(Palomo, 2013) Gestionando Las Áreas Protegidas Más Alláde Sus Límites PDF

Gestionando las
Áreas Protegidas más allá

de sus Límites
Aproximación Socio-Ecológica
a la Ordenación Territorial
Ignacio Palomo Ruiz

Dpto. Interuniversitario de Ecología
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Año 2013
UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS
Departamento Interuniversitario de Ecología
Gestionando las áreas protegidas mas allá de sus límites.
Una proximación Socio-Ecológica a la ordenación territorial
Memoria presentada por Ignacio Palomo Ruiz para optar al Grado de Doctor
en Ecología por la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Directores
Berta Martín-López
Departamento de Ecología
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, España
Carlos Montes del Olmo

Departamento de Ecología
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, España
TESIS DOCTORAL
Madrid, junio de 2013

La presente tesis se ha desarrollado en el Laboratorio de Socio-Ecosistemas del Departamento de
Ecología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid entre Marzo de 2009 y Junio de 2013. Durante el
desarrollo de la tesis se han realizado estancias de investigación en la Universidad de Stanford
bajo la supervisión de Gretchen C. Daily (2011), en el Centro de Gestión Ambiental de la
Universidad de Nottingham bajo la supervisión de Marion Potschin y Roy Haines-Young (2012) y
el Centro de Investigación para el Desarrollo de la Universidad de Bonn, bajo la supervisión de
Tobias Wünscher (2013). La tesis ha sido financiada mediante el programa de becas de
Formación del Profesorado Universitario (FPU) del Ministerio de Educación. La financiación
también se debe a los siguientes proyectos: (1) Gestionando los parques nacionales más allá de
sus límites: evaluación y cartografía de servicios como herramienta de gestión territorial ante el
cambio global (Ref: 018/2009). Financiado por el Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacionales; y
(2) Hacia un nuevo modelo de gestión del sistema socio-ecológico de Doñana basado en los
vínculos entre el bienestar humano y los servicios de sus ecosistemas. Financiado por WWF. Se
han escrito en inglés los apartados de resultados, pues han sido escritos en formato de
publicaciones científicas. El resumen ejecutivo y las conclusiones también se ofrecen en inglés
(además de en español) para facilitar la difusión de la Tesis en ámbitos de habla no española.
Fotografía de portada: Valla del Parque Nacional de Doñana. Autor: Ignacio Palomo Ruiz
Diseño de portada: Manuel Castellano (mcastellano.com)
Edición: Jorge Navacerrada (Altekio, S.Coop.Mad.)
Impreso en Madrid en Junio de 2013
This thesis was developed at the Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory of the Department of
Ecology of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid from March 2009 to June 2013. Research stays
have been made at Stanford University on behalf of Gretchen C. Daily (2011), at the Centre for
Environmental Management at Nottingham University on behalf of Marion Potschin and Roy
Haines-Young (2012) and at the Center for Development Research at the University of Bonn on
behalf of Tobias Wünscher (2013). Funding was provided by the University Faculty Training
Fellowship (FPU) from the Spanish Ministry of Education. Funding was also due to the following
projects: (1) Managing National Parks beyond their limits: Evaluation and mapping of ecosystem
services as a tool for landscape planning facing global change (Ref: 018/2009). Funded by the
Spanish National Park Service (Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Environment); and (2) Towards
a new model for managing the social-ecological system of Doñana based on the links between
ecosystem services and human well-being. Funded by WWF. Result chapters have been written in
English as their format is that of scientific publications. The executive summary and conclusions
are also written in English language to facilitate the diffusion of the Thesis among non Spanish
speakers.
Cover photo: Fence of the National Park of Doñana. Author: Ignacio Palomo Ruiz
Cover design: Manuel Castellano (mcastellano.com)
Thesis edition: Jorge Navacerrada (Altekio, S.Coop.Mad.)
Printed in Madrid in June 2013

A mis padres
"This congress theme means challenging ourselves to understand the many values and benefits that
protected areas offer… It asks us to step outside of traditional thinking and mindsets to explore new
approaches for establishing and managing protected areas… There is no longer the thinking that
people must be moved in order to create parks… the new thinking is that parks must be managed
around the places where people live.”
5th IUCN World Parks Congress, South Africa, 2003
Kenton Miller
(World Resources Institute & World Conservation Union,

Director General of the International Union for Conservation of Nature)
“Climb the mountains and get their good tidings”
John Muir
(Advocate of the first protected area of our age)

Gestionando las áreas protegidas mas allá de sus límites
Agradecimientos
La tesis doctoral es un proceso que pone a prueba a las personas. Resulta especialmente
importante saber conciliar los diferentes roles que los mentores deben desempeñar para iluminar
las parcelas del camino de la tesis doctoral. En la formación de una mentalidad crítica, analítica y
propositiva, es necesario contar con la guía de unos tutores que no solo abran este camino, sino
que estén dispuestos a mostrar su lado más humano. Tener un tándem de directores se antoja
como un aspecto prometedor que no ha defraudado lo más mínimo. Berta, gracias por haber
sabido combinar de muy cerca tu lado científico con tu lado humano, tu exigencia con tu
comprensión y por encontrar siempre esa chispa de buen humor que ha hecho que lo que podría
ser una ardua experiencia, se convierta en un camino que he podido disfrutar enormemente y con
el que he crecido día a día. Carlos, gracias por abrirme la puerta al laboratorio de socio-
ecosistemas, por compartir tu pasión diaria por lo que haces, por hacerme mirar más allá de los
árboles para intentar ver el bosque, por tu sentido común y por tu capacidad creativa. Gracias a
los dos por esta parte del viaje.
El laboratorio de socio-ecosistemas es, sin duda, un gran equipo de amigos, con gran calidad
científica y humana en constante transformación gracias a la gente que se va incorporando y los
nuevos roles que se van asumiendo. Mi primer agradecimiento va para mis magnificas
compañeras de máster y de tesis, Eli e Ire, por vuestra amistad y gran apoyo, especialmente en la
realización de talleres participativos, aunque implicasen viajes a horas intempestivas y escasas
horas de sueño. Gracias a los que estabais ya aquí, Pedro L., Erik (por tus buenos consejos
sinceros y las risas), Marina (por ser tan buen ejemplo sobre como hacer una tesis y ayuda en la
realización de talleres), Pedro Z. (por toda tu ayuda en las primeras fases sobre el SIG), Sara (por
tu ayuda en con las encuestas en Doñana) y Sandra (por tu espítitu luchador). Gracias también a
los profes, Emilio, Paloma, Pepe (por transmitir serenidad cuando más se necesita) y Cesar (por
tu apoyo en los talleres participativos y por tu buen rollo). Y como no gracias a todos los que
habéis llegado hace menos, Mateo, Fernando, Violeta, Ana, Fede y Cristina, gracias por vuestras
sonrisas diarias y enorme energía. Gracias a David por todos los momentos compartidos
preparando los talleres participativos y compartiendo un hogar en Monachil. Gracias también a
los incorporados desde la UPO, Javieres, por vuestra cercanía, es un placer trabajar con vosotros.
El creciente carácter participativo que está tomando la investigación ambiental implica la

implicación de un número cada vez mayor de personas en una tesis doctoral en este ámbito. A
este respecto, quisiera agradecer especialmente a Jesús Mateos su apoyo en mi bautizo en
Doñana, y en todo el tiempo que ha durado esta experiencia, y su cercanía y humildad. Gracias
también a Teresa Agudo por su inestimable ayuda en todos los procesos participativos que hemos
I
Agradecimientos
llevado a cabo en Doñana, y a todo el equipo del Espacio Natural Doñana por su apoyo en todo lo
que ha sido necesario para realizar esta tesis. En Sierra Nevada, quisiera agradecer especialmente
a Javier Cano, Ignacio Henares, Javier Sánchez, Marta del Castillo y Sara Cordón su amabilidad e
interés en todo lo concerniente a esta tesis, y hacer extensible el mismo a todo el equipo del
Espacio Natural de Sierra Nevada. Igualmente gracias a todo el equipo de la Fundación Doñana
21 y de WWF por su apoyo en este trabajo. La realización de entrevistas, encuestas y talleres
participativos ha demandado de la colaboración de un gran número de personas sin quienes esta
Tesis no habría sido posible sin la colaboración de mucha gente. Por ello querría agradeceros a
todos los que habéis prestado vuestro tiempo y energía de forma desinteresada con la esperanza
de que este trabajo pudiese aportar un grano de arena en hacer las cosas mejores.
Gracias también a todos los miembros del departamento de Ecología, por vuestro apoyo, y
ánimos durante estos años. Por las comidas en la biblioteca del departamento y las cañas en la
cafetería que permiten olvidarse de la absorbente tarea de hacer la tesis con una buena dosis de
risas. Especialmente gracias a Conchi, Amanda, Pipo, Manuel, Pablo, Paco, Carlos y todos los
demás compañeros.
Gracias también a todos los que me habéis apoyado desde el otro lado del Atlántico por vuestro
tiempo y consejos sinceros, gracias Gretchen y Paul, y gracias al fantástico equipo profesional y
humano que manteneis: Rachelle, Chase y todos los demás. Gracias también Marion por tu
caluroso recibimiento en Nottingham, quien me ha cuidado como una madre y a Roy por todo su
apoyo durante la estancia de quienes he aprendido mucho, y a Emil quien me abrió las puertas de
su casa durante tres meses fabulosos. Por ultimo gracias también a Tobias por el tiempo
compartido en el ZEF en Bonn y las discusiones profesionales y a todo el equipo por vuestra
calurosa bienvenida y los planes de futuro (Grace, Utkur, Berzot, Tillman, Joe y todos los demás).
Gracias también, especialmente a todos los amigos que me habéis escuchado durante estos
años todo lo relativo a esta tesis, especialmente a Bruno, Luis y Nacho. Gracias como no, a mi
familia, quien me ha apoyado directamente desde el principio, y me ha alentado en todo el
proceso a dar lo mejor de mí mismo, valorando mis capacidades, acogiéndome en casa cuando a
sido necesario, y alimentándome durante este último mes a un ritmo de más de 3mil calorías
diarias para cubrir el desgaste energético sin haber perdido peso. Por ultimo, y más importante,
gracias Britta por tu amor, ánimos, paciencia y constante apoyo durante todo este proceso.
Aunque no lo creas, has sido un empuje enorme en este trabajo.
Ignacio Palomo Ruiz
Madrid, Junio de 2013
II
Managing protected areas beyond their limits
Executive Summary
Introduction and objectives
Protected areas are the main instrument for the conservation of nature. They cover 14% of the
terrestrial surface and are present in nearly all world countries. These lands contain some of the
most wonderful landscapes, the world´s most valuable places in terms of biodiversity, and
provide multiple ecosystem services that maintain human societies´ well-being. However, these
lands are not protected forever. For 30 years scientists have alerted that it is unrealistic to
conserve islands of nature within a transformed landscape. Among the drivers of change
recognized by the academia, land use change seems to be the most devastating one and could
compromise the long term conservation of protected areas.
Sustainability Science has emerged as a mission oriented discipline because it seeks to stop the
current rates of nature destruction. For that it focuses on analyzing the links that exist between
nature and society as means to reconnect human beings to nature, being Social-ecological systems
its object of study. Ecosystem services, the contributions to human well-being derived from
nature, is an emerging field originated in the Academia in the 1970´s which is spreading among
policy making for landscape planning.
The aim of this thesis has been to design a holistic and integrative landscape planning approach
that integrates protected areas into its surrounding landscapes from a social-ecological systems
approach. For that purpose we used several ecosystem services assessments to design a
landscape planning strategy for protected areas and their surrounding landscapes. To deal with
this general objective, we specifically aimed to:
(1) Analyze the historical evolution of the protected area concept under the light of the
conservation paradigm, including its limitations and the challenges in the current context
of global change
(2) Evaluate the current scientific knowledge regarding ecosystem service mapping
(3) Explore the role of deliberative ecosystem service flow maps (from service providing
units to ecosystem service beneficiaries) for protected areas management
(4) Analyze the effect of land use change around protected areas on the delivery of ecosystem
services in the context of broad social-ecological systems in which the protected areas are
embedded
(5) Identify the historical trend of land use change at local scale, and its effect on ecosystem
services
III
Executive summary
(6) Analyze the zoning schemes of protected areas and its adequacy for Mediterranean
cultural landscapes under a social-ecological approach, using ecosystem service maps
(7) Create management guidelines that incorporate uncertainty for protected areas based on
participatory scenario planning
Methodological approach and study area
This Thesis incorporates an analysis of the biophysical and social dimensions of ecosystem
services through the combination of quantitative and qualitative data. Specifically we performed:
(1) literature reviews on the topics of protected areas, ecosystem services and scenarios,
including a systematic review of 113 papers mapping ecosystem services; (2) land use change
analysis; (3) ecosystem service mapping including spatial modeling; and (4) field work from
January 2009 to December 2011 in order to convey information about: (i) perceptions for
ecosystem services through the realization of semi-structured interviews (N=32) and
questionnaires (N=183); (ii) ecosystem service mapping through two deliberative ecosystem
service mapping workshops (20 and 21 participants); and (iii) the effect of ecosystem service
trade-offs in human well-being considering future scenarios through two participatory scenario
planning and backasting workshops (34 and 32 participants). Figure 1 shows the aims of the PhD
Thesis and the methodologies used to achieve them.
IV
Aims Methodology
(1) Analyze the historical evolution of

the protected area concept
Literature review
(2) Evaluate the current scientific
knowledge regarding ecosystem
service mapping
(3) Explore the role of deliberative Deliberative mapping

ecosystem service flow maps for workshops
protected areas management
(4) Analyze the effect of land use Land use change analysis
change around protected areas on the
delivery of ecosystem services
Ecosystem service mapping
through modelling and
(5) Identify the historical trend of
other methods
land-use change at local scale and its
effect on ecosystem services
Semi-structured
interviews and
(6) Analyze the zoning schemes of
questionnaires
protected areas
(7) Create management guidelines Participatory scenario

that incorporate uncertainty for planning workshops
protected areas
Figure 1. Specific aims of the PhD Thesis and methods used to achieve them.
Two contrasting protected areas have served to this study. The Sierra Nevada (South Spain)
protected area which is representative of mountain protected areas in Spain and worldwide and
the Doñana (Southwest Spain) protected area, which includes a coastal wetland unique in Europe,
and exemplifies the problems of a protected area at the outfall of a major drain basin. Their
importance is reflected in the number of protection categories: National Park, Natural Park,
Natura 2000 reserve, World Heritage Site and Ramsar Wetland (these last two only Doñana). The
landscapes covered by these protection figures are Mediterranean cultural landscapes also
designated as biosphere reserves. As protected areas are deeply interrelated to their
surroundings, we have delimited the social-ecological systems of both protected areas as our
study areas (Figure 2). These include the greater ecosystems (biophysical system) on which the
protected areas are located, and the municipalities (socio-economic system) covered by the
protected areas, depending on, or influencing directly the protected area.
V
Executive summary
Figure 2. Social-ecological systems of Doñana and Sierra Nevada in Andalucía (South Spain).
Results
Two theoretical (1 and 2) and five empirical results chapters integrate the thesis (3, 4, 5, 6 and
7). Figure 3 shows how results chapters’ are related, successfully achieving the proposed
objectives.
VI
Conceptual framework & literature review
Chapter 1 From Islands to Networks to Multi-functional Landscapes: Incorporating the Socio-

ecological Approach into Protected Areas in the Anthropocene
Chapter 2 A blueprint for mapping and modeling ecosystem services
Biophysical dimension Social dimension

Chapter 3 Parks, buffer zones and surrounding landscape: Mapping ecosystem services flows
Chapter 4 Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around the Doñana protected area in relation to
land use change
Chapter 5 Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: A case study in the Doñana
Natural Areas marshes, SW Spain
Chapter 7 Participatory Scenario Planning for

Chapter 6 Evaluation of protected areas Protected Areas Management under the
zoning using the ecosystem services Ecosystem Services Framework: the
approach. Insights for landscape Doñana Social-Ecological System in
planning Southwestern Spain
Guideliness for landscape planning and management
Figure 3. Structure of the results of the PhD dissertation, showing the relationships among them.
(ES=Ecosystem Services).
Chapter 1 reviews the historical evolution of the protected areas concept. We have found that
an originally static approach seeking the protection of islands of nature has evolved to the
creation of reserve networks and to incorporate recently a landscape approach. Current
protected area limitations are isolation, location bias and lack of societal support. We analyze how
the ecosystem service framework could overcome some of these limitations and further integrate
protected areas into their surrounding landscape. Then we propose a landscape management
strategy for protected areas under the social-ecological approach. Its main characteristics would
be to include Social Sciences as well as real participation of stakeholders into protected areas, to
integrate a diversity of institutions in its management, and to incorporate the social-ecological
factors that lead to the creation of cultural landscapes, among which local ecological knowledge is
a key component.
Chapter 2 results from collaboration with several scientists of the working group on mapping
ecosystem services from the Ecosystem Service Partnership. Here, we identify the current gaps
and trends of ecosystem service mapping and propose a blueprint for the systematization of
knowledge in the field. We found that the main knowledge gaps are mapping the demand of
ecosystem services, mapping cultural services, mapping more than one service in order to analyze
ecosystem service tradeoffs and mapping services in areas such as South and Central America.
VII
Executive summary
The main contribution made by the Thesis author to this research was to work on the creation of
the matrix that integrates all the studies reviewed and perform the descriptive analysis.
Moving beyond the knowledge gaps unraveled in chapter 2, chapters 3 and 4 present the
results of the deliberative mapping workshops, trying to deal with objectives 3 and 4 (see Fig. 2).
In Chapter 3, using the concept of ecosystem service flows (from service providing units to
ecosystem service beneficiaries), we suggest that protected areas should be integrated into their
surrounding landscape with a “beyond their limits” management strategy. Mapping ecosystem
service flows reveals to be a powerful tool not only to identify conservation priority areas, but
also to connect protected areas to their beneficiaries in the surrounding lands. We also
demonstrate that the main problems both protected areas face (especially Doñana) are originated
in the surrounding matrix, highlighting the need of a landscape management approach for
protected areas. In Chapter 4, we analyze the effects of the current main driver of change -i.e., land
use change-. We measured land use changes from 1956 to 2007 in Doñana social-ecological
system and combined these results with the spatial distribution of ecosystem services supply
through several indices (Service Provision Hotspots, Provisioning, Regulating, Cultural, Richness
and Decline). Although protected areas have succeeded in preventing land use change within
them, the results confirm the existence of two opposed Doñanas (one devoted to conservation
within the protected area and the second dedicated to development outside it). This dual
landscape promotes the delivery of provisioning services outside the protected area, and
regulating and cultural services within it. This could affect the long term delivery of regulating
and cultural services within the protected area due to border effects. Within this Chapter we
discuss how the deliberative mapping techniques used provide very similar results as non-
participatory approaches done in the area, providing an early warning evaluation of ecosystem
services.
The historical effects of land use change on the ecosystem services delivered by the Doñana
marshes are analyzed in Chapter 5. Wetland conversion is one the main environmental concerns
worldwide. Results from the historical analysis are combined with land use change rates and
social perceptions for ecosystem services to assess the effects of the marsh transformation on the
perceived vulnerability of ecosystem services. Lessons extracted from this combined assessment
include the need of shifting from conservation vs. development to multifunctional landscapes and
to multi-scale governance systems that secure a variety of ecosystem services to the diversity of
beneficiaries who enjoy them.
The zoning schemes of the Doñana and Sierra Nevada protected areas are analyzed under the
social-ecological and ecosystem service approach in Chapter 6. The effects of land use and
protection intensity on ecosystem service delivery are analyzed through ecosystem services
mapped with several methodologies. The zoning scheme is questioned as it does not include the
VIII
social-ecological principles that created the cultural landscapes that both protected areas protect.
We conclude that protected area zoning today disrupts the social-ecological processes that have
created the Mediterranean cultural landscapes. An ecosystem service based zoning would have to
take into consideration these processes and deal with ecosystem services bundles and trade-offs.
A multi-scale participatory scenario planning and backasting approach in Doñana is presented

in Chapter 7. As means to obtain management guidelines, this chapter incorporates local
stakeholders into protected area management and the complexity and uncertainty of Doñana in
the context of global change. The three scenarios from the European Medaction project were
translocated to Doñana originating the following scenarios: Doñana – Global Knowledge, Doñana
Trademark and Arid Doñana. A fourth scenario, Adaptive Doñana – Wet and Creative, was created
according to participants preferences. This fourth scenario was selected as the most desired one
and is characterized by the adoption of the socio-ecological approach for landscape management
at the watershed scale. To establish consensual and broad management plans, to foster
environmental education and to implement a watershed-scale management are some of the
management recommendations.
General discussion
The Mediterranean region is included among the 25 worldwide biodiversity hotspots. One of
the reasons for this unique biodiversity is the long historic co-evolution between man and nature
that has shaped cultural landscapes through small scale perturbations. Several social-ecological
practices, the use of local ecological knowledge and polycentric institutions have led to the
creation of these resilient landscapes in which management of regulating services was a priority.
However, global change, including the integration into a market economy through uncoordinated
policies that homogenize the landscape, is depleting biodiversity, the diversity of ecosystem
services and social-ecological resilience.
Nowadays there are four main approaches to landscape planning coming from different
disciplines: (1) conventional landscape planning; (2) economy; (3) landscape ecology; and (4)
conservation biology. We analyzed how these approaches are currently shaping the landscape
and reducing resilience, regulating services and cultural services enjoyed by the rural population
of the Mediterranean cultural landscapes. The next paragraphs highlight the weakness and
strengths of these four landscape planning approaches on the basis of the socio-ecological
framework.
(1) The conventional landscape planning approach focuses on managing the unprotected
lands through management plans and regulations. The top-down approach of these
IX
Executive summary
regulations and not inclusion of local stakeholders is reducing the resilience of the
landscape as regulations are not case-specific and bottom-up communication channels
barely exist. Paradoxically, a weak legal implementation or an excessive rigidity of laws is
hampering management efforts. Moreover, the parks can hardly influence on upper scales
of management (National, European) although they are directly influenced by them.
(2) The economic approach main aim is economic growth. It sees protected areas as
impediments to economic growth (set aside tourism benefits) and therefore tries to
compensate the surroundings of protected areas economically with development projects.
This transforms the matrix around protected areas to unsustainable uses that reduce
connectivity and regulating services (regulating services are associated to slow variables
not included in markets and conventional economy). These dual landscapes based on the
conservation vs. development model could compromise conservation of protected areas in
the long term.
(3) The landscape ecology approach integrates protected areas and their surrounding
landscape. However it provides a descriptive rather than functional framework which
doesn’t solve the conservation and development disparities. Moreover, treating
landscapes as a whole does not assess the ecological factors delivering ecosystem services
nor the societal factors that shape their demand sufficiently.
(4) The conservation biology approach to landscape planning has been to set aside protected
areas from human transformation. Despite the evolution of the approach, it faces
currently several problems because it doesn’t integrate the social aspects of conservation,
as well as the ecosystem services approach and the underlying experiential knowledge
(local ecological knowledge) responsible of shaping the current cultural landscapes. Thus,
social-ecological processes can be disrupted, promoting a deterioration of the ecosystem
service delivery and human well-being.
The social-ecological approach, which is based on Sustainability Science hasn’t been applied
before to protected areas and landscape management. We propose an application of the approach
to protected area management based on the following aspects:
(1) Incorporation of Sustainability Science in conservation planning including

interdisciplinary collaboration between scientist, managers and local stakeholders, real
participatory approaches, fostering stakeholder’s empowerment and land stewardship.
(2) Promoting the inclusion of local ecological knowledge in protected areas management, as
it is necessary to maintain the social-ecological practices that have shaped the landscapes
that protected areas cover. Involving a diversity of institutions related to the management
X
of the ecosystem services that protected areas provide in the management of the
protected area.
(3) Designing multifunctional landscapes that maintain the social-ecological processes and
the relationships between biodiversity, ecosystem services diversity and a diversity of
knowledge sources and institutions. This would reduce border effects on protected areas
and maintain the resilience and a diversity of ecosystem services necessary for human
well-being.
We finally suggest a new definition of protected areas to be discussed: “a defined geographical

space managed through legal means under a social-ecological framework that acts as a functional
unit maintaining biodiversity and its associated ecosystem services in the long term to contribute
to human well-being”.
Concluding remarks
Protected areas are necessary but not sufficient for the conservation of biodiversity and its
associated ecosystem services. The way we protect nature within them has changed over time.
Global change poses new challenges on protected areas and on earth as a whole, demanding new
frameworks of analysis that deal with the complexity of the situation. Overall, this PhD
dissertation is about the integration of the most recent conservation approach (Sustainability
Science) to one of the oldest conservation practices (protected areas). The dialogue established
among both illuminates several issues that need to be addressed such as protected area isolation
and the loss of socio-ecological resilience. Sustainability Science provides a framework capable of
dealing with protected area’s current limitations (i.e., isolation, location bias and lack of local
support) and to re-connect protected areas to their surrounding landscape and society. Protected
areas are a core element not only for conservation, but also for landscape management due to
their current worldwide extension and presence in society. Besides exploring theoretically the
integration of Sustainability Science and protected areas, this thesis contains five empirical
studies. These empirical chapters apply drivers of change, land use change, ecosystem service
mapping, and participatory scenario planning as tools to incorporate the social-ecological
approach to protected areas. All in all, this Thesis provides the Academia with a provocative
integration of Sustainability Science into a realm (protected areas) that has been mainly managed
from the side of the conservation biology. Given the various calls for the integration of ecosystem
services into landscape management, this thesis provides policymakers of protected areas a
comprehensive first step approach and several tools for doing so.
XI
Gestionando las Áreas Protegidas mas allá de sus límites
Resumen
Las áreas protegidas han sido la estrategia humana más eficaz y frecuente para conservar la
naturaleza. Además de representar el ideal de la conservación de la biodiversidad por razones
éticas, suministran diversos servicios de los ecosistemas que permiten mantener el bienestar
humano. Sin embargo, la biodiversidad y los servicios de los ecosistemas continúan degradándose
ante el cambio global, sin que las áreas protegidas sean capaces de detener este deterioro.
El principal objetivo de la presente Tesis es integrar el enfoque más reciente de la conservación

(las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad) con una de las primeras prácticas de conservación (las áreas
protegidas), para explorar soluciones al deterioro ecológico global. Se denomina Ciencias de la
Sostenibilidad a la disciplina científica que estudia las interacciones entre la dimensión ecológica
y la social para tratar de superar la crecientemente demostrada crisis ecológica. Para ello
realizamos un acercamiento teórico al concepto de área protegida, a la evolución del mismo y a
las limitaciones a las que se enfrenta ante el cambio global incluyendo: (1) sus sesgos en la
ubicación hacia lugares elevados y remotos, (2) su falta de apoyo social local, y (3) el creciente
aislamiento territorial de las mismas. Por ello, superando el concepto de áreas protegidas “isla”, la
tesis adopta un marco holístico e integra las áreas protegidas en la matriz territorial que las
circunda a través del concepto de socio-ecosistemas. Parte fundamental de este marco lo
constituyen los servicios de los ecosistemas (i.e., las contribuciones directas e indirectas de los
ecosistemas al bienestar humano), que permiten estudiar los vínculos entre las áreas protegidas y
la sociedad. En este contexto, la cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas ha emergido como una
herramienta básica para la ordenación territorial y la implementación de los servicios en la
gestión de las áreas protegidas. Sin embargo, tras la revisión sistemática de la bibliografía
académica, encontramos vacíos de información asociados a la cartografía participativa y la
cartografía de la demanda de servicios. En esta tesus abordamos ambas carencias.
Con el objetivo de explorar el marco de las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad para la gestión de las
áreas protegidas, dos áreas protegidas contrastadas, una situada en las partes altas de un sistema
montañoso (Espacio Natural de Sierra Nevada, ENSN) y otra situada al final de una cuenca
hidrográfica (Espacio Natural Doñana, END) sirven de laboratorio para esta Tesis. El END y ENSN
suministran flujos de servicios que benefician a los alrededores de ambas áreas protegidas y a
regiones lejanas. La cartografía de los mismos permite identificar zonas prioritarias de
conservación y de restauración, y muestra un elemento fundamental de conexión de las áreas
protegidas con su entorno; i.e., los flujos de servicios desde las unidades suministradoras
(localizados principalmente en las áreas protegidas) hacia sus beneficiarios (localizados
principalmente fuera de los límites de las áreas protegidas). Asimismo, la cartografía de servicios
muestra cómo los principales problemas del END y del ENSN tienen su origen en la matriz
territorial que los rodea, confirmando la necesidad de los estudios de áreas protegidas a escalas
XII
espaciales amplias que incluyan el territorio circundante y analicen los cambios de usos del suelo
del entorno. De hecho, se ha observado que la transformación de usos del suelo en Doñana,
frenada por la creación del END, ha provocado una dualidad en los usos del suelo (agrícolas y
urbanos fuera del END y ecosistemas semi-naturales dentro del mismo) y de servicios (alimento
de la agricultura fuera del END y servicios de regulación y culturales dentro). Esta dualidad
desarrollo económico vs. conservación nos lleva a proponer el fomento de una matriz
multifuncional que rodee a las áreas protegidas situadas al final de una cuenca hidrográfica, para
evitar que los efectos de borde afecten a los servicios de los ecosistemas suministrados por el
área protegida. Por tanto, es necesario analizar el efecto de los cambios de usos del suelo a
diferentes escalas espaciales, desde lo local (i.e., área protegida) hasta la escala espacial de cuenca
hidrográfica.
Por otro lado, y debido a que los cambios de usos del suelo son resultado de la historia socio-
ecológica, el análisis multi-escalar de este impulsor directo de cambio sobre los servicios de los
ecosistemas se completa al incorporar el factor temporal. El estudio de documentos y mapas
históricos permite explorar los factores subyacentes (o impulsores indirectos de cambio) que
determinan la transformación de usos del suelo. La reconstrucción histórica realizada para la
marisma del sistema socio-ecológico de Doñana, ilumina el proceso de transformación de
humedales y sus consecuencias en el suministro de servicios (particularmente en los servicios de
regulación), obteniéndose resultados consistentes con los existentes a escala mundial.
Durante los últimos 150 años, la respuesta institucional desde la conservación ante la
transformación de hábitats, ha sido la creación de áreas protegidas, las cuales se gestionan
siguiendo un esquema de zonificación. Sin embargo, la zonificación (en el caso del END y ENSN)
ha limitado en parte los procesos socio-ecológicos que han moldeado los paisajes culturales
mediterráneos. La causa que subyace es que la misma no se apoya suficientemente en las
variables clave que determinan dichos procesos socio-ecológicos, como la diversidad funcional,
los servicios de regulación, o el conocimiento ecológico local, afectando a la resiliencia socio-
ecológica y, por tanto, al suministro de un flujo diverso de servicios. De hecho, parece que los
lugares con mayor nivel de protección según la zonificación del END y ENSN no coinciden con los
lugares con mayor suministro de servicios. Por lo tanto, la pregunta que emerge es: ¿cómo
abordar la ordenación del territorio de las áreas protegidas y su entorno incorporando la
complejidad e incertidumbre de los sistemas socio-ecológicos de los que forman parte?
En este contexto, la planificación participativa de escenarios de futuro es una herramienta que

permite obtener propuestas de gestión consensuadas que incorporen la complejidad e
incertidumbre inherentes a los sistemas socio-ecológicos. Este proceso en Doñana ha
desarrollado cuatro escenarios de futuro que muestran el posible devenir del END. En aras de un
futuro sostenible y deseado se propone un modelo de ordenación territorial basado en planes de
XIII
Resumen
gestión consensuados, una gestión a escala de cuenca hidrográfica y una mayor educación
ambiental que promueva el respeto de las instituciones no formales.
Finalmente, discutimos la idoneidad de las principales concepciones de gestión del territorio

(i.e., ordenación territorial convencional, crecimiento económico, planificación del paisaje y
creación de áreas protegidas) para mantener la resiliencia socio-ecológica y el suministro de un
amplio abanico de servicios de los ecosistemas. Ante las limitaciones de las cuatro concepciones
analizadas, se propone un nuevo modelo de planificación socio-ecológica que permita mantener
la resiliencia en el territorio. Las bases socio-ecológicas de este modelo son: la diversidad
(biodiversidad y diversidad institucional), la conectividad (ecológica y social a través de la
participación) y el entendimiento de la complejidad (mediante la incorporación de los servicios
de regulación y del conocimiento ecológico local y científico a la gestión). En este contexto, las
Reservas de la Biosfera representan el concepto de protección que mejor se adapta al modelo
propuesto y a los paisajes culturales mediterráneos ya que (1) se asientan sobre la base de una
fusión de saberes (i.e., incorporación de diferentes disciplinas, y combinación de conocimiento
científico y conocimiento ecológico local), (2) proponen un modelo de gobernanza adaptativo y
participativo, (3) incorporan un sistema de zonificación concéntrico, gradual y difuso, y (4)
entienden que la conservación de la naturaleza debe ser un componente fundamental para el
bienestar humano
XIV
Índice de contenidos
Agradecimientos .............................................................................................................................................................. I
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... III
Resumen .......................................................................................................................................................................... XII
Índice de contenidos .................................................................................................................................................. XV
Índice de tablas......................................................................................................................................................... XVIII
Índice de figuras ....................................................................................................................................................... XXIII
Listado de publicaciones que conforman la Tesis........................................................................................ XXX
Listado de Acrónimos ............................................................................................................................................ XXXI
1. Introducción general ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Las áreas protegidas: ayer, hoy y retos actuales ............................................................................ 3
1.2. Marco conceptual y analítico. Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad y servicios de los

ecosistemas .................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2.1. Las metodologías participativas en la investigación en las Ciencias de la

Sostenibilidad ............................................................................................................................ 10
1.2.2. La cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas como forma de implementación de

servicios a través del análisis de trade-offs y bundles ............................................... 11
1.2.3. La planificación de escenarios para abordar la incertidumbre, la complejidad

asociada a las áreas protegidas, y la ordenación del territorio ............................. 13
1.3. Objetivos de la tesis .................................................................................................................................. 14
1.4. Planteamiento y estructura de la tesis ............................................................................................. 16
2. Área de estudio ......................................................................................................................................................... 43
Área de estudio ................................................................................................................................................... 26
3. Metodología general ............................................................................................................................................... 31
Metodología .................................................................................................................................................................... 33
4. Resultados................................................................................................................................................................... 41
4.1. De islas a redes y paisajes multifuncionales. Incorporando la aproximación socio-

ecológica a las áreas protegidas en el Antropoceno .................................................................. 44
4.2. Un patrón para la modelización y la cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas ........ 74
XV
Índice
4.3. Parques Nacionales, áreas buffer y su entorno: cartografía de flujos de servicios de los
ecosistemas ................................................................................................................................................ 88
4.4. Cartografía deliberativa de servicios de los ecosistemas en el Parque Nacional de

Doñana y su entorno en relación a los cambios de usos del suelo ................................... 104
4.5. Efectos de los cambios de usos del suelo sobre los servicios de los humedales:
Aplicación en las marismas de Doñana........................................................................................ 122
4.5. Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: A case study in the Doñana
marshes in southwestern Spain...................................................................................................... 123
4.6. Evaluación de la zonificación de áreas protegidas mediante el marco de los servicios

de los ecosistemas. Recomendaciones para la ordenación del territorio ..................... 158
4.6. Evaluation of protected areas zoning using the ecosystem services approach. Insights
for landscape planning ....................................................................................................................... 159
4.7. Planificación participativa de escenarios de futuro para la gestión de áreas protegidas

bajo el marco de los servicios. Aplicación al sistema socio-ecológico de Doñana ..... 188
5. Discusión .................................................................................................................................................................. 225
5.1. Un binomio en evolución: Seres humanos y naturaleza. ....................................................... 225
5.1.1. Características ecológicas y sociales de los paisajes culturales mediterráneos . 227
5.1.2. La multifuncionalidad y la resiliencia de los paisajes culturales mediterráneos 229
5.1.3. El cambio global y sus efectos sobre los paisajes culturales mediterráneos ........ 233
5.2. Las diferentes concepciones del territorio y de gestión territorial................................... 237
5.2.1. Gestionando el territorio bajo la perspectiva de la ordenación territorial

convencional. Ordenación de los usos en el entorno de las áreas protegidas
....................................................................................................................................................... 238
5.2.2. Gestionando el territorio desde la perspectiva del crecimiento económico.

Maximizando la producción y la rentabilidad ........................................................... 245
5.2.3. Gestionando el territorio desde la perspectiva de la geografía. Entendiendo el

territorio como paisaje........................................................................................................ 250
5.2.4. Gestionando el territorio desde la biología de la conservación. Implicaciones de

las áreas protegidas en el suministro de servicios de los ecosistemas ........... 254
5.3. Una visión integradora: la planificación socio-ecológica del territorio. Aplicaciones a

las áreas protegidas ............................................................................................................................. 264
5.3.1. Gestionando para promover la diversidad biológica y social ..................................... 268
5.3.2. Gestionando para promover la conectividad en el territorio ..................................... 271
XVI
5.3.3. Gestionar la complejidad e incorporar las variables lentas ......................................... 273
5.3.4. Gestionando los trade-offs entre servicios tanto de las unidades suministradoras
como de los beneficiarios ................................................................................................... 276
5.3.5. El papel de las áreas protegidas en la planificación socio-ecológica del territorio.

Reclamando el modelo de las Reservas de Biosfera ............................................... 277
5.4. Necesidades futuras de investigación............................................................................................ 281
6. Conclusiones generales ...................................................................................................................................... 295
Conclusiones generales ........................................................................................................................................... 297
General conclusions.................................................................................................................................................. 300
Glosario de términos ................................................................................................................................................ 303
Anexo 1. Listado de publicaciones académicas relacionadas con la tesis .......................................... 309
Anexo 2. Listado de publicaciones no académicas ...................................................................................... 311
Anexo 3. Paneles utilizados para la identificación de servicios de los ecosistemas. Mapas base
utilizados para la cartografía de flujos de servicios ......................................................................................... 313
Anexo 4. Cuestionario de los talleres de cartografía de servicios por gestores e investigadores

de los espacios naturales de Doñana y Sierra Nevada. (Modelo de Sierra Nevada) ........................... 321
Anexo 5. Encuesta para la planificación de escenarios de futuro en Doñana ................................... 325
Anexo 6. Entrevista semi-estructurada realizada para la planificación de escenarios de futuro

en Doñana. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 330
XVII
Índice de tablas
2. Área de estudio
Tabla 2.1. Características de los socio-ecosistemas del Espacio Natural de Doñana y Sierra
Nevada. INE: Instituto Nacional de estadística. Consultado en febrero de 2013. ................................... 28
Tabla 2.2. Zonas de estudio incluidas en cada capítulo de la tesis. .......................................................... 29
3. Métodología general
Tabla 3.1. Principales aspectos del marco metodológico de evaluación de servicios abordados
en cada capítulo de la Tesis. .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Tabla 3.2. Diferentes metodologías de toma de datos utilizadas en la tesis respecto a si son
participativas o no. RSB: Revisión sistemática bibliográfica. TPCS: Taller participativo de
cartografía de servicios. TPPEF: Taller participativo de planificación de escenarios de futuro....... 35
4. Resultados
4.1. From Islands to Networks and Multi-functional Landscapes: Incorporating the Socio-
ecological Approach into Protected Areas in the Anthropocene
Table 4.1.1. Evolution of the protected area concept: from islands to networks to the landscape
approach. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Table 4.1.2. Main characteristics of the complex, adaptive landscape strategy for protected
areas. ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
4.2. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services
Table 4.2.1. Comparison of approaches used in recent reviews of mapping ecosystem services.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 77
Table 4.2.2. Keywords used in the bibliographic review in ISI Web of Science, Science Direct
and, Google Scholar. Plural forms of the word were used where sensible. ............................................. 78
4.3. National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows
Table 4.3.1. Summary of ecosystem services perceived by experts during the workshops on the
Doñana and Sierra Nevada protected areas. The relative importance of the service, the ecosystem
XVIII
service trend (based on the majority of experts’ views), and the scale of beneficiaries are shown.
The data represent the consensus obtained from the first section of the questionnaire ................... 92
Table 4.3.2. Categories of protection of both protected areas and the perceived distribution of
service provision hotspots (SPHs), SPHs of each of the ecosystem services categories (i.e.,
provisioning, regulating and cultural), risk (degraded SPHs) and service benefiting areas. The
data represent the distribution of the density of dots(as percentages, %) for each of the
protection categories. ..................................................................................................................................................... 94
Table 4.3.3. Summary of descriptive statistics of perceived principal problems in the Don˜ ana
and Sierra Nevada protected areas, drivers creating the problems and location of the problems.
Percentage of respondents (%) is relative to N ¼ 21 for Don˜ ana and N ¼ 20 for Sierra Nevada.
Location refers to inside protected areas and outside them. ......................................................................... 96
Table 4.3.4. Current use of the ecosystem service framework in both protected areas and
perceived usefulness of ecosystem services maps for their management. Percentage of
respondents (%) is relative to N ¼ 21 for Don˜ ana and N ¼ 20 for Sierra Nevada. ......................... 96
4.4. Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around Doñana National Park
(SW Spain) in relation to land use change
Table 4.4.1. List of the most important ecosystem services of the Doñana social-ecological
system................................................................................................................................................................................. 109
Table 4.4.2. Studies mapping social values for ecosystem services through spatial indicators110
Table 4.4.3. Ecosystem service supply indicators obtained from the ecosystem services mapped
during the workshop .................................................................................................................................................... 114
Table 4.4.4. Differences of ecosystem service indicators among land uses on the basis of the
Kruskal–Wallis test ....................................................................................................................................................... 115
Table 4.4.5. Distribution of ecosystem service indicators among the different conservation
management categories on the basis of the Kruskal–Wallis test............................................................... 116
Table 4.4.6. Factor loadings derived from the principal component analysis (PCA), the
eigenvalues and the variance explained of the first four factors ............................................................... 116
marshes in southwestern Spain
Table 4.5.1. Land-use categories and associated ecosystem services. References: (a) Burkhard
et al. 2009 and 2012; (b) Hao et al. (2012); (c) Scolozzi et al. 2012; (d) Vihervaara et al. 2010; (e)
Troy et al. 2006; (f) Zhao et al. 2004; (g) Pinto et al. 2010............................................................................ 129
Table 4.5.2. Description of methods used for the three sampling techniques to identify changes
in ecosystem services based on expert judgment and perceptions of local stakeholders ............... 132
Table 4.5.3. Changes in land uses in the Doñana marshes and estuary. ............................................. 136
XIX
Índice
Table 4.5.4. Expert panel results indicating the trends in the identified ecosystem services ... 140
4.6. Evaluation of protected areas zoning using the ecosystem services approach. Insights
for landscape planning
Table 4.6.1. Zoning of the National and Natural Parks of Doñana and Sierra Nevada, areas
covered by them, objectives of these areas and main services provided by them. ............................. 164
Table 4.6.2. Protection and land use intensity scores for the Doñana and Sierra Nevada social-
ecological systems. ......................................................................................................................................................... 167
Table 4.6.3. Summary of the proxies and sources used for mapping ecosystem services in the
Doñana and Sierra Nevada social-ecological systems ..................................................................................... 168
Table 4.6.4. Factor loadings derived from principal component analysis after Varimax rotation
for the ecosystem services mapped. Only those factors with eigenvalue higher than 1 (Kaiser
Criterion) are shown. Bold squared cosines show those variables that higher contribute to each
factor. ................................................................................................................................................................................... 171
Table 4.6.5. Pearson correlation test among the factor scores derived from the principal
component analysis showing relationships between ecosystem services and the intensity of land
use and the intensity of protection. Significant values at the 0.05 significance level are shown in
bold. ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 173
4.7. Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management under the Ecosystem
Services Framework: the Doñana Social-Ecological System in Southwestern Spain
Table 4.7.1. Main aspects of Doñana, according to the participants of the workshop................. 200
Table 4.7.2. Main differences between scenarios attending to drivers, aspects, and social actors.
The final column refers to the current situation of the Doñana social-ecological system, to allow
the scenarios to be compared with the present day ....................................................................................... 204
Table 4.7.3. Strategic objectives and main management actions proposed for the Doñana social-
ecological system, regarding the four aspects tackled through the backcasting approach ............ 209
Table 4.7.4. Descriptions of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment's Adapting Mosaic scenario
(Cork et al. 2005) and the Adaptive Doñana – Wet and Creative scenario............................................ 211
5. Discusión
Tabla 5.1. Principales servicios de regulación que prestan los ecosistemas mediterráneos y
prácticas socio-ecológicas que permiten su mantenimiento........................................................................ 230
Tabla 5.2. Elementos que fomentan la resiliencia socio-ecológica de los socio-ecosistemas (a
partir de Biggs et al., 2013) y ejemplos de los mismos en los paisajes culturales mediterráneos.
................................................................................................................................................................................................ 232
XX
Tabla 5.3. Diferencias entre los modelos uni-funcional y multi-funcional de paisaje................... 236
Tabla 5.4. Aproximaciones al concepto de territorio desde diferentes disciplinas, la definición
de ordenación territorial concebida desde las mismas y las principales referencias ........................ 237
Tabla 5.5. Zonificación del POTAD. Fuente: POTAD (2003). ................................................................... 238
Tabla 5.6. Principal legislación vigente que afecta al END y ENSN, y escala a la que se origina
dicha legislación. ............................................................................................................................................................. 240
partir de Biggs et al., 2013) y ejemplos de las deficiencias y bondades de la perspectiva del
territorio bajo la ordenación territorial convencional para mantener la resiliencia, así como
principales consecuencias sobre el socio-ecosistema. .................................................................................... 244
Tabla 5.8. Principales servicios de regulación y aspectos de la perspectiva económica que
impiden el mantenimiento de los mismos. .......................................................................................................... 248
partir de Biggs et al., 2013) y ejemplos de las deficiencias y bondades de la perspectiva de
ordenación del territorio desde la perspectiva del crecimiento económico para mantener la
resiliencia, así como principales consecuencias sobre el socio-ecosistema........................................... 249
ordenación del territorio desde el paisaje para mantener la resiliencia, así como principales
consecuencias sobre el socio-ecosistema. ............................................................................................................ 253
Tabla 5.11. Categorías de manejo de las áreas protegidas de UICN, objetivos de las mismas y
principales servicios de los ecosistemas que promueven. Servicios promovidos (+), servicios
promovidos especialmente (++)............................................................................................................................... 255
Tabla 5.12. Porcentaje protegido por las diferentes categorías de protección en España (datos
para el 30% de las áreas protegidas). Fuente: Europarc-España, 2012. ................................................. 257
Tabla 5.13. Elementos de gestión de los Espacios Naturales de Doñana y Sierra Nevada.......... 258
ordenación del territorio desde la biología de la conservación para mantener la resiliencia, así
como principales consecuencias sobre el socio-ecosistema. ........................................................................ 262
partir de Biggs et al., 2013) y ejemplos de los mismos mediante la planificación socio-ecológica
basada en las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad.......................................................................................................... 266
Tabla 5.16. Características principales de las cuatro concepcionas actuales sobre el territorio y
sobre el modelo de planificación socio-ecológica propuesto en esta tesis. ............................................ 267
Tabla 5.17. Factores asociados con la diversidad biológica que fomentan la resiliencia de las
áreas protegidas consideradas como sistemas socio-ecológicos en la Cuenca Mediterránea........ 269
XXI
Índice
Tabla 5.18. Factores asociados con la diversidad institucional que fomentan la resiliencia de las
áreas protegidas consideradas como sistemas socio-ecológicos en la Cuenca Mediterránea........ 270
Tabla 5.19. Elementos asociados con la conectividad ecológica y social que fomentan la
resiliencia de las áreas protegidas consideradas como sistemas socio-ecológicos en la Cuenca
Mediterránea. ................................................................................................................................................................... 272
Tabla 5.20. Elementos asociados con la complejidad socio-ecológica que fomentan la resiliencia
de las áreas protegidas consideradas como sistemas socio-ecológicos en la Cuenca Mediterránea.
................................................................................................................................................................................................ 275
Tabla 5.21. Indicadores del suministro y la demanda de servicios. Varios de ellos pueden
utilizarse para analizar si el suministro de servicios no es supeado por la demanda, esto es, si el
uso se encuentra dentro de los límites sostenibles. Adaptado de Castro et al., forthcoming. ........ 276
Tabla 5.22. Principales tipos de ecosistemas y servicios más representativos que suministran.
................................................................................................................................................................................................ 278
XXII
Índice de figuras
1. Introducción general
Figura 1.1. Diagrama conceptual que muestra los principales componentes de los socio-
ecosistemas. El sistema ecológico suministra servicios de los ecosistemas al sistema social, el cual
afecta a los ecosistemas a través de diversas acciones o intervenciones. Modificado de Resilience
Alliance 2007 (Martín-López et al., 2009). ................................................................................................................ 7
Figura 1.2. Tipología de servicios de los ecosistemas. .................................................................................... 9
Figura 1.3. Número de publicaciones que incluyen las palabras “ecosystem service*” y
“paticipat*” en el “topic”. Búsqueda realizada en ISI Web of Science (all databases) en abril de
2013......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figura 1.4. Numero de publicaciones incluidas en la ISI Web of Knowledge que incluyen tanto el
término “mapping” como “ecosystem services” en el “topic”. Búsqueda realizada en Febrero de
2013......................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Figura 1.5. Esquema de cómo la información generada por la tesis está orientada a la toma de
decisiones. En las cajas blancas se muestra los aspectos abordados explícitamente en la presente
investigación. Adaptado de Daily et al., 2009......................................................................................................... 16
Figura 1.6. Hoja de ruta para entender la relación entre los capítulos de resultados que forman
parte de la tesis. .................................................................................................................................................................. 17
2. Área de estudio
Figura 2.1. Áreas de estudio. Doñana se encuentra al final de la cuenca del Guadalquivir
mientras que Sierra Nevada contiene las cumbres más altas y laderas del sistema Bético. .............. 27
3. Métodología general
Figura 3.1. Marco metodológico para evaluar los servicios de los ecosistemas. Los ecosistemas y
la biodiversidad generan una serie de funciones que se denominan servicios cuando son
disfrutados por las personas generando bienestar humano. Tal y como se conceptualiza el
bienestar humano, los servicios pueden ser evaluados bajo la dimensión socio-cultural y bajo la
dimensión económica. La presente tesis aborda el suministro de servicios (dimensión biofísica),
la demanda (dimensión socio-cultural), la toma de decisiones y políticas y los impulsores directos
de cambio. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Figura 3.2. Esquema conceptual y metodológico de la tesis, y relación de los diferentes
capítulos con el objetivo de alcanzar una propuesta de ordenación territorial. ..................................... 37
XXIII
Índice
4. Resultados
4.1. From Islands to Networks and Multi-functional Landscapes: Incorporating the

Socio-ecological Approach into Protected Areas in the Anthropocene
Figure 4.1.1. (A) Growth in nationally designated protected areas worldwide from 1911 to
2011; (B) Mean surface of nationally designated protected areas from 1911 to 2011; (C)
Evolution of surface protected in the northern and southern hemispheres from 1990 to 2010.
Source IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA): February 2012.
................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.1.2. Hypothetical watershed that represents different landscape configurations, from
areas that are preserved or have minimal human management (usually in the upper watershed
where protected areas are usually located) to multi-functional lands (transfer zone of the
watershed) to intensively managed areas (at the end of the watershed) and their related
ecosystem services. Adapted from García-Llorente et al. (2012). ................................................................. 63
Figure 4.1.3. Examples of different degrees of intensity in the management of the landscape. (A)
Sierra Nevada National Park summits with low-intensity management (Photo © Ignacio Palomo).
(B) Sierra Nevada valleys support a multi-functional landscape (Photo © Marina García-Llorente).
(C) Multi-functional landscape for cattle, agriculture and forest patches in the Spanish plateau
(Photo © Berta Martín-López). (D) Greenhouses in the intensively managed landscape of Almeria,
Spain (Photo © Berta Martín-López)………………………………………………………………………………………. 72
4.2. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services
Figure 4.2.1. (a) Preamble of the blueprint template for reporting ecosystem service mapping
studies and (b) blueprint template for reporting ecosystem service mappingand modelling
studies. .................................................................................................................................................................................. 82
4.3. National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows
Figure 4.3.1. Study areas. Dofiana is located at the end of the Guadalquivir watershed. Sierra
Nevada contains the highest peaks in the Baetic mountain system. .......................................................... 91
Figure 4.3.2. Distribution of: (A) perceived functioning service provision hotspots (SPHs), (B)
risks (degraded SPHs), and (C) service benefiting areas (SBAs) in the Doñana protected area.
The surroundings of the protected area also provide many services because of its location at the
end of the basin. Most degraded SPHs are located along the Guadalquivir River. Several degraded
XXIV
SPHs are located in the northwestern part of the protected area, where agriculture is more
intensive. Beneficiaries are primarily located in the cities of Huelva and Seville. ............................... 93
Figure 4.3.3. Distribution of perceived: (A) functioning service provision hotspots (SPHs), (B)
risks (degraded SPHs), and (C) service benefiting areas (SBAs) in the Sierra Nevada protected
area as perceived by participants. SPHs are concentrated at the summits, with a density gradient
from west to east. Most degraded SPHs are located around the ski resort of Prado Llano.
Beneficiaries are primarily located in the cities of Granada and Almeria................................................ 95
Figure 4.3.4. Simplification of ecosystem service supply and demand for protected areas in a
mountainous area and at the end of a drainage system. For the former, most important
ecosystem services provided by the protected area and its surroundings will most likely be
located inside the protected area (given that it contains the summits and other natural assets,
such as forests). In a downstream situation, provisioning services are most likely located outside
the area’s boundaries (the source of water runoff or the location of agriculture), whereas
regulating and cultural services might be provided more intensively by the protected area and
also outside the area. Because protected areas normally exclude densely populated centers,
ecosystem service demand is most likely located outside the protected area.. .................................... 97
4.4. Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around Doñana National Park
(SW Spain) in relation to land use change
Figure 4.4.1. Doñana study area represented through the D-SES, its protected areas and the
land use changes that have occurred in this area from 1956 to 2007.................................................... 107
Figure 4.4.2. Doñana socialecological system (Doñana SES) and landscape categorization made
to assess edge effects on ecosystem services ..................................................................................................... 111
Figure 4.4.3. Perceptions of managers and researchers regarding ecosystem service importance
in the D-SES. The figure shows the average number of each ecosystem service type included
among the five most important services that each participant selected during the workshop. As
seen, both stakeholders groups had a similar perception about the importance of the ecosystem
service categories. Data include answers from 5 scientists and 14 managers .................................... 111
Figure 4.4.4. Social values for Provisioning, Regulating, Cultural, SPHs (Service Provision
Hotspots), Richness and Decline indicators of ecosystem services currently provided by the D-
SES. Data were gathered from the nine ecosystem services mapped during the workshop. The
smaller maps represent the high-priority areas (defined as approximately the 10 % of the grid
cells with the highest values for each indicator) .............................................................................................. 113
Figure 4.4.5. Biplot of the principal component analysis (PCA) illustrating the relationships
between specific ecosystem services (blue circles), land uses (red triangles) and conservation
management strategies (green diamonds). As seen, the non-protected territory is associated with
urbanized areas and agricultural lands, delivering mainly one ecosystem service (food from
XXV
Índice
agriculture). The National Park is associated mainly with wetland, shrublands and forest where
available water, scientific knowledge, habitat from species and food from cattle are provided. The
Natural Park is associated with grasslands and open spaces where environmental education,
nature tourism, esthetic values and spiritual values are provided........................................................... 113
marshes in southwestern Spain
Figure 4.5.1. Map of Doñana’s Fluvial–Littoral Great Ecosystem, protected areas and its location
in the Mediterranean Basin. The marshes ecodistrict shown in the map is a reconstruction of its
original extent .................................................................................................................................................................. 126
Figure 4.5.2. Protected area in Doñana (ha). The creation of the Doñana National and Natural
Parks were moments of rapid protected area expansion, after which the rate at which new land
was protected stabilized, with small additional increases associated with the restoration phase
................................................................................................................................................................................................ 134
Figure 4.5.3. (A) Evolution of the primary land uses in the Doñana marshes and estuary,
expressed in percentages. (B) Transformation of natural ecosystems in the marshes and estuary
................................................................................................................................................................................................ 137
Figure 4.5.4. Maps showing the primary land-use changes during the period 1918–2006 in the
Doñana marshes and estuary, clustered into the three main categories of land uses (See Table 1 to
see the clusters of individual land-use categories). The northeastern area of the National Park and
the area east of the village of El Rocío were restored through the Doñana 2005 project. The
Doñana estuary has been included among the natural, seminatural and restored ecosystems .... 138
Figure 4.5.5. Percentages of ecosystem services classified by the panel of experts as having
strongly declined, declined, been stable, or been enhanced during the period 1955–2006........... 141
Figure 4.5.6. Percentage of responses to interviews and questionnaires by local stakeholders
and tourists perceiving different categories of ecosystem services as having declined in the
municipalities of marshes and estuary: (A) for overall ecosystem service categories, i.e.,
provisioning, regulating, and cultural; (B) for specific ecosystem services6 ........................................ 142
4.6. Evaluation of protected areas zoning using the ecosystem services approach.
Insights for landscape planning
Figure 4.6.1. Doñana and Sierra Nevada social-ecological systems and zoning of the protected
areas. The Greater ecosystems of Doñana and Sierra Nevada are the biophysical part of the social-
ecological system. The boundaries of the social-ecological system are delimited following the
limits of the biophysical and the socio-economic systems. ........................................................................... 166
Figure 4.6.2. The value of the sum of ecosystem services along the protection intensity gradient
for Doñana (A) and Sierra Nevada (B) social-ecological systems. ............................................................. 169
XXVI
Figure 4.6.3. The value of the sum of ecosystem services along the land use intensity gradient
for Doñana (A) and Sierra Nevada (B) social-ecological systems............................................................... 170
Figure 4.6.4. Ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies derived from the factors of the
principal component analysis.................................................................................................................................... 172
Figure 4.6.5. Protection intensity and ecosystem services (ES) delivery map. High ES delivery
(red areas), high protection intensity (green areas), low ES delivery and low protection intensity
(pale areas) and high ES delivery and high protection intensity (dark brown areas) are shown.174
4.7. Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management under the
Ecosystem Services Framework: the Doñana Social-Ecological System in Southwestern
Spain
Figure 4.7.1. The Doñana social-ecological system, and the ecodistricts that constitute the
Greater Fluvial-Littoral Ecosystem of Doñana. The semi-natural ecodistricts are those ecosystems
modified by human use throughout history in a process of co-evolution. Transformed ecodistricts
are those that have suffered a great modification (degradation) in the second half of the 20th
century, mainly due to the introduction of agriculture, forest plantations, or aquiculture. Sample
points are those places where interviews and questionnaires were made. The main use in the
white areas is agriculture ........................................................................................................................................... 194
Figure 4.7.2. Schematic illustration of the evolution of the Doñana social-ecological system
attending to the conservation vs. development conflict. The x-axis symbolizes time, where the
main stages of the Doñana social-ecological system are reflected. The main events regarding the
conservation vs. development conflict are represented in boxes. Adapted from Enfors et al. 2008
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 195
Figure 4.7.3. Dispersion diagram (a plot of the spread of values in a distribution) of the use of
ecosystem services and their vulnerability according to respondents. The x and y axes represent
the ranking of ecosystem services according to these variables. Satisfaction for conserving
biodiversity and agriculture have the highest levels of use and vulnerability, making them the
most critical ecosystem services to address....................................................................................................... 201
Figure 4.7.4. The four scenarios of the Doñana social-ecological system, illustrating the main
characteristics of each scenario and the main land uses. (A) Doñana – Global Knowledge features
the evolution and implementation of technologies in the Doñana social-ecological system; (B)
Doñana Trademark results in intensified agriculture and tourism, as well as social conflicts; (C)
Arid Doñana has a lack of water due to climate change, and features the efforts of NGOs to
maintain social cohesion; and (D) Adaptive Doñana – Wet and Creative shows a mosaic of uses
compatible with sustainability. Feedback between the illustrator and the authors was needed to
achieve the final results. Illustration by Antonio Ojea ................................................................................... 203
Figure 4.7.5. Provision of ecosystem services and human well-being variables under each
scenario, compared to the current situation (big increase = 2; increase = 1; constant = 0; decrease
XXVII
Índice
= -1, large decrease = -2). Abbreviations: Pollination & pests reg. = Pollination & pests regulation;
Sat. biodiversity = Satisfaction for biodiversity; Env. Education = Environmental education ...... 207
Figure 4.7.6. Summary of the evolution of ecosystem services and human well-being under the
four scenarios. The vertical axis refers to the management and the horizontal axis refers to the
main drivers of change (in boxes). ......................................................................................................................... 208
5. Discusión
Figura 5. 1. Hipótesis de la perturbación intermedia. Se observa como un ligero aumento de la

intensidad de uso incrementa los valores de biodiversidad, mientras que una intensidad excesiva
los disminuye enormemente. Fuente: Pineda y Montalvo (1995). ............................................................ 226
Figura 5.2. Diferentes grados de transformación del territorio por la acción humana. Aunque
los mismos pueden entenderse como una evolución histórica, coexisten en la actualidad en
diferentes partes del planeta. Fuente: González Bernáldez, 1981. ............................................................ 234
Figura 5.3. Ejemplos de transformación de usos del suelo en el entorno de áreas protegidas. (A)
Muestra una la zona de invernaderos de El Ejido situada a escasos kilomtreos el ENSN. (B)
Muestra el complejo turístico y campo de Golf de Matalascañas junto al límite del Parque Nacional
de Doñana (Fuente: Google Maps)........................................................................................................................... 240
Figura 5.4. Simplificación del enfoque de arriba-abajo (top-down) que sigue la gestión de áreas
protegidas, sobre los que influyen varios niveles organizacionales mientras que las propias áreas
protegidas solo pueden influir en el nivel municipal sobre aquellos municipios en los que se
asientan o sobre municipios cercanos. ................................................................................................................. 242
Figura 5.5. Nivel de influencia y escala organizacional de las instituciones del sistema socio-
ecológico de Doñana que gestionan servicios de los ecosistemas. (Fuente: Gómez-Baggethun et al.,
2013).................................................................................................................................................................................... 243
Figura 5.6. Mapa de las áreas protegidas de España. Como se puede observar la mayoría se
encuentra en zonas de montaña. .............................................................................................................................. 246
Figura 5.7. Gráfico de integración de las cuatro formas principales de entendimiento del
territorio desde una perspectiva multi-escalar. En las cuatro predomina una arquitectura
institucional basada en procesos de arriba a abajo (top-down), lo que crea diferentes conflictos
sobre el territorio. .......................................................................................................................................................... 264
Figura 5.8. Principales elementos de un socio-ecosistema resiliente. Un sistema socio-ecológico
que se caracterice por la diversidad, la conectividad y la incorporación de las variables lentas y
que realice una adecuada gestión de trade-offs favorecerá la creación de paisajes multifuncionales
resilientes........................................................................................................................................................................... 268
Figura 5.9. Niveles de diversidad institucional incluyendo instituciones no formales,
instituciones formales y legales y mercados. Fuente: Williamson 2000. ................................................ 270
XXVIII
Figura 5.10. Representación de diferentes estados (planos) en que podemos encontrar un

sistema (bola). En la figura A vemos como una perturbación (como puede ser una sequía
inusualmente prolongada) puede provocar un cambio de estado. El ejemplo B muestra como
cambios en variables pueden hacer cambiar de estado un sistema. Fuente: Crépin et al., 2012. 274
Figura 5.11. Modelo de zonificación de una Reserva de Biosfera y servicios de los ecosistemas
asociados a las diferentes zonas ............................................................................................................................... 280
XXIX
Listado de publicaciones que conforman la Tesis
Listado de publicaciones que conforman la Tesis
La presente tesis se presenta como una compilación de artículos, que se detallan a

continuación:
Palomo, I., Montes, C., Martín-López, B., González, J.A., García-Mora, M.R., Alcorlo, P. From Islands
to Networks to Multi-functional Landscapes: Incorporating the Socio-ecological Approach into
Protected Areas in the Anthropocene. En segunda revisión en BioScience.
Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., Drakou, E., Martin-
Lopez, B., McPhearson, T., Boyanova, K., Alkemade, R., Egoh, B., Dunbar, M.B., Maes, J. 2013. A
blueprint for mapping and modeling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001.
Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Montes, C. 2013. National Parks,
buffer zones and surrounding landscape: Mapping ecosystem services flows. Ecosystem Services.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001.
Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Zorrilla-Miras, P., García-Amo, D., Montes, C. 2013. Deliberative
mapping of ecosystem services within and around Doñana National Park (SW Spain) in relation to
land use change. Regional Environmental Change. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-013-0488-5.
Zorrilla-Miras, P., Palomo, I., Gómez-Baggethum, E., Martín-López, B., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C.
Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: A case study in the Doñana Natural
Areas marshes, SW Spain. En tercera revisión en Landscape and Urban Planning.
Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Alcorlo, P., Montes, C. Evaluation of protected areas zoning using the
ecosystem services approach. Insights for landscape planning. Manuscrito.
Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López, C.A., Montes, C. 2011. Participatory Scenario Planning for
Protected Areas Management under the Ecosystem Services Framework: the Doñana Social-
Ecological System in Southwestern Spain. Ecology & Society 16(1): 23.
XXX
Listado de Acrónimos
CBD: Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica
END: Espacio Natural Doñana
EME: Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de España
ENSN: Espacio Natural de Sierra Nevada
IPBES: Panel Intergubernamental Científico sobre la Biodiversidad y los Servicios de los

Ecosistemas
MA: Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio
PAC: Política Agraria Comunitaria
PDS: Plan de Desarrollo Sostenible
PORN: Plan de Ordenación de los Recursos Naturales
POTA: Plan de Ordenación del Territorio de Andalucía
POTAD: Plan de Ordenación del Territorio del Ámbito de Doñana
PRUG: Plan Rector de Uso y Gestión
PSA: Pagos por Servicios Ambientales
SES: Sistema Socio-Ecológico
TEEB: Economía de los Ecosistemas y la Biodiversidad
UE: Unión Europea
UICN: Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza
XXXI
Capítulo 1 Introducción general
1. Introducción general
“La utopía es el principio de todo progreso y el diseño de un futuro mejor”, Anatole France (1844-
1924)
1.1. Las áreas protegidas: ayer, hoy y retos actuales

Acta de declaración del Parque Nacional de Yellowstone:
An Act to set apart a certain tract of land lying near the headwaters of the Yellowstone River as a
public park. Washington, December 4th, 1871
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, that the tract of land in the Territories of Montana and Wyoming, lying near
the headwaters of the Yellowstone River, and described as follows, to wit, commencing at the
junction of Gardiner's river with the Yellowstone river, and running east to the […], is hereby
reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and
dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the
people; and all persons who shall locate or settle upon or occupy the same, or any part thereof,
except as hereinafter provided, shall be considered trespassers and removed therefrom”.
Este es el inicio del acta que declaró la primera área protegida de la cosmovisión occidental.
Unos años antes el 30 de junio de 1864, se había declarado la protección del valle de “Yo-semite” y
el “Mariposa Big Tree grove”, por el 381 congreso de los Estados Unidos (Capítulo 184, p. 325).
Casi 150 años después, las áreas protegidas son consideradas la principal estrategia de
conservación de la biodiversidad a nivel mundial (Chape, 2005; Rands et al. 2010). La definición
más actual de área protegida según la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la naturaleza
(UICN) es: "Un espacio geográfico claramente definido, reconocido, dedicado y gestionado, mediante
medios legales u otros tipos de medios eficaces para conseguir la conservación a largo plazo de la
naturaleza y de sus servicios ecosistémicos y sus valores culturales asociados” (Dudley, 2008). Sin
embargo, esta forma de protección de la naturaleza ha existido durante miles de años de
antigüedad ligada en todo el planeta a lugares considerados sagrados (Wild and McLeod, 2008).
Por ejemplo, los Himas en África del norte, aunque establecidos oficialmente en 1240, tienen una
tradición histórica mucho anterior (MA, 2005a). La relación entre creencias sagradas y la
conservación de tierras y lugares con agua fue encontrada en todos los sistemas de creencias
examinadas por Dudley y colaboradores (2005), por lo que existe un fuerte vínculo entre estos
dos aspectos.
Desde la declaración del Parque Nacional de Yellowstone, el número y superficie de las áreas
protegidas no han parado de aumentar (CBD, 2010a; Butchard et al., 2010; Philipps, 2003).
Actualmente cubren el 13,4% de la superficie terrestre y el 0,5% de la superficie marina del
planeta (Coad et al., 2009, CBD, 2010a). En la Unión Europea, la Red Natura 2000, red de áreas
protegidas creada en la Directiva Hábitats de 1992 (Directiva 92/43/CEE), constituye el mayor
3
Introducción general
acuerdo sobre una red de áreas protegidas y todos los estados miembros deben contribuir a la
misma. La Red Natura cubre casi el 18% del territorio de la Unión Europea (Sundseth, 2012).
A pesar de la gran superficie cubierta por la red de áreas protegidas globalmente, ésta aún dista
mucho de considerarse completa (Brooks et al., 2004; Rodrígues et al., 2004). Las tasas de erosión
de la biodiversidad están aumentando (CBD, 2010a; Butchart et al., 2010; Hoffman et al., 2010), y
en consecuencia, los servicios de los ecosistemas protegidos legalmente que mantienen el
bienestar humano también se están deteriorando (MA, 2005a; Díaz et al., 2006; Cardinale et al.,
2012).
Por ello, el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CBD), que arrancó en 1992 en la Cumbre de
la Tierra (Cumbre de Río de Janeiro) y que han firmado 192 países, ha demandado que en el año
2020, el 17% de la superficie terrestre esté protegida (CBD, 2010b). Las proyecciones de
escenarios de futuro sobre las áreas protegidas indican que para el 2030, estos espacios cubrirán
entre un 15 y un 29% de la superficie terrestre (McDonald y Boucher, 2011). Ante este escenario
surge la siguiente pregunta: ¿Qué porcentaje de planeta debemos declarar como área protegida?
(Tear et al., 2005).
Sin embargo, hay que considerar que las áreas protegidas son necesarias, pero no suficientes
para alcanzar los objetivos de conservación de la biodiversidad (Cox y Underwood, 2011, Palomo
et al., enviado). La literatura académica reconoce varias limitaciones de las áreas protegidas como:
(1) su sesgo hacia lugares elevados y remotos en los que la vulnerabilidad al cambio de usos del
suelo es muy pequeña (Joppa and Pfaff, 2009); (2) las limitaciones y el coste de oportunidad que
suponen para muchas poblaciones locales (West et al., 2006; Wilkie et al., 2006); (3) el efecto de
los impulsores directos1 de cambio en las áreas protegidas y su entorno, como el cambio de usos
del suelo (Joppa et al., 2008; Gimmi et al., 2011), el cambio climático (Hannah et al., 2007;
Kharouba and Kerr, 2010), o la contaminación y sobre-explotación (Laurance et al., 2012); y (4) el
efecto de los impulsores indirectos2 de cambio (como impulsores demográficos o económicos)
que favorecen la presión de los impulsores directos de cambio. Es necesario entender estos
1 Factores inducidos por los seres humanos que actúan directamente sobre los procesos
biofísicos de los ecosistemas afectando a los ecosistemas y su flujo de servicios. Los principales
impulsores directos de cambio son: cambios en los usos del suelo, cambio climático,
contaminación, alteración de los ciclos biogeoquímicos y especies exóticas invasoras (EME, 2011).
2 Factores y procesos sociopolíticos que actúan de un modo difuso alterando los ecosistemas a
través de su acción sobre uno o más impulsores directos de cambio. Los principales son los
impulsores demográficos, económicos, sociopolíticos, género, ciencia y tecnología y culturales
(EME, 2011).
4
aspectos bajo el paraguas del Cambio Global (Duarte et al, 2009) y el Antropoceno3 (Steffen,
2011), que imponen nuevos retos sobre el modelo de conservación basado en áreas protegidas.
La literatura académica y la Unión Internacional de Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN)

reconocen que los retos del Antropoceno hacen necesario revisar el modelo de áreas protegidas
(Barber et al., 2004; Lovejoy 2006). Por ello resulta necesario incorporar las áreas protegidas
dentro de una planificación territorial que afronte sus limitaciones propias, en vez de continuar
únicamente expandiendo la red de áreas protegidas a nivel global (Martín-López y Montes, 2010).
El modelo de gestión territorial actual, cuyo principal instrumento de conservación son las áreas
protegidas, crea y potencia una realidad contrastada de conservación dentro los límites de las
áreas protegidas y desarrollo económico fuera de los mismos (Folke, 2006). Así, en el interior de
los mismos existe una fuerte regulación de los usos con fines de conservación de las especies y
sus hábitats mientras que en el exterior se promueve el desarrollo económico, favoreciendo la
intensificación de los usos del suelo y degradándose los procesos ecológicos clave (De Fries et al.,
2010a, 2010b; Martín-López et al., 2011) que afectan el interior de las áreas protegidas (Laurance
et al. 2012). Este modelo de planificación del territorio en “blanco y negro” tiene su origen en un
entendimiento dual que considera a los seres humanos como una dimensión separada de la
naturaleza que la perturba desde el exterior del límite del áreas protegidas (Wiens, 2007). Poco a
poco, esta visión de conservación vs. desarrollo está siendo reemplazada por la visión de
conservación para el bienestar humano (Folke, 2006; Palomo et al., enviado). En este proceso de
transición se propone cada vez con más auge la sustitución de estos paisajes duales por un paisaje
multifuncional que permita afrontar a las limitaciones de la concepción dual ser humano-
naturaleza (Naveh, 2001).
En la Cuenca del Mediterráneo, donde la co-evolución ser humano-naturaleza se ha dado

durante miles de años y dada la especial intensidad de las interacciones socio-ecológicas, resulta
aún más necesario adoptar el concepto de socio-ecosistema o sistema socio-ecológico4 (Glaser,
2006; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Martín-López et al., 2011). Esta conceptualización permite
expandir el marco de análisis de las áreas protegidas al territorio donde se ubican, favoreciendo
la solución de varias de sus limitaciones como la falta de apoyo social y el aislamiento, y
demostrando las contribuciones para el bienestar humano que generan los ecosistemas y la
biodiversidad de las áreas protegidas. Así el estudio integrador de la dimensión ecológica y social
3 Nombre de la edad “geológica” actual utilizado para destacar el gran impacto de las
actividades humanas en los ecosistemas (Crutzen, 2002).
4 Los sistemas socio-ecológicos o socio-ecosistemas son unidades biogeofísicas a las que se
asocia un sistema social formado por actores sociales e instituciones (Glaser, 2006; Liu et al.,
2007)
5
del territorio y de las áreas protegidas se centra cada vez más en las conexiones entre ambas
dimensiones.
En la literatura académica está documentado que los beneficios de las áreas protegidas son
muy superiores a los costes de las mismas a una razón de 100 a 1 (Kettunen et al., 2010). Aunque
esto es cierto a escala global y nacional, a escala local hay casos en los que los costes locales son
mayores que los beneficios. La causa que subyace es que la transformación del territorio ofrece de
inmediato beneficios privados locales y las áreas protegidas ofrecen beneficios de carácter
público a largo plazo. Esta dialéctica hace necesario integrar los servicios de los ecosistemas que
generan las áreas protegidas a largo plazo en la toma de decisiones, ya que estos beneficios al ser
de carácter difuso y no estar integrados en los mercados, suelen pasar desapercibidos. La reciente
invisibilización de los beneficios que recibimos de la naturaleza (no sólo de las áreas protegidas,
sino del conjunto del planeta) es la causa que subyace a la fuerte expansión que ha tenido el
marco de los servicios de los ecosistemas5 y las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad (Montes, 2007).
El Congreso Mundial sobre Parques Nacionales de la UICN es el evento más importantes para
guiar la agenda mundial sobre las áreas protegidas (Phillips, 2003). El 5º Congreso fue Celebrado
en Durban en 2003, bajo el lema “Benefits Beyond Boundaries”, produjo varios resultados como el
Plan de Acción de Durban. Para guiar las propuestas de futuro, este plan presentó diez resultados
principales entre los que se incluyen: el papel de las áreas protegidas para conservar la
biodiversidad (outcome 1), el papel de las áreas protegidas para el desarrollo sostenible (2), un
sistema global de áreas protegidas conectadas con su paisaje circundante (3), mejorar la calidad,
efectividad y la información emitida por las áreas protegidas (4), mejorar los derechos de la gente
indígena y local (5), aumentar el apoyo hacia las áreas protegidas (7), mejorar las formas de
gobernanza reconociendo la gobernanza tradicional y los nuevos enfoques de la misma (8), y
aumentar la educación y comunicación sobre los beneficios que generan las áreas protegidas (10)
(IUCN, 2004). La presente Tesis Doctoral aborda estos aspectos mediante la aplicación teórico-
práctica del marco más reciente sobre gestión de los sistemas socio-ecológicos -las Ciencias de la
Sostenibilidad- a una de las formas más antiguas para la conservación de la misma; las áreas
protegidas). En noviembre de 2014 tendrá lugar en Australia el 6º Congreso Mundial sobre
Parques Nacionales con el nombre: ‘Parks, People, Planet: Inspiring Solutions’, que ayudará a guiar
la agenda para las áreas protegidas durante los próximos 10 años.
5 Los servicios de los ecosistemas son las contribuciones directas e indirectas de los
ecosistemas al bienestar humano: los servicios de los ecosistemas (De Groot et al., 2010; EME,
2011)
6
1.2. Marco conceptual y analítico. Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad y

servicios de los ecosistemas
Ante lo expuesto en el apartado anterior, queda de manifiesto que es necesario un marco que
integre las áreas protegidas no sólo en la matriz territorial, sino también en el conjunto de
disciplinas científicas necesarias para realizar dicha integración. Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad
(Kates et al., 2001) son, a diferencia de la mayoría de las disciplinas científicas, una disciplina
orientada hacia un fin: la sostenibilidad. Así las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad se definen más por
los problemas que tratan de solucionar que por el contenido de esta ciencia en sí (la diversidad de
disciplinas que la integran) (Clark, 2007). Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad se centran en el
estudio de las interacciones entre los sistemas ecológicos y sociales, considerando que el estudio
por separado de ambos sistemas es insuficiente para su comprensión (Clark y Dickson, 2003). Así,
las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad pretenden romper la dialéctica que tradicionalmente ha separado
las ciencias ecológicas y las ciencias sociales, para crear una ciencia trans-disciplinar situada en la
interfase entre ambas (Carpenter, 2009; Martín-López y Montes, 2011). Por ello, el objeto de
estudio de estas ciencias son los sistemas socio-ecológicos, esto es, unidades biogeofísicas a las
que se asocia un sistema social formado por actores sociales e instituciones (Figura 1.1; Glaser,
2006).
Servicios de los
ecosistemas
internacionales
Ecoregiones
Instituciones
Instituciones
Instituciones
hidrográficas
Individuos
ECOLÓGICO
nacionales
regionales
Ecodistritos
SISTEMA
Especies
SISTEMA
SOCIAL
Cuencas
Acciones humanas
Intervenciones
institucionales
Figura 1.1. Diagrama conceptual que muestra los principales componentes de los socio-ecosistemas.
El sistema ecológico suministra servicios de los ecosistemas al sistema social, el cual afecta a los
ecosistemas a través de diversas acciones o intervenciones. Modificado de Resilience Alliance 2007
(Martín-López et al., 2009).
7
La presente tesis doctoral encuentra su justificación en las diferentes limitaciones de las áreas
protegidas (expuestas brevemente en el capítulo 1.1 y desarrolladas en el 4.1) y el modelo de
ordenación territorial dual (conservación en el interior de las mismas y desarrollo económico en
el exterior). Ante esta situación nuestra pregunta de investigación es: ¿Ayudarían las Ciencias de
la Sostenibilidad con su marco integrador a gestionar las áreas protegidas y el conjunto del
territorio ante el cambio global, de una forma coherente, que aúne conservación y bienestar
humano? Esta pregunta se responde a lo largo de la tesis con diferentes matices. Algunas de las
razones que nos llevaron a formular esta pregunta de investigación están expuestas en Martín-
López y Montes (2010) e incluyen:
1. Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad implican definir los sistemas socio-ecológicos del territorio
donde están ubicadas las áreas protegidas, para centrar la atención en la gestión de sus
tramas socio-ecológicas. Este aspecto permite aumentar la presencia de la dimensión social
en la conservación (Ban et al., 2013; Balmford y Cowling, 2006; Mascia 2003) e incluir las
necesidades de las poblaciones vecinas (Hansen y DeFries, 2007)
2. Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad implican integrar los servicios de los ecosistemas en la

gestión de las áreas protegidas incluyendo: las unidades suministradoras de servicios (Luck
et al., 2003), los beneficiarios de los servicios y los compromisos (trade-offs) y sinergias
(bundles) entre servicios (Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010), fomentando un modelo de
conservación para el bienestar humano.
3. Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad, al reconocer la importancia de las áreas protegidas para el

bienestar humano fomentan la aceptación social de los mismos (Kettunen et al., 2010).
4. Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad son capaces de proponer nuevas formas de gobernanza de

las áreas protegidas, fomentan la participación en la toma de decisiones, la gestión
adaptativa, el co-manejo y la diversidad institucional (Ostrom, 2005).
Dentro de las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad se integra una forma de ver las interacciones entre
naturaleza y sociedad que se centra en las contribuciones directas e indirectas de los ecosistemas
al bienestar humano: los servicios de los ecosistemas (Daily et al., 1997, 2009; EME, 2011). El
auge del marco de los servicios puede apreciarse en varios aspectos como: (1) los sucesivos
proyectos internacionales que lo adoptan, desde la Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio
(MA, 2005a), la Economía de los Ecosistemas y la Biodiversidad (TEEB, 2010), y el Panel
Intergubernamental Científico sobre la Biodiversidad y los Servicios de los Ecosistemas (IPBES);
(2) en el incremento exponencial en el número de publicaciones referidas al mismo (Montes,
2007; Potschin and Haines-Young, 2011); y (3) en el incremento de comunidades académicas
sobre los servicios de los ecosistemas como el Ecosystem Services Partnership o el Ecosystem
Commons.
Aunque aún no existe una clasificación universal para los servicios de los ecosistemas, en la
actualidad la que parece tener mayor proyección es la Common International Classification of
8
Ecosystem Services (CICES) (Haines-Young y Potschin, 2013). Está clasificación, al igual que otros
trabajos recientes no incluye los servicios de soporte para evitar el doble conteo (Fisher et al.,
2009; Hein et al., 2006), y diferencia entre servicios derivados de la biodiversidad y servicios
“abióticos” (incluyendo en estos últimos las materias primas y las energías provenientes de
fuentes abióticas como el sol o el viento). Los servicios provenientes de los ecosistemas y la
biodiversidad se clasifican en tres grandes bloques (Figura 1.2): (1) servicios de abastecimiento:
aquellas contribuciones al bienestar humano provenientes de la estructura biótica y geótica de los
ecosistemas como el agua, el alimento, el acervo genético, la madera, y otros materiales; (2)
servicios de regulación: las contribuciones indirectas al bienestar humano fruto del
funcionamiento de los ecosistemas, como la regulación climática, la regulación hídrica, el control
de la erosión o la polinización; y (3) servicios culturales: las contribuciones intangibles que
obtenemos a través de nuestra experiencia con los ecosistemas y su biodiversidad como el
turismo de naturaleza, la educación ambiental., el conocimiento ecológico local, el disfrute de los
paisajes o el sentimiento espiritual ligado a la naturaleza.
ABASTECIMIENTO REGULACIÓN CULTURALES
Contribuciones directas Contribuciones indirectas Contribuciones no

suministradas por la obtenidos a partir de la materiales, intangibles,
estructura biótica o del funcionamiento de los obtenidas por el contacto
geótica de los ecosistemas directo con los
ecosistemas ecosistemas
Regulación climática
Alimentos Regulación hídrica Actividades recreativas
Agua dulce Depuración del agua Disfrute de paisajes
Materiales de origen Control de la erosión Disfrute espiritual
biótico Fertilidad del suelo Conocimiento científico
Materiales de origen Regulación de Conocimiento ecologico
geótico perturbaciones local
Energía renovables Polinización Educación ambiental
Acervo genético Mantenimiento de Identidad cultural y
Productos medicinales hábitat para especies sentido de pertenencia al
lugar
Figura 1.2. Tipología de servicios de los ecosistemas.
Como vemos, uno de los aspectos principales para contestar a nuestra pregunta de
investigación es la estrategia de los servicios de los ecosistemas en el contexto del marco de los
sistemas socio-ecológicos y de la ordenación del territorio. Tras realizar una revisión de las
publicaciones sobre servicios, Seppelt et al. (2011) destacan cuatro características que deberían
caracterizar a los estudios sobre servicios: (1) apoyar la evaluación de servicios en datos sobre la
biodiversidad y/o las funciones de los ecosistemas; (2) considerar los compromisos (o trade-offs)
9
entre servicios; (3) considerar los efectos del cambio global sobre los servicios a diferentes
escalas; e (4) incluir a los actores locales en los procesos de evaluación de servicios. En este
contexto, la presente tesis en su conjunto pretende reunir estas cuatro características. A medida
que la crisis ecológica global se hace más patente, parece claro que la conservación basada en las
ciencias biológicas es incapaz de parar este deterioro, por lo que se demanda la incorporación de
las ciencias sociales, incluyendo la inclusión de la participación en la gestión (Ban et al., 2013;
Mascia et al., 2003). En los siguientes apartados se introducen los conceptos más importantes de
este campo, destacando la participación los actores locales como elemento principal, la
cartografía de servicios y la planificación de escenarios de futuro asociada a servicios.
1.2.1. Las metodologías participativas en la investigación en las Ciencias de

la Sostenibilidad
La participación de actores locales en proyectos enmarcados dentro de las Ciencias de la

