ure 1 shows the total economic value of environmental use and

non-use values based on survey data.

Three critical issues which emerged from the application of

the CVM include:

 Strategic bias: A 22-year-old student offered 150 Euros.

The student may know she would not have to pay the tax,

but tried to influence the outcome and chose the option with

the maximum t ax l evel.

 Protest bias: A respondent offered 0 Euros and added that

she already has too many taxes to pay, and those should

already include government actions for environmental

protection. Her protest is not against environmental protec-

tion as such.

 Non-response bias: Those who answered the questionnaire

are likely to have different values than those who did not

respond. This problem was partly addressed through the

payment of a symbolic amount of money (contributing to a

telephone recharge) for completing the questionnaire3.

Of all respondents, 75.6 per cent had visited the sites, and

67.7 per cent had never heard of the Mira harbour project be-

fore.

In order to test the hypotheses, some considerations on the

distribution of WTP as a variable are necessary. As for many

economic variables, the distribution of “willingness to pay”

values is positively skewed, with the median (10) and the mode

(10) being less than the mean (26.81). A non-parametric test

was therefore used. Medians were compared instead of means

as would be the case if parametric statistics had been used.

The result of the test of the first hypothesis on whether there

is a difference in how citizens under or equal to 35 years of age

value environmental protection compared to citizens who are

over 35 is clear: there is no difference. Age seems to have no

impact on how individuals value environmental protection.

Those who live close to the lagoon value the two sites more

than those who live in internal areas and citizens with low-

income occupations value environmental protection less com-

pared to citizens with higher-income occupations. Moreover,

having visited the sites makes citizens value environmental

protection more.

In skewed distributions, where there may be extreme values,

the median is preferred to the mean (Howell & Kent, 2008).

The data considered until now should therefore be revisited and

additional results presented.

Concerning willingness to pay in general, the median is 10

Euros, which is considerably less than the mean 26.81 Euros.

For the groups in the three hypotheses where a difference has

emerged:

 respondents from municipalities with access to the lagoon

are willing to pay 20 Euros compared to individuals from

internal municipalities who offer 10 Euros;

 citizens with higher-income occupations are willing to pay

20 Euros as opposed to those with low-income occupations

3See www.eurosms.org/.

2The two-samples Mann-Whitney U-test was used.

M. S. DE GOBBI

138

15%

10%

18%

13%

17%

Rec reati on/tourism

Fi shing and hunti ng

Ecologi cal ser vices

Climate change

mi ti gation

For futur e generati ons

to vis it

For other people to visit

now

Cultural her itage

Bi odiversi ty

conservation

Figure 1.

Total economic value with distinction between use (blue) and non use (red)

values (%).Source: Survey data.

who are willing to offer 10 Euros; valuation for the entire Venice province desirable, although this

has been done in similar cases (Bateman et al., 1995; Hanley &

Craig, 1991). In the present paper, it is preferred to state that

respondents are willing to pay 10 - 15 Euros per capita to

keep/improve the two protected areas. Further research based

on a larger and possibly random sample is needed to confirm

this finding. It is however clear that local citizens do care about

the protection of their surrounding environment and are not

supportive of the idea of creating a new harbour where the two

protected areas are located.

 respondents who have visited the sites are willing to pay 20

Euros, whereas those who have not offer 10 Euros.

It may be appropriate to apply the value in Euros of envi-

ronmental values presented in Table 1 to an amount reflecting

medians rather than the total mean (26.81 Euros). An amount of

10 - 15 Euros could be used instead.

Discussion

How Much Do Local Citizens Value Protected Areas

in the Venice Lagoon? Findings from Preferred Use and Non-Use Values

The research question addressed in the present paper is

clearly answered. On average, local citizens are willing to pay

26.81 Euros through an annual tax to safeguard and improve

the protected areas of the Venice Lagoon. This result is in line

with findings presented in Birol et al. (2006) where Greek citi-

zens were willing to pay 22.3 Euros through a one-off tax for a

proposed change to keep/improve a wetland and 34.9 Euros for

a different modification concerning the same site.

In their CVM study, Birol et al. (2006) do not make any at-

tempt to interview visitors of the site, as their objective was to

measure non-use values only. Commenting on the survey by

Bateman et al. (1995), Barbier et al. (1997) regret that no clear

distinction between non-users and past users was made. In their

view, this aspect may hinder a correct valuation of non-use

WTP.

