Silvana Dalmazzone

Dr. Silvana Dalmazzone

Department of Economics & Statistics (EST), University of Turin, Campus Luigi Einaudi (CLE), Lungo Dora Siena 100 - 10153 Torino, Italy

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

30Years (1997-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2002 in Conservation Ecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CPCharles Perrings
Charles Perrings
MWMark Williamson
Mark Williamson
EBEdward Barbier
Edward Barbier
DDDoriana Delfino
Doriana Delfino
SDSilvana Dalmazzone
Silvana Dalmazzone
AWAndrew Watkinson
Andrew Watkinson
Perrings, C., M. Williamson, E. B. Barbier, D. Delfino, S. Dalmazzone, J. Shogren, P. Simmons and A. Watkinson 2002. Biological Invasion Risks and the Public Good: an Economic Perspective. Conservation Ecology 6(1):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00396-060101

1 April 2008 in Ecological Economics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MBMarco Bagliani
Marco Bagliani
GBGiangiacomo Bravo
Giangiacomo Bravo
SDSilvana Dalmazzone
Silvana Dalmazzone

1 February 2017 in Ecosystem Services
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ANAlessandra La Notte
Alessandra La Notte
JMJoachim Maes
Joachim Maes
SDSilvana Dalmazzone
Silvana Dalmazzone
NCNeville Crossman
Neville Crossman
BGBruna Grizzetti
Bruna Grizzetti
GBGiovanni Bidoglio
Giovanni Bidoglio
In this paper we present a case study of integrated ecosystem and economic accounting based on the System of Environmental Economic Accounting — Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (SEEA-EEA). We develop accounts, in physical and monetary terms, for the water purification ecosystem service in Europe over a 20-year time period (1985–2005). The estimation of nitrogen retention is based on the GREEN biophysical model, within which we impose a sustainability threshold to obtain the physical indicators of capacity – the ability of an ecosystem to sustainably supply ecosystem services. Key messages of our paper pertain the notion of capacity, operationalized in accounting terms with reference to individual ecosystem services rather than to the ecosystem as a whole, and intended as the stock that provides the sustainable flow of the service. The study clarifies the difference between sustainable flow and actual flow of the service, which should be calculated jointly so as to enable an assessment of the sustainability of current use of ecosystem services. Finally, by distinguishing the notion of ‘process’ (referred to the ecosystem) from that of ‘capacity’ (pertaining specific services) and proposing a methodology to calculate capacity and flow, we suggest an implementable way to operationalize the SEEA-EEA accounts.

1 September 2014 in Ecological Economics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SDSilvana Dalmazzone
Silvana Dalmazzone
SGSergio Giaccaria
Sergio Giaccaria

25 August 2000
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
SDSilvana Dalmazzone
Silvana Dalmazzone
CPCharles Perrings
Charles Perrings
MWMark Williamson
Mark Williamson

1 October 2018 in Journal of Environmental Management
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ANAlessandra La Notte
Alessandra La Notte
SDSilvana Dalmazzone
Silvana Dalmazzone
The paper builds on the Supply and Use Tables module within the System of integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts - Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (SEEA EEA) developed by the UN. We explore the evolution of Supply and Use Tables from the System of National Accounts (SNA) to the System of integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts - Central Framework (SEEA CF) and then to the SEEA EEA, and we propose a further extension: we propose that ecosystem types should be treated as accounting units able to produce, consume and exhibit changes in regeneration and absorption rates. The implications are first explained in the methodological section and then shown in the application where the water purification service is tested against two major policy issues: sustainability assessment (we show how to assess whether the ecosystem service is used sustainably by comparing the quantification of potential and actual flow) and causality nexus (we quantify the connection between the value of agricultural production and that of the ecosystem service used). The paper highlights how the overall outcomes change when considering different scales. A contrast emerges, for example, between the positive balance at the continental scale, where water purification services appear to be used sustainably (thanks to the high potential flow of Northern European countries) and the negative balance of almost all European countries when considered at a national scale. Taking advantage of the experimental opportunities offered by operating with external satellite accounts, we are able to show how the proposed complementary tables could support policy action.