Sostenibilidad permite obtener dos tipos de resultados. Por un lado, los resultados propios de la
investigación en sistemas socio-ecológicos, que se habrían obtenido también (aunque con
resultados posiblemente distintos) sin metodologías participativas. Por otro lado, los resultados
menos tangibles relacionados con la transformación de los actores locales que participan en los
mismos. Aunque son escasos los estudios empíricos que lo demuestran, la participación de
actores locales en proyectos de conservación permite incrementar la efectividad e
implementación de los proyectos (Reed, 2008). Así, la participación es una forma de
empoderamiento, de educación y de incrementar la legitimidad de la investigación, además de
permitir la integración de diferentes grupos de actores locales para generar conocimiento
compartido y facilitar la implementación de los resultados en la toma de decisiones (Siebenhuner,
2004). En el marco de los servicios de los ecosistemas, la investigación debe er “útil para” e
“inspirada por” los usuarios, lo que hace necesaria la presencia de procesos participativos en la
misma (Cowling et al., 2008). La participación permite la transformación de los sistemas socio-
ecológicos hacia estados más adaptativos, si bien, los efectos de la participación suelen ser
menores de lo deseado y los costes en tiempo y recursos de estos procesos son elevados (Menzel
y Buchener, 2013).
En el campo de los servicios de los ecosistemas, el aumento de publicaciones que incluyen la

participación parece seguir el mismo incremento exponencial que siguen las publicaciones sobre
servicios (Figura 1.3). Puesto que el marco de los servicios se encuentra en expansión, resulta
importante que vaya incorporando metodologías participativas, más aún cuando el propio
concepto de servicios fue gestado para una clara implicación social (Menzel y Teng, 2010). Como
hemos visto, los trade-offs entre servicios son un elemento clave para la ordenación del territorio
10
bajo el marco de las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad. Una de las herramientas principales para
gestionar estos trade-offs de forma adecuada es la cartografía de servicios, la cual se muestra
como el elemento clave para la implementación de este marco en la gestión (Goldstein et al.,
2012; Nelson et al., 2009).
70
60
Número de publicaciones
50
40
30
20
10
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Año
Figura 1.3. Número de publicaciones que incluyen las palabras “ecosystem service*” y “paticipat*” en
el “topic”. Búsqueda realizada en ISI Web of Science (all databases) en abril de 2013.
1.2.2. La cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas como forma de

implementación de servicios a través del análisis de trade-offs y
bundles
La cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas es una de las principales herramientas para

evaluar trade-offs y para implementar los servicios de los ecosistemas en la toma de decisiones
(Balvanera et al., 2001; Crossman et al., 2013; Daily y Matson, 2008). La cartografía de servicios
de los ecosistemas es una disciplina relativamente nueva pues el primer mapa de servicios fue
publicado en 1996 (Eade y Moran, 1996). Sin embargo, constituye una disciplina en auge, tanto
por el incremento de publicaciones como por los numerosos trabajos que han analizado la
evolución de esta disciplina (Crossman et al., 2013; Egoh et al., 2012; Martinez-Harms y
Balvanera, 2012; Nemec and Raudsepp-Hearne, 2013). Mientras que los primeros mapas se
limitaban a representar el valor económico de los servicios de los ecosistemas en un territorio, en
la actualidad existen una gran diversidad de trabajos cartográficos que muestran la complejidad
espacial de los servicios y las múltiples facetas con las que se relaciona. El auge de la disciplina
puede observarse en el gran aumento de publicaciones de la misma (Figura 1.4), y en la
11
complejidad de aproximaciones metodológicas existentes. De hecho, actualmente no existe una

metodología universal para la cartografía de servicios (Troy y Wilson, 2006), sino una amplia
diversidad de enfoques y métodos. Por ello resulta necesario realizar un estudio sistemático de
los avances en esta disciplina para evaluar los avances realizados y las direcciones de
investigación a seguir. La cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas cuenta con escasas
aplicaciones en relación a las áreas protegidas (Eigenbrod et al., 2010), a pesar de que desde
diversos foros se está haciendo un llamamiento a estudiar y mostrar los beneficios que para el
bienestar humano suponen las áreas protegidas (Kettunen et al., 2010). La cartografía de
servicios de los ecosistemas mediante técnicas participativas es además, un aspecto que no se ha
abordado hasta muy recientemente (Fagerholm et al., 2012).
Figura 1.4. Numero de publicaciones incluidas en la ISI Web of Knowledge que incluyen tanto el
término “mapping” como “ecosystem services” en el “topic”. Búsqueda realizada en Febrero de 2013.
Aunque la cartografía de servicios puede ayudar por si sola a analizar trade-offs entre servicios,
la incorporación de la complejidad y la incertidumbre requieren de otras herramientas que
faciliten trabajar con estos conceptos. En concreto, la planificación de escenarios de futuro se
muestra como una de las herramientas más adecuadas para este propósito.
12
1.2.3. La planificación de escenarios para abordar la incertidumbre, la

complejidad asociada a las áreas protegidas, y la ordenación del
territorio
Los escenarios de futuro son descripciones sobre cómo se podría desarrollar el futuro, basadas
en una serie de asunciones coherentes sobre las relaciones entre elementos clave y los impulsores
de cambio (MA, 2005b). Su aplicación en el mundo empresarial es conocida a través del caso de la
Shell en 1972, si bien su aplicación en la gestión ambiental es cada vez más común. Las
aplicaciones de los escenarios relacionadas con la conservación son múltiples, incluyendo los
escenarios para la biodiversidad (Sala et al., 2000), para la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero
(Nakicenovik et al., 2000). Sin embargo, con anterioridad a la realización de esta tesis, las
aplicaciones de los escenarios a las áreas protegidas han sido escasas (Brown et al., 2001; Palomo
et al., 2012; Sandker et al., 2009).
Los escenarios de futuro son una herramienta especialmente útil en el marco de las Ciencias de
la Sostenibilidad ya que permiten incorporar la incertidumbre inherente a los sistemas complejos
y analizar los trade-offs existentes en toda toma de decisiones (Peterson et al., 2003). Además, los
escenarios de futuro se pueden desarrollar de forma participativa, lo que permite el
empoderamiento de los actores sociales implicados en la gestión del territorio y acercar
propuestas de gestión, ya que uno de sus objetivos es la búsqueda del consenso entre actores
locales (Biggs et al., 2007). Dado que su aplicación no requiere de conocimientos técnicos, son una
herramienta adecuada para la participación de todo un espectro muy amplio de actores sociales
(Kok et al., 2007). Por ello, facilitan la creación de foros deliberativos en los que científicos,
gestores y población local pueden discutir sobre la ordenación territorial (Huss, 1988; MA,
2005b). El diálogo y el debate durante el proceso participativo son una de las características
principales de la creación participativa de escenarios, que permite generar tanto una visión
compartida como un plan consensuado para alcanzarla (Andersen y Jaeger, 1999).
13
1.3. Objetivos de la tesis
El objetivo general consiste en hacer operativos el concepto y la gestión de las áreas protegidas,
desde una aproximación socio-ecológica, para integrar las mismas en un nuevo modelo de
ordenación del territorio. En resumen se trata de superar la conceptualización y la gestión de
áreas protegidas como un fin en sí mismo, para llegar a un modelo de áreas protegidas que
incorpore no solo la biodiversidad, sino también el bienestar humano. Para ello se han planteado
los siguientes objetivos específicos que han sido abordados en los respectivos capítulos de
resultados de esta tesis:
Objetivos no ligados a un caso de estudio concreto:
(1) Analizar la evolución del concepto de área protegida, abordando sus principales
limitaciones y los desafíos a los que se enfrenta en el Antropoceno, entre los que se incluye
conceptualizar las áreas protegidas como sistemas socio-ecológicos en los que el objetivo
sea la gestión de los servicios de los ecosistemas para contribuir al bienestar humano.
(2) Evaluar la evolución del conocimiento científico relativo a la cartografía de servicios y con
base en dicha evaluación, proponer nuevas direcciones metodológicas para la
sistematización del conocimiento científico en este campo.
Objetivos ligados a los casos de estudio de Doñana y Sierra Nevada:
(3) Identificar espacialmente las unidades suministradoras de servicios de los ecosistemas

protegidos y no protegidos del territorio, las unidades suministradoras de servicios en
declive y las áreas de mayor demanda de los servicios suministrados por los Espacios
Naturales de Doñana y Sierra Nevada, con el objetivo último de sugerir directrices de
gestión de ambos espacios naturales.
(4) Analizar los cambios de usos del suelo entre los años 1956 y 2007 en el socio-ecosistema de
Doñana (D-SES) y su efecto en el suministro de los servicios de los ecosistemas, a través del
desarrollo de indicadores espaciales de servicios.
(5) Identificar los impulsores de cambio que han promovido los cambios de usos del suelo en la
marisma de Doñana entre los años 1918 y 2006, así como la relación existente entre dichos
cambios de usos del suelo y la tendencia del suministro de servicios, con el fin último de
analizar los compromisos entre servicios generados por el efecto sinérgico de los
impulsores analizados.
14
(6) Evaluar la zonificación de los Espacios Naturales de Doñana y Sierra Nevada entendidos
como paisajes culturales mediterráneos, y el efecto de dicha zonificación sobre el
suministro de servicios de los ecosistemas.
(7) Diseñar de forma participativa medidas de gestión consensuadas para el socio-ecosistema

de Doñana mediante la planificación participativa de escenarios basada en el análisis de los
servicios de los ecosistemas y el bienestar humano.
15
1.4. Planteamiento y estructura de la tesis
La tesis sigue un planteamiento de ciencia aplicada, esto es, busca desde su inicio generar
información que pueda ser utilizada por los tomadores de decisiones en la gestión del territorio
(Figura 1.5).
Sistema Socio-ecológico
Propuestas de gestión Decisiones
derivadas de la
investigación (Ordenamiento
territorial) Impulsores de
cambioCartografía
de usos del suelo
Instituciones
Procesos participativos
con gestores: Ecosistemas y
cartografía de servicios
y escenarios
biodiversidad
Valor percibido
por la sociedad
Cartografia de
servicios
Procesos participativos con

Servicios de los
población local: percepción de ecosistemas
servicios y escenarios
Figura 1.5. Esquema de cómo la información generada por la tesis está orientada a la toma de
decisiones. En las cajas blancas se muestra los aspectos abordados explícitamente en la presente
investigación. Adaptado de Daily et al., 2009.
La tesis se presenta como un compendio de publicaciones, los cuales se asocian con cada uno
de los objetivos específicos. Una introducción general y una descripción de las zonas de estudio
les preceden, y van seguidos de una discusión general y conclusiones. La Figura 1.6 muestra la
integración de los siete capítulos de resultados que integran la tesis. Algunos de los capítulos de
resultados se encuentran en el formato de la publicación de la revista científica. El anexo 1
muestra las publicaciones académicas relacionadas con la tesis y el anexo 2 muestra las
publicaciones no Académicas realizadas durante el transcurso de la tesis.
16
Marco conceptual y revisión de la literatura
Capítulo 4.1 De islas a redes y a paisajes multifuncionales. Incorporando el marco socio-ecológico a

las áreas protegidas en el Antropoceno
Capítulo 4.2 Un patrón para la modelización y la cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas
Dimensión biofísica Dimensión social

Capítulo 4.3 Parques Nacionales, áreas buffer y su entorno: cartografía de flujos de servicios de los ecosistemas
Capítulo 4.4 Cartografía deliberativa de servicios de los ecosistemas en el Parque Nacional de Doñana y su entorno
en relación a los cambios de usos del suelo
Capítulo 4.5 Efectos de los cambios de usos del suelo sobre los servicios de los humedales:
Aplicación en las marismas de Doñana
Capítulo 4.6 Evaluación de la zonificación de áreas Capítulo 4.7 Planificación participativa de escenarios
protegidas mediante el marco de los de futuro para la gestión de áreas
servicios de los ecosistemas. protegidas bajo el marco de los
Recomendaciones para la ordenación del servicios. Aplicación al sistema socio-
territorio ecológico de Doñana
Discusión Directrices para la planificación y gestión del territorio
Figura 1.6. Hoja de ruta para entender la relación entre los capítulos de resultados que forman parte
de la tesis.
Los resultados, recopilados en el apartado 4, se presentan en los siguientes capítulos: el

capítulo 4.1 constituye la base teórica sobre la que se construye la tesis, puesto que analiza la
evolución histórica del concepto de área protegida, las limitaciones actuales de las áreas
protegidas y propone una aproximación socio-ecológica para integrar las mismas en la
ordenación del territorio. Aunque este capítulo es el primero de la tesis, ha sido terminado
recientemente y cuenta con aportes del resto de capítulos. El capítulo 4.2 consiste en una
revisión sistemática de la bibliografía de cartografía de servicios por lo que ofrece una
perspectiva amplia de esta disciplina. Una de las principales carencias detectada en el capítulo 2, y
en la ponencia en el congreso ACES, 2008 (ver apartado de publicaciones) es el sesgo hacia la
cartografía del suministro de servicios frente a la cartografía de la demanda. Por ello, el capítulo
4.3 muestra los resultados de la cartografía de flujos de servicios (de las unidades
suministradoras a los beneficiarios) por investigadores y gestores de los Espacios Naturales de
Doñana (END) y Sierra Nevada (ENSN). Este capítulo trata de resaltar la contribución de las áreas
protegidas al bienestar humano y de introducir el marco de servicios a los investigadores y
gestores de estas dos áreas protegidas. Para vincular los resultados de la cartografía con la
gestión del territorio el capítulo 4.4 vincula los mapas del suministro de servicios con los usos
17
del suelo a través de varios indicadores espaciales. Fruto del mismo se obtienen diversas medidas
de gestión para integrar el END en el territorio. El capítulo 4.5 analiza la evolución de usos del
suelo y los impulsores de cambio que la motivan con el fin de entender las causas que están
detrás de este proceso. Este capítulo vincula los servicios a los usos del suelo ofreciendo una
perspectiva amplia de las consecuencias de los cambios de usos. El capítulo 4.6 evalúa la eficacia
de la zonificación del END y ENSN mediante la cartografía del suministro de servicios de los
ecosistemas con datos biofísicos, y la relaciona con la intensidad de los usos del suelo. Por último
el capítulo 4.7 ofrece un análisis de los conflictos de los sistemas complejos y de la evolución de
los servicios de los ecosistemas en cuatro escenarios de futuro para Doñana, acabando con varias
propuestas de gestión.
Finalmente, discutimos la idoneidad de las principales concepciones de gestión del territorio

(i.e., ordenación territorial convencional, crecimiento económico, planificación del paisaje y
creación de áreas protegidas) para mantener el suministro de un flujo variado de servicios de los
ecosistemas y la resiliencia socio-ecológica. Dadas las limitaciones de estas cuatro concepciones
de gestión del territorio a este respecto, se propone un nuevo modelo de planificación socio-
ecológica que permita mantener la resiliencia territorial de los paisajes culturales mediterráneos
y el suministro de un flujo variado de servicios.
18
Referencias
Andersen, I.E., Jaeger, B. 1999. Scenario Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., et al. 2009.
workshops and consensus conferences: Science for managing ecosystem services:
towards more democratic decision-making. Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem
Science and Public Policy 26(5):331-340. Assessment. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 106:1305-1312.
Balmford, A., Cowling, R.M. 2006. Fusion or
Failure? The future of conservation biology. CBD, 2010a. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3.
Conservation Biology 20:692695. Montreal, Canada.
Balvanera, P., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., Taylor, H.R., CBD, 2010b. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
Bailey, S., Kark, S., Kremen, C., Pereira, H. 2001. 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem Montreal, Canada.
services. Science 291:2047.
Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., Lysenko, I.
Ban, N.C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C.C., Klain, S., 2005. Measuring the extent of protected areas
Stoeckl, N., Bottrill, M.C., Levine, J., Pressey, as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity
R.L., Satterfield, T., Chan, K.M.A. 2013. A social– targets. Philosophical transactions of the Royal
ecological approach to conservation planning: Society of London B 360(1454):443-455.
embedding social considerations. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 11:194-202. Clark, W.C. 2007. Sustainability Science: A room of
its own. Proceedings of the National Academy
Barber, C.V., Miller, K.R., Boness, M. (eds.). 2004. of Sciences 104:17371738.
Securing Protected Areas in the Face of Global
Change: Issues and Strategies. IUCN, Gland, Clark, W.C., Dickson, N.M. 2003. Sustainability
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. science: The emerging research program.
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Biggs, R., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Atkinson-Palombo, Sciences 100(14):8059–8061.
C., et al. 2007. Linking futures across scales: a
dialogue on multiscale scenarios. Ecology & Coad, L., Burgess, N.D., Bombard, B., Besançon, C.
Society 12(1):17. 2009. Progress towards the Convention on
Biological Diversity’s 2010 and 2012 targets
Brooks, T.M., Bakarr, M.I., Boucher, T., et al. 2004. for protected area coverage. A technical report
Coverage provided by the global protected- for the IUCN international workshop ‘Looking
area system: is it enough? BioScience at the Future of the CBD Programme of Work
54(12):1081-1091. on Protected Areas’, Jeju Islad, Republic of
Korea, 14-17 September 2009. UNEP-WCMC,
Brown, K., Adger, W.N., Tomkins, E., Bacon, P., Cambridge.
Shim, D., Young, K. 2001. Trade-off analysis for
marine protected area management. Ecological Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O’Farrell, P.J.,
Economics 37:417-434. Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., Welz, A.,
Wilhelm-Rechman, A. 2008. An operational
Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., et al. model for mainstreaming ecosystem services
2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent for implementation. Proceedings of the
declines. Science 328:1164–1168. National Academy of Sciences of the USA
105:9483–8.
Cardinale, B.J., Emmett Duffy, J., Gonzalez, A., et al.
2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on Cox, R.L., Underwood, E.C. 2011. The Importance
humanity. Nature 486:59-67. of Conserving Biodiversity Outside of
19
Protected Areas in Mediterranean Ecosystems. Dudley, N., Higgins-Zogib, L., Mansourian, S. 2005.
PLoS ONE 6(1):e14508. “Beyond Belief: linking faiths and protected
areas to support biodiversity conservation”. A
Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., et al. In research report by WWF, Equilibrium and The
Press. A blueprint for mapping and modeling Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC).
ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001. Dudley, N. (ed.) 2008. Directrices para la
aplicación de las categorías de gestión de áreas
Crutzen, P.J. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature protegidas. UICN, Gland, Switzerland.
415:23.
Eade, J.D.O., Moran, D., 1996. Spatial Economic
Daily, G.C., (ed.) 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Valuation: Benefits Transfer using
Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Island Geographical Information Systems. Journal of
Press, Washington, DC. Environmental Management 48:97–110.
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Eigenbrod, F., Anderson, B.J., Armsworth, P.R.,
Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D.B., Thomas,
Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R. 2009. Frontiers in C.D., Gaston, K.J. 2010. Representation of
Ecology and the Environment 7(1):21–28. ecosystem services by tiered conservation
strategies. Conservation Letters 3:184–191.
Daily, G.C., Matson, P.A. 2008. Ecosystem services:
from theory to implementation. Proceedings of Egoh, B., E. G. Drakou, M. Dunbar, B., Maes, J.,
the National Academy of Sciences of the United Willemen, L. 2012. Indicators for mapping
States of America 105:9455–6. ecosystem services: a review. Report EUR
25456 EN. Publications Office of the European
De Fries, R., Karanth, K.K., Pareeth, S. 2010a. Union, Luxembourg.
Interactions between protected areas and their
surroundings in human-dominated tropical EME (Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio
landscapes. Biological Conservation de España), 2011. La Evaluación de los
143(12):2870-2880. Ecosistemas del Milenio de España. Síntesis de
resultados. Fundación Biodiversidad.
De Fries, R., Rovero, F., Wright, P., Ahumanda, J., Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y
Andelman, S., Brandon, K., Dempewolf, J., Marino.
Hansen, A., Hewson, J., Liu, J. 2010b. From plot
to landscape scale: linking tropical biodiversity Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., Khamis,
measurements across spatial scales. Frontiers M., 2012. Community stakeholders ’ knowledge
in Ecology and the Environment 8(3):153–160. in landscape assessments – Mapping indicators
for landscape services. Ecological Indicators
De Groot, R., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., 18:421–433.
Willemen, L. 2010. Challenges in integrating
the concept of ecosystem services and values Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P. 2009. Defining
in landscape planning, management and and classifying ecosystem services for decision
decision making. Ecological Complexity making. Ecological Economics 68:643-653.
7(3):260-272.
Folke, C. 2006. The Economic Perspective:
Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, FS III, Tilman, D. Conservation against Development versus
2006. Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Conservation for Development. Conservation
Well-Being. PLoS Biology 4(8):e277. Biology 20(3):686–688.
Duarte, C. et al. 2009. Cambio Global. Impacto de Gimmi, U., Schmidt, S.L., Hawbaker, T.J., Alcántara,
la actividad humana sobre la tierra. CSIC. C., Gafvert, U., Radeloff, V.C. 2011. Increasing
Madrid, España. development in the surroundings of U.S.
20
National Park service holdings jeopardizes Huss, W.R. 1988. A move toward scenario
park effectiveness. Journal of Environmental analysis. International Journal of Forecasting
Management 92:229-239. 4:377-388.
Glaser, M. 2006. The Social Dimension in Joppa, L.N., Loarie, S.R., Pimm, S.L. 2008. On the
Ecosystem Management: Strengths and protection of “protected areas”. Proceedings of
Weaknesses of Human-Nature Mind Maps. the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
Research in Human Ecology 13(2):122-142. 105:6673–6678.
Goldstein, J.H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T.K., Joppa, L.N., Pfaff, A. 2009. High and Far: Biases in
Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G., the Location of Protected Areas. PloS ONE,
Polasky, S., Wolny, S., Daily, G.C. In press. 4(12).
Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into
land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., et al. 2001.
Academy of Sciences of the USA. Doi: Sustainability Science. Science 292(5517):641-
10.1073/pnas.1201040109. 642.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Mingorría, S., Reyes-García, Kettunen M., et al. 2010. Recognizing the value of
V., Calvet, L., Montes, C. 2010. Traditional protected areas. Chapter 8 in The economics of
ecological knowledge trends in the transition ecosystems and biodiversity. Teeb for national
to a market economy: Empirical study in and international policy makers.
Doñana natural areas. Conservation Biology
24:721-729. Kharouba, H.M., Kerr, J.T. 2010. Just passing
through: Global change and the conservation of
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. 2013. Common biodiversity in protected areas. Biological
International Classification of Ecosystem Conservation 143:10941101.
Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4,
August-December 2012. EEA Framework Kok, K., Biggs, R., Zurek, M. 2007. Methods for
Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. developing multi-scale participatory scenarios:
Insights from Southern Africa and Europe.
Hannah, L., Midgley, G., Andelman, S., Araújo, M., Ecology and Society 13(1):8.
Hughes, G., Martinez-Meyer, E., Pearson, R.,
Williams, P. 2007. Protected area needs in a Laurance, W.F., Useche, C.D., Rendeiro, J., et al.
changing climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the 2012. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical
Environment 5:131–138. forest protected areas. Nature 489:290–294.
Hansen, A.J., DeFries, R. 2007. Ecological Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., et al. 2007.
mechanisms linking protected areas to Complexity of coupled human and natural
surrounding lands. Ecological Applications systems. Science 317:1513–16
17(4):974-988.
Lovejoy, T.E. 2006. Protected areas: a prism for a
Hein, L,. van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van changing world. Trends in Ecology and
Ierland, E.C. 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders Evolution 21(6):329-333.
and the valuation of ecosystem services.
Ecological Economics 57:209-228. Luck, G.W., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R. 2003.
Population diversity and ecosystem services.
Hoffman, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Angulo, A., et al. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18:331-336.
2010. The Impact of Conservation on the
Status of the World’s Vertebrates. Science MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005a.
330(6010):1503-1509. Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis
report. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
21
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005b. Menzel, S., Teng, J., 2010. Ecosystem Services as a
Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Scenarios. Stakeholder-Driven Concept for Conservation
Island Press, Washington, D.C. Science. Conservation Biology 24:907-909.
Martín-López, B., Montes, C. 2010. Funciones y Montes, C. 2007. Del Desarrollo Sostenible a los
servicios de los ecosistemas: una herramienta servicios de los ecosistemas. Ecosistemas 16:3
para la gestión de los espacios naturales. En:
Guía científica de Urdaibai. UNESCO, Dirección Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., et al. 2000.
de Biodiversidad y Participación Ambiental del Special report on emissions scenarios. A
Gobierno Vasco. special report of Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Montes, C. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
2009. Un marco conceptual para la gestión de
las interacciones naturaleza-sociedad en un Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., et al. 2009.
mundo cambiante. Cuides 3:229-258. Modeling multiple ecosystem services,
biodiversity conservation, commodity
Martín-López, B., Montes, C. 2011. Biodiversidad y production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales.
servicios de los ecosistemas. Pp 444-465, en: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:4–
Biodiversidad en España: base de la 11.
sostenibilidad ante el cambio global.
Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad en España Naveh, Z. 2001. Ten major premises for a holistic
(OSE), España. conception of multifunctional landscapes.
Landscape and Urban planning 57:269-284.
Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I.,
Montes, C. 2011. The conservation against Nemec, K.T., Raudsepp-Hearne, C. 2013. The use of
development paradigm in protected areas: geographic information systems to map and
Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana assess ecosystem services. Biodiversity and
social–ecological system (southwestern Spain). Conservation 22:1-15.
Ecological Economics 70(8):1481-1491.
Ostrom E. 2005. Understanding institutional
Martínez-Harms, M.J., Balvanera, P. 2012. Methods diversity. Princeton University Press.
for mapping ecosystem service supply: a
review. International Journal of Biodiversity Palomo, I., Martin López, B., López Santiago, C.,
Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Montes, C. 2012. El Sistema Socio-ecológico de
8:17-25. Doñana ante el Cambio Global: Planificación de
Escenarios de Eco-futuro. Fundación Fernando
Mascia, M.B., Brosius, J.P., Dobson, T.A., Forbes, González Bernáldez. Madrid.
B.C., Horowitz, L., McKean, M.A., Turner, N.J.
2003. Conservation and the social sciences. Palomo, I., Montes, C., Martín-López, B., González,
Conservation Biology 17:649-650. J.A., García-Mora, M.R., Alcorlo, P. Enviado.
From Islands to Networks to Multi-functional
McDonald, R.I., Boucher, T.M. 2011. Global Landscapes: Incorporating the Socio-ecological
development and the future of the protected Approach into Protected Areas in the
area strategy. Biological Conservation Anthropocene.
144:383–392.
Phillips, A. 2003. Turning ideas on their head. The
Menzel, S., Buchener, M. 2013. Does Participatory new paradigm for protected areas. The George
Planning Foster the Transformation Toward Wright FORUM 20(2):8-32.
More Adaptive Social-Ecological Systems?
Ecology and Society 18(1):13. Peterson, G.D., Cumming, G.S., Carpenter, S.R.
2003. Scenario Planning: a tool for
22
conservation in an uncertain world. Journal of Sustainable Development 7(2):146-

Conservation Biology 17(2):358-366. 163.
Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R. 2011. Ecosystem Steffen, W., Persson, A., Deutsch, L., et al. 2011.
services: exploring a geographical perspective. The Anthropocene: From Global Change to
Progress in Physical Geography 35(5):575– Planetary Stewardship. Ambio 40:739-761.
594.
Sundseth, K. 2012. The Habitats Directive
Rands, M.R.W., Adams, W.M., Bennun, L., Butchart, Celebrating 20 years of protecting biodiversity
S.H.M., Clements, A., Coomes, D., Entwistle, A., in Europe. European Union. Office for Oficial
Hodge, I., Kapos, V., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Publications of the European Union.
Sutherland, W.J., Vira, B. 2010. Biodiversity Luxemburg
Conservation: Challenges Beyond 2010.
Science 239:1298-1303. Tear, T.H., Kareiva, P., Angermeier, P., et al. 2005.
How Much Is Enough? The Recurrent Problem
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M. of Setting Measurable Objectives in
2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing Conservation. BioScience 55(10):835-849.
tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the USA TEEB, 2010. La economía de los ecosistemas y la
107:5242–47. diversidad: incorporación de los aspectos
económicos de la naturaleza. Una síntesis del
Reed, M. 2008. Stakeholder participation for enfoque, las conclusiones y las
environmental management: a literature recomendaciones del estudio TEEB.
review. Biological Conservation 141:2417-
2431. Troy, A., Wilson, M.A. 2006. Mapping ecosystem
services: Practical challenges and
Rodrígues, A.L., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, M.I., et al. opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer,
2004. Effectiveness of the global protected Ecological economics 60:435-449.
area network in representing species diversity.
Nature 428:640–643. IUCN. 2004. Durban Action Plan. Vth IUCN World
Parks Congress. Durban, South Africa. Revised
Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S., Armesto, J.J., et al. 2000. form from 2003.
Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.
Science 287:1770-1774. West, P., Igoe, J., Brockington, D. 2006. Parks and
peoples: the social impact of protected areas.
Sandker, M., Campbell, B.M., Nzooh, Z., Annual Review of Anthropology 35:251-277.
Sunderland, T., Amougou, V., Defo, L., Sayer, J.
2009. Exploring the effectiveness of integrated Wiens, J. 2007. The Dangers of Black-and-White
conservation and development interventions Conservation. Conservation Biology
in a Central African forest landscape. 21(5):1371-1372.
Biodiversity Conservation 18:2875-2892.
Wild, R., McLeod, C. (eds.). 2008. Sacred Natural
Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F.V., sites: Guideliness for protected area managers.
Lautenbach, S., Schmidt, S. 2011. A quantitative UICN, Gland, Switzerland.
review of ecosystem service studies:
approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Wilkie, D.S., Morelli, G.A., Demmer, J., Starkey, M.,
Journal of Applied Ecology 48:630–636. Telfer, P., Steil, M. 2006. Parks and people:
Assessing the human welfare effects of
Siebenhuner, B. 2004. Social learning and stablishing protected areas for biodiversity
sustainability science: which role can conservation. Conservation Biology 20:247-
stakeholder participation play? International 249.
23
Capítulo 2 Área de estudio
2. Área de estudio
Área de estudio
El río Guadalquivir
va entre naranjos y olivos,
los dos ríos de Granada
bajan de la nieve al trigo
Federico García Lorca, Baladilla de los tres ríos
Área de estudio
El área de estudio de la presente tesis incluye los dos únicos Parques Nacionales de Andalucía,
que actualmente forman parte de los Espacios Naturales de Doñana (END) y Sierra Nevada
(ENSN) (Fig. 2.1). Ambos espacios naturales están constituidos por un Parque Nacional y un
Parque Natural que lo rodea (y que difieren por definición en la intensidad de uso permitida). El
END y el SNSN tienen realidades territoriales muy contrastadas. Mientras que el END se ubica al
final de la cuenca del Guadalquivir; el ENSN incluye las cumbres y laderas del sistema montañoso
más alto de la Península. Esta realidad contrastada hace el estudio comparativo de ambos
sumamente interesante y útil para la gestión. Por un lado, el ENSN es un ejemplo de la áreas
protegidas españolas y a nivel mundial, pues estas tienden a ubicarse en lugares montañosos
(Europarc-España, 2010; Joppa and Paff, 2009). Por el contrario, el END es un claro ejemplo de los
problemas que crea para la conservación la existencia de un entorno transformado aguas arriba
(Fernández-Delgado, 2006; Martín-López et al., 2011).
La matriz territorial que circunda las áreas protegidas (en ocasiones llamada Entorno del área
protegida) se relaciona y afecta de forma directa a las mismas. Por ello, y para evitar la visión
dicotómica Espacio Natural vs. Entorno, hemos adoptado el concepto integrador de socio-
ecosistema del Espacio Natural puesto que la intensidad de las relaciones entre la parte ecológica
y la parte socioeconómica hace necesario abordar las dos dimensiones de forma integrada. La
delimitación de ambos socio-ecosistemas ha seguido una aproximación deductiva iniciada con la
determinación del Gran Ecosistema sobre el que se ubica el área protegida (sensu Grumbine,
1990) y que se ha denominado sistema biofísico, y continuada con la delimitación de la parte
socio-económica, formada por los municipios cuyo territorio incluye el sistema biofísico, que
dependen directamente de los servicios de los ecosistemas del sistema biofísico, o que influyen
directamente en él. Las siguientes líneas y la Tabla 2.1 describen brevemente ambas zonas de
estudio, si bien cada capítulo de resultados incluye una descripción de la zona de estudio ajustada
a los objetivos específicos de cada capítulo. La Tabla 2.2 muestra qué zona de estudio se ha
incluido en cada capítulo de la tesis.
26
Figura 2.1. Áreas de estudio. Doñana se encuentra al final de la cuenca del Guadalquivir mientras
que Sierra Nevada contiene las cumbres más altas y laderas del sistema Bético.
27
Área de estudio
Tabla 2.1. Características de los socio-ecosistemas del Espacio Natural de Doñana y Sierra Nevada.
INE: Instituto Nacional de estadística. Consultado en febrero de 2013.
Características Socio-ecosistema del Espacio Socio-ecosistema del Espacio
Natural Doñana Natural de Sierra Nevada
Sistema biofísico Gran ecosistema de Doñana. Gran ecosistema de Sierra Nevada.
(superficie) Ecodistritos: marisma, estuario, mantos Grupos de geosistemas: Pedemontano
eólicos y costero (Montes et al., 1998) subhúmedo, subhúmedo calizo,
(2207 Km2). subhúmedo silíceo, pedemontano xérico
y frio (Jiménez-Olivencia, 1991) (2230
Km2).
Sistema socio- 16 municipios de las provincias de 73 municipios de las provincias de
económico Huelva, Sevilla y Cádiz (3115 Km2). Granada y Almería (3645 Km2)
(superficie)
Superficie total del 3713 km2 3655 Km2
socio-ecosistema
Principales figuras Parque Nacional (1969; 54.252 Has), Parque Nacional (1999; 85.883 Has),
de protección (fecha Parque Natural (1989; 53.835 Has), Parque Natural (1989; 86.335 Has),
de creación; Reserva de Biosfera (1980; 77.260 Has) Reserva de Biosfera (1986; 171.646
superficie) Has)
Características Variedad de ecosistemas, existencia de El elevado gradiente altitudinal permite
ecológicas especies carismáticas amenazadas la coexistencia de zonas de alta/media
(Iberian lynx y Aquila adalberti) y paso montaña y ecosistemas áridos. Gran
clave entre Europa y África para aves biodiversidad vegetal y presencia de
migratorias (García Novo y Marín, endemismos vegetales (Blanca et al.,
2005). El acuífero Almonte-marismas 1998).
tiene un papel importante en el
funcionamiento de diversos ecosistemas
Características La agricultura, y el turismo (de playa, del El turismo y la agricultura son los
socio-económicas Rocío y de naturaleza) son los sectores sectores principales. El Parque Nacional
principales. La agricultura, donde recibió 684.573 visitas en 2008
destacan el arroz, los frutales y varios (Europarc-España, 2010). La parte
cultivos de secano (olivo, vid), estos occidental contiene mayor densidad de
últimos en retroceso, rodea al área población, atrae más turismo, y recibe
protegida. El Parque Nacional recibió mayores precipitaciones que la parte
350.005 visitas en 2008 (Europarc- oriental. El área oriental sufre procesos
España, 2010), mientras que un estudio de des-ruralización, envejecimiento de
estimó cuatro millones de visitantes en la población y aridez. La tasa de
el área en el 2003 (75% debido al Rocío) desempleo es elevada.
(Gómez Limón et al., 2003).
Matalascañas es un centro urbano
costero rodeado por el END. La tasa de
desempleo es elevada. La cultura es una
parte muy importante de Doñana, al
igual que el conocimiento ecológico
tradicional.
Ciudades más Sevilla (703.021) y Huelva (148.918) Granada (240.099) y Almería (190.349)
cercanas (habitantes
en el municipio) (INE
2011)
28
Socio-ecosistema de Doñana (D-SES): Está constituido por el sistema biofísico caracterizado

por Montes et al., (1998) y que contiene un variado conjunto de ecosistemas incluyendo, a escala
de ecodistrito, la marisma, los mantos eólicos, el sistema costero y el estuario. El sistema
socioeconómico lo forman 16 municipios de las provincias de Huelva, Sevilla y Cádiz6.
Socio-ecosistema de Sierra Nevada (SN-SES): Constituido por el sistema biofísico descrito en

Jiménez-Olivencia (1991) que contiene los siguientes ecodistritos: de pedemontano subhúmedo,
subhúmedo calizo, subhúmedo silíceo, pedemontano xérico y frío. El sistema socio-económico
está formado por 73 municipios de las provincias de Granada y Almería7.
Tabla 2.2. Zonas de estudio incluidas en cada capítulo de la tesis.

Capítulos de la tesis Socio-ecosistema de Socio-ecosistema
Doñana de Sierra Nevada
1.Aproximacion socio-ecológica a las áreas Capítulo de revisión a Capítulo de revisión a
protegidas escala global escala global
2. Revisión bibliográfica de cartografía de Capítulo de revisión a Capítulo de revisión a
servicios escala global escala global
3. Cartografía deliberativa de flujos de servicios  
4. Relación entre suministro de servicios y usos

del suelo
5. Impulsores de cambio y relación entre

suministro de servicios y usos del suelo
6. Zonificación de áreas protegidas con
 
7. Planificación de escenarios de futuro 
6 Almonte, Bonares, Bollullos Par del Condado, Hinojos, Lucena del Puerto, Moguer, Palos de la Frontera,
Rociana del Condado (Huelva), Aznalcázar, Isla Mayor, La Puebla del Río, Lebrija, Pilas, Villamanrique de la
Condesa (Sevilla), y Sanlúcar de Barrameda y Trebujena (Cádiz).
7 Abla, Abrucena, Alboloduy, Alcolea, Alhabia, Almócita, Alsodux, Bayárcal, Beires, Bentarique, Canjáyar,
Fiñana, Fondón, Illar, Instinción, Láujar de Andarax, Nacimiento, Ohanes, Padules, Paterna del Río, Rágol,
Santa Cruz de Marchena, Terque y Tres Villas (Las) (Almería) y Aldeire, Almegíjar, Alpujarra de la Sierra,
Alquife, Bérchules, Bubión, Busquístar, Cádiar, Cájar, Calahorra (La), Cáñar, Capileira, Carataunas, Cástaras,
Cenes de la Vega, Cogollos de Guadix, Dílar, Dólar, Dúdar, Dúrcal, Ferreira, Gójar, Granada, Güejar Sierra,
Huéneja, Huétor Vega, Jerez del Marquesado, Juviles, , Lanjarón, Lanteira, Lecrín, Lobras, Lugros, Monachil,
Nevada, Nigüelas, Órgiva, Padul, Pampaneira, Pinar (El), Pinos Genil, Pórtugos, Quéntar, Soportújar, Taha
(La), Trevélez, Ugíjar, Válor y Zubia (La) (Granada).
29
Área de estudio
Referencias bibliográficas
Blanca, G., Cueto, M., Martínez-Lirola, M.J., una Montana mediterránea. Universidad de
Molero-Mesa, J. 1998. Threatened vascular flora Granada.
of Sierra Nevada (Southern Spain). Biological
Conservation 85:269–285. Joppa, L.N., Pfaff, A, 2009. High and far: biases in
the location of protected areas. PLoS One 4
Europarc-España, 2010. Anuario EURPARC- (12):e8273.
España del estado de los espacios naturales
protegidos 2009. Ed. FUNGOBE. Madrid. Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I.,
Montes, C. 2011. The conservation against
Fernández-Delgado C., 2006. Conservation development paradigm in protected areas:
Management of a European Natural Areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana
Doñana National Park, Spain. In: Groom, M.J., social–ecological system (southwestern Spain).
Meffe, G.K., Carroll, C.R. (eds.). Principles of Ecological Economics 70(8):1481-1491.
Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc.,
Sunderland, USA. Montes, C., Borja, J.A., Bravo, M.A., Moreira, J.M.
1998. Reconocimiento biofísico de espacios
García-Novo, F., Marín, C. 2005. Doñana. Agua y naturales protegidos. Doñana: una aproximación
biosfera. Confederación Hidrográfica del ecosistémica. Junta de Andalucía.
Guadalquivir, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente,
Madrid, España.
Grumbine, E. 1990. Protecting biological diversity

through the greater ecosystem concept. Natural
Areas Journal 10(3):114-120.
Jiménez-Olivencia, Y. 1991. Los paisajes de Sierra

Nevada. Cartografía de los sistemas naturales de
30
Capítulo 3 Metodología general
3. Metodología general
Un viaje de mil millas comienza con el primer paso
Lao Tse
Metodología
Las diversas metodologías utilizadas en esta tesis aparecen descritas en detalle en cada uno de
los capítulos de resultados. Por ello, este apartado pretende únicamente presentar una visión
general de las diferentes metodologías utilizadas y compararlas entre sí, con el objetivo de
analizar las aportaciones de cada una al propósito general de la tesis.
Respecto a las dimensiones de los servicios de los ecosistemas que se pueden evaluar: biofísica,
socio-cultural y monetaria (De Groot et al., 2006; Martín-López et al., in press; Figura 3.1), la
presente Tesis aborda las dimensiones biofísicas y socio-cultural. La dimensión monetaria no ha
sido objeto de estudio pues ha sido evaluada por trabajos previos tanto en Doñana como en áreas
de Sierra Nevada (Martín-López et al., 2011; García Llorente et al., 2011; 2012). Por tanto, la
presente Tesis profundiza en el análisis de la dimensión espacial y temporal de los servicios
(desde el suministro hasta la demanda de los mismos), así como en el análisis de los impulsores
de cambio directos (i.e. usos del suelo), la planificación científica y la ordenación territorial (Tabla
3.1).
ECOSISTEMAS (Suministro)
BIODIVERSIDAD
FUNCIONES-
UNIDADES SISTEMA SOCIAL
SUMINISTRADORAS SERVICIOS DE (Demanda)
DE SERVICIOS LOS
ECOSISTEMAS BIENESTAR
Componente biológica de
los ecosistemas con HUMANO
capacidad para generar
servicios
VALOR
Dimensión BIOFÍSICA
La importancia
Valor
que los servicios
Económico
IMPULSORES
tienen para la
Total
DIRECTOS sociedad
IMPULSORES Dimensión Dimensión
INDIRECTOS SOCIO-CULTURAL MONETARIA
TOMA DE DECISIONES Y
POLÍTICAS
Figura 3.1. Marco metodológico para evaluar los servicios de los ecosistemas. Los ecosistemas y la
biodiversidad generan una serie de funciones que se denominan servicios cuando son disfrutados por
las personas generando bienestar humano. Tal y como se conceptualiza el bienestar humano, los
servicios pueden ser evaluados bajo la dimensión socio-cultural y bajo la dimensión económica. La
presente tesis aborda el suministro de servicios (dimensión biofísica), la demanda (dimensión socio-
cultural), la toma de decisiones y políticas y los impulsores directos de cambio.
33
Metodología general
Tabla 3.1. Principales aspectos del marco metodológico de evaluación de servicios abordados en
cada capítulo de la Tesis.
Capítulos de la tesis Usos Dimensión Dimensión Impulsores Planifi- Ordenación
del biofísica de socio- de cambio cación territorial
suelo los cultural de científica
servicios los servicios
1.Aproximacion socio-
ecológica a las áreas  
protegidas
2. Revisión bibliográfica de

3. Cartografía deliberativa 

de flujos de servicios
4. Relación entre suministro
  
de servicios y usos del suelo
5. Impulsores de cambio y
relación entre suministro de    
servicios y usos del suelo
6. Evaluación de la
zonificación de áreas
  
protegidas con cartografía
de servicios
7. Planificación de
   
escenarios de futuro
Las principales metodologías de toma de datos utilizadas en esta tesis aparecen descritas en las
siguientes líneas:
 Revisión sistemática bibliográfica: Una revisión sistemática consiste en analizar la

información científica disponible sobre un tema concreto a partir de una recopilación
bibliográfica con un estricto diseño científico (Green 2005).
 Talleres participativos: (A) De cartografía de servicios: Consisten en encuentros de trabajo

en los que los participantes identifican la distribución espacial de los servicios de los
ecosistemas (tanto del suministro como de la demanda); (B) De planificación de
escenarios de futuro: encuentros de trabajo en los que los participantes diseñan la
evolución futura del área de estudio atendiendo a diferentes impulsores de cambio y
diferentes variables socio-ecológicas (ver anexo 3).
 Cuestionarios: Consisten en la toma de datos por medio de encuestas en las que el

encuestador interactúa lo mínimo posible con el encuestado. Permiten obtener una
muestra grande de datos (analizable cuantitativamente), pues se suelen realizar un
número elevado de encuestas al ser su duración menor que la de la entrevista semi-
estructurada (ver anexos 3, 4 y 5).
34
 Cartografía técnica de servicios: Representación espacial de los servicios de los

ecosistemas. La representación se suele realizar incorporando análisis de datos de
diversas fuentes por medio de sistemas de información geográfica (SIG) y modelos.
 Entrevistas semi estructuradas: Consisten en entrevistas de respuestas abiertas que

permiten profundizar en determinadas cuestiones según el grado de conocimiento del
encuestado y el interés del encuestador en cada caso. Se establece un dialogo entre el
encuestador y el encuestado. Permiten al encuestador obtener un elevado grado de
conocimiento de la zona de estudio y las diferentes problemáticas (ver anexos 3 y 6).
Las metodologías utilizadas para la toma de datos de la presente Tesis se pueden agrupar en
metodologías no participativas y metodologías participativas, las que a su vez se clasifican en
deliberativas (las que permiten un debate entre participantes) y no deliberativas. La Tabla 2
muestra qué metodologías han sido utilizadas para cada uno de los capítulos de resultados de la
presente Tesis.
Tabla 3.2. Diferentes metodologías de toma de datos utilizadas en la tesis respecto a si son
participativas o no. RSB: Revisión sistemática bibliográfica. TPCS: Taller participativo de cartografía
de servicios. TPPEF: Taller participativo de planificación de escenarios de futuro.
Metodologías no Metodologías participativas
participativas No deliberativas Deliberativas
RSB Cartografía de Entrevistas Encuestas TPCS TPPEF
servicios semi-
Capítulos de la tesis estructuradas
1.Aproximacion socio- 
ecológica a las áreas
protegidas
2. Revisión bibliográfica 
de cartografía de servicios
3. Cartografía  
deliberativa de flujos de
servicios
4. Relación entre  
suministro de servicios y
usos del suelo
5. Impulsores de cambio   
y relación entre suministro
de servicios y usos del suelo
6. Evaluación de la 
zonificación de áreas
protegidas con cartografía
de servicios
7. Planificación de   
35
Por un lado, la presente tesis contiene una clara presencia de metodologías participativas
puesto que para que la gestión ambiental sea efectiva y sostenible a largo plazo es necesario
involucrar a las comunidades locales (Pretty, 2003; Reed, 2008). Otras razones del uso de
metodologías participativas son la democratización de la gestión (Elster, 1998; Ludwig, 2001), el
empoderamiento de los participantes (Tippet et al., 2007), o la co-producción de conocimiento
entre expertos y ciudadanos (Roux et al., 2006). Además, la investigación con servicios de los
ecosistemas, debe ser “inspirada por” y “útil para” el usuario, lo que implica la colaboración de los
investigadores con los actores sociales en el intento por implementar los servicios de los
ecosistemas en la gestión (Cowling et al., 2008).
Por otro lado, la cartografía de servicios es una herramienta clave para integrar los servicios de
los ecosistemas en la toma de decisiones (Balvanera et al., 2001; Daily and Matson, 2008;
Swetnam et al., 2011). Puesto que el primer mapa de servicios es de 1996 (Eade and Moran,
1996), las metodologías de cartografía de servicios están en pleno desarrollo y constituyen uno de
los retos principales de la investigación en servicios de los ecosistemas (Anton et al., 2010).
Finalmente, la identificación de tendencias temporales de los servicios de los ecosistemas es

también un aspecto clave en la gestión territorial, puesto que las mismas nos permiten analizar la
efectividad de las políticas de gestión (Rodríguez et al., 2006). Por ello la presente tesis ha
incorporado el análisis de tendencias pasadas y la exploración de las tendencias futuras de los
servicios de los ecosistemas. La planificación participativa de escenarios constituye una
herramienta cada vez más aplicada en la gestión ambiental por su carácter integrador y su
capacidad para abordar la incertidumbre de sistemas complejos (Peterson et al., 2003). La
integración conceptual y metodológica de esta tesis, que pretende incidir en la toma de decisiones
se muestra en la Figura 3.2.
36
Revisión bibliográfica sobre

áreas protegidas. Propuesta
conceptual (capítulo 1)
Revisión bibliográfica
sistemática sobre cartografía de
servicios (capítulo 2)
Revisión bibliográfica histórica Cartografía técnica (ecológica)

Cartografía deliberativa de las
de impulsores de cambio, de las unidades
áreas de suministro y demanda
análisis de usos del suelo y suministradoras de servicios y
de servicios (capítulo 3)
efectos sobre los servicios zonificación (capítulo 6)
(capítulo 5)
Análisis de usos del

suelo y relación con los
servicios (capítulo 4)
Planificación
participativa de
(capítulo 7) Evaluación de trade-offs y conflictos
sociales a diferentes escalas espaciales
Propuesta de ordenación territorial
Figura 3.2. Esquema conceptual y metodológico de la tesis, y relación de los diferentes capítulos con
el objetivo de alcanzar una propuesta de ordenación territorial.
37
Referencias
Anton, C., Young, J., Harrison, P., et al. 2010. Environmental Science and Policy 19-20:136-
Research needs for incorporating the 146.
ecosystem service approach into EU
biodiversity conservation policy. Biodiversity Green, S. 2005. Systematic reviews and meta-
and Conservation 19(10):2979–2994. analysis. Singapore medical journal 46(6):270-
273.
Balvanera, P., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., Taylor, H.R.,
Bailey, S., Kark, S., Kremen, C., Pereira, H. 2001. Ludwig, D. 2001. The era of management is over.
Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem Ecosystems 4:758-764.
services. Science 291:2047
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O’Farrell, P.J., Montes, C. 2011. The conservation against
Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., Welz, A., development paradigm in protected areas:
Wilhelm-Rechman, A. 2008. An operational Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana
model for mainstreaming ecosystem services social–ecological system (southwestern Spain).
for implementation. Proceedings of the Ecological Economics 70:1481–1491.
National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105
(28):9483–9488. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-
Llorente, M., Montes, C. in press. Trade-offs
Daily, G.C., Matson, P.A. 2008. Ecosystem services: across value-domains in ecosystem services
from theory to implementation. Proceedings of assessment. Ecological Indicators. DOI:
the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003.
105(28):9455–9456
Peterson, G. D., Cumming, G.S., Carpenter, S.R.
De Groot, R. 2006. Function-analysis and valuation 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for
as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning conservation in an uncertain world.
for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Conservation Biology 17(2):358-366.
Landscape and Urban Planning 75:175-186
Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and the collective
Eade, J.D.O., Moran, D. 1996. Spatial Economic management of resources. Science 302:1912-
Valuation, Benefits Transfer using 1914.
Geographical Information Systems. Journal of
Environmental Management 48:97–110. Reed, M.S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for
environmental management: a literature
Elster, J., (ed). 1998. Deliberative democracy. review. Biological Conservation 141:2417-
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 2431.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Díaz, S., Rodríguez, J. P., Beard, T.D., Bennett, E.M.,
Montes, C. 2011. Can ecosystem properties be Cumming, G.S., Cork, S., Agard, J., Dobson, A.P.,
fully translated into service values? An Peterson, G.D. 2006. Trade-offs across space,
economic valuation of aquatic plants services. time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and
Ecological Applications 21(8):3083-3108. Society 11(1):28.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta- Roux, D. J., Rogers, K.H., Biggs, H.C., Ashton, P.J.,
Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C.A., Aguilera, P.A., Sergeant, A. 2006. Bridging the science–
Montes, C. 2012. The role of multi-functionality management divide: moving from
in social preferences toward semi-arid rural unidirectional knowledge transfer to
landscapes: An ecosystem service approach.
38
knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology Tippett, J., Handley, J.F., Ravetz, J. 2007. Meeting
and Society 11(1):4. the challenges of sustainable development —a
conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for
Swetnam, R.D., Fisher, B., Mbilinyi, B.P., et al. 2011. participatory ecological planning. Progress in
Mapping socio-economic scenarios of land Planning 67:9–98.
cover change: a GIS method to enable
ecosystem service modelling. Journal of .
Environmental Management 92(3): 563–574.
39
Capítulo 4 Resultados
4. Resultados
Capítulo 4.1
From Islands to Networks and Multi-functional

Landscapes: Incorporating the Socio-ecological
Approach into Protected Areas in the Anthropocene.
Ignacio Palomo1, Carlos Montes1, Berta Martín-López1, José A. González1,

Marina García-Llorente1, Paloma Alcorlo1, María Rosario García Mora2
1 Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de

Madrid;
2 Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía
.
En segunda revisión en BioScience.
Results
4.1. De islas a redes y paisajes multifuncionales. Incorporando la

aproximación socio-ecológica a las áreas protegidas en el Antropoceno
Resumen Las áreas protegidas son el principal instrumento para proteger los ecosistemas y
la biodiversidad. Sin embargo, el Antropoceno amenaza cada vez más la biodiversidad y los
servicios de los ecosistemas que mantienen el bienestar humano, sin que las áreas protegidas
puedan parar su deterioro. A pesar de los esfuerzos por integrar las áreas protegidas en el paisaje
que las circunda, éstas aún se gestionan como islas en una matriz de territorio degradado debido
a la ausencia de un marco conceptual claro que las integre en el paisaje circundante. En este
trabajo revisamos la evolución del concepto de área protegida, analizamos las limitaciones
actuales de las mismas para su conservación a largo plazo y discutimos como el marco de los
servicios de los ecosistemas puede ayudar a superar dichas limitaciones. Finalmente proponemos
una estrategia regional de planificación socio-ecológica para construir paisajes resilientes que
mantengan una elevada biodiversidad y los servicios de los ecosistemas asociados en un contexto
de incertidumbre.
44
4.1. From Islands to Networks and Multi-functional Landscapes:

Incorporating the Socio-ecological Approach into Protected Areas in
the Anthropocene
Abstract Protected areas are the main instrument for the protection of ecosystems and
biodiversity. However, changes that have occurred during the Anthropocene continue to threaten
biodiversity and, therefore, the associated ecosystem services that maintain human well-being.
Despite efforts to integrate protected areas into a wider landscape, most of these areas are still
managed as islands within a matrix of degraded territory due to the lack of a clear conceptual
framework that integrates them into the surrounding landscape. We first review the evolution of
the protected area concept. Then, we acknowledge the main limitations that protected areas face
for long-term conservation. Next, we discuss how the ecosystem service approach could
overcome some of these protected area limitations. Finally, we propose a regional landscape
planning strategy to build resilient landscapes that maintain high biodiversity and its associated
flow of ecosystem services in the context of uncertainty.
Keywords: Global Change, Nature Conservation, Protected Area Concept, Social-Ecological

Systems, Sustainability Science.
45
Results
4.1.1. Introduction achieve a significant reduction of the current

rate of biodiversity loss […]” has not been
Protected areas comprise the most widely
accomplished (CBD 2010b), and future
known and well-accepted strategy for
scenarios indicate that biodiversity will
conserving biodiversity in the face of the
continue to decline during the 21st century
ecosystem fragmentation that results from a
(Pereira et al. 2010). Therefore, the global
lack of landscape planning (Chape 2005).
protected area network is far from fully
Since the creation of Yellowstone National
achieving its main objective, i.e., preserving
Park in 1872, and especially in the second
biodiversity and ecosystem services (Brooks
half of the 20th century, the extent of
et al. 2004, Rodrigues et al. 2004). The CBD
protected areas has grown exponentially and
has demanded that 17% of the global land
has been associated with the great
surface and 10% of the seas be designated as
acceleration of the Anthropocene (Jenkins
protected areas by 2020 (CBD 2010b).
and Joppa 2009, Steffen et al. 2011).
Scenarios suggest that protected areas could
Protected areas represent the biggest global
increase more in the next 20 years than in
surface area with a common goal and have
the previous 20, reaching 15-29% of global
been achieved in a sort of silent revolution.
land by 2030 (McDonald and Boucher 2011).
Protected areas have proven successful in
Here, a question arises: how much land must
protecting the habitats of the species inside
we set “apart” to protect ecosystems,
them from land-use changes occurring
biodiversity and their related ecosystem
outside (Nagendra 2008, Andam et al. 2008),
services for the long term? (Tear et al. 2005).
although some studies challenge this idea
(Laurance et al. 2012). With the goal of Using formal protected areas alone may
preserving global biodiversity, in 2004, the not suffice to guarantee the success of our
Program of Work on Protected Areas of the conservation goals (Cox and Underwood
Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) 2011). We need to revise the current model
demanded that by 2010 at least 10% of each of protected areas to address the challenges
of the world’s ecological regions should be that global change imposes upon them
effectively conserved. Today, protected areas (Barber et al. 2004, Lovejoy 2006).
cover 13.4% of land globally and 0.5% of the Moreover, conservation science has been
high seas (Coad et al. 2009, CBD 2010a). requested to foster human well-being and to
preserve biodiversity, demands that
However, biodiversity continues to
protected areas may also need to address
decline (Butchart et al. 2010, Hoffman et al.
(Kareiva and Marvier 2012). The goal of this
2010), and, therefore, the capacity of
work is to analyze the limitations of current
ecosystems to maintain ecosystem services
protected area strategies and to explore how
over the long term is being undermined
the operationalization of one of the most
(Diaz et al. 2006, Cardinale et al. 2012). The
important changes in conservation science in
biodiversity 2010 target, which aimed “to
46
the last years, i.e., the emergence of the of the major conceptualizations of protected
ecosystem services approach, could areas.
contribute to solutions (Armsworth et al.
2007). First, we analyze the historical
evolution of the protected area concept in
light of the evolution of the conservation
concept. Second, we provide a review of the
main shortcomings that have been
acknowledged for protected areas. Third, we
argue that incorporating the ecosystem
service framework into protected area
management could overcome many of the
challenges they face and could be the basis
for creating a new strategy with a socio-
ecological approach. Finally, we discuss
several limitations of the approach and
suggest research needs.
4.1.2. Historical evolution of the

strategy of protected areas for
biodiversity conservation
Although more exhaustive descriptions of

the historical and conceptual evolution of
protected areas have been published
(Phillips 2003), we focus here on the
evolution of the protected area concept,
considering the socio-ecological
relationships between protected areas and
their surrounding landscapes. Although this
study describes how these
conceptualizations of the protected area
concept are often regarded as incomplete,
their achievements have been of great
importance, and they still have an essential
role in the future of conservation. Table 1
summarizes the main characteristics of each
47
Results
Table 4.1.1. Evolution of the protected area concept: from islands to networks to the landscape
approach.
ISLAND APPROACH NETWORK APROACH LANDSCAPE APPROACH
FEATURES ATTRIBUTES
(1872-1990s) (1990s – mid-2000s) (mid-2000s - Today)
Graphical
representation
Ecological corridor Ecological flows

Protected area
(stepping stones)
Buffer area Source habitat
Territorial matrix
Ecological corridor Land use change
Motivation Established to Established to protect Established to protect

protect the habitat ecosystems and ecosystems and biodiversity
of charismatic wild biodiversity in natural in natural and semi-natural
species and and semi-natural places, accounting for the
beautiful landscapes places and the territory
without human connections among
intervention them
Nature of Re-active: Created Re-active: Created Proactive/Re-active: Created
their creation after experiencing after observing after observing biodiversity
Philosophy biodiversity loss biodiversity loss loss and, in other cases,
created in the first instance
to maintain biodiversity and
ecological processes
Science Biological Biological Systems ecology.
behind them Conservation. Conservation. Multidisciplinary
Unidisciplinary Unidisciplinary
Relation with Does not include the Does not include the Includes the matrix
the matrix matrix matrix
Approach Reductionist: Does Sectorial: Insufficient Interdisciplinary:

not consider the for functional Incorporates social and
complexity of the landscapes around ecological processes
territory protected areas between the protected area
and surrounding landscape
Scale of Local. Conceived Regional. Conceived Regional. Conceived and
analysis and managed as and managed under managed under national or
islands national or international protected
international areas networks, accounting
protected areas for the surroundings
networks
Type of Static: Tries to Dynamic: Some Dynamic: Some natural
management maintain status quo. natural changes are changes are necessary.
Managed under the necessary. Managed Managed under a few
Management
no-intervention under a few intervention principles to
principle. Managers intervention restore species or
define the primary principles to restore ecosystems. Other
48
ISLAND APPROACH NETWORK APROACH LANDSCAPE APPROACH

FEATURES ATTRIBUTES
(1872-1990s) (1990s – mid-2000s) (mid-2000s - Today)
use species or ecosystems stakeholders also define

uses in participatory
processes.
Conservation Intrinsic values of Intrinsic values of Intrinsic values of
values ecosystems, ecosystems, ecosystems, biodiversity,
considered biodiversity and biodiversity and ecological processes
cultural values cultural values (functions; ecological
integrity) and cultural values
Knowledge Scientific and Scientific and Scientific and technical
involved technical technical
Temporal Short-term Medium-term Short- and long-term
scale
Resilience Reduction of Moderate resilience Moderate-high resilience
against variability
perturbations
Competition Partly competitive Competitive due to Highly competitive due to
against other due to low landscape demand high landscape demand
land-uses landscape demand
In charge of One institution: One institution: Public One institution: Public
management Public environmental environmental government
environmental government or private or private landowner
government or landowner
private landowner
Beneficiaries Predominantly Predominantly Predominantly scientists,
scientists, scientists, conservationists and nature
conservationists conservationists and tourists
and nature tourists nature tourists
Local Managed without Local population Local population included in
population the local population. included in some participatory management
involvement People are the participatory processes
threat. Managed by management
researchers and processes
environmental
experts
Financial Financed by Financed by diverse Financed by diverse sources
support governments, but sources, including including governments,
for private governments, private private protected areas and
protected areas protected areas and payments for ecosystem
payments for services
ecosystem services
Interest Of national or Of international, Of international, national,
international national, regional or regional or local interest
interest local interest
Scientific Biodiversity Corridors, global 200 Zone of interaction
advances hotspots, buffer ecoregions, systematic
areas conservation planning
Landscape There is no There is no integrated There is no integrated
management integrated landscape landscape management with
landscape management with the the protected area
management with protected area
the protected area
49
Results
biosphere reserve concept, which advocated

4.1.2.1. Protected areas as islands (1872-
1980s) for managing the areas around protected
areas along a gradient of decreasing use
The first protected areas were established
(Phillips 2003) and recommended buffer
under the paradigm that conservation is
zones around protected areas to minimize
possible by setting apart certain areas from
negative boundary influences (Noss 1983).
land use transformation, and these areas
were created after observing the extent of In the mid-1980s, conservation shifted
human impacts on natural ecosystems toward biodiversity hotspots (Myers 1993),
(Chape et al. 2005). The island concept which highlighted a focus on species rich
originated in 1872 with the Yellowstone areas, given the lack of resources for
declaration and is still found in current conservation policies (Myers et al. 2000). In
conservation conventions. For example, the addition to the advantages of this approach,
CBD's definition of a protected area, “a it also faced some criticism, and more
geographically defined area, which is attention was demanded to protect places
designated or regulated and managed to with high land conversion rates (Hoekstra et
achieve specific conservation objectives” al. 2005, Kareiva and Marvier 2003).
(CBD 1992), did not included the territorial Additionally, the insignia for species
matrix dimension. The reason for the conservation, the IUCN red list, has received
creation of protected areas was to preserve some criticism due to the bias in the specific
the great values of nature from human taxa that were studied (Martin-Lopez et al.
transformation, and, therefore, they were 2009a).
usually of international and national interest.
In fact, the main beneficiaries of these 4.1.2.2. Ecological corridors and the creation
protected areas were usually scientists and of conservation networks (1990s – mid-
tourists (Phillips et al. 2003). In the second 2000s)
half of the 20th century, protected areas Conservation shifted toward the
shifted from conserving landscapes to protection of connections among protected
conserving habitats and species. Protected areas and the creation of conservation
areas were designated mainly by biologists networks. The ecological corridors concept
or conservation NGOs with extensive emerged to connect protected areas and
knowledge about biodiversity and ecology foster the movement of species among
but less experience with landscape planning. protected areas (Bennett 1990). This
Transformations in the areas around concept was included in the Caracas Action
protected areas made clear that the Plan for the Fourth World Congress on
protected areas were partially threatened by National Parks in 1992 (Phillips 2003).
their isolation (Janzen 1983). In the 1970s, Corridors can increase the number of animal
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and plant movements in fragmented
and Cultural Organization developed the
50
landscapes (Tewksbury et al. 2002), makes to the broad goal of conservation

although little scientific evidence has been (Margules and Sarkar 2007). Systematic
presented to understand the real effects of Conservation Planning also highlighted the
ecological corridors (Bowne and Bowers fact that reserves alone were not adequate
2004). for conservation and that regional
conservation strategies should be built
At the global scale, the ecoregional
around them.
approach, which focused on the concept of
representation, mapped the 200 most
important places for conservation, including
all of the major biomes, and highlighted the 4.1.2.3. The landscape approach for
need for a global network of protected areas protected areas (middle 2000’s - today)
(Olson and Dinerstein 1998). Currently, the The 5th World Parks Congress, “Protected
policies for conservation still focus on spatial Areas: Benefits beyond boundaries”, was
networking (Samways et al. 2010), with a held in Durban (South Africa) in 2003 and
goal of creating networks of protected areas, proposed that the conservation approach
as the CBD requires of its contracting parties. should integrate a wider territory than that
However, and despite its importance, the covered by protected areas. The scientific
Natura 2000 Reserve Network, the literature acknowledged that the matrix
cornerstone of the European Union's around protected areas needs to be managed
conservation policy, has not stopped the loss in balance with the protected area such that
of European biodiversity. Here, a further its conservation objectives will not be
step has been demanded: to consider the compromised (Hansen and de Fries 2007).
matrix around Natura 2000 and to manage it Expanding conservation beyond the limits of
as a functional part of the system (Maiorano protected areas was also previously
et al. 2007). advocated in the literature (Holdgate 1994,
Mc Neely 1994, IUCN 2004). These demands
Under the Network protected area
came as it was becoming more evident that
conceptualization, Systematic Conservation
the effective conservation of biodiversity
Planning emerged, which consists of “the use
needed a broader approach to protected
of specific protocols to identify priority areas
area management that integrates the
and separate them from processes which
landscape. Therefore, landscape
threaten their persistence” (Margules and
conservation has been called the new
Pressey 2000, Margules and Sarkar 2007).
paradigm for the conservation of
Systematic Conservation Planning is better
biodiversity (With 2005). The buffer concept
understood under the framework of
evolved to include concepts such as the zone
protected area networks, in which
of interaction, which is an area that
complementarity among protected areas is a
“encompasses hydrologic, ecological and
measure of the contribution that an area
51
Results
socioeconomic interactions between a a changing world. the challenge of

protected area and the surrounding the anthropocene
landscape” (De Fries et al. 2010a). If some of
In this section, we address the three main
the surrounding lands are protected to
limitations of protected areas that we have
maintain important ecosystem services, their
identified for the long-term conservation of
chances of receiving protection might be
biodiversity and associated ecosystem
higher than other lands because new
services: (1) the effect of drivers of change
protected areas seem to cluster near already
on protected areas in the context of their
existing ones (McDonald et al. 2007). Despite
territorial isolation, (2) the disconnect
the important advance of the landscape
between protected areas and society and (3)
approach, it still does not include an
the bias of the spatial location of current
important ecological economics principle, in
protected areas towards high and remote
which the socio-economic system is
places.
embedded within the ecological system
(Daly and Farley 2010). Moreover, its main
purpose is, as in the previous stages, the 4.1.3.1. Drivers of change and the isolation of
protected areas
maintenance of biodiversity, and, thus, it
does not fully incorporate the interests of In the face of global change, we need to
local populations. navigate the Anthropocene to avoid critical
tipping points that would lead to more
Additionally, in this period, as in previous hostile states of the earth system (Steffen et
years, a greater emphasis was placed on al. 2011), such as the reduction in areas with
including participation into the decision- the capacity to generate ecosystem services
making processes for protected areas that maintain human well-being. The ability
(Dearden et al. 2005. Phillips 2003), given of protected areas to preserve biodiversity
the problems of the top-down approaches to and ecosystem services is undermined by
conservation (Berkes et al. 2004). However, the direct drivers of change (effects; i.e., land
modern protected areas are not filling the use change, climate change) as well as the
conservation gaps that have been identified indirect drivers (causes; i.e., demographic,
by geographic conservation priorities economic). Two of the most important
because the main drivers of the creation of drivers of change are land use change and
new protected areas are mostly social and climate change (Foley et al. 2005, MA 2005).
economic factors (Pyke 2007). Protected areas have been one of
conservationists' solutions to land use
change. However, the Anthropocene is a
4.1.3. Limitations of protected complex and non-linear process, while
areas for long term conservation in protected areas have been more or less a
linear answer to that problem (Ewers and
52
Rodrigues 2008). In this sense, protected the entire landscape (Bengtsson et al. 2003,
areas have been addressing the effects more Wiens 2009).
than the causes of transformation, such as
the economic and demographic drivers. 4.1.3.2. The bias in the location and size of
Therefore, intensive land-use current protected areas
transformations (e.g., expansion of intensive A second limitation of protected areas is
agricultural production or urbanization) their bias toward places where they can
continue to occur around many protected barely prevent land conversion, i.e., elevated
areas (Joppa et al. 2008, Gimmi et al. 2011). areas with steeper slopes that are located at
In the long term, and as a result of climate greater distances from roads and cities
change, protected areas will not have the (Joppa and Pfaff 2009). If conservation aims
same ecosystems that they have now, and to protect biodiversity, areas that are
some species will move beyond the vulnerable to transformation should be
protected areas' boundaries (Hannah et al. protected first, instead of remote places
2007, Kharouba and Kerr 2010). Thus, where land-use conversion is less probable.
protected areas with static administrative Because many protected areas were
boundaries will face severe limitations. specifically designated due to their
Protected areas need, therefore, to be unsuitability for human use, the percentage
adaptive. of a country’s surface area that is designated
as protected says relatively little about the
Most of these criticisms result from
actual biodiversity being protected, and
human impacts on the surrounding lands,
many hotspots are inadequately protected
which may bleed into protected areas
(Rodrigues et al. 2004). Moreover, protected
(Myers 1972, Laurance et al. 2012). In fact, it
areas are often designated based on factors
is not rare that native species become extinct
other than ecological integrity. Sometimes,
in protected areas (Woodroffe and Ginsberg
these factors exclude a portion of the area
1998, Parks and Harcourt 2002), and
that is needed to maintain ecological
ecosystem services inside protected areas
processes and populations of organisms
may be affected as well due to land-use
(Hansen and De Fries 2007). Because
changes outside their boundaries (Palomo et
protected areas are not the result of
al. in press). Consequently, the long-term
organized landscape planning, we have often
conservation of biodiversity cannot be
protected areas that are not needed for
achieved if protected areas are surrounded
economic development. Because many of
by degraded habitats that limit the genetic,
these areas are mountains, one of the most
nutrient and water flows to and from the
vulnerable ecosystems to climate change,
outside (Mc Neely 1994, IUCN 2004, De Fries
managers of these areas will have to cope
et al. 2010b). The success of protected areas
with change (Barber et al. 2004). Moreover,
demands a dynamic approach that considers
although large protected areas are of great
53
Results
importance to preserve key ecological not necessarily support ecological needs

processes (Ehrlich and Pringle 2008), it is (Pyke 2007). In this context, protected area
now difficult to create the very large downgrading, downsizing and
protected areas that were created in the past degazettement also threaten their long-term
because an economically driven politic conservation utility (Mascia and Pailler
usually sees protected areas as restrictions 2010). Recent analyses of the growth of
to economic development. Additionally, in protected areas highlight the decline in the
some sense, because protected areas are previously exponential rate of expansion of
occasionally used in politics to hide the lack protected areas, especially in the northern
of a wider landscape planning strategy, the hemisphere (Figure 4.1.1).
political decisions ruling their declaration do
54
Figure 4.1.1. (A) Growth in nationally designated protected areas worldwide from 1911 to 2011; (B)
Mean surface of nationally designated protected areas from 1911 to 2011; (C) Evolution of surface
protected in the northern and southern hemispheres from 1990 to 2010. Source IUCN and UNEP-
WCMC, The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA): February 2012.
55
Results
4.1.4. Can a socio-ecological

4.1.3.3. The disconnect between protected
areas and society approach address the limitations
of protected areas?
A third limitation is the social impact that
some local populations experience due to the This section formulates an approach to
establishment of protected areas, reducing integrate protected areas and their
the societal support for them. Many surrounding landscapes within a social-
protected areas were promoted by nature ecological approach. The main
scientists and conservationists, who were characteristics of this approach are
governed by wilderness ideals and held the summarized in Table 2.
belief that biodiversity had to be preserved
from the human threat. Protected areas were 4.1.4.1. Protected areas for human well being
often imposed from city offices on the rural
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
populations, and many development
mainstreamed the idea of conservation for
activities were prohibited. Even the words
human well-being (MA 2005), which had
“protected area” explicitly create a duality of
been acknowledged in other works (Folke
what is and is not allowed. This exclusionary
2006). By connecting human well-being to
process of declaring protected areas
conservation, the Millennium Assessment
established a ‘fortress-conservation’ strategy
incorporated the ecological economics
(Brockington 2002) that separated people
principle.
from nature (frequently from their
traditional or sacred lands). This process not
only ignores the important role of local
communities in managing ecosystems and
biodiversity but also restricts access to
several ecosystem services (mostly
provisioning, such as gathering, hunting or
wood provision), thus displacing
communities and creating poverty and social
conflicts (Mascia and Claus 2009, West et al.
2006, Wilkie et al. 2006). Therefore,
protected areas shall manage ecosystem
services to foster human well-being and
incorporate the cultural values of the local
inhabitants as well as their experiential and
local ecological knowledge to preserve the
social support for conservation.
56
Table 4.1.2. Main characteristics of the complex, adaptive landscape strategy for protected areas.
FEATURES ATTRIBUTES COMPLEX ADAPTIVE LANDSCAPES (Today -?)
Habitat/Species Special area for connectivity

Strict nature reserve (Cat. I
Management Area (Cat. IV (without IUCN cat.)
IUCN)
IUCN)
Peri-urban park (without IUCN
National park (Cat. II IUCN) Protected landscape/seascape cat.)
(Cat. V IUCN)
Natural monument (Cat. III
Transformed matrix
IUCN) Protected area with sustainable
use of natural resources (Cat. VI
IUCN) Urban settlement
Philosophy Motivation Established to maintain biodiversity and its multiple ecosystem services to
maintain human well-being
Managing the entire territory under some conservation objectives
Nature of their Pro-active: First created to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services
creation
Science behind Sustainability science. Multidisciplinary
it
Relation with Includes the matrix
the matrix
Approach Interdisciplinary; Based on social-ecological relationships
Scale of Regional. Conceived as part of a continuum within the surrounding

analysis territorial matrix
Management Type of Adaptive: natural and social changes should be incorporated into their
management management. Managed dynamically, in space and time, with different
degrees of protection and objectives
Conservation Intrinsic and instrumental values of ecosystems and biodiversity (ecosystem
values services)
considered
Knowledge Scientific or experimental and local ecological or experiential knowledge
involved
Temporal scale Short and long terms
Resilience High resilience
against
perturbations
Competition Cooperative: multi-functional landscapes
against other
land-uses
In charge of Various administrations related to biodiversity conservation and to the
management ecosystem services provided by the area
Beneficiaries Managed to maintain human society’s well-being
Local Truly managed with the local population for different ecosystem service
population beneficiaries
involvement
57
Results
Financial Financed by diverse sources, including governments, private protected areas

support and payments for ecosystem services
Interest Of international, national, regional and local interest
Landscape Integrated landscape management with the protected area

management
This principle brings ecosystem services, species, climate regulation, protection from
the direct and indirect contributions from environmental hazards, such as floods or
biodiversity and ecosystems to human well- storms, and many other services, such as
being, to the center of the conservation nature tourism, thus preserving spiritual
debate. In fact, the definition of a protected resources and future values (Kettunen et al.
area has recently included the term 2010, Naughton-Treves et al. 2005).
“ecosystem services”. In 2008, the
International Union for the Conservation of 4.1.4.2. Managing beyond the limits:
Nature's (IUCN) definition of protected area incorporating beneficiaries
was “a clearly defined geographical space, Incorporating ecosystem service
recognized, dedicated and managed, through beneficiaries into the planning process can
legal or other effective means, to achieve the reduce the isolation of protected areas. As a
long-term conservation of nature with cornerstone of the ecosystem services
associated ecosystem services and cultural framework, ecosystem service beneficiaries,
values” (Dudley, 2008). However, the i.e., stakeholders who directly or indirectly
inclusion of ecosystem services in the value, use or enjoy any ecosystem service at
protected area definition has been more of a different spatial and temporal scales,
change in writing rather than a real shift including potential future beneficiaries, need
toward the ecosystem service framework to be included in any strategy for landscape
from the protected area concept. The basis planning. The incorporation of ecosystem
underlying this conservation concept relies service beneficiaries into protected areas
on the need to reconnect nature and society planning could highlight the existing spatial
by considering not only intrinsic but also scale mismatch between the delivery of
instrumental values (Folke et al. 2011). The ecosystem services and their use (Palomo et
incorporation of ecosystem services as a al. in press). Thus, working on the connection
reason for the creation of new protected between providers and beneficiaries could
areas has already been demanded (Pyke reduce the issues of isolation and broaden
2007). Areas that are declared as protected the limits of protected areas to include the
provide important ecosystem services, such whole territory.
as freshwater availability, harvesting, water
purification, erosion control, habitat for
58
Knowledge of this spatial mismatch 4.1.4.3. Managing beyond the limits:

landscape management based on ecosystem
provides useful information for protected
services
area management because it demonstrates
that management should (1) focus beyond Land use intensity around protected areas
its biophysical limits, including those places is growing, creating contrasting landscapes
where beneficiaries live, and (2) include between the inside of the protected area and
knowledge from the social sciences to the matrix, with negative consequences for
understand the factors underlying the the interior protected area. Provisioning and
demand for ecosystem services and cultural services (mainly tourism) normally
techniques to foster a behavioral change that provide higher economic returns than
promote the sustainable use of ecosystem regulating services. Therefore, the protected
services. For example, citizens living in areas' matrices are sometimes managed
urbanized areas close to protected areas mainly to provide services with high
might enjoy the beauty of the landscape but economic values, while regulating services
also impact soil erosion and vegetation cover are only maintained inside the protected
by trampling. In addition, farming on areas (Martin-Lopez et al. 2011). Over the
surrounding lands might reduce the quality long term, this framework could lead to the
of water resources in the protected area. To overall decline of regulating services, which
prevent these situations from happening, it could also affect the provisioning and
might be adequate for protected areas to cultural services that are maintained by
have a program which focuses on the them. The ecosystem service approach
beneficiaries of the service that the highlights these contrasting landscapes and
protected area provides, who also impact their negative consequences for some
other ecosystem services. This type of ecosystem services in the long term because
program is of great importance because it enables an understanding of the impacts to
urban areas will be closer to protected areas provisioning, regulating and cultural
in the future, depending on the essential services.
ecosystem services that are delivered by
ecosystems and the impacts on these 4.1.4.4. Overcoming social conflicts by
ecosystems (McDonald et al. 2008). In this increasing societal support for protected
areas and providing a common language for
sense, the ecosystem service concept can be
community based conservation
used as an organizing principle for
transboundary conservation, considering the One of the principal Millennium
flow from ecosystem service providers to Ecosystem Assessment recommendations
beneficiaries (López-Hoffman et al. 2010). for protected areas is to develop, through

legal, policy and other effective means,
stronger societal support based on the
benefits and values of the services they
59
Results
provide (McNeely et al. 2005). The processes are strongly linked across multiple
ecosystem service approach helps us spatial scales (Parrot and Meyer 2012), and,
acknowledge that humans depend on and thus, they should be considered as coupled
benefit from protected areas and, thus, social-ecological systems (Liu et al. 2007,
reveals the social contributions that are Cumming 2011). Therefore, protected areas
obtained from ecosystem services, which need to be designed and managed by
could enhance current conservation efforts incorporating social-ecological principles to
(Haslett et al. 2010, Stokes et al. 2010). fully integrate them into the spatial planning
Moreover, conservation programs that are for the landscape. Complementing ecological
based on ecosystem services could attract with social evaluations will provide a better
more social support than strict biodiversity conservation approach that incorporates the
conservation programs because they are social processes that influence conservation
more likely to encompass working decisions (Ban et al. in press).
landscapes and the people in them (Goldman
To succeed in this challenge, deeper
et al. 2008). Community based conservation
interactions between the social and natural
and participatory approaches may reduce
sciences are needed (Ehrlich 2002, Fischer et
social conflicts and increase the effectiveness
al. 2012, Mooney et al. 2013), as is better
of conservation programs (Berkes 2009,
communication among decision-makers,
Reed 2008). In addition, the ecosystem
protected area managers and protected area
service concept presents a diversity of
users. To achieve this goal, we must engage
advantages for environmental management
stakeholders in real participatory processes
(Hauck et al. 2013) and may also provide a
in which different sources of knowledge
common language that allows the inclusion
(either experiential or experimental) and
of all stakeholder groups in the participatory
different views and perceptions should be
decision-making process regarding the
respected and considered.
management of landscapes and protected
areas (Palomo et al. 2011).
4.1.5.2. Institutions for managing protected
areas using the socio-ecological approach
Contemporary literature recognizes that

4.1.5. Protected areas in complex
the governance of complex adaptive systems,
adaptive landscapes
such as social-ecological systems, should
consider all of the diverse institutions that
4.1.5.1. Protected areas integrated into
exist in the system and should be dispersed
social-ecological systems and social-
ecological science across multiple governing scales (Ostrom
2005). Therefore, different institutions
The concept of landscapes as complex,
should be involved during the establishment
adaptive systems entails the recognition that
of protected areas than during their
human and biophysical components and
60
management (Ludwig 2001), i.e., the two core questions arise: (1) How to
different institutions related to the combine more effectively different intensity
ecosystem services that a protected area gradients of land management to preserve a
delivers. If the protected area provides the wide range of ecosystem services? and (2)
provisioning service of freshwater, the What is the role of protected areas in a
regional water agency might take part in its landscape management strategy?
management or, if tourism is delivered, then
In a watershed context, there is a gradient
tourism institutions (e.g., corporations,
of land-uses from the headwaters to the
enterprises, local and regional government)
river's mouth in which different land-uses
might also be directly involved. Therefore, a
produce different ecosystem services
strong coordination between the institutions
(Supplementary material). Protected areas
related to different sectors (agriculture,
are usually located in the headwaters, and
water, tourism) and protected area
they control key ecosystem services for
institutions may be fostered. In contrast to
human well-being, such as water provision
the “command-and-control” governance that
and hydrological regulation. If land-uses in
characterizes protected areas as islands, the
headwaters maintain ecological integrity,
institutional architecture that should govern
then upstream systems may deliver
complex adaptive systems also incorporates
ecosystem services in a unidirectional way to
the diverse views of stakeholders, as well as
the local communities of downstream
different knowledge sources (i.e.,
systems. Because hydrological flows act as a
experimental or scientific knowledge and
network, they are able to provide the
experiential or local ecological knowledge).
required level of connection between
This decision-making process, which
different land-uses in the watershed,
involves shared learning, interactions among
ensuring the spatial resilience of the system
multiple stakeholders, institutional diversity
(Cumming 2011). Therefore, key biophysical
and multi-scale governance, is reflected in
processes that act as networks (such as
adaptive co-management strategies
hydrological flows) should not be disrupted
(Armitage et al. 2008). For its application,
by intensive land-uses.
new conservation planning tools are needed
that allow the integration of all of the
To overcome a location bias, protected
complex information required to design
areas should not be located exclusively in
multi-functional landscapes (Reyers et al.
high places distant from human settlements
2012).
or roads (Joppa and Pfaff 2009). To this end,
protected areas need to be located in the
4.1.5.3. Land use gradients, multifunctional middle and lower parts of the watershed,
landscapes and the roles of protected areas
occupying areas that have been traditionally
When we rethink the protected area dedicated to other uses, such as agriculture.
strategy in the context of regional planning, In this context, in the debate between land
61
Results
sparing (where intensively managed lands the transformation of some parts of the
and strict conservation areas coexist) and territory. To avoid impacts to the protected
land sharing (where multi-functional area, we consider the biosphere reserve
landscapes are promoted) (Fischer et al. model to be the most adequate because it
2008, Rey Benayas and Bullock 2012), land acknowledges that the matrix of the
sharing conservation schemes may be more protected area can only be transformed
feasible. This observation leads us to the along a gradient of uses. Figure 4.1.2 depicts
designation of multifunctional landscapes. a hypothetical watershed in which a
Moreover, as a socio-ecological strategy, a diversity of ecosystem services is provided
diversity of land-uses will often increase the and in which the impacts of human activities
ability of the social-ecological system to cope on the territory are reduced.
with undesired changes because more
In a complex, adaptive landscape
options are available in a diverse system
management strategy, protected areas could
(Norberg et al. 2008). Some studies have
play several roles: (1) reservoirs of
demonstrated that multi-functional,
ecological memory, by preserving functional
sustainable uses can provide several
diversity (Child et al., 2009) and, thus,
ecosystem services (Bughalo et al. 2012) as
guaranteeing the delivery of ecosystem
well as greater economic benefits than the
services (Díaz et al. 2006); (2) providers of
conversion to a single use would if the
different ecosystem services under the
environmental costs and ecosystem services
ecological and societal vocation of the
are taken into account (Balmford et al.
territory; and (3) reservoirs of social
2002). In addition, in landscape aesthetic
memory (mainly for protected areas
evaluations, different stakeholders prefer
included in the IUCN V-VI categories), by
multi-functional landscapes to intensively
preserving key factors underlying the social-
managed lands (García-Llorente et al. 2012).
ecological resilience, such as local ecological
Moreover, stakeholders perceive that those
knowledge (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2012).
protected areas that are embedded into
multi-functional landscapes deliver more
ecosystem services than strictly conserved
lands (such as UICN I-II categories) or
intensively managed lands (García-Llorente
et al. 2012, Martín-López et al. 2012).
A key point here is to couple these land-

uses with the ecological and societal
vocation of the territory, i.e., which
ecosystem services they mainly provide and
which impacts will have to be assumed after
62
Figure 4.1.2. Hypothetical watershed that represents different landscape configurations, from areas
that are preserved or have minimal human management (usually in the upper watershed where
protected areas are usually located) to multi-functional lands (transfer zone of the watershed) to
intensively managed areas (at the end of the watershed) and their related ecosystem services.
Adapted from García-Llorente et al. (2012).
In this context, protected areas would be a are close to each other or because they are
functional part of the complex landscape in strongly connected by biophysical
which different land-uses (e.g., protected infrastructure (e.g., rivers, drove roads,
areas, agro-ecosystems, drylands, urban hedge and fences) (Cumming 2011) or the
areas) could influence and interact with one spatial connections between ecosystem
another. This could occur because the areas service delivery (i.e., service providing areas)
63
Results
and consumption (i.e., service benefiting

areas) (Syrbe and Walz 2012).
4.1.6. Conclusions
Additionally, in these multi-functional
Our response to the decline of biodiversity
landscapes, rural people with high local
and ecosystem services has been to increase
ecological or experiential knowledge can act
the “supply side of conservation” in terms of
as ‘keepers’ or ‘producers’ of certain
the number of and surface area covered by
ecosystem services because they guarantee
protected areas instead of managing the
key ecological processes, such as soil
drivers of change and our demand for
formation or hydrological regulation,
ecosystem services that threatens them.
through traditional management practices
Protected areas are necessary to maintain
(Martín-López et al. 2012). Similarly,
biodiversity and ecosystem services in the
different studies have emphasized the key
long term, but they are not currently
role of indigenous communities in
sufficient because they do not incorporate
maintaining key social factors, such as local
the rest of the territory. Due to the great
ecological knowledge and collective action,
surface that protected areas cover, they
in preserving ecosystem services (e.g.,
represent a great opportunity for landscape
Bharucha and Pretty 2010, Gómez-
management. In a changing world, we need a
Baggethum et al. 2012). Consequently,
new framework of analysis for the
“multiple-use” protected areas (i.e., IUCN V-
conservation of protected areas. This new
VI categories) will be common under future
framework can be achieved within the social
scenarios of increasing human population
ecological approach because (1) ecosystem
and demand for ecosystem services
services may bring protected areas closer to
(McDonald and Boucher 2011).
society by highlighting all of the
With an integrative landscape contributions that we derive from them and
management strategy, such as the one by providing an integrative language for
proposed in this work, we would not need to community based management; and (2)
increase indefinitely the protected surface ecosystem services demonstrate the spatial
area. Here, we propose the following connections between the service providing
definition for protected area: a defined areas and the service benefitting areas, thus
geographical space managed through legal promoting regional landscape planning
means under a social-ecological framework beyond the limits of protected areas.
that acts as a functional unit maintaining However, to integrate ecosystem services
biodiversity and its associated ecosystem into landscape design, planning and
services which contribute to human well- management, there are many challenges to
being in the long term. overcome (de Groot et al. 2010). Numerous
circumstances complicate the management
of protected areas beyond their boundaries,
64
such as (1) rigid conservation institutions, We would like to thank Gretchen C. Daily
(2) the conflicting needs or interests that for her useful comments about the
different stakeholders have concerning manuscript. We also would like to thank the
landscape planning, (3) power differences Spanish Ministry of the Environment
among different stakeholders, (4) the (Project 018/2009) and the Ministry of
different levels of information, Economy and Competitiveness (Project
communication and trust existing in CGL2011-30266), for the financial support
different social agents, and (5) the influence that permitted the creation of this
of indirect drivers of change, such as the manuscript, as well as the Ministry of
global economy and fluctuations in the Education for the FPU fellowship.
prices of commoditized ecosystem services,
international policies, or demographic
trends, on the conservation strategies at the
regional scale (Ban et al. in press, MA 2005,
Schonewald-Cox et al. 1990). Therefore, a
major challenge for conservation planners is
to build resilient, adaptive and
multifunctional landscapes, in which
protected areas play a key role in preserving
the biophysical and socio-cultural factors
behind the delivery of a diverse flow of
ecosystem services. To build and preserve
these multi-functional landscapes, a common
view of the management should be created
among the different stakeholders and
institutions involved. However, we should
not rely all conservation efforts on the
supply and demand of ecosystem services
because places that provide few ecosystem
services also deserve conservation, and
biodiversity has a value in itself, even in
places without human presence (Caro et al.
2012).
Acknowledgements
65
Results
Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmqvist T,

Emanuelsson U, Folke C, Ihse M, Moberg F,
References Nyström M. 2003. Reserves, resilience and
dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32(6): 389-396.
Andam K, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa
GA, Robalino JA. 2008. Measuring the Bennett AF. 1990. Habitat corridors and the
effectiveness of protected area networks in conservation of small mammals in a fragmented
reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the forest environment. Landscape Ecology 4: 109-
National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 122.
105(42): 16089-16094.
Bowne DR, Bowers MA. 2004. Interpatch
Armsworth PR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Erhlich PR, movements in spatially structured populations: a
Kremen C, Rickets TH, Sanjayan MA. 2007. literature review. Landscape Ecology 19(1): 1-20.
Ecosystem-Service Science and the Way Forward
for Conservation. Conservation Biology 21(6): Brockington D. 2002. Fortress Conservation: The
1383-1384. Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve,
Tanzania. African Issues.
Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R. 2008.
Adaptive co-management and the paradox of Brooks TM, et al. 2004. Coverage provided by the
learning. Global Environmental Change 18(1): global protected-area system: is it enough?
86-98. BioScience 54 (12): 1081-1091.
Balmford A, et al. 2002. Economic reasons for Bugalho MN, Caldeira MC, Pereira JS, Aronson J,
conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950‐953. Pausas JG. 2011. Mediterranean cork oak
savannas require human use to sustain
Ban NC, Mills M, Tam J, Hicks CC, Klain S, Stoeckl biodiversity and ecosystem services. Frontiers in
N, Bottrill MC, Levine J, Pressey RL, Satterfield T, Ecology and the Environment 9: 278–286.
Chan KMA. In press. A social–ecological approach
to conservation planning: embedding social Butchart SHM, et al. 2010. Global biodiversity:
considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and the indicators of recent declines. Science, 328: 1164–
Environment. 1168.
Barber CV, Miller KR Boness M (eds). 2004. Cardinale BJ, et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its
Securing Protected Areas in the Face of Global impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59-67.
Change: Issues and Strategies. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 236pp. Caro T, Darwin J, Forrester T, Ledoux-Bloom C,
Wells C. 2012. Conservation in the Anthropocene.
Berkes F. 2004. Rethinking community-based Conservation Biology 26: 185–188.
conservation. Conservation Biology 18(3): 621–
630. CBD, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity.
Berkes F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: CBD, 2010a. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3.