The survey presented in the present paper tries to overcome

some of the limits of measuring non-use values. A clear distinc-

tion is made between visitors and non-visitors, and a precise

economic value is attributed to different specific use and non-

use values.

What similar applications of CVM (Bateman et al., 1995;

Birol et al., 2006; Hanley & Craig, 1991) do not consider is that,

since the distribution of the WTP variable is skewed, medians

should be preferred to means (Howell & Kent, 2008). The

amount obtained for citizens in the Venice area is much lower

and is equal to only 10 Euros. However, this is possibly a more

reliable figure for policy planning.

A striking result is that the first three preferred environ-

mental values are non-use values. These are respectively “for

future generations to visit the sites” (18.3 per cent), and “bio-

diversity conservation” and “cultural heritage,” both reaching a

share of 17 per cent of total preferences. As shown in Figure 1,

the total proportion of preferences for non-use values comprises

65.6 per cent of total economic values. Irrespective of age, local

citizens clearly value non-use values more than use ones.

The finding that citizens living closer to the protected area

are willing to pay more is in line with the results obtained by

Bateman et al. (1995), and the higher WTP of those who have

visited the site as opposed to non-visitors corresponds to find-

ings presented in Hanley and Craig (1991). The fact that higher

income determines a higher WTP for environmental protection

is clearly shown in Brander et al. (2006), where an increase of

10 per cent of per capita income corresponds to a 12 per cent

increase in the value attributed to wetland. The issue of higher

income resulting in higher WTP is often discussed in the inter-

national literature, particularly with regard to citizens in poor

countries as compared to populations in advanced economies

(Allen et al., 2003).

The first preferred use value comes fourth in order of prefer-

ences expressed. It is a direct use value (for tourism/recreation)

which represents 14.5 per cent total expressed preferences.

Considering that those who have visited the sites comprise a

large majority of respondents (75.6 per cent) and are willing to

pay more than non-users, the fact that non-use values are pre-

ferred to use ones is quite surprising, given that it is use values

and not non-use ones which are linked to the actual use and/or

consumption of the environmental asset at stake. This finding is

also counter-intuitive in light of the approach adopted by Birol

The limited number of responses and the informal sampling

method used do not make aggregate estimates of environmental

M. S. DE GOBBI

et al. (2006) and comments by Barbier et al. (1997) reported

above.

These findings indicate that local citizens value sustainable

development much more than their policy makers. Taking as

reference the definition of sustainable development provided in

the 1987 UN Brundtland report, sustainable development meets

the needs of both present and future generations (Sands, 2003).

Local citizens would rather direct public investment towards

the safeguard of the environment for future generations, biodi-

versity conservation, the protection of their cultural heritage,

and for other people to visit the sites (65.6 per cent of prefer-

ences) than towards the creation of infrastructure for economic

development.

It is to be noted that one aspect of the social component of

sustainable development is included both in the proposed envi-

ronmental improvement of the two protected areas and in the

creation of a new harbour, with the generation of employment

in both cases. This means that, with equal consideration for

employment, environmental protection is preferred to strictly

economic development.

As described in section 1.2, infrastructure development and

tourism are two major threats to biodiversity. Rethinking de-

velopment in more sustainable terms ought to be a priority for

local and regional policy makers. Alternative economic activi-

ties with an equal employment effect, but more compatible with

environmental protection are to be sought. The implementation

of management plans for protected areas offers a viable oppor-

tunity in this regard.

Useful lessons can be learnt considering the recent experi-

ence of the Republic of Korea and its “Green New Deal” (Bar-

bier, 2010; Cheong Wa Dae, 2009; Korea.net News, 2009a, b),

as well as from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).

In the Republic of Korea, in reaction to the devastating social

effects of the recent economic crisis, jobs have been created

through projects for the improvement of rivers in the country.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment presents ideas for jobs

in environmental improvements such as planting trees against

coastal erosion. Blanch (2008) offers other examples of eco-

nomic activities and jobs which are compatible with sustainable

development in Northern Australia. These examples include

culture-based tourism and payments for ecosystem services

such as carbon stewardship and nature conservation.

Findings on Awareness of Policy Decision-M ak i ng

The majority of respondents (67.7 per cent) were not aware

of the project to build a cruise ship harbour within the territory

of the Mira municipality. This finding indicates that pol-

icy-makers do not seek to adopt a participatory approach, and if

they do, they are rather unsuccessful.

