| Literature DB >> 28574984 |
Luca Salvati1, Ilaria Tombolini1, Roberta Gemmiti2, Margherita Carlucci3, Sofia Bajocco1, Luigi Perini1, Agostino Ferrara4, Andrea Colantoni5.
Abstract
Land quality, a key economic capital supporting local development, is affected by biophysical and anthropogenic factors. Taken as a relevant attribute of economic systems, land quality has shaped the territorial organization of any given region influencing localization of agriculture, industry and settlements. In regions with long-established human-landscape interactions, such as the Mediterranean basin, land quality has determined social disparities and polarization in the use of land, reflecting the action of geographical gradients based on elevation and population density. The present study investigates latent relationships within a large set of indicators profiling local communities and land quality on a fine-grained resolution scale in Italy with the aim to assess the potential impact of land quality on the regional socioeconomic structure. The importance of land quality gradients in the socioeconomic configuration of urban and rural regions was verified analyzing the distribution of 149 socioeconomic and environmental indicators organized in 5 themes and 17 research dimensions. Agriculture, income, education and labour market variables discriminate areas with high land quality from areas with low land quality. While differential land quality in peri-urban areas may reflect conflicts between competing actors, moderate (or low) quality of land in rural districts is associated with depopulation, land abandonment, subsidence agriculture, unemployment and low educational levels. We conclude that the socioeconomic profile of local communities has been influenced by land quality in a different way along urban-rural gradients. Policies integrating environmental and socioeconomic measures are required to consider land quality as a pivotal target for sustainable development. Regional planning will benefit from an in-depth understanding of place-specific relationships between local communities and the environment.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28574984 PMCID: PMC5456058 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177853
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Research themes and analysis dimensions explored by the indicators used (for the complete list of indicators, see S1 Table).
| Research theme | Analysis dimension | Number of indicators |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Settlement characteristics | 11 |
| Population dynamics/structure | 13 | |
| Economic specialization | Job market | 14 |
| Education | 6 | |
| Economic structure | 17 | |
| Tourism | 6 | |
| Quality of life | Income | 6 |
| Wealth | 7 | |
| Crime | 5 | |
| Rural development | Land tenure | 6 |
| Agricultural landscape | 10 | |
| Forests | 9 | |
| Innovation and quality in agriculture | 9 | |
| Human capital in agriculture | 5 | |
| Environment | Water use/management | 6 |
| Natural resources | 8 | |
| Soil degradation | 11 |
Fig 1The spatial distribution of three indicators of land quality in Italy (left: land quality index; middle: soil quality index; right: maximum available soil water capacity).
Source: own elaboration.
Fig 2Percentage of significant non-parametric correlations between indicators in each theme and the three independent variables of land quality (left: LQ, middle; AWC, right: SQI).
Source: own elaboration.
Principal component loadings (see S1 Table for acronyms); loadings > |0.5| are shown.
| Variable | Axis 1 | Axis 2 | Axis 3 | Axis 4 | Axis 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 | 0.54 | ||||
| I5 | -0.59 | ||||
| I6 | -0.57 | ||||
| P1 | 0.72 | ||||
| P3 | 0.56 | ||||
| P4 | 0.51 | ||||
| P5 | -0.55 | ||||
| P9 | 0.61 | -0.53 | |||
| L1 | 0.81 | ||||
| L2 | 0.88 | ||||
| L3 | -0.69 | ||||
| L4 | -0.69 | ||||
| L5 | 0.80 | ||||
| L6 | 0.86 | ||||
| L7 | -0.69 | 0.51 | |||
| L8 | -0.68 | ||||
| F3 | -0.58 | ||||
| F5 | -0.61 | ||||
| F6 | -0.64 | ||||
| S1 | 0.53 | ||||
| S6 | 0.59 | ||||
| S14 | -0.54 | ||||
| S15 | -0.62 | ||||
| T7 | 0.52 | ||||
| Q2 | 0.65 | ||||
| Q6 | 0.51 | ||||
| Q8 | 0.83 | ||||
| Q11 | 0.69 | ||||
| Q12 | 0.51 | ||||
| Q13 | 0.55 | ||||
| D1 | 0.50 | ||||
| D4 | 0.51 | ||||
| SR-A3 | 0.52 | ||||
| SR-A5 | 0.60 | ||||
| SR-M4 | 0.73 | ||||
| SR-Q2 | -0.52 | ||||
| SR-Q9 | -0.55 | ||||
| SR-P2 | 0.50 | ||||
| SR-P3 | -0.62 | ||||
| SR-P4 | -0.73 | ||||
| SR-P8 | 0.60 | ||||
| Int | -0.64 | ||||
| Fop | -0.60 | ||||
| A5 | -0.50 | ||||
| Sdi | 0.88 | ||||
| Ele | -0.61 | ||||
| Sou | -0.71 | ||||
| Esa | 0.77 | ||||
| E60 | 0.50 | ||||
| Car | -0.80 | ||||
| Lri | -0.55 | ||||
Fig 3Principal component scores by municipality in Italy.
Source: own elaboration.
Non-parametric Spearman correlation between principal component scores (axis 1–5) and independent land quality variables.
| Variable | Axis 1 | Axis 2 | Axis 3 | Axis 4 | Axis 5 | Sqi | Lq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sqi | -0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 | - | - |
| Lq | -0.15 | 0.04 | 0.03 | - | |||
| Awc | -0.11 | 0.02 | -0.07 | -0.01 | 0.08 |
Bold indicates significant correlation at p < 0.01 after Bonferroni's correction for multiple comparison