role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. Journal of CBD, 2010b. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
Environmental Management 90: 1692–1702. 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
Bharucha Z, Pretty J. 2010. The roles and values Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I. 2005.
of wild foods in agricultural systems. Measuring the extent of protected areas as an
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets.
365(1554): 2913-2926. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of
London B 360 (1454): 443-455.
66
Child MF, Cumming GS, Amano T. 2008. Assessing Díaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS III, Tilman D. 2006.
the broad-scale impact of agriculturally Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being.
transformed and protected area landscapes on PLoS Biology 4(8): e277
avian taxonomic and functional richness.
Biological Conservation 142(11): 2593-2601. Dudley N. (ed.) 2008 Guidelines for Appling
Protected Areas Management Categories. IUCN.
Coad L, Burgess ND, Bombard B, Besançon C.
2009. Progress towards the Convention on Ehrlich PR. 2002. Human natures, nature
Biological Diversity’s 2010 and 2012 targets for conservation, and environmental ethics.
protected area coverage. A technical report for BioScience 52: 31-43.
the IUCN international workshop ‘Looking at the
Future of the CBD Programme of Work on Ehrlich PR, Pringle RM. 2008. Where does
Protected Areas’, Jeju Islad, Republic of Korea, biodiversity go from here? A grim business-as-
14-17 September 2009. UNEP-WCMC, usual forecast and a hopeful portfolio of partial
Cambridge. solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the U.S.A. 105(1): 11579-11586.
Cox RL, Underwood EC. 2011. The Importance of
Conserving Biodiversity Outside of Protected Ewers RM, Rodrigues ASL. 2008. Estimates of
Areas in Mediterranean Ecosystems. PLoS ONE reserve effectiveness are confounded by leakage.
6(1): e14508. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23(3): 113-116.
Cumming GS. 2011, Spatial Resilience in Social- Fischer J, et al. 2008. Should agricultural policies
Ecological Systems. Springer. encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly
farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the
Daly HE, Farley J. 2010. Ecological Economics. Environment 6: 380–385.
Principles and applications. Island Press.
Washington DC. Fischer J, Dyball B, Fazey I, Gross C, Dovers S,
Ehrlich PR, Brulle RJ, Christensen C, Borden RJ.
Dearden P, Bennett M, Johnston J. 2005. Trends 2012. Human behavior and sustainability.
in global protected area governance, 1992-2002. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:
Environmental management 36(1): 89–100. 153-160.
Defries R, Karanth KK, Pareeth S. 2010a. Foley JA, et al. 2005 Global consequences of land
Interactions between protected areas and their use. Science 309: 570–574.
surroundings in human-dominated tropical
landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143(12): Folke C. 2006. The economic perspective:
2870-2880. conservation against development versus
conservation for development. Conservation
Defries R, Rovero F, Wright P, Ahumanda J, Biology 20(3): 686-688.
Andelman S, Brandon K, Dempewolf J, Hansen A,
Hewson J, Liu J. 2010b. From plot to landscape Folke C, et al. 2011. Reconnecting to the
scale: linking tropical biodiversity measurements Biosphere. Ambio 40(7): 719-738.
across spatial scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 8(3): 153–160. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Iniesta-
Arandia I, López-Santiago CA, Aguilera PA,
De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Montes C. 2012. The role of multi-functionality in
Willemen L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the social preferences toward semi-arid rural
concept of ecosystem services and values in landscapes: An ecosystem service approach.
landscape planning, management and decision Environmental Science and Policy 19-20: 136-
making. Ecological Complexity 7: 260-272. 146.
67
Results
García-Llorente M. 2011. Visibilizando los Hoffman M, et al. 2010. The Impact of

vinculos entre naturaleza y sociedad. PhD. Thesis. Conservation on the Status of the World’s
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Vertebrates. Science 330(6010): 1503-1509.
Gimmi U, Schmidt SL, Hawbaker TJ, Alcántara C, Holdgate MW. 1994. Protected areas in the
Gafvert U, Radeloff VC. 2011 Increasing future: the implications of change, and the need
development in the surroundings of U.S. National for new policies. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:
Park service holdings jeopardizes park 406‐410.
effectiveness. Journal of Environmental
Management 92: 229-239. IUCN (World Conservation Union) 2004. The
Durban Action Plan: Vth IUCN World Parks
Goldman RL, Tallis H, Kareiva P, Daily GC. 2008 Congress, Durban, South Africa. IUCN.
Field evidence that ecosystem service projects
support biodiversity and diversify options. Janzen DH. 1983. No park is an island: increase in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences interference from outside as park size decreases.
of the U.S.A. 105 (27): 9445–9448. Oikos 41: 402‐410.
Gómez-Baggethun E, Reyes-García V, Olsson P, Jenkins CN, Joppa L. 2009. Expansion of the

Montes C. 2012. Traditional knowledge and global terrestrial protected area system.
community resilience to environmental Biological Conservation 142: 2166–2174.
extremes. A case study in Doñana, SW Spain.
Global Environmental Change 22: 640-650. Joppa LN, Loarie SR, Pimm SL. 2008. On the
protection of “protected areas”. Proceedings of
Hannah L, Midgley G, Andelman S, Araujo M, the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.
Hughes G, Martinez-Meyer E, Pearson R, Williams 105: 6673–6678.
P. 2007. Protected area needs in a changing
climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Joppa LN, Pfaff A. 2009. High and Far: Biases in
Environment 5: 131–138. the Location of Protected Areas. Plos One 4(12).
Hansen AJ, DeFries R. 2007. Ecological Kareiva P, Marvier M. 2003 Conserving

mechanisms linking protected areas to Biodiversity Coldspots, American Scientist 91:
surrounding lands. Ecological Applications 17(4): 344-351.
974-988.
Kareiva P, Marvier M. 2012. What is Conservation
Haslett, JR, Berry, PM, Jongman, RHG, Bela, G, Science? BioScience 62(11): 962-969.
Samways, M, Zobel, M, Scholten, L, Pataki, G.
2010. Changing conservation strategies in Kharouba HM, Kerr JT. 2010. Just passing
Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem through: Global change and the conservation of
services and dynamics. Biodiversity and biodiversity in protected areas. Biological
Conservation 19(10): 2963–2977. Conservation 143: 1094–1101
Hauck J, Görg C., Varjopuro R, Ratamäki O, Jax K. Kettunen M, et al. 2010. Recognizing the value of
2013. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem protected areas. Chapter 8 in The economics of
services concept in environmental policy and ecosystems and biodiversity. Teeb for national
decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives. and international policy makers.
Environmental Science and Policy 25: 13-21.
Laurance WF, et al. 2012. Averting biodiversity
Hoekstra JM, Boucher TM, Ricketts TH, Roberts C. collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature
2005. Confronting a biome crisis: global 489: 290-294.
disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology
Liu J, et al. 2007. Complexity of coupled human
Letters 8: 23–29
and natural systems. Science 317, 1513–6.
68
López-Hoffman L, Varady RG, Flessa KW, Mascia MB, Pailler S. 2011. Protected area
Balvanera P. 2010. Ecosystem services across downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement
borders: a framework for transboundary (PADDD) and its conservation implications.
conservation policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Conservation Letters 4(1): 9-20.
Environment 8(2): 84-91.
McDonald RI, Yuan-Farrell C, Fievet C, Moeller M,
Lovejoy TE. 2006. Protected areas: a prism for a Kareiva P, Foster D, Gragson T, Kinzig A, Kuby L,
changing world. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Redman C.2007. Estimating the effect of
21(6): 329-333. protected lands on the development and
conservation of their surroundings. Conservation
Ludwig D. 2001. The era of management is over. Biology 21: 1526–1536.
Ecosystems 4(8): 758-764.
McDonald RI, Kareiva P, Forman RTT. 2008. The
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. implications of current and future urbanization
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity for global protected areas and biodiversity
Synthesis. World Resources Institute. conservation. Biological Conservation 141: 1695-
1703.
Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Garton EO, Boitani L.
2007. Contribution of the Natura 2000 network McDonald RI, Boucher TM. 2011. Global
to biodiversity conservation in Italy. development and the future of the protected area
Conservation Biology 21(6): 1433-1444. strategy. Biological Conservation 144: 383–392.
Margules CR, Pressey RL. 2000. "Systematic McNeely JA. 1994. Protected areas for the 21st
conservation planning". Nature 405 (6783): 243– century: working to provide benefits to society.
53 Biodiversity and conservation 3: 390‐405.
Margules C, Sarkar S. 2007. Systematic McNeely JA, Faith DP, Albers HJ. 2005.
conservation planning. Cambridge University Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy
Press. Responses. Chapter 5: biodiversity. Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press.
Martín-López B, Montes C, Ramírez L, Benayas J.
2009a. What drives policy decision-making Mooney HA, Duraiappah A, Larigauderie A. 2013.
related to species conservation? Biological Evolution of natural and social science
Conservation 142: 1370-1380. interactions in global change research programs.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Martín-López B, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, 110 (1): 3665-3672.
Montes C. 2011. The conservation against
development paradigm in protected areas: Myers N. 1972. National parks in savannah
Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana Africa. Science 178: 1255−1263.
social–ecological system (southwestern Spain).
Ecological Economics 70(8): 1481-1491. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da
Fonseca GAB, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots
Martín-López B, et al. 2012. Uncovering for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.
Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social
Preferences. PloS one 7: e38970. Myers N. 1993. Tropical forests: the main
deforestation fronts. Environmental
Mascia MB, Claus CA. 2009. A property rights Conservation 20: 9–16.
approach to understanding human displacement
from protected areas: the case of marine Nagendra H. 2008. Do Parks Work? Impact of
protected areas. Conservation Biology 23(1): 16- Protected Areas on Land Cover Clearing. Ambio
23. 37(5): 330-337.
69
Results
Naughton-Treves L, Buck Holland M, Brandon K. Pyke CR, 2007. The implications of global
2005. The role of protected areas in conserving priorities for biodiversity and ecosystem services
biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. associated with protected areas. Ecology and
Annual Review of Environonment and Resources Society 12(1): 4.
30: 219–52.
Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for
Norberg J, Wilson J, Walker B, Ostrom E. 2008. environmental management: a literature review.
Diversity and resilience of social ecological Biological Conservation 141:2417-2431.
systems. Pages 46-79 in Norberg J, Cumming GS,
eds. Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Rey Benayas JM, Bullock JM. 2012. Restoration of
Columbia University Press. biodiversity and ecosystem services on
agricultural land. Ecosystems 15(6): 883-899.
Noss RF. 1983. A regional landscape to maintain
diversity. Bioscience 33: 700-706. Reyers B, O´Farrell PJ, Nel JL, Wilson K. 2012.
Expanding the conservation toolbox:
Olson DM, Dinerstein E. 1998, The Global 200: A conservation planning of multifunctional
Representation Approach to Conserving the landscapes. Landscape Ecology 27: 1121-1134.
Earth’s Most Biologically Valuable Ecoregions.
Conservation Biology 12: 502–515. Rodrigues AL, et al. 2004. Effectiveness of the
global protected area network in representing
Ostrom E. 2005. Understanding institutional species diversity. Nature 428: 640–643.
diversity. Princeton University Press.
Samways MJ, Bazelet CS, Pryke JS. 2010.
Palomo I, Martín-López B, López CA, Montes C. Provision of ecosystem services by large scale
2011. Participatory Scenario Planning for corridors and ecological networks. Biodiversity
Protected Areas Management under the and Conservation 19(10): 2949-2962.
Ecosystem Services Framework: the Doñana
Social-Ecological System in Southwestern Spain. Schonewald-Cox C, Buechner M, Sauvajot R,
Ecology & Society 16(1): 23. Wilcox BA. 1992. Cross-boundary management
between national parks and surrounding lands: A
Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M, Haines- review and discussion. Environmental
Young R, Montes C. In press. National Parks, Management 16 (2): 273-2825.
buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping
ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem Services 1– Steffen W, et al. 2011. The Anthropocene: From
13. Global Change to Planetary Stewardship. Ambio
40(7): 739-761.
Parks SA, Harcourt AH. 2002. Reserve Size, Local
Human Density, and Mammalian Extinctions in Stokes DL, Hanson MF, Oaks DD, Straub JE, Ponio
U.S. Protected Areas. Conservation Biology 16(3): AV. 2010. Local Land-Use Planning to Conserve
800-808. Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What
Works. Conservation Biology 24(2): 450-460.
Parrott L, Meyer WS. 2012. Future landscapes:
managing within complexity. Frontiers in Ecology Syrbe R, Walz U. 2012. Spatial indicators for the
and the Environment 10: 382–389. assessment of ecosystem services: Providing,
benefiting and connecting areas and landscape
Pereira HM, et al. 2010. Scenarios for Global metrics. Ecological Indicators 21: 80–88.
Biodiversity in the 21st Century. Science 330:
1496-1501. Tear TH, et al. How Much Is Enough? The
Recurrent Problem of Setting Measurable
Phillips A. 2003. Turning ideas on their head. The Objectives in Conservation. BioScience 55(10):
new paradigm for protected areas. The George 835-849.
Wright FORUM 20 (2): 8-32.
70
Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ, Haddad NM, Sargent S,

Orrock JL, Weldom A, Danielson BJ, Brinkerhoff J,
Damschen EI, Townsend P. 2002. Corridors affect
plants, animals, and their interactions in
fragmented landscapes. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.
99(20): 12923-12926.
West P, Igoe J, Brockington D. 2006. Parks and

peoples: the social impact of protected areas.
Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 251-277.
Wiens JA. 2009. Landscape ecology as a

foundation for sustainable conservation.
Landscape Ecology 24: 1053-1065.
Wilkie DS, Morelli GA, Demmer J, Starkey M,

Telfer P, Steil M. 2006. Parks and people:
Assessing the human welfare effects of
stablishing protected areas for biodiversity
conservation. Conservation Biology 20: 247-249.
With KA. 2005. Landscape conservation: a new

paradigm for the conservation of biodiversity.
Pages 238-247 in Wiens J, Moss M, eds. Issues
and perspectives in landscape ecology.
Cambridge University Press.
Woodroffe R, Ginsberg JR. 1998. Edge effects and

the extinction of populations inside protected
areas. Science 280: 2126-2128.
71
Results
Supplementary material
Figure 4.1.3. Examples of different degrees of intensity in the management of the landscape. (A)
Sierra Nevada National Park summits with low-intensity management (Photo © Ignacio Palomo).
(B) Sierra Nevada valleys support a multi-functional landscape (Photo © Marina García-
Llorente). (C) Multi-functional landscape for cattle, agriculture and forest patches in the Spanish
plateau (Photo © Berta Martín-López). (D) Greenhouses in the intensively managed landscape of
Almeria, Spain (Photo © Berta Martín-López).
72
Capítulo 4.2
A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem

services
Neville D. Crossman a,*, Benjamin Burkhard b, Stoyan Nedkov c,

Louise Willemen d,1, Katalin Petz e, Ignacio Palomo f, Evangelia G.
Drakou d, Berta Martín-López f, Timon McPhearson g,
Kremena Boyanova c, Rob Alkemade h, Benis Egoh d, Martha B.
Dunbar d, Joachim Maes d
a CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia, 5064, Australia
b Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, University of Kiel, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel,
Germany
c National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and Geography, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Acad. G. Bonchev Street, bl. 3, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
d European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Via E. Fermi 2749, TP460, Ispra, VA21027, Italy
e Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA,
Wageningen, The Netherlands
f Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid, Madrid, Spain
g Tishman Environment and Design Center, The New School, 79 Fifth Avenue, 16th Floor, New
York, NY 10003, USA
h Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), PO Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, The
Netherlands
* Corresponding author
Publicado en Ecosystem Services. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001.

Results
4.2. Un patrón para la modelización y la cartografía de servicios de los

ecosistemas
Resumen La inconsistencia metodológica para cuantificar y cartografiar los servicios de los

ecosistemas amenaza la obtención de valores robustos en las evaluaciones nacionales de servicios
y en la gestión de los ecosistemas en general. En este trabajo desarrollamos y testamos un patrón
que guíe la modelización y la cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas. El objetivo principal de
este patrón es mostrar la información necesaria para la modelización y la cartografía de servicios
a aquellos que quieran iniciar un estudio de este tipo. El patrón propuesto está basado en una
revisión de la literatura, opinión de expertos (recogida en un taller participativo en la 5ª
Conferencia de la Ecosystem Service Partnership), y una evaluación critica de las técnicas
existentes para modelizar y cartografiar servicios. Aunque cada estudio que pretenda modelizar y
cartografiar servicios tendrá sus propias características y estará determinado por la
disponibilidad de información y de modelos, una herramienta como el patrón propuesto en este
trabajo reducirá la incertidumbre asociada a la cuantificación de servicios, y por lo tanto ayudará
a unir la teoría y la aplicación en el marco de los servicios de los ecosistemas.
La contribución del autor de la presente Tesis a este capítulo de resultados ha consistido en la

realización de la revisión bibliográficva sistemática, la creación de la matriz que integra los
estudios seleccionados y el análisis descriptivo de la misma.
The contribution of the author of this Thesis to this chapter has been working on the
systematic bibliographic review, on the matrix that integrates the selected studies and making its
descriptive analysis.
74
Ecosystem Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser
A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services

Neville D. Crossman a,n, Benjamin Burkhard b, Stoyan Nedkov c, Louise Willemen d,1, Katalin Petz e,
Ignacio Palomo f, Evangelia G. Drakou d, Berta Martı́n-Lopez f, Timon McPhearson g,
Kremena Boyanova c, Rob Alkemade h, Benis Egoh d, Martha B. Dunbar d, Joachim Maes d
a
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia, 5064, Australia
b
Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, University of Kiel, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany
c
National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and Geography, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Acad. G. Bonchev Street, bl. 3, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
d
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Via E. Fermi 2749, TP 460, Ispra, VA 21027, Italy
e
Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
f
Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
g
Tishman Environment and Design Center, The New School, 79 Fifth Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10003, USA
h
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), PO Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o abstract
Article history: The inconsistency in methods to quantify and map ecosystem services challenges the development of
Received 30 November 2012 robust values of ecosystem services in national accounts and broader policy and natural resource
Accepted 8 February 2013 management decision-making. In this paper we develop and test a blueprint to give guidance on
modelling and mapping ecosystem services. The primary purpose of this blueprint is to provide a
Keywords: template and checklist of information needed for those beginning an ecosystem service modelling and
Environmental accounting mapping study. A secondary purpose is to provide, over time, a database of completed blueprints that
Spatial analysis becomes a valuable information resource of methods and information used in previous modelling and
Geographic information systems mapping studies. We base our blueprint on a literature review, expert opinions (as part of a related
Ecosystem assessment
workshop organised during the 5th ESP conference2 ) and critical assessment of existing techniques
Standards
used to model and map ecosystem services. While any study that models and maps ecosystem services
Indicators
will have its unique characteristics and will be largely driven by data and model availability, a tool such
as the blueprint presented here will reduce the uncertainty associated with quantifying ecosystem
services and thereby help to close the gap between theory and practice.
Crown Copyright & 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction with accurate and defendable methods for quantifying ecosystem

services (McKenzie et al., 2011). As Troy and Wilson (2006) point
Ecosystems provide various goods and services to society, out, spatially explicit units are needed to quantify ecosystem
which in turn directly contribute to our well-being and economic services because supply and demand for ecosystem services are
wealth (Costanza et al., 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, spatially explicit. Furthermore, the supply and demand of services
2005; TEEB, 2010; de Groot et al., 2012). Valuing the contribution may differ geographically (Fisher et al., 2009; Bastian et al., 2012a).
of ecosystems to human well-being through economic, ecological This heterogeneity calls for maps of ecosystem service supply and
and social (triple-bottom-line) accounting such as Green GDP demand. Distinguishing between mapped supply and demand
(Boyd, 2007), the United Nations System of Environmental Eco- provides a basis for accounting to ensure demand does not exceed
nomic Accounts (United Nations Statistical Division, 2012), the supply. Hence, mapping is a useful tool for illustrating and
Green Economy (United Nations Environment Program, 2011), quantifying the spatial mismatch between ecosystem services
and corporate sustainability reporting (World Business Council delivery and demand that can then be used for communication
for Sustainable Development, 2010) demands robust methods to and to support decision-making.
define and quantify ecosystem services. Also, decision making and A number of recent studies have mapped the supply of multi-
policy aimed at achieving sustainability goals can be improved ple ecosystem services at global (Naidoo et al., 2008), continental
(Schulp et al., 2012), national (Egoh et al., 2008, Bateman et al.,
2011) or sub-national (Nelson et al., 2009, Raudsepp-Hearne
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 8 8303 8663. et al., 2010, Willemen et al., 2010) scales. A few recent studies
E-mail address: neville.crossman@csiro.au (N.D. Crossman).
1
Current address: Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University,
have mapped the demand of ecosystem services (Burkhard et al.,
Ithaca (NY) 14853, USA. 2012b, Kroll et al., 2012, Nedkov and Burkhard, 2012, Palomo
2
/http://www.espconference.org/previous_editions/80045/5/0/60S. et al., in press). Other recent studies offer frameworks for
2212-0416/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001
Please cite this article as: Crossman, N.D., et al., A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001i
75
e2 N.D. Crossman et al. / Ecosystem Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
integrating the ecological and economic value-dimensions of Box 1–Ecosystem service definitions.
ecosystem services to more accurately calculate monetary values
of mapped ecosystem services (Daily et al., 2009, de Groot et al.,
2010, Wainger and Mazzotta, 2011). There have also been a Ecosystem services: contributions of ecosystem structure and
function—in combination with other inputs—to human well-
number of reviews (Egoh et al., 2012, Martı́nez-Harms and
being (Burkhard et al., 2012a).
Balvanera, 2012), special issues of journals (Burkhard et al., Ecosystem processes: changes or reactions occurring in
2012a, Crossman et al., 2012b) and books (Kareiva et al., 2011) ecosystems; either physical, chemical or biological; including
on ecosystem services quantification, modelling and mapping. decomposition, production, nutrient cycling and fluxes of
These products are at numerous scales and demonstrate the many nutrients and energy (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
and diverse ways to model and map ecosystem services. Conse- 2005).
quently, there is much uncertainty in what is mapped and the Ecosystem structures: biophysical architecture of ecosys-
methods used to map the services. tems; species composition making up the architecture may
The inconsistency in methods to quantify and map services vary (TEEB, 2010).
Ecosystem functions: intermediate between ecosystem
(Eppink et al., 2012) is a challenge for developing robust
processes and services and can be defined as the capacity
economic, ecological and social values of ecosystem services
of ecosystems to provide goods and services that satisfy
for inclusion in national accounts and broader policy and human needs, directly and indirectly (de Groot et al., 2010).
natural resource management decision-making. At a broader Intermediate ecosystem services: biological, chemical, and
level of sustainability policy, there needs to be better under- physical interactions between ecosystem components. E.g.,
standing of where and what services are provided by a given ecosystem functions and processes are not end-products;
piece of land, landscape, region, state, continent and globally, so they are intermediate to the production of final ecosystem
that stocks of natural capital and the flow of services can be services (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007).
monitored and managed across spatial and temporal scales. Final ecosystem services: Direct contributions to human
There also needs to be better understanding of conditions and well-being. Depending on their degree of connection to
human welfare, ecosystem services can be considered as
threats to the natural capital so that finite resources can be
intermediate or as final services (Fisher et al., 2009).
targeted to where the enhancement of services is needed most Ecosystem service supply: refers to the capacity of a
(de Groot et al., 2010). Furthermore, the recent biodiversity particular area to provide a specific bundle of ecosystem
conservation policies based on commodification of ecosystem goods and services within a given time period (Burkhard
service production, such as payments for ecosystem services, et al., 2012b). Depends on different sets of landscape proper-
biodiversity and wetland banking, carbon offsets and trading, ties that influence the level of service supply (Willemen et al.,
and conservation auctions, depend on robust measurement on 2012).
the stocks of natural capital and flow of services to provide Ecosystem service demand: is the sum of all ecosystem
surety to participants in these markets. The varied methods also goods and services currently consumed or used in a
particular area over a given time period (Burkhard et al.,
make the commodification and trade of ecosystem service
2012b).
values very difficult because markets require certainty and
Ecosystem service providing units/areas: spatial units that
clarity around the product being traded, both in the supply- are the source of ecosystem service (Syrbe and Walz, 2012).
side and the demand-side. The varied methods also make public Includes the total collection of organisms and their traits
and private sector ecosystem service accounting very difficult required to deliver a given ecosystem service at the level
for the same reasons. needed by service beneficiaries (Vandewalle et al. 2009).
Recently, Martı́nez-Harms and Balvanera (2012) call for a Commensurate with ecosystem service supply.
standardised methodological approach to quantify and map Ecosystem service benefiting areas: the complement to
ecosystem services, Eppink et al. (2012) suggest that an adaptable ecosystem service providing areas. Ecosystem service bene-
conceptual framework should be developed for ecosystem service fiting areas may be far distant from the relevant providing
areas. The structural characteristics of a benefiting area must
assessments and Maes et al. (2012a) call for a consistent ecosys-
be such that the area can take advantage of an ecosystem
tem service mapping approach. On a more practical level, TEEB service (Syrbe and Walz, 2012). Commensurate with ecosys-
(2010) call for extra effort in mapping: (i) the flow of services; tem service demand.
(ii) a wider set of ecosystem services that includes cultural Ecosystem service trade-offs: The way in which one
and regulating services, so trade-offs can be better explored, ecosystem service responds to a change in another ecosys-
and; (iii) the connections between biodiversity and the final tem service (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
benefit. The conceptual framework, presented in Seppelt et al.
(2012) as a blueprint for ecosystem service assessment, includes a
component for describing the indicators and their calculation, but model and map ecosystem services provides the basis for the
little prescriptive detail on modelling and mapping. There is blueprint. We review the current state of the art in mapping
clearly a need to develop a blueprint and set of standards for ecosystem services, taking into account existing ecosystem ser-
mapping the stocks and flows and supply and demand of a fuller vice mapping tools and preceding reviews. Our review focuses on
suite of ecosystem services. the modelling and quantification methods used to map each
In this paper we develop and test a blueprint for modelling and ecosystem service. We provide preliminary results of our review
mapping the stocks of natural capital and flows of ecosystem and a description of the methods used for each of the main
services, building on the Seppelt et al. (2012) ecosystem service ecosystem services mapped. We then propose a blueprint as a
blueprint by focusing on the specific mapping aspect. For simpli- guide for mapping ecosystem services, followed by a completed
city, we use term ecosystem services in place of natural capital example of the blueprint. The blueprint was developed with the
stocks and ecosystem service flows. In this paper we do not limit input from working group participants at the 5th Ecosystem
ourselves to any types of ecosystem services, but instead follow Services Partnership Conference in Portland, Oregon, August
the precedent set by TEEB (2010), who valued elsewhere classi- 2012. We conclude with a discussion on where our approach
fied intermediate and final services as long as the services provide could be of most use, and provide some critical thought on the
an indirect or direct contribution to human well-being (see Box level of uncertainty that is inherent in any effort to map
1). Our premise is that a review of existing techniques used to ecosystem services.
76
N.D. Crossman et al. / Ecosystem Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] e3
2. State of the art in mapping ecosystem services Table 1

Comparison of approaches used in recent reviews of mapping ecosystem services.
2.1. Ecosystem service mapping tools
Criteria Martı́nez-Harms and Egoh et al. Our
Balvanera (2012) (2012) review
A widely applied ecosystem service mapping and valuation
tool is InVEST (Kareiva et al., 2011), the Integrated Tool to Value Number of papers 70 67 122
Ecosystem Services and their trade-offs. It is an open access GIS- reviewed
Type of ecosystem Yes Yes Yes
tool collection developed under the Natural Capital Project3 . service
It includes separate models for different ecosystem services to be Sources of data/ Yes Yes Yes
applied and combined to analyse spatial patterns of ecosystem indicators
services or track changes caused by land cover change. The Types of data Yes Yes Yes
Scale/ Resolution Yes Yes Yes
complexity of the models available in InVEST varies from proxy-
Method Yes Yes Yes
based mapping (tier 1) to simple biophysical production equa- Extent of study area No Yes Yes
tions (tier 2). But the tool has the ability to include third-party Country No Yes Yes
complex, site-specific process models (tier 3). The main inputs to Reason for mapping No Yes No
InVEST are land cover data and other environmental variables as Habitat type No No Yes
Valuation method No No Yes
relevant, and outputs are the estimate of ecosystem services in
biophysical and in some cases monetary units. InVEST has been
used to map and value ecosystem services under different land total); carbon sequestration (11; 16%); food production (11;
cover scenarios in Oregon, the United States (Nelson et al., 2009) 16%); recreation (9; 13%); provision of water (7; 10%) and
and Tanzania (Swetnam et al., 2011). Bai et al. (2011) used InVEST water quality (7; 10%).
to analyse the spatial correlations between biodiversity and Secondary data (land cover, remotely sensed and topographi-
ecosystem services in a Chinese case study and Guerry et al. cal data) are more commonly used (59% of services reviewed)
(2012) used InVEST to quantify ecosystem services in a marine to map ecosystem services, especially the regulating ecosys-
case study in Canada. tem services.
Further ecosystem service mapping tools of note are ARIES Regional-scale dominates the published mapping studies (57%
(Villa et al., 2009), the ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem of services reviewed), followed by the national scale (15%).
Services4 , SolVES (Sherrouse et al., 2011), the Social Values for Causal relationships (using existing knowledge about the
Ecosystem Services5 , and GUMBO, the Global Unified Metamodel relationship of ecosystem service supply to environmental
of the BiOsphere6 . ARIES is a web-based ecosystem services variables) is the most common method (37% of services
mapping and valuation tool, which uses probabilistic Bayesian reviewed) used to map ecosystem services, followed by extra-
networks to analyse ecosystem service flows from point of supply polation of primary data (20%).
to place of use and beneficiaries. SolVES is a GIS tool to assess,
map, and quantify the perceived social values for ecosystems, The main findings of Egoh et al. (2012) are (following the
such as aesthetics, biodiversity, and recreation. GUMBO uses ecosystem service typology used by the authors):
simulation modelling to model global dynamics and interactions
of natural capital with built, social and human capital.
Regulating services are mapped more frequently than other
2.2. Existing reviews service categories. The most commonly mapped services are
climate regulation (44 publications; 66% of total), food provi-
Two recent reviews by Martı́nez-Harms and Balvanera (2012) sion (37; 55%), recreation (35; 52%), regulation of water flows
and Egoh et al. (2012) summarise the recent literature on (28; 42%) and provision of water (21; 31%). On average,
mapping ecosystem services. Using the Web of Science ISI Web 3.9 ecosystem services were mapped per study.
of Knowledge, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, Martı́nez- Proxy methods are the most commonly used method for mapping
Harms and Balvanera (2012) identified 70 publications published ES, despite their highest potential for error (Eigenbrod et al., 2010).
from 1995 to 2011 that have mapped the supply of ecosystem Comparisons of mapped ecosystem services across studies are
services. rarely applicable because many studies use unique primary
Egoh et al. (2012) reviewed the indicators, methods, and data indicators to map single ecosystem services, or multiple,
types that have been used to map and model ecosystem services. different indicators are used in cases where single indicators
Using Scopus and ScienceDirect, they identified 67 publications are insufficient.
published between 1997 and 2011 that mapped and/or modelled The most common indicators for mapping ES are land use/
ecosystem services. The parameters assessed in each review are cover, soils, vegetation, and nutrient related indicators.
presented in Table 1. For comparison we include in Table 1 the Provisioning and regulating services are more commonly
parameters assessed in our review (see next section for detail). mapped at larger scales (national level or higher), followed
The main findings of Martı́nez-Harms and Balvanera (2012) by supporting and cultural services.
are (following the ecosystem service typology used by the Resolution of data used to map ecosystem services is dictated
authors): by the service being mapped. Ecosystem services with site-
specific processes, such as pollination, demand higher resolu-
tion data whereas generic services, such as climate regulation
The ecosystem services most commonly mapped are, in through carbon sequestration, may be sufficiently mapped
descending order: carbon storage (in 13 publications; 19% of with coarser resolution data.
The sub-national level is the most common scale of mapping
3
ecosystem services.
/http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.htmlS
4
/http://www.ariesonline.org/S
5
/http://solves.cr.usgs.gov/S The Martı́nez-Harms and Balvanera (2012) and Egoh et al.
6
/http://ecoinformatics.uvm.edu/projects/the-gumbo-model.htmlS (2012) reviews have different purposes. In the former, the authors
77
reveal trends in the main ecosystem services used in decision- tourism, food provision, provision of water and regulation of
making, as well as trends in types of data and methods used to water flows. Most publications (36) mapped one individual
map ecosystem services, with the aim of using this information to service, while 17 publications mapped more than 10 services.
make a number of suggestions for mapping ecosystem services The average number of mapped ecosystem services per study is
that would result in estimates that are more defendable. For 5.6. The continents where ecosystem services have been mapped
example, to avoid bad decision-making because of over-simplified more frequently are Europe (47 publications), North America (17),
maps, Martı́nez-Harms and Balvanera (2012) recommend regres- Asia (15), Africa (14), Australia and New Zealand (7) and South &
sion models that reveal the relationship between field samples of Central America (3). The countries where ecosystem services have
ecosystem services and environmental variables. However, in the been mapped more frequently are China (14 publications), USA
absence of sufficient time and resources for regression modelling (12), Germany (8) and South Africa (7), while there are 24
on primary data, they suggest a good option would be to map publications mapping services in several countries (multi-
ecosystem services based on causal relationships between pri- national or global scale). The number of authors of each publica-
mary and secondary data. The aim of the Egoh et al. (2012) review tion ranges from: 46 publications (1 to 3 authors), 51 publications
was to: (i) better understand the types of indicators and spatial or (4 to 6 authors) and 16 publications (more than 7 authors).
non-spatial data used to map ecosystem services globally; (ii) We found that 51 different journals have published a paper
identify the main components that need to be taken into account mapping ecosystem services. The most frequent journals are
for ecosystem service mapping; (iii) identify existing gaps both in Ecological Economics (16), Ecological Indicators (12), and the
ecosystem service mapping and available data, and; (iv) propose International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services
sets of indicators that could be used to map ecosystem services & Management (11).The next sections summarise what we
for which limited or even no mapping has been detected. identify as the main methods used to map and model each
ecosystem service which can inform us in developing a blueprint
for future ecosystem service mapping and modelling studies.
2.3. Our review
Our aim was to build on the Martı́nez-Harms and Balvanera 2.3.1. Provisioning services
(2012) and Egoh et al. (2012) reviews. We did this by firstly
revisiting the papers reviewed in those two studies, as well as
additional papers that were either not identified in those reviews 2.3.1.1. Food. When multiple ES are mapped, food production is
or were published subsequently. We collected additional attri- almost always included. Food production sourced from cultivated
butes used by the authors to map ecosystem services to give us a plants and domesticated animals is commonly mapped across large
more complete dataset of methods and techniques, such as the areas using coarse resolution land use data in combination with
habitat types mapped and, if applicable, the economic valuation agricultural statistics. Land use data is generally not of sufficient
method (Table 1). We identified all peer review papers from the spatial and data resolution to map to the level of commodity (crop
electronic databases of the ISI Web of Science, Science Direct and, type, livestock species). A small number of examples exist where
Google Scholar that included in the ‘‘Topic’’ the key word detailed commodity mapping has been completed (Bryan et al.,
‘‘ecosystem services’’ or similar, in combination with ‘‘mapping’’ 2009, 2011a) by linking agricultural simulation process models to
or similar (Table 2). We then selected the papers that have at least land use, soil and climate variables. Mapping food production at
one map representing particular aspect of ecosystem services. Our high spatial (e.g. 1 ha) and data (e.g. individual commodity)
selection process identified 113 papers (see Online Supplemen- resolution across large areas (e.g. national, continental) requires
tary Appendix 1), published until August 2012, containing a total resource-intensive process modelling and demands substantial
of 615 attempts to map individual ecosystem services. There is computing power. A wide variety of units are used to express the
some overlap between papers in our review and papers reviewed level of food production, ranging from binary land cover types to
by Martı́nez-Harms and Balvanera (2012) and Egoh et al. (2012). kcal per hectare per year. Food production sourced from wild plants
The number of studies mapping ecosystem services has grown and animals is rarely mapped although Schulp et al. (2012) made an
exponentially, from one study in 1996 to more than 10 per year attempt by mapping wild food sourced from hunting data.
since 2008. Our review identified that regulating ecosystem
services have been most often (46% of all services) mapped,
2.3.1.2. Water. Mapping the supply of water requires models and
followed by provisioning (30%), cultural (18%) and supporting/
indicators that estimate the volume of water yield available for
habitat (6%). The most commonly mapped ecosystem services
consumptive uses in a spatial unit such as a river basin.
identified in our review are climate regulation, recreation and
The models and indicators available range from simple basin-
scale water balance functions that link precipitation, actual and
Table 2
Keywords used in the bibliographic review in ISI Web of Science, Science Direct potential evapotranspiration, land cover and soil water holding
and, Google Scholar. Plural forms of the word were used where sensible. properties (Zhang et al., 2001), to complex, spatially-explicit
process-based hydrological models that simulate daily runoff
Keywords referring to ecosystem services Keywords referring to mapping calibrated using long-term daily precipitation and stream gauge
‘‘Benefit transfer’’ ‘‘Cartography’’
data (CSIRO, 2008). Additionally, water storage potential and water
‘‘Ecosystem benefit’’ ‘‘Distribution of benefits’’ extraction have also been estimated in more complex models of
‘‘Ecosystem good’’, ‘‘Geospatial’’ the water supply ecosystem service (Mendoza et al., 2011).
‘‘Ecosystem service’’, ‘‘Geographic information The simple basin-scale models are most suitable when detailed
system’’
biophysical (climate, soil and hydrological) and land cover data are
‘‘Environmental benefit’’ ‘‘GIS’’
‘‘Environmental good’’ ‘‘Landscape’’ limited. However, high spatial and temporal resolution outputs
‘‘Environmental service’’ ‘‘Mapn’’ will only be possible in well-studied basins with a wealth of
‘‘Natural benefit’’ ‘‘Regional’’ spatially-explicit data. The most robust approach to modelling
‘‘Natural good’’ ‘‘Remote sensing’’ and mapping the flow and availability of water is the application of
‘‘Natural service’’ ‘‘Spatialn’’
‘‘Value transfer’’ ‘‘Scale’’
daily rainfall-runoff models although this approach is very rare in
the ecosystem service mapping literature.
78
2.3.1.3. Raw materials. Modelling and mapping the raw material detritus). More complex models simulate the annual change in
ecosystem services usually involves estimating spatially-explicit carbon stocks (i.e. flows) given empirically-derived relationships
volumes of timber and non-timber (e.g. latex, gums, oils, tannins, between climate, soil and vegetation growth. These data-intensive
dyes etc.) products or volumes of shrub land fuel wood or wetland process-based simulation models can be used to estimate with
reeds. At the most basic level, mapping studies have used relative precision the flows in carbon following a change in land
spatially explicit data of timber harvest volumes (Maes et al., cover, such as converting an annual cropping system to a perma-
2012b). This type of data may be relatively easy to acquire from nent tree cover (Crossman et al., 2011c), or change in land
public or private forestry agencies with exclusive property rights management, such as maintaining stubble in a cropping system
over forest resources. Harvest volumes will be more difficult to (Lal, 2004; Liu et al., 2009).
acquire, or they will be non-existent in locations where property An alternative approach to mapping the flows of terrestrial
rights over timber resources are poorly defined and implemented. carbon is to use a remotely-sensed estimate of Net Primary
More complex models have been used to map the spatially Productivity (NPP). This proxy technique has been used on
explicit extraction of timber and non-timber forest products by occasions to map changes in carbon stocks (Raudsepp-Hearne
linking household demographic and labour data with location et al., 2010). However, NPP can only be used to map the above and
attributes and forest types to estimate the level of harvest by below ground biomass and only measures the net carbon balance
regions/communities dependent on forest resources for their (incoming less outgoing).
livelihoods (van Jaarsveld et al., 2005). The complex models are
more often applied when property rights are absent or poorly
defined such as in less-developed countries. 2.3.2.3. Moderation of extreme events. Moderation of extreme
events is usually estimated by modelling the ability of different
2.3.1.4. Genetic, medicinal and ornamental resources. While there is types of land cover/land use to reduce the risk of inland flooding.
clear recognition of the importance of biotic material for the The premise is that vegetation and soil retains water as it flows
supply of genetic, medicinal and ornamental goods (de Groot through the landscape, and wetlands and floodplains alter inflow-
et al., 2002), we could only find two examples where medicinal discharge relationships of watercourses, thereby delaying the
plants have been mapped, (Chen et al., 2009, Fisher et al., 2011) time to reach a flood peak. The simpler and most common
based on land cover data across relatively small geographic areas, efforts to model and map flood moderation typically use proxies
although several studies have included genetic or medicinal to estimate water retention capacities, calculated as function of
resources in their assessments based on other variables perennial vegetation cover and soil type (Chan et al., 2006; Ming
(Costanza et al., 1997; Vihervaara et al., 2010). et al., 2007; Schulp et al., 2012). More complex proxy methods can
be used to predict the magnitude of floods, given information on
simple hydrology (runoff), topography, geology, soil, vegetation and
2.3.2. Regulating services
management practices (Posthumus et al., 2010; Ennaanay et al., 2011;
Nedkov and Burkhard, 2012). Coral reefs and mangroves also
2.3.2.1. Air quality regulation. Modelling air quality regulation is moderate extreme events by buffering waves and tsunamis to the
relatively common (e.g. with process-based physical models) but benefit of coastal areas. Several studies map the extent of these
our review showed that the mapping of this service is rare. two systems as a proxy for the supply of this ecosystem service
Modelling tends to be limited to estimates of air pollution (Costanza et al., 2008).
removal by urban trees using functions that relate tree cover,
leaf area index, weather data, deposition velocity and pollutant 2.3.2.4. Regulation of water flows. This service deals with the
concentrations (Jim and Chen, 2008; Escobedo and Nowak, 2009; influence of natural freshwater systems on the regulation of
Maes et al., 2012b; Petz and van Oudenhoven, 2012). Presumably hydrological flows. Services provided include the maintenance
mapping can be difficult because of the high spatial uncertainty; of natural irrigation and drainage, and buffering of extreme river
lack of quantitative information about the role of land cover in discharges and regulation of channel flows (de Groot et al., 2002).
pollution removal; or the very local character of the service. Like methods for the moderation of flooding described above, the
regulation of water flows is commonly modelled and mapped
2.3.2.2. Climate regulation. Modelling and mapping climate using hydrological models with soil, vegetation, land use and land
regulation ecosystem services typically relies on proxies because cover, topography and precipitation as the major data inputs (Guo
climate regulation is not expressed in climate variables, but in et al., 2001; Crossman et al., 2010; Crossman et al., 2011b; Laterra
factors explaining climate variations. Temperature anomalies et al., 2012). What is analysed tends to be predominantly
were estimated only in very local studies, for example climate ecosystem functions rather than services. In one study, riparian
regulation by vegetation in the urban environment (Bastian et al., habitats and land use were mapped to determine the impacts of
2012b). The most common and simplest approach to modelling different land uses on the ability of the riparian zone to provide
and mapping respective proxies is to quantify the terrestrial water flow regulation services (Pert et al., 2010).
carbon stocks in the soil and vegetation system. More
sophisticated models estimate the flows in carbon, or changes
in carbon stocks, following a change in land use or land 2.3.2.5. Waste treatment. The mapping and modelling of waste
management. Other greenhouse gasses, such as nitrogen, were treatment typically involves estimating the capacity of vegetation
also modelled and mapped but these studies are rarer. Process and upstream freshwater systems to retain nutrients and broader
models are used to quantify this service more than for any other sediments from agriculture (Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010; Bai
ecosystem service. et al., 2011; Simonit and Perrings, 2011). The contribution of
At the simplest level, established relationships between land cover nutrients to floodplain and wetland ecosystems from adjacent
types and carbon stocks are used to approximate total carbon in the agricultural land has also been mapped (Posthumus et al., 2010).
land system (Egoh et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2009). The relationships These analyses typically use soil erosion models such as the
are calibrated using field measurements of total carbon under Universal Soil Loss Equation (Conte et al., 2011) to estimate
different land covers (e.g. tropical forest, open woodland, grassland) sediment transport, but more complex models that involve many
and across different pools (e.g. above and below ground biomass, soil, indicators of hydrology, agricultural inputs and crop productivity,
79
topography, soil type and land cover have also been used (Simonit and/or biodiversity based on species distributions and a number of
and Perrings, 2011). independent variables that control species distribution. There are a
Other modelling and mapping efforts for the waste treatment wealth of studies modelling habitat suitability of species driven by
ecosystem service have aimed to map the ability of ecosystems to the need to better understand what constrains species and how
assimilate human excrement (Jansson et al., 1998) or non-human those constraints may change in response to changes in habitat and
excrement (Bryan and Kandulu, 2009). However, these studies climate (Crossman and Bass, 2008; Crossman et al., 2011a, 2012a;
tend to be quite rare, even though they follow more precisely the Summers et al., 2012). The methodology has a long pedigree in the
definition of waste treatment ecosystem services according to de ecological and conservation planning sciences, but is not common in
Groot et al. (2002). the ecosystem services literature, although a number of good
examples do exist (Nelson et al., 2009, Rolf et al., 2012). Data
2.3.2.6. Erosion prevention. Erosion prevention is a commonly inputs to habitat suitability models typically include species
modelled and mapped ecosystem service and uses methods distributions, soil characteristics, topographic and climatic variables
very similar to those used in mapping nutrient and sediment and land use and land cover. The broader habitat suitability
retention under the waste treatment ecosystem service. modelling includes a wide array of approaches, from complex
The erosion prevention service aims to estimate the ability of a statistical models to more simple composite indicators (Guisan and
landscape or catchment unit to retain soil and is typically Zimmermann, 2000). In the ecosystem services literature, the
calculated as a function of vegetation cover, topography and soil simpler indices of species distribution and biodiversity hotspots
erodibility and the Universal Soil Loss Equation is most often tend to be more often used (Willemen et al., 2008, Posthumus
used. Many studies of modelling and mapping erosion prevention et al., 2010).
exist, for example Gascoigne et al. (2011), Egoh et al. (2008),
Conte et al. (2011), and Nelson et al. (2009). From our review we 2.3.3.2. Maintenance of genetic diversity. Both TEEB (2010) and de
observe that proxy land cover data more commonly used, as Groot et al. (2002) (although the service is called ‘refugium
compared to specific models of soil erosion. function’ in the latter) define the maintenance of genetic
diversity service in as being provided most prominently where
2.3.2.7. Maintenance of soil fertility. The few existing studies on there is high species endemism, i.e. in biodiversity hotspots.
mapping and modelling of the maintenance of soil fertility use Mapping of biodiversity hotspots has a relatively long history in
existing soil databases and/or land cover data as proxies for soil the conservation planning and management sciences (Myers
fertility or soil productivity (Maes et al., 2012b). For example, et al., 2000) and is present more broadly in the ecosystem
Egoh et al. (2008) mapped soil depth and litter cover as proxies services literature. Yet, we did not identify any study explicitly
for soil organic content, an indicator of soil fertility. Sandhu et al. mapping the maintenance of genetic diversity. The life cycle
(2008) is the only study that we are aware of that collected maintenance ecosystem service above reviews the methods
primary data on soil fertility in agricultural soils. Sandhu et al. used to map and model biodiversity and species habitat.
(2008) estimated the quantity of fertile soil formed annually by
measuring earthworm populations. They also estimated the 2.3.4. Cultural and amenity services
mineralisation of plant nutrients through direct measurement of
nitrogen to organic matter ratios in the soil.
2.3.4.1. Aesthetic information. The aesthetic information ecosystem
service is defined as the pleasure people receive from scenic beauty
2.3.2.8. Pollination. The processes underpinning the pollination provided by natural areas and landscapes (TEEB, 2010). The modelling
ecosystem service and its relative importance to humans has and mapping of this is commonly done through questionnaires or
been well documented (Kremen et al., 2002, 2004) but the service interviews on personal preferences, or through mapping landscape
is not often mapped due most likely to the relatively small scale attractiveness based on factors such as naturalness, skyline
of the process. Proxy methods using land cover and land use, disturbance or viewshed (de Vries et al., 2007). Another common
pollinator habitat and crop yields are the most common method is the identification of real estate adjacent to or in the vicinity
approaches to map the pollination service (Chan et al., 2006; of natural areas because the end goal is to calculate the marginal price
Lautenbach et al., 2011; Petz and van Oudenhoven, 2012; Schulp people are willing to pay for a property with a view (Grêt-Regamey
et al., 2012). The most complex example of modelling and et al., 2008a, Crossman et al., 2010) or in a favoured holiday location
mapping the pollination ecosystem service is that of Lonsdorf (Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010). Data used to model and map
et al. (2011), who use a mix of 23 land uses, crop yields, pollinator this typically involve distance metrics of real estate sales and
habitats and abundances, climate and distance proxy measures. locations in relation to important natural features or other land-
scape characteristics.
2.3.2.9. Biological control. In our review, we could only find one
example where the biological control service was mapped using 2.3.4.2. Opportunities for recreation and tourism. The recreation
primary data of pest density (Sandhu et al., 2008). Proxy data has and tourism ecosystem services are the most commonly
been used, for example Brenner et al. (2010) used land cover and mapped from the broad grouping of cultural services because
Petz and van Oudenhoven (2012) used tree density. they are relatively simple to quantify and there are many
methods for calculating their value. The methods are many and
2.3.3. Habitat services varied but often involve very location-specific proxies for
recreation/tourism such as the number of waterfowl or deer
2.3.3.1. Life cycle maintenance. Life cycle maintenance ecosystem hunting kills (Jenkins et al., 2010; Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010;
services are, according to TEEB (2010), the attributes of the biotic Naidoo et al., 2011), total fish catch per unit area (Lara et al.,
and abiotic environment that support life cycles of species. 2009), number of cyclists (Willemen et al., 2008), landscape
This ecosystem service is one of, if not the service most dependent naturalness and attractiveness (Maes et al., 2012b; Schulp et al.,
on well-functioning and biologically diverse ecosystems. Following 2012), number of walkers (Petz and van Oudenhoven, 2012) and
this statement, models and maps of the life cycle maintenance daily or overnight stays at tourist locations (Grêt-Regamey et al.,
ecosystem service typically estimate habitat suitability for a species 2008b; Anderson et al., 2009; Eigenbrod et al., 2009). Accessibility
80
and land cover are important components of models that measure process, or a flow of a final ecosystem service; see Box 1) and the
this service. beneficiary of the ecosystem service, i.e. whether it is supply or
demand or a benefiting or providing area. The indicator attribute
2.3.4.3. Inspiration for culture, art and design. The few examples of asks for a short name or description of the main indicator used to
this ecosystem service we found in our review have focused map the ecosystem service, such as surface water extraction
mainly on cultural heritage values, expressed often in qualitative (water), timber production (raw materials), carbon sequestration
terms (Bryan et al., 2010, Posthumus et al., 2010). Land use and (climate regulation), soil organic carbon (maintenance of soil
land cover are the prime input data (Willemen et al., 2008, fertility), or overnight visitors (tourism). The next attribute asks
Brenner et al., 2010). for the three major elements used to spatially and temporally
quantify the indicator.
The next three attributes ask for information on the underlying
2.3.4.4. Spiritual experience. There have been a small number of
model and data used to map the ecosystem service. Firstly,
studies which have aimed to map the sense of place and broader
qualitative information on the source of the data is requested,
social values of landscapes, which arguably includes spiritual
followed by the method by which the indicator was modelled,
experience. The most pronounced of these mapping studies
and then the description of the spatial details of the map and/or
include Raymond et al. (2009), Bryan et al. (2010, 2011b) who
underlying data (scale, extent and resolution). Information pro-
captured the spatially explicit locations considered by local
vided for these three attributes will be highly variable depending
people to have high importance for social and spiritual value.
on the ecosystem service mapped and the scale at which it is
mapped. For example, carbon sequestration may be modelled at a
2.3.4.5. Information for cognitive development. No mapped local scale (e.g. 10 km2) using a high-resolution (e.g. 1 ha) process
examples were found. model whereas at a global scale carbon sequestration may
estimate using aggregate statistics or primary remotely sensed
data at coarse resolution (e.g. 5 km2). The next attribute calls for
3. The blueprint the timeframe of the mapped or modelled data, i.e. whether the
data is for a single year or over a period of years.
Given the many and varied approaches for modelling and The final two attributes ask the person completing the blue-
mapping ecosystem services, we argue there is a need for a print to provide a self-assessment of the mapping and modelling
standard process for documenting respective studies. Here we study. The first attribute of this group asks the person to assess on
present a blueprint that records a set of standard attributes for a 5-point Likert scale whether the objective of the study met
mapping and modelling studies. To develop the blueprint, several (yes¼1; no¼5), and then to provide some comment on that self-
members of the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP) Thematic assessment, such as whether there are some key assumptions
Working Group on Mapping Ecosystem Services7 convened a underlying the model and data, limitations of the data, data gaps
working group session at the 5th ESP Conference 2012 in Portland, etc. The information provided in the comment attribute should be
Oregon, USA. Held across 2 days at the conference, our ‘Mapping sufficient for a reader to understand the uncertainties and risks
and Modelling Ecosystem Services Working Group’ aimed to associated with modelling and mapping the particular ecosystem
develop and discuss the blueprint and then validate this blueprint service. The reader can then build on the previous attempts at
with real examples of mapping and modelling studies supplied by modelling and mapping the ecosystem service as documented in
the working group participants. During the working group ses- the blueprint. If the reader is only using existing mapped
sion, the participants revised our early draft blueprint and information they can use the information in the comments
discussed the suitability and applicability of each attribute. attribute to decide whether the data would be valuable to use
At the end of the first day we arrived at a blueprint template in their decision making.
for documenting mapping and modelling studies of ecosystem
services (Fig. 1).
The blueprint consists of two parts: (i) a preamble section that 4. Worked example
contains meta-information about the individual mapping/model-
ling study (Fig. 1a), and (ii) the main blueprint table that contains Participants of the Mapping and Modelling Ecosystem Services
attributes for each ecosystem service mapped and modelled in Working Group session each completed a blueprint for their
the study described under the preamble (Fig. 1b). The purpose of studies. We collected a total of 13 completed blueprints and have
the preamble is to collect the necessary ‘‘why, where, when and selected one to showcase here as an example (see Online
who?’’ data that provides the broader context for the study as Supplementary Appendix 2). Our example demonstrates the type
well as contact details of the person who conducted the study of information that can be included, ranging from the short succinct
which can be used for follow up or clarification. quantitative responses, to the longer, qualitative descriptions. The
The main blueprint table (Fig. 1b) contains eight major mix of data types and the depth of information provide a valuable
attributes plus a comment box. Three of the attributes have resource which could be incorporated into an online database that
sub-components. The attributes are designed to be simple but could in future inform people wanting to map ecosystem services in
capture all the major elements of ecosystem service mapping and and around New York City in the USA, or map similar ecosystem
modelling studies. The first attribute, mapped ecosystem service’ services in urban and peri-urban environments.
is open to any ecosystem service type although we recommend
following the classification system of TEEB (2010) or the Common
International Classification of Ecosystem Services system cur- 5. Discussion and conclusion
rently under development8 . The accounting definitions attribute
calls for the type of ecosystem service (for example whether it is a The primary purpose of this blueprint is to provide a template
stock of natural capital, and underpinning ecosystem function or and checklist of information needed for those carrying out a
modelling and mapping ecosystem service study. A secondary
7
/http://www.es-partnership.org/esp/79222/5/0/50S purpose is to provide, over time, a database of completed blue-
8
/http://cices.eu/S prints that becomes a valuable information resource of methods
81
1. Name of the mapping study: 2.Purpose of the study:

(e.g. biodiversity conservation,
awareness/communication, scenario/trend
analysis, valuation, mapping, ex-ante decision
support, regulating/monitoring policy,
methodology development)
3. Location of the study site(s) 4. Study duration:
and biophysical type: (e.g. 2000-2005)
(e.g. watershed name, biome)
5. Administrative unit: 6. Main investigators:
(e.g. city, state, country, (e.g. name and affiliation)
continent)
7. References: 8. Type of project:
(e.g. publications, project (e.g. research, outreach, education)
website)
9. Funding source: 10. Contact details:
Mapped Accounting definitions ES Indicator Quantification unit Input data source Quantification Spatial details Mapped Study Comments
ecosystem service method year or objective
period met
Type Beneficiary Quantity Area Time (model output, (process, empirical, Scale Extent Resolution (e.g. 2000 (1 = yes; (e.g limitations,
(e.g. stock, (e.g. supply, (e.g. kg) (e.g. ha or (e.g. measured/primary, participatory + name (global, (size) (pixel size, or 1990 - to 5= no) key
flow, demand, watershed) year) aggregated of model) national, minimal 2050) assumptions)
process, benefiting/ statistics) regional, mapping
function) providing area) local) unit)
Food
Provisioning
Water
--
Other
Air quality
Regulating
Climate
--
Other
Other
Fig. 1. (a) Preamble of the blueprint template for reporting ecosystem service mapping studies and (b) blueprint template for reporting ecosystem service mapping
and modelling studies.
and information used in previous modelling and mapping studies. Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)12 and
The blueprint database would complement other ecosystem the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for Biodi-
services databases such as the Ecosystem Services Value Database versity 2011–202013 aim to recognise, protect and enhance the
(ESVD) (de Groot et al., 2012) and the Environmental Valuation values provided to society by biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Reference Inventory9 . The blueprint database would be of Other initiatives related to the private sector, such as the Ecosys-
potential value to researchers starting a new mapping study tems Work Program of the World Business Council for Sustainable
and to practitioners and policy makers searching for ecosystem Development14 or related to particular natural resource sectors,
service information to use in decision-making. While we recog- such as the International Water Management Institute’s ecosys-
nise that every new study will require its own unique approach to tems and water security research topic (Boelee, 2011)15 aim to get
modelling and mapping, we suggest that this blueprint and a rich ecosystem services into their constituents’ decision making. There
open-access blueprint database will establish a set of standard is also a growth in the commodification and trade in natural capital
attributes that provides increased certainty about mapped eco- and ecosystem services. The Ecosystem Marketplace16 provides a
system services. detailed information and follows the various trading markets of
Initiatives such as the Experimental Ecosystem Accounts under water, carbon and biodiversity, and payments for ecosystem
the framework of the United Nations System of Environmental services programs are becoming more common (Wunder et al.,
Economic Accounts (United Nations Statistical Division, 2012), the 2008; Gómez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Pérez, 2011). Complementing
World Bank’s Global Partnership for Wealth Accounting and these global developments are many continental- (Maes et al.,
Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES)10 and the GEF-funded 2012a), national- (UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011;
Project for Ecosystem Services11 aim to get ecosystem service Pittock et al., 2012) and regional-scale (Maynard et al., 2010)
values into mainstream national accounting. Other recent global programs and initiatives.
developments such as the Intergovernmental science-policy
12
/http://www.ipbes.net/S
9 13
/https://www.evri.ca/S /http://www.cbd.int/sp/S
10 14
/http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/0,,con /http://www.wbcsd.org/work-program/ecosystems.aspxS
15
tentMDK:23124612 pagePK:148956 piPK:216618 theSitePK:244381,00.htmlS /http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Topics/Ecosystems/index.aspxS
11 16
/http://www.proecoserv.org/S /http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/S
82
This growth in policy attention toward ecosystem services, Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., Syrbe, R.-U., 2012a. Space and time aspects of
demands increased knowledge, rigour, transparency and certainty ecosystem services, using the example of the EU Water Framework Directive.
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Manage-
in accounting, modelling, mapping and valuing methods so that ment 8, 1–12.
ecosystem services can become mainstream. We argue that there Bastian, O., Haase, D., Grunewald, K., 2012b. Ecosystem properties, potentials and
should be effort directed towards development of standards and services – The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example.
Ecological Indicators 21, 7–16.
protocols for modelling and mapping ecosystem services to deal
Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G., Turner, K., 2011. Economic
with this policy challenge and remove the uncertainty that relates analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environmental & Resource Eco-
the many and varied approaches used to date, especially if ecosys- nomics 48, 177–218.
tem services are to be included in national accounting as well as Boelee, E. (Ed.), 2011. Ecosystems for water and food security. United nations
Environment Program and International Water Management Institute, Nairobi
private and public sector invest decision making, and are to become and Colombo.
commonplace in financial markets. We found that being aware of Boyd, J., 2007. Nonmarket benefits of nature: What should be counted in green
the current knowledge gaps in ecosystem service mapping is GDP? Ecological Economics 61, 716–723.
Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standar-
important for developing policies for biodiversity and ecosystem
dized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63, 616–626.
services preservation, such as those related to accounting and Brenner, J., Jiménez, J.A., Sardá, R., Garola, A., 2010. An assessment of the non-
valuation of ecosystem services or to ecosystem service markets. market value of the ecosystem services provided by the Catalan coastal zone,
In this sense, a greater effort is needed to map cultural ecosystem Spain. Ocean & Coastal Management 53, 27–38.
Bryan, B.A., Barry, S., Marvanek, S., 2009. Agricultural commodity mapping for land
services, and invest in mapping programs that include more than use change assessment and environmental management: an application in the
one service to be able to analyse trade-offs among services. There is Murrayâh‘‘Darling Basin, Australia. Journal of Land use Science 4, 131–155.
also a need to shift effort to regions where ecosystem services are Bryan, B.A., Kandulu, J.M., 2009. Cost-effective alternatives for mitigating Cryptos-
poridium risk in drinking water and enhancing ecosystem services. Water
relatively poorly mapped such as in South and Central America. Resources Research 45.
While any study that models and maps ecosystem services will Bryan, B.A., King, D., Ward, J.R., 2011a. Modelling and mapping agricultural
have its unique characteristics and will be largely driven by data opportunity costs to guide landscape planning for natural resource manage-
ment. Ecological Indicators 11, 199–208.
and model availability, a tool such as the blueprint presented here
Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D., King, D., 2011b. Comparing spatially
will reduce the uncertainty associated with quantifying ecosys- explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective
tem services and thereby help to close the gap between theory conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 25, 172–181.
and practice, e.g. the implementation gap (Cook and Spray, 2012). Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D., Macdonald, D.H., 2010. Targeting the
management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and
The next steps are to further refine the blueprint, distribute how? Landscape and Urban Planning 97, 111–122.
among the ecosystem service community and then develop an Burkhard, B., de Groot, R., Costanza, R., Seppelt, R., JÃ¸rgensen, S.E., Potschin, M.,
open access database to store and retrieve completed blueprints. 2012a. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services.
The Ecosystem Services Partnership17 (ESP) as an international
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Muller, F., 2012b. Mapping ecosystem service
network organisation seeks to integrate ecosystem services supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21, 17–29.
science and policy community and aims to enhance and encou- Chan, K.M.A., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C., Daily, G.C., 2006.
rage a diversity of approaches while reducing unnecessary dupli- Conservation planning for ecosystem services. Plos Biology 4, 2138–2152.
Chen, N., Li, H., Wang, L., 2009. A GIS-based approach for mapping direct use value
cation of effort in the conceptualization and application of of ecosystem services at a county scale: Management implications. Ecological
ecosystem services (Burkhard et al., 2012a). The ESP helps to Economics 68, 2768–2776.
increase the effectiveness of ecosystem services science, policy, Conte, M., Ennaanay, D., Mendoza, G., Walter, M.T., Wolny, S., Freyberg, D., Nelson,
E., Solorzano, L., 2011. Retention of nutrients and sediment by vegetation.
and applications and is therefore the ideal avenue for developing
Pages 89-110. In: Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S.
ecosystem service mapping and modelling guidelines, like the (Eds.), Natural Capital: theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services.
blueprint presented here. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cook, B.R., Spray, C.J., 2012. Ecosystem services and integrated water resource
management: Different paths to the same end? Journal of Environmental
Management 109, 93–100.
Acknowledgements Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., ONeill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., vandenBelt, M., 1997. The
value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
We would like to thank the participants of the ‘‘Mapping and Costanza, R., Perez-Maqueo, O., Martinez, M.L., Sutton, P., Anderson, S.J., Mulder, K.,
Modelling Ecosystem Services Working Group’’ of the 5th ESP 2008. The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37, 241–248.
Conference for all their contributions during the workshop. We Crossman, N.D., Bass, D.A., 2008. Application of common predictive habitat
techniques for post-border weed risk management. Diversity and Distribu-
thank the reviewers for their valuable input. tions 14, 213–224.
Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A., Cooke, D.A., 2011a. An invasive plant and climate
change threat index for weed risk management: Integrating habitat distribu-
tion pattern and dispersal process. Ecological Indicators 11, 183–198.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A., King, D., 2011b. Contribution of site assessment
toward prioritising investment in natural capital. Environmental Modelling &
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found Software 26, 30–37.
in the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013. Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A., Summers, D.M., 2011c. Carbon payments and low-cost
conservation. Conservation Biology 25, 835–845.
02.001. Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A., Summers, D.M., 2012a. Identifying priority areas for
reducing species vulnerability to climate change. Diversity and Distributions
18, 60–72.
Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., 2012b. Editorial: Quantifying and
References mapping ecosystem services. International Journal of Biodiversity Science,
Ecosystem Services & Management 8, 1–4.
Crossman, N.D., Connor, J.D., Bryan, B.A., Summers, D.M., Ginnivan, J., 2010.
Anderson, B.J., Armsworth, P.R., Eigenbrod, F., Thomas, C.D., Gillings, S., Heinemeyer, Reconfiguring an irrigation landscape to improve provision of ecosystem
A., Roy, D.B., Gaston, K.J., 2009. Spatial covariance between biodiversity and services. Ecological Economics 69, 1031–1042.
other ecosystem service priorities. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 888–896. CSIRO, 2008. Water availability in the Murray–Darling Basin. A report to the
Bai, Y., Zhuang, C., Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., Jiang, B., 2011. Spatial characteristics Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray–Darling sustainable yields
between biodiversity and ecosystem services in a human-dominated project. CSIRO, Australia.
watershed. Ecological Complexity 8, 177–183. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L.,
Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in
decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
17
/www.es-partnership.orgS 7, 21–28.
83
de Groot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Kremen, C., Williams, N.M., Bugg, R.L., Fay, J.P., Thorp, R.W., 2004. The area
Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee com-
McVittie, A., Portela, R., Rodriguez, L.C., ten Brink, P., van Beukering, P., 2012. munities in California. Ecology Letters 7, 1109–1119.
Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary Kremen, C., Williams, N.M., Thorp, R.W., 2002. Crop pollination from native bees at
units. Ecosystem Services 1, 50–61. risk from agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in Sciences 99, 16812–16816.
integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape Kroll, F., Muller, F., Haase, D., Fohrer, N., 2012. Rural-urban gradient analysis of
planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7, ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land use Policy 29,
260–272. 521–535.
de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classifica- Lal, R., 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123,
tion, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. 1–22.
Ecological Economics 41, 393–408. Lara, A., Little, C., Urrutia, R., McPhee, J., Álvarez-Garretón, C., Oyarzún, C., Soto, D.,
de Vries, S., Lankhorst, J.R.-K., Buijs, A.E., 2007. Mapping the attractiveness of the Donoso, P., Nahuelhual, L., Pino, M., Arismendi, I., 2009. Assessment of
Dutch countryside: a GIS-based landscape appreciation model. Forest Snow ecosystem services as an opportunity for the conservation and management
and Landscape Research 81, 43–58. of native forests in Chile. Forest Ecology and Management 258, 415–424.
Egoh, B., Drakou, E.G., Dunbar, M.B., Maes, J., Willemen, L., 2012. Indicators for Laterra, P., Orue, M.E., Booman, G.C., 2012. Spatial complexity and ecosystem
mapping ecosystem services: a review. Report EUR 25456 EN. Publications services in rural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 154,
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 56–67.
Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M., Le Maitre, D.C., van Jaarsveld, Lautenbach, S., Kugel, C., Lausch, A., Seppelt, R., 2011. Analysis of historic changes
A.S., 2008. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecological
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 127, 135–140. Indicators 11, 676–687.
Eigenbrod, F., Anderson, B.J., Armsworth, P.R., Heinemeyer, A., Jackson, S.F., Parnell, Liu, D.L., Chan, K.Y., Conyers, M.K., 2009. Simulation of soil organic carbon under
M., Thomas, C.D., Gaston, K.J., 2009. Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting different tillage and stubble management practices using the Rothamsted
conservation strategies in a human-dominated region. Proceedings of the carbon model. Soil and Tillage Research 104, 65–73.
Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 276, 2903–2911. Lonsdorf, E., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Winfree, R., Greenleaf, S., Williams, N., 2011.
Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P.R., Anderson, B.J., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D.B., Crop pollination services. Pages 168-187. In: Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts,
Thomas, C.D., Gaston, K.J., 2010. The impact of proxy-based methods on T.H., Daily, G., Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of
mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
47, 377–385. Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J.P., Grizzetti,
Ennaanay, D., Conte, M., Brooks, K., Nieber, J., Sharma, M., Wolny, S., Mendoza, G., B., Drakou, E.G., Notte, A.L., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Luisa Paracchini, M., Braat,
2011. Valuing land cover impact on storm peak mitigation. Pages 73-88. In: L., Bidoglio, G., 2012a. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and
Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services 1, 31–39.
Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L., Zulian, G., Dunbar, M.B., Alkemade, R., 2012b. Synergies
Press, Oxford. and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat
Eppink, F.V., Werntze, A., Mas, S., Popp, A., Seppelt, R., 2012. Land management and conservation status in Europe. Biological Conservation 155, 1–12.
ecosystem services how collaborative research programmes can support Martı́nez-Harms, M.J., Balvanera, P., 2012. Methods for mapping ecosystem service
better policies. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 21, supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem
55–63. Services & Management 8, 17–25.
Escobedo, F.J., Nowak, D.J., 2009. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal Maynard, S., James, D., Davidson, A., 2010. The development of an ecosystem
by an urban forest. Landscape and Urban Planning 90, 102–110. services framework for South East Queensland. Environmental Management
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Burgess, N.D., Swetnam, R.D., Green, J., Green, R.E., Kajembe, 45, 881–895.
G., Kulindwa, K., Lewis, S.L., Marchant, R., Marshall, A.R., Madoffe, S., Munishi, McKenzie, E., Irwin, F., Ranganathan, J., Hanson, C.E., Kousky, C., Bennett, K., Ruffo,
P.K.T., Morse-Jones, S., Mwakalila, S., Paavola, J., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T., Rouget, S., Conte, M., Salzman, J., Paavola, J., 2011. Incorporating ecosystem services in
M., Willcock, S., White, S., Balmford, A., 2011. Measuring, modeling and decisions. Pages 339-355. In: Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C.,
mapping ecosystem services in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem
Progress in Physical Geography 35, 595–611. Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem Mendoza, G., Ennaanay, D., Conte, M., Walter, M.T., Freyberg, D., Wolny, S., Hay, L.,
services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68, 643–653. White, S., Nelson, E., Solorzano, L., 2011. Water supply as an ecosystem
Gascoigne, W.R., Hoag, D., Koontz, L., Tangen, B.A., Shaffer, T.L., Gleason, R.A., 2011. services for hydropower and irrigation. Pages 53-72. In: Kareiva, P., Tallis, H.,
Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural Capital: Theory and
Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA. Ecological Economics 70, Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
1715–1725. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being:
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Ruiz-Pérez, M., 2011. Economic valuation and the commo- Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
dification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography 35, 613–628. Ming, J., Xian-guo, L., Lin-shu, X., Li-juan, C., Shouzheng, T., 2007. Flood mitigation
Grêt-Regamey, A., Bebi, P., Bishop, I.D., Schmid, W.A., 2008a. Linking GIS-based benefit of wetland soil—A case study in Momoge National Nature Reserve in
models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region. Journal of Environ- China. Ecological Economics 61, 217–223.
mental Management 89, 197–208. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J., 2000.
Grêt-Regamey, A., Walz, A., Bebi, P., 2008b. Valuing ecosystem services for Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858.
sustainable landscape planning in Alpine Regions. Mountain Research and Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm,
Development 28, 156–165. T.R., Ricketts, T.H., 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conserva-
Guerry, A.D., Ruckelshaus, M.H., Arkema, K.K., Bernhardt, J.R., Guannel, G., Kim, tion priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105,
C.-K., Marsik, M., Papenfus, M., Toft, J.E., Verutes, G., Wood, S.A., Beck, M., Chan, 9495–9500.
F., Chan, K.M.A., Gelfenbaum, G., Gold, B.D., Halpern, B.S., Labiosa, W.B., Lester, Naidoo, R., Weaver, L.C., Stuart-Hill, G., Tagg, J., 2011. Effect of biodiversity on
S.E., Levin, P.S., McField, M., Pinsky, M.L., Plummer, M., Polasky, S., Ruggiero, P., economic benefits from communal lands in Namibia. Journal of Applied
Sutherland, D.A., Tallis, H., Day, A., Spencer, J., 2012. Modeling benefits from Ecology 48, 310–316.
nature: using ecosystem services to inform coastal and marine spatial Nedkov, S., Burkhard, B., 2012. Flood regulating ecosystem services—Mapping
planning. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecological Indica-
Management 8, 107–121. tors 21, 67–79.
Guisan, A., Zimmermann, N.E., 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D.R., Chan,
ecology. Ecological Modelling 135, 147–186. K.M.A., Daily, G.C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts,
Guo, Z., Xiao, X., Gan, Y., Zheng, Y., 2001. Ecosystem functions, services and their T.H., Shaw, M.R., 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity
values—a case study in Xingshan County of China. Ecological Economics 38, conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales.
141–154. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 4–11.
Jansson, Å., Folke, C., Langaas, S., 1998. Quantifying the nitrogen retention capacity Palomo, I., Martı́n-López, B., Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Montes, C. National
of natural wetlands in the large-scale drainage basin of the Baltic Sea. Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows.
Landscape Ecology 13, 249–262. Ecosystem Services, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001, in press.
Jenkins, W.A., Murray, B.C., Kramer, R.A., Faulkner, S.P., 2010. Valuing ecosystem Pert, P.L., Butler, J.R.A., Brodie, J.E., Bruce, C., Honzák, M., Kroon, F.J., Metcalfe, D.,
services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecologi- Mitchell, D., Wong, G., 2010. A catchment-based approach to mapping
cal Economics 69, 1051–1061. hydrological ecosystem services using riparian habitat: A case study from
Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., 2008. Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant the Wet Tropics, Australia. Ecological Complexity 7, 378–388.
removal by urban trees in Guangzhou (China). Journal of Environmental Petz, K., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., 2012. Modelling land management effect on
Management 88, 665–676. ecosystem functions and services: a study in the Netherlands. International
Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S. (Eds.), 2011. Natural Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 8 (1-21).
Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford Univer- Pittock, J., Cork, S., Maynard, S., 2012. The state of the application of ecosystems
sity Press, Oxford, UK. services in Australia. Ecosystem Services 1, 111–120.
84
Posthumus, H., Rouquette, J.R., Morris, J., Cowing, D.J.G., Hess, T.M., 2010. Troy, A., Wilson, M.A., 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and
A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60,
study on lowland floodplains in England. Ecological Economics 69, 1510–1523. 435–449.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assess-
bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the ment: Synthesis of the Key Findings., UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
National Academy of Sciences 107, 5242–5247. United Nations Environment Program, 2011. Towards a green economy: Pathways
Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, to sustainable development and poverty eradication. United Nations Environ-
A., Kalivas, T., 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ment Program.
ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 68, 1301–1315. United Nations Statistical Division, 2012. System of environmental-economic
Rolf, W., Lenz, R., Peters, D., 2012. Development of a quantitative ‘bioassay’ accounting: Central framework.
approach for ecosystem mapping. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, van Jaarsveld, A.S., Biggs, R., Scholes, R.J., Bohensky, E., Reyers, B., Lynam, T.,
Ecosystem Services & Management 8, 71–79. Musvoto, C., Fabricius, C., 2005. Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem
Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., Case, B., 2008. The future of farming: The services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem
value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An Assessment (SAfMA) experience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
experimental approach. Ecological Economics 64, 835–848. Society B: Biological Sciences 360, 425–441.
Schulp, C.J.E., Alkemade, R., Klein Goldewijk, K., Petz, K., 2012. Mapping ecosystem Vihervaara, P., Kumpula, T., Tanskanen, A., Burkhard, B., 2010. Ecosystem services–
functions and services in Eastern Europe using global-scale data sets. Inter- A tool for sustainable management of human–environment systems. Case
national Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 8,
study Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecological Complexity 7, 410–420.
1–13.
a Villa, F., Ceroni, M., Bagstad, K., Johnson, G., Kriviv, S., 2009. ARIES (ARtificial
Seppelt, R., Fath, B., Burkhard, B., Fisher, J.L., GrÃ % t-Regamey, A., Lautenbach, S.,
Intelligence for Ecosystem Services): a new tool for ecosystem services
Pert, P., Hotes, S., Spangenberg, J., Verburg, P.H., Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., 2012.
assessment, planning, and valuation. In: Proceedings of the 11th International
Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assess-
BioECON Conference on Economic Instruments to Enhance the Conservation
ments based on reviews and case studies. Ecological Indicators 21, 145–154.
and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, Venice, Italy.
Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., Semmens, D.J., 2011. A GIS application for assessing,
Wainger, L., Mazzotta, M., 2011. Realizing the potential of ecosystem services:
mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied
Geography 31, 748–760. A framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environ-
Simonit, S., Perrings, C., 2011. Sustainability and the value of the ‘regulating’ mental Management 48, 710–733.
services: Wetlands and water quality in Lake Victoria. Ecological Economics Willemen, L., Hein, L., van Mensvoort, M.E.F., Verburg, P.H., 2010. Space for people,
70, 1189–1199. plants, and livestock? Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape
Summers, D.M., Bryan, B.A., Crossman, N.D., Meyer, W.S., 2012. Species vulner- functions in a Dutch rural region. Ecological Indicators 10, 62–73.
ability to climate change: impacts on spatial conservation priorities and Willemen, L., Veldkamp, A., Verburg, P.H., Hein, L., Leemans, R., 2012. A multi-scale
species representation. Global Change Biology 18, 2335–2348. modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics. Journal of
Swetnam, R.D., Fisher, B., Mbilinyi, B.P., Munishi, P.K.T., Willcock, S., Ricketts, T., Environmental Management 100, 86–95.
Mwakalila, S., Balmford, A., Burgess, N.D., Marshall, A.R., Lewis, S.L., 2011. Willemen, L., Verburg, P.H., Hein, L., van Mensvoort, M.E.F., 2008. Spatial char-
Mapping socio-economic scenarios of land cover change: A GIS method to acterization of landscape functions. Landscape and Urban Planning 88, 34–43.
enable ecosystem service modelling. Journal of Environmental Management World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2010. Vision 2050: The New
92, 563–574. Agenda for Business. World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
Syrbe, R.-U., Walz, U., 2012. Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem Geneva, Switzerland.
services: Providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Wunder, S., Engel, S., Pagiola, S., 2008. Taking stock: A comparative analysis of
Ecological Indicators 21, 80–88. payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and countries. Ecological Economics 65, 834–852.
Economic Foundations. In: Pushpam Kumar (Ed.), Earthscan, London and Zhang, L., Dawes, W.R., Walker, G.R., 2001. Response of Mean Annual Evapotranspira-
Washington. tion to Vegetation changes at Catchment Scale. Water Resources Research 37.
85
Capítulo 4.3
National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands:

Mapping ecosystem service flows
Ignacio Palomo a,*,1, Berta Martín-López a, Marion Potschin b, Roy

Haines-Young b, Carlos Montes a
a Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de

b The Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, Nottingham University,
Nottingham, UK
1 Visiting the Centre for Environmental Management during the data analysis and writing
stages of the study
Publicado en Ecosystem Services. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001.