Sadly, Borrelli et al. (2007) reveal that in Italy a law called

“Law Objective” has been adopted to allow top-down ap-

proaches ignoring citizens’ participation in decisions concern-

ing the approval of public works projects pursuing the final

objective of national interest. This law supersedes environ-

mental impact assessment legislation. Should the project of

building a cruise ship harbour in the Mira municipality be im-

plemented, such law could well be applied.

The case of Torcello, an island in the Venice Lagoon, can be

mentioned as evidence of what may happen when decisions are

made using a top-down approach with no public participation.

Public opposition to morphological and environmental inter-

ventions for the safeguard of the island led to the suspension

and redesign of operations. This caused delays and additional

costs (Giupponi & Rochier, 2001). Suman et al. (2005) report

that local authorities in the Venice area traditionally do not

apply a participatory approach.

Findings on Proximity to Protected Areas and on

Having Visited the Sites

The survey reveals that citizens who live closer to the Venice

Lagoon value protected areas more in monetary terms than

those who live further away in municipalities which are not

located along the coast. This result indicates that proximity is a

factor determining the level of engagement of stakeholders in

environmental protection.

Survey results also reveal that those who have visited the

sites and are practically more familiar with them value the two

protected areas more than non-visitors. Familiarity with specific

sites can be linked to proximity and may even be an overlap-

ping factor.

These findings can be used and interpreted to understand

which groups of citizens and stakeholders are more suitable to

undertake measures for the safeguard of the two protected areas

of the Venice Lagoon.

Halpern et al. (2007) suggest that some threats to biodiver-

sity, such as climate change, are to be addressed from regional

to global scale, whereas other threats, such as coastal develop-

ment, require local to regional interventions.

Smart and Viñals (2004) identify the Venice province as a

key actor for the safeguard of the Venice Lagoon and its pro-

motion to a Ramsar site. The same authors describe the efforts

made by the province in the late 1990s and early 2000s in im-

plementing a participatory approach through the organisation of

a seminar, direct personal contacts, discussion groups, and a

public exhibition. Borrelli et al. (2007) explain that provinces

often develop effective communication networks with local

communities. Analysing how biodiversity conservation is dealt

with in the Lazio region, the same authors conclude that it is a

local issue which is to be addressed principally by municipali-

ties.

One final aspect which is to be taken into account in the

identification of groups of citizens who can play a relevant role

in environmental protection and in the implementation of

Natura 2000 is familiarity with the concerned sites. By creating

a linkage between those who are familiar with a protected area

and the importance attributed to cultural heritage as a non-use

value (17 per cent of all preferences expressed in the survey),

those who have a solid traditional knowledge of concerned

areas may represent a relevant stakeholder group for environ-

mental protection. In the case of the Venice Lagoon, the active

participation of such a group would result in the implementa-

tion of guiding principles for UNESCO World Heritage Sites

which urge the inclusion of cultural values of wetlands in the

effective management of a site.

Is the Management of the Coastal Zone of the Venice

Lagoon Becoming More Sustainable?

To try to draw some conclusions in this regard, the 2010

situation depicted through the presentation of findings in the

preceding chapters can be compared to the present (2012).

Since 2010, there have been some changes which make it im-

M. S. DE GOBBI

possible to conduct another survey based on the same questions.

Some relevant facts and observations will therefore be used to

compare the past and the present.

To sum up, in 2010 public authorities seemed to favour eco-

nomic development and employment creation through the ex-

pansion of cruise ship tourism over the safeguard of protected

areas. The participation of local citizens in decision-making

processes was very poor. Local citizens seemed to value their

surrounding environment and were ready to pay about 10 euros

in an annual tax for the protection of the coastal zone. In par-

ticular, they valued the assets they received from the past (cul-

tural heritage), would have liked to preserve it for future gen-

erations, and strongly supported biodiversity conservation. In

other words, local citizens wanted their surrounding environ-

ment to remain unchanged.

In 2012, the project of building a cruise ship harbour was

abandoned. This could be the result of the economic crisis

which led to a freeze of public investments, but it could also be

due to a change in the public administration after elections in

2010 (Boato, 2010).

In 2010 many official public documents explaining future

plans of the public administration on the coastal zone were

available, whereas in 2012 essentially no relevant official

document can be found. This could be again due to the difficult

economic situation and the general lack of public financial

resources to launch new projects for infrastructure development,

or to a more prudent approach towards the environment of the

new administration (Ibid). However, some non-official sources,

such as newspapers and NGOs, mention several ideas on the

development of port facilities in the Venice Lagoon which

would have a negative impact on protected areas, and which

seem to be under discussion (La Repubblica, 2012; Lanapoppi,

2012).