Results
4.3. Parques Nacionales, áreas buffer y su entorno: cartografía de

flujos de servicios de los ecosistemas
Resumen El uso de mapas de servicios de los ecosistemas para la planificación de la

conservación está aumentando. Sin embargo, el potencial de los mismos para evaluar los
beneficios que recibimos de las áreas protegidas apenas se ha investigado. Para superar este
vacío de información organizamos dos talleres de cartografía deliberativa de servicios con
expertos en los Espacios Naturales de Doñana y Sierra Nevada. En éstos, gestores y científicos
cartografiaron los puntos calientes de servicios (Service Provision Hotspots, SPHs), los SPHs
degradados y las áreas de demanda de servicios. En Doñana, los SPHs se ubican dentro del área
protegida y en los alrededores, mientras que los SPHs degradados se ubican principalmente
dentro del área protegida. En Sierra Nevada la mayoría de los SPHs y los SPHs degradados se
ubican en el interior del área protegida. Las áreas de demanda de servicios se ubican en el
entorno de las dos áreas protegidas, especialmente en las ciudades cercanas. En este trabajo
también identificamos los principales problemas a los que se enfrentan ambas áreas protegidas y
los impulsores de cambio que los crean. Así encontramos que la mayoría de los problemas se
originan fuera de los límites de las áreas protegidas y que son debidos a impulsores de cambio
asociados con factores económicos y de cambios de usos del suelo. Seguidamente discutimos las
implicaciones de usar los mapas de flujos de servicios para la gestión de las áreas protegidas y los
efectos del entorno sobre el interior de las mismas. Los resultados de este estudio demuestran la
necesidad de una estrategia de gestión territorial más amplia para las áreas protegidas.
88
Ecosystem Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser
National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem

service flows
Ignacio Palomo a,n,1, Berta Martı́n-López a, Marion Potschin b, Roy Haines-Young b, Carlos Montes a
a
Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
b
The Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o abstract
Article history: The use of ecosystem service maps for conservation planning is increasing. However, their potential for
Received 13 April 2012 measuring the benefits derived from protected areas has rarely been studied. To overcome this,
Received in revised form information gap, we organized two expert workshops based on participatory mapping techniques for
27 July 2012
Doñana and Sierra Nevada protected areas. Protected area managers and scientists mapped service
Accepted 12 September 2012
provision hotspots, (SPHs), degraded SPHs and service benefiting areas (SBAs). In Doñana, SPHs were
located inside the protected area and its surroundings, whereas, degraded SPHs were located primarily
Keywords: within the protected areas. In Sierra Nevada, most SPHs and most degraded SPHs were located inside
Participatory GIS the protected area. SBAs were located in the surrounding territory for both protected areas, especially
Landscape planning
in the neighboring cities. We also identified the major issues that faced both protected areas and their
Protected area
drivers of change. We found that most problems originated outside the limits of the protected areas
Service benefiting area (SBA)
Service provision hotspot (SPH) and were produced by drivers associated with economic factors and land use changes. We discuss the
Supply-demand flow implications of using ecosystem services maps for protected area management and the effects of
the surrounding territory on areas within the protected zone. The results of our study demonstrate the
need for a broader territorial planning strategy.
& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction approaches to managing them can be adapted to ensure that

threats or risks to the service supply are overcome. In this paper,
The designation of protected areas is one of the most impor- we focus particularly on the role that mapping techniques can
tant conservation strategies available to societies (Chape et al., play in resolving these issues.
2005). However, long-term conservation of biodiversity cannot be The ecosystem services concept is being increasingly used in the
achieved if the relationships between these zones and the areas scientific literature (Potschin and Haines-Young, 2011) and mapping
that surround them are not considered (McNeely, 1994; IUCN, techniques have provided a powerful tool for integrating complex
2004). A number of studies have shown that intensive land use information related to ecosystem services into landscape manage-
has recently increased around many protected areas (Joppa et al., ment and environmental decision-making (Balvanera et al., 2001;
2008; Radeloff et al., 2010; Svancara et al., 2009; Gimmi et al., Daily and Matson, 2008; Swetnam et al., 2011). Many approaches to
2011) and that we cannot, as a consequence, manage them as mapping ecosystem services have been applied at different spatial
isolated and static entities (Bengtsson et al., 2003). In this paper, scales ranging from the global (e.g., Turner et al., 2007; Naidoo et al.,
we explore how the concept of ecosystem services, and in 2008; Maes et al., 2011a, 2011b; Haines-Young et al., 2012) to the
particular the patterns of supply and demand for services and national (e.g., Egoh et al., 2009; Schneiders et al., 2012) and local
their consequent flows, can be used as a way of better under- (e.g., Chan et al., 2006; Bryan et al., 2011; Burkhard et al., 2012a;
standing trans-boundary issues (López-Hoffman et al., 2010). Fagerholm et al., 2012; Kroll et al., 2012). A review of such work
Although the primary purpose for establishing many protected suggests that the development of spatially explicit methods that
areas has been the conservation of biodiversity, the increasing incorporate the locations of ecosystem service supply and ecosystem
emphasis that policy makers are giving to ecosystem services service demand represents a key challenge for research (Anton et al.,
means that we now need to understand whether such areas can 2010). Until recently, studies mapping ecosystem services have
also be effective in protecting ecosystem services and how focused more on the supply side and have tended to overlook
society’s demand for these services (Burkhard et al., 2012a; Paetzold
n
et al., 2010). However, some progress has been made. van Jaarsveld
Corresponding author.
et al., (2005) mapped the supply and demand of different ecosystem
E-mail address: Ignacio.palomo@uam.es (I. Palomo).
1
Visiting the Centre for Environmental Management during the data analysis services for the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assess-
and writing stages of the study. ment. Beier et al. (2008) mapped the ecosystem service supply,
2212-0416/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Palomo, I., et al., National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows.
Ecosystem Services (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001
89
e2 I. Palomo et al. / Ecosystem Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
demand and disturbance related to fish/wildlife in southeastern important tributaries of the Guadalquivir. It is probable that this
Alaska. McDonald (2009) discussed the effect on conservation area is more typical of the types of protected areas that exist in
planning of the distance between ecosystem service supply and Spain, where 73% of the territory over 1500 m is protected
demand. Kroll et al. (2012) explored the supply and demand of (Europarc-España, 2010). This mountain protected area may also
provisioning services along the rural–urban gradient. Finally, as part be typical of the situation internationally. Joppa and Pfaff (2009)
of a special issue of Ecological Indicators (Burkhard et al., 2012b), noted that the selection of protected areas worldwide has been
different authors focused on analyzing the spatial mismatches biased towards high places. The contrasting geomorphological
between ecosystem service supply and demand. Burkhard et al. contexts of the two study areas allowed us to consider in detail
(2012a) analyzed ecosystem service supply and demand of the different types of spatial relationships that potentially exist
energy provisioning services for the rural–urban region of Leipzig between the protected areas and the surrounding landscapes
(Germany). Nedkov and Burkhard (2012) mapped flood regulating (see Montes et al., 1998 and Jimenez-Olivencia, 1991 for further
service supply and demand in Bulgaria. Syrbe and Walz (2012) details; see also Appendix A).
mapped service providing, service connecting and service benefiting The ecological importance of the two study areas is reflected in
areas for the flood regulating service in Saxony (Germany). the number of international protection categories to which they
However, to our knowledge, no studies have incorporated the belong. Both areas are biosphere reserves. Doñana is also a World
spatial analysis of ecosystem service supply–demand flows in Heritage Site and a Ramsar Wetland. The two areas are the only
protected areas. In this paper, we therefore focus on the service National Parks in Andalusia. As National Parks, they belong to the
supply–demand flows between protected areas and their surround- strictest conservation category established by Spain. Both National
ings in the two Andalusian National Parks: Doñana and Sierra Parks are surrounded by a Natural Park, the most important regional
Nevada. These parks were selected to examine the patterns that protection category. As a buffer zone, these natural parks permit
arise in two potentially contrasting types of protected areas and to more active human use, such as extensive agriculture (e.g., olive and
examine how these patterns are seen by the different stakeholder almond trees), hunting, or alpine skiing. In the text that follows, we
groups associated with the areas. We specifically aimed to: use the term Doñana and Sierra Nevada Protected Areas to indicate
(1) explore the most important ecosystem services that people the National and Natural Park areas in conjunction.
associate with both protected areas; (2) identify and map percep-
tions of the capacity of the protected areas and their surroundings to
provide key ecosystem services to society and analyze the differ- 3. Methods
ences between the protected and unprotected territories as provi-
ders; (3) identify and map those degraded areas that have lost their We considered it appropriate to map ecosystem services based on
capacity to provide ecosystem services to society; (4) identify and expert knowledge provided by protected area board members and
map the areas in which ecosystem service beneficiaries use or managers as well as researchers to deliberatively map ecosystem
consume ecosystem services; and (5) identify the most important services, as ecosystem service research should be ‘‘user-inspired’’ and
threats for both protected areas, their origin, and the drivers behind ‘‘user-useful’’ (Cowling et al., 2008). Participatory mapping provides
them. We conclude with a discussion of the critical questions an arena for capacity building and for the incorporation of experi-
regarding the integration of an ecosystem service framework into ential knowledge in a spatially explicit manner (Sieber, 2006). Data
the management of protected areas: (1) Do protected areas preserve collection was organized through a mapping workshop carried out at
ecosystem services? (2) Which type of ecosystem services do they both sites in June and December 2011. The number of participants
preserve? (3) Where are the degraded ecosystem services located? was 21 in Doñana and 20 in Sierra Nevada; the participants included
and (4) Which limits shall we consider for managing a diverse flow environmental managers of the protected area, environmental
of ecosystem services in protected areas? experts from the National Park Agency and the regional environ-
To facilitate this work, we have developed the new concept mental agency, and scientists working in the study areas belonging to
of service provision hotspots (SPHs) to allow ecosystem services universities and research institutions. Although the number of
mapping to be conducted with stakeholders in a participatory participants was not high, the participants were selected to include
manner. The concept has been adapted from the notion of service a diverse group of informants with extensive knowledge of the area
providing unit developed by Luck et al. (2003, 2009), which described to ensure the accuracy of the information obtained in the workshops.
‘the capacity of particular area or habitat to provide a specific Appendix B summarizes the composition of the participants in both
ecosystem service’ without explicit mention of the species, attributes, workshops.
functional groups, communities, interaction networks or habitat types To select which ecosystem services to map, we assessed the
that provide the service. The ‘hotspot’ simply defines any locale that is importance of each of the protected areas for delivering ecosys-
important for generating a service. Following the conceptual frame- tem services to society using an individual questionnaire. The
work developed by Syrbe and Walz (2012), we defined service questionnaire was organized into three sections. The first section
benefiting areas (SBAs) as those spatial areas in which beneficiaries asked for the five most important ecosystem services provided
demand ecosystem services. by each protected area and its surroundings. The participants
were given a list of the 25 most important services identified by
previous studies in the area (e.g., Garcı́a-Llorente et al., 2011a;
2. Study areas Palomo et al., 2011). The list offered an example of each
ecosystem service in the area and provided either a definition
Two contrasting protected areas were the focus of this study or a picture. For example, water provision was defined as ‘‘good-
(Fig. 1). The Doñana National Park was selected because it quality water from surface or below-ground flows’’. Examples
exemplifies the problems of a protected area at the outfall of a included water for human consumption, agriculture, industry, or
major drainage basin. The National Park is located at the end of desalted water. The participants were then asked to identify the
the Guadalquivir River Basin, on the southwestern coast of Spain. trends shown by these ecosystem services in the past decades, the
As such, it has been highly vulnerable to the transformations causes of these changes, and the scale at which beneficiaries
in land use in the areas upstream (Martı́n-López et al., 2011). In used or consumed the services in question. The second section
contrast, the Sierra Nevada National Park is a mountain protected sought to determine the individual participants’ perceptions of
area. Hence, it is a major hydrological source, the origin of the importance of ecosystem services for the management of
90
I. Palomo et al. / Ecosystem Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] e3
Fig. 1. Study areas. Doñana is located at the end of the Guadalquivir watershed. Sierra Nevada contains the highest peaks in the Baetic mountain system.
protected areas. The items in this section specifically addressed services would fit most appropriately. The third section assessed
(1) the current use of an ecosystem services framework in the principal issues facing each protected area and the ways in
protected area management, (2) the general usefulness of the which the ecosystem services approach could help to resolve
ecosystem service approach to protected areas management and these issues. After the workshops, we classified the issues
(3) the sections of the protected area policy in which ecosystem according to their origin (outside/inside of the protected area)
91
and identified the drivers of change creating the issues. Appendix their surroundings, their trends and the scale of their beneficiaries
C presents the individual questionnaire used in the workshops, (Table 1). In order of importance for Doñana, these services were
and Appendix D summarizes the list of ecosystem services. habitat for species, water provision, food provided by agriculture,
After completing the questionnaire, the participants were split scientific knowledge, recreational activities, spiritual values, food
into five groups to reach a consensus on the first section of the provided by cattle, environmental education, eco-tourism, aes-
questionnaire and to obtain maps of: (1) the SPHs, (2) degraded thetic values and tourism. Only water provision was identified as
SPHs and (3) SBAs, of the five most important identified ecosys- declining. In Sierra Nevada, the services identified were water
tem services delivered by the protected area and its surroundings. provision, hydrological regulation, habitat for species, rural tourism,
Each group was given three sets of 90 dots (movable plastic discs) eco-tourism, climate regulation, air quality, erosion control, scien-
in three different colors (green for functioning SPHs, red for tific knowledge, ski tourism, aesthetic values, and food provided by
degraded SPHs, and blue for SBAs) and a topographic map of non-intensive farming. In Sierra Nevada, climate regulation, erosion
the area (1:175.000 for Doñana and 1:100.000 for Sierra Nevada). control, aesthetic values and non-intensive farming were perceived
Dots were available in two sizes, equivalent to radii of 0.75 and to diminish.
1 km. Participants could allocate dots reflecting the locations of
ecosystem service supply, ecosystem service degradation, and 4.2. Location of SPHs
ecosystem service use by the society on the map. After each group
had mapped a service, a vertical photograph of the map was taken The spatial distribution of the SPHs in both protected areas is
and digitized using a GIS. The maps were converted to shapefiles shown in Fig. 2A (Doñana protected area) and 3A (Sierra Nevada
and to raster files to permit further analysis. We overlaid all protected area). Table 2 shows the distribution of SPHs among
the ecosystem service maps to obtain maps of SPHs, risk maps management strategies in both protected areas. Doñana’s density
indicating degraded SPHs and following the nomenclature of distribution for SPHs included National Park (40%), Natural Park
Bryan et al. (2010), and the hotspots of SBAs. We analyzed the (42%), and non-protected (18%). In Sierra Nevada, the density
density of dots in each protection category (National Park, Natural distribution of SPHs included National Park (70%), Natural Park
Park and surrounding landscape, which is non-protected) to see (28%), and non-protected (2%). In Doñana, provisioning services
how different management strategies related to the delivery of were found to be evenly distributed among the National Park, the
ecosystem services and to obtain management recommendations Natural Park, and their surroundings, but regulating and cultural
for ecosystem service protection. services were primarily located inside the protected areas of Doñana
(Table 2). The relatively high percentage of provisioning services,
such as food provided by agriculture and water provision, outside
4. Results the protected area resulted because these services were primarily
provided from the non-protected territory. In Sierra Nevada, the
4.1. Identification of the most important ecosystem services majority of SPHs were located inside the protected areas, primarily
in the highest areas included in the National Park. The Natural
The results obtained from the questionnaire identified the Park also showed a high density for the delivery of regulating and
most important services delivered by both protected areas and cultural services (Table 2).
Table 1
Summary of ecosystem services perceived by experts during the workshops on the Doñana and Sierra Nevada protected areas. The relative importance of the service, the
ecosystem service trend (based on the majority of experts’ views), and the scale of beneficiaries are shown. The data represent the consensus obtained from the first
section of the questionnaire.
Doñana protected area Sierra Nevada protected area
Ecosystem service (%) Trend Scale of beneficiaries Ecosystem service (%) Trend Scale of beneficiaries
Provisioning
Water provision 20 Local Water provision 27 Regional-local
Food from agriculture 14 Global-regional-local Food from non-intensive farming 1 Local
Food from cattle 4 Local

Regulating
Habitat for species 28 Global-regional-local Habitat for species 17 Global-regional-local
Hydrological regulation 17 Regional-local
Air quality 5 Global-regional-local
Climate regulation 6 Global-regional-local
Erosion control 4 Regional-local
Cultural
Scientific knowledge 13 Global-regional Eco-tourism 7 Global-regional-local
Recreational activities 8 Global-regional-local Rural tourism 7 Global-regional-local
Spiritual values 5 Global-regional-local Scientific knowledge 4 Global-regional-local
Environmental education 3 Regional-local Ski tourism 4 Regional-local
Eco-tourism 3 Global-regional-local Aesthetic values 2 Global-regional-local
Aesthetic values 3 Global-regional-local

Tourism 1 Global-regional-local
92
Fig. 2. Distribution of: (A) perceived functioning service provision hotspots (SPHs), (B) risks (degraded SPHs), and (C) service benefiting areas (SBAs) in the Doñana
protected area. The surroundings of the protected area also provide many services because of its location at the end of the basin. Most degraded SPHs are located along the
Guadalquivir River. Several degraded SPHs are located in the northwestern part of the protected area, where agriculture is more intensive. Beneficiaries are primarily
located in the cities of Huelva and Seville.
4.3. Risk maps: Location of degraded SPHs land use change associated with intensive agriculture. The
Guadalquivir River also appeared as a place where SPHs had been
The distribution of the degraded SPHs identified by the work- degraded (primarily habitat for species and water provision) due
shop participants is shown in Figs. 2B and 3B. In Doñana, the most to contamination and intensive water use, a finding confirmed by
degraded SPHs were thought to be located in the northwestern the literature (Mendiguchı́a et al., 2004). In Sierra Nevada, the
part of the protected area, where water provision, habitat for degraded SPHs were primarily located near the ski resort, where
species and aesthetic values were perceived as declining due to services such as climate regulation, erosion control and aesthetic
93
Table 2 and the isolation of the protected area are the greatest concerns.
Categories of protection of both protected areas and the perceived distribution The isolation of the protected area is strongly related to transfor-
of service provision hotspots (SPHs), SPHs of each of the ecosystem services
mations in the surrounding landscape associated with agriculture
categories (i.e., provisioning, regulating and cultural), risk (degraded SPHs) and
service benefiting areas. The data represent the distribution of the density of dots and tourism.
(as percentages, %) for each of the protection categories. In Sierra Nevada, fewer problems were identified as originat-
ing outside the protected area than in Doñana. The probable
Protection category SPHs Risk SBAs reason for this difference is that the altitude of the Sierra Nevada
SPHs Provisioning Regulating Cultural
isolates it from the surrounding territory, although several pro-
blems, including those referring to land-use changes, were iden-
Doñana protected area tified as originating outside the Protected Area. The participants
National Park 40 33 42 44 49 10 recognized land-use intensification (i.e., urban development and
Natural Park 42 37 46 43 46 8
intensive agriculture) as an important driver. The urban develop-
Non-protected 18 30 12 13 5 82
ment around the city of Granada not only promotes changes in
Sierra Nevada protected area
the intensity of land use but also increases the demand for
National Park 70 79 74 59 26 10
Natural Park 28 16 25 38 64 48
services provided by ecosystems within the protected area. In
Non-protected 2 5 1 3 10 42 contrast, the abandonment of traditional uses is recognized as an
important problem in many rural areas in Spain. The abandon-
ment of traditional uses also promotes the loss of ecosystem
values were perceived as being degraded (Table 1). The results for services (EME, 2011; Garcı́a-Llorente et al., 2012). Both trends in
the protection categories showed that degraded SPHs tended to land-use change (i.e., intensity and abandonment) result primar-
occur inside the protected area of Doñana, while in Sierra Nevada ily from the indirect effects of economic and socio-political
the higher density of degraded SPHs occurred inside the Natural drivers (Table 3). European and global markets are promoting
Park, the location of the ski resort. Table 2 shows the distribu- the development of provisioning services with higher economic
tion of the density of dots for the three conservation strategies values. These changes cause land-use intensification and over-
(i.e., National Park, Natural Park, and non-protected) in both exploitation. Meanwhile, economic subsidies to specific crops
study areas. promoted by national and European policies might foster agri-
cultural intensification outside protected areas and threaten local
4.4. Location of SBAs ecological knowledge and social cohesion (Garcı́a-Llorente et al.,
2011b; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Martı́n-López et al., 2011).
The beneficiaries were found to be located primarily in the In Doñana, socio-political drivers are related to problems such as
large cities near both protected areas (Seville and Huelva for administrative complexity, political interest in such an emble-
Doñana and Granada and Almeria for Sierra Nevada) (Figs. 2C matic territory or the lack of strict application of law. In answer to
and 3C and Table 2). Many urban inhabitants enjoy and use the question ‘‘can the ecosystem service framework help to solve
several ecosystem services provided by the ecosystems of pro- these problems’’, 84% of the responses were positive for Doñana
tected areas. In fact, the proximity of urban areas and protected and 80% in Sierra Nevada.
areas facilitates their use for recreational activities. Another key
ecosystem service used by urban people was scientific knowl- 4.6. The usefulness of an ecosystem service framework for the
edge, as university and scientific centers are located in cities. management of protected areas
However, for both cultural services (tourism and scientific knowl-
edge), many beneficiaries were located outside the map bound- The level of current use of the ecosystem services framework in
aries in other large cities of Spain (primarily Madrid and the protected areas management of Doñana and Sierra Nevada is
Barcelona) and in the rest of the world. In the case of the Sierra medium, whereas the perceived usefulness of ecosystems service
Nevada protected area, city dwellers also benefit from clean water maps is high or very high (Table 4). This difference might indicate
coming from the protected area. The clean water is available the utility of ecosystem service maps for landscape management in
because of the high altitude of the area’s summits and the protected areas and their surroundings.
presence of snow to act as a source of water. In addition, the Commenting on the specific sections of protected area manage-
forests of Sierra Nevada National Park supply the service of ment ecosystem services in which the framework might best fit
hydrological regulation to the cities. (including natural resources management, biodiversity conservation,
At a local scale, other ecosystem services, such as food research, environmental education, communication and participation
provided by cattle, spiritual values, food non-intensive agriculture and public use), the participants indicated that the framework
or erosion control were enjoyed more by the local population in would fit well or very well in any area and indicated no significant
small villages. In fact, higher proportions of beneficiaries occurred differences among the sections.
inside the Sierra Nevada Natural Park because several small urban
settlements are located there.
5. Discussion
4.5. Threats identified in both protected areas
5.1. Contributions of ecosystem service maps to protected area
In each workshop, the participants indicated the principal management
issues faced by both protected areas. A summary of the descrip-
tive statistics, the underlying drivers of change, and the location Previous participatory mapping studies for ecosystem services
of these problems is shown in Table 3. For Doñana, most of the have shown the effectiveness of the approach for facilitating
issues originated outside the protected area. One clear example is communication between decision-makers and other stakeholder
the Aznalcóllar mine spill accident, which occurred in the head- groups and for performing assessments of several ecosystem
waters that fed Doñana’s marsh and which seriously threatened services for policy making (Bryan et al., 2010; Sherrouse et al.,
the protected area (Grimalt et al., 1999; Montes et al., 2003). 2011; Fagerholm et al., 2012). In our case study, we incorporated
Pressure on the protected area from outside economic activities the degree of land protection as a key variable for ecosystem
94
Fig. 3. Distribution of perceived: (A) functioning service provision hotspots (SPHs), (B) risks (degraded SPHs), and (C) service benefiting areas (SBAs) in the Sierra Nevada
protected area as perceived by participants. SPHs are concentrated at the summits, with a density gradient from west to east. Most degraded SPHs are located around the
ski resort of Prado Llano. Beneficiaries are primarily located in the cities of Granada and Almeria.
95
Table 3
Summary of descriptive statistics of perceived principal problems in the Doñana and Sierra Nevada protected areas, drivers creating the problems and location of the
problems. Percentage of respondents (%) is relative to N ¼ 21 for Doñana and N ¼ 20 for Sierra Nevada. Location refers to inside protected areas and outside them.
Principal problems (%) Direct drivers related Indirect drivers related Location
Doñana protected area

Pressure from outside economic activities on 42 Land-use Economic Outside
the PA and isolation
Effects on quality and quantity of water flows 42 Overexploitation and Economic Outside
contamination
Contamination 36 Contamination Economic, socio-political Outside
Political interests 26 Socio-political Outside and inside
Aquifer overexploitation 26 Over exploitation and Economic Outside
land-use
No application of legislation 21 Socio-political Outside and inside
Overcrowding of tourism 21 Land-use Economic and cultural Outside
Administrative complexity and lack 21 Socio-political Outside and inside
of coordination
Ecosystem fragmentation 16 Land-use Economic Outside
Invasive species 16 Invasive species Outside and inside

Urban development 47 Land-use Economic Outside and inside
Abandonment of traditional uses 40 Land-use Economic, socio-political, Outside and inside
demographic and cultural
Ski tourism 33 Land-use Economic and cultural Inside
Emigration of rural population 27 Demographic, socio-political, Outside and inside
and economic
Illegal hunting 20 Cultural Inside
Invasive species 20 Invasive species Outside and inside
Overcrowding of tourism 20 Land-use Economic and cultural Outside and inside
Monospecific forest areas 20 Land-use Inside
Intensive agriculture 20 Land-use Economic and socio-political Outside
Table 4
Current use of the ecosystem service framework in both protected areas and perceived usefulness of ecosystem services maps for their
management. Percentage of respondents (%) is relative to N ¼21 for Doñana and N ¼20 for Sierra Nevada.
Very high (%) High (%) Low (%) None (%)
Doñana protected area

Current use of ecosystem services framework 16 47 32 5
Perceived usefulness of using ecosystem services maps for protected area management 56 44 0 0

Current use of ecosystem services framework 13 33 47 7
Perceived usefulness of using ecosystem services maps for protected area management 62 38 0 0
service supply and identified spatially key issues for protected about the Sierra Nevada protected area (2000–2011, Ecology and
areas management, including (1) priority conservation areas for Environmental Sciences; N¼85) demonstrates a substantial bias
ecosystem services preservation that are currently unprotected, toward the western region. Of these 85 studies, 65.9% were
(2) areas under protection that are perceived by experts to conducted in Granada province, 28.2% in both regions, and only
provide relatively few services, and (3) areas considered suitable 5.9% in Almerı́a province. In every case, the maps show the need for
for ecosystem service restoration inside the protected area a value enhancement strategy in the eastern area of Sierra Nevada.
because experts perceived a high level of degraded SPHs. Finally, the maps of degraded SPHs show areas where action
Our results for new priority conservation areas showed that should be taken to maintain the provision of ecosystem services
the northwestern Sierra Nevada National Park, the only part of the (Figs. 2B and 3B). Restoration programs should focus on the
National Park not surrounded by the buffer zone of the Natural Gualdaquivir River restoration in Doñana (Fig. 2B) and the restora-
Park, delivers a diverse flow of ecosystem services (Fig. 3A). tion of irrigated terraces (and therefore the service of erosion
Our findings regarding currently protected areas that experts control) in the semi-arid region of Sierra Nevada and the area of
considered not to supply a relatively large number of services to the ski resort (Fig. 3B).
society showed that the semi-arid eastern region of Sierra Nevada
provides substantially fewer services than the western part (Fig. 3A). 5.2. Influence of topography and of categories of protection on
This finding could be explained because tourism is more developed ecosystem services
in the Alpujarras, located in the western part of the area, and
because of the negative consequences of rural abandonment for Although the provision of ecosystem services might vary
ecosystem services delivery (Garcı́a-Llorente et al., 2012). An addi- depending on the type of ecosystem (Costanza et al., 1997), it
tional reason for the experts’ opinion that the eastern region is also influenced by the type of land management practiced
provides relatively few services may be that scientific authorities (van Oudenhoven et al., 2012). The categories of protection
and experts are not sufficiently aware of these semi-arid ecosys- also have an effect on social preferences for ecosystem services
tems. For example, an ISI Web of Science search for publications (Martı́n-López et al., 2012). The Doñana protected area has
96
prevented the transformation of natural ecosystems into agricul- higher in the borders than in the center of the protected areas due
tural land or tourist resorts (e.g., the Matalascañas resort). For to cross-boundary effects (see Figs. 2 and 3). Border effects are one
that reason, most of the intensively managed provisioning ser- of the main threats that protected areas currently face (McNeely,
vices (e.g., red fruits and rice agriculture) are located outside the 1994; IUCN, 2004). In Doñana, the density of degraded services is
protected area, whereas regulating and cultural services have higher inside the protected area than outside although more service
a higher density in the protected categories. These results are degraded units are located outside. The reason for this is that
consistent with a study by Martı́n-López et al. (2011) that participants focused primarily in mapping inside the protected area
performed an economic valuation of the ecosystem services of and it’s proximities thus density of degraded services in the whole
Doñana and showed that an important trade-off occurs between surrounding territory is reduced.
those provisioning services associated with national and global
markets delivered by the surroundings of the protected area (i.e., 5.3. How to cope with the isolation of protected areas?
intensive agriculture and fisheries) and those regulating services Conceptualizing ecosystem services as landscape connectors
supplied by the protected area’s ecosystems.
In Sierra Nevada, however, all of the selected services are In the context of protected areas management, there has been
provided primarily by the National and Natural Parks. The reason a call for a shift to the ecosystem service perspective (Pyke, 2007;
for this outcome might be that most of the natural assets are located Dudley et al., 2011) and an awareness that ecosystem services
within the protected area. The water supply originates from the should be included in conservation planning (Chan et al., 2006).
tops of the mountains, and there is no intensive agriculture close to Such moves might be effective in supporting the case for pro-
Sierra Nevada to affect the supply. Campo Dalias is approximately tected areas. However, protected areas would continue to be
20 km from the protected area, on the other side of the Gador isolated by a sole focus on protected areas management that
mountain system. In Doñana, agriculture in the surrounding lands is ignored the surrounding territorial matrix (De Fries et al., 2010).
having a substantial impact on the protected area because the water Although the managers of a protected area can influence
table is being lowered by wells located outside the protected area the way in which its surroundings develop (e.g., agriculture in
and because part of the water runoff from agricultural lands flows the area surrounding Doñana is adopting more sustainable and
into the protected area. These water supply characteristics clearly efficient methods of water use), this influence might not be
differ from those of a mountain system in which the protected area sufficiently strong. In Doñana, many SPHs of the intensively
is located in the highest parts of the range and which would not be managed provisioning services (such as agriculture) have a strong
affected nearly as much by agriculture in its surroundings. All these negative influence on the ecological integrity of the protected
reflections serve to motivate a conceptual proposal of the distribu- area due to aquifer overexploitation or water contamination
tion of ecosystem services provided by a mountain and a down- (Custodio et al., 2010). This case furnishes a clear example of
stream protected area (Fig. 4). The density of degraded services is the way in which the protected area depends on the management
Fig. 4. Simplification of ecosystem service supply and demand for protected areas in a mountainous area and at the end of a drainage system. For the former, most
important ecosystem services provided by the protected area and its surroundings will most likely be located inside the protected area (given that it contains the summits
and other natural assets, such as forests). In a downstream situation, provisioning services are most likely located outside the area’s boundaries (the source of water runoff
or the location of agriculture), whereas regulating and cultural services might be provided more intensively by the protected area and also outside the area. Because
protected areas normally exclude densely populated centers, ecosystem service demand is most likely located outside the protected area.
97
of the surrounding lands. Many of the most important problems be combined with other conservation strategies in the surrounding
of the protected area are related to this issue (Table 3). lands, such as agro-environmental schemes, payments for ecosystem
Moreover, the SPHs for each category of ecosystem services, services, land stewardship or multi-tenure protection (Eigenbrod
particularly in Doñana, were located both inside and outside the et al., 2010). In terms of the demand side, the analysis of ecosystem
protected area (Table 2). This finding illustrates the necessity of service footprints should be developed (Burkhard et al., 2012a) to
landscape management mechanisms that ensure a diverse flow of implement environmental education campaigns and resource-
ecosystem services supply to avoid undesired trade-offs between efficient programs as well as incentives for reducing ecosystem
provisioning and regulating services (Elmquist et al., 2011), as well as service demands where larger footprints are present.
social conflicts among stakeholders. In Doñana, for example, land-use
intensification in the non-protected territory with the aim of increas-
ing agricultural production could cause the degradation of most of 6. Conclusions
the regulating services affecting local actors and could reduce the
satisfaction of nature tourists because recreation and aesthetic The results of this study show that Doñana and Sierra Nevada
services are only concentrated inside the protected area (Martı́n- National Parks and their buffer areas (Natural Parks) provide a diverse
López et al., 2007, 2011). range of ecosystem services that benefit the surrounding lands.
Consequently, it is important to understand in which environ- Furthermore, certain neighboring unprotected areas outside the
mental and socio-economic conditions the connection between National and Natural Parks also provide many of these services.
the supply and demand of ecosystem services takes place. Like- Ecosystem service maps were found to serve as a useful first step for a
wise, it is important to understand the connections among management plan for protected areas based on ecosystem services
ecosystem services, i.e., ecosystem service bundles (Raudsepp- because we could extract concrete policy proposals from the informa-
Hearne et al., 2010). For every service, an identification of key bio- tion provided by the ecosystem services maps. Maps of ecosystem
geophysical factors underlying the supply of services and the services flows in protected areas and their surroundings serve as a
identification of key stakeholders who demand ecosystem ser- stepping stone for the analysis of the boundaries of protected areas
vices should be an essential step in characterizing the connection under the ecosystem service framework. Moreover, these maps
between SPHs and SBAs (Syrbe and Walz, 2012) to develop a facilitate the exploration of the consequences for the protected area
comprehensive strategy for the management of protected areas. of demands for ecosystem services originating from remote locations.
We have also shown how the majority of the issues for Sierra Nevada,
5.4. The role of remote places in the management of protected areas and especially for Doñana, originated in the surroundings of the
protected areas, reinforcing the need for a broader landscape manage-
Urban regions have become focal points of the demand for ment strategy.
ecosystem services because urban areas increasingly depend on
ecosystem services supplied by protected areas (McDonald et al.,
2009) and rural areas (Kroll et al., 2012). Although we found that Acknowledgments
ecosystem service beneficiaries range from local to global scales
(Table 1), it appears that nearby cities are an important focus of The authors wish to thank all participants in the workshops;
ecosystem service demand (Figs. 2C and 3C), primarily for provi- Javier Cano and Teresa Agudo from Sierra Nevada and Doñana,
sioning and for cultural services (recreational and scientific knowl- respectively, for helping with the organization of the workshops;
edge). The increasing demand for provisioning services in cities near and David Garcı́a del Amo, Marina Garcı́a-Llorente, Irene Iniesta-
protected areas, as well as the demand for such services in other Arandia and Cesar López-Santiago from the Social-Ecological Sys-
Spanish and European cities (see Martı́n-López et al., 2011), pro- tems Laboratory and Javier Moreno and Javier Escalera from Pablo
motes land-use intensity changes that have an ultimate negative Olavide University for assisting with the preparation and develop-
effect on the integrity of the ecosystems and on the delivery of ment of both workshops. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers
ecosystem services (Garcı́a-Llorente et al., 2012; Laliberté et al., for their helpful comments. Funding was provided by the Ministry of
2010; Laliberté and Tylianakis, 2012; Schneiders et al., 2012). Agriculture, Food and Environment of Spain (018/2009), by the
Consequently, managing the social demands for ecosystem services Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (project
in urban areas and cities is an essential step for the management of CGL2011-30266) and by the Ministry of Education (FPU-program).
protected areas. This extension of the scope of management will
expand the radius of action associated with protected areas to areas
that are located far from the protected areas and that demand Appendix A
ecosystem services from the protected areas or their surroundings.
The design of the management of protected areas based on an See Table A1.
ecosystem service framework should be based not only on the scale
at which services are delivered but also on the scale at which
beneficiaries use the services (Hein et al., 2006). Consequently, based Appendix B
on the spatial scale at which beneficiaries are operating (see Table 1),
the management of the Andalusian protected areas should be See Table B1.
conducted by institutions from the local level to the level of European
organizations with the aim of managing ecosystem service demands.
To meet this challenge, there is a need for better communication Appendix C
and coordination among protected area managers at the local and
national scales, users of protected areas and local stakeholders. Here, See Table C1.
different key aspects should serve to coordinate environmental
policies in protected areas. In terms of the supply side of ecosystem
services, protected areas and their surroundings should focus on Appendix D
maintaining key ecosystem properties essential to provide a diverse
flow of ecosystem services. In this sense, protected areas should See Table D1.
98
Table A1
Characterization of Doñana and Sierra Nevada regions. Adapted from Garcı́a-Llorente et al. (2011b).
Characteristics Doñana region Sierra Nevada region
Spatial extent Greater Doñana ecosystem (2207 km2). Doñana National Park (54,252 ha). Greater Sierra Nevada ecosystem (2230 km2). Sierra Nevada
Doñana Natural Park (53,835 ha). Approximate altitude range: 0–280 m National Park (85,883 ha). Sierra Nevada Natural Park (86,432 ha).
Approximate altitude range: 180–3482 m
Designation of the National Park: 1969 Natural Park: 1989 National Park: 1999 Natural Park: 1989
principal
protection
categories
Nearest cities Seville (700,000 inhabitants) and Huelva (250,000 inhabitants) Granada (500,000 inhabitants) and Almeria (200,000 inhabitants)
Ecological Diverse ecodistricts (marshes. dunes. estuary and cost) (Montes et al., Ecodistricts in a great altitude range including high summits to
characterization 1998) support charismatic endangered species (Iberian lynx and Aquila semi-arid environments (Jimenez-Olivencia, 1991) support the
adalberti). Major stepping-stone for migrating birds moving between most important area for plant diversity and endemism in the
Africa and Europe (Garcı́a-Novo, Marı́n, 2005). western Mediterranean region (Blanca et al., 1998).
Socio-economic Tourism (beach, nature and religious) and agriculture are the main sectors. Tourism and agriculture are the main sectors. The National Park
characterization The National Park received 350,005 visits in 2008 (Europarc-España, received 684,573 visits in 2008 (Europarc-España, 2010). The
2010), and a study estimated 4 million visitors to the Doñana region in western part is more densely populated, attracts more tourism
2003, 75% of whom visit El Rocı́o Village. Most visits are on a regional scale (especially in the Alpujarras area) and receives more precipitation.
(Gómez-Limón et al., 2003). Matalascañas is an urbanized tourism facility The eastern part suffers from more rural abandonment, an aging
surrounded by the National and Natural Parks. Agricultural lands population and aridity. The unemployment rate is high.
surrounding the protected area produce strawberries and rice for national
and international consumption. The unemployment rate is high.
Table B1
Number of participants and their institutions.
Doñana Sierra Nevada
National parks agency 1 1

Regional environmental institutions 2 2
Protected area managers 13 13
University (Seville University in Doñana and Almerı́a, Granada and Pablo de Olavide Universities in Sierra Nevada) 2 4
Other research institutions (Doñana Biological Station—CSIC) 3
Table C1
Individual questionnaire used in both workshops.
Section 1
1. What are the five most important ecosystem services provided by the protected area for human well-being? Answer in order of importance (with checklist).
2. Which trends (increase, constant, decrease) do these ecosystem services follow? Why?
3. At which scale (global, regional, local) are these ecosystem service enjoyed? Where are ESBs located?
Section 2
4. Does the protected area use the ecosystem services framework (very much, quite, little, nothing) in its management?
5. How important (very, quite, little, not necessary) is it to use the ecosystem service approach for protected area management?
6. In which sections of protected area management (public use, natural resources management, biodiversity conservation, environmental education, research and
communication) should the ecosystem services maps be applied?
Section 3
7a. What are the main problems faced by the protected area?
7b. Can an ecosystem services management strategy help solve these problems?
Table D1
List of the most important ecosystem services. This list was provided to participants for use with the questionnaire (examples and definitions are summarized here).
Ecosystem service Example/Definition
Provisioning Food provided by: agriculture, cattle, Products derived from biodiversity for consumption as food
aquaculture,
fishing, hunting, collection,
beekeeping
Water provision Good-quality water from surface or below-ground flows for human, agricultural or industrial use, as well as
desalted water
Raw materials of biological origin Materials such as wood and vegetable fibers to produce goods for consumption
Raw materials of non-biological origin Materials such as slate or gneiss used for construction
Salt Marine or continental salt used for consumption
Renewable energy Energy obtained from geophysical processes or ecosystems such as solar, wind, hydropower or biomass
Medications and therapeutic Healing compounds contained in traditional medicines or used by pharmaceutical manufacturers to produce
compounds medications
Regulating Climate regulation Vegetation capacity to absorb CO2, mesoclimatic regulation and regulation of temperature by forests and water
bodies
Air purification Retention of air pollutants by vegetation
Water depuration Extraction of contaminants from water by vegetation, invertebrates and soils
99
Table D1 (continued )
Water regulation Regulation of water fluxes by aquifers, accumulation of water in snow and its release in spring and summer
Erosion control Control of erosion by vegetation to prevent landslides or reservoir siltation
Soil fertility Natural fertility of soils, nutrient richness
Disaster mitigation Diminution of the effects of perturbations such as fire or floods by ecosystems
Biological control Control of pest and diseases affecting agriculture, cattle or humans
Pollination Insect cooperation with plants to facilitate reproduction
Habitat for species Maintenance of habitat for species to facilitate species conservation
Cultural Scientific knowledge Scientific knowledge gathered from the study of ecosystems
Traditional ecological knowledge Practices and customs transmitted through generations and used for managing agriculture, cattle, and other
relationships with the environment
Environmental education Instruction in ecological processes, raising of awareness about biodiversity and ecosystem services in visitor
centers or educational activities
Nature tourism Responsible travel to natural areas to practice hiking, bird watching, relaxation
Rural tourism Travel to rural areas to enjoy customs, traditional architecture or gastronomy
Ski tourism Practice of alpine skiing or snowboarding
Aesthetic values Appreciation of landscape beauty
Spiritual values Practice of traditional processions or conception of nature as something sacred
Existence value and species Satisfaction of knowing that certain species and ecosystems exist
conservation
References Elmquist, T., Tuvendal, M., Krishnaswamy, J., Hylander, K. 2011. Managing trade-
offs in ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services Economies (ESE) Working Paper
Anton, C., Young, J., Harrison, P., Musche, M., et al., 2010. Research needs for no. 4. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Division of Environ-
incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conserva- mental Policy Implementation (DEPI).
tion policy. Biodiversity and Conservation 19 (10), 2979–2994. Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de España (EME) 2011. La Evaluación de
Balvanera, P., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., Taylor, H.R., Bailey, S., Kark, S., Kremen, C., los Ecosistemas del Milenio de España. Sı́ntesis de resultados. Fundación
Pereira, H., 2001. Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. Science 291, Biodiversidad. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino.
2047. Europarc-España 2010. Anuario EUROPARC-España del estado de los espacios
Beier, C.M., Patterson, T.M., Chapin, F.S., 2008. Ecosystem services and emergent naturales protegidos 2009. Ed. FUNGOBE. Madrid.
vulnerability in managed ecosystems: a geospatial decision-support tool. Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., Khamis, M., 2012. Community stake-
Ecosystems 11 (6), 923–938. holders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—mapping indicators for land-
Bengtsson, J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist, T., Emanuelsson, U., Folke, C., Ihse, M., scape services. Ecological Indicators 18, 421–433.
Moberg, F., et al., 2003. Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32 Garcı́a-Llorente, M., Martı́n-López, B., Dı́az, S., Montes, C., 2011a. Can ecosystem
properties be fully translated into service values? An economic valuation of
(6), 389–396.
Blanca, G., Cueto, M., Martı́nez-Lirola, M.J., Molero-Mesa, J., 1998. Threatened aquatic plants services. Ecological Applications 21, 3083–3103.
Garcı́a-Llorente, M., Martı́n-López, B., Montes, C., 2011b. Exploring the motivations
vascular flora of Sierra Nevada (Southern Spain). Biological Conservation 85,
of protesters in contingent valuation: insights for conservation policies.
269–285.
Environmental Science & Policy 14 (1), 76–88.
Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D., Macdonald, D.H., 2010. Targeting the
Garcı́a-Llorente, M., Martı́n-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C.,
management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and
Aguilera, P.A., Montes, C., 2012. The role of multi-functionality in social
how? Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2), 111–122.
preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service
Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D., King, D., 2011. Comparing spatially
approach. Environmental Science & Policy 19-20, 136–146.
explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective
Garcı́a-Novo, F., Marı́n, C., 2005. Doñana. Water and biosphere. Doñana 2005,
conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 25 (1), 172–181.
Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente,
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., 2012a. Mapping ecosystem service
Madrid, Spain.
supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21, 17–29.
Gimmi, U., Schmidt, S.L., Hawbaker, T.J., Alcántara, C., Gafvert, U., Radeloff, V.C.,
Burkhard, B., De Groot, R., Costanza, R., Seppelt, R., Jørgensene, S.E., Potschin, M.,
2011. Increasing development in the surroundings of U.S. National Park
2012b. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services.
Service holdings jeopardizes park effectiveness. Journal of Environmental
Management 92 (1), 229–239.
Chan, K.M.a, Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C., Daily, G.C., 2006.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Mingorrı́a, S., Reyes-Garcı́a, V., Calvet, L., Montes, C., 2010.
Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology 4 (11), e379.
Traditional ecological knowledge trends in the transition to a market econ-
Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., Lysenko, I., 2005. Measuring the extent and
omy: empirical study in the Doñana natural areas. Conservation Biology 24
effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity
(3), 721–729.
targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Gómez-Limón, J., Medina, L., Atance, I., Garrido, A., 2003. Los visitantes de la
Biological Sciences 360 (1454), 443–455. comarca de Doñana. Fundación Fernando González Bernáldez/EUROPARC-
Costanza, R., Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., et al., 1997. The value of the world’s España.
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Grimalt, J.O., Ferrer, M., Macpherson, E., 1999. The mine tailing accident in
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O’Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., Aznalcóllar. The Science of the Total Environment 242, 3–11.
et al., 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Kienast, F., 2012. Indicators of ecosystem service
implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs.
United States of America 105 (28), 9483–9488. Ecological Indicators 21, 39–53.
Custodio, E., Manzano, M., Montes, C. 2010. Las aguas subterráneas en Doñana: Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., 2006. Spatial scales,
Aspectos ecológicos y sociales. Agencia Andaluza del Agua. Consejerı́a de stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57
Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Andalucı́a. (2), 209–228.
Daily, G.C., Matson, P.A., 2008. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementa- IUCN (World Conservation Union) 2004. The Durban Action Plan: Vth IUCN World
tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Parks Congress, Durban, South Africa. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
America 105 (28), 9455–9456. Jimenez-Olivencia, Y., 1991. Los paisajes de Sierra Nevada. Cartografı́a de los
DeFries, R., Karanth, K.K., Pareeth, S., 2010. Interactions between protected areas sistemas naturales de una Montana mediterránea.
and their surroundings in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Biological Joppa, L.N., Loarie, S.R., Pimm, S.L., 2008. On the protection of ‘‘protected areas’’.
Conservation 143 (12), 2870–2880. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
Dudley, N., Higgins-Zogib, L., Hockings, M., MacKinnon, K., Sandwith, T., Solton, S., America 105 (18), 6673–6678.
2011. National Parks with benefits: how protecting the planet’s biodiversity Joppa, L.N., Pfaff, A., 2009. High and far: biases in the location of protected areas.
also provides ecosystem services. Solutions 2 (6), 87–95. PLoS One 4 (12), e8273.
Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Bode, M., Richardson, D.M., 2009. Spatial Kroll, F., Müller, F., Haase, D., Fohrer, N., 2012. Rural–urban gradient analysis of
congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa. ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 29,
Biological Conservation 142 (3), 553–562. 521–535.
Eigenbrod, F., Anderson, B.J., Armsworth, P.R., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D.B., Laliberté, E., Wells, J.a, Declerck, F., Metcalfe, D.J., Catterall, C.P., Queiroz, C., Aubin,
Thomas, C.D., Gaston, K.J., 2010. Representation of ecosystem services by I., et al., 2010. Land-use intensification reduces functional redundancy and
tiered conservation strategies. Conservation Letters 3, 184–191. response diversity in plant communities. Ecology Letters 13 (1), 76–86.
100
Laliberté, E., Tylianakis, J.M., 2012. Cascading effects of long-term land-use Nedkov, S., Burkhard, B., 2012. Flood regulating ecosystem services—mapping
changes on plant traits and ecosystem functioning. Ecology 93 (1), 145–155. supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecological Indica-
López-Hoffman, L., Varady, R.G., Flessa, K.W., Balvanera, P., 2010. Ecosystem tors 21, 67–79.
services across borders: a framework for transboundary conservation policy. Paetzold, A., Warren, P.H., Maltby, L.L., 2010. A framework for assessing ecological
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8 (2), 84–91. quality based on ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity 7 (3), 273–281.
Luck, G.W., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., 2003. Population diversity and ecosystem Palomo, I., Martı́n-López, B., López-Santiago, C., Montes, C., 2011. Participatory
services. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 331–336. scenario planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem
Luck, G.W., Harrington, R., Harrison, P.A., Kremen, C., et al., 2009. Quantifying the services framework: the Doñana social-ecological system in Southwestern
contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. BioScience Spain. Ecology and Society 16 (1), 23.
59 (3), 223–235. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., 2011. Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical
Maes, J., Braat, L., Jax, K., Hutchins, M., Furman, E., Termansen, M., Luque, S., perspective. Progress in Physical Geography 35 (5), 575–594.
Paracchini, M.L., Chauvin, C., Williams, R., Volk, M., Lautenbach, S., Kopper- Pyke, C.R., 2007. The implications of global priorities for biodiversity and
oinen, L., Schelhaas, M.J., Weinert, J., Goossen, M., Dumont, E., Strauch, M., ecosystem services associated with protected areas. Ecology and Society
Görg, C., Dormann, C., Katwinkel, M., Zulian, G., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., 12 (1), 4.
Hauck, J., Forsius, M., et al., 2011a. A spatial assessment of ecosystem services Radeloff, V.C., Stewart, S.I., Hawbaker, T.J., Gimmi, U., Pidgeon, A.M., Flather, C.H.,
in Europe: methods, case studies and policy analysis-phase 1. Environmental Hammer, R.B., et al., 2010. Housing growth in and near United States protected
Research. areas limits their conservation value. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L., Zulian G. 2011b., European assessment of the provision Sciences of the United States of America 107 (2), 940–945.
of ecosystem services: towards an atlas of ecosystem services. Luxembourg: Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service
Publications Office of the European Union. EUR 24654 EN – Joint bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the
Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability. ISBN 978- National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 (11),
92-79-19663-8.
5242–5247.
Martı́n-López, B., Montes, C., Benayas, J., 2007. Influence of user characteristics on
Schneiders, A., Van Daele, T., Van Landuyt, W., Van Reeth, W., 2012. Biodiversity
valuation of ecosystem services in Doñana natural protected area (south-west
and ecosystem services: complementary approaches for ecosystem manage-
Spain). Environmental Conservation 34 (03), 215–224.
ment? Ecological Indicators 21, 123–133.
Martı́n-López, B., Garcı́a-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Montes, C., 2011. The conserva-
Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., Semmens, D.J., 2011. A GIS application for assessing,
tion against development paradigm in protected areas: valuation of ecosystem
mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied
services in the Doñana social—ecological system (southwestern Spain).
Geography 31 (2), 748–760.
Ecological Economics 70 (8), 1481–1491.
Sieber, R., 2006. Public participation geographic information systems: a literature
Martı́n-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Garcı́a-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-
review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96
Arzuaga, I., Garcı́a del Amo, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-rozas, E.,
(3), 491–507.
Palacios-Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., González, J.A., Santos-Martı́n, F., Onaindia,
Swetnam, R.D., Fisher, B., Mbilinyi, B.P., Munishi, P.K.T., Willcock, S., Ricketts, T.,
M., López-Santiago, C.A., Montes, C., 2012. Uncovering ecosystem services
Mwakalila, S., et al., 2011. Mapping socio-economic scenarios of land cover
bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 7 (6), e38970.
Mcdonald, R., 2009. Ecosystem service demand and supply along the urban-to- change: a GIS method to enable ecosystem service modelling. Journal of
rural gradient. Journal of Conservation Planning 5, 1–14. Environmental Management 92 (3), 563–574.
Mcdonald, R.I., Forman, R.T.T., Kareiva, P., Neugarten, R., Salzer, D., Fisher, J., 2009. Svancara, L.K., Scott, J.M., Loveland, T.R., Pidgorna, A.B., 2009. Assessing the
Urban effects, distance, and protected areas in an urbanizing world. Landscape landscape context and conversion risk of protected areas using satellite data
and Urban Planning 93 (1), 63–75. products. Remote Sensing of Environment 113 (7), 1357–1369.
McNeely, J.A., 1994. Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide Syrbe, R.U., Walz, U., 2012. Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem
benefits to society. Biodiversity and Conservation 3, 390–405. services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics.
Mendiguchı́a, C., Moreno, C., Galindo-Riaño, M.D., Garcı́a-Vargas, M., 2004. Using Ecological Indicators 21, 80–88.
chemometric tools to assess anthropogenic effects in river water: a case study: Turner, W.R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T.M., Costanza, R., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Portela, R.,
Guadalquivir River (Spain). Analytica Chimica Acta 515 (1), 143–149. 2007. Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience
Montes, C., Borja, J.A., Bravo, M.A., Moreira, J.M., 1998. Reconocimiento biofı́sico de 57, 868–873, BioOne.
espacios naturales protegidos. Doñana: Una aproximación ecosistémica, Junta van Jaarsveld, A.S., Biggs, R., Scholes, R.J, Bohensky, E., Reyers, B., Lynam, T.,
de Andalucı́a, Sevilla. Musvoto, C., et al., 2005. Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem
Montes, C., Arenas, J.M., Borja, F., 2003. Ciencia y Restauración del rı́o Guadiamar. services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem
Consejareı́a de Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Andalucı́a. Assessment (SAfMA) experience. Philosophical transactions of the Royal
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A, Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 360 (1454), 425–441.
T.R., et al., 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Hein, L., De Groot, R.S., 2012.
priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land manage-
States of America 105 (28), 9495–9500. ment on ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 21, 110–122.
101
Capítulo 4.4
Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within

and around Doñana National Park (SW Spain) in
relation to land use change
Ignacio Palomo a,*, Berta Martín-López a, Pedro Zorrilla-Miras a,b,

David García del Amo a, Carlos Montes a
a Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de

b Terrativa S. Coop. Mad. C/ Arganda, nº 24. 28005 Madrid, Spain.
Publicado en Regional Environmental Change. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-013-0488-5.

Results
4.4. Cartografía deliberativa de servicios de los ecosistemas en el

Parque Nacional de Doñana y su entorno en relación a los cambios de
usos del suelo
Resumen La declaración de áreas protegidas es una de las principales estrategias para conservar la
biodiversidad frente a las transformaciones de usos del suelo. Sin embargo, un gran número de áreas
protegidas están siendo aisladas por el cambio de usos del suelo en su entorno. En este trabajo analizamos
cuantitativamente los cambios de usos del suelo entre 1956 y 2007 dentro y fuera de una de las áreas
protegidas más importantes de Europa, el Espacio Natural Doñana. A través de un taller de participación
con expertos se cartografió el valor social de los servicios de los ecosistemas. A partir de los mapas
obtenidos en el taller creamos seis indicadores espaciales: Puntos calientes de servicios (Service Provision
Hotspots (SPHs), Abastecimiento, Regulación, Culturales, Riqueza y Declive. Seguidamente aplicamos
técnicas estadísticas no paramétricas y multivariantes para analizar la asociación entre los usos del suelo,
los indicadores de servicios y la categoría de protección. Nuestros resultados confirman el aislamiento del
Espacio Natural Doñana, pues cambios de usos del suelo intensos han ocurrido fuera del mismo (aumento
de áreas de cultivo de regadío y de áreas urbanas, y disminución de la superficie de humedales). Además,
los usos del suelo y la categoría de protección tienen un efecto directo sobre el suministro de servicios
porque el alimento de la agricultura es el principal servicio suministrado fuera del Espacio Natural,
mientras que los servicios de regulación y culturales los suministra principalmente el interior del área
protegida. En este trabajo discutimos como los valores sociales de servicios coinciden con evaluaciones
previas de servicios no participativas que describían la existencia de un modelo de ordenación territorial
conservación vs. desarrollo. Nuestro trabajo demuestra la utilidad de usar la cartografía de valores sociales
de servicios como primer acercamiento a la evaluación espacial de los mismos.
104
Reg Environ Change
DOI 10.1007/s10113-013-0488-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around

Doñana National Park (SW Spain) in relation to land use change
Ignacio Palomo • Berta Martı́n-López •
Pedro Zorrilla-Miras • David Garcı́a Del Amo •
Carlos Montes
Received: 10 March 2013 / Accepted: 18 May 2013

Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract The establishment of protected areas is one of existence of conservation versus development planning
the main strategies for preserving biodiversity from land strategy in the area. Our study highlights the adequacy of
use transformation. However, a great number of protected the social value approach as a first step toward ecosystem
areas are becoming isolated due to land use changes in their service spatial evaluation.
surroundings. We analyzed quantitatively land use changes
from 1956 to 2007 inside and around one of the most Keywords Conservation planning Participation
emblematic protected areas in Europe, the Doñana pro- Priority areas Social values Social-ecological systems
tected area. Next, stakeholders mapped social values for Trade-offs
current ecosystem service delivery with an expert work-
shop. Using the maps from the workshop, we mapped six Abbreviations
ecosystem service spatial indicators: Service Provision D-SES Doñana social-ecological system
Hotspots, Provisioning, Regulating, Cultural, Richness and PCA Principal component analysis
Decline. Then, we performed nonparametric and multi- SPHs Service Provision Hotspots
variate statistical analyses to study the associations
between land uses, ecosystem service indicators and pro-
tection category. Our results confirm the isolation of the
Doñana protected area as intense land use changes occur- Introduction
red outside it (increase in irrigated agricultural lands and
urbanized areas and decrease in wetlands surface). Fur- Isolation of protected areas has been identified as the most
thermore, land uses and the protection category have an important threat to their conservation (Chape et al. 2005).
effect on ecosystem service delivery as food from agri- However, there is a continued intensification of land uses
culture is the main ecosystem service supplied outside the around many protected areas (Hansen and de Fries 2007;
protected area, and regulating and cultural services are Joppa et al. 2008; Seiferling et al. 2011), which threats
mainly delivered inside the protected area. We discuss how their long-term conservation (Gimmi et al. 2011; Radeloff
the social values for ecosystem services match with pre- et al. 2010). We need to consider the relationships between
vious ecosystem service evaluations that described the protected areas and their surroundings to assure protected
area aims are achieved, but we also need to balance con-
servation goals with human needs in these areas (McNeely
I. Palomo (&) B. Martı́n-López P. Zorrilla-Miras
1994; Myers 1972; De Fries et al. 2007).
D. Garcı́a Del Amo C. Montes
Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department Although there exist studies demonstrating that trans-
of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, C/Darwin 2, formation of the surrounding lands can compromise the
28049 Madrid, Spain conservation of biodiversity inside the protected areas
e-mail: ignacio.palomo@uam.es
(Parks and Harcourt 2002), there is little evidence of the
P. Zorrilla-Miras role of the surrounding lands in preserving ecosystem
Terrativa S. Coop. Mad., C/Arganda 24, 28005 Madrid, Spain services inside the protected areas (Eigenbrod et al. 2010).
123
105
I. Palomo et al.
One of the strengths of the ecosystem service concept is current state of the protected and the non-protected land-
that it reveals a broad picture of the costs and benefits of scape. The D-SES is located at the outfall of the Guadal-
different management choices within a socio-ecological quivir River Basin, on the southwestern coast of Spain
framework (Daily et al. 2009). Ecosystem service maps are (Fig. 1). The D-SES spans 3713 km2 including the bio-
a useful tool for visualizing the effects of land use change physical system and the social system. The biophysical
on ecosystem services and the associated trade-offs among system, on which the protected area is located, consists of
ecosystem services (Goldstein et al. 2012). four ecodistricts (coastal system, estuary, marshes and
Participative mapping of ecosystem services can eolian sheets) (2,207 km2) (Montes et al. 1998). The social
increase awareness of nature benefits, foster empowerment system covers 3,351 km2 including 16 municipalities that
and incorporate local knowledge to management decisions directly depend on the ecosystem services delivered by the
(Fagerholm et al. 2012). Moreover, there is a need to biophysical system and that have a direct influence on
include stakeholders’ views and needs in research to them. The two most important protected areas of the
achieve ecosystem service implementation (Cowling et al. D-SES are a National and a Natural Park. Inside the
2008). Therefore, mapping social values for ecosystem National Park, uses such as agriculture and hunting are
services is being increasingly used to obtain indicators of prohibited, and others like tourism regulated. Inside the
ecosystem service delivery that allow informing policy Natural Park, conservation legislation is less strict and
decisions (Bryan et al. 2010; Plieninger et al. 2013; Ray- more uses are allowed under regulation.
mond et al. 2009; Sherrouse et al. 2011). Previous studies The D-SES is an adequate case study for this analysis
have mapped ecosystem service delivery with respect to for several reasons. First, the Doñana National Park has
land use changes (e.g., Nelson et al. 2009; Reyers et al. undergone pronounced transformation in its surroundings.
2009; Tianhong et al. 2010). However, to our knowledge, Second, there are previous ecosystem service evaluations
no other study has analyzed the relationship between land regarding the D-SES that allow us discussing the accuracy
use change and social values for ecosystem services to of the deliberative maps created in the study (Martı́n-
assess protected area isolation. Besides ecosystem service López et al. 2011). Third, accurate land use maps are
maps, a set of indicators facilitates the understanding of the available for a long-time series. Fourth, the D-SES has
effects of land use on ecosystem services (Layke et al. 2012; great ecological importance and its wetland is considered
Oudenhoven et al. 2012). Policy makers can use indicators to be one of the most important in Europe (Fernández-
to better identify and execute different interventions for Delgado 2005).
land management (Layke 2009). Therefore, mapping indi- Doñana National Park exemplifies the problems for
cators for ecosystem services based on social values in conservation inside the protected area caused by the
relation to land uses can be useful for landscape manage- intensive land use management outside this area (Martı́n-
ment (Haines-Young et al. 2012) and to design conservation López et al. 2011; Ojeda 1986; Palomo et al. 2011).
strategies in protected areas (Bryan et al. 2011). Intensive land use changes in the area started at the
In this context, our major aim was to assess the asso- beginning of the twentieth century with the goals of flood
ciation between land use changes, conservation policies control and the draining of the marshes for agricultural
and ecosystem service delivery, focusing on the protected purposes. Several decades later, in 1969, the Doñana
area of Doñana (southwest Spain) and its surroundings. To National Park was created to protect the remaining eco-
achieve that aim, we specifically (1) analyzed land use systems from the transformations that were driven by
changes from 1956 to 2007 inside and outside the protected agriculture, tourism, urbanization and tree plantations.
areas of Doñana; (2) mapped the social values for the The conservation trend continued with the designation of
current supply of ecosystem services through different the Doñana Natural Park in 1989, which surrounded the
ecosystem service indicators; (3) analyzed edge effects on National Park on its east, north and west borders. Both
ecosystem services; and (4) analyzed statistically the areas, Doñana National Park and the Doñana Natural
relationship between land use, protection category (i.e., Park, account for 29 % of the D-SES surface.
National Park, Natural Park or non-protected) and eco-
system service delivery.
Methods
Study area Land use change
We focused on the Doñana social-ecological system Land use data for 1956 and 2007 were available from the
(D-SES), and not only in the Doñana protected area, to obtain Andalusian Environmental Information Network at a
a broader picture of the protected area and to compare the 1:25,000 scale, with hierarchically organized land use
123
106
Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services
Fig. 1 Doñana study area represented through the D-SES, its protected areas and the land use changes that have occurred in this area from 1956
to 2007
123
107
I. Palomo et al.
categories. We selected eight land use categories: urban green dots for SPHs and 90 red dots for declining SPHs)
areas, wetlands and inland waters, non-irrigated agricul- including two different sizes (the equivalents of 0.75 and
ture, irrigated agriculture, forests, shrublands, grasslands 1 km radius) and a topographic map of the region. The
and open spaces without vegetation (which consisted participants were asked to allocate as many dots as needed
mainly of beaches and dunes) to reflect the land use to the areas where the ecosystem service supply and eco-
changes that have occurred in the last 50 years. We ana- system service decline were currently taking place for each
lyzed the surface covered by each land use category in the ecosystem service selected. We use the term ‘‘deliberative
National Park, Natural Park and the exterior of both of mapping’’ to refer to the fact that participants could discuss
them, and the percentage of change of each land use cat- about how to map each ecosystem service within their
egory between 1956 and 2007. group. A group of facilitators helped when necessary the
participants to solve doubts and to reach a consensus in
Deliberative mapping of social values for ecosystem each service mapped.
service supply Among the five groups of participants, twenty-two
ecosystem service maps were created during the workshop
Like previous studies have acknowledged (Bryan et al. (three of the five groups mapped four ecosystem services
2010; Raymond et al. 2009), there are abundant biophysi- instead of five due to time constrains), including the fol-
cal and economic evaluation methods for ecosystem ser- lowing nine services (in brackets the number of groups that
vices, while social values are less considered. To facilitate mapped each service): habitat for species (5), water pro-
the implementation of the ecosystem service framework vision (4), food from agriculture (3), scientific knowledge
and the incorporation of the results into the management of (3), recreational activities (3), food from cattle (1), esthetic
the protected area, we used social values of policy makers values (1), environmental education (1) and spiritual values
of the protected area and researchers directly related to it. (1). Therefore, three provisioning, one regulating and five
By doing so, social learning of the ecosystem service cultural ecosystem services were mapped. Participants used
concept was facilitated within a landscape planning an average number of 49 green dots and 14 red dots for
approach. each map, with a maximum of 78 green dots and 78 red
We held a workshop in December 2011 which included dots in a map. After each map for an ecosystem service was
participants and managers from the protected area (13), created, a vertical photograph was taken with a D-SLR
from regional environmental institutions (2) and from the camera. The images were geopositioned in ArcMap, and
National Park Agency (1), as well as researchers (5). Par- circle polygon shapefiles were created for each service
ticipants were chosen to include a diverse group of stake- mapped in each group. Raster files were created to permit
holders (managers from the protected area belonged to further analysis.
different areas of the protected area management including
some board members) with deep knowledge about Doñana Indicators for social values and statistical analysis
to ensure the preciseness of the results (see Palomo et al. in
press for full details). As recommended by Raymond et al. (2009), Bryan et al.
To select which ecosystem services to map, we provided (2010), and other studies (Table 2), we used different
participants with an individual questionnaire and a list that indicators to analyze the social values for the ecosystem
included the definition and examples of the 24 most services mapped. The green dots were used to create the
important ecosystem services that had been identified in the following indicators: the SPHs, Provisioning, Regulating,
area by previous studies (e.g., Garcı́a-Llorente et al. 2011; Cultural and Richness. The SPHs index denotes the value of
Martı́n-López et al. 2011; Table 1). Each participant indi- ecosystem service delivery, calculated by summing the
vidually selected the five most important ecosystem ser- number of green dots that were allocated in each cell
vices that were delivered by the D-SES. Next, the including the twenty-two maps created. This index is used
participants were split into five groups of four to five to summarize the ecosystem service delivery in the territory
people, to reach a consensus about the five most important in one single information unit. The same procedure was
services that were supplied by the D-SES. Then, the par- followed for Provisioning, Regulating and Cultural indica-
ticipants mapped, for each of these five services, the Ser- tors. These indicators were chosen in order to find trade-offs
vice Provision Hotspots (SPHs), which defines any location between ecosystem service types. The Richness index was
important for generating a service, and the areas where calculated as the number of different ecosystem services
these services are declining, namely here as declining mapped in each cell, to identify the areas with greater
SPHs. The SPHs concept was chosen because it provides ecosystem service variety. The red dots were used to create
an overview of the service provision. Each group was given the Decline index, which was calculated summing the
a set of dots (moveable plastic disks) in different colors (90 number of declining SPHs (red dots) that were allocated in
123
108
Table 1 List of the most important ecosystem services of the Doñana social-ecological system
Ecosystem service Example/definition
Provisioning
Food provided by: agriculture, cattle, aquaculture, Products derived from biodiversity for consumption as food
fishing, hunting, collection, beekeeping
Water provision Good-quality water from surface or below-ground flows for human, agricultural or
industrial use, as well as desalted water
Raw materials of biological origin Materials such as wood and vegetable fibers to produce goods for consumption
Salt Marine or continental salt used for consumption
Renewable energy Energy obtained from geophysical processes or ecosystems such as solar, wind,
hydropower or biomass
Medications and therapeutic compounds Healing compounds contained in traditional medicines or used by pharmaceutical
manufacturers to produce medications
Regulating
Climate regulation Vegetation capacity to absorb CO2, mesoclimatic regulation and regulation of
temperature by forests and water bodies
Air purification Retention of air pollutants by vegetation
Water depuration Extraction of contaminants from water by vegetation, invertebrates and soils
Water regulation Regulation of water fluxes by aquifers, accumulation of water in snow and its release in
spring and summer
Erosion control Control of erosion by vegetation to prevent landslides or reservoir siltation
Soil fertility Natural fertility of soils, nutrient richness
Disaster mitigation Diminution of the effects of perturbations such as fire or floods by ecosystems
Biological control Control of pest and diseases affecting agriculture, cattle or humans
Pollination Insect cooperation with plants to facilitate reproduction
Habitat for species Maintenance of habitat for species to facilitate species conservation
Cultural
Scientific knowledge Scientific knowledge gathered from the study of ecosystems
Traditional ecological knowledge Practices and customs transmitted through generations and used for managing
agriculture, cattle and other relationships with the environment
Environmental education Instruction in ecological processes, raising of awareness about biodiversity and
ecosystem services in visitor centers or educational activities
Recreational activities Travel to areas for leisure, relax or for practicing sports
Esthetic values Appreciation of landscape beauty
Spiritual values Practice of traditional processions or conception of nature as something sacred
Existence value and species conservation Satisfaction of knowing that certain species and ecosystems exist
The list was provided to participants with several examples which are summarized here (adapted from Palomo et al. in press). The services
shaded were mapped in this study
each cell including the twenty-two maps created. The set of checked normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test (Shapiro
indicators selected provides an overview of the ecosystem and Wilk 1965). As the distribution of variables was not
service delivery, state and trade-offs among services. normal, we used the nonparametric Spearman rank corre-
We created a regular point grid covering the surface of lation test to analyze the correlation among the different
the D-SES (100 m; n = 370,834) and extracted the value of indicators. Finally, we identified high-priority areas for
the previously explained indicators for each grid point. preserving ecosystem services by delineating, as previous
Next, we used the Moran0 s index to test for spatial auto- studies, approximately the 10 % of the grid cells with the
correlation of the data (Moran 1950). As Moran0 s index highest values for each indicator (Bai et al. 2011).
showed autocorrelation in the spatial indicators, we ran-
domly selected a sample containing a 10 % of the total grid Land use, management strategy and social values
points (n = 37,083) to reduce spatial autocorrelation. Then, for ecosystem service supply
we standardized all variables by subtracting the mean of
each value and dividing by the standard deviation to make To analyze the spatial relationship between land uses,
them comparable. With the standardized variables, we protection category (i.e., National Park, Natural Park or
109 123
I. Palomo et al.
Table 2 Studies mapping social values for ecosystem services through spatial indicators
Source Indicators for ecosystem services (ES) mapped Methodology Study area
Bryan et al. (2010) Abundance (intensity scores) In-depth interviews Murray–Darling Basin, Australia
Diversity (Shannon’s H’ index)
Rarity (relative concentration)
Risk (social values–threats to ES)
Bryan et al. (2011) Social values (value intensity scores) In-depth interviews Murray–Darling Basin, Australia
Fagerholm et al. (2012) Intensity (Kernel density) Semi-structured interviews Tanzania, Zanzibar
Richness (number of different indicators)
Klain and Chan (2012) Monetary value (number of respondents) Map-based interviews Northern Vancouver Island,
Non-monetary value (‘‘’’) Canada
Threat value (‘‘’’)
Palomo et al. (in press) Functioning SPHs (number of dots) Deliberative workshop Doñana and Sierra Nevada, Spain
Degraded SPHs (‘‘’’)
Service benefiting area (‘‘’’)
Plieninger et al. (2013) Intensity (number of ES sites) Structured interviews Guttau, Germany
Richness (number of ES)
Intensity disservices (number of
disservices sites)
Raymond et al. (2009) Provisioning (intensity scores) In-depth interviews Murray–Darling Basin, Australia
Regulating (‘‘’’)
Cultural (‘‘’’)
Supporting (‘‘’’)
Intensity (‘‘’’)
Threats (‘‘’’)
Ruiz-Frau et al. (2011) % of respondents In-depth interviews Coast of Wales
Local Moran0 s index
Z-score
Sherrouse et al. (2011) Value Index (Kernel density/SolVES) Surveys Colorado, USA
Predicted social value (Prediction
by multiple regression)
Van riper et al. (2012) Value Index (Kernel density/SolVES) Surveys Hinchinbrook Island National
Park, Australia
SolVES Social values for ecosystem services
non-protected) and ecosystem service supply, we layered natural park) (Fig. 2). Then, we analyzed with a Kruskal–
the 2007 land use map and the protection category with Wallis test the social values for declining services (using
the grid points randomly selected that contained the the Decline index) in the non-protected territory, in the
information of each indicator previously explained. Next, 3 km wide buffer area within the protected area and in the
we used the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test followed core area of the protected area.
by the Dunn0 s multiple comparison post hoc test to Finally, following Bai et al. (2011) and Maes et al.
explore the differences of each of the ecosystem service (2012), we explored the spatial trade-offs and synergies
delivery indicator among both land uses and conservation among specific ecosystem services, as well as their rela-
management strategies (Dunn 1961; Kruskal and Wallis tionships with land use and conservation management
1952). using a principal component analysis (PCA). In order to do
To assess whether participants perceived ecosystem so, we used the spatial data for the specific ecosystem
services inside the protected area to be declining due to services as active variables and the spatial data for land use
edge effects, we created a 3 km wide buffer within the (8 variables) and the conservation management strategy
boundaries of the protected area (including the national and (3 variables) as supplementary variables.
123 110
Fig. 2 Doñana social-

ecological system (Doñana
SES) and landscape
categorization made to assess
edge effects on ecosystem
services
Results each stakeholder group was different, this might be taken

as a preliminary result. The spatial distribution of the social
Land use change in the D-SES values for SPHs, Richness, Provisioning, Regulating, Cul-
tural and Decline indicators in the D-SES is shown in
Land use change in D-SES between 1956 and 2007 is Fig. 4. Priority areas for conservation can be identified
characterized by an increase in urbanized area (590 %),
irrigated fields (126 %) and open spaces (17 %), and a
reduction in shrublands (44 %), wetlands (40 %), grass-
lands (20 %), non-irrigated farming (6 %) and forests
(7 %). These transformations primarily occurred outside
the protected area (Fig. 1). As a result, in 2007, wetlands
covered 51 % of the Doñana National Park, 37 % of the
Doñana Natural Park and 5 % of the non-protected area.
By contrast, agriculture covered 68 % of the non-protected
area, 8 % of the Doñana Natural Park and 4 % of the
Doñana National Park (this area in the National Park,
corresponding to 2,235 Ha, has been restored to wetland
through the Doñana 2005 Project).
The ecosystem services identified and mapped

by experts Fig. 3 Perceptions of managers and researchers regarding ecosystem
service importance in the D-SES. The figure shows the average
The prioritization of ecosystem services by researchers and number of each ecosystem service type included among the five most
important services that each participant selected during the workshop.
policy makers was very similar, showing a similar pattern
As seen, both stakeholders groups had a similar perception about the
for social values among both stakeholder0 s groups (Fig. 3). importance of the ecosystem service categories. Data include answers
As the number of participants was limited and the size of from 5 scientists and 14 managers
111
123
I. Palomo et al.
from these maps, both inside and outside the protected Ecosystem services, land uses and conservation
area. management strategy
Using the standardized variables, we found that signif-
icant spatial correlations exist among nearly all indicators The PCA of nine ecosystem services illustrated that there
(Table 3). A positive and strong association exists between were two main trends in the spatial distribution of eco-
SPHs and the Richness index, as well as between these two system services, as only two components (F1 and F2) met
indicators and Cultural, Regulating and Provisioning indi- the Kaiser criterion (Kaiser 1960) by having an eigenvalue
cators. In contrast, as the correlations for the Decline index higher than 1 (Table 6). The first four factors explained
were negative, ecosystem services decline seems to entail 62.01 % of total variance, being 41.15 % of the variance
lower service delivery, although the small coefficients for explained by F1 and F2.
this index show that these correlations are not very strong. The first factor (F1) indicated a trade-off between the
delivery of food from agriculture and the remainder of the
Relationship between land use and ecosystem service services because all of the other ecosystem services had
delivery positive contributions to F1, whereas food from agriculture
had negative contributions. This trade-off should also be
We found differences in each of the ecosystem service explained by the land uses allocated outside the protected
indicators among land uses (Table 4). The land uses that area (e.g., irrigated, non-irrigated agriculture and urban
supply the highest SPHs and richness of ecosystem services areas), as these variables were related and had negative
were wetlands and inland waters and shrublands. By con- scores of F1 (Fig. 5). On the other hand, the second factor
trast, urban areas and agricultural lands demonstrated the (F2) revealed a gradient of ecosystem service delivery that
lowest values of SPHs and Richness indicators. Further- was related to the conservation management strategy in
more, urban areas showed the highest values of the Decline that the ecosystem services delivered by the Natural Park
index, mainly due to the loss of esthetic values due to had positive contributions to F2 and the services supplied
urbanization processes. Moreover, we found dissimilarities by the National Park had negative contributions to F2. In
among ecosystem service categories: Wetlands and inland fact, scientific knowledge, habitat for species, water
waters were the land uses with the highest capacity to availability and food from cattle were associated with the
deliver provisioning and regulating services, and shrub- National Park, whereas environmental education, nature
lands and open spaces with little vegetation (beaches and tourism, esthetic values and spiritual values were associ-
dunes) were the land uses with the highest potential for ated with the Natural Park (Fig. 5).
supplying cultural services.
The effect of conservation management strategy Discussion

on ecosystem service delivery
Caveats of the methodology
We found that the indicators measuring the ecosystem
service delivery varied among the different conservation The methodological approach used in this study for map-
management strategies (i.e., National Park, Natural Park or ping ecosystem services on the basis of social values has
non-protected) as the National and Natural Parks had much some particular caveats. The first caveat is related to the
higher values for regulating and cultural services than the unbalanced representation of maps according to different
non-protected territory (Table 5). The National and Natural ecosystem services, because while specific ecosystem ser-
Park also had the highest values for the SPHs and Richness vices were mapped by several groups of participants (e.g.,
indicators showing a diverse flow of ecosystem services habitat for species), others, among which several cultural
inside the protected area in comparison with the non-pro- services, were mapped by only one group (e.g., environ-
tected territory. mental education). Thus, habitat for species had a stronger
Regarding the edge effects on ecosystem service supply, spatial representation than other services. Although this
we found that the Decline index was higher in the buffer circumstance is a potential caveat, it also reflects the per-
area within the protected area than in the core of the pro- ceived greater importance of some services over others by
tected area; however, it was also higher than in the non- the stakeholders. Moreover, because cultural ecosystem
protected territory. The mean values obtained for each services included more services (and therefore more maps)
category of the Decline index were as follows: non-pro- than the other categories, we consider that spatial indica-
tected (-0.02), buffer area (0.19), core area (-0.04); being tors of ecosystem services for the three categories are
these differences significant (Kruskal–Wallis test: balanced. Caveats also exist related to the number of par-
v2 = 322.28; p \ 0.001). ticipants involved in the participative process and the bias
123 112
Fig. 4 Social values for Provisioning, Regulating, Cultural, SPHs workshop. The smaller maps represent the high-priority areas (defined
(Service Provision Hotspots), Richness and Decline indicators of as approximately the 10 % of the grid cells with the highest values for
ecosystem services currently provided by the D-SES. Data were each indicator)
gathered from the nine ecosystem services mapped during the
in the selection of participants (i.e., scientists and policy Policy making relevance of the study
makers). Finally, the high significant correlation results
with low correlation coefficients for specific associations The use of social values can be a first step for evaluating
between different ecosystem service indicators (e.g., cor- the delivery of ecosystem services (Burkhard et al. 2012).
relation between provisioning and regulating or cultural Moreover, it is broadly recognized that the concept of
services; Table 3) should be partly explained by the high ecosystem services is a stakeholder-driven concept and
variance of our sample because of the large sample size thus requires the explicit inclusion of stakeholders (Menzel
(N = 37,083). and Teng 2009). The participation of policy makers of the
113 123
I. Palomo et al.
Table 3 Ecosystem service supply indicators obtained from the ecosystem services mapped during the workshop
Provisioning services Regulating services Cultural services SPHs Richness index Decline index
Provisioning services –
Regulating services 0.26*** –
Cultural services 0.20*** 0.43*** –
SPHs 0.66*** 0.67*** 0.77*** –
Richness index 0.63*** 0.65*** 0.79*** 0.98*** –
Decline index -0.14*** 0.00 -0.18*** -0.19*** -0.20*** –
Spearman rank correlation coefficients are shown. The asterisks represent significant values at * p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01 and *** p \ 0.001. SPHs
Service Provision Hotspot
protected area and researchers very closely related to it increase in non-natural land uses (urbanized areas and
might be one of the first steps for the implementation of the irrigated fields) at the expense of more natural land uses
ecosystem service framework on the management of the (shrublands, wetlands and grasslands). These changes have
protected area. In fact, as ecosystem service research fostered employment and the agriculture and beach tourism
should be ‘‘user-inspired’’ and ‘‘user-useful,’’ we need to sectors at the cost of simplifying ecosystem service deliv-
incorporate policy-makers’ evaluations of ecosystem ser- ery in the D-SES. Our results show that experts considered
vices into research in order to achieve its implementation agricultural lands and urbanized areas as the land uses with
in policy making (Cowling et al. 2008). Previous studies the lowest ecosystem service Richness index (Table 4).
have used expert evaluations of ecosystem services, which This is not surprising as in the literature there is ample
could be replaced in further works by data from monitoring evidence that the urbanization and transformation of the
or computer-based modeling (Burkhard et al. 2012; Ned- landscape toward intensified management practices have
kov and Burkhard 2012; Vihervaara et al. 2010). The undermined, in the long term, the delivery of a diverse flow
method presented allows evaluating several ecosystem of ecosystem services (Baral et al. 2013; De Fries et al.
services, something needed to inform correctly policy 2007; Gordon et al. 2010; Schneiders et al. 2012).
decisions (Balmford et al. 2002; Bennett et al. 2009; Turner Regarding the protection category, while land uses inside
et al. 2003) and to incorporate social values for ecosystem the protected area are able to supply many ecosystem ser-
services into management (Martı́n-López et al. 2012). vices but not food from agriculture (positive scores of F1;
The set of indicators presented in this paper allowed us to Fig. 5), the intensively managed lands outside the protected
understand the relationships between different land uses, area mostly deliver food (negative scores of F1; Fig. 5) at
protection category and ecosystem service delivery and to the cost of degrading the delivery of the remainder of the
extract concrete information for policy making. The fact that ecosystem services. These differences in ecosystem service
our results were aligned with results from previous studies provision due to the different management regime have been
that used different methodologies to assess ecosystem ser- also observed in other wetlands (Cohen-Shacham et al.
vices in the D-SES and in other areas seems to indicate the 2011) and confirm the trade-off between the marketed food
adequacy of the method for a first step cartography of eco- from agriculture service that is located outside the protected
system services, or for case studies facing data or time limi- area and the preservation of the remainder of the ecosystem
tations for a more complex assessment. Therefore, this services that are delivered inside the protected area. More-
method could be applied as an early warning method to assess over, it confirms the results obtained by previous studies that
ecosystem services in the different zones of a certain area and indicated the existence of two confronted Doñana lands: one
to suggest land use management proposals to maintain a dedicated to biodiversity conservation and the other focused
diverse flow of ecosystem services. In fact, the areas with on economic development (Martı́n-López et al. 2011; Ojeda
higher SPHs and ecosystem services richness values could be 1986). This common trade-off between provisioning ser-
managed as priority areas, while actions oriented to stop the vices related to food and other regulating and cultural ser-
decline of ecosystem services or restoration actions could be vices has been widely acknowledged previously at several
taken in those areas with a higher Decline index. scales with other methodologies (Carpenter et al. 2009; MA
2005; Rodrı́guez et al. 2006; Schirpke et al. 2012). Consis-
Uncovering relationships between land uses, tent with the results of our study, the protected areas of
conservation strategies and ecosystem services England have also been characterized by lower coverage of
cropland and higher values for carbon sequestration and
The intense land use transformations that have taken place biodiversity than in the surrounding territory, primarily due
around the Doñana protected area have resulted in an to land use differences (Eigenbrod et al. 2009).
123 114
Effect of the land sparing model in ecosystem service
2 296.32***
5 150.01***
6 379.98***
6 956.48***
6 855.19***
1 503.76***
The asterisks represent significant values at *** p \ 0.001. The mean scores (standard deviation in parentheses) of ecosystem service indicators per land uses are shown. Values marked with the
v2 delivery in the D-SES
The results of our study indicate that within the protected

area, the SPHs and richness of ecosystem services are
vegetation (beaches and dunes)
maintained, although the edges are more vulnerable to

ecosystem service decline than the core of the protected
Open spaces with little
area. The non-protected territory and the core of the study

area have similar values of the Decline index because
-0.25b,c (0.97)
0.26 (1.24)
0.61e (1.24)
0.34d (1.11)
0.34d (1.03)
0.16c,d (1.01)
participants did not consider the north and northeast part of
the D-SES to be currently declining (these part of the
d
D-SES were one of the first transformed into agricultural

lands; Fig. 4). This means that ecosystem service delivery
has not been perceived as declining by experts in very
-0.21c (0.84)
-0.01 (1.04)
0.24d (1.12)
0.05c (1.03)
0.09c (1.10)
0.15c,d (1.06)
artificial areas, like irrigated farming areas (mainly outside

Grasslands
the protected area), probably because in those areas many

c
ecosystem services have already disappeared. Despite our

results are not consistent enough to assess edge effects on
the Doñana protected area, other studies have indicated that
0.10d (1.08)
0.26 (1.20)
0.75f (1.17)
0.57e (1.14)
0.61e (1.12)
0.16c,d (1.07)
some edge effects exist. For example, hydrological regu-

Shrublands
lation and water purification services are highly vulnerable

d
to the landscape transformation outside the protected area

Table 4 Differences of ecosystem service indicators among land uses on the basis of the Kruskal–Wallis test
because water extractions for the Matalascañas urban

same letter are not significantly different based on Dunn’s test (p \ 0.05). SPHs Service Provision Hotspot
center have reduced the hydrological period of nearby

0.17d (1.13)
0.27 (1.18)
0.17d (1.11)
0.27d (1.11)
0.24d (1.04)
0.17d (1.03)
ponds (Serrano et al. 2008), and low-quality water con-

Forest
taining contaminants such as nitrates and sulfates coming

d
from the agricultural lands is entering in the National Park

(Olı́as et al. 2008; Serrano et al. 2006; Vioque-Fernández
0.06d (0.96)
-0.27 (0.67)
-0.38a (0.66)
-0.29b (0.71)
-0.28b (0.78)
-0.09b (1.01)
et al. 2009). The erosion control service has also been

agriculture
Irrigated
altered due to land use changes in the upper watershed,

b
increasing marsh siltation (Rodrı́guez Ramı́rez et al. 2005).

Road kills is one of the main mortality causes of the Iberian
lynx (Rodriguez and Delibes 2004) and edge effects reduce
-0.37b (0.77)
-0.36 (0.59)
-0.30b (0.77)
-0.46a (0.74)
-0.47a (0.81)
-0.29a (0.72)
Non-irrigated
the density of the population of the Eurasian badger inside

agriculture
Doñana National Park (Revilla et al. 2001). The Az-

a
nalcóllar dam spill (Grimmalt et al. 1999) acts as a

reminder that landscape management practices at the
Wetlands and
inland waters
watershed level are needed to protect the biodiversity of

0.24e (1.04)
0.55 (1.19)
0.54e (1.09)
0.61e (1.01)
0.62e (0.98)
0.13c (1.06)
downstream protected areas (De Fries et al. 2007, 2010)

and to ensure a diverse flow of ecosystem services.
e
As protected area surfaces may increase, policy makers

will have to decide between different landscape configu-
industrial areas
-0.50a (0.66)
-0.46 (0.38)
-0.19c (0.83)
-0.49a (0.64)
-0.49a (0.70)
0.42e (1.27)
rations (McDonald and Boucher 2011). Landscape man-

Urban and
agement faces the choice of land sparing or wildlife-

a
friendly farming (Fischer et al. 2008). In land sparing, strict

conservation areas are surrounded by intensive agricultural
landscapes, whereas in wildlife-friendly farming, multi-
Provisioning services
functional landscapes maintain several regulating and

Regulating services
Cultural services
cultural services in addition to food production (Green

Richness index
Decline index
et al. 2005; Bugalho et al. 2011) and their landscapes are

Variables
preferred in esthetic evaluations partly because they deliver

a wide range of ecosystem services (Garcı́a-Llorente et al.
SPHs
2012). In the D-SES, land management has followed the
115 123
I. Palomo et al.
Table 5 Distribution of ecosystem service indicators among the different conservation management categories on the basis of the Kruskal–
Wallis test
Variables Non-protected National Park Natural Park v2
Provisioning services -0.13a (0.92) 0.30b (1.09) 0.32b (1.15) 1,401.62***

a b b
Regulating services -0.32 (0.63) 0.73 (1.25) 0.79 (1.31) 9,151.81***
Cultural services -0.37a (0.66) 0.96c (1.08) 0.83b (1.14) 13,883.98***
SPHs -0.38a (0.68) 0.94c (1.02) 0.90b (1.08) 12,788.22***
a c
Richness index -0.38 (0.74) 0.93 (0.94) 0.89b (0.96) 12,394.12***
Decline index -0.04a (0.99) 0.12c (0.97) 0.09b (1.06) 299.21***
The asterisks represent significant values at *** p \ 0.001. The mean scores (standard deviation in parentheses) per ecosystem services index are
shown. Values marked with the same letter are not significantly different based on Dunn’s test (p \ 0.05). SPHs Service Provision Hotspot
Table 6 Factor loadings

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
derived from the principal
component analysis (PCA), the Food from agriculture -0.380 -0.026 0.503 0.717
eigenvalues and the variance
explained of the first four Food from cattle 0.425 -0.325 0.311 0.113
factors Available water 0.686 -0.353 0.062 0.129
Habitat for species 0.670 -0.283 0.010 0.083
Scientific knowledge 0.662 -0.247 -0.021 -0.055
Environmental education 0.384 0.640 0.001 0.278
Nature tourism 0.562 0.438 -0.128 0.108
Esthetic values 0.610 0.267 -0.140 0.106
Spiritual values 0.235 0.293 0.772 -0.489
Supplementary variables (land uses)
Urban and industrial areas -0.059 0.069 -0.033 -0.039
Wetland and inland waters 0.319 -0.123 -0.110 -0.007
Non-irrigated agriculture -0.176 0.065 -0.063 -0.130
Irrigated agriculture -0.298 -0.010 0.110 0.156
Forests 0.139 -0.016 0.025 0.032
Shrublands 0.145 -0.012 0.023 -0.040
Grasslands 0.019 0.077 0.057 -0.075
Open spaces without vegetation 0.054 0.067 -0.023 -0.006
Supplementary variables
(conservation strategy)
National park 0.443 -0.096 -0.019 -0.054
Natural park 0.425 0.005 -0.119 0.027
Non-protected -0.675 0.071 0.107 0.021
Eigenvalue 2.573 1.130 0.986 0.892
Percentage variance explained 28.589 12.559 10.956 9.910
Cumulative % variance explained 28.589 41.149 52.104 62.014
land sparing strategy, which besides the employment and adequate to not compromise the conservation goals of the
economic incentives, this strategy faces some edge effects. protected area in the long term. As this would probably
Although the Natural Park can act as a buffer for the mean reducing agriculture yields, palliative measures
National Park, more studies are needed to evaluate the would be needed. Agro-environmental incentives could
adequacy of the land sparing model in the D-SES as most foster social equity on the basis of the maintenance of a
of the Doñana protected area problems are originated in its diverse flow of ecosystem services enjoyed by multiple
surroundings (Palomo et al. in press). For that reason, in stakeholders. The evolving framework of agroecosystems
protected areas located downstream, a wildlife-friendly design or the ecoagriculture paradigm in which biodiversity
farming scheme that promotes multifunctional landscapes conservation is a specific aim of multifunctional landscapes
in the upstream surrounding territory might be more might play an important role in the development of these
123 116
Fig. 5 Biplot of the principal component analysis (PCA) illustrating associated mainly with wetland, shrublands and forest where avail-
the relationships between specific ecosystem services (blue circles), able water, scientific knowledge, habitat from species and food from
land uses (red triangles) and conservation management strategies cattle are provided. The Natural Park is associated with grasslands
(green diamonds). As seen, the non-protected territory is associated and open spaces where environmental education, nature tourism,
with urbanized areas and agricultural lands, delivering mainly one esthetic values and spiritual values are provided
ecosystem service (food from agriculture). The National Park is
sustainable agricultural lands (Lovell et al. 2010; Scherr and matrix around the protected area could affect the ecosystem
McNeely 2008). Finally, multifunctional landscapes could be service delivery within the protected area in the long term. To
combined with schemes of multitenure reserves or land prevent this, we recommend planning measures to foster a
stewardships in order to promote community engagement in non-intensive agricultural matrix that could also be applied to
conservation. other protected areas located downstream.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank all of the participants

in the workshops and Teresa Agudo from the Doñana Protected Area
Conclusions for helping with the organization of the workshop. Thanks are also
due to Marina Garcı́a Llorente, and Cesar López Santiago from the
We have used land use data and social values for ecosystem Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory and to Javier Moreno and Ja-
services to map several ecosystem service indicators. The vier Escalera from Pablo Olavide University for assisting in the
preparation and development of the workshop. Thanks are also due to
method proposed serves as an early warning system to assess two anonymous reviewers of the previous version of the manuscript.
spatial ecosystem services supply and to propose land use The funding for this study was provided by the Ministry of Agri-
management recommendations that maintain a diverse flow culture, Food and Environment of Spain (018/2009), the Spanish
of ecosystem services. Our approach was tested in the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [project CGL2011-30266
and Subprogram Inncorpora-Torres Quevedo 2011)] and the Spanish
Doñana protected area, one of the most important sand dunes Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (the National Programme
and wetlands in Europe and one of the Spanish National for Training Human Resources).
Parks with biggest land use transformations in its surround-
ings. Social values for ecosystem services seem to match
with previous evaluations of ecosystem services in the References
D-SES demonstrating the conservation versus development
landscape planning model. Land sparing, the current policy Bai Y, Zhuang C, Ouyang Z, Zheng H, Jiang B (2011) Spatial
in the D-SES, has created a contrasting landscape in terms of characteristics between biodiversity and ecosystem services in a
human-dominated watershed. Ecol Complex 8:177–183
ecosystem service delivery. Regulating and cultural services Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green RE,
area maintained within the protected area and provisioning Jenkins M et al (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild
services are promoted outside it. However, the transformed nature. Science 297:950–953
117 123
I. Palomo et al.
Baral H, Keenan RJ, Fox JC, Stork NE, Kasel S (2013) Spatial Garcı́a-Llorente M, Martı́n-López B, Dı́az S, Montes C (2011) Can
assessment of ecosystem goods and services in complex ecosystem properties be fully translated into service values? An
production landscapes: a case study from south-eastern Austra- economic valuation of aquatic plant services. Ecol Appl
lia. Ecol Complex 13:35–45 21:3083–3103
Bennett EM, Paterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding Garcı́a-Llorente M, Martı́n-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, López-San-
relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett tiago CA, Aguilera PA, Montes C (2012) The role of multi-
12:1–11 functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural land-
Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH (2010) scapes: an ecosystem service approach. Environ Sci Policy
Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social 19–20:136–146
values: where, what, and how? Landsc Urban Plan 97(2):111–122 Gimmi U, Schmidt SL, Hawbaker TJ, Alcántara C, Gafvert U,
Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, King D (2011) Comparing Radeloff VC (2011) Increasing development in the surroundings
spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to of U.S. National Park Service holdings jeopardizes park
identify effective conservation strategies. Conserv Biol effectiveness. J Environ Manage 92(1):229–239
25(1):172–181 Goldstein JH, Calderone G, Duarte TK, Ennaanay D, Hannahs N,
Bugalho MN, Caldeira MC, Pereira JS, Aronson J, Pausas JG (2011) Mendoza G, Polasky S, Wolny S, Daily GC (2012) Integrating
Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land use decisions. Proc Natl
biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ Acad Sci 109(19):7565–7570
9:278–286 Gordon LJ, Finlayson CM, Falkenmark M (2010) Managing water in
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services.
service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Ind 21:17–29 Agric Water Manage Compr Assess Water Manage Agric
Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, Defries RS, Dı́az 97(4):512–519
S, Dietz T et al (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005)
beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555
Sci USA 106(5):1305–1312 Grimmalt JO, Ferrer M, McPherson E (1999) The mine tailing
Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the accident in Aznalcollar. Sci Total Environ 242(1):3–11
extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Kienast F (2012) Indicators of
meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping mar-
Biol Sci 360(1454):443–455 ginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol Ind 21:39–53
Cohen-Shacham E, Dayan T, Feitelson E, de Groot RS (2011) Hansen AJ, de Fries R (2007) Ecological mechanisms linking
Ecosystem service trade-offs in wetland management: drainage protected areas. Ecol Appl 17(4):974–988
and rehabilitation of the Hula. Israel Hydrol Sci J 56:1582–1601 Joppa LN, Loarie SR, Pimm SL (2008) On the protection of protected
Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, areas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(18):6673–6678
Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhem-Rechman A (2008) An operational Kaiser HF (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor
model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementa- analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 20:141–151
tion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(28):9483–9948 Klain SC, Chan KMA (2012) Navigating coastal values: participatory
Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol Econ
L, Ricketts TH et al (2009) Ecosystem services in decision 82:104–113
making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):21–28 Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion
De Fries R, Hansen A, Turner BL, Reid R, Liu J (2007) Land use variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621
change around protected areas: management to balance human Layke C (2009) Measuring nature’s benefits: a preliminary roadmap
needs and ecological function. Ecol Appl 17(4):1031–1038 for improving ecosystem service indicators. WRI Working
De Fries R, Karanth KK, Pareeth S (2010) Interactions between Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington DC
protected areas and their surroundings in human-dominated Layke C, Mapendembe A, Brown C, Walpole M, Winn J (2012)
tropical landscapes. Biol Conserv 143(12):2870–2880 Indicators from the global and sub-global millennium ecosys-
Dunn OJ (1961) Multiple comparisons among means. J Am Stat tem assessments: an analysis and next steps. Ecol Ind 17:
Assoc 56:52–64 77–87
Eigenbrod F, Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Heinemeyer A, Jackson Lovell ST, DeSantis S, Nathan CA, Olson MB, Ernesto Méndez V,
SF, Parnell M, Thomas CD et al (2009) Ecosystem service Kominami HC, Erickson DL, Morris KS, Morris WB (2010)
benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human- Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in
dominated region. Proc R Soc 276(1669):2903–2911 Vermont: an evolving framework to evaluate the design of
Eigenbrod F, Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Heinemeyer A, Gillings agroecosystems. Agric Syst 103:327–341
S, Roy DB, Thomas CD et al (2010) Representation of MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and
ecosystem services by tiered conservation strategies. Conserv human well-being. Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC
Lett 3(3):184–191 Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Dunbar MB, Alkemade R (2012)
Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbaro F, Khamis M (2012) Community Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply,
stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—mapping biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol
indicators for landscape services. Ecol Ind 18:421–433 Conserv 155:1–12
Fernández-Delgado C (2005) Conservation management of a Euro- Martı́n-López B, Garcı́a-Llorente M, Palomo I, Montes C (2011)
pean natural area: Doñana National Park, Spain. In: Groom MJ The conservation against development paradigm in protected
et al (eds) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associ- areas: valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana social–
ates, Massachusetts, pp 458–467 ecological system (southwestern Spain). Ecol Econ 70(8):1481–
Fischer J, Brosi B, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Goldman R, Goldstein J, 1491
Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Martı́n-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcı́a-Llorente M, Palomo I,
Ranganathan J, Tallis H (2008) Should agricultural policies Casado-arzuaga I, Garcı́a del Amo D et al (2012) Uncovering
encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Front Ecol ecosystem services bundles through social preferences: experi-
Environ 6:380–385 mental evidence from Spain. PLoS ONE 7(6):e38970
123 118
McDonald RI, Boucher TM (2011) Global development and the finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity hotspot.
future of the protected area strategy. Biol Conserv 144(1): Ecol Soc 14(1):38
383–392 Rodriguez A, Delibes M (2004) Patterns and causes of non-natural
McNeely JA (1994) Protected areas for the 21st century: working to mortality in the Iberian lynx during a 40-year period of range
provide benefits to society. Biodivers Conserv 3:390–405 contraction. Biol Conserv 118:151–161
Menzel S, Teng J (2009) Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven Rodrı́guez Ramı́rez A, Yañez Camacho C, Gascó C, Clemente Salas
concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 24(3):907–909 L, Antón MP (2005) Colmatación natural y antrópica de las
Montes C, Borja JA, Bravo MA, Moreira JM (1998) Reconocimiento marismas del Parque Nacional de Doñana: implicaciones para su
biofı́sico de espacios naturales protegidos. Una aproximación manejo y conservación. Cuaternario y Geomorfologı́a 19:37–48
ecosistémica, Junta de Andalucı́a, Sevilla, Doñana Rodrı́guez JP, Beard TD, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork SJ, Agard
Moran PA (1950) Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. J, Dobson AP, Peterson GD (2006) Trade-offs across space,
Biometrika 37:17–33 time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11(1):28
Myers N (1972) National Parks in Savannah Africa. Ecological Ruiz-Frau A, Edwards-Jones G, Kiaser MJ (2011) Mapping stake-
requirements of parks must be balanced against socioeconomic holder values for coastal zone management. Mar Ecol Prog Ser
constraints in their environs. Science 178(4067):1255–1263 434:239–249
Nedkov S, Burkhard B (2012) Flood regulating ecosystem services— Scherr SJ, McNeely JA (2008) Biodiversity conservation and
mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘‘ecoag-
Bulgaria. Ecol Ind 21:67–79 riculture’’ landscapes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H et al (2009) 363:477–494
Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conserva- Schirpke U, Leitinger G, Tasser E, Schermer M, Steinbacher M,
tion, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Tappeiner U (2012) Multiple ecosystem services of a changing
Front Ecol Environ 7(1):4–11 Alpine landscape: past, present and future. Int J Biodiv Sci
Ojeda JF (1986) Protection ou development. La creation et l0 abus d0 un Ecosyst Serv Manage 9(2):123–135
faux dilemme relatif au parc national de Doñana et de sa region. Schneiders A, Van Daele T, Van Reeth W, Van Landuyt W (2012)
La nature et le rural. Association des ruralistes Francais. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: complementary approaches
Colloque National for ecosystem management? Ecol Ind 21:123–133
Olı́as M, González F, Cerón J, Bolı́var J, González-Labajo J, Garcı́a- Seiferling IS, Proulx R, Peres-Neto PR, Fahrig L, Messier C (2011)
López S (2008) Water quality and distribution of trace elements Measuring protected-area isolation and correlations of isolation
in the Doñana aquifer (SW Spain). Environ Geol 55:1555–1568 with land use intensity and protection status. Conserv Biol
Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de Groot RS (2012) 26:610–618
Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of Serrano L, Reina M, Martı́n G, Reyes I, Arechederra A, León D, Toja
land management on ecosystem services. Ecol Ind 21:110–122 J (2006) The aquatic systems of Doñana (SW Spain): watersheds
Palomo I, Martı́n-López B, López-Santiago C, Montes C (2011) and frontiers. Limnetica 25(1–2):11–32
Participatory scenario planning for protected areas management Serrano L, Esquivias-Segura MP, Zunzunegui M (2008) Long-term
under the ecosystem services framework: the Doñana social- hydrological changes over a seventeen-year period in temporary
ecological system in Southwestern Spain. Ecol Soc 16(1):23 ponds of the Doñana N. P. (SW Spain). Limnetica 27(1):65–78
Palomo I, Martı́n-López B, Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Montes C Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for
(in press) National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611
mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv, corrected proof, Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ (2011) A GIS application
doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001 for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of
Parks SA, Harcourt AH (2002) Reserve size, local human density, and ecosystem services. Appl Geogr 31(2):748–760
mammalian extinctions in U.S. protected areas. Conserv Biol Tianhong L, Wenkai L, Zhenghan Q (2010) Variations in ecosystem
16(3):800–808 service value in response to land use changes in Shenzhen. Ecol
Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, Econ 69(7):1427–1435
mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at com- Turner RK, Paavola J, Farber S, Cooper P, Jessamy V, Rosendo S,
munity level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129 Georgiou S (2003) Valuing nature: lessons learnt and future
Radeloff VC, Stewart SI, Hawbaker TJ, Gimmi U, Pidgeon AM, research directions. Ecol Econ 46:493–510
Flather CH, Hammer RB et al (2010) Housing growth in and Van Riper CJ, Kyle GT, Sutton SG, Barnes M, Sherrouse BC (2012)
near United States protected areas limits their conservation Mapping outdoor recreationists’ perceived social values for
value. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(2):940–945 ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park,
Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Australia. Appl Geogr 35(1–2):164–173
Grandgirard A, Kalivas T (2009) Mapping community values for Vihervaara P, Kumpula T, Tanskanen A, Burkhard B (2010)
natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68(5): Ecosystem services—a tool for sustainable management of
1301–1315 human–environment systems. Case study Finnish Forest Lap-
Revilla E, Palomares F, Delibes M (2001) Edge-core effects and the land. Ecol Complex 7(3):410–420
effectiveness of traditional reserves in conservation: Eurasian Vioque-Fernández A, Alves de Almeida E, López-Barea J (2009)
badgers in Doñana National Park. Conserv Biol 15(1):148–158 Assessment of Doñana national park contamination in Procamb-
Reyers B, Cowling RM, Egoh BN, Maitre DCL, Vlok JHJ (2009) arus clarkii: integration of conventional biomarkers and proteo-
Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: mic approaches. Sci Total Environ 407:1784–1797
119 123
Capítulo 4.5
Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem

services: A case study in the Doñana marshes in
southwestern Spain.
P. Zorrilla-Miras1,2 , I. Palomo1 ,E. Gómez-Baggethun3,1 , B. Martín-López1, P.L.