The terrible accident of the Costa Concordia cruise ship on

the coastal area of the Giglio Island (Italy) which occurred in

January 2012 initially generated discussions on the concrete

danger that cruise ships constitute for the Venice Lagoon. Al-

ternative paths for cruise ships out of Venice were being con-

sidered. Nonetheless, only a few months later, the positive eco-

nomic effects of tourism prevailed again, and nowadays cruise

ships keep having direct access to the Lagoon and the city of

Venice. A cruise ship accident on 6 May 2012, which by pure

chance did not have any major consequence, was barely re-

ported by the press and did not determine any change in the

usual way of doing business (Italia Nostra, 2012).

Compared to 2010, in 2012 environmental issues gained rele-

vance in public political discussions. In particular, the recent

political campaigns for local administrative elections (May

2012) were characterized by lively debates on the environment

(Michele Boato, personal communication, spring 2012).

Table 2 shows the weight that economic, social and envi-

ronmental aspects had in 2010 and currently have in the man-

agement of the coastal area of the Venice Lagoon. A positive

change can be observed in terms of citizens’ participation in de-

cision-making processes through political events.

Conclusion

The relevance of the survey presented in this paper lies in the

somewhat innovative CVM approach which has been adopted.

This methodology allows for the identification of the environ-

mental aspects that citizens value the most, and to design policy

Table 2.

Sustainable development and the management of the coastal zone of the

Venice Lagoon.

2010 2012

Economic development high high

Social dimension (citizens’ particip ation) low high

Environme ntal protection low low

measures reflecting their environmental preferences. The ap-

plication presented in this paper has a limited relevance due to

the low response rate of the survey, but nonetheless, it clearly

shows the benefits of the methodology.

An issue which is very important for regional authorities in

Veneto, especially after the recent financial crisis, is the crea-

tion of employment through the development of economic ac-

tivities. Additional research is needed on the potential employ-

ment generating effects of investments in environmental pro-

tection, as opposed to the currently planned investments in

infrastructure development and tourism. This concern is com-

mon in many coastal areas in the world and should therefore be

given more attention to through the allocation of resources for

research in this field.

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend sincere thanks to the manager of Eu-

rosms, Luigi De Gobbi, for allowing me to use the services of

his company to conduct the online survey free of charge. Sev-

eral technicians from different local administrations and NGO

representatives were very active in providing useful documents,

maps, information, and technical opinions. These include Gus-

tavo De Filippo, expert in environmental planning and environ-

mental impact assessment from the Venice Municipality, three

officials from the regional administration who wish to remain

anonymous, Piergiorgio Fassini, a sustainable hunter and

member of the Council of the Mira Municipality, Giuseppe

Cherubini, responsible for the hunting and fishing sector of the

Venice Province, Angelo Mancone from the environmental

NGO, Legambiente Veneto, and Michele Boato from Ecoisti-

tuto Italia. Special thanks are due to Emanuele Stival, Florence

Bonnet, Makiko Matsumoto, In-Kon Kim, Blaise Gauchat, and

David Gómez for their inputs at different stages of the research

work. Last but not least, I shall not forget to thank Michael

Warner of the University of London for supervising my re-

search work from September 2009 to August 2010.

REFERENCES

Allen, J. C., Bergstrom, J., & Pemberton, C. (2003). Measuring values

for wetlands protection in a developing country from domestic and

international citizen groups. Prepared for presentation at the Ameri-

can Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, Montreal,

Canada.

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/

Ambito Territoriale di Caccia Lagunare Venezia (2009). Considerazi-

oni in merito alla Tutela e valorizzazione del territorio lagunare e

prelagunare di Mira. Letter to regional authorities, Venezia.

Autorità Portuale di Venezia (2008a). Comunicato Stampa Il Porto di

Venezia domani. Press Release, Venezia , 11 September.

http://www.port.venice.it/pdv/archivio/2008/comunicati/apv_com_08

0911_approvato_pot.pdf;jsessionid=3630CD8EDFC677A8C9D8732

17EFA548C

140

M. S. DE GOBBI

Autorità Portuale di Venezia (2008b). Comunicato Stampa POT 2008-

2011: Piano operativotriennaleoggi in comitatoportuale. Press Re-

lease, Venezia, 31 July.

http://www.port.venice.it/pdv/archivio/2008/comunicati/apv_com_08

0731_pot_08-11.pdf;jsessionid=D8DEEA071CEE344F3C4D51BBB

7FDD2AD

Autorità Portuale di Venezia (2008c). Sviluppare l’intermodalità: Il

Programma Marco Polo. Primo Piano, Rivista Bimestrale, August,

Venezia.

http://www.port.venice.it/pdv/rivista/pdf//2008/Primo_Piano_0808.p

df;jsessionid=5A209FADFD4B13C7505D2C83799D81EF

Autorità Portual e di Venezia (2011). Relazioneannuale 2010.

http://85-18-31-142.ip.fastwebnet.it/it/relazione-annuale-2010.html

Barbier, E. B. (2010). Green stimulus, green recovery and global im-

balances. World Ec on om i cs , 11, 149-177.