Lomas3,1 , and C. Montes1
1 Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Faculty of Sciences. Autónoma

University of Madrid. C/ Darwin, nº 2. 28049 Cantoblanco (Madrid), Spain.
2 Terrativa S. Coop. Mad. C/ Arganda, nº 24. 28005 Madrid, Spain.
3 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Faculty of Sciences, Universitat Autònoma

de Barcelona, Building C5, 08193 Bellaterra–Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain.
En tercera revisión en Landscape and Urban Planning.

Results
4.5. Efectos de los cambios de usos del suelo sobre los servicios de los
humedales: Aplicación en las marismas de Doñana
Resumen Los cambios de usos del suelo son un impulsor de cambio clave en la pérdida de
servicios de los ecosistemas. En este trabajo analizamos los cambios en los servicios de los
ecosistemas atribuibles a cambios en los usos del suelo ocurridos durante el periodo 1918-2006
en el estuario y la marisma de Doñana. Los resultados obtenidos se han contrastado con las
percepciones sobre servicios de los ecosistemas recopiladas mediante un panel de expertos y
entrevistas semi-estructuradas y encuestas a población local y visitante. Los resultados muestran
que en el 2006: (1) el 70,5% de usos del suelo naturales o semi-naturales han sido sustituidos por
agricultura intensiva u otros usos mono-funcionales, disminuyendo el suministro de servicios de
regulación, y (2) el 31% del área ocupada por el humedal ha sido declarada como área protegida,
afectando a importantes servicios de abastecimiento y culturales. Estos resultados muestran que
los cambios de usos del suelo han llevado a la existencia de una matriz con importantes trade-offs
entre servicios, en los que los servicios de abastecimiento ligados a la agricultura de exportación
se han visto favorecidos, a costa de otros servicios como la regulación hídrica, el control de
inundaciones, los hábitats para especies y otros servicios culturales y de abastecimiento
disfrutados principalmente por la población local.
La contribución del autor de la presente Tesis a este capítulo de resultados ha consistido en la

colaboración en los aspectos cartrográficos y análisis de usos del suelo y la realización de los
cuestionarios y entrevistas semi-estructuradas sobre percepción de servicios, además de
colaborar en la redacción del artículo.
The contribution of the autor of the Thesis to this chapter has been working on geographical
analysis of land use change, making the questionnaries and semi-structured interviews about
perceptions on ecosystem services and collaborating in writing the article.
122
Results
4.5. Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: A case

study in the Doñana marshes in southwestern Spain
Abstract Land-use change is a major driver behind the loss of ecosystem services. We
assessed changes in ecosystem services from land-use conversions during the period 1918–2006
in the Doñana marshland and estuary in southwestern Spain, one of the largest European
wetlands. We contrasted those results with social perceptions of ecosystem services trends using
two techniques (expert judgment by a multidisciplinary scientific panel and semi-structured
interviews of locals and visitors). The results show that by 2006, i) 70.5% of the natural or semi-
natural land covers had been converted to intensive agriculture and other mono-functional uses,
hampering the performance of regulating services; and ii) 31% of the wetland area had been
strictly protected, affecting important cultural and provisioning services. Our results show that
land-use changes have led to a polarized territorial matrix exhibiting fundamental trade-offs in
ecosystem service supply, where provisioning services produced for exportation and sale in the
market, such as cash crops and fiber, have been enhanced at the expense of regulating services,
such as hydrological regulation, flood buffering, and habitats for species and specific cultural and
provisioning services used traditionally by the locals.
Keywords: Landscape planning, ecosystem service trade-offs, protected area, scale of

beneficiaries, stakeholders, conservation vs. development conflict.
Highlights
70.5% of the original Doñana natural marshland was converted during the 20th century
Land-use intensification has been focused on the non-protected areas
Land-use intensification involves promotion of high-economic-value provisioning services
Land-use change implies a deterioration of regulating and locally used provisioning and cultural
services
123
Results
4.5.1. Introduction (García-Llorente et al., 2012; Martín-López

et al., 2012).
Despite wetlands being known to be
critical to the delivery of ecosystem services, The aim of this study was to assess the
they are among the ecosystems suffering the effects of land-use change on ecosystem
greatest transformations worldwide (MA, services delivered by wetlands. As a case
2005a). During the 20th century, land-use study, we assessed land-use changes in the
change was a main driver behind the loss of Doñana marshes and estuary (in the
wetlands and associated ecosystem services southwestern Spain) during the period
(DeFries et al., 2004; Foley et al., 2005; 1918–2006 and their impacts on ecosystem
Gagne and Fahrig, 2007; MA, 2005a). The service supply. Our specific objectives were
intensification of agriculture in fertile to (1) identify the primary drivers and
regions and the abandonment of farming in stages of land-use change, (2) provide
less favorable areas are affecting natural and quantitative measures of land-use changes
cultivated ecosystems all over the world, for each of these stages, and (3) assess the
especially in industrialized countries (e.g., effects of land-use change on ecosystem
Kristensen, 1999; van Doorn and Bakker, service delivery.
2007). In Spain, land-use change for
Our analysis was conducted using a
intensive agriculture and urbanization is a
combination of biophysical and social
main driver behind biodiversity loss and has
science methodologies. Our research
led to the conversion of 60% of the original
contributes to advancement of the
wetland area over the last five decades.
understanding of how wetland conversion
According to the Spanish subglobal
affects human well-being through changes in
ecosystem assessment, 62% of the
ecosystem service supply. By quantifying
ecosystem services delivered by wetlands
social, ecological, and economic impacts of
have declined over the last fifty years,
wetland conversion that are not always
affecting regulating services in particular
accounted for in traditional territorial
(EME, 2011). The decline in ecosystem
planning, our research can contribute to
services results not only from land-use
preventing further wetland transformations
intensification but also from abandonment
involving loss of critical ecosystem services
(Braat and Ten Brick, 2008; Schneiders et al.,
in other areas.
2012). This process may be especially
important in the context of Mediterranean
ecosystems and cultural landscapes
(Bugalho et al., 2011), where traditional
management coupled with ecosystem
dynamics has historically contributed to
diversifying ecosystem service supply
124
4.5.2. Study Area use transformations (González-Arteaga,

1993), and (3) they are acknowledged as
4.5.2.1. Site description being important in delivering critical
ecosystem services (Martín-López et al.,
Doñana is located at the mouth of the
2011).
Guadalquivir River on the southwestern
coast of Spain. Montes et al. (1998) defined Part of the Greater Fluvial–Littoral
the Greater Fluvial–Littoral Ecosystem of Ecosystem of Doñana was declared a
Doñana (2207 km2) as an ecological unit National Park (IUCN Category II) in 1969,
whose structure and functions are shaped by and its surroundings were declared a
the interactions of the Guadalquivir River
Natural Park (IUCN Category V), intended as
and the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 4.5.1). The a buffer zone, in 1989. Moreover, parts of
Greater Fluvial–Littoral Ecosystem of Doñana were declared a Biosphere Reserve
Doñana consists of four main ecosystem in 1980, a Ramsar Site in 1982, and a
units at the eco-district scale: marshes UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1995. In
(72%), sand dunes (23%), coastal systems 1999, the National and Natural Parks were
(2%), and estuary (3%). Our analysis of unified as the “Doñana Natural Protected
land-use change includes two Doñana Area.” Fifteen municipalities currently sit on
wetland ecosystems: marshes and the what was once the original Doñana marsh.
estuary, which together cover 1660 km2. We Altogether, these territories host a total
focused our research on the Doñana marshes population of 632,000 inhabitants (127
and estuary because (1) they constitute one inhab/km2). The main economic activities
of the largest and most emblematic wetlands are agriculture and tourism.
in Europe (García Novo and Marín Cabrera,
2006), (2) they are the Doñana ecosystems
that have suffered the most intensive land-
125
Results
Figure 4.5.1. Map of Doñana’s Fluvial–Littoral Great Ecosystem, protected areas and its location in
the Mediterranean Basin. The marshes ecodistrict shown in the map is a reconstruction of its
original extent
history of co-evolution between humans and

4.5.2.2. Historical background on land-use nature produced cultural landscapes where
change multifunctional ecosystems deliver a diverse
For at least two millennia, the primary range of services to society (see Gómez-
land use in the marshes and the estuary was Baggethun et al. 2010; García-Llorente et al.,
free-range livestock breeding (Butzer, 1988), 2011; Martín-López et al., 2007).
but the Doñana wetlands were subject to
During the 18th and 19th centuries, several
many other uses by the locals, including
attempts were made to drain the marshes
hunting, snail harvesting, fishing, and grass
(González-Arteaga, 1993). Within a
cropping for soap and glass making
generalized context of policies to reclaim
(González-Arteaga, 1993). The outstanding
wetlands across Europe, public bodies
ecological values of the Doñana wetlands
promoted conversion of marshes in Doñana
persisted throughout a long history of
for purposes of sanitation (e.g., to fight
human utilization of its ecosystems
malaria) and risk reduction (e.g., flood
(Menanteau, 1984; Ojeda, 1987). This long
126
control), while private companies promoted papers and books) and “gray literature,”
further conversion plans in search of including historical documents, ancient
economic profit from agriculture (Ojeda, maps, technical and management reports,
1987). These interventions failed due to and documents on the history of land use,
insufficient capital investment and lack of territorial planning, and ecosystem change
appropriate technology and infrastructure in the area. To differentiate the main stages,
(González-Arteaga, 1993). Consequently, the we relied on four main criteria: (1) the
attempted engineering works were purposes of the changes (i.e., agricultural
destroyed by periodic flooding of the marsh development, nature conservation, or
(Ojeda and Moral, 2004). The only stable ecosystem restoration), (2) the magnitudes
transformation before the 20th century of the transformations, (3) the stakeholders
consisted of a set of engineering works that promoting the transformations (i.e., private
shortened the Guadalquivir River by 40 km companies or public entities), and (4) other
for navigation purposes (Menanteau and underlying drivers of change, such as socio-
Vanney, 1985). Apart from these works, the economic and technological changes (MA,
other durable transformations in the Doñana 2005b).
marsh began only in the 20th century.
4.5.3.2. Quantitative analysis of land-use
change
4.5.3. Methods A spatially explicit temporal land-use

database was developed from historical
4.5.3.1. Characterization of drivers of change maps (see Appendix A), aerial photographs,
satellite images, and field work. As in
Our research covers the period 1918–
previous published research (Lambin et al.,
2006. Following methodological guidelines
2001), land use is defined here as the way
proposed by Ruiz and Domon (2009), we
people use the land rather than to the
identified and characterized the main factors
physical state of the surface of the earth or
driving land-use change from an historical
land cover. Land-use categories were
analysis of the primary socio-economic and
classified and assessed at a 1:5,000 scale for
political changes that have affected the
five different years, based on various sources
Doñana marshes and estuary. The main
of information: 1918 (historical cartography
stages in the recent history of the Doñana
and bibliography), 1955 (aerial photography
marshes were reconstructed from an in-
of 1956), 1978 (Landsat image and aerial
depth literature review covering more than
photography of 1977), 1998 (aerial
70 publications dealing specifically with the
photography of 1998, 1995 Landsat image,
Doñana marshes and estuary (see Appendix
and the Andalusia Land-Use Study, years
A). The sources of information included
1995 and 1999), and 2006 (aerial
scientific literature (i.e., peer-reviewed
photography of 2002, 2003 Landsat image,
127
Results
the Andalusia Land-Use Study of 2001, the type and the land-use dynamic index (%
Spanish National Agricultural Parcel GIS change per year) (Hao et al., 2012) and land-
(SIGPAC), and field work in 2006). The field use dynamic degree (Jiyuan et al., 2010),
work conducted for the development of the using Eq. (1) and Eq. (2):
2006 land-use map consisted of 15 days of
Sb  Sa 1
field surveys conducted between February K * *100% (Eq. 1)
Sa t
and May of that year. In the field surveys, we
verified the land-use changes relative to the where K refers to the dynamic index of a
map for 2003, and we updated all polygons given land-use category, S is the area (in ha)
that had experienced changes in the for a certain land-use category, ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’
previous three years to produce the map for are the initial and final areas, respectively,
2006. and ‘‘t’’ is the study period. If ‘‘t’’ is one year,
then K is the annual rate of change of a
In total, we identified 12 land-use types
certain land-use category.
that were clustered into three main
categories: natural, semi-natural and n  1
S   S i  j / S i  * *100% (Eq. 2)
restored ecosystems, cultivated systems, and  ij  t
artificial areas (Table 4.5.1). Land-use
change analysis was assessed by comparing where Si is the area of land-use type i at
the areas occupied by each land use in each the beginning of the period, ΔSi–j is the total
period using the ArcGIS software. For each area of land type i converted into other land-
study period (1918–1954, 1955–1977, use types, t is the study period, and S is the
1978–1997, and 1998–2006), we calculated land-use dynamic degree in the period of t.
the total area lost or gained by each land-use
128
Table 4.5.1. Land-use categories and associated ecosystem services. References: (a) Burkhard et al.
2009 and 2012; (b) Hao et al. (2012); (c) Scolozzi et al. 2012; (d) Vihervaara et al. 2010; (e) Troy et
al. 2006; (f) Zhao et al. 2004; (g) Pinto et al. 2010
Land-use category Class description Main ecosystem service
associated
P (Provisioning), R
(Regulating), C (Cultural)
Artificial areas Includes city centers, large infrastructures, and
other types of large construction.
Aquacultur Areas of the marshes that had been P:Food from fish
e ponds transformed to control water levels for fish or (aquaculture) (f)
seafood breeding.
Drained Land that is being drained or land that has been P: Livestock (a, d)
marshes already drained where cultivation has been R: Soil fertility (a, b, d, e),
abandoned. Pollination (d)
Greenhous These have existed since the 1970s in small P: Food from agriculture (a,
es plots between the irrigated fields. Although d)
greenhouses account for a small percentage of
area, this category is important because
regulating and cultural services were affected
by policies aimed at increasing provisioning
services. Additionally, they require great
amounts of fossil fuel energy.
Irrigated Common crops include corn, potatoes, cotton, P:Food from agriculture (a, b)
Cultivated fields pepper, and beans.
systems Rain-fed Crop fields without irrigation. This category P: Food from agriculture (a,
fields underwent an important change between 1918 b), Livestock (a, d)
and 2006: at the beginning of the period, its R: Pollination (d)
cultivation was labor-intensive, whereas at the
end, it was very intensive in consumption of
fossil fuel exosomatic energy. Presently, its
cultivation is very dependent on subsidies from
the European Common Agriculture Policy, and
some fields are being abandoned.
Rice fields Areas of the marshes with drainage and P:Food from agriculture (a, b)
irrigation mechanisms for water level control
and rice cultivation.
Salines Until the middle of the 20th century (ref. point P: Salt production (g)
1955), salt exploitation was conducted by
traditional methods. More recently, it has
become an industrial process, and now, tourist
routes visit the facilities.
Lucios Shallow-water areas of the marshes that P: Freshwater consumption
maintain water for longer periods and that have (b, c, d, e), Harvesting (d),
higher salinity. Medicinal plants (d)
Natural,
Non- Parts of the marshes that have never been R: Air quality (b, c, d), Climate
semi-
modified drained, canalized or cultivated. regulation (b, c, d), Flood
natural
marshes buffering (a, c, d, e), Habitat
and
Restored Areas that have been restored by different for species (b, c, d),
restored
marshes projects. The restoration has consisted of filling Hydrological regulation (c, e),
ecosystem
the canals that drain the marshes with soil, Pollination (d), Soil fertility
s
elimination of crops, and use of former crop (b, d), Water depuration (b, c,
fields as pastures for livestock. e),
C:Aesthetic value (a, b, c, d),
Local ecological knowledge
129
Results
(b, d), Local identity (d),

Nature tourism and
recreation (a, b, c, d, e),
River, Bed of the Guadalquivir River and its branches. P:Food from fish (fishing) (a,
branches The latter have been separated from the main d), Freshwater consumption
and river bed by different transformation events. This (a, b, c, d, e), Harvesting (a)
beaches category also includes meadows in the banks of R: Flood buffering (a, d),
the Guadalquivir River. Habitat for species (a, b, d, e),
Hydrological regulation (c, e),
Soil fertility (c, e), Water
depuration (a, b, c),
C:Aesthetic value (a, b, c, d),
Local ecological knowledge
(b, d), Local identity (d),
Nature tourism and
recreation (a, b, c, d, e)
Other land Various land uses of very small extents. -
uses
et al., 2011; Martín-López et al., 2011;

4.5.3.3. Effects of land-use change on Palomo et al., 2011).
ecosystem service delivery
First, we identified the land-use categories
Previous studies have acknowledged the
delivering the main ecosystem services (as
challenges of assessing the effects of land-
done before by Burkhard et al. 2012; Hao et
use change on ecosystem services (van
al. 2012; Troy et al. 2006; and Vihervaara et
Oudenhoven et al., 2012) and taking them
al. 2010). Specifically, we gathered and
into consideration in landscape planning (de
synthesized information on land-use
Groot et al., 2010). Our assessment of the
categories as providers of specific ecosystem
effects of land-use change in ecosystem
service types through a systematic literature
service delivery was based on a literature
review in the Web of Science
review conducted to define which ecosystem
(https://apps.webofknowledge.com).
services are associated with different land
Keywords used in the search included the
uses and on the perceptions of beneficiaries.
following: "marsh*" OR "wetland" AND
Ecosystem services are defined here as
"ecosystem servic*" OR "environmental
direct and indirect contributions from
servic*" OR "benefit" AND "land use" OR
ecosystems to human well-being (TEEB,
"land cover". Instead of "marsh*" OR
2010) and are usually classified into the
"wetland", we also searched for other
broader categories of regulating,
specific land-uses such as "aquaculture" or
provisioning, and cultural services. The
"saline", when the first search did not
ecosystem services evaluated were selected
provide results regarding these specific land
from classifications identified in previous
uses. We found 144 articles, from among
research about the area (e.g., García-Llorente
which we selected those that allowed us to
130
identify the main ecosystem service al., 2007) we assessed perceptions of

provided by each land-use category. The ecosystem services trends using two
articles selected provide information on the techniques: (1) expert judgment by a
capacity of each land cover types to provide multidisciplinary scientific panel, and (2)
each ecosystem service. We assumed that a semi-structured interviews of locals and
given land use delivers a specific ecosystem visitors, including face-to-face
service when that association had been administration of questionnaires.
identified in at least one previous
The expert panel comprised ten
publication. To filter the main ecosystem
researchers with at least eight years of
services supplied by land use, we only
research experience in the area. Each
considered ecosystem services with score
member of the panel assessed trends in
above the average value in the ranking given
ecosystem services for the period 1955–
by the authors of each article. To enhance
2006 in the marshes and in the estuary. A
the stringency of our criteria and improve
Likert scale ranging from 0 to 5 was used to
the accuracy of the identified associations,
evaluate ecosystem service trends, with (0)
when an ecosystem service was mentioned
meaning strong decline, (1) meaning
by more than one author with respect to
moderate decline, (2) meaning stability, (3)
different land uses, we selected only the
meaning enhancement, and (4) meaning
ecosystem service/land-use associations
strong enhancement. We used a Chi-square
that were mentioned by more than one
test to explore which categories of
author. Finally, we selected only the
ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning,
relations between land use and ecosystem
regulating, or cultural) enhanced or declined
services applicable to the Doñana marshes
during the period analyzed. Additionally, we
and the Guadalquivir estuary. For example,
used a Mann–Whitney test to determine at
although Vihervaara et al. (2010) identifies
which scale beneficiaries enjoyed the
the “local cultures /agricultural areas”
services, differentiating between local
association, we did not consider this
beneficiaries and broadly oriented (national
association applicable to the specific case of
and the international) beneficiaries. For
Doñana because agriculture in the Doñana
more details, see Table 4.5.2 and Gómez-
marshes did not start until the 20th century,
Baggethun et al. (2011a).
and therefore agricultural areas have not
contributed to the local culture of the
Secondly, we conducted semi-structured
marshes or estuary as much as other land
interviews of local key informants (N=14)
uses have.
and administered questionnaires (N=70) to
local stakeholders and visitors to assess
Because previous studies recommend
social perceptions of trends in ecosystem
using different methods to assess social
service delivery. A list of the ecosystem
perceptions of ecosystem services (Lynam et
services, with associated pictures, was
131
Results
presented to the respondents, who had to results from the semi-structured interviews
select the five ecosystem services they and questionnaires were analyzed through
perceived to be declining most severely. As calculation of descriptive statistics. For more
the respondents were non experts, and it details, see Table 2 and Palomo et al. (2011).
could be difficult for them to detect changes Further details about the three
in ecosystem services that have taken place methodologies used to ascertain trends in
specifically between 1955 and 2006, the ecosystem services are summarized in Table
question referred to “the last decades.” The 4.5.2.
Table 4.5.2. Description of methods used for the three sampling techniques to identify changes in
ecosystem services based on expert judgment and perceptions of local stakeholders
Expert panel Interviews Questionnaires
N 10 14 70
Year of 2006 2009 2009
sampling
Duration of 4h 40 - 90 min. 20 – 25 min.
each survey
Stakeholder Scientists Key respondents Local population and
involved tourists
Question What is the trend of ecosystem Which ecosystem services have been declining
services in the period 1955–2006? during the last decades?
Categorization Strongly declining, declining, stable, Participants chose the five ecosystem services
of answers enhancing and strongly enhancing from the list that had the greatest decline and
ranked them on a Likert 1–5 scale.
Time frame 1955–2006 No specific time frame (the last two to three
decades)
4.5.4. Results
4.5.4.1.1. First transformations (1918–1954)
In the first period (1918–1954), the

4.5.4.1. Drivers of change behind marshes
conversion primary interventions to drain the marsh
and to convert it to agriculture were
The conversion of the Doñana marsh and
promoted by both the Spanish government
estuary during the period 1918–2006 can be
and foreign private companies (Ojeda,
classified into four main stages, each of
1987). Between the end of the Spanish Civil
which was different with respect to the
War (1936–1939) and 1954, a critical
magnitude of change, underlying promoters
motivation for wetland conversion was the
(public bodies and private entities),
demand for food in the post-war period.
motivation (sanitation, security, navigation,
Other important drivers in this period
agriculture, conservation, restoration), and
included technological change and financial
other drivers of change (technological
investment. According to González-Arteaga
innovations, market integration, socio-
(1993), mechanization allowed the
political and economic reforms).
132
construction of durable channels to drain the expanded to a total of 50,700 ha. We

marsh and the construction of levees to identified three primary motivations for the
contain natural floods, making a difference expansion of the protected area: (1) research
compared to previou failed attempts to drain had shown that the non-transformed
the marsh. marshes had high ecological value
(Fernández-Delgado, 2005), (2) the
4.5.4.1.2. Great transformations and economic importance of the Spanish
emergence of conservation policy (1955– agriculture sector was decreasing in relation
1977) to the industrial and services sectors
During the second period (1955–1977), (Naredo, 2004), and (3) the goals that had
the main motivation behind the motivated the initial transformations of the
transformations was the government’s marsh (i.e., increasing land productivity and
interest in facilitating investment sanitation) had already been achieved
opportunities to attract foreign capital. In (González-Arteaga, 1993). While a private
1955, the National Institute for Colonization entity, WWF, took the initiative for nature
declared the transformation of the Doñana conservation, authorities of the Spanish
marshes into irrigated crops to be of “major government became an increasingly
national interest.” Subsequently, the Spanish powerful and active stakeholder in
government was a primary actor in promoting conservation in Doñana.
promoting the drainage of the marsh and its
However, even though no new large
conversion for agricultural purposes
conversion projects were planned during
(González de Molina, 1993; Granados et al.,
this period, programs that were already in
1987; Grande Covian, 1978).
place were completed between 1978 and
During this period, a new driving force, 1997, mainly through the initiative of the
the conservation movement, emerged in private sector. In this situation, the primary
Doñana. In 1963, the World Wildlife Fund objective of conservation managers was to
(WWF) and the Spanish government halt further transformation of the marshes.
purchased 6,800 ha of land for conservation In 1989, the Doñana Natural Park was
purposes (Ojeda, 1987) and in 1969 34,625 declared to protecting three additional
ha of Doñana were declared a national park. sectors surrounding the National Park
(Figure 4.5.2). The National Park has more
4.5.4.1.3. Development vs. conservation strict conservation policies than the Natural
phase (1978–1997) Park, and therefore, some uses forbidden in
In 1978, the Doñana Law 91/1978 was the former, such as hunting and specific
approved, marking the beginning of a period types of agriculture (e.g., rice fields), were
of more robust conservation policies. The allowed in the latter under the regulation.
area of the Doñana National Park was
133
Results
Because conservation policies were put in harmonize development and conservation

place in response to the ecological decline policies, the first Plan for Sustainable
that followed economic development, and Development of Doñana (1993–2000) was
the tension between these two policies soon approved by the European Commission, with
became apparent (Gómez-Baggethun et al., a budget of 372 million Euro. Following this
2010; Palomo et al., 2011), policy makers investment, economic development
realized that some convergence between promoted through infrastructure for tourism
stakeholders representing development and and greenhouse agriculture outside the
conservation interests was needed to protected area reduced the opposition of the
attenuate rising social conflicts between local population to conservation but also
local farmers and conservation authorities generated new expectations of investment
(Aguilar Fernández, 2008). In an attempt to (Oñate et al., 2003).
Figure 4.5.2. Protected area in Doñana (ha). The creation of the Doñana National and Natural Parks
were moments of rapid protected area expansion, after which the rate at which new land was
protected stabilized, with small additional increases associated with the restoration phase
134
rain-fed herbaceous crops. Another 55,000

4.5.4.1.4. Ecological restoration (1998–
2006) ha of the marshes were drained but not
cultivated (Table 4.5.3 and Figures 4.5.3 and
In 1998, a toxic waste spill from the
4.5.4).
Boliden pyrite mine in Aznalcóllar (in the
northwestern part of the protected area) In the second stage, 1955–1977, agricultural
released 4.5 Mm3 of water polluted with policies promoted by public bodies led to the
heavy metals to the Guadiamar River, one of conversion of 19,000 ha of the marshes,
the main tributaries of the marshes of the while another 4,000 ha of natural or semi-
Doñana National Park (Grimalt et al., 1999). natural marshes were transformed into rice
The mine spill crossed the Natural Park and fields through private initiatives (Reguera,
reached the border of the National Park, 1983; Corominas, 1995). Thus, by the end of
causing an ecological and socio-economic this period, a total of 23,000 ha of new rice
disaster, covering 4,634 ha of natural and fields had been created (Table 4.5.3 and
agricultural lands by toxic spillage Figures 4.5.3 and 4.5.4). At the same time,
(PICOVER, 2003). In response to this event, the emergence of conservation policies in
the national and Andalusian governments Doñana led to the purchase of 6,800 ha of
launched two major restoration programs, land for nature conservation purposes, and
named the “Guadiamar Green Corridor” the establishment of the Doñana National
program (1998–2002) and the “Doñana Park in 1969 led to the protection of an
2005” program (1998–2006). Another additional 37,425 ha of natural or semi-
important event during this period was the natural ecosystems. Approximately 47% of
approval of the Second Sustainable its area (17,480 ha) consisted of marshes,
Development Plan of Doñana in 2005, with with the rest consisting of sand dunes and
an emphasis on participation, conflict beaches.
resolution, and institutional coordination.
In the third stage, 1978–1997, the balance
4.5.4.2. Quantification of land-use changes leaned from development to conservation.

Development policies, on the one hand,
According to our calculations, the land-use
converted 22,000 ha to irrigated fields
changes during the four main stages
relying on groundwater, and 13,000 ha were
identified above can be summarized as
converted into rice fields irrigated with
follows:
water from the Guadalquivir River (Table
In the first stage, 1918–1954, policies 4.5.3, Figures 4.5.3, 4.5.4). Additionally,
promoting agricultural development led to during this period, 3,600 ha of marshes were
the conversion of 5,000 ha of the marshes to transformed into the largest aquaculture
rice fields and the conversion of 6,900 ha to area in Spain (Campos and López, 1998).
135
Results
Table 4.5.3. Changes in land uses in the Doñana marshes and estuary.
Surface (ha) Annual changing rate (ha/year) Land-use dynamic index (%)
1918– 1955– 1978– 1998– 1918– 1955– 1918– 1955– 1978– 1998– 1918– 1955–
Land-use 1918 1955 1978 1998 2006
54 77 97 2006 2006 2006 54 77 97 2006 2006 2006
Artificial 42 138 534 1,142 1,142 3 18 30 0 13 20 6.03% 13.03% 5.69% 0.00% 29.76% 14.53%
areas
Cultivated
systems
Aquaculture 0 0 0 3,608 3,608 0 0 180 0 41 72 - - - 0.00% - -
ponds
Drained 0 55,098 38,612 18,312 10,191 1,450 -749 -1,015 -1,015 116 -898 - -1.36% -2.63% - - -1.63%
marshes
Greenhouses 0 0 0 154 154 0 0 8 0 2 3 - - - 5.54%
0.00% - -
Irrigated 0 0 23,415 46,185 46,213 0 1,064 1,139 3 525 924 - - 4.86% 0.01% - -
fields
Rain-fed 0 7,678 14,807 15,340 14,912 202 324 27 -53 169 145 - 4.22% 0.18% - - 1.88%
fields
Rice fields 0 5,040 27,740 40,751 40,751 133 1,032 651 0 463 714 - 20.47% 2.35% 0.35%
0.00% - 14.17%
Salines 339 359 1,133 1,506 1,506 1 35 19 0 13 23 0.15% 9.82% 1.65% 0.00% 3.92% 6.40%
Natural, semi-natural and restored ecosystems of marshes
and estuary 23,659 12,580 5,479 5,498 5,498
Lucios -292 -323 1 0 -206 -142 - -2.57% 0.02% 0.00% -0.87% -1.13%
Non- 131,899 74,194 42,637 22,762 22,762 -1,519 -1,434 -994 0 -1,240 -1,029 1.23%
- -1.93% -2.33% 0.00% -0.94% -1.39%
modified
Restored 0 0 0 0 8,925 0 0 0 1,116 101 179 1.15%
- - - - - -
marshes
marshes
River, - -
9,586 9,404 10,812 9,854 9,451 -5 64 -48 -50 -2 1 0.68% -0.44% -0.02% 0.01%
branches 0.05% 0.51%
and river
Other land 0 1,034 355 411 411 27 -31 3 0 5 -12 - -2.99% 0.79% 0.00% - -1.21%
beaches
uses
Land-use dynamic degree 8.51% 57.07% 20.05% 5.39% 35.48% 42.35%
136
Figure 4.5.3. (A) Evolution of the primary land uses in the Doñana marshes and estuary, expressed in
percentages. (B) Transformation of natural ecosystems in the marshes and estuary
On the other hand, conservation policies cultivated systems (69.5%) and artificial areas
implemented during the same period added (0.7%), whereas 29.5% remained
54,000 ha of protected land through the untransformed, most of these marshes within
declaration of the Doñana Natural Park. the Doñana National Park (Figures 4.5.3, 4.5.4).
Finally, during the last period, 1998–2006,

the reversal of land-use change from
conversion of cultivated systems to
conservation was consolidated. By 2006,
restoration projects had led to the restoration
of 5,600 ha of marshes and to the expansion of
the National Park into 3,532 ha of these
restored lands.
Overall, between 1918 and 2006, 70.5% of

the Doñana marshes were transformed into
137
Results
Figure 4.5.4. Maps showing the primary land-use changes during the period 1918–2006 in the Doñana
marshes and estuary, clustered into the three main categories of land uses (See Table 1 to see the clusters
of individual land-use categories). The northeastern area of the National Park and the area east of the
village of El Rocío were restored through the Doñana 2005 project. The Doñana estuary has been included
among the natural, seminatural and restored ecosystems
documenting direct associations between

4.5.4.3 Effects of land-use changes on land use and the following ecosystem
ecosystem services services: shellfishing, plague and pest
Table 4.5.1 includes a description of the control, environmental education,
land-use categories and associated recreational hunting, scientific knowledge,
ecosystem services, as identified from the and spiritual value. The literature review
literature review. We did not find references showed that ecosystem services associated
with cultivated land uses, the area of which
138
increased over the studied period, are national and international markets (i.e., food
mainly provisioning services (i.e., food from from agriculture and food from fish—both
agriculture, livestock, and fish—both aquaculture and fishing) (U = 15.50; p =
aquaculture and fishing) (Table 4.5.1). 0.04).
Natural and semi-natural land-uses, the area
of which has decreased since 1918, are
mainly associated with regulating (i.e., flood
buffering, habitat for species, and
hydrological regulation) and with cultural
services (i.e., aesthetic value, local identity,
nature tourism and recreation, and local or
traditional ecological knowledge). Thus, the
broader picture on changes in ecosystem
service delivery due to land-use changes
between 1918 and 2006 reveals a classic
trade-off whereby provisioning services
were enhanced at the expense of declines in
regulating and specific cultural services.
This picture broadens when compared

with the results obtained from the social
evaluations. The assessment by the expert
panel suggests that most regulating services
were either declining or strongly declining,
while cultural services were considered to
be stable or improving (Table 4.5.4 and
Figure 4.5.5). There were differences
regarding trends in provisioning services
depending on the scale of the analysis at
which their benefits accrue. Thus, 80% of the
provisioning services that were perceived to
be declining or strongly declining were
consumed at the local scale (i.e., freshwater
consumption, medicinal plants, and
shellfishing), whereas 60% of the
provisioning services that were perceived to
be stable or enhancing were directed
primarily toward beneficiaries in the
139
Results
Table 4.5.4. Expert panel results indicating the trends in the identified ecosystem services
Category Ecosystem service type Expert panel
Provisioning Food from agriculture Stable
Food from fish (aquaculture) Enhancing
Food from fish (fishing) Stable
Freshwater consumption Strongly declining
Harvesting Stable
Livestock Stable
Medicinal plants Declining
Shellfishing Strongly declining
Regulating Climate regulation Stable
Flood buffering Strongly declining
Habitat for species Stable
Hydrological regulation Declining
Pollination Strongly declining
Soil fertility Declining
Water depuration Stable
Cultural Aesthetic value Enhancing
Environmental education Enhancing
Local ecological knowledge Stable
Local identity Stable
Nature tourism and recreation Enhancing
Recreational hunting Stable
Scientific knowledge Enhancing
Finally, consistent results were obtained

from the interviews of and questionnaires
administered to local stakeholders and tourists.
Most respondents considered regulating
services to be those that were declining most
severely (42% of total responses), with the
ecosystem service “habitat for species”
perceived to have suffered the largest decline
(11% of total responses) (Figure 4.5.6).
Provisioning services were perceived to be
declining (38% of total responses), as
exemplified by declines associated with fishing
and shellfishing along the river banks. Finally,
only 20% of the responses perceived cultural
services to be declining (Figure 4.5.6).
140
Figure 4.5.5. Percentages of ecosystem services classified by the panel of experts as having strongly
declined, declined, been stable, or been enhanced during the period 1955–2006.
141
Results
Figure 4.5.6. Percentage of responses to interviews and questionnaires by local stakeholders and tourists
perceiving different categories of ecosystem services as having declined in the municipalities of marshes
and estuary: (A) for overall ecosystem service categories, i.e., provisioning, regulating, and cultural; (B) for
specific ecosystem services6
142
4.5.5. Discussion and conclusions changes result in an increase of provisioning

services of high economic value in
4.5.5.1. Land-use change and loss of international and national markets (i.e., food
wetlands from irrigated agriculture or aquaculture) at
Our data show a severe loss of wetland the expense of regulating ecosystem services
area in Doñana due to agricultural (Martín-López et al., 2011). The results of
intensification during the 20th century (Table the literature review linking ecosystem
4.5.3). These results are consistent with services to land uses (Table 4.5.1 and 4.5.3)
findings obtained in previous research in and social perceptions of ecosystem services
Doñana (Fernández Alés et al., 1992), and in trends (Table 4.5.4; Figures 4.5.5 and 4.5.6)
many other floodplains around the world also suggest that most regulating services
(Finlayson et al., 1999; MA, 2005a; Teferi et have declined in the Doñana marshes and
al., 2010). A common policy response to estuary, while none of the regulating
wetland conversion has been the services seem to have been enhanced over
demarcation of protected areas to preserve the studied period. This shift toward land
remaining ecosystems (MA, 2005a), and uses that provide specific services with
Doñana is a paradigmatic example of this market value is also a major driver of land-
response (see Table 4.5.3 and Figure 4.5.2). use change in ecosystems all over the world
(Lambin et al., 2001). Thus, our results are
4.5.5.2. Drivers of land-use change and consistent with the results of previous
ecosystem service trends studies on international (MA, 2005a),
national (EME, 2011), regional (Su et al.,
Our research showed the interrelated and
2012), and local scales (García-Llorente et
often synergistic effect of different drivers of
al., 2012; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2011b).
land-use change on ecosystem service
delivery. Sanitary goals, risk reduction Surprisingly, the results from our analysis
purposes, profit motives, technological of land-use change regarding agricultural
changes and innovations, market forces, and expansion are in contrast with those
conservation policies have all played roles in obtained from the interviews of and
shaping the current “conservation vs. questionnaires administered to locals and
development” dichotomy that characterizes visitors: 9% of the responses expressed a
the polarized territorial matrix in Doñana. perception that food production by
Outside the Doñana protected area, land-use agriculture declined over the period
conversions stem mainly from economic analyzed (Figure 4.5.6). This result may be
development pressures and global market related to a methodological limitation,
forces promoting the transformation of namely, the fact that interviews and
natural and semi-natural ecosystems into questionnaires referred to the last two to
intensively managed agricultural lands and three decades, a period of time sufficiently
artificial areas (Figure 4.5.3). These land-use
143
Results
long for stakeholders to evaluate, whereas period analyzed. This result can be explained
the greatest increase in agricultural lands by uneven trends associated with specific
occurred between 1918 and 1977 (Figure cultural services. For example, cultural
4.5.3). Moreover, during the last two services that were more specific to local
decades, conservation forces became more demands, such as recreational hunting, local
powerful and regulation of the agricultural ecological knowledge, and local identity,
sector became stricter, increasing the feeling have declined, whereas cultural services
of vulnerability among local farmers engaged demanded by beneficiaries on broader
in irrigated farming activities. Because scales, such as tourism, environmental
respondents were generally quite critical of education, and scientific knowledge, were
the restrictions imposed on agricultural perceived to have been enhanced over the
practices by conservation authorities, their period analyzed (Table 4.5.4 and Figure
responses may be biased toward the 4.5.6). These results may be interpreted in
perception of a negative trend in the food- terms of shifts in the scales at which the bulk
from-agriculture service. The panel of of the benefits from cultural ecosystem
experts considered the food-from- services accrue (Gómez-Baggethun et al.
agriculture service to have had a stable 2013). Thus, in line with findings from
trend. Although the volume and tonnage of previous research, our results reflect, on the
crops have increased as a result of one hand, a rise of those cultural services
agricultural land growth, the panel of demanded by urban people in Spain (Martín-
experts expressed the view that food López et al., 2012), and on the other hand,
production from traditional activities had reflect a decline of those cultural services
decrease, resulting in an overall assessment more directly demanded by the locals
of the service as stable. That is, the amount (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010, 2012).
of food production has increased, but the
The bulk of the regulating services were
experts perceive that food production is now
found by the survey and questionnaire
directed more to national and international
respondents and by the panel of experts to
consumers than to local inhabitants.
be decreasing. This result is consistent with
Another surprising result pertained to the the reduction of natural and semi-natural
perceived trend in cultural services. From ecosystems identified from our analysis of
the dramatic decrease in natural and semi- land use change. However, when it comes to
natural ecosystems, mainly associated with the water depuration service in particular,
cultural services, we would have expected a contrasting results were obtained from the
decline in cultural services (as occurred with panel of experts and from the respondents to
regulating services). However, several interviews and questionnaires. Thus, the
cultural services were perceived by panel of experts perceived the performance
respondents to have been enhanced over the of the water depuration service to be stable,
144
while the respondents to surveys and constrained. Consequently, the managers of

questionnaires considered it to be declining. the marshes faced two different types of
The perception of the latter seem more problems. On the one hand, ecological
consistent with the results from the analysis problems, including the conversion of
of land use changes. A possible explanation wetlands to intensively managed
of the experts’ perception is that declines in agrosystems with associated effects on the
the performance of water depuration may flooding regime, increased sedimentation
have been compensated by perceived rates, and water pollution, originated outside
increases in water quality from new the protected area, driven by economic and
regulations that limit the use of agricultural technological forces (Rodríguez Ramírez et
inputs in the protected areas. al., 2005; Martín-López et al., 2011). On the
other hand, problems originated inside the
4.5.5.3. Effects of territorial polarization on protected area because of conservation
ecosystem service supply policies related to restrictions of access to
The conservation vs. development model local users, disruption of traditional uses and
(Folke, 2006) of current approaches to loss of local knowledge and the related
territorial planning consists of protected provisioning and cultural services, i.e.,
areas preserved through ‘fortress harvesting, local identity, and recreational
conservation policies’ embedded in an hunting (Figure 4.5.6b).
ecologically degraded matrix devoted to
Our results regarding changes in delivery
economic development and growth. The
of ecosystem services are paradigmatic of
disparate land uses inside and outside the
the polarized conservation vs. development
Doñana National Park have resulted in acute
territorial model that commonly entails a
conservation problems due to border effects
severe trade-off between the performance of
(Fernández-Delgado, 2005; Palomo et al., in
regulating and provisioning services
press). By the end of the conservation period
(Carpenter et al., 2009). The combination of
(1978–1997), diverging management
preservation of portions of the landscape
policies in different zones of the marshes
under strict conservation with land
became more stringent. Outside the
conversion to intensive land uses outside the
protected area, aggressive economic
protected area is likely to lead to an overall
development projects were permitted and
degradation of ecosystem services in the
even supported by the public sector. In
long term. Protected areas can play
contrast, inside the National Park, only a few
fundamental roles in protecting regulating
traditional uses were permitted (e.g.,
services (e.g., Elmqvist et al., 2011;
livestock grazing and beekeeping), whereas
Schneiders et al., 2012). However, their long-
some other traditional uses and practices,
term maintenance involves a shift in
such as hunting, fishing, and harvesting of
approaches to territorial planning from the
wild products, were prohibited or severely
145
Results
present conservation vs. development work and effort during the field work and
paradigm toward multi-scale governance the digitization of land-use maps and Carla
systems, aimed at securing broad diversity in Louit and Ana Verdún for their early analysis
delivery of ecosystem services capable of of land-use changes. Funding was partially
meeting the basic demands of a variety of provided by the National Parks Autonomous
stakeholders and beneficiaries on the local Agency, the Ministry of the Environment and
and larger scales. Rural and Marine Affairs (project
018/2009), the Spanish Ministry of Science
and Innovation (project CGL2011-30266),
Acknowledgments the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness (Subprogram Inncorpora-
The authors thank J.M. Moreira and Junta Torres Quevedo 2011), and the FP7 EU-
de Andalucía for providing materials to the funded project OPENNES
research group. The authors thank Sergio (Operationalisation of Natural Capital and
Sastre of the Spanish National Research Ecosystem Services: From Concepts to Real-
Council (CSIC) in particular for his great world Applications) (project EC-308428).
146
References
Aguilar Fernández, S. (2008). The legitimacy Corominas, J. (1995). La agricultura en el entorno

problems in Spanish nature policy: The case of de Doñana (The agricultura in the surroundings of
Doñana. In J. Keulartz, G. Leistra (Eds.), Legitimacy Doñana). Revista de obras públicas, 142,65-74.
in European nature conservation policy: case
studies in multilevel governance (pp. 83-100). De Fries, R. S., Foley, J. A., Asner, G. P. (2004).
Springer, New York. Land-use choices: balancing human needs and
ecosystem functions. Frontiers in ecology and the
Braat, L., ten Brink, P. (2008). The cost of policy Environment, 2, 249–257.
inaction. The case of not meeting the 2010
biodiversity target. Study/report for the European de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L.,
Commission, DG Environment Under Contract Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the
ENV.G.1/ETU/2007/0044 (Official Journal concept of ecosystem services and values in
Reference: 2007/S95- 116033). landscape planning, management and decision
making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272.
Bugalho, M.N., Caldeira, M.C., Pereira, J.S., Aronson,
J., Pausas, J.G., 2011. Mediterranean cork oak Elmqvist, T., Tuvendal, M., Krishnaswamy, J.,
savannas require human use to sustain Hylander, K. (2011). Managing Trade-offs in
biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Ecosystem Services. The United Nations
Environ. 9, 278–286. Environment Programme, Ecosystem Services
Economics (ESE), Working Paper Series,
Burkhard, B., F. Kroll, F. Müller & W. Windhorst. Publishing Services Section, UNON, Nairobi-
(2009). Landscapes‘ Capacities to Provide Kenya.
Ecosystem Services - a Concept for Land-Cover
Based Assessments. Landscape Online 15, 1-22. EME (Spanish Millennium Ecosystem
DOI:10.3097/LO.200915 Assessment). (2011). La Evaluación de los
Ecosistemas del Milenio de España. Síntesis de
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F. resultados (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
(2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, Results sintesis). Fundación Biodiversidad.
demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y
17-29. Marino, Spain.
Butzer, K. W. (1988). Cattle and sheep from Old to Fernández Alés, R., Martin Vicente, A., Ortega, F.,
New Spain: historical antecedents. Annals of the Ales, E. (1992). Recent changes in landscape
Association of American Geographers, 78, 29–56. structure and function in a mediterranean region
of SW Spain (1956-1984). Landscape Ecology, 7,
Campos, P., López, J. (1998). Renta y naturaleza en 3-18.
Doñana, a la búsqueda de la conservación con uso
(Income and nature in Doñana, looking for Fernández-Delgado, C. (2005). Conservation
conservation with land uses). Editorial Icaria, management of a European natural area: Doñana
Barcelona. national park, Spain. In: Groom MJ, Meffe GK,
Carroll CR (Eds) Principles of Conservation
Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J. et al., Biology (pp. 536–543). Sinauer Associates Inc.,
(2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: Massachusetts.
Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA, 106, 1305–1312. Finlayson, C. M., Davidson, N. C., Spiers, A.G.,
Stevenson, N. J. (1999). Global wetland inventory
– current status and future priorities. Mar.
Freshwater Resources, 50, 717–727.
147
Results
Folke, C. (2006). The economic perspective: mosaic of alternative states in a Mediterranean

conservation against development versus wetland: Case study of the Doñana Marsh
conservation for development. Conservation (southwest Spain). Hydrological Sciences Journal,
Biology, 20, 686–688. 56, 1374–1387.
Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., et al. (2011). Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García, V., Olsson, P.,
Reconnecting to the Biosphere. AMBIO: A Journal Montes, C. 2012. Traditional ecological knowledge
of the Human Environment, 40(7), 719-738. and community resilience to environmental
extremes. A case study in Doñana, SW Spain.
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P. et al., (2005). Global Environmental Change, 22, 640-650.
Global consequences of land use. Science,
309(5734), 570-574. Gómez-Baggethum, E., Kelemen, E., Martín-López,
B., Palomo, I., Montes, C. Institutional diversity for
Gagne, S. A., Fahrig, L. (2007). Effect of landscape ecosystem services governance across scales.
context on anuran communities in breeding ponds Society & Natural Resources. Accepted.
in the National Capital Region, Canada. Landscape
Ecology, 22, 205–215. González-Arteaga, J. (1993). Las Marismas del
Guadalquivir: Etapas de su aprovechamiento
García Novo, F., Marín Cabrera, C. (2006). Doñana: económico (Guadalquivir marshes: exploitation of
Water and Biosphere, Doñana 2005 Project. natural resources phases). Edita el C.P. Antonio
Guadalquivir H. Basin Authority, Spanish Min. of Cuevas con la aportación especial del Excmo.
the Environment, Madrid. Ayuntamiento de Puebla del Río y otros
colaboradores. Sevilla.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Díaz, S.,
Montes, C. (2011). Can ecosystem properties be González de Molina, M. (1993). Historia y Medio
fully translated into service values? An economic Ambiente (History and environment). Ediciones
valuation of aquatic plants services. Ecological de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
Applications, 21, 3083-3103. Madrid.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta- Granados, M., Martín, A., García Novo, F. (1987).
Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C.A., Aguilera P.A., Evolución conjunta de paisaje y su gestión. El caso
Montes, C. (2012). The role of multi-functionality del Parque Nacional de Doñana (Lansdscape and
in social preferences toward semi-arid rural management evolution. The case of the Doñana
landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. National Park). Estudios Territoriales, 24, 183-
Environmental Science & Policy, 19-20, 136-146. 197.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Mingorría, S., Reyes-García, Grande Covian, R. (1978). El estuario del
V., Calvet, L., Montes, C. (2010). Traditional Guadalquivir y su problematica agrosocial
ecological knowledge trends in the transition to a (Guadalquivir estuary and its agricultura and
market economy: empirical study in the Doñana social problems). IRYDA.
Natural Area areas. Conservation Biology, 24,
721–729. Grimalt, J. O., Ferrer, M., Macpherson, E. (1999).
The mine tailing accident in Aznalcollar. The
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Lomas, P., Science of the Total Environment, 242, 3-11.
Zorrilla, P., Montes, C. (2011a). Evolution of
ecosystem services in a Mediterranean cultural Hao, F., X. Lai, W. Ouyang, Y. Xu, X. Wei, K. Song
landscape: Doñana case study, Spain (1956-2006). (2012). Effects of Land Use Changes on the
In: Sofo A (Ed.) Biodiversity (pp. 27-46). Intech Ecosystem Service Values of a Reclamation Farm
Open Access Publisher. in Northeast China. Environmental Management
50,888–899.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Alcorlo, P., Montes, C.
(2011b). Ecosystem services associated with a
148
Jiyuan, L., Zengxiang, Z., Xinliang, X., et al. 2010. Menanteau, L., Vanney, J.R. (1985). El cauce del
Spatial patterns and driving forces of land use Bajo Guadalquivir: morfología, hidrología y
change in China during the early21 st century. evolución histórica. In: Varios Autores. El río. El
Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20, 483-494. bajo Guadalquivir. Ed. Ayuntamiento de Sevilla
and Consejería de Cultura y Política Territorial.
Kristensen, S. P. (1999). Agricultural land-use and Junta de Andalucía. Seville.
landscape change in Rostrup, Denmark: processes
of intensification and extensification. Landscape Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005a).
and Urban Planning, 46, 117-23. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and
Water. Synthesis. World Resources Institute,
Lambin, E. F., Turner, B. L., Geist, H. J., et al. (2001). Washington, D.C.
The causes of land-use and land-cover change:
moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005b).
Change, 11, 261-269. Ecosystems & Well Being. Current state and
trends assessment. Volume 1. Chapter 3. Drivers
Lynam T., de Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., of ecosystem change: Summary Chapter. G.C.
Evans, K. (2007). A review of tools for Nelson. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
incorporating community knowledge,
preferences, and values into decision making in Montes, C., Borja, F., Bravo, M. A., Moreira, J. M.
natural resources management. Ecology & Society, (1998). Reconocimiento Biofísico de Espacios
12, 5. Naturales Protegidos. Doñana: una aproximación
ecosistémica (Biophysical reconnaissance of
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., Benayas, J. (2007). natural protected areas. Doñana: an ecosystem
Influence of user characteristics on valuation of aproach). Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de
ecosystem services in Doñana Natural Protected Andalucía, Sevilla.
Area (south-west Spain). Environmental
Conservation, 34, 215-224. Naredo, J.M. (2004). La evolución de la agricultura
en España. Universidad de Granada, Granada.
Montes, C. (2011). The conservation against Ojeda, J. F. (1987). Organización del territorio en
development paradigm in Protected Areas: Doñana y su entorno próximo (Almonte). Siglos
valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana XVIII-XX (Territorial organization in Doñana and
social-ecological system (southwestern Spain). its surroundings (Almonte). ICONA, Ministerio de
Ecological Economics, 70, 1481-1491. Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid.
Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente Ojeda, J. F., del Moral L. (2004). Percepciones del
M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, et al. (2012) agua y modelos de su gestión en las distintas fases
Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through de la configuración de Doñana (Water perceptions
Social Preferences. PLoS ONE 7(6): e38970. and management models in the different Doñana
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038970 configuration stages). Investigaciones geográficas,
35, 25-44.
Menanteau, L. (1984). Evolución Histórica y
consecuencias morfológicas de la intervención Oñate, J. J., Pereira, D., Suárez, F. (2003). Strategic
humana en las zonas húmedas: el caso de las Environmental Assessment of the effects of
marismas del Guadalquivir (Historial evolution European Union s Regional Development Plans in
and morpholocial consequences of the human Doñana National Park (Spain). Environmental
changes in wetlands: the case of the Guadalquivir Management, 3, 642-655.
marshes). In: Dir. General de Medio Ambiente,
MOPU (ed) Las zonas húmedas de Andalucía, Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López-Santiago, C.,
Madrid, pp. 43-76. Montes, C. (2011). Participatory scenario planning
for protected areas management under the
ecosystem services framework: the Doñana social-
149
Results
ecological system in southwestern Spain. Ecology values to support strategic spatial planning in
and Society, 16, 23. Retrieved from - http - Italian landscapes. Ecological Indicators 21: 134–
//www.ecologyandsociety.org/ 144.
vol16/iss1/art23/
Su, S., Xiao, R., Jiang, Z., Zhang, Y. (2012).
Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Potschin, M., Haines- Characterizing landscape pattern and ecosystem
Young, R., Montes, C. In Press. National Parks, service value changes for urbanization impacts at
buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping an eco-regional scale. Applied Geography, 34, 295-
ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem Services, 305.
TEEB (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and
PICOVER. (2003). Ciencia y restauración del Río Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of
Guadiamar, 1998-2002 (Science and Guadiamar Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions
river restoration, 1998-2002). Consejería de and recommendations of TEEB.
Medio Ambiente de Andalucía, Sevilla.
Teferi, E., Uhlenbrook, S., Bewket, W., Wenninger,
Pinto, R., J. Patricio, J.M. Neto, F. Salas, J.C. Marques J., Simane, B. (2010). The use of remote sensing to
(2010). Assessing estuarine quality under the quantify wetland loss in the Choke Mountain
ecosystem services scope: ecological and socio- range, Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Hydrology
economic aspects. Ecological Complexity, 7, 389– and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 7, 6243–
402. 6284.
Reguera, A. T. (1983). Las Marismas del Troy, A., M.A. Wilson (2006). Mapping ecosystem
Guadalquivir. Proyecto e intentos seculares para services: Practical challenges and opportunities in
su puesta en cultivo y recuperación productiva linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological
(Guadalquivir Marshes. Age-old projects and Economics 60: 435–449.
attempts for its cultivation). Archivo Hispalense,
66(201), 113-128. van Doorn, A. M., Bakker, M. M. (2007). The
destination of arable land in a marginal
Rodríguez Ramírez, A., Yañez Camacho, C., Gasco, agricultural landscape in South Portugal: an
C., Clemente Salas, L., Antón, M. P. (2005). exploration of land-use change determinants.
Colmatación natural y antrópica de las marismas Landscape Ecology, 22, 1073-1087.
del Parque Nacional de Doñana: Implicaciones
para su manejo y conservación (Natural and van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R.,
anthropic clogging of the Doñana National Park Hein, L., de Groot, R.S. (2012). Framework for
marshes. Management and conservation). Revista systematic indicator selection to assess effects of
C&G, 19, 37-48. land management on ecosystem services.
Ecological Indicators, 21, 110–122.
Ruiz, J., Domon, G. (2009). Analysis of landscape
pattern change trajectories within areas of Vihervaara, P., Kumpula, T., Tanskanen, A.,
intensive agricultural use: case study in a Burkhard, B. (2010). Ecosystem services–A tool
watershed of southern Québec, Canada. for sustainable management of human–
Landscape Ecology, 24, 419-432. environment systems. Case study Finnish Forest
Lapland. Ecological Complexity 7(3), 410-420.
Schneiders, A., Van Daele, T., Van Reeth, W., Van
Landuyt, W. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem Zhao, B., U. Kreuter, B. Lia, Z. Ma, J. Chena, and N.
services: complementary approaches for Nakagoshi. (2004). An ecosystem service value
ecosystem management? Ecological Indicators 21, assessment of land-use change on Chongming
123-133. Island, China. Land Use Policy 21:139–148.
Scolozzi, R., E. Morri, R. Santolini (2012). Delphi-

based change assessment in ecosystem service
150
List of appendices
Appendix A. Selection of main publications considered in the literature review.
Appendix B. List of the ecosystem services evaluated in this paper, selected on the basis of
previous research in the area (e.g., García-Llorente et al., 2011; Martín-López et al., 2011; Palomo
et al., 2011) and fieldwork interviews conducted during 2006 with key respondents. Social
samplings (expert panel and interviews and questionnaires) used data from previous ecosystem
services assessments conducted by the authors, i.e., Gómez-Baggethun et al. (2011a) and Palomo
et al. (2011). Not all ecosystem services were evaluated with both techniques: * means that the
ecosystem service was evaluated by that specific method.
151
Results
Appendix A. Publications included in the literature review relating to the evolution of Doñana
marsh and its land-use changes.
Bajer, F. 1900. “Carta de la Provincia de Sevilla”, por Espelius, J. 1754. Carta Geographica o Mapa General
don Fernando Bajer, Ingeniero. Cartoteca Histórica de los Pueblos, Montes y sus Principales
del Servicio Geográfico del Ejército. Arboledas…que comprenden la Provincia de Marina
de Sevilla. Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid.
Campos, P., López, J. 1998. Renta y naturaleza en
Doñana, a la búsqueda de la conservación con uso. Fernández Alés, R., Martín, A., y Merino, J. 1995.
Editorial Icaria. Barcelona. Landscape changes in the last 500 y in the
Gualdalquivir river Valley with special reference to
Coello, F. 1869. “Huelva”, por don Francisco Coello, Doñana National Park. En: BL Turner, A II, Gómez
Coronel de Ingenieros Militares 1869. Cartoteca Sal, F. González Bernáldez, F. and di Castri, F.,
Histórica del Servicio Geográfico del Ejército. editors. Global land-use change: A perspective from
the Columbian Encounter. CSIC, Madrid. pp. 361-
Coello, F. 1869. “Provincia de Sevilla”, por don 378.
Francisco Coello, Coronel de Ingenieros. Cartoteca
Histórica del Servicio Geográfico del Ejército. Fernández Alés, R., Martin Vicente, A.; Ortega, F., and
Alés, E. E. 1992. Recent changes in landscape
Corominas, J. 1995. La agricultura en el entorno de structure and function in a Mediterranean region of
Doñana. Revista de obras públicas, 3.340, año 142: SW Spain (1950-1984). Landscape Ecology 7:3-18.
65-74.
Francisco Fernández de Agudo.1870. Plano
Cota, H., García-Novo, F. y Pou, A. 1977. Estudio de particular de una porción del Río Guadalquivir con el
las marismas del Parque Nacional de Dońana Baxo del Copero para Demostración de el y los
utilizando imágenes del satélite ERTS-1. Boletín de varios modos de remediarlo. En: Rubiales, J.,
la Estación Central de Ecología. Vol. 6, I. 12: 29-40. Menanteau, L., Martín, A., Carasco, D. 1985. El Río, El
Bajo Guadalquivir. Ayuntamiento de Sevilla.; página
Cuevas, J. M., y González Alonso, F. 1993. Análisis 122.
mediante una imagen Landsat MSS de la diversidad
espacial de los usos del suelo en el Parque Nacional Francisco Fernández de Agudo.1870. Plano General
de Doñana. Investigación Agraria Producción y del Río Guadalquivir desde más arriba de la Ciudad
Recursos Forestales. 2(1):89-98. de Sevilla hasta su desembocadura en el mar, para
inteligencia de su proyecto de rectificación de los
Cuevas, J. M., González Alonso, F., y Herrón, M. 1992; medios de evitar sus baxos, sus inundaciones y
Relación entre la respuesta espectral captada por el mejorar y cortar la navegación. En: Rubiales, J.,
sensor AVHRR de los satélites NOAA en un área de Menanteau, L., Martín, A., Carasco, D. 1985. El Río, El
Pinar del Parque Nacional de Doñana y las Bajo Guadalquivir. Ayuntamiento de Sevilla.; página
condiciones meteorológicas. Ecología (6):3-7. 122.
Cuevas J.M., González Alonso, F., y Herrón, M. 1994. García Murillo, P. y Sousa, A. 1997. Vegetation
Reconocimiento de eucaliptares en el sureste de la changes in Abalario. Parque Natural del Entorno de
provincia de Huelva mediante análisis de una Doñana. Lagascalia 19(1-2):737-744.
imagen Landsat MSS. Investigación Agraria
Producción y Protección Vegetales. 9(3):439-448. García Murillo, P. y Sousa, A. 1999. El paisaje vegetal
de la zona oeste del Parque Natural de Doñana
Enggass, P.M. 1968. Land Reclamation and (Huelva). Lagascalia 21(1):111-132.
Resettlement in the Guadalquivir Delta-Las
Marismas. Economic Geography, Vol. 44, Nº 2. (Abril, García Otero, J. 1829. Levantado por el arquitecto
1968), pp. 125-143. don Jose García Otero, Capitán retirado de
Ingenieros, bajo la dirección del Intendente
152
Honorario de Provincia Agustín de Larramendim Instituto Geográfico Nacional. 1992. Mapa-Guía

Comisario de Caminos y Canales. Sevilla, 20 de Parque Nacional de Doñana. 1:50.000.
Noviembre de 1829. En: Rubiales, J., Menanteau, L.,
Martín, A., Carasco, D. 1985. El Río, El Bajo Instituto Geográfico y Catastral y Servicio Geográfico
Guadalquivir. Ayuntamiento de Sevilla. pp. 123. del Ejército. 1948. Mapa Topográfico. Hoja 1001,
Almonte. 1:50.000.
Gavala y Laborde and J. 1949. Memoria explicativa
de la hoja nº 1018 (El Rocío) del mapa geológico de Instituto Geográfico y Catastral. 1942. Mapa
España a escala 1/50.000. IGME, Ministerio de Topográfico. Hoja 1018, El Rocío. 1:50.000.
Industria y Energía. Madrid.
Instituto Geográfico y Catastral. 1942. Mapa
González Arteaga J. 1993. Las marismas del Topográfico. Hoja 1033, Palacio de Doñana.
Guadalquivir, etapas de su aprovechamiento 1:50.000.
económico. Coria del Río, Sevilla: Ed. C.P. Antonio
Cuevas. Instituto Geográfico y Catastral. 1955. Mapa
Topográfico. Hoja 1047, Sanlúcar de Barrameda.
González Arteaga J. 1989. Las Marismas del 1:50.000.
Guadalquivir: etapas de un aprovechamiento
económico. Sevilla: Tesis Doctoral Inédita. Dpto. Instituto Geográfico y Catastral. 1970. Mapa
Geografía. Universidad Sevilla. Topográfico. Hoja 1034, Lebrija. 1:50.000.
Granados Corona, M.; Garcia Novo, F., and Martin Instituto Geográfico y Catastral. 1971. Mapa
Vicente, A. 1987. Evolución conjunta del paisaje y su Topográfico. Hoja 1020, El Coronil. 1:50.000.
gestión. El caso del Parque Nacional de Doñana.
Estudios Territoriales. 24:183-197. Instituto Geográfico y Estadístico. 1918. Mapa
Topográfico. Hoja 1002, Dos Hermanas. 1:50.000.
Granados Corona, M., Martín Vicente, A. y García
Novo, F. 1988. Long-term vegetation changes on the Instituto Geográfico y Estadístico. 1918. Mapa
stabilized dunes of Doñana National Park (SW Topográfico. Hoja 1019, Los Palacios y Villafranca.
Spain). Vegetatio 75:73-80. 1:50.000.
Grande Covián, R. 1973. Las Marismas del Instituto Geográfico y Estadístico. 1918. Mapa
Guadalquivir. Drenaje subterráneo como medio de Topográfico. Hoja 1034, Lebrija. 1:50.000.
saneamiento de suelos salinos y alcalinos. Instituto
Instituto Geológico y Minero de España. 1944. Mapa
Nacional de Reforma y Desarrollo Agrario.
Geológico. Hoja 1033, Palacio de Doñana. 1:50.000.
Ministerio de Agricultura.
Instituto Geológico y Minero de España. 1944. Mapa
Grande Covián, R. 1978. El estuario del Guadalquivir
Geológico. Hoja 1018, El Rocío. 1:50.000.
y su problemática agrosocial. IRYDA.
Junta de Andalucía. 2004. Ortofotografía digital de
Instituto de Cartografía de Andalucía. 1998. Mapa-
Andalucía. Vuelo fotogramétrico (2001-2002) b/n a
Guía de Doñana. Parques Naturales de Andalucía.
escala 1:20.000. Ortofoto digital a escala 1:5.000.
1:75.000.
Formato: MrSid.
Instituto Geográfico Nacional. 1978. Mapa
López F. (et al.,).1873. Aznalcázar (Sevilla).
Topográfico. Hoja 1001, Almonte. 1:50.000.
Planimetría. 1:25.000. Ayuntamiento de Aznalcázar,
Instituto Geográfico Nacional. 1989. Mapa (bosquejo planimétrico): provincia de Sevilla,
Topográfico. Hoja 1048, Jerez de la Frontera. topógrafos D. Fernando López (et al.,); construido
1:50.000. por los topógrafos arriba expresados; conforme, el
jefe de 2ª clase y del Negociado 7º. Hojas A-1, B-1, C-
1 y D-1. Instituto Geográfico Nacional.
153
Results
López F. (et al.,).1873. La Puebla Junto a Coria (del Moreira, J. M. (Coord.) 2004. Usos y coberturas
Río) (Sevilla). Planimetría. 1:25.000. 1873. vegetales del suelo de Andalucía. Junta de Andalucía.
Ayuntamiento de la Puebla del Río, (bosquejo CD-ROM.
planimétrico): provincia de Sevilla, construido según
los datos de campo por los topógrafos que se Naredo, J.M. 1971. La evolución de la agricultura en
expresan en la hoja original; el Oficial del 1º Cuerpo España (desarrollo capitalista y crisis de las formas
de Topógrafos, conforme el jefe de 2ª clase y del de producción tradicionales. Ed. Laia. Barcelona.
Negociado 7º. Instituto Geográfico Nacional.
Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad en España (OSE).
Louit, C. 2005. Evolución de los usos del suelo en las 2006. Cambios de ocupación del suelo en España.
Marismas del Guadalquivir asociado a las principales Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Madrid.
políticas territoriales del siglo XX: Diploma de
Estudios Avanzados. Dpto. Interuniversitario de Ojeda, J.F. 1989. Doñana, paisaje cultural. Doñana.
Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Sin Parque Nacional. Lunwerg. ICONA.
publicar.
Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Medio Ambiente.
Menanteau, L. 1984. Evolución Histórica y 2005. Ortoimágenes 1956. Guadiamar + Doñana.
consecuencias morfológicas de la intervención
humana en las zonas húmedas: el caso de las Pisarro F. A. 1775. Es copia del original sacado por
Marismas del Guadalquivir. En. Zonas Húmedas de orden superior en el año de 1720 y en el próximo
Andalucía. Madrid: Dirección General de Ambiente, 1775 lo orece al Sr. Don Francisco Antonio
MOPU; pp. 43-76. Domesain, Contador Principal en los 4 Reynos de
Andalucía, su servidor Don Francisco Antonio
Menanteau, L. y Vanney, J. R. 1985. El cauce del Bajo Pisarro. En: Rubiales, J., Menanteau, L., Martín, A.,
Guadalquivir: morfología, hidrología y evolución Carasco, D. 1985. El Río, El Bajo Guadalquivir.
histórica. En: Rubiales, J., Menanteau, L., Martín, A., Ayuntamiento de Sevilla.; página 122.
Carasco, D. 1985. El Río, El Bajo Guadalquivir.
Ayuntamiento de Sevilla.; pp. 116-127. Prados, M. J., García, F. J., Doctor, A., López, V.,
Camarillo, J. M. 2003. Mapa de reconocimiento
Merino, O., Villar, R., Martín, A., García, D., y Merino, J. territorial del Corredor Verde. Análisis y diagnóstico
1995. Vegetation response to climatic change in a de la actividad agraria y del aprovechamiento del
dune ecosystem in southern Spain. En: Moreno, J.M. monte en la cuenca del Guadiamar. En: Montes C.,
& W. C. Oechel, editors. Global Change and Borja F., Arenas J. M., Martínez Farazo, F. R., Mora A.,
Mediterranean type ecosystems. Springer Verlag. editores. CMA. Ciencia y restauración del Río
Berlín. pp. 224-238. Guadiamar. . Resultados del Programa de
Investigación del Corredor Verde del Guadiamar
Mienso, M. 1720. Mapa particular de la Barra de (PICOVER) 1998-2002. Consejería de Medio
Sanlúcar de Barrameda y curso del Guadalquivir, por Ambiente. Junta de Andalucía. pp. 472-492. Sevilla.
don Alberto Mienso, Coronel de Ingenieros.
Cartoteca Histórica del Servicio Geográfico del Reguera, A. T. 1983. Las Marismas del Guadalquivir.
Ejército. Proyecto en intentos seculares para su puesta en
cultivo y recuperación productiva. Archivo
Montes, C.; Borja, F., Bravo, M. A. & Moreira J. M. Hispalense 66 (201): 113-128.
1998; Reconocimiento Biofísico de Espacios
Naturales Protegidos. Doñana: Una Aproximación Rivas-Martínez, S. 1964. Esquema de la vegetación
Ecosistémica. Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta potencial y su correspondencia con los suelos en la
de Andalucía; 311 pp. + 1 Mapa Ecológico. Espańa peninsular. Anales del Real Jardín Botánico
de Madrid 22: 341-405.
Montes, C., 2002. Lecciones aprendidas en tres años
de restauración de ecosistemas en el corredor verde Rivas Martínez, S., Costa, M., Castroviejo, S. y Valdés,
del Guadiamar. Ecosistemas, Año XI, Nº 1. B. 1980. Vegetación de Doñana (Huelva, España);
Lazaroa. 2:5-190.
154
Rubiales, J., Menanteau, L., Martín, A., Carrasco, D.

1985. El Río. El Bajo Guadalquivir. Equipo 28.
Ayuntamiento de Sevilla.
Servicio Geográfico del Ejército. 1977. Mapa

Topográfico. Hoja 1034, Lebrija. 1:50.000.
Servicio Geográfico del Ejército. Siglo XIX. “Plano

General de la región marítima del Guadalquivir”, por
Ingenieros de Caminos. Cartoteca Histórica del
Servicio Geográfico del Ejército.
Sousa, A., García Murillo, P. 2001. Can place names

used as indicators of landscape changes? Application
to the Doñana Natural Park. Landscape Ecology
16:391-406.
Sousa, A. García Murillo P. 2003. Changes in the

wetlands of Andalusia (Doñana Natural Park, SW
Spain) at the end of the little ice age. Climatic
Change. 58:193-217.
Stevenson, A.C, Harrison, R.J. 1992. Ancient Forests

in Spain: A Model for Land-use and Dry Forest
Management in South-west Spain from 4000 BC to
1900 AD. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58:
227-247.
Valverde, E. 1883. “Provincia de Sevilla”, por don

Emilio Valverde, Comandante de Infantería.
Cartoteca Histórica del Servicio Geográfico del
Ejército.
Valverde, J. A. 1960. Vertebrados de las marismas del

Guadalquivir. Almería: Archivos del Instituto de
Aclimatación.
Verdú Serna, A. B. 2005. Evolución de los usos del

suelo en los Mantos Eólicos y la costa de Doñana
asociada a las políticas con incidencia territorial de
la segunda mitad del siglo XX. Proyecto de Fin de
Carrera. Sin publicar.
Villa, A. 2001. Paisajes de Experimentación colonial

en el entorno de Doñana: Cabezudos-Abalario. Tesis
doctoral inédita, Universidad de Sevilla.
155
Results
Appendix B. List of the ecosystem services evaluated in this paper, selected on the basis of
previous research in the area (e.g., García-Llorente et al., 2011; Martín-López et al., 2011;
Palomo et al., 2011) and fieldwork interviews conducted during 2006 with key
respondents. Social samplings (expert panel and interviews and questionnaires) used data
from previous ecosystem services assessments conducted by the authors, i.e., Gómez-
Baggethun et al. (2011a) and Palomo et al. (2011). Not all ecosystem services were
evaluated with both techniques: * means that the ecosystem service was evaluated by that
specific method.
N Expert Interviews and Biophysical

Category Ecosystem service
o panel questionnaires assessment
Provisioning Food from agriculture 1 * * *
Food from fish (aquaculture) 2 * * *
Food from fish (fishing) 3 * * *
Freshwater consumption 4 * *
Harvesting 5 * * *
Livestock 6 * * *
Medicinal plants 7 * *
Shellfishing 8 * *
Regulating Air quality 9 * *
Climate regulation 10 * * *
Flood buffering 11 * *
Habitat for species 12 * * *
Hydrological regulation 13 * * *
Plague and pest control 14 *
Pollination 15 * * *
Soil fertility 16 * * *
Water depuration 17 * * *
Cultural Aesthetic value 18 * * *
Environmental education 19 * *
Local ecological knowledge 20 * *
Local identity 21 * * *
Nature tourism and recreation 22 * * *
Recreational hunting 23 * *
Scientific knowledge 24 * *
Spiritual value 25 *
References for Appendix B

García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Díaz, S., valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana
Montes, C. (2011). Can ecosystem properties be social-ecological system (southwestern Spain).
fully translated into service values? An economic Ecological Economics, 70, 1481-1491.
valuation of aquatic plants services. Ecological
Applications, 21, 3083-3103. Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López-Santiago, C.,
Montes, C. (2011). Participatory scenario
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Lomas, P., planning for protected areas management under
Zorrilla, P., Montes, C. (2011a). Evolution of the ecosystem services framework: the Doñana
ecosystem services in a Mediterranean cultural social-ecological system in southwestern Spain.
landscape: Doñana case study, Spain (1956- Ecology and Society, 16, 23. Retrieved from - http
2006). In: Sofo A (Ed.) Biodiversity (pp. 27-46). -//www.ecologyandsociety.org/
Intech Open Access Publisher. vol16/iss1/art23

Montes, C. (2011). The conservation against
development paradigm in Protected Areas:
156
Capítulo 4.6
Evaluation of protected areas zoning using the

ecosystem services approach. Insights for landscape
planning.
Ignacio Palomo1 , Berta Martín-López1, Paloma Alcorlo1, Carlos Montes1
1 Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Autónoma University of

Madrid.
Manuscrito.
Results
4.6. Evaluación de la zonificación de áreas protegidas mediante el

marco de los servicios de los ecosistemas. Recomendaciones para la
ordenación del territorio
Resumen Las áreas protegidas se han creado en todo el mundo para proteger determinados
lugares de la transformación de usos del suelo. Los ecosistemas protegidos por estas áreas no solo
contienen altos niveles de biodiversidad sino que también suministran un flujo variado de
servicios. En este trabajo evaluamos los efectos de la zonificación de los Espacios Naturales de
Doñana y Sierra Nevada en el suministro de servicios. Para ello hemos cartografiado siete
servicios de los ecosistemas y analizado su variación en función de la zonificación y de la
intensidad de usos del suelo. Hemos observado que los servicios de abastecimiento y culturales
están incluidos con diferente nomenclatura en los planes de gestión de ambos espacios naturales,
mientras que los servicios de regulación apenas se mencionan. Los análisis estadísticos realizados
muestran que el suministro de servicios varía en función de la zonificación, de la intensidad de
usos del suelo y de variables geomorfológicas. Por ello reconocemos que la implementación de los
servicios de los ecosistemas en las áreas protegidas implica lidiar con la complejidad, entre la que
se incluye establecer objetivos específicos de conservación para los servicios que incluyan las
sinergias y trade-offs entre servicios. Concluimos que los procesos socio-ecológicos que han
permitido la creación de los paisajes culturales mediterráneos deberían ser incluidos en los
planes de gestión y en la zonificación de las áreas protegidas con el fin mantener estos paisajes.
158
4.6. Evaluation of protected areas zoning using the ecosystem

services approach. Insights for landscape planning
Abstract Protected areas have been created worldwide to set apart certain areas from land
use transformation. The ecosystems protected by these areas do not only contain high levels of
biodiversity, but also deliver several ecosystem services. In this study we evaluated the effects of
the zoning schemes of the Doñana and Sierra Nevada protected areas (Spain) on ecosystem
services delivery. We mapped seven ecosystem services and assessed their variation within the
protected area zoning and land use intensity. We found that although provisioning and cultural
services are included in the management plans under a different terminology, regulating services
are barely addressed. Ecosystem service delivery varies differently depending on the protection
category of the protected areas (protection intensity), land use intensity and geomorphological
factors. Therefore, implementation of ecosystem services into protected area management
requires dealing with complexity, among which the establishment specific goals for ecosystem
service delivery that include ecosystem service synergies and trade-offs is needed. We conclude
that the social-ecological processes that lead to the creation of Mediterranean cultural landscapes
shall be included in protected areas management and zoning if these landscapes are to be
maintained.
Key words: ecosystem service bundles, mapping, social-ecological system, Spain, trade-offs.
159
Results
4.6.1. Introduction
Protected areas are the main strategy for the importance of zoning, there are few
the conservation of nature (Chape et al., studies assessing the efficacy of the zoning
2005). They have been created by setting schemes of protected areas (Hull et al.,
apart pieces of land from land use 2011). Many of these studies focus on the
transformation. The aim for doing so has optimization of the zoning schemes to
evolved along protected areas history from achieve protected area goals and to provide
protecting landscapes, to the conservation of a transparent methodology adequate for
diversity, and nowadays, ecosystem services zoning protected areas (Geneletti and van
are being incorporated to the reasons for Duren, 2008; Hull et al., 2011; Villa et al.,
establishing protected areas. After the 2002). However, none of the studies
success of increasing the world protected reviewed, addressed zoning of protected
area surface in the last decades, attention is areas taking into account that establishing
shifting now towards the effectiveness of rigid boundaries among zones can reduce
these areas to achieve their conservation the spatial resilience of the landscape if they
goals (Ervin, 2003). Biodiversity still don’t include the social and ecological
decreases (Butchart et al., 2010; CBD, 2010; memory of the landscape (Bengtsson et al.,
Rands et al., 2010), and as a recent study 2003).
acknowledges even inside protected areas
In the Mediterranean, ancient traditional
(Laurance et al., 2012). Thus management of
uses have existed for millennia (Blondel,
protected areas shall improve to overcome
2006; DiCastri and Mooney, 1973),
their main deficiencies (Leverington et al.,
contributing to the existence of high
2010).
biodiversity levels through intermediate
One of the most important tools for levels of exploitation that managed the
protected area management is zoning. A natural perturbations regime (Pineda y
zone is defined as a region or area set off as Motalvo, 1995). The domestication of the
distinct from surrounding or adjoining landscapes in the Mediterranean region
parts8. A zoning scheme defines different (Bernáldez, 1981) has led to the creation of
areas within the protected area in which the so called cultural landscapes which
regulation and management vary in order to provide a diversity of ecosystem services
achieve certain conservation goals. Despite (Blondel et al., 2010; Bughalo et al, 2011;
García-llorente et al., 2012; Martín-López et
al., 2012). As in the Mediterranean, there a
8 Zone. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from very few examples of pristine areas,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zone protected areas often encompasses some
type of use. The main purpose of the zoning
in these ecosystems is therefore to regulate
160
different uses within the protected area nature these Mediterranean cultural
(Ruiz-Labourdette et al., 2010). landscapes that both protected areas cover
can be understood as coupled social-
Protected areas are defined by the
ecological systems (sensu Liu et al., 2007).
International Union for Conservation of
Both protected areas include a long tradition
Nature (IUCN) as “clearly defined
of sustainable human use of ecosystems and
geographical areas, recognized, devoted and
are thus considered cultural landscapes
managed, through legal means or other
(Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2012; Wright and
effective means, to attain the long-term
Campbell, 2008). The contrasting
conservation of nature and its associated
geomorphological situation, contrasting
ecosystem services and cultural values”
oriented goals of conservation (see section
(Dudley, 2008). Given that one of the aims of
2) of both protected areas allows a better
protected areas is the maintenance of
understanding of the socio-ecological
ecosystem services, studies assessing
characteristics of both areas and their
ecosystem services within and around
surrounding matrixes.
protected areas are needed (Eigenbrod et al.,
2010; Palomo et al., in pressa). In this Our working hypothesis was that, if
context, ecosystem services trade-offs and zoning does not integrate the biophysical
synergies are one of the core aspects for and social elements that allow the
analyzing the efficacy of any zoning scheme maintenance of these cultural landscapes,
or management strategy (Egoh et al., 2008; this could disrupt the social-ecological
Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010). Moreover, processes that have created these landscapes
ecosystem services maps allow to integrate and deplete ecosystem service delivery. In
trade-offs and synergies that emerge as a order to evaluate this hypothesis, our
result of land use transformation (Goldstein specific aims were to: (1) analyze ecosystem
et al., 2012), which is one the main drivers of service supply along a gradient of protection
change affecting protected area isolation intensity (i.e. the different zones of the
(DeFries et al., 2005; Foley et al., 2005; protected areas; (2) analyze the effect of
Gimmi et al. 2011; Joppa et al. 2008). land-use intensity on the ecosystem services
delivery; (3) explore which ecosystem
In this work, we assessed the adequacy of
services relationships (i.e., synergies and
the current zoning scheme in two
trade-offs) emerge as a consequence of the
emblematic protected areas for the
landscape planning (considering both
conservation of European nature (Doñana
protection intensity and land use intensity);
and Sierra Nevada, south Spain) (Blanca,
and (4) assess the adequacy of the current
1998; Fernández-Delgado, 2006) for
protected area zoning for the delivery of
landscape management, using a social-
ecosystem services.
ecological approach. Given the long and
intense co-evolution between humans and
161
Results
4.6.2. Study areas Natural Park and the PRUG of the National
Park, respectively. The management of
Two protected areas located in Andalusia
Sierra Nevada was approved by the
(Spain), one at the end of the Guadalquivir
238/2011 law which includes the PORN and
River watershed (Doñana) and the other at
the PRUG for the National and Natural Parks.
the headwater of the river basin (Sierra
Nevada) were selected for this study (Figure In these management plans, we did not
4.6.1). The importance of both protected find a mention to the ecosystem services that
areas has been recognized in international the protected areas deliver. However, the
figures such as Biosphere reserve, and, in the plans do include sections referring to
case of Doñana, World heritage site and specific uses that correspond to provisioning
Ramsar wetland. Both include the two only services: agriculture, forest products,
National parks in Andalusia and a Natural grazing, hunting and fishing, aquiculture,
Park surrounding it, being the National water use for watering and energy
Parks managed more restrictively than the production. The plans include guidelines to
Natural Parks. While the Doñana protected promote and regulate recreation, research,
area was created to stop wetland conversion environmental education, cultural heritage
for agriculture and to protect the habitats of and cultural traditions maintenance (all
birds and emblematic species such as the these being cultural services). Moreover we
Iberian Imperial Eagle (Aquila adalberti) and also found mentions to erosion control,
the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus), the Sierra water regulation, climate regulation and
Nevada protected area was mainly created to extreme events (fires) regulation that are
protect the endemic botanical diversity of indeed regulating services. Therefore, the
the area. management plans include the ecosystem
services that they deliver. However, while
4.6.2.1. Evaluation of the management plans provisioning and cultural services are
of the protected areas included in detail with several specific
We reviewed the main management regulations, regulating services are barely
instruments of both protected areas, the Plan addressed.
for the Regulation of Natural Resources
(PORN) and the Steering Plan for Use and 4.6.2.2. Evaluation of the zoning of the
protected areas and their social-ecological
Management (PRUG), to evaluate their
systems
objectives and zoning, and to elucidate to
which extent ecosystem services were Zoning for the protected areas was done
included in those plans. The management of in order to regulate the suitability of uses as
the protected area of Doñana was approved established in the Spanish law 4/1989 on the
by the laws 97/2005 and the 48/2004, Conservation of Natural Sites and Wild Flora
which include the PORN and PRUG of the and Fauna, and in the Spanish law 42/2007,
162
on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity. The ecosystems (sensu Grumbine 1990) on

zoning of the protected areas together with which both areas were located (Jimenez-
their characteristics and main services they Olivencia, 1991; Montes et al., 1998) as the
provide is shown in Table 4.6.1. biological subsystems. For the socio-
economic subsystem we selected all
Given the long co-evolution between
municipalities falling inside the protected
human and nature in the Mediterranean and
area and those municipalities that depended
that protected areas need to be integrated
directly on the ecosystem services delivered
into a wider landscape for an adequate
by the protected area or that had a big
management, we identified the social-
influence on it. The surface covered by both
ecological systems (SES) of both protected
protected areas of the biophysical and social-
areas as our study areas (sensu Liu et al.,
ecological system is shown in the
2007). For that we selected the greater
Supplementary material (Appendix A).
163
Results
Table 4.6.1. Zoning of the National and Natural Parks of Doñana and Sierra Nevada, areas covered by them, objectives of these areas and main services
provided by them.
Figure of Zone Characteristics Areas covered Objectives of Areas Objectives of Main services
protection the zones covered the zones provided
DOÑANA SIERRA NEVADA BOTH AREAS
National Reserve Is the most protected Biological and Very few Includes Not specified. Hydrological regulation,
Park zone area due to its Guadiamar reserves, research several General criteria climate regulation,
uniqueness, fragility, tidal influence zone activities are mountain and guidelines for erosion control,
biodiversity or of the Guadalquivir permitted. wetlands and the National Park satisfaction for
scientific values and Brazo del Este, Grazing is some cliffs applies biodiversity
coastal Juniper prohibited conservation, scientific
formations, knowledge
reedbeds, etc.
Restricted Very natural areas The rest of the Some traditional The rest of the Not specified. Hydrological regulation,
use zone which might support National Park uses are allowed National Park General criteria climate regulation,
a certain degree of under regulation and guidelines for erosion control,
non-intensive use the National Park satisfaction for
applies biodiversity
conservation, scientific
knowledge, food from
grazing, cultural identity
Moderate Natural areas where Beach area Nature tourism Reforested Not specified. Nature tourism, beach
use zone human influence has is allowed areas with General criteria tourism, climate
been bigger. These pines, farming and guidelines for regulation, erosion
areas can support areas, skiing the National Park control, food from
bigger intensities of areas, applies agriculture, food from
human uses mountain grazing
refuges and
recreation
areas
Special Small areas where Visitor centers and Access to this Roads, Not specified. Environmental
use zones constructions and their parking areas, areas is not mountain General criteria education, recreation
infrastructures are Palacio de Doñana restricted to refuges and guidelines for
located. It also and Marismilla users the National Park
includes the buildings. applies
infrastructures
needed to provide
services to visitors
164
and the protected

area offices
Zone of Areas located in the Not specified Not specified Not existing Not existing Coastal protection,
protection surroundings of the hydrological regulation,
National Park that act erosion control,
as buffer areas recreation, shellfish
gathering,
Natural Reserve Areas dedicated to Several areas given Dedicated to Wetlands and Biodiversity Satisfaction for
Park zones (A) conservation, their importance for conservation, peat bogs conservation, biodiversity
research, ecological fauna and flora research, research and conservation, scientific
regeneration and conservation and maintenance of environmental knowledge and
environmental their ecological education environmental education
education geomorphological processes and
uniqueness environmental
education
Special Natural zones with Includes hilly areas, Dedicated to the Forest, bush, Sustainable use of Forest products, food
regulation different degrees of non-exploited maintenance of and pasture grazing, forest use from agriculture, food
zones (B) human marshes and the system with areas. and hunting from grazing,
transformation in exploited marshes traditional uses Includes the compatible with recreational hunting,
which traditional that allow buffer are for biodiversity satisfaction for
uses (mainly forestry, biodiversity alpine ski conservation. biodiversity
grazing or hunting) conservation Multi- conservation, climate
are maintained functionality regulation, hydrological
regulation
Common Less natural areas in Cultivated areas, Dedicated to Some bush Dedicated to Food from agriculture,
regulation which different uses intensive minimize the areas, minimize the food from grazing, food
zones (C) are allowed. They aquaculture areas impacts of the cultivated impacts of the from aquaculture, ski
include diverse uses and buildings. farming areas, ski activities within it tourism
like agriculture, activities and area, mining
grazing or ski constructions areas.
existing in it
Zone not Areas excluded of the Not existing in Not existing in Urban areas Dedicated to
included environmental Doñana Doñana minimize the
in any zoning impacts of the
category activities within it
(D)
165
Results
Figure 4.6.1. Doñana and Sierra Nevada social-ecological systems and zoning of the protected areas. The
Greater ecosystems of Doñana and Sierra Nevada are the biophysical part of the social-ecological system.
The boundaries of the social-ecological system are delimited following the limits of the biophysical and the
socio-economic systems.
4.6.3. Methodology Environmental Information Network

(1:25,000). As land use categories are much
4.6.3.1. Protection intensity, land use intensity detailed it is possible to assign them scores for
and ecosystem services mapping intensity of land use from 0 to 1. Following
A protection intensity value was given to the Schneiders et al. (2012), and based on the
different areas of the zoning of both protected criteria of the authors of this article, we
areas by sorting them according to their degree assigned the land use intensity values to the
of protection (Table 4.6.2). Land use intensity different land uses (Table 4.6.2) .
values were assigned to the 112 land use
categories of the Land use map for Andalusia,
which is available from the Andalusian
166
Table 4.6.2. Protection and land use intensity scores for the Doñana and Sierra Nevada social-ecological
systems.
Protection Protection Protection Land use intensity Land use
categories intensity in the intensity in the in Doñana and intensity
Doñana SES Sierra Nevada SES Sierra Nevada SES scores
National Park reserve 6 6 Natural wetlands, 0.1
and restricted use natural forest areas
zones Bushes with trees and 0.2
bush areas
National Park 5 5 Pasture with trees 0.3
moderate and special (dehesa) and pasture
use zone Non-native forest areas 0.4
National park zone of 4 - Non-irrigated farmlands 0.5
protection
Natural Park (A) 3 4 Irrigated farmlands 0.6
Natural Park (B) 2 3 Rice fields, urban parks 0.7
Natural Park (C) 1 2 Greenhouses, sport 0.8
fields
Natural Park (D) - 1 Urban areas 0.9
Non protected 0 0 Airports, mining areas, 1
territory by the highways
National and Natural
Parks
In order to evaluate how the protected area sources which are explained in Table 4.6.3. We
and its surroundings perform in terms of selected these services to achieve an adequate
ecosystem service delivery, we mapped seven balance among provisioning, regulating and
ecosystem services with different proxies and cultural services.
167
Results
Table 4.6.3. Summary of the proxies and sources used for mapping ecosystem services in the Doñana and
Sierra Nevada social-ecological systems
Ecosystem Service proxy and units Sources
service
Food from Agricultural yield (Kg) Land use map from the regional environmental office of
agriculture Andalusia (2007; 1:25.000). Official statistics for yield values
from the regional agrarian office (2007)
Water Precipitation minus Raster files from the Spanish ministry of agriculture, food and
availability evapotranspiration (mm) environment (2009). Resolution: 1km2
Beekeeping Suitability for the location of Beekeeping suitability map from the Andalusian
suitability beehives (Categorical units: environmental office
High, medium-high, medium-
low, low)
Climate Carbon storage (Tons of Mapped using InVEST model (Tallis and Polasky 2009).
regulation elemental Carbon). Studies mainly from the Spanish Mediterranean region which
measured carbon in soil, in the underground and above
ground biomass and in dead organic matter. Land use map
from the regional environmental office of Andalusia (2007;
1:25.000)
Erosion USLE (Categorical units: High, Erosion control map of the Andalusian environmental office
control medium-high, medium-low, (1992-2010).
low)
Recreational Individuals hunted of more than Map of hunting parcels and individuals hunted. Andalusian
hunting 30 different species, including hunting institute (2009/2010).
ducks, hares, wild boars and
deers.
Nature Number of visitors to most PNOA image server. For Doñana: Gómez-Limón, 2003. For
tourism visited areas Sierra Nevada: Visitors survey from the Sierra Nevada
Protected Area (2009)
scale to make them comparable. Finally, to

4.6.3.2. Statistical analysis of the spatial data evaluate the total ecosystem service delivery,
and derived maps creation we summed all ecosystem service scores into a
Prior to perform the statistical analysis and new variable which we called sum of ecosystem
to avoid spatial autocorrelation we created a services.
layer of randomly distributed points with a
To analyze ecosystem service delivery along
density of 10.8 points/km2 (n=79786). Next we
a gradient of protection and land use intensity,
extracted all values from the ecosystem service
we created diagrams including these variables
maps, the land use intensity layer and the
and the mean value of the sum of ecosystem
protection categories (zoning) to the point
services and the standard deviation. Next, to
shapefile. Then, we normalized all variables
elucidate ecosystem services synergies and
(i.e., ecosystem services, land-use intensity and
trade-offs, we performed a principal component
protection intensity) by subtracting the mean of
analysis with varimax rotation with the seven
each value and dividing by the standard
ecosystem services mapped and selected the
deviation and standardized them to a 0 to 1
factorial coordinates obtained that had an
168
eigenvalue higher than 1 -i.e., Kaiser criterion-.

In order to visualize spatially this trade-offs and
synergies, we incorporated the factors to the
4.6.4. Results
shapefile including the spatial data and mapped
them. Next we used the Pearson correlation test 4.6.4.1. Land use intensity, protection intensity
and ecosystem service supply
to analyze the correlation among the factors
selected and the intensity of protection and Ecosystem service supply in the Doñana and
land use. This analysis allowed us to analyse Sierra Nevada SES is shown in Figures 4.6.1 and
how land use and protection intensity related 4.6.2 of the Supplementary material (Appendix
with certain ecosystem service synergies and A). The relationship between ecosystem service
trade-offs. Finally, in order assess the adequacy supply and protection intensity is shown in
of the protected area zoning for the delivery of Figure 4.6.2. We can see that in the Doñana SES
ecosystem services we visualized how the sum of ecosystem services is constant along
protection intensity and delivery of ecosystem the protection intensity gradient with lower
services vary spatially by layering both scores of ecosystem service delivery for the
variables in a map. highest protection intensity. In Sierra Nevada
SES we found that ecosystem service delivery is
higher in areas with greater protection
intensity scores.
Figure 4.6.2. The value of the sum of ecosystem services along the protection intensity gradient for Doñana
(A) and Sierra Nevada (B) social-ecological systems.
169
Results
Figure 4.6.3. The value of the sum of ecosystem services along the land use intensity gradient for Doñana
(A) and Sierra Nevada (B) social-ecological systems.
Regarding land use intensity, we found that The positive relationship is explained because
while in Doñana SES the sum of ecosystem both services are mainly supplied in the inland
services was similar along the gradient of land areas outside the National Park (recreational
use intensity except for the most intensive land hunting is prohibited within the National Park
used (Figure 4.6.3A), in Sierra Nevada SES, and water availability scores are small there
ecosystem service delivery decreased with the given the high evapotranspiration rates of the
increase of the intensity of land use (Figure marsh which is mainly located inside the
4.6.3B). In both study areas, very high levels of National Park). The second trade-off explained
land use intensity (0.9 and 1) had very low by F2 (17.72%) in Doñana SES takes place
values of ecosystem service supply. between food from agriculture and climate
regulation. The first four factors, which explain
4.6.4.2. Ecosystem services synergies and trade- 70.90% of variance, show the main
offs relationships between ecosystem services
We found several synergies among emerging in the Doñana SES.
ecosystem services and some trade-offs among
In the case of Sierra Nevada SES, three
ecosystem services, meaning that some areas
factors have an eigenvalue higher than 1, and
supply certain ecosystem services with special
explain 52.66% of the variance showing the
intensity, and that in those areas other
most important relationships between
ecosystem services are barely supplied (Table
ecosystem services. Factor 1 (20.94%) shows a
4.6.4). In the Doñana SES, F1 (24.25% of
trade-off between food from agriculture and the
variance) shows a positive relationships (i.e.,
beekeeping suitability-climate regulation. The
synergies) between water availability and
second relationship found in F2 (17.59%) were
recreational hunting, and a trade-off between
synergistic between water availability and
these two services and beekeeping suitability.
170
nature tourism. This synergy is explained as between erosion control and recreational
nature tourism is more abundant in the hunting. The spatial distribution of these
summits area and western part of the Sierra relationships (both synergies and trade-offs)
Nevada SES, where precipitation is more are shown in Figure 4.6.4.
intense. Finally, F3 (15.13%) shows a trade-off
Table 4.6.4. Factor loadings derived from principal component analysis after Varimax rotation for the
ecosystem services mapped. Only those factors with eigenvalue higher than 1 (Kaiser Criterion) are shown.
Bold squared cosines show those variables that higher contribute to each factor.
Doñana SES Sierra Nevada SES

F1 F2 F3 F4 F1 F2 F3
Water availability 0.766 0.092 0.095 0,104 0.089 0.805 -0.142
Food from agriculture 0.165 0.861 -0.036 0,074 -0.688 -0.038 0.099
Beekeping suitability -0.606 0.291 -0.201 -0,031 0.608 0.068 -0.176
Erosion control 0.009 -0.016 -0.009 0,979 0.421 -0.389 0.482
Climate regulation 0.332 -0.731 -0.070 0,178 0.586 0.195 0.204
Nature tourism 0.020 0.004 0.958 -0,012 0.036 0.671 0.360
Recreational hunting 0.673 0.009 -0.215 -0,149 0.101 -0.045 -0.782
Eigenvalue 1.697 1.241 1.019 1.007 1.466 1.231 1.060
Variance explained (%) 24.248 17.722 14.553 14.380 20.937 17.588 15.137
Cumulative variance explained (%) 24.248 41.969 56.522 70.903 20.937 38.525 53.662
171
Results
Figure 4.6.4. Ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies derived from the factors of the principal
component analysis.
created for protection and land use intensity

4.6.4.3. Effect of land use intensity and
protection intensity on the relationships of allowed us to analyze which ecosystem services
ecosystem services synergies and trade-offs are being fostered by
these two indices (Table 4.6.5). In the Doñana
The correlation analysis among the factor
SES, the intensity of land use and protection are
loadings for ecosystem services and the indices
highly negatively correlated showing a high
172
antagonism, meaning that there is a high land accused as the land use intensity and protection
use intensity contrast among the protected area intensity are not so highly negatively
and its surroundings. Land use intensity correlated. In Sierra Nevada SES, land use
presents a high positive correlation with F2 intensity is associated with food from
meaning that is fostering food from agriculture. agriculture, as the variable is negatively
Protection intensity is highly negatively correlated with F1. Protection intensity is
correlated with F1 and F2, meaning that fosters associated with beekeeping suitability and
beekeeping suitability and climate regulation. climate regulation (F1), water availability and
In Sierra Nevada SES, the dichotomy between nature tourism (F2) and erosion control (F3).
land use and protection intensity is not so
Table 4.6.5. Pearson correlation test among the factor scores derived from the principal component
analysis showing relationships between ecosystem services and the intensity of land use and the intensity
of protection. Significant values at the 0.05 significance level are shown in bold.
Variables Land use intensity Protection intensity F1 F2 F3

Doñana SES
Land use intensity -
Protection intensity -0.562 -
F1 0.118 -0.290 -
F2 0.585 -0.336 0.000 -
F3 0.048 0.049 0.000 0.000 -
Sierra Nevada SES
Land use intensity -
Protection intensity -0.333 -
F1 -0.503 0.274 -
F2 -0.266 0.427 0.000 -
F3 -0.023 0.331 0.000 0.000 -
same time (dark brown areas). This highlights

4.6.4.3. Visualizing ecosystem service delivery that the areas with greatest protection intensity
in relation to protection intensity do not necessarily are related with highest
The protection intensity and ecosystem ecosystem service delivery scores.
service delivery (sum of ecosystem services)
are shown in Figure 4.6.5. As seen in this figure,
although there are several areas with high
ecosystem service delivery (red areas) and with
high protection intensity (green areas), there is
few areas where the delivery of ecosystem
services and protection intensity are high at the
173
Results
Figure 4.6.5. Protection intensity and ecosystem services (ES) delivery map. High ES delivery (red
areas), high protection intensity (green areas), low ES delivery and low protection intensity (pale
areas) and high ES delivery and high protection intensity (dark brown areas) are shown.
4.6.5. Discussion Acknowledging the capacity of these areas to

maintain human well-being would foster
4.6.5.1. Adequacy of protected area support for conservation of protected areas
management plans for ecosystem service (Kettunen et al., 2010). But more than this, if
delivery services delivered by protected ecosystems
Several efforts have been done to connect are properly managed, protected areas could
nature to society in different ways, including become a key instrument to maintain human
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, The well-being. Management of protected areas
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity shall foster an adequate achievement of
and The Intergovernmental Science-Policy protected area goals, for what it is necessary
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem that the goals of the protected area are
(Martín-López and García-Llorente 2013). clearly stated and that indications exist to
Although protected areas reason to be decide among management trade-offs. Given
declared have been mostly to preserve the IUCN protected area definition, we would
biodiversity from land use transformation, expect that protected area management
areas under protection deliver multiple plans and zoning include ecosystem services
ecosystem services such as water among their conservation goals.
availability, climate regulation, nature
tourism or environmental education.
174
However, the Doñana and Sierra Nevada (corresponding to urban areas and other
protected areas which deliver a diversity of infrastructures) the ecosystem service
ecosystem services do not recognize them delivery is very low. In Doñana SES, we
yet into their management plans and zoning found that low and middle land use intensity
schemes in an explicit way. Although scores were associated with similar values of
provisioning and cultural services are ecosystem services delivery, while in Sierra
included with different terminology, Nevada SES low land use intensity scores
regulating services are barely included. provide more services than middle intensity
Given that protected areas represent the less scores (Figure 4.6.3). Accordingly, in the
transformed ecosystems, their capacity to Doñana SES we could not find a clear pattern
deliver regulating services is bigger than the for the delivery of ecosystem services among
rest of the land (Eigenbrod et al., 2009). This low and middle protection categories,
lack of attention towards regulating because ecosystem service delivery is very
ecosystem services´ delivery could lead to similar among them, while for very high
the degradation of these services within the protection intensity scores ecosystem
protected areas in the long term (Palomo et service delivery was lower. In Sierra Nevada
al., in pressb). SES the more the protection intensity, the
higher the delivery of ecosystem services.
4.6.5.2. Protection intensity, land use The relationship among both variables
intensity and the delivery of ecosystem seems to follow a logarithmic curve.
services
These results shall be explained taking
Land use relation to ecosystem services is
into consideration the protected area
getting increasing attention in the literature
management strategy, the ecosystem
(Nelson et al., 2009; Troy and Wilson 2006).
services selected in this study and the
One of the reasons behind this is that land
contrasting geomorphological
use is an inherent component of spatial
characteristics of both areas. Outside both
planning and associating land use and
protected areas there is a fewer delivery of
ecosystem services would be a major step to
some services, such as carbon sequestration
introduce ecosystem services into landscape
and erosion control, while other ecosystem
management (Burkahrd et al., 2012). In this
services like food from agriculture is highly
work, although we did not address land use
delivered outside the protected areas. In
classes directly, we did so indirectly by
Doñana SES, the Natural Park is delivering
working with land use intensity. A study in
more services than the National Park as
Belgium found that after a certain intensity
some of them like recreational hunting and
of land use, ecosystem services delivery
non-intensive agriculture are allowed within
declines (Schneiders et al., 2012). In Doñana
it and prohibited inside the National Park.
and Sierra Nevada SES, we found that for
Moreover, the Natural Park has more forest
very high levels of land use intensity
175
Results
areas, and therefore stores more carbon, delivery of forest ecosystem services within
contributing to a higher ecosystem service the protected area of Sierra Nevada that
delivery within it. Here, it is important to outside its borders (García-Nieto et al.,
note that specific services mostly promoted 2013).
by the management in the National Park, like
habitat provision or scientific knowledge, 4.6.5.3. Ecosystem service synergies, trade-
were not included in our analysis. However offs and intensity of land use and protection
in Sierra Nevada SES, the National Park and As previous studies have acknowledged, it
the strictest zoning categories have the is necessary to focus on several ecosystem
highest ecosystem service delivery. This services and the relations among them
result should be partly explained because because focusing in one single ecosystem
key biophysical factors determining the services could produce negative outcomes in
delivery of ecosystem services such as water other services (Tallis and Polasky, 2009).
availability (Quijas et al., 2012), are mostly Ecosystem service synergies and trade-offs
allocated in the National Park. The National represent now widely used approaches to
Park of Sierra Nevada receives the greatest analyze the relationships between
precipitation given its altitude and therefore ecosystem services (Martín-López et al.,
provides much of the water availability 2012; Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010).
service. In addition, nature tourism is high Although some mapping works deal with the
within the National Park because it contains challenge of analyzing ecosystem service
several summits and passes appreciated by relationships (Bai et al. 2011; Maes et al.
nature tourists. 2012), fewer consider the effect of
conservation policies on the emerging
These findings match with a previous
relationships among ecosystem services
deliberative ecosystem service mapping
(García-Nieto et al. 2013; Palomo et al. in
study which acknowledged that ecosystem
pressb).
service delivery in Sierra Nevada increased
from non-protected territory, to the Natural In Doñana and Sierra Nevada SES, we
and National Parks. The same study obtained found several synergies and trade-offs. In
a similar ecosystem service delivery both areas we found a trade-off between
between the Natural and National Parks of agriculture and climate regulation. This
Doñana, a fact that this study confirms. trade-off is representative for the
However that study gave an inferior delivery provisioning-regulating services trade-offs
of ecosystem services outside the protected that have been previously widely
area of Doñana, as the boundaries of the acknowledged worldwide (MA, 2005) and in
system and ecosystem services mapped Doñana (Martín-López et al., 2011; Zorrilla
varied slightly (Palomo et al., in pressa). A et al., submitted). The synergy between
recent study also found that there is higher water availability and recreational hunting
176
in Doñana SES shall be explained because management in the Mediterranean cultural

landscapes
some of the areas with greater water
availability are areas outside the National Several issues shall be taken into
Park boundaries where hunting is consideration to evaluate protected area
prohibited. In the Sierra Nevada SES, we zoning, including conservation goals and
found a strong positive relationship between human needs (Hull et al., 2011). Here, the
water availability and nature tourism that first issue to analyze is the adequacy of the
can be explained because both services are protected area boundaries and surface
especially supplied in the summits and covered by the protected area. Protected
western area of the Sierra, where area boundaries are a central element of the
precipitation is more frequent and there are protected areas literature and have an
several areas with visited by many tourists. important impact on social-ecological
In addition, it is well-known that people tend processes (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005). As
to visit those places with water because they we can see in Figure 4.6.1, the boundaries of
contribute to aesthetic enjoyment, i.e., Doñana protected area are very linear, while
hydrofilia (Bernáldez, 1985). the limits of Sierra Nevada are more
irregular. As ecological boundaries rarely
The strong and negative correlation have a linear pattern, we could elucidate that
between land use and protection intensity in Doñana protected area limits do not fully
confirms the adequacy of protected areas to incorporate ecological boundaries.
prevent land use transformations. As the Moreover, Doñana has under protection a
correlation is more intense in Doñana than much smaller part of its biophysical and
in Sierra Nevada SES, we can elucidate that social-ecological system than Sierra Nevada
there is a stronger dichotomy between (Supplementary material), which affects the
conservation inside protected area and overall delivery of ecosystem services. This
development outside it in Doñana than in makes hard a consistent management
Sierra Nevada. This confirms previous strategy given the existence of boundaries
studies that acknowledged this trend in that don’t encompass fully the ecological
Doñana (Martín-López et al., 2011; Ojeda, limits of the territory. Moreover, in Doñana
1986, Palomo et al., 2011). In both SES, land the zoning seems to have a less adequate
use intensity is clearly associated with match with the ecodistricts of the
increases in the delivery of food from biophysical system than Sierra Nevada
agriculture service and, on the contrary, is (Figure 4.6.1). This could be explained by the
negatively associated with the supply of fact that in Sierra Nevada there is an
climate regulation service. emphasis in the protection of endemic plant
species while in Doñana, the emphasis is in
4.6.5.4. Adequacy of protected area the protection of animal habitats.
extension and zoning. Issues for
consideration for protected areas
177
Results
We have also seen spatially that neither in for several reasons (Reed et al., 2008) among
Sierra Nevada SES nor in Doñana SES the which that stakeholders will be the winners
areas with greatest ecosystem service and losers from the resulting ecosystem
delivery fully match with the areas under services trade-offs (Reyers et al., 2009).
greatest protection (Figure 4.6.5). We can
We could also raise the question if the
conclude from this result that current zoning
zoning scheme is adequate to the
is not adjusted to ecosystem services
maintenance of a multi-functional cultural
delivery by the protected areas. In the
landscape that delivers a diversity of
protected area management, some
ecosystem services. In our study in the
ecosystem services shall be prioritized, as
Mediterranean context, local stakeholders
there are several trade-offs among
applying their local ecological knowledge
ecosystem services. From our study in the
gained through millennia have been
case of Doñana and Sierra Nevada SES we
architects or ‘sculptors’ of the landscape in
can see that if we foster climate regulation,
order to enjoy a broad spectrum of
food from agriculture will be reduced.
ecosystem services (Blondel et al., 2006;
Moreover, given the existing ecosystem
Martín-López et al. 2012). As we have seen,
services bundles, some ecosystem services
the zoning itself is determining which
will be fostered by prioritizing others. For
services area fostered (Table 1). Therefore, if
the adequate management of ecosystem
zoning is not elaborated including the
services, the zoning of the protected areas
ecological and social boundaries of the
shall help in defining which ecosystem
territory, then it would disrupt the social-
services bundles to prioritize and where.
ecological processes that deliver the
Accurate maps of ecosystem service services. Given that ecological and social
delivery are necessary to inform the spatial boundaries are often diffuse, a
ecosystem services delivery capacity of the blurred zonation for protected areas might
protected area. Once acknowledged the encompass this aspect better. In addition, if
capacity of the protected area to deliver local ecological knowledge is not included in
multiple ecosystem services several the management and zoning of protected
management actions will be needed to areas, they will probably fail to maintain the
manage ecosystem service flows according cultural landscapes that they have inherited
to societal needs. For that aim ecosystem with all their characteristics including a high
service flow maps of protected areas can biodiversity. Given the vulnerability of such
show part of the socio-ecological weaves knowledge (Gómez-Baggethum et al., 2010),
that connect protected areas to their protected areas could play an active role not
surrounding lands (Palomo et al, in pressa). only to integrate it into their management,
Real participatory approaches shall be but also to adapt this knowledge to today’s
implemented in this management processes needs of society.
178
All these issues make this management landscapes are now managed by protected
deal with complexity. As some studies have areas like Doñana and Sierra Nevada which
acknowledged, protected area managers zone the protected land according to a
usually lack enough evidence to assess their zoning scheme and management plans. In
management decisions (Cook et al., 2010). this study we found that the management
Therefore we need to incorporate plans of these protected areas barely
complexity for the integration of several address regulating services. Several factors
socio-ecological aspects into landscape influence ecosystem service delivery
planning such as biodiversity, multiple including geomorphological aspects, land
ecosystem services and social factors use intensity, protection intensity, and
(Parrott and Meyer, 2012; Reyers et al., protected area zoning. As protected area
2012). zoning uses rigid boundaries, we discuss the
adequacy of this scheme as the social-
ecological processes needed to maintain
these cultural landscapes normally have
4.6.3. Conclusions
diffuse boundaries. We conclude that
The Mediterranean cultural landscapes managing socio-ecological interactions (i.e.
have been shaped by several ecological and ecosystem services) is a complex issue that
social factors. These landscapes do not only must include not only ecological but also
contain a high biodiversity but also deliver social aspects.
multiple ecosystem services. Parts of these
179
Results
References
Bai, Y., Zhuang, C., Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., and Jiang, CBD. 2010. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
B. 2011. Spatial characteristics between 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
biodiversity and ecosystem services in a (Convention on Biological Diversity, Tenth
human-dominated watershed. Ecological Conference of Parties, Nagoya, Japan,
Complexity 8:177–183. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2, 29 October 2010).
Bengtsson, J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist, T., Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., and Lysenko, I.
Emanuelsson, U., Folke, C., Ihse, M., Moberg, F., 2005. Measuring the extent and effectiveness
and Nyström, M. 2003. Reserves, resilience and of protected areas as an indicator for meeting
dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32(6):389-396. global biodiversity targets. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London
Bernáldez, F. G. 1981. Ecología y Paisaje. Blume, Series B: Biological Sciences 360(1454):443–
Barcelona, Spain. 455.
Bernáldez, F. G. 1985. Invitación a la ecología Cook, C. N., Hockings, M., and Carter, R. B. 2010.
humana. La adaptación afectiva al entorno. Conservation in the dark? The information
Tecnos, Madrid. used to support management decisions.
Frontier in Ecology and in the Environment
Blanca, G., Cueto, M., Martínez-Lirola, M. J., and 8:181-186.
Molero-Mesa, J. 1998. Threatened vascular
flora of Sierra Nevada (Southern Spain). DeFries, R., Hansen, A., Newton, A. C., and Hansen,
Biological Conservation 85:269–285. M. C. 2005. Increasing isolation of protected
areas in tropical forests over the past twenty
Blondel, J. 2006. The 'design' of Mediterranean years. Ecological Applications 15:19–26
landscapes: a millennial story of humans and
ecological systems during the historic period. Di Castri, F. and Mooney, H. A., editors. 1973.
Human Ecology 34:713-729. Mediterranean Type Ecosystems: Origin and
Structure. Springer Verlag, New York.
Blondel, J., Aronson, J., Bodiu, J. Y., and Boeuf, G.,
editors. 2010. The Mediterranean region. Dudley, N. (Editor) 2008. Guidelines for Applying
Biological diversity in space and time. Oxford Protected Area Management Categories. Gland,
University Press Inc., New York. Switzerland: IUCN.
Bugalho, M. N., Caldeira, M. C., Pereira, J. S., Eigenbrod, F., Anderson, B. J., Armsworth, P. R.,
Aronson, J., and Pausas, J. G. 2011. Heinemeyer, A., Jackson, S. F., Parnell, M.,
Mediterranean cork oak savannas require Thomas, C. D., and Gaston, K. J. 2009.
human use to sustain biodiversity and Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting
ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and conservation strategies in a human-dominated
the Environment 9:278–286. region. Proceedings of The Royal Society
276(1669):2903-2911
Butchart, S. H. M., et al. 2010. Global biodiversity:
indicators of recent declines. Science 328: Eigenbrod, F., Anderson, B. J., Armsworth, P. R.,
1164–1168. Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D. B., Thomas,
C. D., and Gaston, K. J. 2010. Representation of
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., and Müller, F. ecosystem services by tiered conservation
2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, strategies. Conservation Letters 3:184–191.
demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators
21:17-29. Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M.,
LeMaitre, D.C., and van Jaarsveld, A. S. 2008.
Mapping ecosystem services for planning and
180
management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Academy of Sciences of the United States of

Environment 127(1-2):135-140. America. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1201040109
Ervin, J. 2003. Protected Area Assessments in Gómez-Baggethun, E., Mingorría, S., Reyes-García,
Perspective. BioScience 53:819-822. V., Calvet, L., and Montes, C. 2010. Traditional
ecological knowledge trends in the transition
Fernández-Delgado C. 2006. Conservation to a market economy: empirical study in the
Management of a European Natural Area: Doñana natural areas. Conservation Biology
Doñana National Park, Spain. In: Groom, M. J., 24(3):721-729.
Meffe, G. K., and Carroll. C. R., editors.
Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García, V., Olsson, P.,
Associates, Inc., Sunderland, USA. and Montes, C. 2012. Traditional knowledge
and community resilience to environmental
Foley, J. A., et al. 2005 Global consequences of land extremes. A case study in Doñana, SW Spain.
use. Science 309:570–574. Global Environmental Change 22:640-650.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta- Gómez-Limón García, J., Medina Domingo, L.,
Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C. A., Aguilera, P. A., Atance Muñiz, I., and Garrido Palomero, A.
and Montes, C. 2012. The role of multi- 2003. Los visitantes de la comarca de Doñana,
functionality in social preferences toward Monográfico Sostenible 4. Fundación Fernando
semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem González Bernáldez y EUROPARC-España.
service approach. Environmental Science and
Policy 19-20:136-146. Grumbine, E. 1990. Protecting biological diversity
through the greater ecosystem concept.
García-Nieto, A. P., García-Llorente, M., Iniesta- Natural Areas Journal 10(3):114-120.
Arandia, I., and Martín-López, B. 2013.
Mapping forest ecosystem services: From Hull, V., et al. 2011. Evaluating the efficacy of
providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem zoning designations for protected area
Services. Doi: management. Biological Conservation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.03.00 144:3028-3037.
3.
Jiménez-Olivencia, Y. 1991. Los paisajes de Sierra
Geneletti, D., and van Duren, I. 2008. Proteceted Nevada. Cartografía de los sistemas naturales
area zoning for conservation and use: a de una Montana mediterránea. Servicio de
combination of spatial multicriteria and Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada,
multiobjective evaluation. Landscape and Granada.
urban planning 85: 97-110.
Joppa, L. N., Loarie, S. R., and Pimm, S. L. 2008. On
Gimmi, U., Schmidt, S. L., Hawbaker, T. J., the protection of “protected areas”.
Alcántara, C., Gafvert, U., and Radeloff, V. C. Proceedings of the National Academy of
2011 Increasing development in the Sciences of the United States of America
surroundings of U.S. National Park service 105:6673–6678.
holdings jeopardizes park effectiveness.
Journal of Environmental Management 92:229- Kettunen, M., et al. 2010. Recognizing the value of
239. protected areas. Chapter 8 in The economics of
ecosystems and biodiversity. Teeb for national
Goldstein, J. H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T. K., and international policy makers.
Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G.,
Polasky, S., Wolny, S., and Daily, G. C. 2012. Laurance, W. F., et al. 2012. Averting biodiversity
Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into collapse in tropical forest protected areas.
land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Nature 489:290-294.
181
Results
Leverington, F., Costa, K. L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., Ojeda, J. F. 1986. Protection ou development. La
and Hockings, M. 2010. A Global Analysis of creation et lábus dún faux dilemme relatif au
Protected Area Management Effectiveness. parc national de Doñana et de sa region. La
Environmental management 46:685-698. nature et le rural. Association des ruralistes
Francais. Colloque National
Liu J., et al. 2007. Complexity of Coupled Human
and Natural Systems. Science 317:1513-1516. Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López-Santiago, C.,
and Montes, C. 2011. Participatory Scenario
MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Planning for Protected Areas Management
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. under the Ecosystem Services Framework: the
Island Press, Washington, DC. Doñana Social-Ecological System in
Southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society
Maes, J. Paracchini, M. L., Zulian, G., Dunbar, M. B., 16(1):23
and Alkemade, R. 2012. Synergies and trade-
offs between ecosystem service supply, Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Potschin, M., Haines-
biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Young, R., and Montes, C. in pressa. National
Europe. Biological Conservation 155:1-12. Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands:
Mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem
Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Services. Doi:
and Montes, C. 2011. The conservation against http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.00
development paradigm in protected areas: 1.
Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana
social–ecological system (southwestern Spain). Palomo, I., Martín-López B, Zorrilla-Miras, P.,
Ecological Economics 70(8):1481-1491 García-Amo, D., and Montes, C. in pressb.
Martín-López, B., et al. 2012. Uncovering within and around Doñana National Park (SW
Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Spain) in relation to land use change. Regional
Preferences. PLoS ONE 7(6):e38970. Environmental Change. Doi: 10.1007/s10113-
013-0488-5.
Martín-López, B., and García-Llorente, M. 2013.
The relative cost of saving species. En: Parrott, L., and Meyer, W. S. 2012. Future
Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia Extinction landscapes: managing within complexity.
Pp: 857-866. Gale Cengage, USA. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
10:382–389.
Montes, C., Borja, J. A., Bravo, M. A., and Moreira, J.
M. 1998. Reconocimiento biofísico de espacios Pineda, F. D., and Montalvo, J. 1995. Dehesa
naturales protegidos. Doñana: Una systems in western mediterranean. Biological
aproximación ecosistémica, Junta de Andalucía, diversity in traditional land use systems. Pages
Sevilla. 107-122 in Halladay, P., and Gilmour, D. A.
editors. Conserving biodiversity outside
Naughton-Treves, L, Buck, M., and Brandon, K. protected areas. The role of traditional agro-
2005. The role of protected areas in conserving ecosystems. UICN, Forest Conservation
biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Programme, Gland. 107-122.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
30:219–52 Quijas, S., Jackson, L. E., Mass, M., Schmid, B.,
Raffaelli, D., and Balvanera, P. 2012. Plant
Nelson, E., et al. 2009. Modeling multiple diversity and generation of ecosystem services
ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, at the landscape scale: expert knowledge
commodity production, and tradeoffs at assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology
landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the 49(4):929–940.
Environment 7(1):4-11
182
Rands, M. R. W., et al. 2010. Biodiversity Schneiders, A., Van Daele, T., Van Landuyt, W., and
Conservation: Challenges Beyond 2010. Van Reeth, W. 2012. Biodiversity and
Science 329(5997):1298-1303. ecosystem services: Complementary
approaches for ecosystem management?
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., and Bennett, Ecological Indicators 21:123–133.
E. M. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for
analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Tallis, H., and Polasky, S. 2009. Mapping and
Proceedings of the National Academy of valuing ecosystem services as an approach for
Sciences of the United States of America conservation and natural-resource
107:5242–5247. management. Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences 1162:265–83.
Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for
environmental management: a literature Troy, A., and Wilson, M. 2006. Mapping ecosystem
review. Biological Conservation 141:2417- services: Practical challenges and
2431. opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer.
Ecological Economics 60(2):435-449.
Reyers, B., Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B. N., Le Maitre, D.
C., and Vlok, J. H. J. 2009. Ecosystem Services, Villa, F., Tunesi, L., and Agardy, T. 2002. Zoning
Land-Cover Change, and Stakeholders: Finding protected áreas through spatial multiple-
a Sustainable Foothold for a Semiarid criteria analysis: the case of the Asinara Island
Biodiversity Hotspot. Ecology and Society Marine Reserve of Italy. Conservation Biology
14:38. 16(2):515-526.
Reyers, B., O´Farrell, P. J., Nel, J. L., and Wilson, K. Wright, J. B., and Campbell, C. L. 2008. Moorish
2012. Expanding the conservation toolbox: Cultural Landscapes of Las Alpujarras, Spain.
conservation planning of multifunctional Focus on Geography 51(1):25-30.
landscapes. Landscape Ecology 27:1121-1134.
Zorrilla, P., Palomo, I., Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
Ruiz-Labourdette, D., Schmitz, M. F., Montes, C., Martín-López, B., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C.
and Pineda, F. D. 2010. Zoning a Protected Submitted. Effects of land-use change on
Area: Proposal Based on a Multi-thematic wetland ecosystem services: A case study in
Approach and Final Decision. Environmental the Doñana Natural Areas, SW Spain.
Modeling & Assessment 15(6):531-547.
183
Results
Supplementary material. Appendix A.
Table 4.6.A.1. Surface protected by the National and Natural Parks of Doñana and Sierra Nevada
greater ecosystems and social-ecological systems.
Surface (Km2) % Protected
Doñana Greater Ecosystem 2207 43
Doñana social-ecological system 3713 29
Sierra Nevada Greater Ecosystem 2230 77
Sierra Nevada social-ecological system 3655 48
Figure 4.6.A.1. Greater ecosystems (biophysical systems) of Doñana and Sierra Nevada, and the land
of these covered by the National and Natural Parks.
184
Figure 4.6.A.2. Ecosystem service delivery in the Doñana social-ecological system. White areas within
the social-ecological systems represent zero (or very low) ecosystem service value for the services
selected.
185
Results
Figure 4.6.A.3. Ecosystem service delivery in the Sierra Nevada social-ecological system. White areas
within the social-ecological systems represent zero (or very low) ecosystem service value for the
services selected.
186
Capítulo 4.7
Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas

Management under the Ecosystem Services
Framework: the Doñana Social-Ecological System in
Southwestern Spain.
Palomo, I.1, Martín-López, B.1, 2, López-Santiago, C.A. 1, Montes, C. 1
1 Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Faculty of Sciences. Autónoma

University of Madrid. C/ Darwin, nº 2. 28049 Cantoblanco (Madrid), Spain.
2 Departmentof Plant Biology and Ecology, Universidad de Almería
Publicado en Ecology & Society 16(1): 23.

Results
4.7. Planificación participativa de escenarios de futuro para la gestión

de áreas protegidas bajo el marco de los servicios. Aplicación al
sistema socio-ecológico de Doñana
Resumen Las visiones de conservación y desarrollo dentro y fuera de las áreas protegidas
crean confrontación e incertidumbre que deterioran la biodiversidad y los servicios de los
ecosistemas que mantienen el bienestar humano. Para afrontar esta situación hemos aplicado el
marco de la planificación participativa de escenarios al sistema socio-ecológico de Doñana. Este
trabajo explora las percepciones sociales sobre las condiciones, tendencias, trade-offs y el futuro
de los servicios de los ecosistemas y el bienestar humano, y propone estrategias de manejo para
el sistema socio-ecológico de Doñana y los espacios naturales ubicados en el mismo. Hemos
encontrado que la planificación participativa de escenarios permite: (1) crear visiones sobre el
futuro del sistema que incorporan la incertidumbre y los principales trade-offs entre servicios, y
(2) elaborar medidas de gestión consensuadas que podrían facilitar encontrar una senda hacia un
futuro comúnmente deseado.
188
Copyright © 2011 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Palomo, I., B. Martín-López, C. López-Santiago, and C. Montes. 2011. Participatory scenario planning for
protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: the doñana social-ecological system
in southwestern spain. Ecology and Society 16(1): 23. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol16/iss1/art23/
Research
Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management under
the Ecosystem Services Framework: the Doñana Social-Ecological System
in Southwestern Spain
Ignacio Palomo 1, Berta Martín-López 1,2, Cesar López-Santiago 1, and Carlos Montes 1
ABSTRACT. Conservation and development visions in and around protected areas generate confrontation
and uncertainty that damage the biodiversity and ecosystem services which maintain human well-being.
To address this issue, we applied the participatory scenario planning framework to the protected area of
the Doñana social-ecological system in southwestern Spain. This work explores the social perceptions
regarding the conditions, trends, trade-offs, and future of ecosystem services and human well-being, and
seeks management strategies for the Doñana social-ecological system and its protected areas. We found
that participatory scenario planning (1) can create different visions of the future of the system addressing
its uncertainty and the main ecosystem services trade-offs, and (2) can propose consensual management
strategies to determine a path toward a desirable future.
Key Words: backcasting; Doñana social-ecological system; ecosystem services; multi-scale scenarios;
participatory scenario planning; protected areas management; social-ecological system; Spain
INTRODUCTION Berkes 2003) and of protected areas in particular

(Pimbert and Pretty 1997, Warner 1997, Phillips
When conservation strategies for protected areas 2003). It is now recognized that the sustainable
follow a top-down approach that excludes local management of natural resources cannot be
practices or interests, conflict can emerge (West et achieved without the involvement of the affected
al. 2006). Additionally, the lands surrounding communities (Ribot 2002, Pretty 2003). The main
protected areas often become degraded and suffer reasons for their participation in environmental
quick transformations of land use (Defries et al. management are as follows: the democratization of
2005, Naughton-Treves et al. 2005). As a management (Elster 1998); involving and
consequence, a conflicting vision emerges that pits empowering participants (Tippett et al. 2007); the
economic development against conservation. Local coproduction of knowledge between experts and
people might lose the ownership, use, and users (Roux et al. 2006); improving the community/
management rights over land inside the protected protected area relationship (Méndez-Contreas et al.
area, but may continue to see the protected area and 2008); reaching consensus among stakeholders and
its surroundings as an economic resource, while developing a common vision of the future (Baker et
conservationists and visitors seek to protect and al. 2004); and increasing the effectiveness of
enjoy the natural areas that remain. environmental management projects (Reed 2008).
Although successful in the short term, it's time to To achieve sustainable governance, stakeholders
overcome the command and control approach to the should reach a consensus about the current situation
protection of nature (Holling and Meffe 1996, and future goals in a platform that allows social
Ludwig 2001). Over the last few decades, many learning (Rist et al. 2007). Participatory scenario
have argued that local communities should planning involves stakeholders in the creation of
participate in the management of the local scenarios to improve decision-making. The
environment in general (Gunderson et al. 1995, dialogue and debate created in this process is one
1
Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2Department of Plant Biology and Ecology, Universidad
de Almería
189
Ecology and Society 16(1): 23
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art23/
of its strengths and this helps to produce a shared management in one of the most important European
vision of the future and a plan to achieve it wetlands: the Doñana protected area in
(Andersen and Jaeger 1999, Brown et al. 2001). In southwestern Spain. Our main aim was to create a
this sense, participatory scenario planning can help plan for managing protected areas where conflict
create common visions, coproduce knowledge, and between development and conservation exists,
foster cooperation between different stakeholders according to the results of the participatory scenario
(Andersen and Jaeger 1999, Wollenberg et al. 2000, planning process. Secondary aims were to cope with
Biggs et al. 2007). uncertainty and to build consensus for management
among the different stakeholders and interests in
Scenarios are plausible descriptions of how the and around the Doñana protected area. The article
future might unfold based on a coherent set of also discusses the multi-scale scenario process and
assumptions about key elements and drivers of how it can be improved, as well as the different
change (Carpenter et al. 2005). Whether qualitative participatory techniques adopted.
or quantitative, scenarios are not static snapshots of
future events; rather they include a logical sequence
of images of the future and drivers of change THE DOñANA SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL
(Rotmans 2000). In contrast to predictions and SYSTEM
models, scenarios explore the uncertainty of future
events, and thus decisions based on scenarios The Doñana region (hereafter Doñana) is located at
provide greater resilience to surprise (Peterson et al. the end of the Guadalquivir watershed, which is
2003b). In this sense, scenarios bring awareness of situated in Andalusia on the southwestern coast of
future dangers and allow the construction of Spain. Far from being pristine, Doñana has been
proactive strategies to adapt management to greatly influenced by activities in its territory
possible future events (Huss 1988, Wollenberg et throughout its history (Ojeda-Rivera 1987). The
al. 2000). Recently, multi-scale scenarios, i.e., those antiquity of practices such as agriculture, forestry,
developed at more than one scale, have been applied grazing, or fire management in Doñana allows us to
to state cross-scale connections between processes describe it as a cultural landscape where nature and
and people (Biggs et al. 2007, Kok et al. 2007). society have co-evolved in time and space (Ojeda-
Rivera 1990, Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010).
The link between scenarios and management is Therefore, as done previously in other studies
strong. Scenarios are a powerful approach for the (Martín-López et al. 2007a), Doñana can be
engagement of decision-makers (Bohensky et al. conceptualized as a social-ecological system of
2006), and most are developed with the aim of being humans in nature (sensu Berkes and Folke 1998,
used for policy (Wollenberg et al. 2000). Scenarios Anderies al. 2004).
are increasingly being used in environmental
planning to explore different issues related to future The Doñana social-ecological system (Fig. 1)
development, such as the state of biodiversity (Sala consists of an ecological system and a social system.
et al. 2000), the emission of greenhouse gases The boundaries of both systems have been drawn
(Nakišenoviš et al. 2000), the evolution of according to previous literature and expert criterion.
ecosystem services and their relationship to human The ecological system has been described as the
well-being (Carpenter et al. 2005, 2006; Pereira et Greater Fluvial-Littoral Ecosystem of Doñana,
al. 2005; Bohensky et al. 2006), desertification and which contains four ecodistricts—marshes, aeolian
land degradation (Kok et al. 2004), land-use sheets, coast, and estuary—extending over a 2205-
changes and their impacts (Jessel and Jacobs 2005), km2 area (Montes et al. 1998). The marshes of
regional planning (Peterson et al. 2003a), coastal Doñana are considered one of the most important
planning under climate change (Tompkins et al. wetlands in Europe and one of the key European
2008), conservation-development projects (Sandker stopovers in bird migration routes and in which 75%
et al. 2007), research-development projects (Enfors of European birds can be found (Fernández-
et al. 2008), and the management of natural Delgado 1997). The social system includes the
protected areas (Brown et al. 2001, Gude et al. municipalities that depend on the natural capital of
2007). Doñana. It extends over an area of 3115 km2 and
has a population of 175,200 people. It includes 12
We have developed a participatory scenario municipalities within three provinces: Huelva
planning process to address protected areas (Almonte, Hinojos, Lucena del Puerto, Moguer),
190
Seville (Aznalcázar, Isla Mayor, La Puebla del Río, areas, such as Protected Landscapes or Natural
Lebrija, Pilas, Villamanrique de la Condesa), and Monuments, coexist in the region. The declaration
Cádiz (Trebujena, Sanlúcar de Barrameda). of the protected areas, especially the National Park,
Agriculture and tourism are the main resources of permitted the protection of an area of great value,
income for the region, and the main institutions are but it also brought one of the threats that the
the regional ministries of environment, agriculture, declaration of a protected area often entails: the
and tourism;, the Andalusian Water Agency; the territory inside the park boundary was viewed as a
municipal governments; the farmers associations; conservation island with no relation to society,
the Doñana Biological Station (an institution for while the area outside of the protected area received
biological research); the Foundation Doñana 21 (an the right to be degraded (Ojeda-Rivera 1999). This
institution created in 1992 to promote sustainable produced two conflicting visions: conservation
development in the region); and some environmental inside the protected area and development outside
NGOs. of it, resulting in a vision of two different Doñanas
(Fernandez-Delgado 1997). This conflict has
The importance of Doñana for conservation is resulted in the following consequences:
reflected in the different categories of protection
that exist in Doñana, i.e., international (UNESCO 1. A quick transformation of the territory
Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site, outside the protected areas (Weber et al.
Ramsar Wetland of International Importance), 2008), especially the marshes outside the
European (Site of Community Importance), National Park, for agriculture (González-
national (national park), and regional (Natural Park, Arteaga 1993, Corominas 1995).
Protected Landscape, Natural Monument, Natural
Place, Natural Reserve). The main ecosystem 2. A feeling among rural communities of being
services provided by the Doñana social-ecological excluded from the property, use, and
system are: provisioning (i.e., agriculture, grazing, management of the protected areas (Ojeda-
shellfish gathering, hunting), regulating (i.e., air and Rivera 1999).
water purification, water regulation, carbon
sequestration, soil fertility), and cultural (i.e., nature 3. The protected areas being influenced by uses
tourism, satisfaction for biodiversity, sightseeing, in the surrounding areas, e.g., the extraction
beach tourism, and religious tourism). The main of water for agriculture from wells outside the
local and regional ecological threats that Doñana protected areas have affected the aquifer
faces nowadays are contamination, intensive under the protected areas; tourism and
agriculture, and the development of the road infrastructure have exerted pressure on the
network (mainly for tourism) that fragments the ecosystem; and the estuary may be salinized
territory and threats the existence of endangered due to the construction of dams upstream
species such as the Iberian lynx (Carmona and (Fernández-Delgado 1997).
Fuentelsaz 2006). But there are also global threats
such as desertification and climate change that could Conflict between conservation and development
affect Doñana in the upcoming decades (Fernández has existed in Doñana since the first conservation
and Borja-Barrera 2006). A recent driver in the movement in the 1950s, but especially since the
region is an increase in population due to declaration of the National Park in 1969 ( Atienza-
immigration that is mainly related to agriculture. Serna 2001, Van der Zouwen 2006), in part due to
the initial top-down conservationism and political
Fig. 2 represents the evolution of the Doñana social- authoritarianism (Aguilar Fernández 2008). One of
ecological system related to the conservation vs. these difficulties has been a desire on the part of the
development conflict and its current uncertainty. In local population for development that conflicts with
the following lines we describe the recent evolution use restrictions in protected areas. This desire was
of the system and some consequences. In 1969, the evident in the late 1980s when the Costa Doñana
Doñana National Park was created to protect natural project was conceived (an urbanization project for
habitats from rapid agricultural transformations that 20,000 people in lands near the National Park),
were draining many marshes. In 1989, the Natural although this project was finally rejected. After the
Park was created, and then, the National Park and rejection, the regional government acknowledged
the Natural Park were unified in 2005 as the Doñana that an all-encompassing and long-term solution for
Natural Area, covering 1081 km2, or 50% of the Doñana was needed (Aguilar Fernández 2008).
Doñana ecological system area. Other protected
191
Fig. 1. The Doñana social-ecological system, and the ecodistricts that constitute the Greater Fluvial-
Littoral Ecosystem of Doñana. The semi-natural ecodistricts are those ecosystems modified by human
use throughout history in a process of co-evolution. Transformed ecodistricts are those that have
suffered a great modification (degradation) in the second half of the 20th century, mainly due to the
introduction of agriculture, forest plantations, or aquiculture. Sample points are those places where
interviews and questionnaires were made. The main use in the white areas is agriculture.
192
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the evolution of the Doñana social-ecological system attending to the
conservation vs. development conflict. The x-axis symbolizes time, where the main stages of the
Doñana social-ecological system are reflected. The main events regarding the conservation vs.
development conflict are represented in boxes. Adapted from Enfors et al. 2008.
The first Plan for Sustainable Development in population feel that conservation is one of the most
Doñana was approved by the European Commission important activities in the Doñana social-ecological
and lasted from 1993 to 2000. This plan provided system and they perceive that the majority of the
more than 372 million Euros to the socioeconomic funds destined for conservation are spent on the
area influenced by the protected areas. The charismatic species of the Iberian lynx (Lynx
economic growth (infrastructures for tourism and pardinus) and the Spanish Imperial eagle (Aquila
greenhouse-based agriculture) created by the plan adalberti), which is a view supported by analytical
reduced the opposition to conservation and helped studies (Martín-López et al. 2009a). The restrictive
foster an environmental awareness among the local species conservation policies reduce access to
population, but it also generated new expectations protected areas and therefore reduce public support
of development for the area (Oñate et al. 2003). In for conservation. In Doñana National Park,
this sense, the first Plan for Sustainable restricted access has heightened local opposition
Development in Doñana has not shortened the gap toward conservation policies, and local preferences
between the conservation and development visions. for nonprovisioning services have become less
important (Martín-López et al. 2007a). Although
The conservation vs. development conflict is also the protected areas of Doñana are one of the most
reflected in people's perceptions, especially among ecologically important and highly controversial
those people who are against conservation, although areas in Europe, very little attention has been given
this tendency is diminishing. Some of the local to users’ opinions and preferences (Elbersen 2001).
193
Initiatives to close the gap between conservation historically recurrent, high-energy, natural events
and development have arisen independently from (tsunamis) (Ruiz et al. 2005).
both the development and conservation approaches.
From the side of conservation, traditional uses such Many characteristics of the Doñana evolution
as grazing, honey collection, shellfish gathering, regarding its wetland and its protected areas can also
and pine kernel collection have been allowed under be seen in other places. Wetlands were generally
command and control regulation inside the National considered a health hazard and an obstacle to land
Park. From the side of development, producers have development that needed to be eliminated, but later,
focused on the quality of products instead of their the acknowledgement of wetland functions and
quantity and have incorporated ecological value slowed conversion rate (Heimlich et al. 1998).
agriculture or nature tourism, but these changes Although few freshwater protected areas have been
have been slow. On the one hand, although specifically created to protect wetlands around the
integrated agricultural production has been widely world, still they face problems such as land-use
implemented, ecological agriculture accounted for disturbances, altered hydrologies, and introduction
less than 1% of the agriculture in Doñana in 2003 of nonnative species (Saunders et al. 2002). As
(Atienza Serna et al. 2003). On the other hand, freshwater systems are affected by activities taking
nature tourism could be of great importance in place upstream in the catchment, increasing land-
Doñana, but it is still a secondary activity compared use changes around protected areas (Hansen et al.
to sun and beach tourism or religious and cultural 2004, Svancara et al. 2009) will increase negative
tourism due to the National Park access restrictions effects on freshwater protected areas such as
and territorial planning (Doctor 2009, Martín- Doñana.
López et al. 2009b).
Today, 40 years after the creation of the National METHODS

Park, the division between conservation and
development is clearly reflected in land uses; The fortieth anniversary of the creation of the
outside the protected areas, intensive agriculture is National Park (2009) provided the framework for
common, and inside the National Park, land uses introducing the participatory scenario planning
are restricted or regulated to promote conservation approach for rethinking the management of the
and science. The conservation vs. development Doñana social-ecological system. The data were
division is also reflected in the provision of collected from semistructured interviews, structured
ecosystem services. Although there are some questionnaires and scenario workshops. The
ecosystem uses that generate provisioning services combination of different participative methods has
and are allowed inside the National Park, such as been recommended for both the management of
grazing or shellfish gathering, the main social-ecological systems and environmental
provisioning service, agriculture, is conducted management (Stringer et al. 2006, Lynam et al.
outside of the park. Additionally, cultural services 2007) and has previously been successfully applied
such as nature tourism and places to relax are mainly (see Jessel and Jacobs 2005, Pereira et al. 2005).
provided outside the National Park due to The combination of these three methodologies
restrictions that bar entry to the National Park allowed us to use a gradual approach to address
(Martín-López et al. 2009b). On the other hand, issues confronting the Doñana social-ecological
scientific investigations are mainly conducted system and provided complementary results.
inside the protected areas.
We used six stages for the participatory scenario
As seen, the Doñana social-ecological system is planning process: (1) identification and prioritization
characterized by complexity, dynamism, and of stakeholders; (2) collection of information about
conflict (Ojeda-Rivera and Moral Ituarte 2004). those aspects of the system that were important to
Adverse events have increased the tension and the stakeholders; (3) characterizing past and current
uncertainty regarding the future of this conditions and trends; (4) developing a set of
environmental region, including the Aznalcollar scenarios; (5) characterizing the scenarios
dam spill in 1998 (Grimalt et al. 1999); repeated according to services provided by the ecosystem and
episodes of bird and fish mortality (Lanzarot human well-being variables; and (6) proposing
Freudenthal 2007); the possible effects of climate management strategies to achieve a desirable future
change (Fernández and Borja-Barrera 2006), and through the backcasting process.
194
Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires they were elderly people and unused to participating
in workshops, had an important vision of the
We designed semistructured interviews and ecological system as a whole). The presence of a
questionnaires with the aim of identifying the most diversity of stakeholders might facilitate the
important stakeholders as well as characterizing the implementation of the results because through their
most important ecosystem services provided by the participation stakeholders can get engaged and start
Doñana social-ecological system. We interviewed to believe in the project (Reed 2008).
32 key informants during a field survey between
January and March 2009. We interviewed at least Stakeholder selection is complex and of great
two key informants regarding each of the main importance, especially for workshops, because the
activities conducted in the Doñana social-ecological results will depend on the participants. To avoid
system (agriculture, grazing, shellfish gathering, selection bias or the marginalization of important
tourism, religion, scientific research, public stakeholder groups, an analysis of the social actors
administration, protected areas management, and is recommended instead of an ad hoc selection
environmental nongovernmental organizations (Reed et al. 2009). Previous works about social
(ENGOs)). The initial findings guided the design of actors in Doñana (Martín-López et al. 2007a,
a questionnaire that was used to collect quantitative Gómez-Baggethun 2010) greatly facilitated the
data regarding the perception of ecosystem services identification and characterization of stakeholders.
use, ecosystem services vulnerability, protected Additionally, due to the high diversity of institutions
areas management, and environmental institutions existing in Doñana, we used the institutional
in the Doñana social-ecological system, and network as the basis for creating groups of possible
regarding the main problems of the region. A total participants, including people from the local and
of 183 respondents were surveyed face to face in regional government, the Doñana protected areas,
March 2009. Interviews and surveys used a panel research institutions, universities, ENGOs, the
with photographs containing the ecosystem services media, the religious sector, and professionals from
previously identified in Doñana as explicative different economic sectors, e.g., tourism,
material (Weber et al. 2008, Gómez-Baggethun agriculture, grazing, shellfish gatherers, hunters,
2010). Both semistructured interviews and and other traditional uses. For the prioritization, we
questionnaires were carried out in 10 of the Doñana followed the importance-influence criterion, which
social-ecological system municipalities (Fig. 1) and classifies stakeholders according to their importance
served as a first step for engaging stakeholders. (if the stakeholder is affected by the decisions that
must be made) and their influence (the power of the
Stakeholder selection stakeholder and his control over decisions) (de
Groot et al. 2006). We prioritized stakeholders with
Developing scenarios does not require technical a medium-high influence in the Doñana social-
skills, therefore different stakeholder groups such ecological system that were directly affected by its
as researchers, managers, or local people can management. For that purpose, we consulted with
participate in their creation (Kok et al. 2007). three experts in the Doñana social-ecological
Stakeholder groups working together can system who belonged to different key institutions
coproduce knowledge, which might be more (ENGO, university, and Fundación Doñana 21)
effective than the knowledge transfer from experts about which stakeholders had the greatest
to managers for managing complex social- influences on the system and which were most
ecological systems (Roux et al. 2006). Scenario greatly affected by the system.
workshops normally include policymakers,
business representatives, experts, and citizens
(Andersen and Jaeger 1999), but recent projects Workshops
such as the South African Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (SAfMA) or MedAction have included We used the participative process to analyze the
a wider range of social actors (Kok et al. 2007). We present use and future evolution of ecosystem
also involved a wide range of stakeholders, services in the area and the consequences for human
including creative people with new ideas (to well-being through four scenarios. Trade-offs
increase creativity for the scenario development among ecosystem services and different variables
process), local stockbreeders, and experts in related to human well-being in the four scenarios
traditional ecological knowledge (who, although were explored to better understand the
195
consequences of current actions. Finally, through is strongly increased?; (2) Big is Beautiful
the backcasting approach, a series of management scenario – what if the “merger principle” oversteps
recommendations were obtained to illustrate a path all limits, creating an oversized European Union and
for achieving a shared vision of a desired future. powerful multinationals, and thus initiating societal
degeneration?; and (3) Convulsive Change
First workshop: from the past to the future scenario – what if climate change is as disruptive as
some are now predicting, triggering a series of
The purpose of the first workshop was twofold: (1) severe droughts and desert formation, and outpacing
describe the current situation of the Doñana social- society's ability to adapt? ( Kok and Rothman 2003).
ecological system and its evolution over the last
several decades, and (2) analyze its future The degree of linkage between multi-scale scenarios
development through scenario development. Ninety can be described as hard or soft (Zurek and Henrichs
persons were invited by telephone and email, of 2007). Hard links are recommended to analyze
which 34 came to the workshop. cross-scale processes, while soft links are
recommended for participative workshops with
In the first step of the scenario-planning process, the local actors (Biggs et al. 2007). We chose a soft link
participants were asked to list the most important because our aim was to encourage debate and
aspects that define the current state of the Doñana consensus between stakeholders. The link consisted
social-ecological system. People were asked to of explaining the Mediterranean scenario and asking
write down the main aspects of Doñana on separate participants to describe how the Doñana social-
cards. Then, the participants were divided into four ecological system would evolve until 2035 if the
heterogeneous groups, and the most frequent explained Mediterranean scenario occurred. The
aspects of each group were analyzed. For the facilitator of each group helped to build a scenario
analysis, each participant individually completed a with which everyone in the group felt comfortable.
table describing the state of the region on these After the main characteristics of the scenario were
aspects in the past, the current state, the causes of agreed upon, all four groups created collages to
any change, the main social actors involved in these illustrate their scenarios with a set of photographs
changes and who benefited from or was harmed by and newspaper clippings that we provided.
these changes. Then, each of the four groups formed
two subgroups where the individual tables were Second workshop: from the future to the present
discussed, and two consensus tables were written.
Finally, a consensus mural was created in each The second workshop (32 participants) had two
group from the results of both subgroups. This aims: (1) characterizing the scenarios in terms of
methodology allowed us to achieve a relatively ecosystem services and different variables related
rapid consensus among all participants where the to human well-being, and (2) searching the policy
opinion of each participant had the same value, guidelines to reach a desirable future for the Doñana
thereby avoiding biases due to opinion social-ecological system.
monopolization.
For the characterization of scenarios, 17 ecosystem
The four groups were then asked to create a set of services were chosen, together with different
scenarios for the Doñana social-ecological system. indicators of human well-being, i.e., basic material
Three groups were given one of the Mediterranean needs for a good life, health, good social relations,
scenarios developed by the MedAction project (see security and freedom of choice, education, equity,
Kok et al. 2004, 2006) and were asked to create a employment, and fossil fuel consumption (see
scenario for the Doñana social-ecological system Narayan et al. 1999 and Butler et al. 2003). The
by adapting the Mediterranean scenarios. The fourth ecosystem services were previously identified from
group was asked to freely create their desired the semi-structured interviews and questionnaires,
scenario with the aim of creating a control scenario. as well as from previous literature (Martín-López
et al. 2007a, Weber et al. 2008, Gómez-Baggethun
The given MedAction scenarios can be summarized 2010).
as: (1) Knowledge is King scenario – what if
technological development is such that a mass Four groups were created and each was given a
migration to the Mediterranean is initiated and a scenario. Participants discussed whether each
European sunbelt is formed, while water availability ecosystem service and social variable would grow,
196
fall or remain constant under their scenario. By scenario in order to determine their preferences for
doing this, stakeholders discussed the trade-offs the future development of the Doñana social-
among ecosystem services and the links between ecological system.
ecosystem services and human well-being. To
characterize the scenarios through the participative
process, the same procedure as in the first workshop
was followed: first, scenarios were characterized RESULTS
individually, then in subgroups of four people, and
then the whole group reached a consensus for the Use and vulnerability of ecosystem services of
scenario characterization. Additionally, after the the Doñana social-ecological system
workshops, the relationship between the provision
of ecosystem services and human well-being under Questionnaire results showed that cultural
the four scenarios was analyzed to see whether there ecosystem services are the most used in the Doñana
was a correlation between them. After testing the social-ecological system (97% of people reported
normality of the variables, the Pearson correlation benefits from these kind of services), followed by
test was applied. provisioning services (60% of people reported
benefits from these services) and regulating services
Once scenarios were characterized, participants (55% of people reported benefits from these
developed and proposed management strategies that services). From all the ecosystem services that were
would lead Doñana to a common desired future. identified as used, 59% were cultural, 24% were
This was done using the backcasting approach, provisioning, and 17% regulating. Out of all the
which is a common method to analyze how desirable ecosystem services perceived as vulnerable, 40%
future outcomes can be attained for long-term, were provisioning, 34% were regulating, and 26%
complex issues (Dreborg 1996, Carlsson-Kanyama were cultural. Fig. 3 presents the use and
et al. 2008). We maintained the same four working vulnerability of ecosystem services of the Doñana
groups, and each was given a theme to facilitate the social-ecological system to identify the most critical
backcasting process. The themes were selected from services. In this sense, agriculture and satisfaction
the most important aspects that emerged in the first for conserving biodiversity have the highest levels
workshop: water, biodiversity, agriculture, and of use and vulnerability, making them the most
tourism and mobility. critical ecosystem services to address. Due to their
vulnerability, uncertainty exists for these two
Before the workshop, posters describing each of ecosystem services. Higher levels of use of intensive
these aspects in the present and under the future agriculture could make satisfaction for conserving
scenarios were prepared by the research team using biodiversity even more vulnerable. On the other
the outputs of the first workshop (see Fig. 1 of the hand, higher levels of strict biodiversity
Appendix). As the descriptions of the future for each conservation could lead to the targeting of
aspect differed under each scenario, we asked agriculture as something harmful for biodiversity,
participants to characterize them as desirable or thus increasing its vulnerability. This confirms the
undesirable future aspects. Then, participants hypothesis of conflicting visions at the Doñana
proposed management options (to be applied in the social-ecological system: development (agriculture)
short and medium term) that would lead to a vs. conservation (biodiversity).
desirable future or avoid an undesirable one. Ideas
were individually written on cards and given to the
facilitators who grouped them on the posters. These
ideas were discussed among participants. After the Main aspects of the Doñana social-ecological
workshop, the ideas on the cards were counted to system and Scenario Zero
see which ideas were more popular among
participants. By selecting the most important aspects of the
Doñana social-ecological system, the two most
Participants were given a questionnaire at each important aspects driving change in the Doñana
workshop to evaluate the utility of the workshops. social-ecological system over the last decades were
The main results are shown in Table 1 of the identified as water and biodiversity, which were
Appendix. Participants were contacted after the named by all working groups. The three next most
workshop and asked to choose their favorite common aspects were land use, protected areas
197
Table 1. Main aspects of Doñana, according to the participants of the workshop.
Aspect
Before Now Causes of change? Main actors Beneficial to Harmful to

involved
Water
Abundant Scarce Growth in demand Local population Farmers (increase of Landscape and
Better quality Worst quality Less efficient use Farmers productivity) biodiversity
Less demand and Great demand and Administration Private interests of
less management management Critical Tourism and landowners
aspect urbanism firms
Biodiversity
High Dropping and Ecosystem Local population None Biodiversity

Low conscience threatened transformation Administration Local population
Integrated with the Bigger conscience Land-use changes
population Invasive species
Land use
Sparsely populated Densely populated Resource value Local population Local population Local population
Isolated Connected to the enhancement Administration (greater feeling of (limitations to
Traditional uses outside strategy ENGOs cohesion and less resource use)
Without New uses Connection of Scientists isolation of Natural
infrastructure Many infrastructures protected Doñana Natural Protected Protected Areas)
Local religious Great growth of with surrounding Areas managers
importance Rocío pilgrimage territory
Without feeling a Feeling of a high
need for protection value place
Agriculture
Traditional Intensive and high- New technologies Farmers Intermediates Landscape and
Dry-farmed tech farming Use of water and Administrations Local population biodiversity
Low productivity Irrigation farming land resources European Union (employment
Local Highly productive High economic Consumers generation)
Diverse in crop Oriented to profit Enterprises
varieties exportation
Large expansion
Highly dependent on
water
Conservation of protected areas
Bigger natural Less natural Administration Local population Local population Local population
“balance” “balance” imposition policy Environment (greater knowledge (limitations to
Less protective More protective Growth of Administration of the value of resource use)
regulation regulation environmental Scientists Doñana)
Core of natural area Larger public space concern ENGOs
was private More legal Conservation
Conservation not a guarantees on programs Greater
theme of concern protected area pressure on local
nature
198
Fig. 3. Dispersion diagram (a plot of the spread of values in a distribution) of the use of ecosystem
services and their vulnerability according to respondents. The x and y axes represent the ranking of
ecosystem services according to these variables. Satisfaction for conserving biodiversity and agriculture
have the highest levels of use and vulnerability, making them the most critical ecosystem services to
address.
conservation, and agriculture. Table 1 presents the development. Tourism favored by the protected
main characteristics of the changes in these five areas would contribute to the fragmentation of the
aspects as identified by the participants. territory to provide services to visitors, and
traditional ecological knowledge could disappear.
We call Scenario Zero the business as usual People benefitting mainly from provisioning
scenario. This scenario was created by the research services would continue thinking that the protected
group as a projection of the future based on area does not benefit them, and also that the
questionnaires and semi-structured interview management of the protected area does not take
results. Under this scenario, Doñana would continue them into account, as opposed to the who people
to be a world of contrasting visions (development benefit mainly from regulating and cultural
vs. conservation), with no common identity or idea services. (The results of the analysis of contingent
of sustainability, and in which the local population tables show that this fact is now significant: n = 134;
would not be involved in management. The high χ2 = 12.88; p = 0.002; and n = 164; χ2 = 8.03; p =
demand for water for agriculture would harm 0.018). People benefitting mainly from provisioning
biodiversity, and biodiversity itself would be seen services would live inside the Doñana social-
in some cases as an impediment to local ecological system (96% of them) while people who
199
benefit mainly from cultural services would of Doñana's natural capital. The diffusion of
continue being visitors (58%). The main problems information grows, as well as peoples’ awareness
perceived by Doñana's inhabitants are contamination about nature, and society becomes more involved
(21%), unemployment (20%,) and excessive use in Doñana's management. Agriculture improves
restrictions in the protected area (13%), which because of new inventions such as desalination
reflect the existence of the confrontation related to plants. Tourism becomes more respectful, areas of
the development vs. conservation visions. Cohesion ecological importance are restored, and biodiversity
and a common identity would not be achieved, as is maintained. These good conditions attract many
people would not feel themselves to be “Doñaneros” immigrants, especially from North Africa.
(what people from Doñana might be called). Only
3% of questionnaire respondents felt themselves to Scenario 2: Doñana Trademark (adapted from
be “Doñanero”, as opposed to “Andalusian” or MedAction's Big is Beautiful)
“Spanish”. Finally, the boundaries of “Doñana”
would not be the same for everybody; for some What if globalization and market liberalization
(49%), Doñana would be the whole region, and for allow large international companies to develop
others (36%) it would be only the protected area. operations in Doñana that, with the protection of the
European Union, make local institutions less
powerful? (see Fig. 4b).
Future scenarios (2035)
Liberalization of markets promoted by the European
The four scenarios are presented below with brief Union allows international companies to grow in
storylines. Fig. 4 illustrates the scenarios as inspired Doñana and they displace small, local companies.
by the storylines and the collages made by the The effects of climate change and unsustainable
participants during the scenario planning process. agriculture policies that seek to maximize benefits
Central to the figure are biodiversity (the number of affect water reserves and biodiversity inside the
different species that can be recognized in the protected areas. Some people migrate away from
illustrations); the marshes inside the protected area the area due to the worsening environmental and
and the surrounding fence; and agriculture and social conditions, and the differences between the
tourism, which are the main issues of the Doñana rich and poor become more pronounced. Small
social-ecological system. These illustrations will be groups of people that do not support the regime
used to communicate the scenarios to the local initiate a counter-culture movement that seeks a
population. Table 2 describes the drivers, and the socially and ecologically sustainable Doñana.
main aspects and the main actors of each scenario
and of the current situation of the Doñana social- Scenario 3: Arid Doñana (adapted from
ecological system, to allow the scenarios to be MedAction's Convulsive Change)
compared with the present day. Fig. 2 of the
Appendix shows flow diagrams of the scenarios What if the consequences of climate change become
developed after the workshop, which show the so severe that a real environmental crisis takes place
interactions among drivers of change and the actors, that challenges society to cope with its negative
and it shows main issues of the Doñana social- effects? (See Fig. 4c.)
ecological system under each scenario across time.
Temperature rises and precipitation decreases as
Scenario 1: Doñana – Global Knowledge (adapted consequences of climate change. A great ecological
from MedAction's Knowledge is King) and socioeconomic crisis emerges, mainly due to
the lack of water availability. Biodiversity becomes
What if technologies of information and more threatened, water use becomes strictly
communication (TICs) and the development of new controlled, agriculture returns to dry crop varieties,
sustainable techniques permit solutions to and tourism decreases due to rising sea levels. As a
environmental problems and a more informed consequence, economic funding for research in
citizenship participates actively in the management clean technologies grows, and researchers and
of the Doñana social-ecological system? (see Fig. ENGO members become social agents of great
4a). importance. A new paradigm for sustainability
arises.
In this scenario, research and new technologies are
the main drivers that allow a more sustainable use
200
Fig. 4. The four scenarios of the Doñana social-ecological system, illustrating the main characteristics of
each scenario and the main land uses. (A) Doñana – Global Knowledge features the evolution and
implementation of technologies in the Doñana social-ecological system; (B) Doñana Trademark results
in intensified agriculture and tourism, as well as social conflicts; (C) Arid Doñana has a lack of water
due to climate change, and features the efforts of NGOs to maintain social cohesion; and (D) Adaptive
Doñana – Wet and Creative shows a mosaic of uses compatible with sustainability. Feedback between
the illustrator and the authors was needed to achieve the final results. Illustration by Antonio Ojea.
201
Table 2. Main differences between scenarios attending to drivers, aspects, and social actors. The final
column refers to the current situation of the Doñana social-ecological system, to allow the scenarios to be
compared with the present day.
Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Adaptive Present situation of

Doñana – Global Doñana Trademark Arid Doñana Doñana the Doñana social-
Knowledge – Wet and Creative ecological system
Drivers
Technology Great improvement; Without great Improvement after General Some advances, such
desalination plants; improvement; only climate change due improvement; as solar panels and
green energy; some to maximize to the rise in technologies for efficient methods for
efficient techniques agriculture investments in green water efficiency; irrigation, are being
in agriculture production energy green energy; installed, but slowly
alternative public
transport
Participation Important for No real participation Not mentioned Very important Becoming more
management; linked aspect for important in Doñana
with technologies of management; due to initiatives such
information and improved through as the second plan for
communication practice and sustainable
(TICs) education development
Climate change Few effects; Big effects in Major effects over Few effects People show concern
prevention via medium term the short term for this theme and
technology and value the climate
efficiency regulation ecosystem
service
Migration Immigration due to Emigration due to Emigration due to Immigration Immigration is

the good social and the bad social and unemployment after controlled at the growing fast in the
ecological situations ecological situations tourism decreases origin through region, attracted by
cooperation and agriculture
development
Aspects
Water Better use due to Higher demand and Scarce due to the fall Management core; Scarce; great demand;
new technologies more squandering; in precipitation and technology management; is a
contaminated by the increase in improvements for critical aspect
agriculture temperature; use efficient use because interest
prioritized to the groups demand it
most important uses (farmers for
agriculture and
conservationists for
nature)
Biodiversity Conserved due to Falls due to Decreases due to Conserved through a Tourist and NGO
research unsustainable uses; climate change mosaic of landscapes mainly see the
improvements and “fortified” Natural effects; more importance of
investments Protected Areas protective of the endangered flag
norm species
Agriculture Respectful and more Intensive farming; Return to dry-farmed Agro-forestry Important economic
productive due to monoculture; crops due to mosaic turning to sector that employs
technologic transgenic; droughts traditional uses many workers; slowly
advances unsustainable helped by new incorporating
technologies ecological methods
Tourism Sustainable and Mass tourism Great fall due to the Alternative, quality, Beach and religious
quality tourism effects of climate and sustainable tourism attract more
change tourism visitors than nature
tourism
(con'd)
202
Mobility Low-impact roads Too many roads that No more Increase in public High demand for new
fragment the infrastructure transportation and infrastructures for
landscape creation due to a dismantling of some tourism ; scarce
decrease in tourism roads public transport
Social actors
Businesses and Middle companies Big, powerful Bad situation due to Small, local
enterprises and sustainable multinationals; no tourism and companies;
industrial policies environmental agriculture decrease, cooperatives; search
concerns and to an increase in for long-term
unemployment; benefits; more
more environmental environmental
concern concern
ENGOs Participate in Overwhelmed by the Protagonists after Were not mentioned ENGO with great
management and power of companies climate change importance in the
research effects; creation of Doñana's
empowerment and National Park;
diversification of confronted with the
activities most
developmentalist
sectors
Administration Benefitting from Loses power to Turn towards Great institutional Multiple institutions
research; simplified multinationals sustainability after simplification; coexisting in the area
institutions; search the effects of climate sustainability is the
for sustainability change; emergency first aim
integrative plans
Scientists Research in green Oriented to Increase in activity Research on social Focus on biological
energy and efficient maximize agriculture after the effects of ecological systems, sciences research;
water use; production climate change; green energy, and local people perceive
calculation of construction of efficient water use them as disconnected
Natural Protected agriculture research with population and
Area carrying centers; increase in local needs
capacity social science
research
Local population Strengthening of Rootlessness due to Construction of a Strengthened Elder people and
traditional local identity loss; no new identity to cope traditional local those linked to
identity; social cohesion; with the effects of identity; social agriculture tend to see
cohesion emigration; climate change cohesion; higher the protected area as a
counterculture education and threat to their interest;
movements grow culture; more people linked to
creativity tourism see the
protected area as an
opportunity for
development
Scenario 4: Adaptive Doñana – Wet and Creative are restored. Investments in sanitation and
education increase in response to demands for a
What if local institutions and people begin to work higher human well-being. Management becomes
together for the sustainability of Doñana, and the more participative, and links between research,
wetland dynamics become the core of water management, and education are fostered. New
management? (See Fig. 4d.) technologies for efficient irrigation are adopted;
public transport is promoted, as well as nature
In this scenario, Doñana is conceptualized as a tourism, thereby favoring small, local companies.
social-ecological system where the wetlands and the A landscape mosaic of sustainable use maintains
whole watershed become the heart and focus of biodiversity.
management. Some areas of transformed marshes
203
Characterizing the scenarios through the Backcasting: general recommendations for

provision of ecosystem services and human decision-making
well-being: looking for consensus
The results of the backcasting exercise offer a set
Fig. 5 presents the provision of ecosystem services of management recommendations for each of the
and human well-being indicators in the four four aspects chosen (water, biodiversity, agriculture,
scenarios, and Fig. 6 summarizes the ecosystem and tourism and mobility). Table 3 shows the
services provision and human well-being indicators strategic objectives, or goals to achieve, and the
in the four scenarios, showing the main drivers of main recommendations—i.e., those proposed by a
change. The most favorable scenarios for ecosystem higher number of participants—for these aspects.
services and human well-being are Doñana – Global The increase of education and professional training
Knowledge and Adaptive Doñana – Wet and is one of the recommendations that is found in every
Creative. The least favorable are Doñana aspect. The recommendations for the creation of a
Trademark and Arid Doñana. The statistical general plan or agreement, including the different
analysis demonstrated a high correlation between interests, to coordinate the management of some of
ecosystem services provision and human well-being these aspects such as biodiversity and tourism
in the four scenarios (Pearson correlation test: R2 = shows the need for understanding and team work
0.979, p = 0.021). This shows that the positive among the region's different interest groups.
scenarios in terms of ecosystem service provision
were also positive in terms of human well-being.
Under the Adaptive Doñana – Wet and Creative
scenario, there are evident trade-offs that shall be DISCUSSION
addressed. Intensive agriculture and beach tourism
are reduced to maintain regulating services, which Water as the core for management, education,
highly increase under this scenario. Under the and coordinated plans
Doñana – Global Knowledge scenario, the
development of clean technologies and technologies Water appears as a central element in all scenarios
of information—which is reflected in the great and two of them show how to reach a sustainable
increase of two ecosystem services, i.e., use of water. In the Doñana – Global Knowledge
environmental education and science and research scenario, the problem of water scarcity is solved by
—allows the increase of agriculture production the development of cheap water desalination
levels as well as beach tourism without risking techniques. Another alternative, in the absence of
regulating services. Although equal in total terms these techniques, is to place water at the core of
of ecosystem services provision, for human well- management, as happens under the Adaptive
being, the Adaptive Doñana – Wet and Creative Doñana – Wet and Creative scenario, and to adopt
scenario was slightly better than the Doñana – ecological boundaries such as the whole catchment
Global Knowledge scenario. for management (see Saunders et al. 2002).
The contacting of stakeholders by email to choose The four scenarios developed also show some of the
their preferred scenario provided a lower rate of main dangers that Doñana faces, and how society
response than wanted (21% of participants, 11 votes could adapt to them if they happened. The biggest
out of 53), although the contact was made twice. danger might be the scarcity of water, which could
This suggests the need for a different way to contact affect every other aspect of the system, such as
stakeholders, such as a combination of email and biodiversity and local population, perhaps bringing
telephone, as was done for the invitations to the some species to extinction or inciting social
workshops. Although the number of respondents conflicts, as happens under the Doñana Trademark
was low, the scenario chosen was the one that was scenario. But it also could affect agriculture, making
freely created as the desired scenario by one of the it return to dry crop varieties; or it could affect
four working groups, i.e., Adaptive Doñana – Wet tourism by decreasing the numbers of visitors, as
and Creative (82% of the votes) followed by happens under the Arid Doñana scenario. Conflicts
Doñana – Global Knowledge (18%). created by a severe scarcity of water might be rough,
and unless research brings solutions to these
problems and society adapts to them, like what
204
Fig. 5. Provision of ecosystem services and human well-being variables under each scenario, compared
to the current situation (big increase = 2; increase = 1; constant = 0; decrease = −1, large decrease = −2).
Abbreviations: Pollination & pests reg. = Pollination & pests regulation; Sat. biodiversity = Satisfaction
for biodiversity; Env. Education = Environmental education.
205
Fig. 6. Summary of the evolution of ecosystem services and human well-being under the four scenarios.
The vertical axis refers to the management and the horizontal axis refers to the main drivers of change
(in boxes).
happens under the Arid Doñana scenario, a social Backcasting results might also help to close the gap
crisis might emerge, as shown under the Doñana between conservation and development. Education
Trademark scenario. for sustainability and professional training is one of
the main measures proposed and that could help that
Also, the four scenarios show what opportunities end, as well as the design of coordinated agreements
exist to improve ecosystem services and human or plans for the main aspects of the system. The
well-being in Doñana. The two most positive general plan that now exists in Doñana for grazing,
scenarios in terms of ecosystem services and human which regulates the amount of livestock that can live
well-being are the Adaptive Doñana – Wet and inside the protected area, is told by some
Creative or Doñana – Global Knowledge scenarios, stakeholders as an example of a general plan that
in which environmental education is a crucial driver should be reached for other aspects. Additionally, a
to increase awareness for conservation. Participatory coordinated decision-making process which
processes under these scenarios also foster incorporates sectoral policies, e.g., agriculture,
empowerment, dialogue among stakeholders from tourism, conservation, etc., should be developed.
different groups of interest and the development of
a shared sustainable future for Doñana.
206
Table 3. Strategic objectives and main management actions proposed for the Doñana social-ecological
system, regarding the four aspects tackled through the backcasting approach.
Aspect Strategic objective Main actions proposed
Water Promote integrated river • Water shall be the core of management, conceptualizing the Doñana
basin management social-ecological system inside of its watershed
• It is essential to encourage education to raise awareness of local
education regarding sustainable water use
• Water-conserving technologies and initiatives, and nonirrigated crops,
shall be supported
• Re-naturalization and laws regarding water shall be enforced
Biodiversity Achieve a general agreement • Education, participation, investigation, and communication shall be
conservation for biodiversity, including encouraged
the different interests • Measures of sustainability for all aspects that affect biodiversity,
especially water, shall be adopted
Agriculture Achieve sustainable • Local markets and quality labels shall be fostered, to reduce the
agriculture number of intermediaries
• Training of professionals, encouragement of non-irrigated crops as
well as ecological agriculture, and the implementation of new agro-
environmental measures are needed
Tourism and Create a plan of mobility, • A general management plan for public transport shall be adopted
mobility and promote quality and • Tourism encouragement, professional’s training, quality, and
nature tourism improvement of infrastructures shall be the main factors promoting
tourism and mobility guidelines
Comparison of Doñana's scenarios and those of positive or negative character. Market forces and
MedAction and Millennium Ecosystem climate change were main drivers of two negative
Assessment scenarios, i.e., Doñana Trademark and Arid
Doñana, while technologies and education
A comparison of the MedAction and the Doñana produced a positive scenario, i.e., Doñana – Global
scenarios shows some opportunities and challenges Knowledge. Although the drivers conditioned the
of the multi-scale scenario process. The comparison characteristics of the scenarios, there was a wide
might be useful due to the very few examples of margin for creativity by the focus group
participatory scenario processes that have participants, especially in the way that society could
successfully integrated multiple scales (Biggs et al. react to the circumstances generated by the drivers.
2007, Kok et al. 2007). The main drivers of the three Under Doñana Trademark, the reaction against the
Mediterranean MedAction scenarios (technology, empowerment of large companies comes from a
market forces, and climate change) were quite counterculture movement, but under the Arid
accurately translated to the Doñana scenarios. This Doñana scenario, society as a whole reacts to cope
way, global drivers were incorporated to Doñana, with climate change and reduce its impacts.
avoiding the risk that local scenarios developed at
a single scale have bias toward local driving forces Nevertheless, some components of the MedAction
and the risk of underestimating the external drivers scenarios were not adequately translated to Doñana.
also affecting the system (Enfors et al. 2008). The For example, the social division between connected
different drivers under each scenario gave them a and unconnected to the new technologies of the
207
Knowledge is King scenario did not translate to “technological optimism” because technology is
Doñana because the working group believed that it seen as a proactive solution for most environmental
did not apply to Doñana. Although unlikely, perhaps problems. Some characteristics of the Millennium
it would have been interesting to see how this social Ecosystem Assessment's Order from Strength
division would be in Doñana, but the facilitator did scenario, such as social division and a vision of the
not persuade the group to address this issue. Because environment as something secondary, are reflected
of that, it is important that facilitators and in the Doñana Trademark scenario. However, the
researchers agree, before the translation of the greatest similarities exist between the Adapting
scenarios from one scale to another, which issues Mosaic and Adaptive Doñana – Wet and Creative,
from the given scenarios should be addressed in the as seen in Table 4. Social learning and local adaptive
creation of the new scenarios. There still exists one management are aspects that both scenarios share.
uncertainty in this scenario, which refers to what Like the Adaptive Mosaic from the Millennium
will happen with immigration, because if population Ecosystem Assessment scenarios, Adaptive
rises much, this could make sustainability more Doñana – Wet and Creative results in a multi-
difficult to achieve and it could also make other functional landscape that does not harm biodiversity
people migrate. and permits the transmission of traditional
ecological knowledge, and where the importance of
For the Big is Beautiful scenario, the main drivers local institutions increases. Both scenarios could
(market forces, loss of cultural identity and division maintain both biological and cultural diversity if the
in society between poor and rich), as well as some drivers that damage them are controlled (see Pretty
results (such as an increase in crime), were very et al. 2009).
accurately translated to Doñana. However, other
results of the Big is Beautiful scenario, such as
fortified cities or an increase in fires, were not
translated to Doñana; others, such as the collapse of What has been learned from the participatory
agriculture, were translated with some changes, scenario planning process?
which under the Doñana Trademark scenario
resulted in the creation of kitchen gardens for Through participatory scenario planning, stakeholders
subsistence. This shows how the drivers and main can understand trade-offs among ecosystem
results of the given scenarios are easily translated services and build an ecosystem services-oriented
to the new scenarios, but some outcomes of the management strategy (Rodriguez et al. 2006,
given scenarios might be omitted or changed due to Bennett et al. 2009). The acknowledgement of these
the soft degree of linkage chosen for the multi-scale trade-offs permits the understanding of some of the
scenarios, which, on the other hand, allowed a adverse effects of the conflict between conservation
higher creativity. and development, and can increase local people’s
incentives for conservation; this is especially true
For the Convulsive Change scenario, the main when the increase in provisioning services produces
drivers (climate change and droughts), as well as a decrease in regulating services. In the Doñana
the main scenario outcomes (reduction in irrigation, social-ecological system, the fact that water is a
tourism decrease, migrations, and a change in scarce resource—and that it is a critical aspect under
general attitude towards a more sustainable way of great demand, as shown in the characterization of
living), were completely translated to the Arid the present—is one of the effects of the conflict
Doñana scenario. between conservation and development. This
conflict is illustrated as a trade-off between
It is interesting to note that there are similarities agriculture and regulating services in the Adaptive
between the Doñana scenarios and the global Doñana – Wet and Creative scenario, in which
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios (see agriculture largely decreases in quantity and
Cork et al. 2005). The similarities between the regulating services grow, and they do so more than
outcomes of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in any other scenario (Fig. 5).
and the Doñana scenarios show that when the
drivers are the same, the scenario outcomes might Another important fact about scenarios is that they
be similar. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment are not static snapshots of future events, but rather
TechnoGarden scenario is quite similar to Doñana – include a logical sequence of images of the future
Global Knowledge, which might be a sort of and drivers of change (Rotmans 2000). For the
208
Table 4. Descriptions of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment's Adapting Mosaic scenario (Cork et al. 2005)
and the Adaptive Doñana – Wet and Creative scenario.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios Doñana scenario
The Adapting Mosaic scenario depicts a fragmented world In the Adaptive Doñana – Wet and Creative scenario,
resulting from discredited global institutions. This scenario Doñana is conceptualized like a social-ecological system
sees the rise of local ecosystem-management strategies and the where the wetlands and watershed become the heart of
strengthening of local institutions. Investments in human and management. Management becomes more participative,
social capital are geared toward improving knowledge about and education and sustainability become the priorities of
ecosystem functioning and management, thus resulting in a society. The landscape mosaic permits the maintenance of
better understanding of the importance of resilience, fragility, traditional uses and traditional ecological knowledge,
and the local flexibility of ecosystems. Traditional knowledge which coexist with modern knowledge and innovations.
is maintained, with success for some uses. The provision of regulating services will increase at the
expense of provisioning ecosystem services.
scenario development it might be useful to ask Although the backcasting approach has been used
participants to divide scenarios in different time with few scenario processes, we think, as other
intervals (see Kok and Rothman 2003, Cork et al. authors do (Robinson 2003), that both approaches
2005), which can help to create this sequence of constitute a happy marriage for several reasons.
images, especially if the scenarios are long (35 to While scenarios help to address uncertainty and
50 years). In the Doñana Trademark and Arid show possible outcomes for certain drivers of
Doñana scenarios, this evolution in time is quite change, the backcasting approach helps thinking
clear due to a need to overcome the negative initial about which management strategies, broad or
conditions. In the Doñana – Global Knowledge and concrete, should be adopted to avoid an undesirable
the Adaptive Doñana – Wet and Creative scenarios, scenario or to achieve a desired one. As all
the positive drivers produce many changes in time; participants proposed management options,
even in the Doñana – Global Knowledge scenario, recommendations came from people belonging to
immigration rises at the end of the scenario due to different sectors such as agriculture, grazing,
the good environmental and social conditions, but protected area management, research, or ENGO.
changes during the scenario are not so disruptive. Because of that, measures were proposed by
Fig. 2 of the Appendix shows flow diagrams of the stakeholders with a great knowledge of their own
scenarios where this evolution in time is more clear. sector, avoiding problems that could happen when
an external policy maker with a general knowledge
Although it is unusual for similar studies to conduct decides what shall be done for managing a certain
a vote among participants for their preferred region. This bottom-up decision system also helps
scenarios, one study used this method to determine the empowerment of stakeholders regarding these
the preferred future land-use scenario (Fidalgo and strategies.
Pinto 2005). The Adaptive Doñana – Wet and
Creative scenario was created as the best possible There is a need for a partnership between people
evolution of Doñana and received the most votes. and protected areas (McNeely 1994). In this sense,
At times during the creation of the Adaptive participation is a key strategy to engage local people
Doñana – Wet and Creative scenario, participants and to link scientific and local knowledge about the
felt that they were describing a utopian path towards management of the protected areas (Elbersen and
the future. Although this might be true for some of Prados 1999). One successful example of the
the scenario outcomes, for others it could be engagement of local people in the management of
realistic, and moreover, desired outcomes of the the protected areas is the fact that some of the
scenario were very useful for the backcasting protected areas guides are sons of ancient guards of
approach that followed. the National Park, who show great interest and
concern for the Doñana social-ecological system.
209
This engagement in the management of protected biological diversity. Safeguarding the

areas could also help to build a common identity for integrity of this traditional interaction is
the inhabitants of the socioeconomic area of vital to the protection, maintenance and
influence of the Doñana protected areas, which evolution of such an area.
could be a key issue in reaching sustainability. As
this identity does not yet exist (Escalera 2007), the This category might avoid some of the problems of
relationships among the 12 municipalities of the the use-restrictive conservation normative that
Doñana social-ecological system are problematic national parks have traditionally implemented.
because the municipalities compete for scarce Consistent with this category, the Doñana National
natural resources (e.g., water) and limited economic Park is slowly becoming a multi-functional
budgets. protected area (see Holdgate 1994) because some
traditional uses are now being allowed under
regulation, after having experienced a period of
Future directions for protected areas prohibition.
Conservation and development can be reconciled if However, if some traditional uses are allowed inside
development becomes sustainable and if the needs the protected areas, the outlying areas might be
of humans and nature are brought together to the managed in ways that do not harm the lands within
conservation and development discourse (Hammer protected areas. As human land-use activities in the
2007). The exclusion of local people from the surrounding matrix affect the lands within the
management of protected areas due to top-down protected areas, the success of protected areas
approaches might lead to the conservation vs. depends on managing the entire landscape (Wiens
development model, and thus to social conflict for 1996).
using key ecosystem services, such as water and
threats to biodiversity inside the protected areas. The need to expand conservation beyond the limits
That confrontation occurs due to protected areas of protected areas is recognized in the literature
shows that, although protected areas shall be (Bennett 1994, Holdgate 1994, International Union
designed and managed to provide benefits to society for Conservation of Nature 2004, deFries et al.
(Holdgate 1994, McNeely 1994), they are not 2005). Landscape planning is regarded as the basic
understood in that sense. Moreover, and as noted tool for organizing nature conservation outside
before for Doñana (Ojeda-Rivera 1986), we are protected areas (Sepp et al. 1999, Bengtsson et al.
facing a false dilemma. Protection and development 2003), and landscape conservation has been called
should find interests in common instead of the new paradigm for the conservation of
generating opposed paths. biodiversity (With 2005). Designing a landscape
where certain uses can coexist with biodiversity
The participatory scenario planning approach under conservation and protected areas should be the first
the ecosystem services framework has contributed aim for landscape planning in places such as the
to developing a vision of the future sustainability of Doñana social-ecological system. For example,
the Doñana social-ecological system—the Adaptive surrounding lands of protected areas where
Doñana – Wet and Creative scenario—and to agriculture is the main economic activity, could be
proposing guidelines to achieve it. Among the converted to ecoagriculture landscapes (Scherr and
protected area categories of the International Union McNeely 2008). Moreover, instead of isolated or
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the fifth static reserves, dynamic reserves in space and time
category fits best to this scenario and could be where resilience as well as ecological memory are
appropriate in other social-ecological systems in maintained outside the protected areas’ boundaries
which protected areas are embedded. This category are needed for long-term biodiversity conservation
of reserve describes the following (Philips 2002): (Bengtsson et al. 2003). Multiple dynamic
boundaries of protected areas could help to reach
Area of land, with coast and sea as these aims (Zimmerer 2000).
appropriate, where the interaction of
people and nature over time has produced Because people cannot be separated from nature,
an area of distinct character with we must move from a way of thinking in which
significant aesthetic, ecological and/or conservation is pitted against development to a
cultural value, and often with high framework of conservation for development (Folke
210
2006). In European multi-functional landscapes, Andersen, I. E., and B. Jaeger. 1999. Scenario
traditional cultural practices can maintain a range workshops and consensus conferences: towards
of economic, social, and ecosystem services (Jones more democratic decision-making. Science and
Walters 2008). Biodiversity, a range of ecosystem Public Policy 26(5):331-340.
services and economic incentives should coexist if
our aim is to promote human well-being. The fifth Atienza-Serna, L. 2001. Desarrollo sostenible y
category of reserves of the International Union for medio ambiente. Pages 157-166 in C. Roman del
Conservation of Nature might be a suitable strategy Río, editor. Aprendiendo a Innovar: Regiones del
for the protected areas in the semi-natural conocimiento. Instituto de desarrollo regional,
Mediterranean systems. Fundación Interuniversitaria.
Atienza-Serna, L., M. González Ruiz, and A. Villa