Barbier, E. B., Acreman, M., & Knowler, D. (1997). Economic valua-

tion of wetlands: A guide for policy makers and planners, Gland,

Switzerland.

http://www.teebweb.org/Home/tabid/924/language/en-US/Default.as

Bateman, I. J., Langford, I. H., & Graham, A. (1995). A survey of non-

users’ willingness to pay to prevent saline flooding in the Norfolk

Broads. CSERGE Wor king Pap er G EC 95-111. Centre for Social and

Economic Research on the Global Environment, School of Environ-

mental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich.

Bird Life International (2009). IBA factsheet Venice Lagoon. (A web-

site).

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sites/index.html?action=SitHTMDe

tails.asp&sid=2739&m=0

Birol, E., Karousakis, K., & Koundouri, P. (2006). Using economic

valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A sur-

vey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application.

Science of the Total Environment, 365, 105-122.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.02.032

Blanch, S. (2008). Comment: Towards a Sustainable Northern Austra-

lia. Ecological Management and Restorat io n , 9, 110-115.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.02.032

Boato, M. (2010). Da Galan a Zaia, cosa cambia per l’ambienteveneto?

Agorà Magazine.

http://www.agoramagazine.it/agora/spip.php?auteur122

Borrelli, G., Carrabba, P., Di Giovanni, B., Padovani, L.M., & Palma, R.

(2007). Politica Locale e Biodiversità. Ente per le NuoveTecnologie,

l’Energia e l’Ambiente (ENEA), Roma.

Brander, L. M., Florax, R. G. J. M., & Vermaat, J. E. (2006). The em-

pirics of wetland valuation: A comprehensive summary and a

metaanalysis of the literature. Environmental and Resource Eco-

nomics, 33, 223-250.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3104-4

Burton, T. M., & Tiner, R. W. (2009). Ecology of wetlands, in Ency-

clopedia of Inland Waters, pp. 507-515.

Cheong, Wa D. (2009). Briefing on the Green New Deal for foreign

correspondents, a Korean website in English, Seoul, Republic of

Korea.

http://english.president.go.kr/main.php

Comune di Mira (2010). Comunicatostampa 16 marzo 2010, Press

Release, Mira, Venezia.

Comune di Venezia (2009). Atlante dellaLaguna: Veneziatra Terra e

Mare. Venezia.

http://atlante.silvenezia.it/it/index_ie.html

DEFRA (2007). Valuing the benefits of biodiversity, UK.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/econ-b

ene-biodiversity.pdf

Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis, Millen-

nium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).

Giupponi, C., & Brochier, F. (2001). Integrated coastal zone manage-

ment in the Venice area: A methodological framework. Nota di la-

voro, FondazioneENI Enrico Mattei, Venice .

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=293792

Halpern, B. S., Selkoe, K. A., Micheli, F., & Kappel, C. V. (2007).

Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems

to anthropogeni c threats. Conservation Biology, 21, 1301-1315.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00752.x

Hanley, N., & Craig, S. (1991). Wilderness development decisions and

the Krutilla-Fisher model: The case of Scotland’s flow country. Eco-

logical Economics, 4 , 145-164.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(91)90026-B

Howell, R., & Kent, R. (2008). R106 research methods. London:

School of Oriental and African Studies.

Italia Nostra (2010). Il moto ondoso a Venezia e nella sua laguna.