Responses to this article can be read online at: Díaz. 2003. Bases estratégicas para una agricultura
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art23/ sostenible en Doñana. De la agricultura al
responses/
desarrollo rural sostenible. Fundación Doñana 21,
Huelva, Spain.
Acknowledgments: Baker, J. P., D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, D. White,

J. Van Sickle, P. A. Berger, D. Dole, and N. H.
The authors wish to thank all the people who Schumaker. 2004. Alternative futures for the
collaborated on this project, especially those who Willamette River Basin, Oregon. Ecological
were surveyed or interviewed or who participated Applications 14(2):313-324.
in the workshops. We also thank Jesús Mateos for
sharing his knowledge about the Doñana social- Bengtsson, J., P. Angelstam, T. Elmqvist, U.
ecological system and Diana Calvo, Marina Emanuelsson, C. Folke, M. Ihse, F. Moberg, and M.
García, Irene Iniesta, Elisa Oteros, and Concepción Nyström. 2003. Reserves, resilience and dynamic
Piñeiro for their help during the workshops. We are landscapes. Ambio 32(6):389-396.
also thankful to two anonymous reviewers for
comments on early drafts of this paper. Funding for Bennett, E.M., G. D. Peterson, and L. J. Gordon.
development of this project was provided by the 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple
World Wildlife Fund–Spain and by the Autonomous ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12:1394-1404.
Organization of National Parks, Ministry of the
Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs Bennett, G., editor. 1994. Conserving Europe's
(018/2009). natural heritage: towards a European ecological
network. In Conserving Europe's natural heritage:
towards a European ecological network;
proceedings of the international conference held in
Maastricht, 9-12 November 1993. Graham &
LITERATURE CITED Trotman:Martinus Nijhoff, London, UK.
Aguilar Fernández, S. 2008. The legitimacy Berkes, F., and I. J. Davidson-Hunt. 2006.
problems in Spanish nature policy: The case of Biodiversity, traditional management systems, and
Doñana. Pages 83-100 in J. Keulartz and G. Leistra, cultural landscapes: examples from the boreal forest
editors. Legitimacy in European nature conservation of Canada. International Social Science Journal
policy: case studies in multilevel governance. 187:35-47.
Springer, New York, New York, USA.
Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and
Anderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. ecological systems: management practices and
A framework to analyze the robustness of social- social mechanisms for building resilience.
ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Conservation Ecology 9(1):18. [online] URL: http:
//www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18. Biggs, R., C. Raudsepp-Hearne, C. Atkinson-
Palombo, E. Bohensky, E. Boyd, G. Cundill, H. Fox,
211
S. Ingram, K. Kok, S. Spehat, M. Tengö, D. Timmer, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and Island
and M. Zurek. 2007. Linking futures across scales: Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
a dialogue on multiscale scenarios. Ecology &
Society 12(1): 17. [online] URL: http://www.ecolog Corominas, J. 1995. La agricultura en el entorno de
yandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art17/ . Doñana. Revista de Obras Públicas 3340:65-74.
Bohensky, E. L., B. Reyers, and A. S. Van Jaarsveld. Defries, R., A. Hansen, A. C. Newton, and M. C.
2006. Future ecosystem services in a Southern Hansen. 2005. Increasing isolation of protected
African river basin: a scenario planning approach areas in tropical forest over the past twenty years.
to uncertainty. Conservation Biology 20(4):1051-1061. Ecological Applications 15(1):19-26.
Brown K., W. N. Adger, E. Tomkins, P. Bacon, D. de Groot, R. 2006. Function-analysis and valuation
Shim, and K. Young. 2001. Trade-off analysis for as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for
marine protected area management. Ecological sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape
Economics 37:417-434. and Urban Planning 75:175-186.
Butler, C. D., R. Chambers, K. Chopra, P. Dasgupta, de Groot, R., M. Stuip, M. Finlayson, and N.
A. Duraiappah, P. Kumar, A. J. McMichael, and N Davidson. 2006. Valuing wetlands: guidance for
Wen-Yuan N. 2003. Ecosystems and human well- valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem
being. Pages 71-84 in Ecosystems and human well- services. Ramsar Technical Report No. 3, CBD
being: a framework for assessment. Millennium Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar Convention
Ecosystem Assessment, and Island Press, Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
Washington, D.C., USA.
Doctor, A. M. 2009. Rural tourism and urban growth
Carlson-Kanyama A., K. Henrik Dreborg, H. C. regulations in Doñana National Park: antecedents
Moll, and D. Padovan. 2008. Participative and current planning. Pages 109-123 in M. J. Prados,
backcasting: a tool for involving stakeholders in editor. Naturbanization: new identities and
local sustainability planning. Futures 40:34-46. processes for rural-natural areas. Taylor & Francis
Group, London, UK.
Carmona, J., and F. Fuentelsaz. 2006. Problemas
Ambientales de la Comarca de Doñana. Situación Dreborg, K. H. 1996. Essence of backcasting.
actual y propuestas. World Wildlife Fund, Madrid, Futures 28(9):813-828.
Spain.
Elbersen, B. 2001. Nature on the doorstep: the
Carpenter, S. R., E. M. Bennett, and G. D. Peterson. relationship between protected natural areas and
2006. Scenarios for ecosystem services: an residential activity in the European countryside.
overview. Ecology & Society 11(1): 29. [online] Alterra, Utrecht/Wageningen, The Netherlands.
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/
art29/ . Elbersen, B., and M. J. Prados. 1999. Desarrollo
rural y calidad de vida en el entorno del Parque
Carpenter, S. R., P. L. Pingali, E. Bennett, and M. Nacional de Doñana. Revista de estudios
Zurek, editors. 2005. 2005. Ecosystems and human Regionales 55:47-76.
well-being: scenarios. Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, and Island Press, Washington, D.C., Elster, J., editor. 1998. Deliberative democracy.
USA. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Cork, S., G. Peterson, G. Petschel-Held, J. Alcamo, Enfors, E. I., L. J. Gordon, G. D. Peterson, and D.
J. Alder, E. M. Bennett, E. R. Carr, D. Deane, G. C. Bossio. 2008. Making investments in dryland
Nelson, T. Ribeiro, C. Butler, E. M. Mendiondo, W. development work: participatory scenario planning
Olouch-Kosura, and M. Zurek. 2005. Four in the Makanya catchment, Tanzania. Ecology &
scenarios. Pages 223-294 in S. R. Carpenter, P. L. Society 13(2): 42. [online] URL: http://www.ecolog
Pingali, E. Bennett, and M. Zurek, editors. yandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art42/ .
Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios.
212
Escalera, J. 2007. Cohesión y participación social

en Doñana: Propuestas para el debate, Universidad Gude, P. H., A. J. Hansen, and D. A. Jones. 2007.
Pablo de Olavide. Document from the participative Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land
process of the II Sustainable Development Plan, use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone. Ecological
Seville, Spain. Applications 17(4):1004-1018.
Fernández, M., and F. Borja-Barrera. 2006. Doñana Gunderson, L. H., C. S. Holling, and S. S. Light,
y cambio climático: Propuestas para la mitigación editors. 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal
de los efectos. World Wildlife Fund, Madrid, Spain. of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University
Press, New York, New York, USA.
Fernández-Delgado, C. 1997. Conservation
management of a European natural area: Doñana Hammer, T. 2007. Protected areas and regional
National Park, Spain. Pages 458-467 in G. K. Meffe development: conflicts and opportunities. Pages
and C. R. Carroll, editors. Principles of 21-36 in I. Mose, editor. Protected areas and
conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, regional development in Europe: towards a new
Massachusetts, USA. model for the 21st century. Ashgate Publishing
Company, Hampshire, England.
Fidalgo, B., and L. M. Pinto. 2005. Linking
landscape functions and preferences in forest Hansen, A. J., R. De Fries, and W. Turner. 2004.
landscapes – a tool for scenario building and Land use change and biodiversity: a synthesis of
evaluation: a contribution from the VisuLands rates and consequences during the period of satellite
Project. Pages 34-35 in E. Lange and D. Miller, imagery. Pages 277–299 in G. Gutman and C.
editors. Proceedings of our shared landscape: Justice, editors. Land change science: observing,
integrating ecological socio-economic and aesthetic monitoring, and understanding trajectories of
aspects in landscape planning and management. change on the Earth’s surface. Springer-Verlag,
Ascona, Switzerland. New York, USA.
Folke, C. 2006. The economic perspective: Heimlich, R. E., K. D. Wiebe, R. Claassen, D.

conservation against development versus conservation Gadsby, and R. M. House. 1998. Wetlands and
for development. Conservation Biology 20 agriculture: private interests and public benefits.
(3):686-688. Agricultural Economic Report No. 765. Resource
Economics Division, Economic Research Service,
Gómez-Baggethun, E. 2010. Ecologizar la U.S. Department of Agriculture.
economía o economizar la ecología. Controversias
teóricas y desafíos prácticos en la valoración de los Holdgate, M. W. 1994. Protected areas in the future:
servicios de los ecosistemas. Thesis. Departamento the implications of change, and the need for new
de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, policies. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:406-410.
Madrid, Spain.
Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command
Gómez-Baggethun, E., S. Mingorría, V. Reyes- and control and the pathology of natural resource
García, L. Calvet, and C. Montes. 2010. Traditional management. Conservation Biology 10(2):328-337.
ecological knowledge trends in the transition to a
market economy: empirical study in the Doñana Huss, W. R. 1988. A move toward scenario analysis.
natural areas. Conservation Biology, in press. International Journal of Forecasting 4:377-388.
González-Arteaga, J. 1993. Las marismas del International Union for Conservation of Nature
Guadalquivir: etapas de su aprovechamiento (World Conservation Union). 2004. The Durban
económico. Antonio Cuevas, editor. Seville, Spain. Action Plan: Vth IUCN World Parks Congress,
Durban, South Africa. International Union for
Grimalt, J. O., M. Ferrer, and E. Macpherson. 1999. Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.
The mine tailing accident in Aznalcollar. The
Science of the Total Environment 242:3-11.
213
Jessel, B., and J. Jacobs. 2005. Land use scenario

development and stakeholder involvement as tools Martín-López, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas.
for watershed management within the Havel river 2007a. Influence of user characteristics on valuation
basin. Limnologica 35:220-233. of ecosystem services in Doñana Natural Protected
Areas (south-west Spain). Environmental Conservation
Jones Walters, L. 2008. Biodiversity in 34(3):215-224.
multifunctional landscapes. Journal of Nature
Conservation 16:117-119. Martín-López, B., C. Montes, L. Ramírez and J.
Benayas. 2009a. What drives policy decision-
Kok, K., R. Biggs, and M. Zurek. 2007. Methods making related to species conservation? Biological
for developing multi-scale participatory scenarios: Conservation 142:1370-1380.
insights from Southern Africa and Europe. Ecology
& Society 13(1): 8. [online] URL: http://www.ecol McNeely, J. A. 1994. Protected areas for the 21st
ogyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art8/ . century: working to provide benefits to society.
Biodiversity and Conservation 3:390-405.
Kok, K., M. Patel, and D. S. Rothman. 2004. Final
report of European and Mediterranean scenarios: Méndez-Contreras, J., F. Dickinson, and T. Castillo
upscaling the results from the target area scenarios. Burguete. 2008. Community member viewpoints on
MedAction Deliverable 4. International Centre for the Ría Celestún Biosphere Reserve, Yucatan,
Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development Mexico: suggestions for improving the community/
(ICIS) Working Paper I04-E002. Maastricht natural protected area relationship. Human Ecology
University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 36:111-123.
Kok, K., and D. S. Rothman. 2003. Mediterranean Montes, C., F. Borja, M. A. Bravo, and J. M.
scenarios. MedAction Deliverable 3. First Draft. Moreira. 1998. Reconocimiento Biofísico de
Report number I03-E001. International Centre for Espacios Naturales Protegidos. Doñana: Una
Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development Aproximación Ecosistómica. Consejería de Medio
(ICIS), Maastricht, The Netherlands. Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía, Sevilla, España.
Kok, K., D. S. Rothman, and M. Patel. 2006. Multi- Nakišenoviš, N., and 26 co–authors. 2000. Special
scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part I. report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge
European and Mediterranean scenario development. University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Futures 38:261-284.
Narayan, D., R. Chambers, M. K. Shah, and P.
Lanzarot Freudenthal, M. P. 2007. Cianobacterias Petesch. 1999. Global synthesis: consultations with
tóxicas y mortandades en masa de fauna salvaje en the poor. World Bank, Washington, DC.
las marismas de Doñana. Thesis. Universidad
Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Naughton-Treves, L., M. Buck-Holland, K.
Brandon. 2005. The role of protected areas in
Ludwig, D. 2001. The era of management is over. conserving biodiversity and sustaining local
Ecosystems 4:758-764. livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and
, Resources 30:219-252.
Lynam T., W. de Jong, D. Sheil, T. Kusumanto, and
K. Evans. 2007. A review of tools for incorporating Ojeda-Rivera, J. F. 1986. Protéction ou
community knowledge, preferences, and values into développment. La creation et l'abuse d'un faux
decision making in natural resources management. dilemme relative au P.N. Doñana et de sa región.
Ecology & Society 12(1): 5. [online] URL: http://w Pages 275-279 in L'Harmattan, editor. Du rural à
ww.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art5/ . l'environnement. XII Colloque National de
lÁssociation des Ruralistes Français (A.R.F.),
Martín-López, B., E. Gómez-Baggethun, P. L. Paris, France.
Lomas, and C. Montes. 2009b. Effects of spatial and
temporal scales on cultural services valuation. Ojeda-Rivera, J. F. 1987. Organización del
Journal of Environmental Management 90:1050-1059. territorio en Doñana y su Entorno próximo
214
(Almonte). Siglos XVIII-XX. Instituto para la

Conservación de la Naturaleza, Ministerio de Pimbert, M. P., and J. N. Pretty. 1997. Parks, people
Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid, Spain. and professionals: putting “participation” into
protected-area management. Pages 297-332 in K.
Ojeda-Rivera, J. F. 1990. Doñana paisaje cultural- B. Ghimire and M. P. Pimbert, editors. Social
Doñana cultural landscape. Pages 18-25 in Doñana: change and conservation: environmental politics
la naturaleza en España, (Edición bilingüe). and impacts of national parks and protected areas.
Lundwerg, Barcelona, Spain. Earthscan, London, UK.
Ojeda-Rivera, J. F. 1999. Espacios naturales Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and the collective
protegidos y desarrollo sostenible. Pages 273-286 management of resources. Science 302:1912-1914.
in Federación de espacios naturales protegidos de
Andalucía: Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles. Pretty, J., and 14 co–authors. 2009. The
Geografía y espacios naturales protegidos, Sevilla, intersections of biological diversity and cultural
Spain. diversity: towards integration. Conservation and
Society 7(2):100-112.
Ojeda-Rivera, J. F., and L. Moral Ituarte. 2004.
Percepciones del agua y modelos de su gestión en Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for
las distintas fases de la configuración de Doñana. environmental management: a literature review.
Investigaciones Geográficas 35:25-44. Biological Conservation 141:2417-2431.
Oñate, J. J., D. Pereira, and F. Suárez. 2003. Reed, M. S., A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus,
Strategic Environmental Assessment of the effects K. Hubacek, J. Morris, C. Prell, C. H. Quinn, and
of European Union´s Regional Development Plans L. C. Stringer. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology
in Doñana National Park (Spain). Environmental of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource
Management 31(5):642-655. management. Journal of Environmental Management
90:1933–1949.
Pereira, E., C. Queiroz, H. M. Pereira, and L.
Vicente. 2005. Ecosystem services and human Ribot, J. C. 2002. Democratic decentralization of
wellbeing: a participatory study in a mountain natural resources: institutionalizing popular
community in Portugal. Ecology & Society 10(2): participation. World Resources Institute, Washington,
14. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ D.C., USA.
vol10/iss2/art14/ .
Rist, S., M. Chidambaranathanb, C. Escobarc, U.
Peterson, G. D., T. D. Beard Jr., B. E. Beisner, E. Wiesmannd, and A. Zimmermanne. 2007. Moving
M. Bennett, S. R. Carpenter, G. S. Cumming, C. L. from sustainable management to sustainable
Dent, and T. D. Havlicek. 2003a. Assessing future governance of natural resources: the role of social
ecosystem services: a case study of the Northern learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali.
Highlands Lake District, Wisconsin. Conservation Journal of Rural Studies 23(1):23-37.
Ecology 7(3):1. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.
org/vol7/iss3/art1/ . Robinson, J. 2003.Future subjunctive: backcasting
as social learning. Futures 35:839-856.
Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. R.
Carpenter. 2003b. Scenario planning: a tool for Rodríguez, J. P., T. D. Beard, Jr., E. M. Bennett, G.
conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation S. Cumming, S. Cork, J. Agard, A. P. Dobson, and
Biology 17(2):358-366. G. D. Peterson. 2006. Trade-offs across space, time,
and ecosystem services. Ecology & Society 11(1):
Philips, A. 2002. Management Guidelines for IUCN 28. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
Category V Protected Areas: Protected Landscapes/ vol11/iss1/art28/ .
Seascapes. International Union for Conservation of
Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Rotmans, J., M. van Asselt, C. Anastasi, S. Greeuw,
J. Mellors, S. Peters, D. Rothman, and N. Rijkens.
Phillips, A. 2003. Turning ideas on their head: the 2000. Visions for a sustainable Europe. Futures
new paradigm for protected areas. The George 32:809-831.
Wright Forum 20(2):8-32.
215
Roux, D. J., K. H. Rogers, H. C. Biggs, P. J. Ashton, Tippett, J., J. F. Handley, and J. Ravetz. 2007.
and A. Sergeant. 2006. Bridging the science– Meeting the challenges of sustainable development
management divide: moving from unidirectional —a conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for
knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and participatory ecological planning. Progress in
sharing. Ecology & Society 11(1): 4. [online] URL: Planning 67:9–98.
. Tompkins, E. L., R. Few, and K. Brown. 2008.
Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: incorporating
Ruiz, F., A. Rodríguez-Ramírez, L. M. Cáceres, J. stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for
Rodríguez Vidal, M. Isabel Carretero, M. Abad, M. climate change. Journal of Environmental
Olías, and M. Pozo. 2005. Evidence of high-energy Management 88:1580-1592.
events in the geological record: Mid-holocene
evolution of the southwestern Doñana National Park Van der Zouwen, M. 2006. Dynamics in nature
(SW Spain). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, policy practices across the European union. Pages
Palaeoecology 229:212-229. 139-159 in B. Arts and P. Leroy, editors. Dynamics
in nature policy practices across the European
Sala, O. E., and 18 co-authors. 2000. Global Union. Springer, Dordrecht, Holland.
biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science
287:1770-1774. Warner, M. 1997. “Consensus” participation: an
example for protected areas planning. Public
Sandker, M., A. Suwarno, and B. M. Campbell. Administration and Development 17:413-432.
2007. Will forests remain in the face of oil palm
expansion? Simulating change in Malinau, Weber, J. L. et al. 2008. Ecosystem accounting for
Indonesia. Ecology & Society 12(2):37. [online] the cost of biodiversity losses: framework and case
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/ study for coastal Mediterranean wetlands, 31 March
art37/ . 2008. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen,
Denmark. [online] URL: http://www.eea.europa.eu/
Saunders, D. L., J. J. Meeuwig, and A. C. J. Vincent. highlights/understanding-the-full-value-of-biodiversity-
2002. Freshwater protected areas: strategies for loss/ecosystem-accounting-for-the-cost-of-biodiversity-
conservation. Conservation Biology 16(1):30-41. losses-framework-and-case-study-for-coastal-
mediterranean-wetlands-abstract-2013-31-march-2008
Scherr, S. J., and J. A. McNeely. 2008. Biodiversity .
conservation and agricultural sustainability:
towards a new paradigm of “ecoagriculture” West, P., J. Igoe, and D. Brockington. 2006. Parks
landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the and peoples: the social impact of protected areas.
Royal Society B 363:477-494. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:251-277.
Sepp, K., H. Palang, U. Mander, and A. Kaasik. Wiens, J. A. 1996. Wildlife in patchy environments:
1999. Prospects for nature and landscape protection metapopulations, mosaics, and management. Pages
in Estonia. Landscape and Urban Planning 53-84 in D. R. McCollough, editor. Metapopulations
46:161-167. and conservation. Island Press, Covelo, California,
USA.
Stringer, L.C., A. J. Dougill, E. Fraser, K. Hubacek,
C. Prell, and M. S. Reed. 2006. Unpacking With, K. A. 2005. Landscape conservation: a new
“participation” in the adaptive management of paradigm for the conservation of biodiversity. Pages
social-ecological systems: a critical review. 238-247 in J. Wiens and M. Moss, editors. Issues
Ecology & Society 11(2):39. [online] URL: (http:// and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/ ). University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Svancara, L. K, J. M. Scott, T. R. Loveland, and A. Wollenberg, E., D. Edmunds, and L. Buck. 2000.
B. Pidgorna. 2009. Assessing the landscape context Using scenarios to make decisions about the future:
and conversion risk of protected areas using satellite anticipatory learning for the adaptive comanagement
data products. Remote Sensing of Environment of community forests. Landscape and Urban
113:1357–1369. Planning 47:65-77.
216
Zimmerer, K. S. 2000. The reworking of

conservation geographies: nonequilibrium landscapes
and nature-society hybrids. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 90
(2):356-369.
Zurek, M. B., and T. Henrichs. 2007. Linking

scenarios across geographical scales in international
environmental assessments. Technological Forecasting
& Social Change 74:1282–1295.
217
Appendix Ecology and Society 16(1): 23
Fig. 1. Diagram of the backasting poster. The description of the characteristics of the aspects
chosen (water, biodiversity, agriculture, and tourism and mobility) in the present and their
description in the future scenarios were prepared by the research team before the second
workshop using the first workshop outputs. Participants wrote management strategies on their
cards for the short and medium term that would lead to a desirable future or avoid an
undesirable one.
Present Short-term Medium-term Characteristic under

characteristics management strategies management strategies the scenarios
Fig. 2. Flux-diagrams of interactions of the 4 scenarios. Drivers of change are illustrated in

shaded square boxes, actors (stakeholder groups) in violet ellipses, aspects (main components
of the system) in white ellipses, factors (sub-components of the system) in green ellipses and
results or responses in white square boxes. The arrow colors indicate cause, a positive effect,
negative effect or indeterminate effect.
DOÑANA: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE

Time
PRESENT 2035
Local population
PARTICIPATION
SOCIAL COHESION
TECH. OF Inmigration
INFORMATION Employment
Equity
& COMMUNICATION
?
Biodiversity
SUSTAINABILITY
INNOVATION Conservation & development
& TECHNOLOGY Water sustainable
consumption
Scientists
Infrastructures
Sustainable tourism
Factors
Sustainable agriculture Causes
Affects positively RESPONSES Actors
Bussinessmen Affects negatively
Drivers of change Aspects
Affects in an unknown way
218
DOÑANA REGISTERED TRADEMARK Ecology and Society 16(1): 23
Time
PRESENT 2035
CLIMATE CHANGE
I+D+I
Biodiversity NPAs COLLAPSE
Intensive
farming
Water Landscape
fragmentation SOCIAL CONFLICTS
Bussinessmen Social equity
MARKET & Mass Infrastructure

GLOBALIZATION tourism hypertrophy
European Union
EMIGRATION INMIGRATION COUNTER

DOÑANA® CULTURE
Urban
speculation
Factors
Cultural identity
Actors Causes RESPONSES
Affects positively Local population
Aspects Affects negatively Drivers of change
ARID DOÑANA
Time
PRESENT 2035
CLIMATE Biodiversity
CHANGE EMIGRATION
NPAs
Tourism QUALITY
Water TRADEMARK
availability
Bussinessmen
SUSTAINABILITY?
Agriculture
Unemployment
Tradition
Social innequality
Local population
Government
RESPONSE TO ENGOs
CLIMATE CHANGE:
RESEARCH + TECHNOLOGY Factors
Green energies
Scientists Causes RESPONSES Actors

Affects positively
Drivers of change Aspects
Affects negatively
219
DOÑANA ADAPTIVE: WET AND CREATIVE Ecology and Society 16(1): 23
Time http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art23/
PRESENT 2035
Wetland Permeable
SOCIO-ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABLE &
dynamics Landscape planning
MANAGEMENT
restoration RESILIENT
International DOÑANA
experts
Biodiversity ADAPTATIVE
Goverment
LANDSCAPE
Quality
MOSAIC
tourism
Water Agriculture
availability
Traditional uses
INNOVATION &
TECHNOLOGY Cultural identity
Social cohesion
Scientists EQUITY
COOPERATIVISM
Local Businessmen
PARTICIPATION population
Employment
EDUCATION Factors
Administration
Causes RESPONSES Actors
REDISTRIBUTIVE Affects positively
TAX POLICY Affects negatively Drivers of change Aspects
220
Table 1. Results of the feed-back questionnaires of the workshops. Ecology and Society 16(1): 23
Did you Was the

Do the results of your Would you like to
attend the workshop useful Could you
scenario group reflect the participate in
first to express your express your
opinions of everyone in future workshops
workshop? opinion about opinion freely?
your group? about Doñana?
Doñana?
Very useful
First (33%), Quite
workshop useful (57%), Yes (100%) Yes (95%) Yes (100%)
(5/15/2009) Not so useful
(10%)
Yes (40%) Very useful
Second (39%), Quite
workshop useful (48%), Yes (96%) Yes (83%) Yes (96%)
(6/24/2009) Not so useful
(13%)
221
Capítulo 5 Discusión
5. Discusión
Gestionando las áreas protegidas más allá de sus límites
“Sólo dos legados duraderos podemos dejar a nuestros hijos: uno, raíces; otro, alas”
Hodding Carter (1907-1972)
A la luz de los resultados obtenidos y bajo el marco de los objetivos de la tesis, la presente
sección discute los resultados de la tesis con respecto a su utilidad para la ordenación del
territorio. La discusión se divide en tres apartados, que analizan, el pasado del territorio (creación
de paisajes culturales del mediterráneo), su presente (aproximaciones actuales a la gestión del
territorio) y su futuro (una propuesta de planificación socio-ecológica del territorio).
El apartado 5.1. analiza los paisajes culturales mediterráneos bajo el prisma de la resiliencia
socio-ecológica. Muestra cómo estos paisajes además de poseer una elevada biodiversidad
constituyen un ejemplo mundial de territorios resilientes, y las amenazas que el cambio global y
su tendencia uniformadora de paisajes cierne sobre ellos.
El apartado 5.2. muestra cuatro aproximaciones a la gestión del territorio que existen
actualmente: la ordenación territorial convencional, el crecimiento económico, la planificación del
paisaje y la creación de áreas protegidas. Estas cuatro aproximaciones son analizadas con
respecto a los efectos que tienen sobre el territorio y la resiliencia del mismo.
El apartado 5.3. muestra las claves que la planificación socio-ecológica del territorio debería
seguir para mantener la resiliencia de los paisajes culturales mediterráneos. También analiza la
gestión de trade-offs entre servicios y la multifuncionalidad como propiedad emergente del
territorio. Este apartado muestra el papel que las áreas protegidas pueden desempeñar dentro de
este modelo de ordenación del territorio.
Por último, el apartado 5.4. concluye la discusión sugiriendo recomendaciones de

investigación.
5.1. Un binomio en evolución: Seres humanos y naturaleza.
La cuenca mediterránea ha sido reconocida como uno de los 25 puntos calientes (hotspots) de
biodiversidad mundiales, entre los que destaca por su elevada tasa de endemismos vegetales
(Medail y Quézel, 1999; Myers et al., 2000; Pineda et al., 2002). Esta elevada biodiversidad se
explica por la interdependencia entre la historia geológica, el clima, y la larga ocupación humana
(Thompson, 2005). Se ha encontrado que en el mediterráneo existe una correlación entre la
biodiversidad y las densidad de las poblaciones humanas en Europa (Araújo, 2003). El hecho de
que la Cuenca Mediterránea sea una de las regiones con mayor diversidad biológica al mismo
225
Discusión
tiempo que es una de las regiones más pobladas desde la antgüedad por el ser humano, puede
explicarse mediante la hipótesis de perturbación intermedia (Connell, 1978). Esta hipótesis,
aplicada a los sistemas ecológicos mediterráneos, explica que el sometimiento de un sistema
natural a un régimen de perturbaciones de carácter leve consistentes en la retirada de biomasa
provoca incrementos de biodiversidad al disminuir la competencia entre especies en el mismo
(Pineda y Motalvo, 1995; Figura 5.1).
Diversidad biológica
Cambio en la diversidad biológica
Intensidad
de uso
Agro-ecosistema Diversidad biológica Agro-ecosistema

abandonado (conservación y manejo) sobrexplotado
Figura 5. 1. Hipótesis de la perturbación intermedia. Se observa como un ligero aumento de la

intensidad de uso incrementa los valores de biodiversidad, mientras que una intensidad excesiva los
disminuye enormemente. Fuente: Pineda y Montalvo (1995).
Además de la elevada biodiversidad de estos ecosistemas, resulta especialmente importante la

diversidad funcional9 (Díaz et al., 2006) y redundancia funcional10 de los mismos (García-
Llorente, 2011). Como muestran estudios recientes a escala global la diversidad funcional
también aumenta con ligeros aumentos de la intensidad de uso del suelo (Laliberté et al., 2010).
De hecho, la diversidad funcional es en parte resultado del manejo extensivo, ya que pequeñas
perturbaciones asociadas al manejo del fuego, de los suelos, o de la ganadería, han favorecido la
9 La diversidad funcional se ha definido como el rango, el valor y la abundancia relativa de los

caracteres funcionales de una comunidad dada; donde los caracteres son los rasgos morfológicos,
fisiológicos, fenológicos o de comportamiento de un organismo relacionados con el papel
funcional del mismo en el ecosistema (Díaz, et al., 2006)
10 La redundancia funcional de especies se refiere a que varias especies pueden contribuir de
forma similar a una función del ecosistema (Laliberté et al., 2010)
226
diversificación de los caracteres morfo-funcionales (principalmente de los caracteres de

respuesta11), y por tanto, de la diversidad funcional.
5.1.1. Características ecológicas y sociales de los paisajes culturales

mediterráneos
Una de las principales características ecológicas de los paisajes mediterráneos es su clima, que
registra un elevado estrés hídrico estival y que en la península ibérica se caracteriza por dos
periodos lluviosos fuera del invierno (en primavera y otoño) (Gómez Sal, 2000). La sequías del
clima mediterráneo, y temperaturas extremas, además de mostrar una frecuencia de difícil
predicción (LeHouerou, 2004), se unen para hacer que el ciclo del fuego juegue un papel
importante en la modelación del paisajes y especies vegetales del mediterráneo (Moreno y
Oechel, 1994; Ojeda, 2001). El suelo es otro elemento clave en los paisajes mediterráneos
caracterizado por su pobreza de nutrientes y su fragilidad ante los procesos de erosión (Gallardo
et al., 2009; González Bernaldez, 1979). Estas características modelan la vegetación mediterránea,
en la que abundan las plantas herbáceas de ciclo anual (terófitos) cuyas plantas germinan en
otoño y crecen y florecen en primavera (Pineda, 2007). Las variaciones en la composición de la
vegetación, como la mayor productividad herbácea y presencia de mayor número de plantas
perennes en regiones elevadas, ha provocado la migración de distintas especies animales, cuya
adaptación funcional ha sido amoldada tradicionalmente para el aprovechamiento ganadero
(Ruiz, 1986). La variabilidad interanual del clima mediterráneo y su dureza (sequía estival, suelos
pobres, etc.), y la heterogeneidad de la vegetación, han provocado el desarrollo de una gestión
adaptativa que permitiese la supervivencia de los seres humanos en este clima. Así, la elevada
variabilidad de los paisajes mediterráneos ha sido acentuada por los seres humanos mediante
diferentes prácticas socio-ecológicas para crear unas condiciones de productividad favorables
que garantizasen su subsistencia (Gómez Sal, 2007).
Las diversas culturas existentes en el mediterráneo y en España en concreto, mantenían una

relación estrecha con la naturaleza para poder obtener diversos servicios de los ecosistemas.
Estas culturas no pretendían incrementar los valores de biodiversidad alfa y beta de forma
consciente, sino que este incremento es el resultado de las diversas prácticas socio-ecológicas que
practicaban en el territorio con el objetivo de usar determinados servicios de los ecosistemas.
Estas prácticas socio-ecológicas tradicionales (conocimiento ecológico local sensu Berkes et al.
2000) han dado lugar a dehesas y montados (Aronson et al., 2009; Blondel et al., 2010), sistemas
11 Los caracteres de respuesta son aquellos que determinan la respuesta de una especie a un
factor ambiental, incluyendo recursos, condiciones climáticas y perturbaciones (Martín-López et
al., 2007)
227
Discusión
de acequias (Fernández-Escalante et al., 2006, Espín-Piñar et al., 2010), cultivos en terrazas

(Rodríguez-Vaquero 2007), corrales de pesca (Naval, 2004) o prácticas ganaderas trashumantes o
trasterminantes (De Miguel y Gómez Sal, 2002; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2012a). Quizá la más
ilustrativa de todas ellas es la denominada “frutalización del paisaje Mediterráneo” que consiste
en la creación de un paisaje mediante selección de especies y otras técnicas como injertos que
permitía obtener el alimento de especies arbóreas que en origen no generaban frutos tan
carnosos y abundantes como en nuestra época (González Bernáldez, 1992).
El moldeado humano de los paisajes culturales mediterráneos lo encontramos asociado a la

gestión de variables ligadas con el suelo, el agua y la vegetación. En relación con la gestión de las
variables asociadas al suelo podemos citar el ejemplo de la rotación de cultivos y el barbecho para
obtener un rendimiento de forma sostenible del suelo, permitiendo la regeneración de los
nutrientes del mismo y optimizando los flujos de energía. En relación al agua, la construcción de
un sistema complejo de acequias que permite la recarga del subsuelo en tiempos de bonanza en
recursos hídricos, los cuales son utilizados posteriormente en el periodo anual seco. Este sistema,
además de proporcionar agua en el periodo seco, tiene efectos positivos para la biodiversidad de
las comunidades vegetales asociadas a las acequias (Pulido-Bosch, 1995). Las alteraciones de un
sistema a través del pastoreo, el abono y la irrigación producen una serie de efectos en cascada en
múltiples funciones del ecosistema reguladas por la producción primaria neta (Laliberté y
Tylianakis, 2012). En relación a la vegetación, podemos destacar la selección de determinados
ejemplares arbóreos como elemento estructural de las dehesas y montados (Blondel et al., 2010,
González Bernáldez, 1992). La biodiversidad del pastizal de las dehesas se encuentra entre las
mayores del planeta y es consecuencia del proceso de herbivoría fomentado por el ser humano
(Montalvo et al., 1993).
A través de estas prácticas socio-ecológicas basadas en el conocimiento ecológico local se

moldearon lo que se ha denominado paisajes culturales (Blondel, 2006; Gómez Sal, 2007). Los
paisajes culturales son el resultado de un baile adaptativo entre el sistema socio-cultural y los
ecosistemas (UNESCO, 2008a), siendo éstos el producto del conocimiento humano y de su
intervención en el entorno para cambiar su funcionamiento (Pineda y Schmitz, 2001). En el
siguiente apartado nos centraremos en evaluar las características de la gestión de los paisajes
culturales mediterráneos que les confieren dos propiedades claves: la multifuncionalidad y la
resiliencia.
228
5.1.2. La multifuncionalidad y la resiliencia de los paisajes culturales

mediterráneos
Los paisajes multifuncionales son aquellos que suministran un flujo variado de servicios de los
ecosistemas (Bolliger et al., 2011). La utilidad del concepto de paisaje multifuncional radica en
que permite analizar los trade-offs y las sinergias entre diferentes servicios de los ecosistemas, y
en consecuencia, evaluar las consecuencias de los cambios en el paisaje para el bienestar humano
(Bolliger et al., 2011; Brandt y Vejre 2004). El estudio de los paisajes multifuncionales debe partir
de una ciencia transdisciplinar e integradora que permita tender puentes entre los aspectos
biofísicos y sociales que conforman el paisaje (Naveh, 2001), como permiten las Ciencias de la
Sostenibilidad (Kates et al., 2001).
El estudio de los paisajes culturales bajo el marco de la resiliencia ha sido escaso hasta la
actualidad a pesar de que puede ofrecer interesantes aportes de cara a al análisis y la gestión del
paisaje en general (Plieninger y Bieling, 2012a). Además ofrece un marco que incorpora la
complejidad y ayuda a entender los paisajes como sistemas cambiantes, en los que el cambio
nunca es totalmente positivo ni negativo, sino que el mismo genera diferentes trade-offs
(Plieninger y Bieling, 2012b).
La biodiversidad, diversidad funcional y redundancia funcional de los paisajes culturales

mediterráneos resulta clave para conferir una elevada resiliencia a los mismos, puesto que los
sistemas biodiversos y diversos funcionalmente son menos vulnerables a las perturbaciones en el
caso de que un elemento del sistema desaparezca o una perturbación aparezca (Biggs et al.,
2012). El manejo adaptativo de los paisajes culturales mediterráneos trata de favorecer el
suministro de un flujo variado de servicios de los ecosistemas, considerando la base biofísica de
los mismos, así como la gestión de los denominados servicios intermedios que se corresponden
con los servicios de regulación (Tabla 5.1). La gestión adaptativa12 de los servicios de regulación
puede entenderse como la gestión de las variables lentas de los ecosistemas, y que permite el
mantenimiento del suministro de los servicios de abastecimiento y culturales. De forma
sostenible.
12 La gestión adaptativa es un modelo de gestión integrador y multidisciplinar para afrontar la

incertidumbre que incluye un aprendizaje activo ante los cambios constantes de los sistemas
gestionados (Gunderson, 1999)
229
Discusión
Tabla 5.1. Principales servicios de regulación que prestan los ecosistemas mediterráneos y prácticas
socio-ecológicas que permiten su mantenimiento.
Servicios de regulación Prácticas socio-ecológicas relacionadas con la gestión de los
mismos
Mantenimiento de hábitats Mantenimiento de un mosaico multifuncional sin barreras para la
para especies conectividad
Selección y mantenimiento de árboles (por ejemplo en dehesas) que
permiten mantener hábitats
Polinización Utilización de barreras vegetales (árboles y arbustos que sirven de refugio a
polinizadores) para la separación de parcelas
Fertilidad del suelo Bomba de nutrientes de las zonas altas con mayor vegetación a las zonas
bajas en las dehesas.
Control de la erosión Cultivo mediante terrazas en las laderas, lo que disminuye la erosión. El suelo
del fondo del valle era usado en la misma construcción de terrazas
Regulación hídrica Mantenimiento de árboles en las dehesas que permiten interceptar la
precipitación. Recarga de las aguas subterráneas a través de las acequias
Depuración del agua Al recargar las aguas subterráneas a través de las acequias de careo se
favorece que el agua se purifique mediante la infiltración
Regulación del clima Mantenimiento de una cubierta arbórea suficiente para una estabilidad
climática
Mitigación de accidentes Roza o quema que previenen la aparición de incendios forestales por
naturales acumulación excesiva de biomasa.
Construcción de diques en los valles para limitar los efectos de las
inundaciones.
Control biológico Rotación de cultivos para impedir que las enfermedades y plagas que afectan
a un determinado tipo de plantas se perpetúen en el tiempo
Por otro lado, los paisajes culturales mediterráneos se caracterizan también por una elevada
multifuncionalidad, ya que favorecen el mantenimiento de dicha diversidad funcional y por tanto
el suministro de un flujo variado de servicios de abastecimiento, regulación y culturales (Aronson
et al., 2009; Bugalho et al., 2011; García-Llorente et al., 2012). Esta multifuncionalidad se debe a la
trasformación de bosques en un mosaico de diversos usos que incluye todo el rango entre
bosques y zonas de cultivo (Forman, 1995). La complejidad espacial y heterogeneidad generada
de esta forma permiten la existencia de múltiples hábitats y nichos ecológicos (De Miguel., 1999),
que favorecen el aumento de la diversidad biológica y del suministro de una amplia variedad de
servicios. Resulta importante destacar que este mosaico de usos creado permitía el
mantenimiento de un elevado grado de conectividad ecológica territorial, la cual resulta esencial
para el mantenimiento de la biodiversidad, los servicios de los ecosistemas y la resiliencia (Pineda
y Schmitz, 2011).
Por otro lado, los principales elementos del sistema de gobernanza que determinan la
resiliencia de los paisajes culturales son el conocimiento ecológico local o tradicional13 y las
13 El conocimiento ecológico tradicional o local se define como “un cuerpo acumulativo de
conocimiento, prácticas y creencias, que evoluciona por procesos adaptativos, transmitido
230
instituciones14 (Berkes et al., 2003). El conocimiento ecológico tradicional o local no funciona de

forma aislada sino que se encuentra integrado en instituciones y normas locales (North, 1990).
Así, el conocimiento ecológico local, lejos de ser una entidad estática, se adapta a los cambios y
perturbaciones, evolucionando ante fenómenos como el cambio climático, lo que aumenta su
resiliencia (Tengö y Belfrage, 2004). Además, el conocimiento ecológico local, incorpora la
complejidad inherente a los sistemas ecológicos y las dinámicas de los ecosistemas, siendo capaz
de manejar múltiples variables de forma simultánea (Olsson y Folke, 2001; Peloquin y Berkes,
2009). Un ejemplo mediterráneo de la integración de la complejidad en el conocimiento ecológico
local se muestra a través del complejo sylva-saltus-ager. El sistema sylva-saltus-ager que
combinaba un área boscosa, de pasto y de cultivo fijaba los límites de cada zona en función de las
características ecológicas del terreno, lo que optimizaba los usos, y permitía la soberanía
alimentaria y de recursos (Blondel et al., 2010). Entre las variables que maneja el conocimiento
ecológico en los paisajes culturales mediterráneos se encuentran variables de respuesta lenta y
los feed backs15. Un ejemplo de ello lo constituye la rotación de cultivos y el barbecho, lo que
refleja un profundo conocimiento del funcionamiento de la fertilidad del suelo, el reciclaje de
nutrientes y los flujos de energía (Lacasta et al., 2006). El conocimiento ecológico local se
caracteriza por varios factores que a su vez son responsables de su elevada resiliencia: utiliza
reglas establecidas localmente y aplicadas por los propios usuarios que manejan un cuerpo de
conocimiento que guía sus acciones. Se utilizan una diversidad de elementos para satisfacer las
necesidades lo que minimiza el riesgo en caso de que alguno desaparezca, y no está enfocado en
mantener una producción máxima sino que incorpora una gestión adaptativa (Berkes et al.,
2000).
El segundo aspecto del sistema de gobernanza potenciador de la resiliencia de los sistemas

socio-ecológicos lo confiere la arquitectura institucional. La diversidad institucional es un
elemento clave que proporciona resiliencia a los sistemas socio-ecológicos (Ostrom., 2005).
Muchos de estos sistemas socio-ecológicos que crearon los paisajes multifuncionales eran
gobernados por un sistema comunal por lo que podrían denominarse áreas comunales
conservadas. El funcionamiento de estas áreas estaba regido por el conocimiento ecológico local y
otras instituciones no formales como las juntas de los montes comunales (montes propios), juntas
culturalmente a través de generaciones y que trata sobre la relación de los seres vivos entre sí y
con su medio ambiente” (Berkes et al., 2000).
14 Las instituciones son el conjunto de reglas, normas y convenciones que regulan la interacción
entre individuos y grupos sociales, así como entre éstos y los ecosistemas (Crawford y Ostrom,
2005)
15 Los feed-backs o procesos de realimentación son una característica de los sistemas complejos
adaptativos que consiste en un funcionamiento retroactivo de determinadas variables (Holling,

1973)
231
Discusión
de ganaderos, sociedades de caza, cofradías, mancomunidades, comunidades de regantes, etc.,

cuyo nivel organizativo de gestión era local, adquiriendo de esta manera un sistema de
gobernanza policéntrico estructurado de abajo a arriba (bottom-up) (Couto y Gutiérrez, 2012).
Otro de los factores socio-culturales que incrementan la resiliencia de los sistemas socio-
ecológicos es la existencia de conexiones entre los servicios de los ecosistemas, los usuarios, las
estructuras que permiten el disfrute de los servicios y el sistema de gobernanza de estas
estructuras (Anderies et al., 2004). Así, en los paisajes culturales mediterráneos, dada la
predominancia de una escala local podemos entender que las conexiones entre estos elementos
eran más intensas. El conjunto de estas interacciones locales, las instituciones no formales y el
conocimiento ecológico local incrementaban la cohesión del sistema social, lo que lo hacía menos
vulnerable ante las crisis y perturbaciones (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2012).
En conclusión, y como muestra un reciente estudio de revisión (Biggs et al., 2012), la resiliencia
de los sistemas socio-ecológicos se puede fomentar mediante diferentes estrategias: mantener la
diversidad, gestionar la conectividad, gestionar los feed-backs, entender los sistemas socio-
ecológicos como sistemas complejos adaptativos16, fomentar el aprendizaje y la experimentación,
permitir la participación y promover la gobernanza policéntrica. A través de los ejemplos vistos
anteriormente podemos observar como estos siete elementos están presentes en los paisajes
multifuncionales del mediterráneo (Tabla 5.2).
Tabla 5.2. Elementos que fomentan la resiliencia socio-ecológica de los socio-ecosistemas (a partir
de Biggs et al., 2012) y ejemplos de los mismos en los paisajes culturales mediterráneos.
Elementos que Ejemplo en los paisajes culturales Referencias
confieren mediterráneos
resiliencia
Elementos Diversidad y Elevada diversidad funcional y redundancia Myers et al., 2000
del sistema redundancia funcional debido al manejo extensivo y Laliberté et al., 2010
socio- funcional promoción de diversidad de caracteres. Couto y Gutiérrez,
ecológico Elevada diversidad institucional. 2012
gestionados Conectividad Elevada conectividad entre hábitats a Martínez Alandi,
consecuencia de la no existencia de barreras 2006
impermeables.
Conectividad social (flujos de información)
elevada
Variables lentas y Rotación de cultivos y barbecho en los Lacasta et al., 2006
feed-backs ecosistemas mediterráneos para gestionar
variables asociadas al ciclo de nutrientes del
suelo. Pulido-Bosch, 1995
16 Los sistemas complejos adaptativos son aquellos que constan de múltiples elementos que
interactúan entre sí creando propiedades emergentes y en los que existen procesos de
retroalimentación, haciendo que la no linealidad y la incertidumbre sean propiedades básicas del
sistema (Holland, 1995; Levin, 1998)
232
Acequias de careo que proporcionan mayor

cantidad de agua en un tiempo bastante
posterior y en otra región alejada de donde se Gómez-Baggethun
recargan (multi-escalar). et al., 2013
Variables lentas sociales (como valores y
tradiciones) eran elementos de gran
importancia en los paisajes culturales
mediterráneos.
Atributos del Aprendizaje y Gran importancia del conocimiento ecológico Gómez-Baggethun
sistema de experimentación local. et al., 2010a
gobernanza Experimentación continua sobre los Lomas et al., 2009
ecosistemas como premisa para la
supervivencia. La variabilidad del clima
mediterráneo obliga a la experimentación y al
aprendizaje basado en el acierto-error.
Participación y Lazos estrechos entre miembros de Oteros-Rozas et al.,
confianza instituciones no formales como asociación de 2012b
ganaderos que favorece la cohesión social y el
capital social
Policentrismo Diversas instituciones gestoras como Couto y Gutiérrez,
(aproximación sociedades de regantes, de ganaderos, de 2012
bottom-up) cazadores, tribunales del agua, etc.
Entendimiento de Conocimiento de los procesos socio-ecológicos Blondel et al., 2010
la complejidad que permitió el desarrollo de sistemas
complejos como el sistema sylva-saltus-ager
Como vemos, la gestión de los paisajes culturales a través del conocimiento ecológico local y la
diversidad institucional contiene diversos elementos de lo que hoy entendemos por gestión
adaptativa e incorporación de la incertidumbre, lo que incrementa la resiliencia de los sistemas
(Berkes et al., 2000). A pesar de que los paisajes culturales mediterráneos y sus sistemas de
gobernanza constituyen un ejemplo mundial de multifuncionalidad y resiliencia, su fragilidad y el
cambio global amenazan su mantenimiento a largo plazo (Ibañez et al., 1997; Tamames, 2007). En
el siguiente apartado analizaremos cómo los paisajes culturales mediterráneos están siendo
sustituidos por paisajes unifuncionales y las implicaciones socio-ecológicas de este cambio en la
gestión del territorio.
5.1.3. El cambio global y sus efectos sobre los paisajes culturales

mediterráneos
Actualmente el proceso del cambio global está imponiendo diversas amenazas sobre los
sistemas socio-ecológicos y sus paisajes culturales asociados a través de impulsores de cambio
directos e indirectos. En España, los procesos de intensificación de usos del suelo y abandono son
el principal impulsor de cambio afectando a la pérdida de biodiversidad (EME, 2011). La
intensificación y abandono del medio rural supone pasar de determinadas prácticas de manejo
extensivas a los dos extremos de un gradiente de manejo (i.e., intensivo y abandono o
conservación estricta; Figura 5.2).
233
Discusión
Figura 5.2. Diferentes grados de transformación del territorio por la acción humana. Aunque los
mismos pueden entenderse como una evolución histórica, coexisten en la actualidad en diferentes
partes del planeta. Fuente: González Bernáldez, 1981.
Este proceso de intensificación y abandono del territorio se enmarca dentro de lo que se ha

denominado la patología de la gestión de los recursos naturales o el modelo de “dominio y
control” (Holling y Meffe, 1996). Una de las consecuencias de este modelo de gestión es la
reducción de la variabilidad de los sistemas gestionados para hacerlos más predecibles y
manejables, lo que reduce la biodiversidad y resiliencia de los mismos. Por lo tanto, aunque el
modelo de dominio y control puede aumentar los beneficios económicos, o favorecer la
234
conservación de una determinada población de una especie, también convierte el sistema en más
vulnerable ante las perturbaciones.
Este proceso de intensificación y abandono del territorio supone una pérdida de diversidad
funcional (Laliberté et al. 2010) e importantes trade-offs en el suministro de servicios de los
ecosistemas (Bugalho et al., 2011; García-Llorente et al., 2012), en los que los servicios de
regulación son los más perjudicados (García-Llorente et al., enviado; Martín-López et al, 2011;
Palomo et al., 2013b; capítulo 5). En el caso de Doñana y Sierra Nevada, muchos cultivos
tradicionales y de secano están siendo remplazados por invernaderos orientados a maximizar la
producción agrícola mientras que áreas de Sierra Nevada destinadas al cultivo tradicional están
siendo abandonadas. Asimismo, este hecho pone en peligro la memoria social de dicha gestión,
i.e., conocimiento ecológico local (Gómez-Baggethun, 2010a; Iniesta-Arandia, enviado) y el
modelo de ordenación territorial asociado a las mismas.
La gestión de dominio y control de los ecosistemas entiende los ecosistemas como entidades
estáticas y los gestiona con el objetivo de obtener la máxima producción posible de determinados
servicios de abastecimiento (fuera de las áreas protegidas) y determinados servicios de
regulación y culturales (dentro de las áreas protegidas). Por ello, se reduce la resiliencia del
sistema y lo hace vulnerable a cambios de estado no deseados (Ludwig et al., 1993). Los servicios
de regulación, al no estar integrados en los mercados (acaso las únicas excepciones específicas
sean el mercado de emisiones de CO2 y los pagos por servicios ambientales), son ignorados por la
gestión convencional del territorio, más allá de las áreas protegidas de montaña. La gestión
convencional hace que los sistemas sean dependientes de multitud de inputs externos ya sea de
combustibles fósiles, fertilizantes y pesticidas, como de polinizadores (en el caso de los
invernaderos, en ocasiones se importan los polinizadores), lo que incrementa el efecto y
promoción de los impulsores indirectos de cambio. En relación a estas ideas, la Tabla 3 muestra
las diferencias entre el paisaje multifuncional heredado de los paisajes culturales mediterráneos,
y el paisaje uni-funcional fruto del modelo de dominio y control que los está remplazando.
235
Discusión
Tabla 5.3. Diferencias entre los modelos uni-funcional y multi-funcional de paisaje

Paisaje multi-funcional Paisaje uni-funcional
Conservación de la Focalizada al aumento de la Focalizada a la conservación de especies

biodiversidad diversidad funcional y su hábitats mediante herramientas
BIOFISICO
legales
Biodiversidad Alta Alta en las zonas no transformadas y baja
en las transformadas
Conectividad ecológica Alta Baja
Efectos de borde17 Bajos Altos
Servicios suministrados y Abastecimiento Por un lado, abastecimiento
localización (productividad media), (productividad alta) y, por otro lado,
regulación y culturales en determinados servicios de regulación
SERVICIOS DE LOS
el mismo paisaje como mantenimiento de hábitats y

ECOSISTEMAS
determinados servicios culturales como

conocimiento científico y turismo
Servicios suministrados Abastecimiento Abastecimiento (productividad alta),
(intensidad) (productividad media), regulación (baja), culturales demandados
regulación (alta), culturales por la población urbana 18 (alta),
(alta) culturales demandados por la población
rural19 (baja)
Estética del paisaje Alta Alta en las zonas conservadas y baja en
las transformadas
Tipo de conocimiento Conocimiento ecológico
Conocimiento científico
local o tradicional
Modelo de cohesión social Modelo cooperativo, pues
implica la necesidad de Individualizado pues invisibiliza el
intercambio de conocimiento ecológico local y la
conocimiento y aprendizaje propiedad comunal
SOCIAL
colectivo
Empleo Implica el empleo de un Permite una mayor diversificación de
mayor número de personas empleos al requerir de menor mano de
en servicios de obra en los servicios de abastecimiento,
abastecimiento lo que permite una mayor
especialización técnica y científica
Productividad Media Alta (maximiza el beneficio económico)
Gestión de la variabilidad Se adaptan a ella La reducen todo lo posible
Gobernanza Policéntrica basada en
Estructura top-down
ECOLÓGI
estructura bottom-up
SOCIO-
CO
Sostenibilidad Alta Baja

Resiliencia Alta
Baja
17Por efectos de borde (edge-effects) nos referimos a aquellas interacciones que afectan al
interior de un área protegida y que están originados fuera de ella. En ecología, los efectos borde
son las interacciones que ocurren entre dos ecosistemas lindantes (Murcia, 1995).
18 Los servicios culturales demandados por la población urbana son la educación ambiental, el
disfrute estético y el conocimiento científico (Martín-López et al., 2012)

19 Los servicios culturales demandados por la población rural son proincipalmente el
conocimiento ecológico local, el sentimiento de lugar y la identidad local
236
5.2. Las diferentes concepciones del territorio y de gestión territorial
Las expresiones “territorio” (landscape) y “gestión territorial” (landscape

management/planning en inglés), expresan conceptos de gran amplitud que se entienden de
diferente manera en distintos ámbitos. La “gestión territorial” implica llevar al terreno
(“aterrizar”) las diferentes propuestas de gestión, lo que la convierte en un concepto clave para la
conservación de la naturaleza. En esta tesis, hemos identificado cuatro aproximaciones diferentes
al concepto de territorio desde los siguientes ámbitos: la ordenación territorial convencional, el
crecimiento económico, la planificación del paisaje y la biología de la conservación (Tabla 5.4). En
este apartado, usando como laboratorio Doñana y Sierra Nevada, abordaremos de forma crítica
estas cuatro concepciones de territorio, y sus efectos sobre los servicios de los ecosistemas y la
resiliencia.
Tabla 5.4. Aproximaciones al concepto de territorio desde diferentes disciplinas, la definición de

ordenación territorial concebida desde las mismas y las principales referencias
Disciplina Palabra Definición de gestión territorial Referencias
clave
Ingeniería y Ordenación “Identificación, distribución, organización y Gómez Orea
legislación territorial regulación de las actividades humanas en el (2001)
(convencional) territorio de acuerdo con ciertos criterios y Carta Europea de
prioridades.” Ordenación del
“La proyección espacial de las políticas económica, territorio, (1983)
social, cultural y ambiental de una sociedad, y el (Torremolinos
sistema territorial como resultado de aquellas.” Charter)
“Expresión espacial de la política económica, social, Sentencia 77/84
cultural y ecológica de toda la sociedad, cuyos del Tribunal
objetivos fundamentales son el desarrollo Constitucional
socioeconómico y equilibrado de las regiones, la
mejora de la calidad de vida, la gestión responsable
de los recursos naturales, la protección del medio
ambiente y, por último, la utilización racional del
territorio”
“La ordenación del territorio tiene por objeto (…) la
delimitación de los diversos usos a que puede
destinarse el suelo o espacio físico territorial.”
Economía Crecimiento Planificación de las inversiones en el terreno que Adaptado de
económico permitan una cohesión económica y social en el Gómez Orea
mismo. Esta planificación suele ignorar el medio (2001)
físico, así no incluye los costes de reposición, ni los
servicios de los ecosistemas no incluidos en el
mercado.
Geografía Paisaje Definir, delimitar y describir unidades básicas de Gómez Mendoza
paisaje a distintas escalas operativas para integrar (1999)
el paisaje en la ordenación del territorio.
Biología de la Áreas Establecimiento de Áreas Protegidas, que garantice Myers et al.
conservación protegidas, la conservación de los ecosistemas y la (2000)
Hotspots biodiversidad. Planificación sistemática de la Margules y
conservación Pressey (2000)
237
Discusión
5.2.1. Gestionando el territorio bajo la perspectiva de la ordenación

territorial convencional. Ordenación de los usos en el entorno de las
áreas protegidas
La ordenación territorial convencional se define como la “Identificación, distribución,

organización y regulación de las actividades humanas en el territorio de acuerdo con ciertos
criterios y prioridades” (Gómez Orea, 2001; Tabla 5.1). Se trata de una concepción de ordenación
territorial muy completa, cuyos aspectos principales son: promoción, ordenación, regulación,
funcionalidad, integración y equilibrio (Gómez Orea, 2001). Sin embargo, esta concepción de la
ordenación territorial no profundiza en los aspectos ecológicos y ordena únicamente la parte del
territorio que queda fuera de las áreas protegidas. Como veremos en este apartado, esto supone
una de las principales limitaciones de este modelo de ordenación.
En el caso de Doñana, la ordenación del territorio del entorno del Espacio Natural Doñana
(END) está definida por el Plan de Ordenación del Territorio del Ámbito de Doñana (POTAD),
Decreto 341/2003, de 9 de diciembre. El POTAD destaca por haber integrado un conjunto muy
completo de variables en el diagnóstico territorial, incluyendo aspectos geomorfológicos,
hidrológicos, económicos, de afecciones al END, de usos del suelo, de riesgos naturales, etc. El
POTAD zonifica el territorio de Doñana según las categorías de la Tabla 5. Para ello toma los
límites del END como delimitación para la zona A del POTAD, aunque sin cuestionar la validez de
la misma o proponer una delimitación nueva, ya que no profundiza en los aspectos ecológicos. La
zona B y la C establecen limitaciones a las transformaciones de uso con el fin de contener las
profundas transformaciones heredadas del entorno de lo que es actualmente el END.
Tabla 5.5. Zonificación del POTAD. Fuente: POTAD (2003).

Zona Descripción de la zona Ámbito territorial
Zona A Zona de protección de los recursos naturales. En la Incluye las áreas protegidas y
misma se incluyen las áreas protegidas, los demás las zonas forestales cercanas
espacios de uso forestal y las zonas de dominio
público hidráulico y marítimo terrestre.
Zona B Zona de limitaciones específicas a las Áreas agrícolas que podrían
transformaciones de usos. En la misma se incluyen los impactar especialmente en las
usos agrícolas localizados en los espacios áreas protegidas
intersticiales de la zona A
Zona C Zona de limitaciones generales a las transformaciones Abarca el área entre Huelva y
de uso. Resto del ámbito Sevilla sin incluir zonas de gran
valor ecológico
El POTAD presenta una importante limitación además de la ya referida sobre la no

profundización en los aspectos ecológicos (y falta de integración con el END). Esta limitación
radica en que ha sido establecido sobre un territorio dual (basado en dos estrategias opuestas de
238
conservación y desarrollo)(Palomo et al., 2013b), con grandes desequilibrios, y con límites

territoriales y de ordenación no adaptados a límites geomorfológicos y socio-ecológicos (capítulo
4.6.). Por tanto, asistimos a un intento de planificación enormemente complejo cuya efectividad
está muy limitada por la situación de partida, ya que los diferentes procesos socio-ecológicos que
habían conformado el paisaje cultural estaban sumamente deteriorados cuando se estableció el
mismo.
En el entorno del ENSN no existe un plan de gestión específico, aplicándose el Plan de

Ordenación del territorio de Andalucía (POTA). El POTA presenta un carácter más general que el
POTAD, debido a que abarca un territorio mucho más amplio. El objetivo del POTA es “contribuir
a un desarrollo territorial sostenible, cohesionado y competitivo de Andalucía” (POTA, 2006). En
este sentido, observamos en el POTA la misma estructura que se concibe tradicionalmente sobre
el concepto de desarrollo sostenible, que se apoya en tres dimensiones, ecológica, social y
económica.
Sierra Nevada se enmarca en el POTA dentro del dominio territorial de los sistemas Béticos,
incluyendo diversas prioridades para el mismo. Uno de los aspectos destacables del POTA es que
ordena el territorio en unidades funcionales incluyendo por ejemplo una jerarquía en el sistema
de ciudades, redes de centros históricos y rurales, etc. Esta concepción funcional implica un
entendimiento flexible y dinámico del territorio. El principal problema del POTA para la gestión
del territorio del entorno de Sierra Nevada es la escala a la que ha sido elaborado. Puesto que el
POTA constituye un plan a escala andaluza, no aborda en detalle una posible zonificación
territorial del entorno del ENSN.
Como se ha visto en Doñana y Sierra Nevada, en el caso de que no exista una coordinación
suficiente entre el plan del Espacio Natural y el del entorno, se corre el riesgo de que ambos
busquen objetivos opuestos, como la conservación en el Espacio Natural y el desarrollo
económico en el entorno. La transformación creciente del entorno de lás áreas protegidas es una
tendencia observada a nivel mundial, y amenaza con afectar al interior de las mismas (Joppa et al.
2008, Gimmi et al. 2011; Figura 5.3). En el caso de Doñana, esta dicotomía entre conservación y
desarrollo ha sido documentada en numerosos trabajos (Martín-López et al., 2011; Ojeda, 1986;
Palomo et al., 2011; Palomo et al., 2013b; Zorrilla-Miras et al., enviado) poniendo de manifiesto la
reducción y simplificación del flujo de servicios en la parte baja de la cuenca del Guadalquivir
(Doñana). Puesto que el entorno de lás áreas protegidas afecta de forma directa a las mismas, es
imprescindible tenerlo en cuenta en la ordenación del territorio para un adecuado
funcionamiento de éstos (Hansen y De Fries 2007; Holdgate 1994, McNeely 1994). En el caso de
Sierra Nevada, y Doñana principalmente, gran parte de los problemas del END y ENSN tiene su
origen en su entorno por no existir una planificación unificada del interior del Espacio Natural y
el entorno (Palomo et al., 2013a). La cara oculta de las áreas protegidas es que en ocasiones se
239
Discusión
perciben como islas aisladas del ser humano mientras que su entorno recibe el beneplácito del
crecimiento económico incontrolado (Ojeda, 1999).
A B
Figura 5.3. Ejemplos de transformación de usos del suelo en el entorno de áreas protegidas. (A)
Muestra una la zona de invernaderos de El Ejido situada a escasos kilomtreos el ENSN. (B) Muestra
el complejo turístico y campo de Golf de Matalascañas junto al límite del Parque Nacional de
Doñana (Fuente: Google Maps).
Bajo la concepción de la ordenación territorial convencional, la herramienta clave de gestión es

la legislación. La legislación que afecta en mayor o menor medida al END y ENSN es amplia y
procede de diferentes escalas legislativas (Tabla 6). La mayoría provienen de escala autonómica
y nacional, pero también existen legislaciones a escala municipal y europea que afectan al END y
ENSN. Sin pretender ser exhaustiva, la Tabla 5 da una idea de la complejidad que es necesario
integrar para tener en cuenta los aspectos relacionados con las regulaciones y normativas que
afectan directa e indirectamente a al END y ENSN.
Tabla 5.6. Principal legislación vigente que afecta al END y ENSN, y escala a la que se origina dicha
legislación.
Normativa Escala Escala Escala Escala
Europea Nacional Autonómica Municipal
Política agraria comunitaria (PAC) *diversas normativas) x
Directiva Marco del Agua x
Ley 5/2007, de 3 de abril, de la Red de Parques Nacionales. x
Ley 42/2007, de 13 de diciembre, del
x
Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad
Ley 16/1985, de 25 de junio, del Patrimonio Histórico
x
Español
Ley 43/2003, de 21 de noviembre, de Montes x
Ley 30/1992, de 26 de noviembre, de Régimen Jurídico de
las Administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento x
Administrativo Común
Ley 9/2007, de 22 de octubre, de la Administración de la
x
Junta de Andalucía.
240
Ley 2/1989, de 18 de julio, por la que se aprueba el

Inventario de Espacios Naturales Protegidos de Andalucía y x
se establecen medidas adicionales para su protección
Ley 8/2003, de 28 de octubre, de la flora y la fauna
x
silvestres
Ley 7/2007, de 9 de julio, de Gestión Integrada de la
x
Calidad Ambiental.
Decreto206/2006, de 28 de noviembre, por
el que se adapta el Plan de Ordenación del Territorio de x
Andalucía (POTA)
Ley 7/2002, de 17 de diciembre, de Ordenación Urbanística
x
de Andalucía
Ley 5/1999, de 29 de junio, de Prevención y Lucha Contra
x
los Incendios Forestales
Ley 3/1999, de 11 enero, por la que se crea el Parque
x
Nacional de Sierra Nevada.
Ley 91/1978, de 28 de diciembre, del Parque Nacional de
x
Doñana.
Ley 8/1999, de 27 de octubre, del Espacio Natural de
x
Doñana.
PORN y PRUG de Doñana y Sierra Nevada20 x
Decreto 341/2003, de 9 de diciembre, por el que se
aprueba el Plan de Ordenación del Territorio del Ámbito de x
Doñana (POTAD)
Decreto 313/2010, de 22 de junio, por el que se aprueba el
II Plan de Desarrollo Sostenible de Doñana y el Programa x
Operativo Horizonte 2011.
Planes y ordenanzas de los ayuntamientos x
Al no estar suficientemente coordinadas la ordenación del territorio de las áreas protegidas y la

del resto del territorio se produce una importante descoordinación legislativa. Numerosas leyes
europeas, nacionales y autonómicas afectan a las áreas protegidas, mientras que éstas apenas
pueden interactuar con las citadas regulaciones. Así, pueden existir normativas de escalas
superiores a las áreas protegidas que afecten negativamente a las mismas. Un ejemplo claro de la
afección de la normativa a escala europea lo constituye la derogada Regulación (CE) No. 491/2009
para establecer una organización común de los mercados agrícolas y sobre el abastecimiento de
determinados productos agrícolas, que promovía la retirada de determinadas viñas para aumentar
la productividad del sector. La citada regulación aumentó los problemas de abandono de cultivos
tradicionales y de erosión con la consiguiente colmatación de la marisma (Fundación Doñana 21,
2004). En Sierra Nevada la prohibición de riego a manta por parte de la Directiva Marco del Agua,
aunque disminuye la evapotranspiración de esta forma de riego por encharcamiento, acaba con la
infiltración de agua en el terreno y la surgencia de la misma en la época seca, afectando de forma
20 Las legislaciones concretas del PORN y PRUG de ambos Espacios Naturales, aunque incluidos
en la Tabla 5.6., se tratan en profundidad en el apartado 5.2.4., que aborda la concepción del
territorio desde la biología de la conservación.
241
Discusión
muy negativa al servicio de regulación hídrica y al conocimiento ecológico local necesario para la
gestión de las acequias. Como vemos, la imposición de legislaciones entre escalas muy dispares
(europea-local) puede provocar una disminución de la resiliencia de los paisajes culturales al
eliminar servicios de regulación y el conocimiento ecológico local asociado a los mismos. Puesto
que no es posible dictaminar normativas europeas que se adapten a todos los casos, es necesaria
una flexibilidad en las mismas y el establecimiento de canales de comunicación de abajo arriba
para modificar normativas de escalas amplias cuando sea necesario. Una excesiva rigidez en las
instituciones encargadas de la gestión puede provocar que se establezca un sistema de gestión
rígido y estático con consecuencias negativas a largo plazo, como ha ocurrido con la gestión del
agua en Doñana (Méndez et al., 2012). Además, es por todos conocido la dificultad de legislar con
cierta flexibilidad y prontitud, entre otras cosas debido a los procesos de aprobación de las leyes,
especialmente en escalas europeas y globales. La figura 5.4. muestra como legislaciones de
múltiples escalas afectan a las áreas protegidas, mientras que estas ejercen su influencia
únicamente sobre los municipios sobre los que se asientan. Como ejemplo del efecto de las áreas
protegidas sobre legislaciones municipales podemos decir que los municipios deben cumplir con
el PORN y el PRUG21 en el territorio que éstos abarcan. En el resto del territorio de los municipios,
ante las iniciativas de los municipios, las áreas protegidas se encargan de emitir informes que
dictaminan favorable o desfavorablemente sobre las mismas, los cuales suelen ser tenidos en
consideración por parte de la Junta de Andalucía.
Escala internacional
Escala nacional
Escala autonómica
Escala municipal
Áreas
protegidas
Figura 5.4. Simplificación del enfoque de arriba-abajo (top-down) que sigue la gestión de áreas
protegidas, sobre los que influyen varios niveles organizacionales mientras que las propias áreas
protegidas solo pueden influir en el nivel municipal sobre aquellos municipios en los que se asientan
o sobre municipios cercanos.
21 El PORN y el PRUG son analizados en profundidad en el apartado 5.2.4
242
Diferentes casos de estudio demuestran que la existencia de instituciones policéntricas y

autoridades que busquen la equidad favorecen la resiliencia en los sistemas socio-ecológicos
(Lebel et al., 2006). Sin embargo, bajo la perspectiva de la ordenación territorial convencional las
instituciones locales no formales están infravaloradas ya que predomina una gestión de arriba-
abajo. En el caso de Doñana, Gómez-Baggethun et al. (2013) ha clasificado las instituciones
atendiendo al nivel organizativo de las mismas y su influencia en la gestión. De hecho, en Doñana
se ha puesto recientemente de manifiesto cómo las instituciones con mayor influencia en la
gestión de servicios operan a escalas nacionales (turismo y conocimiento científico), teniendo las
instituciones de escala local que gestionan servicios como la caza o la identidad local, poca
capacidad para gestionar (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013; Figura 5). En esta línea, según Ostrom
(2005), los sistemas de gobernanza requieren tanta diversidad institucional como la complejidad
del sistema a gobernar. Considerando la complejidad del sistema socio-ecológico de Doñana,
deberían considerarse tanto instituciones formales como no formales a diferentes escalas
organizativas, premisa que la concepción del territorio desde la ordenación territorial
convencional no aporta.
5
Cultural
Servicios culturales
Conocimiento científico
Nivel de influencia de las instituciones que gestionan servicios
Servicios de abastecimiento
Provisioning
Servicios de regulación
Regulating
4,5
Alimento de la
ganadería
4 Turismo de naturaleza
Pesca
Hábitat para especies
Alimento de la Educación ambiental
agricultura
3,5
Turismo de playa
Fertilidad del suelo
3 Marisqueo Control de la erosión

Calidad del agua
Recolección
Identidad local
Calidad del aire
Caza recreativa
2,5
0,5 1
Local 1,5 2
Andaluza 2,5 3
Nacional 3,5
Escala organizativa
Figura 5.5. Nivel de influencia y escala organizacional de las instituciones del sistema socio-
ecológico de Doñana que gestionan servicios de los ecosistemas. (Fuente: Gómez-Baggethun et al.,
2013).
243
Discusión
Resumiendo los aspectos vistos en este apartado, podemos concluir que la concepción de la
ordenación territorial convencional afecta negativamente a varios de los principios necesarios
para mantener la resiliencia socio-ecológica del territorio (Biggs et al., 2012; Tabla 5.7).
de Biggs et al., 2012) y ejemplos de las deficiencias y bondades de la perspectiva del territorio bajo la
ordenación territorial convencional para mantener la resiliencia, así como principales
consecuencias sobre el socio-ecosistema.
Elementos que Deficiencias/bondades Consecuencia sobre
confieren respecto al mismo de la el socio-ecosistema
resiliencia concepción territorial
Elementos del Diversidad y La legislación apenas trata Asistimos a una
sistema socio- redundancia temas ecológicos. Se disminución de la
ecológico subordina la biodiversidad y biodiversidad y de la
gestionados diversidad funcional frente a diversidad genética y
otros aspectos. La Ley funcional
42/2007 de Patrimonio
Natural y Biodiversidad no es
importante en comparación a
otras
Conectividad No se estudian a fondo los La conectividad es baja

aspectos relacionados con la debido a la existencia de
conectividad puesto que no se múltiples barreras
profundiza en los aspectos impermeables a los
ecológicos. procesos ecológicos
como carreteras,
núcleos urbanos,
invernaderos, etc.
Variables lentas y Predominancia de un sistema Las variables lentas
feed-backs cortoplacista de búsqueda de apenas se incorporan a
rédito electoral cada cuatro la ordenación territorial
años
Elementos del Aprendizaje y Dentro del sistema de Se crea un modelo de
sistema de experimentación gobernanza no se potencia el gobernanza rígido de
gobernanza aprendizaje, la arriba a abajo
experimentación, o la
creatividad
Participación y Escasa o nula participación Disminuye la cohesión
confianza social en la elaboración de social.
leyes.
Policentrismo Siguen existiendo múltiples En algunos casos los
instituciones, aunque locales están infra-
predominan las de escalas representados, por lo
amplias frente a las escalas que no hay
locales policentrismo. Esto es
especialmente cierto en
el ámbito rural
Entendimiento de Por un lado se incorpora la Se crea una confianza
la complejidad complejidad gracias al avance ciega en el avance
del conocimiento científico y tecnológico y científico
la tecnología. Por otro lado se
aplica un pensamiento lineal
ante muchos problemas.
244
5.2.2. Gestionando el territorio desde la perspectiva del crecimiento

económico. Maximizando la producción y la rentabilidad
Bajo la perspectiva del crecimiento económico la ordenación territorial consiste en la

planificación de las inversiones en el terreno que permitan la cohesión económica en el mismo.
Dentro de la economía, el principal instrumento regulador son los mercados, los cuales deben
estar apoyados en leyes que regulen su funcionamiento. El énfasis en el crecimiento económico,
unido a la globalización son la causa de la pérdida continua de biodiversidad (Butchart et al.,
2010) y de resiliencia (Rockström et al., 2009) a escala planetaria que vivimos actualmente. Dado
que los análisis de coste-beneficio han pasado por alto muchas de las contribuciones de los
ecosistemas al bienestar humano, las razones instrumentales para la conservación de la
naturaleza han encontrado un fuerte apoyo (Armsworth et al., 2007). El auge de los valores
instrumentales en la conservación tiene múltiples causas, pero refiriéndonos a la perspectiva
económica, la razón del auge es que esta concepción es afín a la ideología económica e
institucional existente y susceptible de ser integrada en los mercados y en la toma de decisiones
(Gómez-Baggethun, 2010). Esta concepción podríamos situarla en lo que se conoce por Economía
Ambiental (Azqueta, 2007).
Dentro de la economía ambiental existen tres tipos de instrumentos de mercado: los que
alteran los costes de producción (disminuyéndolos mediante subsidios como las medidas
agroambientales o aumentándolos mediante impuestos ambientales), los que crean nuevos
mercados (como el Pago por Servicios Ambientales (PSA; Wunder, 2007) o el mercado de
emisiones de CO2), y los instrumentos basados en la alteración de los hábitos de consumo (como
el etiquetado de calidad) (García, 2010). Dentro de estos, los PSA están siendo objeto de críticas
recientes puesto que podrían alterar los patrones de comportamiento desde una lógica que busca
tener un comportamiento ético o cumplir unas normas comunitarias, a un comportamiento que
busca el rédito económico individual (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010b). Igualmente, los PSA
podrían sustituir las motivaciones por las que se conserva la naturaleza, cambiando motivaciones
éticas por económicas (Rico García-Amado et al., 2013). Los PSA podrían romper procesos socio-
ecológicos en el caso de que favorezcan la propiedad privada sobre la comunal o no promuevan el
mantenimiento del conocimiento ecológico tradicional. Es por ello por lo que el esquema de PSA
está siendo revisado para analizar en profundidad los aspectos positivos y negativos del mismo
(Muradian et al., in press; Wunder, in press). Las críticas que surgen respecto al PSA tienen cabida
en otra escuela de la economía, la Economía Ecológica, la cual entiende la economía como un
subsistema del sistema social, el cual debe estar integrado en el sistema ecológico (Martínez Alier,
1999).
Las áreas protegidas se relacionan directamente con la perspectiva del crecimiento económico
puesto que en ocasiones se consideran un freno a las actividades productivas de las poblaciones
245
Discusión
locales debido a las restricciones en los usos que imponen. Aunque en áreas con bajo coste de
oportunidad, el análisis coste beneficio podría favorecer la creación de áreas protegidas por la
riqueza que generan asociada al turismo y mejora de infraestructuras (Andam et al., 2010;
Ferraro et al., 2011), en zonas aprovechables para otros usos (como la agricultura), las áreas
protegidas se perciben como un freno al crecimiento económico. Por ello, en todo el mundo, las
áreas protegidas tienden a localizarse en lugares elevados o remotos en los que la vulnerabilidad
a la transformación de usos del suelo es muy baja (Joppa y Pfaff, 2009). En España la situación no
es diferente (Figura 5.6). Según el anuario de Europarc del 2009, más del 70% de la superficie de
España que está por encima de los 1500 metros de altura está protegida, mientras que de la
superficie situada entre los 1000 y los 1500 metros de altura el porcentaje protegido no llega al
20%. En áreas con una potencialidad económica elevada, por ejemplo un valle fértil, el
establecimiento de un área protegida entraría en conflicto con diversos intereses económicos.
Figura 5.6. Mapa de las áreas protegidas de España. Como se puede observar la mayoría se
encuentra en zonas de montaña.
En el caso concreto de Doñana y Sierra Nevada, el principal instrumento económico que regula
la ordenación territorial en relación a al END y ENSN son los Planes de Desarrollo Sostenible
(PDS; Mulero y Garzón, 2005). Éstos están incluidos en la ley Andaluza de Espacios Naturales de
1989. Los PDS tienen por objetivo “la mejora del nivel y la calidad de vida de la población del
246
ámbito de influencia de los Parques Naturales, de forma compatible con la conservación

ambiental y considerando el área protegida como un activo importante de crecimiento económico
local”. La metodología de elaboración de los PDS incluye la participación social en los mismos, y
constan de un diagnóstico ambiental y socioeconómico, y un conjunto de programas de fomento
desglosado en líneas de actuación. La Consejería de Agricultura, Pesca y Medio Ambiente ejerce
las funciones de coordinación, seguimiento y control. En Doñana el primer PDS (1993-2002)
aportó 372 millones de euros al área de influencia socio-económica mientras que el segundo PDS
aprobó 145 millones de euros para la dinamización socio-económica de los municipios de la
comarca. En el caso de Sierra Nevada, el primer PDS (2004-2010) contó un gasto de 612 millones
de euros y el segundo PDS se encuentra en fase de elaboración en la actualidad.
Las ventajas que han supuesto la inversión de los PDS, en gran parte financiados por la Unión
Europea, y la creación de las áreas protegidas, son varias. En el caso de Doñana, el PDS, redujo el
paro de la región e incrementó la riqueza económica de la zona. Sin embargo, estas ventajas hay
que contrastarlas con el énfasis en el crecimiento económico del entorno, el cual tiene a su vez
consecuencias negativas para los servicios de regulación y la resiliencia ecológica en el interior
del área protegida. Así mismo, los incentivos económicos promovidos por los PDS fomentan la
creación de un sistema subsidiado que pretende disminuir el coste de oportunidad que implica la
existencia de un área protegida, y aumentar el nivel de vida de la población circundante. Sin
embargo en Doñana, las inversiones del PDS no han servido para invertir la tendencia dicotómica
desarrollo vs. conservación. Si bien es cierto que el PDS redujo la oposición a la conservación,
también generó nuevas expectativas de crecimiento económico y no ha alcanzado una igualdad
económica entre los municipios de la comarca. Por ello resultan necesarias nuevas estrategias que
permitan acabar con la dualidad conservación vs. desarrollo que amenaza la conservación del
END (Martín-López et al., 2011).
Por otro lado, en Sierra Nevada, Sánchez y Henares (2007) demostraron que el ENSN ha
contribuido a fijar población y rejuvenecerla con respecto a otras áreas andaluzas. Según este
estudio el turismo supone un importante motor económico en la región y se ha estimado que el
27% de la facturación de empresas localizadas en municipios con territorio en el ENSN se debe de
forma directa o indirecta al mismo. De nuevo, parece manifestarse la diferente situación entre
Doñana y Sierra Nevada, en el que el ENSN se muestra mucho más como un apoyo socio-
económico a la región, ya que su situación geomorfológica (parte elevada de un sistema
montañoso) no hace que se perciba como un impedimento al crecimiento económico de la zona.
Quizá la principal limitación de la perspectiva del crecimiento económico para la ordenación

territorial es que los mercados normalmente solo reconocen el valor de los bienes de uso. Por lo
tanto, la perspectiva económica para la ordenación territorial se centra en los servicios de
abastecimiento y los culturales demandados por la población urbana como el turismo. Así el
247
Discusión
énfasis en el crecimiento económico hace que la biodiversidad y los servicios de regulación

queden relegados a un segundo plano. Al no integrar la perspectiva del crecimiento económico al
conjunto del territorio, considera que el mantenimiento de la biodiversidad es función de las
áreas protegidas, por lo que la responsabilidad de conservarla queda relegada únicamente a estas
áreas. En el caso de Doñana, podemos citar el ejemplo del fomento de los servicios de
abastecimiento con alto valor de mercado (alimento de la agricultura) y los culturales urbanos
(turismo de playa) mientras que los servicios de regulación (regulación hídrica, fertilidad del
suelo) y los culturales demandados por la población rural (caza, identidad cultural) de escaso
valor mercantil son relegados (Martín-López et al., 2011).
Existen numerosos mecanismos de mercado para compensar esta deficiencia. Sin embargo, los
mecanismos existentes no son suficientes para detener la continua disminución de la
biodiversidad, servicios de regulación y resiliencia socio-ecológica. Los aspectos de la perspectiva
del crecimiento económico que provocan el deterioro de los servicios de regulación están
detallados en la Tabla 5.8.
Tabla 5.8. Principales servicios de regulación y aspectos de la perspectiva económica que impiden el
mantenimiento de los mismos.
Servicios de Aspectos de la perspectiva económica del territorio que impiden el
regulación mantenimiento de los servicios de regulación
Mantenimiento de Relega el mantenimiento de hábitats para especies a las áreas protegidas, las cuales
hábitats para se suelen ubicar en zonas remotas, montañas, etc. y otros lugares de escaso
especies aprovechamiento económico.
Excepciones para conservar estos hábitats desde la perspectiva económica son las
medidas agroambientales o los pagos por servicios ambientales.
Polinización Es un servicio ignorado por la perspectiva económica. No existen regulaciones ni
mecanismos de mercado dedicados a su mantenimiento
Fertilidad del suelo Se suplanta este servicio mediante la adición de fertilizantes sintéticos que no
incluyen en el precio de los mismos los costes ambientales por contaminación que
provocan
Control de la Servicio al que se le presta una mayor atención últimamente. Se realizan labores
erosión para reforestar laderas y existen números estudios económicos sobre el impacto de
la erosión, por ejemplo, sobre la colmatación de embalses. Aun así, se siguen
aplicando medidas paliativas al problema de la erosión (diques de contención) en
lugar de priorizar medidas que atajen las causas
Regulación hídrica La economía apenas tiene en cuenta este servicio, al tratarse de una variable de
funcionamiento lento
Purificación hídrica Existen depuradoras naturales de agua creadas recientemente, pero su uso es
fundamentalmente reducido y a escalas mucho menor de las deseadas
Regulación del La creación de un mercado de emisiones de CO2 supone un intento de establecer un
clima techo a las emisiones de este gas de efecto invernadero
Mitigación de Existe un profundo desconocimiento sobre este servicio. El reciente caso de
accidentes Fukushima es un ejemplo en el que se subestima la intensidad que pueden alcanzar
naturales los accidentes naturales
Control biológico Se controlan mediante fotoquímicos que una vez más no tienen internalizado en su
precio los costes ambientales y sociales que implica su uso. El uso continuado del
DDT pese a sus efectos cancerígenos en países del hemisferio sur muestra cómo se
relegan los aspectos sociales y ecológicos a los económicos
248
Como vimos en el apartado anterior, son siete los principios identificados que promueven la
resiliencia de los sistemas socio-ecológicos. La Tabla 5.9 muestra estos siete principios y cómo les
afecta la concepción del territorio desde la perspectiva del crecimiento económico.
de Biggs et al., 2012) y ejemplos de las deficiencias y bondades de la perspectiva de ordenación del
territorio desde la perspectiva del crecimiento económico para mantener la resiliencia, así como
principales consecuencias sobre el socio-ecosistema.
Elementos que Deficiencias/bondades Consecuencia sobre el
confieren respecto al mismo de la socio-ecosistema
Elementos del Diversidad y Se subordina la biodiversidad Asistimos a una disminución
sistema socio- redundancia y redundancia funcionales al de la biodiversidad y de la
ecológico crecimiento económico y el diversidad genética y
gestionados empleo funcional
Conectividad No se estudian a fondo los La conectividad es baja

aspectos relacionados con la debido a la existencia de
conectividad puesto que no se múltiples barreras
profundiza en los aspectos impermeables a los procesos
ecológicos. Se subordinan los ecológicos como carreteras,
aspectos ecológicos a los núcleos urbanos,
económicos invernaderos, etc.
Variables lentas y La inmediatez del Las variables lentas
feed-backs funcionamiento de los (incluyendo los servicios de
mercados no es óptima para regulación) no se incorporan
incorporar variables lentas a
los mismos
Elementos del Aprendizaje y Aunque van existiendo nuevos Los subsidios y PSA son
sistema de experimentación mecanismos financieros para estrategias cortoplacistas
gobernanza frenar la pérdida de que pueden romper procesos
biodiversidad, su de aprendizaje conjunto
implementación es lenta porque fomentan la
propiedad privada y
promueven cambios en los
sistemas de valores de la
población humana que los
recibe
Participación y La participación social es La falta de conciencia
confianza elevada teniendo en cuenta ambiental en los actos de
que cada acto de consumo consumo disminuye la
supone una elección por parte eficacia de esta opción
del consumidor que repercute
directamente en los mercados.
Policentrismo Existen un único mercado El mercado aparece como
global una “única” institución, por
lo que no existe un sistema
de gobernanza multinivel ni
policéntrico
Entendimiento de Los mercados distan mucho Deterioro de los procesos
la complejidad de incorporar la complejidad socio-ecológicos, resiliencia,
de los procesos socio- biodiversidad, etc.
ecológicos
249
Discusión
5.2.3. Gestionando el territorio desde la perspectiva de la geografía.