Sezione di Venezia, Venezia.

http://www.italianostra-venezia.org/3campagn/SoloMO/MOndosoO

KOK.htm

Italia Nostra (2012). Incidentetaciuto e nascosto a nave da crocieranel-

lastazionemar i t tima del porto di Venez i a .

http://groups.google.com/group/nograndinavivenezia/browse_thread/

thread/7c3156c855e2bf57/167327f1c4d39dff?show_docid=167327f1

c4d39dff

King, D. M., & Mazzotta, M. J. (2000). Contingent Valuation’ in Eco-

system Valuation.

http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/contingent_valuation.htm

Korea.net News (2009a). Four-river restoration plan step ped up.

http://www.korea.net/

Korea.net News (2009b). Government starts “four major rivers restora-

tion project”. http://www.korea.net/

Lanapoppi, P. (2012). E adesso le grandinavi. Italia Nostra Venezia.

http://www.italianostra-venezia.org/index.php?option=com_blog&vi

ew=blogger&bn=Paolo+Lanapoppi&Itemid=0&lang=it

La Repubblica (2012). Venezia: Il nuovocorridoio Uesblocca il porto.

16 gennaio 2012, p. 22, Senzione: Affari F inanza.

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2012/01/16

/venezia-il-nuovo-corridoio-ue-sblocca-il.html

Pagiola, S., von Ritter, K., & Bishop, J. (2004). Assessing the economic

value of ecosystem conservation. Washington D.C.: The World Bank

Environment Department, Environment Department Paper No. 101.

http://www.teebweb.org/Home/tabid/924/language/en-US/Default.as

Ramsar Convention (2010). List of Ramsar sites.

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-home/main/ramsar/1%5e7715

_4000_1__

Ramsar Convention (2004). The Ramsar Conventi on .

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-news-archives-2004-ramsar-m

eets-venice-for/main/ramsar/1-26-45-54%5E18303_4000_0__

Regione del Veneto (2008d). Rapporto ambientale del piano territori-

ale regionale di coordinamento, Ve n ezia.

http://www.k-servizi.com/download/ptrc/dgr372/Rapporto_ambienta

le_PTRC_adozione.pdf

Regione del Veneto (2009a). Deliberazionedella giunta n. 372 del 17

febbraio 2009: Adozione del piano territoriale regionale di coordi-

namento, Venez i a . w w w .regione.veneto.it

Regione del Veneto (2009b). Documento di valutazione di incidenza

del piano territo riale regionale di coordinamento, Venezia.

www.regione.veneto.it

Regione del Veneto (2009c). Natura 2000 data form codicesitoit

3250046 laguna superiore, Venezia. www.regione.veneto.it

Regione del Veneto (2009d). Retiecologiche e biodiversitànel Veneto,

Venezia. www.regione.veneto.it

Regione del Veneto (2009e). Hub principalidellalogisticaveneta: Il

progettostrategicodellaportaorientale, documentopreliminare, Vene-

zia.

http://bur.regione.veneto.it/BurvServices/pubblica/DettaglioDgr.aspx

?id=221600

Regione del Veneto (2009f). IndividuazionedelleZPS per le quali è

necessario un piano di gestione, Venezia.

http://www.regione.veneto.it/Ambiente+e+Territorio/Territorio/Reti

+Ecologiche+e+Biodiversità/Piani+di+Gestione+ZPS.htm

Regione del Veneto (2009g). Misure di conservazione, Venezia.

http://www.regione.veneto.it

Regione del Veneto (2009h). L’applicazionenel veneto, Venezia.

http://www.regione.veneto.it

Regione del Veneto (2011). Rapportos t a t istico 2011.

http://statistica.regione.veneto.it

Sands, P. (2003). Principles of international environmental law (2nd

M. S. DE GOBBI

142

ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University P ress.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813511

Smart, M., & Vinals, M. J. (2004). The lagoon of Venice as a ramsar

site, commissione d by the province of V enice.

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-news-archives-2004-lagoon-of

-venice-as-22458/main/ramsar/1-26-45-54^22458_4000_0__

Solidoro, C., Bandelj, V., AubryBernardi, F., Camatti, E., Ciavatta, S.,

Cossarini, G., et al. (2010). Response of the Venice lagoon ecosys-

tem to natural and anthropogenic pressures over the last 50 years. In

M. J. Kennish, & H. W. Paerl, (Eds.), Coastal lagoons: Critical habi-

tats of environmental change (pp. 483-511). Boca Raton, FL: CRC

Press.

Suman, D., Guerzoni, S., & Molinaroli, E. (2005). Integrated coastal

management in the Venice lagoon and its watershed. Hydrobiologia,

550, 251-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-4393-x

Turner, R. K., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Söderqvist, T., Barendregt, A.,

van der Straaten, J., Maltby, E., & van Ierland, E.C. (2000). Eco-

logical-economic analysis of wetlands: Scientific integration for

management and policy. E cological Economics, 3 5 , 7-23.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00164-6