Entendiendo el territorio como paisaje.
Una de las características de la visión de la ordenación territorial desde la perspectiva del

paisaje es la importancia de la dimensión espacial del territorio (Mata y Sanz, 2004). A diferencia
de las perspectivas de la ordenación territorial convencional y el crecimiento económico que no
integran totalmente en su concepción a las áreas protegidas, la concepción del paisaje incluye
todo el conjunto del territorio. Las definiciones de paisaje son múltiples y han evolucionado con el
paso de los años. El paisaje es “la forma que adoptan los hechos geográficos, tanto físicos como
humanos, sobre la superficie de la tierra; igualmente, las representaciones que de ellos tenemos,
los significados que les otorgamos y los valores que les concedemos, de modo personal o
colectivo” (Gómez Mendoza, 1999). El paisaje también se ha definido como “la configuración que
tienen los hechos geográficos, la forma y fisionomía que toma la estructura del espacio terrestre”,
y como “un sistema de estructuras asociadas […] donde adquiere importancia su dimensión
diacrónica (evolución, inercias, herencias…)” (Martínez de Pisón, 1983). Según el Convenio
Europeo del Paisaje, ratificado por España en 2007, el paisaje es “cualquier parte del territorio tal
como la percibe la población, cuyo carácter sea el resultado de la acción y la interacción de
factores naturales y/o humanos”. Otros autores definen el paisaje como “la percepción
plurisensorial de los procesos ecológicos” (González Bernáldez, 1981), es decir, una imagen
sensorial construida en la mente de un observador (Pineda y Schmitz, 2011). Ante la existencia de
múltiples definiciones con significados diferentes, podríamos destacar la visión del paisaje según
la Agencia Europea de Medio Ambiente, que pretende integrar esta diversidad de concepciones, y
enunciando que el paisaje es “tanto una visión como una realidad” (EEA, 199).
Ciñéndonos a la primera definición expuesta, observamos bajo la perspectiva del paisaje una
nueva aproximación a la ordenación territorial. Una aproximación que aparece en la unión entre
la parte natural y la humana. A diferencia de las dos concepciones del territorio vistas
anteriormente, la ordenación territorial convencional y la perspectiva del crecimiento económico,
que en cierto modo dejaban fuera la parte natural al no incluir las áreas protegidas en su objeto
de estudio, la concepción paisajística integra estas dos dimensiones. Por lo tanto, esta concepción
además de integrar la totalidad del territorio tiene un carácter holista (Mata y Sanz, 2004).
Respecto a la naturaleza, la concepción geográfica del paisaje se centra principalmente en el

biotopo, en lugar de en las comunidades (biocenosis) que es el ámbito de la biología de la
conservación (Muñoz Jiménez, 1992). Respecto a la dimensión humana, en lugar de centrarse en
el aspecto económico o en la legislación, se centra en los diferentes usos del suelo y
aprovechamientos existentes. En este sentido, podemos decir que la incorporación del paisaje se
hace por una doble vía: la de las áreas protegidas y la urbanística (Gómez Mendoza, 1999). En
relación a las áreas protegidas, el concepto de paisaje aparece en la Ley de Parques Nacionales de
250
1916, en la Ley de Espacios Naturales Protegidos de 1975, en la Ley 4/1989 de Conservación de

los Espacios Naturales y de la Flora y Fauna Silvestre, y en la Ley 42/2007 de Patrimonio Natural
y Biodiversidad. Respecto a la urbanística el concepto de paisaje aparece en la Ley del Suelo (RD
2/2008), en la que se ordena el paisaje urbano. A pesar de que hemos visto que el paisaje se
ocupa tanto de la parte rural como urbana, lo cierto es que el estudio del territorio bajo la
concepción del paisaje tiene como objeto principal al medio rural (Gómez Mendoza, 1999).
Una de las limitaciones de la ordenación territorial bajo la perspectiva del paisaje es que se
trata de un concepto definido de múltiples maneras, lo que genera ambigüedad del mismo y, por
tanto, dificultad en su aplicación en la toma de decisiones. Como indica Rafael Mata, “se carece
hasta hoy de una teoría y de un concepto de paisaje ampliamente compartido por las disciplinas y
saberes que se ocupan de su estudio” (Mata, 2006). A pesar de que existen ejemplos de políticas y
normativas específicas sobre el paisaje en numerosos países (Reino Unido es un exponente de
ello22), en España carecemos de ellas. El paisaje actualmente se encuentra de forma difusa tanto
en disposiciones de política territorial, de áreas protegidas y aspectos sectoriales como espacios
forestales o agrícolas (Gómez Mendoza, 1999). Así el paisaje se ha convertido en un concepto
vago pero recurrente y necesario (Gómez Mendoza, 1999). Sin embargo, aunque el término
paisaje está presente en varias leyes españolas, la complejidad y ambigüedad del término, y el
hecho de que aparezca de forma vaga y difusa en dichas leyes, hacen que no se circunscriba la
ordenación territorial al paisaje.
Otra de las limitaciones que la literatura académica recoge sobre la ambigüedad del término es
la disparidad que presenta entre el peso visual y el peso funcional, haciendo que la parte visual
tenga mayor peso que la realidad funcional (Gómez Mendoza, 1999). Son numerosos los trabajos
que estudian la parte visual, por lo que se relacionan sólo de forma indirecta con la ordenación
territorial a través de las percepciones (Gallardo y González Bernáldez, 1989). Aunque esta
disparidad puede verse como una limitación del término porque lo convierte en algo más difuso,
también puede ser una fortaleza, porque le otorga una transversalidad que permite incorporar
directamente a la población en la ordenación territorial, vinculando el paisaje con el bienestar
humano (Mata, 2006). De hecho, gracias a un estudio de percepción del paisaje se ha demostrado
que los paisajes multifuncionales en el área de Sierra Nevada son preferidos por los actores
locales, tanto desde el punto de vista estético, como por la diversidad de servicios suministrados
(García-Llorente et al., 2012).
22 Reino Unido creó ya en 1968 una comisión encargada de garantizar la conservación y

valoración del paisaje, existe una especialización profesional clara en términos de paisaje y se ha
integrado el paisaje en la ordenación territorial
251
Discusión
Por otro lado, la concepción del territorio como paisaje dificulta su cartografía y por tanto la
ordenación del territorio, debido a la complejidad que implica el estudio y la interpretación del
paisaje (Mata y Sanz, 2004). La ordenación territorial bajo la perspectiva del paisaje se realiza a
través de la delimitación de unidades de paisaje a distintas escalas operativas. Por lo tanto se
añade la complejidad de que se debe atajar a muy diferentes escalas, desde 1:500 o 1:1000 de los
proyectos técnicos a 1:200.000 de los proyectos de síntesis generales (Gómez Mendoza, 1999).
Esto provoca la necesidad de un trabajo específico a cada escala y un posterior análisis multi-
escalar para incorporar las relaciones entre diferentes escalas. Este análisis multiescalar es
recomendado para realizar las evaluaciones de servicios de los ecosistemas y, por tanto, supone
uno de los retos más importantes en la ordenación del territorio sobre la base de los flujos de
servicios. Sin embargo, puesto que no es el paisaje quien suministra servicios de los ecosistemas
sino los componentes específicos de la biodiversidad (Díaz et al., 2006; Cardinale et al., 2012) es
necesario profundizar en el estudio de la biodiversidad para analizar el suministro de servicios.
Según lo expuesto anteriormente, la concepción del territorio como paisaje tiene fortalezas y
debilidades desde el punto de vista de la resiliencia de los sistemas socio-ecológicos. La Tabla
5.10 muestra los siete principios básicos que fomentan la resiliencia y cómo les afecta la
concepción del territorio desde la perspectiva de la geografía.
252
territorio desde el paisaje para mantener la resiliencia, así como principales consecuencias sobre el
socio-ecosistema.
Elementos del Diversidad y Incorpora la biodiversidad, Al no estudiar en
sistema socio- redundancia aunque no la estudia en profundidad la
ecológico profundidad. No incorpora la biocenosis, quedan
gestionados diversidad funcional ni relegados en el análisis
redundancia funcional componentes clave de la
biodiversidad para
mantener el suministro
de servicios
Conectividad Se estudia la conectividad Se fomenta el análisis de
la conectividad
Variables lentas y No es explicita la
feed-backs incorporación de variables
lentas en el análisis
Elementos del Aprendizaje y Aunque el aprendizaje es No se fomentan los
sistema de experimentación amplio por la evolución del procesos colectivos de
gobernanza concepto de paisaje dentro aprendizaje
del ámbito académico, el
conocimiento ecológico local
y el aprendizaje colectivo no
resultan esenciales en esta
perspectiva.
Participación y La participación no se integra Al no fomentarse la
confianza per se bajo la perspectiva del participación disminuye
paisaje salvo a través del la cohesión social
análisis de preferencias. Sin
embargo, no se promueva la
confianza ni la cohesión
social al no existir apenas los
ejercicios deliberativos
Policentrismo Aunque el paisaje aparece en Al no existir un sistema
distintas normativas, no se de gobernanza definido
promueve un sistema de no es posible gobernar el
gobernanza policéntrico mismo de forma
estructurado de abajo a adecuada mediante
arriba. procesos de abajo-arriba
Entendimiento de Incorpora la complejidad Permite entender la
la complejidad puesto que integra tanto la complejidad, aunque no
parte natural como humana, se integra este
aunque no profundiza en entendimiento en el
ellas ni en sus interacciones sistema de gobernanza.
suficientemente
253
Discusión
5.2.4. Gestionando el territorio desde la biología de la conservación.

Implicaciones de las áreas protegidas en el suministro de servicios de
los ecosistemas
Como vimos en la introducción, el principal instrumento de que dispone la biología de la

conservación para conservar la naturaleza son las áreas protegidas (Chape et al., 2005). Dado que
las áreas protegidas ocupan una superficie considerable en el territorio, constituyen una entidad
relevante en la ordenación territorial. A nivel mundial las áreas protegidas ocupan casi el 14% de
la superficie terrestre (Coad et al., 2009, CBD, 2010). En España la Red Natura 2000 ocupa más
del 27% del territorio Español, mientras que las áreas protegidas declaradas por la legislación
española ocupan el 12,85% del territorio (Europarc-España, 2012). Nos encontramos por tanto
ante un elemento de gran importancia en la geografía española que influye directamente en la
ordenación del espacio.
En España existen múltiples figuras de protección. Las designadas a nivel Europeo se enmarcan
en la Red Natura 2000, que está formada por los lugares de interés comunitario (LIC), los cuales
van a ser denominados Zonas Especiales de Conservación (ZEC), y las Zonas de Especial
Protección para las aves (ZEPA). A nivel nacional, la Ley 42/2007 del Patrimonio Natural y de la
Biodiversidad establece cinco figuras principales de protección: parque, reserva natural,
monumento natural, paisaje protegido y área marina protegida. Sin embargo, la proliferación de
categorías de áreas protegidas por parte de las Comunidades Autónomas ha dado lugar a que
existan más de 40 figuras de protección diferentes.
Los elementos necesarios para la gestión de áreas protegidas protegidos incluyen aspectos
diversos como el apoyo político, un marco legal e institucional, instrumentos de planificación y
apoyo social entre otros (Carabias et al., 2003). Con ánimo de concretar, esta sección se estructura
en 4 subsecciones con el objetivo de mostrar los aspectos que influyen a la gestión de estos
espacios de forma más directa. Así abordaremos: (1) las categorías de protección UICN por
constituir el lenguaje internacional de las áreas protegidas y delimitar los grandes objetivos que
deben perseguir éstas, (2) los principales instrumentos de planificación y gestión de áreas
protegidas en España, el Plan de Ordenación de los Recursos Naturales (PORN) y el Plan Rector de
Uso y Gestión (PRUG), (3) el papel de los parques nacionales en los ecosistemas mediterráneos, y
(4) los pros y los contras de esta concepción del territorio desde el punto de vista de la resiliencia
socio-ecológica.
254
5.2.4.1. Categorías de áreas protegidas de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la

Naturaleza (UICN)
El lenguaje internacional de clasificación de áreas protegidas está definido por las categorías de
manejo de áreas protegidas de la UICN (Dudley, 2008). Esta clasificación internacional se creó
para tener un sistema de referencia internacional con el que poder evaluar el estado de las áreas
protegidas a nivel mundial. Aunque han existido varias clasificaciones de categorías de protección
de la UICN, la más reciente es del año 1994. La UICN solicita a los países que cuando se creen
áreas protegidas nuevas se establezca la equivalencia con las categorías UICN. Así, la categoría
UICN se define cuando se establece un área protegida, o sobre áreas protegidas ya establecidas. La
categoría UICN se decide en función de los objetivos de manejo del área protegida que deben
referirse al menos al 75% de la misma. En ocasiones un área protegida puede tener diferentes
categorías UICN. Esto puede ocurrir en áreas protegidas anidadas (Dudley, 2008), tales como los
END y ENSN. Las diferentes categorías de manejo de la UICN, con sus respectivos objetivos y los
servicios de los ecosistemas que fomentan cada una de ellas se muestran en la Tabla 5.11.
Tabla 5.11. Categorías de manejo de las áreas protegidas de UICN, objetivos de las mismas y
principales servicios de los ecosistemas que promueven. Servicios promovidos (+), servicios
promovidos especialmente (++).
Categorías de Objetivo Principales servicios Categorías de
manejo de los ecosistemas que servicios que
promueve promueve
I. Protección Conservar a escala regional, nacional o Mantenimiento de hábitat Regulación ++
estricta global ecosistemas, especies (presencia o para especies, Culturales +
Ia. Reserva agregaciones) y/o rasgos de geodiversidad Conocimiento científico,
Natural Estricta extraordinarios: dichos atributos se han Regulación hídrica,
conformado principalmente o Regulación climática
exclusivamente por fuerzas no humanas y
se degradarían o destruirían si se viesen
sometidos a cualquier impacto humano
significativo.
I. Protección Proteger la integridad ecológica a largo Mantenimiento de hábitat Regulación ++
estricta plazo de áreas naturales no perturbadas para especies, Culturales +
Ib. Área natural por actividades humanas significativas, Conocimiento científico,
silvestre libres de infraestructuras modernas y en Regulación hídrica,
las que predominan las fuerzas y procesos Regulación climática
naturales, de forma que las generaciones
presentes y futuras tengan la oportunidad
de experimentar dichas áreas.
II: Conservación Proteger la biodiversidad natural junto con Mantenimiento de hábitat Regulación ++
y protección del la estructura ecológica subyacente y los para especies, Educación Culturales ++
ecosistema procesos ambientales sobre los que se ambiental, Turismo de
Parque nacional apoya, y promover la educación y el uso naturaleza, Conocimiento
recreativo. científico, Regulación
hídrica, Regulación
climática, Control de la
erosión
III: Conservación Proteger rasgos naturales específicos Mantenimiento de hábitat Regulación +
255
Discusión
de los rasgos sobresalientes y la biodiversidad y los para especies, Turismo de Culturales ++

naturales hábitats asociados a ellos. naturaleza, Educación
Monumento ambiental
natural
IV: Conservación Mantener, conservar y restaurar especies y Mantenimiento de hábitat Regulación +
mediante hábitats. para especies, Turismo de Culturales ++
manejo activo naturaleza, Educación
Área de manejo ambiental, Regulación
de hábitats / climática, Regulación
especies hídrica, Control de la
erosión
V: Conservación Proteger y mantener paisajes Disfrute estético de Abastecimiento +
de paisajes terrestres/marinos importantes y la paisajes culturales, Regulación +
terrestres y conservación de la naturaleza asociada a Alimento de la agricultura, Culturales +
marinos y ellos, así como otros valores creados por las Madera, Actividades
recreación interacciones con los seres humanos recreativas, Regulación
Paisaje terrestre mediante prácticas de manejo hídrica
y marino tradicionales.
protegido
VI: Uso Proteger los ecosistemas naturales y usar Mantenimiento de hábitat Abastecimiento +
sostenible de los los recursos naturales de forma sostenible, para especies, Alimento de Regulación +
recursos cuando la conservación y el uso sostenible la ganadería, Caza Culturales +
naturales puedan beneficiarse mutuamente. recreativa, Turismo rural,
Área protegida Regulación climática,
manejada Regulación hídrica, Control
de la erosión
A pesar de la gran utilidad de las categorías de la UICN como lenguaje internacional referido a
las áreas protegidas, actualmente no existe ningún protocolo detallado para la asignación de
categorías UICN a áreas protegidas españolas (Europarc-España, 2008). Ante esto, Europarc ha
propuesto y testado una metodología en diversos ámbitos biogeográficos y culturales que
consiste en analizar los criterios de designación y objetivos de manejo de cada área protegida
para determinar a qué categoría de área protegida de la UICN pertenece. Entre las dificultades
encontradas en este proceso destacan: (1) la generalidad en los documentos legales de las áreas
protegidas; (2) la proliferación de numerosas figuras de protección por diferentes Comunidades
Autónomas, y (3) el diferente grado de detalle en la caracterización de las categorías. En primer
lugar, la generalidad en los documentos legales que designan las áreas protegidas, que impiden
una asignación directa de categorías UICN, hacen necesario un proceso de profundización sobre
cada área protegida para asignar la categoría de UICN (Europarc-España, 2008). En segundo
lugar, la proliferación de numerosísimas figuras de protección en nuestro país debido a la escasa
coordinación entre Comunidades Autónomas en su creación tampoco facilita esta tarea. Más aún,
cuando existen particularidades de las regiones en las que se aplica. Por último, algunas
categorías de manejo de la UICN están definidas de forma más detallada que otras (Europarc-
España, 2008).
Respecto a las categorías de protección establecidas por la UICN, a pesar de la necesidad y la

dificultad de encontrar la equivalencia entre las figuras nacionales y las de la UICN (Europarc-
256
España, 2008), puede decirse que la superficie protegida en España pertenece fundamentalmente
a las categorías V (paisaje terrestre o marítimo protegido) y II (parque nacional) de la UICN
(Tabla 5.12).
Tabla 5.12. Porcentaje protegido por las diferentes categorías de protección en España (datos para
el 30% de las áreas protegidas). Fuente: Europarc-España, 2012.
Categoría de protección Porcentaje de la superficie protegida
Ia 0
Ib 1
II 15
III 2
IV 1
V 76
VI 5
En consecuencia, deberían existir unas directrices para facilitar la asignación de categorías

UICN a las áreas protegidas de distintos países. El informe de Europarc (Europarc-España, 2008)
propone que las definiciones de las categorías hagan referencia tanto a los criterios de
designación, objetivos de manejo y estrategias para alcanzar los mismos. El informe también
destaca que la asignación debe hacerse caso por caso, y no por figuras legales de designación, ya
que no existe una relación directa entre ambas.
5.2.4.2. Elementos para la gestión de áreas protegidas protegidos en España: PORN y PRUG
Las principales leyes que rigen sobre los Espacios Protegidos en España son La Ley 42/2007
del Patrimonio Natural y la Biodiversidad, y a la Ley 5/2007 referida específicamente a los
Parques Nacionales. En España los instrumentos principales para la gestión de los mismos son el
PORN y el PRUG. Mientras que el PORN establece un marco dentro del que deben operar el resto
de instrumentos de planificación del área protegida, el PRUG regula el régimen de actividades del
parque y el régimen de los aprovechamientos, además de incluir las normas referidas a los
órganos de gestión y ejecución de competencias (Tolón y Lastra, 2008). El PORN está regulado
por la Ley 42/2007 de Patrimonio Natural y de Biodiversidad (Capítulo III). Según esta misma ley,
los PRUG deberán aprobarse por el órgano competente de cada Comunidad Autónoma en la que
se ubique el área protegida. Como indica esta ley, los PRUG prevalecerán sobre el planteamiento
urbanístico. Los objetivos del PORN y el PRUG para los Espacios Naturales de Doñana y Sierra
Nevada aparecen en la Tabla 5.13.
257
Discusión
Tabla 5.13. Elementos de gestión de los Espacios Naturales de Doñana y Sierra Nevada.
Ámbito Objetivos Fuente
Parque Nacional y “La conservación de los recursos naturales de forma Decreto 238/2011, de 12 de
Parque Natural de compatible con el desarrollo de los diversos usos y julio, por el que se establece la
Sierra Nevada actividades que tienen lugar en el espacio y la ordenación y gestión de Sierra
(172.318 Has) contribución al establecimiento de la Red Ecológica Nevada.
Europea Natura 2000.” Incluye el PORN del Espacio
Estas directrices están desarrolladas en 16 objetivos Natural de Sierra Nevada y el
PRUG del Parque Nacional y del
Parque Patural
Parque Natural de “Los objetivos se han establecido en el marco del Decreto97/2005, de 11 de abril,
Doñana (53.835 desarrollo sostenible como única forma de por el que se establece la
Has) compatibilizar los diversos usos y actividades que ordenación del Parque Nacional
tienen lugar en el espacio con la conservación de los y Parque Natural de Doñana
recursos naturales del mismo y, por otro, en la (Boja nº 105, de 1 de junio).
contribución al establecimiento de la red Natura 2000.” Incluye el PRUG del Parque
Estas directrices están desarrolladas en once objetivos Natural.
Parque Nacional 1. La conservación de la integridad de la gea, fauna, Decreto 48/2004, de 10 de
de Doñana flora, agua y atmósfera y en definitiva, del conjunto de febrero por el que se aprueba el
(54.252 Has) los ecosistemas del Parque Nacional, garantizando la Plan Rector de Uso y Gestión del
continuidad de su funcionamiento natural, el Parque Nacional de Doñana
mantenimiento de la biodiversidad y la preservación (Boja nº 44, de 4 de marzo)
del paisaje.
2. La conservación (o, en su caso, la restauración) del
patrimonio cultural del Parque Nacional.
3. La prestación de una oferta de uso público que
garantice el conocimiento y disfrute del Parque
Nacional, en razón a su interés científico y cultural.
4. La contribución a la existencia de una actitud
individual y social favorable a la conservación a través
de la educación ambiental.
5. La contribución a la implantación en la comarca de
un modelo de desarrollo sostenible.
6. La promoción del conocimiento científico, en
particular la investigación para la gestión.
Las directrices de gestión del PORN y el PRUG se llevan de forma espacial al territorio a través
de la zonificación de las áreas protegidas. El objetivo principal de la zonificación es la ordenación
de los usos y aprovechamientos y, por tanto, dicha zonificación promueve el suministro de
diferentes servicios de los ecosistemas tal y como muestra el capítulo 4.6 para los casos de
estudio de los Espacios Naturales protegidos de Sierra Nevada y Doñana.
Los indicadores referidos a áreas protegidas españolas siguen una evolución relativamente
positiva excepto los referidos a recursos humanos disponibles e inversiones realizadas
(Europarc-España, 2012). Además, el 29% de los parques nacionales, 45% de los parques
naturales y el 70% de las reservas no tienen un PRUG vigente a pesar de ser obligatorios para la
figura de parque (Europarc-España. 2012). Las carencias principales de las áreas protegidas son
las mismas que hace varios años: instrumentos de planificación insuficientemente aplicados,
ausencia de zona de transición, existencia de una matriz muy transformada, mecanismos de
258
financiación novedosos aún por desarrollar e insuficiente coordinación con otras políticas
sectoriales (Europarc-España, 2012).
5.2.4.3. Una figura demasiado restrictiva para los paisajes culturales mediterráneos: Los Parques
Nacionales
En el caso español, los primeros parques nacionales se crearon bajo la categoría de Parque
Nacional porque no existía la diversidad de figuras de protección que tenemos en la actualidad. La
propuesta de Ley de 1915 sobre Parques Nacionales Españoles utilizó como ejemplo la figura de
protección de Parque Nacional que existía en otros países como Estados Unidos (Fernández,
1999). Podemos hablar por lo tanto de una aplicación al caso español de una figura de protección
(Parque Nacional) diseñada para otro ámbito.
Si atendemos a la clasificación de la UICN, la categoría de Parque Nacional tiene por objetivo

“proteger la biodiversidad natural junto con la estructura ecológica subyacente y los procesos
ambientales sobre los que se apoya, y promover la educación y el uso recreativo”. Aunque en
otros ámbitos la figura de Parque Nacional es adecuada, ésta no se adapta de forma conveniente a
los paisajes culturales mediterráneos en los que los procesos socio-ecológicos que han formado
estos paisajes tienen un elevado componente social y de usos humanos. De hecho, como vimos en
el capítulo 5.1., la hipótesis de perturbación intermedia muestra que la gestión extensiva del
territorio es clave para el mantenimiento de la biodiversidad y los servicios de los ecosistemas.
Sin embargo, la gestión de los Parques Nacionales ha tratado tradicionalmente de evitar cualquier
uso humano en su interior, eliminando la gestión tradicional del territorio. Así, la categoría
Parque Nacional durante varias décadas ha prohibido algunos servicios de abastecimiento como
la ganadería, y sigue prohibiendo algunos de ellos como la agricultura y prácticas socio-ecológicas
relacionadas, como la roza.
En el caso de Doñana la figura de protección elegida (Parque Nacional) y la forma de

declaración (de arriba-abajo) hizo que no sólo no se tuviesen en cuenta los procesos socio-
ecológicos que habían moldeado los paisajes culturales de Doñana, sino que muchos de ellos se
prohibieron. Con esto se negó la inclusión de muchas prácticas socio-ecológicas que habían
formado los paisajes culturales y de las instituciones no formales en las que se apoyaban (Gómez-
Baggethun et al., 2010, 2012, 2013). Por tanto, la prohibición de determinados sistemas de
manejo tradicionales en el interior de los Parques Nacionales puede suponer una pérdida de
conocimiento ecológico local si no se concibe un sistema de preservación de estos saberes locales
en el propio PRUG de los Parques Nacionales (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010a). Así, la creación del
Parque Nacional en 1969 provocó numerosos problemas sociales especialmente relacionados con
259
Discusión
la ganadería (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011). Es de destacar que hasta 33
años después de la declaración del Parque Nacional (el año 2002) no se aprueba el primer plan de
aprovechamiento ganadero en el Parque Nacional de Doñana.
A pesar de estas consideraciones, actualmente se siguen creando Parques Nacionales cuando

otras figuras como Parque Natural serían más adecuadas en el contexto mediterráneo. La figura
de Parque Natural resulta más adecuada que la figura de Parque Nacional para los paisajes
culturales mediterráneos por varios motivos: (1) no implica restricciones tan estrictas a los usos
tradicionales o prácticas socio-ecológicas que han creado los paisajes y con ellos los hábitats que
mantienen la biodiversidad y los servicios que los propios parques protegen y, por tanto, (2)
provocan menos rechazo social. Aunque la figura de Parque Nacional no es la más adecuada para
los paisajes culturales y usos tradicionales en la mayoría de nuestro territorio, tiene sin embargo,
mucha mayor repercusión mediática y mayor rédito político. En este sentido, desde el ámbito
político se hace ver la creación de Parques Nacionales como una piedra angular de la
conservación, mientras que la creación de Parques Naturales es más desapercibida.
Por otro lado, una de las principales limitaciones de los Parques Nacionales es que sus
fronteras no abarcan los procesos ecológicos necesarios para la conservación de los mismos
(Woodroffe y Ginsberg, 1998). Aunque en el territorio Español los Parques Nacionales son la
figura de protección con un tamaño medio mayor, otras figuras de protección como las
designadas por la Red Natura 2000 tienen un tamaño medio relativamente bastante menor
(Europarc-España, 2012). En este sentido, lo deseable es que las áreas protegidas incluyan la
totalidad del Gran Ecosistema (sensu Grumbine, 1990) sobre el que se asientan, y que en
apartados anteriores hemos denominado sistema biofísico.
Otra gran limitación de los Parques Nacionales es que invisibilizan la figura de Reservas de
Biosfera. Doñana y Sierra Nevada son Reservas de la Biosfera. Las Reservas de Biosfera deben
contar con una zona núcleo, una zona de amortiguación y una zona de transición para un
funcionamiento adecuado (Batisse, 1982; Price, 1996). Sin embargo, sólo el 25% de las Reservas
de la Biosfera en España cumplen con los criterios y requerimientos establecidos (Sánchez-Pérez
Moneo, 2010). Las Reservas de la Biosfera de Doñana y Sierra Nevada carecen de zona de
transición, lo que dificulta una ordenación sostenible de los usos que no perjudique a la zona
núcleo (Figura 10). Además, existe un desacoplamiento entre los límites del Parque Nacional,
Parque Natural y la Reserva de Biosfera, lo que dificulta la ordenación territorial. En el caso de
Doñana los límites de la Reserva son muy inferiores a los del Espacio Natural. Ante estas
dificultades, el Consejo Internacional de Coordinación del Programa Hombre y Biosfera (MaB) de
la UNESCO acordó el 12 de julio de 2012 una ampliación de la Reserva de Biosfera de Doñana a
268.293,72 Has, y una nueva zonificación de la de Sierra Nevada, estando ambas pendientes de
publicación en el Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE). En la nueva zonificación ambas reservas
260
incluyen una zona de transición. Sin embargo, y a pesar de esta modificación, gran parte de
determinados municipios con elevada influencia sobre el acuífero, como Moguer y Lucena del
Puerto, han quedado fuera de la ampliación. Asimismo, ambas reservas de biosfera están
concebidas con unos límites que no coinciden con los limites biofísicos determinados por el Gran
Ecosistema (sensu Grumbine, 1990).
5.2.4.4. La concepción del territorio desde el punto de vista de la Biología de la Conservación y sus
efectos sobre la resiliencia socio-ecológica
Actualmente se reconoce que son cinco los impulsores directos de cambio más importantes en
nuestro planeta: cambio de usos del suelo, cambio climático, contaminación, especies invasoras y
alteraciones de los ciclos biogeoquímicos (Duarte et al., 2009). Una de las principales
consecuencias de éstos (especialmente de los cambios de usos del suelo) es la destrucción de
hábitats con la consecuente pérdida de biodiversidad (Butchart et al., 2010) y de servicios de los
ecosistemas (MA, 2005; Laliberté et al., 2010; Schneiders et al., 2012; García-Llorente et al., 2012).
Las áreas protegidas se han entendido como una de las principales respuestas al problema de la
transformación de los usos del suelo y pérdida de biodiversidad (Rands et al., 2010). Sin embargo,
las áreas protegidas no atajan de forma directa las causas de la pérdida de biodiversidad (i.e., los
impulsores indirectos de cambio) ya que se limitan a proteger espacios no transformados, y en
gran parte de las ocasiones, aquellos menos vulnerables a las transformaciones de usos, como los
sistemas de alta montaña (Joppa y Pfaff, 2009). Puesto que el mecanismo de conservación es
similar en todos los casos (i.e., un área protegida estática cuya variabilidad solo depende de la
categorías de manejo de la UICN) constituyen una respuesta lineal a los problemas asociados al
Antropoceno, teniendo una efectividad limitada (Ewers and Rodrigues, 2008; Rands et al., 2010).
En este sentido, la ordenación del territorio bajo la biología de la conservación no incorpora la
complejidad del problema y, por tanto, no consta de una de las características básicas para
fomentar la resiliencia.
Por otro lado, la declaración de las áreas protegidas es resultado de un sistema de gestión
promovido de arriba abajo como consecuencia de intereses específicos asociados con valores
intrínsecos23 de la naturaleza. Podríamos citar como ejemplos el papel clave en la historia de la
23 Los valores intrínsecos son aquellos que son inherentes e independientes de si son utilizados
o no por el ser humano. Se asocian con la dimensión ética de la conservación (Callicott, 2006;
Martín-López y García-Llorente, 2013) . Por otro lado los valores instrumentales se refieren a la
utilidad que le otorgamos a los ecosistemas y su biodiversidad por su capacidad de proporcionar
bienestar humano (Justus et al., 2009).
261
Discusión
conservación de la naturaleza de John Muir en la protección de Yosemite en Estados Unidos y de

Pedro Pidal en la declaración de la ley sobre Parques Nacionales en España de 1916. Si bien es
cierto que estos precursores de la conservación fueron capaces de llamar la atención de las
organizaciones políticas y la sociedad en su conjunto sobre la necesidad de conservar
determinados espacios, su ejecución de ha tenido en algunos casos un enfoque excesivamente
vertical (de arriba-abajo). En el caso de Doñana, la creación del Parque Nacional que pretendía
preservar el territorio aún conservado y de mayor valor ecológico de Doñana de las
transformaciones agrícolas y urbanísticas, tuvo un carácter impositivo de arriba a abajo (Aguilar
Fernández, 2008). La declaración del Parque Nacional permite que a día de hoy estos ecosistemas
sigan existiendo, pero ha tenido un coste social asociado elevado.
Muchas áreas protegidas se han declarado con una política de arriba-abajo (capítulo 5.1), lo
que en ocasiones ha provocado rechazo local a los mismos. De hecho, la palabra área “protegida”
crea un rechazo frente a las actividades de desarrollo de un determinado lugar. Así muchas áreas
protegidas se declararon siguiendo la filosofía de “conservación fortificada” (Brockington 2002),
que separa a la gente de la naturaleza, siendo una aproximación contraria a la encontrada con los
sistemas socio-ecológicos. Este proceso ignora el papel de las personas en el mantenimiento de la
naturaleza y les prohíbe el acceso a determinados servicios de los ecosistemas provocando
importantes problemas sociales (West et al., 2006, Wilkie et al., 2006). La insuficiente
incorporación de procesos participativos en la declaración de áreas protegidas, la ausencia de
reconocimiento e incorporación del conocimiento ecológico local, así como la creación de una
arquitectura de gobernanza de arriba-abajo (no policéntrica) son algunas de las causas de
pérdida de resiliencia bajo esta concepción de la ordenación del territorio. Por tanto, esta
concepcion del territorio también muestra determinadas debilidades desde el enfoque de la
resiliencia. La tabla 5.14 muestra cómo afecta a cada uno de los principios.
territorio desde la biología de la conservación para mantener la resiliencia, así como principales
consecuencias sobre el socio-ecosistema.
Elementos del Diversidad y Incorpora la biodiversidad Fomenta la conservación
sistema socio- redundancia entendida principalmente de determinados
ecológico desde la conservación de hábitats de especies;
gestionados especies, pero ignora la pero no de uno de los
aproximación desde la componentes clave en el
diversidad y redundancia suministro de los
funcional. servicios de los
No incorpora la diversidad ecosistemas (i.e.
institucional en la gestión diversidad funcional)
Conectividad La conectividad es un aspecto Se fomenta la
262
clave en la biología de la conectividad lo que

conservación favorece la resiliencia
Variables lentas y Estudia variables lentas como Posee un conocimiento
feed-backs los ciclos biogeoquímicos elevado del sistema
ecológico, lo que permite
alertar sobre posibles
cambios de estado.
Elementos del Aprendizaje y No reconoce la necesidad de La evolución es un
sistema de experimentación un aprendizaje colectivo proceso lento al no
gobernanza donde se respeten fomentarse el
conjuntamente los saberes aprendizaje y la
experienciales (o experimentación
conocimiento ecológico local)
y el conocimiento
experimental y técnico.
Participación y La participación no se integra La falta de participación
confianza per se en la biología de la ha roto numerosos
conservación, aunque este procesos socio-
aspecto está cambiando ecológicos
recientemente
Policentrismo No se ha diseñado una Se crean conflictos entre
arquitectura institucional diferentes instituciones
policéntrica. Las áreas con intereses
protegidas tradicionalmente enfrentados en el área
han sido declaradas con
mecanismos de arriba abajo y
gobernadas por una única
institución
Entendimiento de Recientemente se empieza a Están por verse los
la complejidad incorporar la complejidad resultados para la
considerando las relaciones ordenación territorial
ser humano-naturaleza incorporando las
relaciones entre el ser
humano y la naturaleza
263
Discusión
5.3. Una visión integradora: la planificación socio-ecológica del

territorio. Aplicaciones a las áreas protegidas
Las cuatro concepciones de gestión del territorio vistas anteriormente (la ordenación
territorial convencional, el crecimiento económico, el paisaje y la creación de áreas protegidas)
muestran una concepción de gobernabilidad basada en una arquitectura de arriba-abajo en la que
los canales de abajo-arriba son escasos (Figura 5.7). Además, cada una posee diferentes
elementos de ordenación territorial que en ocasiones persiguen objetivos opuestos. Estos
aspectos, como hemos visto, dan lugar a diversos problemas ecológicos, económicos y sociales,
que a largo plazo conllevan a una pérdida de servicios de los ecosistemas y de resiliencia socio-
ecológica.
Biología de la conservación Desarrollo económico

Red Natura 2000 PAC
Parques Nacionales Políticas agrarias y económicas
Parques Naturales y
otras figuras
PDS
PORN y PRUG
Planes municipales
Ente supramunicipal Municipios
Ordenanzas
municipales
Unidades de paisaje
Unidades geomorfológicas POTA y POTAD

Legislación nacional difusa Legislación nacional
Convenio Europeo del paisaje Legislación UE
Paisaje Ordenación territorial
Figura 5.7. Gráfico de integración de las cuatro formas principales de entendimiento del territorio
desde una perspectiva multi-escalar. En las cuatro predomina una arquitectura institucional basada
en procesos de arriba a abajo (top-down), lo que crea diferentes conflictos sobre el territorio.
264
Como vimos en el apartado 5.2., los cuatro modelos de planificación del territorio disminuyen
la resiliencia del mismo por diversos motivos. Es por ello necesario plantear una nueva forma de
conceptuar el territorio que coordine los intereses opuestos de las concepciones vistas
anteriormente, con el fin de evitar la existencia de objetivos enfrentados, y que mantenga la
resiliencia de los sistemas socio-ecológicos. Así, resulta imprescindible generar nuevos
paradigmas y modelos de gestión construidos a partir de una ciencia transdisciplinar que
reconozca nuestra dependencia del sistema ecológico para el bienestar humano (Martín-López et
al., 2007). Un modelo de territorio nuevo debe ser capaz de resolver las deficiencias encontradas
en los cuatro modelos vistos y de proporcionar un bienestar humano sostenible24.
Para generar dicho modelo territorial es preciso una planificación que abarque la totalidad del
territorio y que incluya la dimensión ecológica y social del mismo, a través de una planificación
socio-ecológica25. Actualmente, el marco científico con la capacidad potencial de generar dicho
modelo de ordenación territorial lo constituyen las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad (Kates et al.,
2001). Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad están constituidas como hemos visto en la introducción,
por un conjunto amplio de disciplinas científicas, lo que permite integrar la complejidad de los
sistemas socio-ecológicos y su gestión (Martín-López, 2007; Martín-López et al., 2013). Como
vimos en la introducción, el objeto de estudio de las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad son los sistemas
socio-ecológicos. Conceptuar el territorio como un sistema socio-ecológico implica entender las
tramas biofísicas y humanas complejas a diferentes escalas espaciales y temporales, por lo que es
necesario abordar el territorio desde el pensamiento complejo (Martín-López et al., 201). Por lo
tanto, las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad permiten poner un marco para la planificación socio-
ecológica del territorio debido a los siguientes motivos:
(1) Integran y desarrollan en profundidad las relaciones existentes entre los ecosistemas y los
sistemas sociales, puesto que su cuerpo de conocimiento viene constituido por el abrazo
entre ciencias que emergen en nueva disciplina interdisciplinar (Ban et al., 2013; Ehrlich
2002; Fisher et al., 2012; Mooney et al., 2013)
(2) Consideran los efectos que ocurren a diferentes escalas espaciales y temporales,
especialmente en lo referente a los análisis de la vulnerabilidad de los distintos sistemas
24 Por bienestar humano sostenible nos referimos a aquel que no comprometa el bienestar
humano de las generaciones futuras (Aguado et al., 2012). En la actualidad, dada la gran huella
ecológica humana (alcance de los límites del planeta (sensu Rockström et al., 2009) agotamiento
de reservas de petróleo y minerales) estamos posiblemente limitando el bienestar humano de las
generaciones futuras.
25 Aquella que conceptualizando el territorio como un socio-ecosistema ordena espacialmente
las tramas socio-ecológicas para alcanzar un bienestar humano que no comprometa los límites
biofísicos de los ecosistemas del territorio.
265
Discusión
socio-ecológicos (Turner et al., 2003). En este sentido permite una ordenación a unas
escalas suficientemente amplias (escala de paisaje y conexiones multi-escalares con otros
paisajes) para incorporar los procesos socio-ecológicos que interactúan en el territorio.
(3) Explicitan la necesidad de una red institucional diversa (tanto de instituciones formales
como no formales) para un correcto funcionamiento del sistema (Anderies et al., 2007;
Ostrom, 2005).
Siguiendo la estructura de los apartados anteriores, las Ciencias de la sostenibilidad tienen la

capacidad de fomentar la resiliencia del territorio por los siguientes motivos explicitados en la
Tabla 5.15.
de Biggs et al., 2012) y ejemplos de los mismos mediante la planificación socio-ecológica basada en
las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad
Elementos que Presencia en las ciencias de la sostenibilidad
confieren
resiliencia
Elementos Diversidad y Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad están compuestas por una gran
del sistema redundancia diversidad de ciencias. Además, fomentan mantener la biodiversidad y
socio- funcional redundancia funcionales y la diversidad institucional
ecológico Conectividad Dentro de las ciencias de la sostenibilidad se incluyen la ecología y la
gestionados antropología, lo que permite estudiar la conectividad ecológica y social en
profundidad (Toledo, 2000)
Variables lentas Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad son el conjunto de ciencias que permiten
y feed-backs incorporar la complejidad de los sistemas y por tanto la las variables
lentas y feed-backs
Atributos Aprendizaje y Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad confieren gran importancia a los
del sistema experimentación procesos de aprendizaje colectivo y co-generación de conocimiento
de (Roux et al., 2006)
gobernanza Participación y La participación y la gestión de abajo arriba son un elemento básico de las
confianza Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad (Clark y Dickinson, 2003)
Policentrismo El Policentrismo es una característica básica de estas Ciencias (Ostrom,
(aproximación 2005)
bottom-up)
Entendimiento Las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad son el conjunto de ciencias cuyo objeto
de la de estudio son los sistemas socio-ecológicos que son sistemas complejos
complejidad adaptativos (Kates et al., 2001).
Aquí es importante destacar que, es necesario superar pretendidas panaceas y no tratar de

imponer un modelo de gestión universal para todos los problemas ambientales (Ostrom et al.,
2007). Por ello, el modelo de ordenación territorial a proponer debe caracterizarse por la
suficiente flexibilidad para que se trate de un modelo adaptativo y adaptable a las diferentes
realidades territoriales. En el apartado 5.3. proponemos un nuevo sistema de ordenación
territorial para los paisajes culturales mediterráneos impulsado desde los principios de las
266
Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad y basado en la planificación socio-ecológica del territorio. La Tabla

5.16 sintetiza las principales características de las cuatro concepciones del territorio vistas en el
apartado 5.2 y las de la planificación socio-ecológica que se describe a continuación.
Tabla 5.16. Características principales de las cuatro concepcionas actuales sobre el territorio y sobre
el modelo de planificación socio-ecológica propuesto en esta tesis.
Ordenación Crecimiento Planificación Creación de Planificación
territorial económico del paisaje áreas socio-
convencional protegidas ecológica
Objetivo Ordenar el Crecimiento Mantenimiento Proteger la Mantener el
territorio de económico del paisaje biodiversidad bienestar
forma y los humano
equilibrada ecosistemas fomentando
los servicios
de los
ecosistemas
Ciencia Derecho Economía Geografía Biología de la Ciencias de la
principal conservación sostenibilidad
Territorio Territorio no Territorio no Conjunto del Áreas Conjunto del
abarcado declarado como declarado como territorio protegidas territorio
área protegida área protegida
Tipo de Técnico Técnico Técnico y Técnico y Técnico,
conocimiento científico científico científico y
usado para ecológico local
gestionar
Servicios que Abastecimiento Abastecimiento Flujo diverso de Servicios de Flujo diverso
promueve y culturales con y culturales con servicios regulación y de servicios
valor de valor de culturales
mercado mercado
Para presentar este modelo de planificación socio-ecológica nos apoyaremos en la estructura

definida por la Figura 5.8, que integra los elementos principales necesarios para el
mantenimiento de paisajes culturales multifuncionales y resilientes. Los elementos principales de
la planificación socio-ecológica que hemos definido son la diversidad, la conectividad y la
incorporación de las variables lentas. Resulta así mismo clave gestionar los trade-offs entre
servicios incorporando tanto las unidades suministradoras como los beneficiarios de los mismos.
Aplicados estos principios, se fomentaría la generación de paisajes multifuncionales y resilientes.
267
Discusión
Elementos de un Elementos de un sistema

sistema de gobernanza resiliente biofísico resiliente
Biodiversidad y diversidad
Diversidad Diversidad institucional
funcional
Participación y arquitectura
Conectividad Conectividad ecológica
institucional policéntrica
Consideración de Conocimiento
variables lentas ecológico local y científico
Gestión de trade-offs entre servicios

Gestión de Beneficiarios de los Unidades suministradoras
servicios servicios de servicio
Paisajes multifuncionales
Figura 5.8. Principales elementos de un socio-ecosistema resiliente. Un sistema socio-ecológico que

se caracterice por la diversidad, la conectividad y la incorporación de las variables lentas y que
realice una adecuada gestión de trade-offs favorecerá la creación de paisajes multifuncionales
resilientes.
5.3.1. Gestionando para promover la diversidad biológica y social
La diversidad se refiere tanto al número de elementos diferentes, como a su abundancia

relativa y semejanza funcional. Por un lado, aplicar la diversidad al sistema ecológico implica
reconocer la biodiversidad o diversidad biológica, diversidad funcional y redundancia funcional
(Elmquist et al., 2003, Diaz et al., 2006). Por otro lado, aplicar la diversidad al sistema social y de
gobernanza implica reconocer la necesidad de tanta diversidad institucional como complejidad
existe en el sistema que se pretende gestionar (Ostrom, 2005).
La biodiversidad, diversidad funcional y redundancia funcional aumentan la resiliencia de los

sistemas ecológicos, entre otros aspectos porque aumentan la multifuncionalidad de los mismos
(Hector y Bagchi, 2007). Por ejemplo, la dispersión de semillas por parte de animales se ve
favorecida si existen varias especies capaces de realizar esta función ante el caso de que una de
ellas disminuya su población o desaparezca (Peterson et al., 1998). La diversidad funcional
también favorece el suministro de servicios de los ecosistemas (Díaz et al., 2006), particularmente
268
de los servicios de regulación (Cardinale et al., 2012) lo que a su vez favorece el mantenimiento
de la resiliencia de los sistemas socio-ecológicos. Por ejemplo la diversidad de especies y porte de
los bosques de ribera fomenta el servicio de control de las inundaciones, haciendo el sistema más
resiliente a las mismas (Naiman et al., 2005). Entre los resultados de la tesis, aunque la
biodiversidad no ha sido evaluada directamente, si ha sido un elemento que ha estado presente
durante la mayor parte del trabajo empírico. Los aspectos anteriormente mencionados, nos llevan
a proponer una serie de recomendaciones para promover la biodiversidad en las áreas protegidas
de la Cuenca Mediterránea de forma que ésta aumente la resiliencia en estos dos sistemas socio-
ecológicos (Tabla 5.17).
Tabla 5.17. Factores asociados con la diversidad biológica que fomentan la resiliencia de las áreas
protegidas consideradas como sistemas socio-ecológicos en la Cuenca Mediterránea.
Componente 1. Expandir el foco de conservación de las especies emblemáticas a
estructural de la otras especies animales e incluso otros reinos de la vida (Martín-
biodiversidad López, et al., 2009)
2. Establecer estrategias que permitan mantener una elevada
diversidad de especies no domesticadas
3. Mantener la diversidad de las distintas razas ganaderas autóctonas
mediante planes de fomento de las mismas
4. Mantener una diversidad de variedades agrícolas, incluyendo los
cultivos de secano que se encuentran en declive
Componente funcional Hacer inventarios de diversidad funcional y redundancia funcionales

de la biodiversidad y analizar cómo estos se relacionan con la resiliencia del sistema
ecológico
Por otro lado, la diversidad institucional ha sido recientemente proclamada como uno de los
factores clave para fomentar la resiliencia de los sistemas socio-ecológicos ya que promueve un
sistema de gobernanza policéntrico y multinivel (Ostrom, 2005). Aplicado a la planificación socio-
ecológica de las áreas protegidas, diferentes instituciones deberían involucrarse en el diseño y
gestión de los mismos (Ludwig, 2001). Sin embargo, tanto la declaración de los mismos como la
su gestión se realiza casi en exclusiva desde las instituciones formales ambientales. Un análisis de
las instituciones responsables de gestionar los servicios de los ecosistemas suministrados por las
áreas protegidas -tales como el suministro de agua para consumo (i.e., áreas protegidas de
montaña o situadas en zonas de recarga de acuíferos; Saunders et al., 2002), el de la pesca (i.e.,
áreas protegidas que actúan de reserva y en cuyos alrededores aumentan la tasa de capturas;
Roberts et al., 2001), o el de la regulación climática (i.e., áreas protegidas forestales que actúen de
sumideros de carbono)- muestra que existe un requerimiento de coordinar la gestión de áreas
protegidas con otras instituciones formales relacionadas con el agua, la alimentación o la
regulación climática. Asimismo, y debido a que los principales usuarios de dichos servicios de los
269
Discusión
ecosistemas son los actores sociales establecidos a diferentes escalas organizativas, las
instituciones no formales deberían tener un papel importante en dicha gestión, tal y como
promueve el diseño institucional multi-nivel (Fig. 5.9).
En relación a los resultados de la tesis, se ha tratado de fomentar la diversidad institucional a

través del reconocimiento e inclusión de la misma por medio de los participantes de los talleres y
los informantes en los cuestionarios y en las entrevistas semi-estructuradas. Para fomentar la
diversidad institucional en los sistemas socio-ecológicos con áreas protegidas de la Cuenca
Mediterránea, diferentes factores deberían ser considerados (Tabla 5.18).
Mercados
Instituciones
formales y legales
Reglas formales
Leyes
Derechos de propiedad
Burocracia
Instituciones no formales
Valores
Tradiciones
Normas
Creencias
Figura 5.9. Niveles de diversidad institucional incluyendo instituciones no formales, instituciones

formales y legales y mercados. Fuente: Williamson 2000.
Tabla 5.18. Factores asociados con la diversidad institucional que fomentan la resiliencia de las
áreas protegidas consideradas como sistemas socio-ecológicos en la Cuenca Mediterránea.
Componente 1. Realizar un inventario de las diferentes instituciones, tanto formales
estructural como no formales. Este inventario podría recoger los servicios de los
ecosistemas que gestionan.
2. Promover las instituciones no formales y las locales con capacidad de
gestionar el territorio puesto que experimentan directamente las
consecuencias de la gestión del territorio y actualmente se encuentran
invisibilizadas.
Componente 3. Promover arquitectura institucional multinivel, donde se fomente la
funcional coordinación entre las distintas instituciones formales y no formales
4. Promover arquitectura institucional policéntrica, donde se fomente la
coordinación a diferentes escalas organizativas
270
5.3.2. Gestionando para promover la conectividad en el territorio
La conectividad es una propiedad funcional del territorio que podemos clasificar en

conectividad ecológica horizontal, constituida por fenómenos físicos y biológicos que permiten
entender el paisaje como resultado del funcionamiento del tejido territorial; y conectividad
vertical o socio-ecológica, fruto de la interacción entre cultura y naturaleza (Pineda y Schmitz,
2011). La conectividad también se define como la forma e intensidad en que los recursos, las
especies o los actores sociales se dispersan, migran o interactúan en los sistemas ecológicos y
sociales (Biggs et al., 2012). El efecto de la conectividad sobre la resiliencia de los sistemas socio-
ecológicos depende de la estructura y la fuerza de las uniones entre las diferentes estructuras del
sistema (nodos) (Biggs et al., 2012).
Por un lado, la conectividad en los sistemas ecológicos incrementa la resiliencia puesto que
facilita los movimientos de especies entre diferentes hábitats o la recolonización de un sistema
después de una perturbación (Biggs et al., 2012). La conectividad también influye en el suministro
de varios servicios de los ecosistemas -como la polinización, la calidad del agua, la dispersión de
semillas, la pesca, o el servicio recreativo (Mitchell et al., in press) debido a que la conectividad
favorece distintos procesos ecológicos. Por tanto, resulta necesario integrar la gestión de las áreas
protegidas en un modelo de ordenación territorial más amplio, en donde las relaciones socio-
ecológicas a diferentes escalas espaciales queden contempladas (Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2012).
Por otro lado, la conectividad social influye en la forma en la que la información fluye entre
actores sociales (Brondizio et al., 2009). La conectividad social puede venir promovida desde los
procesos participativos de gobernanza que favorecen el intercambio de información entre
diferentes actores sociales hasta la estrategia de co-gestión, donde diferentes actores sociales se
empoderan de las actividades y estrategias de gestión. En el caso de los procesos participativos,
ha sido reconocido que incrementan los flujos de información entre actores sociales,
contribuyendo a crear confianza entre los mismos y, por tanto, fomentando resiliencia social. La
existencia de redes sociales y la participación en ellas fomenta que acciones colectivas lleguen a
materializarse (Bodin y Crona, 2009). Los procesos participativos pueden fomentar también el
aprendizaje y la experimentación por parte de los participantes, contribuyendo así a fomentar la
resiliencia del sistema (Biggs et al., 2012). La inclusión de grupos de usuarios diversos facilita el
entendimiento de las dinámicas y la complejidad de los sistemas socio-ecológicos, y por tanto
aumenta la resiliencia (Norgaard y Baer, 2005).
La conectividad socio-ecológica no debe entenderse exclusivamente dentro de un sistema

socio-ecológico, sino que debe incluir las conexiones entre diferentes sistemas socio-ecológicos.
Este hecho implica la necesidad de una gestión multi-escalar y una arquitectura institucional
policéntrica. En el caso de los servicios de los ecosistemas, y debido a que los beneficiarios de los
271
Discusión
mismos se encuentran desde la escala local hasta la global (Fisher et al. 2012), la gestión socio-
ecológica debería abarcar desde el nivel organizativo local hasta el global. La incorporación de la
conectividad en la planificación socio-ecológica permiten abordar la dimensión multi-escalar de
las interacciones de forma completa.
En relación a los resultados de esta Tesis, hemos observado como una matriz que rodee a un
área protegida que tenga un carácter marcadamente intensivo de uso del suelo, puede reducir la
conectividad y simplificar el flujo de servicios (Palomo et al., 2013b). Por otro lado, se puede
fomentar la conectividad a través de una zonificación que mantenga una cierta graduación en la
intensidad de protección (capítulo 4.6). Respecto a la conectividad social, son varios los procesos
participativos realizados con actores locales, científicos e investigadores, que han incluido el
trabajo a varias escalas a través de la incorporación de beneficiarios (Palomo et al., 2013a), y la
trasposición de escenarios de escalas superiores y con impulsores de cambio globales (Palomo et
al., 2011). En líneas generales, para promover la conectividad social y ecológica en las áreas
protegidas de los sistemas socio-ecológicos mediterráneos, se deben considerar diferentes
elementos básicos (Tabla 5.19).
Tabla 5.19. Elementos asociados con la conectividad ecológica y social que fomentan la resiliencia de
las áreas protegidas consideradas como sistemas socio-ecológicos en la Cuenca Mediterránea.
Conectividad ecológica
1. Hacer un análisis completo sobre la conectividad ecológica, incluyendo un análisis
de las barreras impermeables que existen a la conectividad, especialmente en la
matriz que rodea a las áreas protegidas
2. Analizar en profundidad las interacciones que existen entre las áreas protegidas y
su matriz circundante.
3. Adoptar planes que fomenten la conectividad territorial a escala de cuenca
hidrográfica.
Conectividad social
1. Fomentar los procesos participativos que incluyan a la diversidad de actores
sociales existentes en el uso y gestión de los servicios de los ecosistemas
suministrados por las áreas protegidas (i.e., investigadores, gestores o actores
locales). Asimismo, considerar a diferentes actores sociales procedentes de
distintas escalas organizativas, desde lo local hasta lo nacional.
2. Promover espacios de diálogo y aprendizaje colectivo, donde conocimientos
experimentales y experienciales sean mostrados.
3. Promover las instituciones no formales para visibilizar el papel de los valores, la
ética y las creencias en la gestión socio-ecológica del territorio.
4. Fomentar un modelo de gestión basado en la cooperación entre instituciones
formales y no formales para favorecer la cohesión social.
A pesar de lo que hemos visto en este apartado, hay que tener en cuenta que en algunos casos
la conectividad tanto social como ecológica puede reducir la resiliencia ya que puede facilitar la
272
transmisión de una perturbación entre las diferentes partes de un sistema (Adger et al., 2009; van
Nes y Scheffer, 2005). Por lo tanto, estamos ante un trade-off en la conectividad, lo que hace aún
más necesario conocer esta característica para gestionarla de forma adecuada (Biggs et al., 2012).
5.3.3. Gestionar la complejidad e incorporar las variables lentas
Para gestionar sistemas socio-ecológicos se requiere comprender la complejidad de la

dimensión ecológica y social y las interacciones entre ambas. Esta noción de complejidad se ha
formalizado a través del concepto de sistemas complejos adaptativos. Para la ecología, los
sistemas complejos adaptativos son aquellos que presentan propiedades a una escala amplia
como la estructura trófica o los flujos de nutrientes y energías, que son propiedades emergentes
determinadas por la interacción entre los componentes del sistema, y que pueden retroalimentar
las interacciones e influirlas (Levin, 1998). Dos características de los sistemas complejos
adaptativos son la incertidumbre y la no linealidad. Desde la perspectiva de las ciencias sociales,
la dimensión humana también se puede caracterizar como un sistema complejo adaptativo, dado
que incluye una amplia diversidad de comportamientos, instituciones, interacciones entre seres
humanos y procesos selectivos y de retro-alimentación que moldean las estructuras y dinámicas
del sistema (Holland, 1995). Así los sistemas socio-ecológicos pueden entenderse como sistemas
complejos adaptativos y, por lo tanto, la gobernanza de los mismos debe incorporar la
complejidad (Folke et al., 2005). Nos encontramos ante una premisa que es necesario incluir para
una adecuada planificación socio-ecológica del territorio.
Con respecto a la complejidad en los ecosistemas, es ya ampliamente reconocido que los

cambios en los sistemas ecológicos debido a una perturbación pueden producirse de forma
abrupta, en forma de cambios de estado26 (Scheffer et al., 2001) (Figura 5.10). Estos cambios de
estado, como por ejemplo la eutrofización de lagos o procesos de desertificación, llevan implícitas
consecuencias negativas para el bienestar humano debido a la pérdida de servicios de los
ecosistemas (MA, 2005). Los cambios de estado, además de ser difíciles de predecir (De Young et
al., 2008) implican que una vez pasado el umbral de cambio puede resultar difícil volver a la
situación inicial (Scheffer et al., 2001).
26 Los cambios de estado (regime shifts) son reorganizaciones de magnitud considerable en la
estructura, las funciones y los feed-backs en un sistema (Scheffer et al., 2001; Walker et al., 2004).
273
Discusión
Perturbación Cambio en las

fuerte variables del sistema
Estado 1 Estado 2 Estado 2
Figura 5.10. Representación de diferentes estados (planos) en que podemos encontrar un sistema
(bola). En la figura A vemos como una perturbación (como puede ser una sequía inusualmente
prolongada) puede provocar un cambio de estado. El ejemplo B muestra como cambios en variables
pueden hacer cambiar de estado un sistema. Fuente: Crépin et al., 2012.
Incorporar las variables lentas (y la complejidad) dentro de un sistema biofísico implica

incorporar los feed-backs (Gunderson y Holling, 2002; Holling, 1973) y los servicios de regulación
(MA, 2005). Se ha argumentado que manteniendo los servicios de regulación es posible evitar los
cambios de estado no deseados (Gordon et al., 2008; Bennett et al., 2009). Así por ejemplo, la no
gestión del servicio del control de la erosión puede llevar a procesos de desertificación. La no
gestión del servicio de regulación hídrica puede provocar la sobre-explotación de acuíferos que
pueden desecar lagunas superficiales provocando un cambio de estado. Por tanto, un sistema de
monitoreo de los servicios de regulación resulta necesario en una planificación socio-ecológica
del territorio. Sin embargo, los sistemas de monitorio de servicios de regulación y feed-backs no
suelen ser considerados en la gestión de las áreas protegidas.
Por otro lado, el conocimiento ecológico local es un elemento imprescindible para incorporar
la complejidad desde el sistema social. Este conocimiento, creado durante siglos mediante
procesos de acierto y error, ha dado forma a los paisajes culturales mediterráneos, y permite
incrementar la resiliencia frente a diversas perturbaciones. Por ello, la planificación socio-
ecológica lo incorpora como base sobre la que sustentar la gestión. Sobre la base del sistema de
conocimiento experiencial (o conocimiento ecológico local), la planificación socio-ecológica
incorpora el conocimiento científico y técnico de los procesos socio-ecológicos para dar forma a
un maridaje de saberes que exploran y analizan la complejidad del sistema socio-ecológico en el
que las áreas protegidas se encuentran embebidas.
Para la consideración de ambas fuentes de conocimiento deben ser diseñadas diferentes

estrategias participativas en donde actores sociales locales y expertos sean considerados. En este
274
contexto, se ha argumentado que la complejidad de la ordenación del territorio requiere de

estrategias de gestión visionarias y la construcción de escenarios de futuro bajo marcos
multidisciplinares que integren la complejidad (Parrot y Meyer, 2012). En el caso de los
ecosistemas mediterráneos resulta esencial conocer su historia co-evolutiva puesto que esta
historia juega un papel básico en cómo se desarrollara su futuro (Ramalho y Hobbs, 2012). Por lo
tanto, una de las herramientas más importantes para incorporar la complejidad es la planificación
de escenarios de futuro (Palomo et al., 2012; Peterson et al., 2003).
En relación a los resultados de la Tesis, los servicios de regulación han recibido una atención
igualitaria al resto de servicios de los ecosistemas, ya que en los paneles de evaluación de
servicios (anexo 3), se ha equilibrado el número de servicios de abastecimiento, regulación y
culturales. La complejidad se ha introducido mediante el acercamiento a las áreas protegidas a
través del concepto de sistemas socio-ecológicos y mediante el uso del marco de los servicios y la
planificación de escenarios de futuro. Aunque la aplicación del conocimiento ecológico local a la
gestión actual de áreas protegidas presenta varios retos, se ha tratado de acercar el mismo a la
gestión a través de procesos participativos con la población local (Palomo et al., 2011).
Igualmente se ha tratado de vincular el conocimiento científico y técnico a través de talleres
participativos de cartografía de servicios (Palomo et al., 2013a). La gestión de la complejidad en
los sistemas socio-ecológicos de la Cuenca Mediterránea debe incluir la aplicación de diversos
elementos claves (Tabla 5.20).
Tabla 5.20. Elementos asociados con la complejidad socio-ecológica que fomentan la resiliencia de
las áreas protegidas consideradas como sistemas socio-ecológicos en la Cuenca Mediterránea.
Variables lentas y complejidad ecológica
1. Evaluar en profundidad los servicios de regulación suministrados por los
ecosistemas e identificar los componentes biofísicos claves en el mantenimiento
de su suministro.
2. Mapear y cartografiar los flujos de servicios de regulación, desde las unidades
suministradoras de servicios hasta los beneficiarios de los mismos.
3. Identificar los impulsores de cambio que perjudican a los servicios de regulación y
gestionar los trade-offs resultantes de diferentes estrategias de manejo.
4. Evaluar posibles cambios de estado que pudieran producirse en el sistema socio-
ecológico y su repercusión en el suministro de servicios.
Variables lentas y complejidad social
1. Inventarios y catálogos de saberes locales o conocimientos ecológicos locales.
2. Difusión y puesta en valor del conocimiento ecológico local para equiparar su
valoración a la del conocimiento científico.
3. Promover los proyectos de investigación y las actividades transversales que
integren conocimiento ecológico local y conocimiento científico.
4. Aplicar herramientas de gestión que incorporen la complejidad y la incertidumbre,
como la planificación de escenarios de futuro.
275
Discusión
5.3.4. Gestionando los trade-offs entre servicios tanto de las unidades

suministradoras como de los beneficiarios
Para gestionar los componentes que potencian la resiliencia (diversidad, conectividad y

entendimiento de la complejidad) resulta necesario incluir distintas variables de diferente
naturaleza. Entre todas ellas destaca la gestión de los trade-offs entre servicios. Ésta debe
considerar tanto aquellos trade-offs que emergen desde las unidades suministradoras de servicios
como consecuencia de la distinta concepción y gestión del territorio (sección 5.2.), como desde los
diferentes usos y demanda que la diversidad de actores sociales realiza.
Para una adecuada gestión de trade-offs entre servicios existen diferentes herramientas de
evaluación de servicios. Entre ellas la cartografía de servicios es una de las más utilizadas por su
carácter espacialmente explícito para presentar dichos trade-offs. La presente tesis incorpora
varios avances en este campo, puesto que no sólo analiza los trade-offs entre servicios asociados a
los usos del suelo como han hecho varios trabajos previos (Palomo et al., 2013b), sino que
incorpora la representación espacial de dichos trade-offs a través de la cartografía de factores del
ACP (capítulo 4.6).
Uno de los avances más importantes en la cartografía de servicios ha sido el análisis de los
servicios como flujos, esto es la inclusión del suministro y la demanda de servicios (Syrbe y Walz,
2012). De hecho, como muestra esta Tesis, la incorporación de los beneficiarios de los servicios a
la gestión de las áreas protegidas, resulta un componente clave para elaborar estrategias que
permitan reducir la demanda de determinados servicios que causan un impacto en la capacidad
de los ecosistemas de suministrar un flujo variado de servicios (Palomo et al., 2013a). En este
contexto, resulta necesario el avance en el uso de indicadores que permitan medir el suministro
de servicios y la demanda de los mismos en términos comparables. La Tabla 5.21 presenta
algunos indicadores para tal efecto.
Tabla 5.21. Indicadores del suministro y la demanda de servicios. Varios de ellos pueden utilizarse
para analizar si el suministro de servicios no es supeado por la demanda, esto es, si el uso se
encuentra dentro de los límites sostenibles. Adaptado de Castro et al., forthcoming.
Servicios de los Indicadores biofísicos del Indicadores sociales de la
ecosistemas suministro demanda
Servicios de
abastecimiento
Alimento de comida Producción agrícola Consumo de la producción agrícola
Alimento de comida Número de cabezas de ganado Ganado consumido
Alimento de comida Tamaño de las poblaciones de Consumo de pescado
peces, tasa de reproducción
Producción de madera Madera existente, tasa de Extracción de madera
crecimiento
Abastecimiento de agua Agua disponible (i.e. Agua consumida
276
precipitación menos
evapotranspiración)
Productos medicinales Número de especies de las que Número de medicinas que usan
se han obtenido principios principios activos naturales
activos
Material genético Número of de variedades Número of de variedades agrarias

agrarias y ganaderas y ganaderas
Materias primas Materias primas existentes y Cantidad extraída
tasa de generación
Regulación de la calidad del Capacidad de depuración del Enfermedades relacionadas con la
aire aire de la vegetación contaminación atmosférica
evitadas
Regulación de la calidad del Depuración de nutrientes por la Enfermedades relacionadas con la
agua vegetación (i.e. N, P) contaminación del agua evitadas
Regulación del clima Cantidad de carbono Refugiados climático y otras
secuestrado por la vegetación afecciones debidas al cambio
climático evitadas
Moderación de eventos Elementos naturales Daños evitados en inundaciones,
extremos disminuyendo el impacto de tormentas, avalanchas, etc. gracias
eventos extremos (inundaciones, a elementos naturales
tormentas, avalanchas, etc.)
Control de la erosión Tasa de erosión o variables Sedimentos extraídos de embalses,
relacionadas (pendiente, o capacidad de producción
precipitación, vegetación, etc.) hidroeléctrica perdida
Polinización Abundancia y riqueza de Beneficios para la producción
polinizadores salvajes agrícola o para la biodiversidad
debidos a la polinización
Servicios culturales
Valores estéticos Amplitud visual, miradores Usuarios de senderos
Recreación y turismo Número de áreas naturales o Número de visitantes
senderos aptos para la
recreación y el turismo
Recreación y turismo (caza Tamaño de las poblaciones, tasa Número de individuos cazados
recreativa) de reproducción
Conocimiento científico Abundancia de especies o Número de investigadores
elementos naturales con valor trabajando con elementos
científico naturales
5.3.5. El papel de las áreas protegidas en la planificación socio-ecológica del

territorio. Reclamando el modelo de las Reservas de Biosfera
El papel de las áreas protegidas en la planificación socio-ecológica del territorio es múltiple.

Gracias a que no están sujetos a la máxima de la rentabilidad económica territorial pueden
funcionar como reservorios de biodiversidad (diversidad funcional y redundancia funcional) y
como lugares de experimentación en los que se incorporar la complejidad desde el conocimiento
ecológico local y científico. Así en los paisajes culturales mediterráneos, las áreas protegidas
podrían constituirse en ejemplos y laboratorios de desarrollo (sostenible), en los que se
277
Discusión
gestionaran dentro de la matriz territorial con el objetivo de suministrar un amplio abanico de

servicios. En relación a esto, diversos estudios han sugerido proteger ecosistemas por su
capacidad de suministrar servicios para mantener el bienestar humano y ampliar el significado de
la conservación más allá de la biodiversidad (Chan et al., 2006; García y Montes, 2011),
considerando la diferente vocación del territorio (Tabla 5.22).
Tabla 5.22. Principales tipos de ecosistemas y servicios más representativos que suministran.
Tipo de Principales servicios que pueden suministrar
ecosistema
Abastecimiento Regulación Culturales
Regiones de Plantas medicinales Regulación hídrica Valores estéticos
montaña Abastecimiento de Valores espirituales
agua Conocimiento científico
Ecoturismo
Humedales Alimento de la Regulación del clima Valores estéticos
pesca Control de Ecoturismo
Fibras naturales inundaciones Educación ambiental
Purificación del agua
Bosques Recolección de Regulación del clima Valores estéticos
productos Control de la erosión Ecoturismo
forestales Regulación hídrica Educación ambiental
Plantas medicinales
Madera
Sistemas costeros Alimento de la Protección frente a Valores estéticos
pesca tormentas y Turismo de playa
tsunamis
Agroecosistemas Alimento de la Polinización Ecoturismo
agricultura
Áreas naturales Purificación del aire Recreación
cercanas a las Educación ambiental
ciudades
Con el objetivo de que las áreas protegidas se consideren como un laboratorio dentro de la
matriz territorial concebida por tramas socio-ecológicas27 deben considerarse tal y como se
mostró anteriormente diferentes elementos clave que promueven la resiliencia socio-ecológica: la
diversidad, la conectividad y el entendimiento de la complejidad, desde una perspectiva socio-
ecológica.
Entre todas las figuras de conservación, las Reservas de Biosfera son las que mejor se ajustan al
modelo de planificación socio-ecológica propuesto, y a los paisajes culturales mediterráneos. Las
Reservas de Biosfera son la figura de conservación propuesta por el programa Hombre y Biosfera
(MaB) puesto en marcha por la UNESCO a principios de los años 70. El mismo propone una
27 Trama socio-ecológica: conjunto de interacciones entre los sistemas ecológicos y sociales que
tienen lugar en el territorio
278
agenda de investigación multi-disciplinar sobre las dimensiones ecológica, social y económica de

la perdida de la biodiversidad, por lo que integra una multitud de ciencias y conocimientos a
semejanza de las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad. El MaB fomenta el intercambio de conocimientos y
la adaptabilidad social, apostando por un modelo de co-manejo adaptativo acorde con la
planificación socio-ecológica y con el incremento de la conectividad social a través de la
participación. El “doble buffer” de las Reservas de Biosfera (zona de amortiguación y zona de
transición) permite una mejor integración de las áreas protegidas (protegidos y no protegidos) en
la matriz territorial, que permite mejorar la conectividad ecológica al acabar con los problemas
socio-ecológicos del modelo conservación vs. desarrollo. Además, este modelo de “doble buffer”,
al suponer un gradiente concéntrico de intensidad de protección, permite integrar en una misma
Reserva de Biosfera varias figuras de protección diferentes como parque nacional y parque
natural. El programa MaB, también fomenta la integración de los seres humanos en la naturaleza
a través de formas de vida sostenible y el incremento del bienestar humano, por lo que el
mantenimiento de un flujo variado de servicios de los ecosistemas es una prioridad. Así mismo,
incluye aspectos sociales como la búsqueda de la reducción de la pobreza.
Existen aproximadamente 615 Reservas de Biosfera en un total de 117 países. España es uno
de los países que más reservas de la biosfera aporta, con 45. El plan de acción de Madrid para las
Reservas de Biosfera (2008-2013) pretende reivindicar las reservas de la biosfera como ejemplos
de desarrollo sostenible a nivel mundial (UNESCO, 2008b). La Figura 5.11 muestra la estructura
de las Reservas de Biosfera, y como cada zona promueve diferentes servicios de los ecosistemas.
El principal elemento de planificación de las áreas protegidas es la zonificación. Respecto a la
zonificación, el libro: “AN + 20. El desafío de la gestión de las áreas protegidas de Andalucía en un
mundo cambiante. Una cuestión de valores” (García y Montes, 2010) destaca la necesidad de una
zonificación: (1) flexible para adaptarse a los aspectos socio-culturales locales; (2) que incorporen
criterios ecológicos para su delimitación; (3) que se acople de forma funcional a otras
zonificaciones de espacios protegidos; y (4) que se adapte a la filosofía del programa MaB
mediante la interrelación entre las distintas zonas de la zonificación.
279
Discusión
Zona núcleo
Zona de amortiguación
Zona de transición
Asentamientos humanos
SR SA SA Servicios de abastecimiento
SC SA SR Servicios de regulación
SR
SC Servicios culturales
SR
SC Gradiente de intensidad
SC en el suministro de servicios
(abastecimiento, regulación
y culturales)
Figura 5.11. Modelo de zonificación de una Reserva de Biosfera y servicios de los ecosistemas
asociados a las diferentes zonas
280
5.4. Necesidades futuras de investigación
En primer lugar, surge la pregunta de cómo coordinar la implementación del marco de los
servicios en la toma de decisiones. Existen varios trabajos que estudian en detalle tanto los retos
de implementación del marco de los servicios como las necesidades de investigación en esta área
(Anton et al., 2010; De Groot et al., 2010; Seppelt et al., 2011). Por ello, en este apartado nos
referiremos sólo a aquellos más relacionados con la tesis.
Respecto a la participación podemos destacar la necesidad de analizar en profundidad la

utilidad de los procesos participativos para la gestión colectiva, aprendizaje, o producción de
conocimiento. Aunque los aspectos positivos de los procesos participativos para la gestión
ambiental son varios y parece existir un consenso respecto a los mismos (Reed, 2008), resulta
necesario concretar cuál es el grado y la forma de influencia de los mismos en la gestión (Menzel y
Buchecker, 2013). En relación a la planificación participativa de escenarios de futuro, analizar la
forma en que esta herramienta ayuda a incorporar la complejidad y la incertidumbre es un
aspecto apenas analizado aún en el ámbito académico.
Respecto a la relación entre usos del suelo y suministro de servicios, también resulta necesario
profundizar desde el ámbito académico, de que forma las configuraciones espaciales de diferentes
usos del suelo afectan a los servicios y a la multifuncionalidad del paisaje. En concreto, el estudio
del efecto de la conectividad sobre la provisión de servicios es un campo escasamente explorado
(Mitchell et al., in press).
Otro aspecto a investigar es la comparación entre resultados de la cartografía participativa de

servicios y la realizada con datos de gabinete. Si los resultados de las mismas resultan similares,
se validarían los resultados de las técnicas participativas, haciéndolas aún más atractivas para
lugares en los que las limitaciones de información o de tiempo impidan análisis más exhaustivos.
Otra futura línea de investigación es la comparación del suministro de servicios con variables
biofísicas y sociales. Esta comparación ya se ha realizado utilizando la biodiversidad como
variable, para buscar estrategias que maximicen la conservación de biodiversidad y servicios de
los ecosistemas al mismo tiempo (Turner et al., 2007). Pero la relación de otras variables como
altitud, litológica, temperatura, vegetación, o, densidad de población, intensidad de usos del
suelo, apenas han sido exploradas. Por último destacar la necesidad de investigación en el uso
sostenible de servicios (de forma que el uso no supere el suministro de los mismos), campo en el
que recientemente han aparecido algunos trabajos (Burkhard et al., 2012; Kroll et al., 2012).
281
Discusión
Referencias
Adger, W.N., Eakin, H., Winkels, A. 2009. M.A., 2007. Ecosystem-service science and
Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities the way forward for conservation.
to environmental change. Frontiers in Conservation Biology 21:1383–1384.
Ecology and the Environment 7:150–57.
Aronson, J., Pereira, J.S., Pausas, J.G. (eds).
Aguado, M., Calvo, D., Dessal, C., Riechman, J., 2009. Cork oak woodlands on the edge:
González, J.A., Montes, C. 2012. La ecology, adaptive management and
necesidad de repensar el bienestar restoration. Island Press, Washington DC.
humano en un mundo cambiante. Papeles
de relaciones ecosociales y cambio global Araújo, M.B. The coincidence of people and
119:49-76. biodiversity in Europe. 2003. Global
Ecology & Biogeography 12:5–12.
Aguilar Fernández, S. 2008. The legitimacy
problems in Spanish nature policy: The Azqueta, D. 2007. Introducción a la economía
case of Doñana. Pp. 83-100 in J. Keulartz ambiental. Mc-Graw Hill, España.
and G. Leistra, (eds.) Legitimacy in
European nature conservation policy: case Ban, N.C., Mills, M., Tam, J., et al. 2013. In
studies in multilevel governance. press. A social–ecological approach to
Springer, New York, New York, USA conservation planning: embedding social
considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and
Andam, K.S., Ferraro, P.J., Sims, K.R.E., Healy, the Environment Doi: 10.1890/110205.
A., Holland, M.B., 2010. Protected areas
reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Batisse, M. 1982. The biosphere reserve: a
Thailand. Proceedings of the National tool for environmental conservation and
Academy of Sciences of the United States management. Environmental
of America 107:9996–10001. Conservation 9:101-112.
Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E. 2004. Bennett, E., Peterson, G., Gordon, L. 2009.
A framework to analyze the robustness of Understanding relationships among
socialecological systems from an multiple ecosystem services. Ecology
institutional perspective. Ecology and Letters 12:1394–404.
Society 9(1):18.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. 2000.
Anderies, J.M., Rodriguez, A.A., Janssen, M.A., Rediscovery of traditional ecological
Cifdaloz, O. 2007. Panaceas, uncertainty, knowledge as adaptive management.
and the robust control framework in Ecological Applications 10(5):1251–1262.
sustainability science. Proceedings of the
National Acacdemy of Sciences of the Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2003.
United States of America 104(39):15194- Navigating Social–Ecological Systems:
15199. Building Resilience for Complexity and
Change. Cambridge University Press,
Anton, C., Young, J., Harrison, P.A., Musche, M., Cambridge.
et al. 2010. Research needs for
incorporating the ecosystem service Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., et al. 2012.
approach into EU biodiversity Toward principles for enhancing the
conservation policy. Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem services. Annual
Conservation 19(10):2979-2994. Review of Environment and Resources 37:
421–448.
Armsworth, P.R., Chan, K., Chan K.M.A., Daily,
G.C., Kremen, C., Ricketts, T.H., Sanjayan,
282
Blondel, J. 2006. The 'design' of demand and budgets. Ecological

Mediterranean landscapes: a millennial Indicators 21:17–29.
story of humans and ecological systems
during the historic period. Human Ecology Callicott, J.B. 2006. Explicit and implicit
34:713-729. values. Pp. 36–48 in The Endangered
Species Act at Thirty (Scott, J.M. et al.,
Blondel, J., Aronson, J., Bodiu, J.Y., Boeuf, G eds), Island Press
(eds). 2010. The Mediterranean region.
Biological diversity in space and time. Carabias, J., de la Maza, J., Cadena, R. 2003.
Oxford University Press Inc., New York. Capacidades necesarias pasa el manejo de
áreas protegidas. América Latina y el
Bolliger, J., Bättig, M., Gallati, J., Kläy, A., Caribe. The Nature Conservancy.
Stauffacher, M., Kienast, F. 2011.
Landscape multifunctionality: a powerful Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., et al.,
concept to identify effects of 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on
environmental change. Regional humanity. Nature 486:59-67.
Environmental Change 11:203–206.
Castro, A., García-Llorente, M., Martín-López,
Bodin O., Crona, B.I. 2009. The role of social B., Palomo, I., Iniesta-Arandia, I.
networks in natural resource governance: forthcoming. Multidimensional
What relational patterns make a approaches in ecosystem services
difference? Global Environmental Change assessment. In Several authors. Earth
19:366–74. Observation of Ecosystem Services. Taylor
& Francis.
Brandt, J., Vejre, H. 2004. Multifunctional
landscapes: theory, values and history. CBD, 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3.
WIT Press, Southampton. Montreal, Canada.
Brockington, D. 2002. Fortress Conservation: Chan, K.M.A., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R.,
The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Underwood, E.C., Daily, G.C. 2006.
Reserve, Tanzania. African Issues. Conservation planning for ecosystem
services. PLOS Biology 4:e379.
Brondizio, E.S., Ostrom, E., Young, O.R. 2009.
Connectivity and the governance of Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., Lysenko, I.
multilevel social-ecological systems: the 2005. Measuring the extent of protected
role of social capital. Annual Reviews areas as an indicator for meeting global
Environment and Resources 34:253–78. biodiversity targets. Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society of
Bugalho, M.N., Caldeira, M.C., Pereira, J.S., London B 360 (1454):443-455.
Aronson, J., Pausas, J.G. 2011.
Mediterranean cork oak savannas require Clark, W.C., Dickson, N.M., 2003.
human use to sustain biodiversity and Sustainability science: The emerging
ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology research program. Proceedings of the
and the Environment 9:278–286. National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 100:8059–8061.
Butchart, S.H.M, Walpole, M., Collen, B. et al.
2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of Coad, L., Burgess, N.D., Bombard, B.,
recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168. Besançon, C. 2009. Progress towards the
Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., and 2012 targets for protected area
2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, coverage. A technical report for the IUCN
international workshop ‘Looking at the
283
Discusión
Future of the CBD Programme of Work on De Young, B.M., Barange, G., Beaugrand, R.,
Protected Areas’, Jeju Islad, Republic of Harris, R.I., Perry, M. Scheffer, Werner, F.,
Korea, 14-17 September 2009. UNEP- 2008. Regime shifts in marine ecosystems:
WCMC, Cambridge. detection, prediction and management.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23:402–
Connell, J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical 409.
rainforests and coral reefs. Science
199:1302-1310. Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Stuart Chapin III, F.,
Tilman, D. 2006. Biodiversity Loss
Couto, S., Gutiérrez, J.E. 2012. Recognition Threatens Human Well-Being. PLoS
and Support of ICCAs in Spain. In: Kothari, Biology 4(8):e277.
A. with Corrigan, C., Jonas, H., Neumann,
A., Shrumm, H. (eds). Recognising and Duarte, C.M. (Coord.) 2009. Cambio Global.
Supporting Territories and Areas Impacto de la actividad humana sobre el
Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and sistema Tierra. CSIC, Madrid.
Local Communities: Global Overview and
National Case Studies. Secretariat of the Dudley, N. (Ed.) 2008. Guidelines for
Convention on Biological Diversity, ICCA Applying Protected Area Management
Consortium, Kalpavriksh, and Natural Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Justice, Montreal, Canada. Technical Series
no. 64. Ehrlich, P.R. 2002. Human natures, nature
conservation, and environmental ethics.
Crawford, S.E.S., Ostrom, E. 2005. A grammar BioScience 52:31-43.
of institutions. Pp. 137–174 In:
Understanding institutional diversity. Elmquist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson,
Ostrom, E. (ed.),. Princeton University G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B., Norberg, J.
Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem
change and resilience. Front Ecol Environ
Crépin, A., Biggs, R., Polasky, S., Troell, M., de 1:488–494
Zeeuw, A. 2012. Regime shifts and
management. Ecological Economics EME (Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del
847:15-22. Milenio de España), 2011. La Evaluación
de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de España.
De Groot, R., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Síntesis de resultados. Fundación
Willemen, L. 2010. Challenges in Biodiversidad. Ministerio de Medio
integrating the concept of ecosystem Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino.
services and values in landscape planning,
management and decision making. EEA (EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY)
Ecological Complexity 7(3):260272. 1999. European Landscapes.
Classification, Evaluation and
De Miguel, J.M. 1999. Naturaleza y Conservation. Environmental
configuración del paisaje Monographs, Copenhagen.
agrosilvopastoral en la conservación de la
diversidad biológica en España. Revista Espín-Piñar, R., Ortiz, E., Guzmán, J.R.,
Chilena de Historia Natural 72:547-557. Cabrera, J.D. 2010. Manual del acequiero.
Parques Nacional y Natural de Sierra
De Miguel, J.M., Gómez Sal, A. 2002. Nevada. Agencia Andaluza del Agua.
Diversidad y funcionalidad de los paisajes Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de
agrarios tradicionales. Pp: 273-284 En Andalucía. Sevilla.
Pineda, F.D., de Miguel, J.M., Casado, M.A.,
Montalvo, L. (Coords) La diversidad Europarc-España. 2008. Procedimiento para
biológica de España. Prentice Hall, Madrid. la asignación de las categorías
284
internacionales de manejo de áreas Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

protegidas de la UICN. Ed. Fundación 6:380–385.
Fernando González Bernáldez. Madrid.
Fischer, J., Dyball, B., Fazey, I., Gross, C.,
Europarc-España. 2009. Anuario 2009 del Dovers, S., Ehrlich, P.R., Brulle, R.J.,
estado de los espacios naturales Christensen, C., Borden, R.J. 2012. Human
protegidos. Ed. Fundación Fernando behavior and sustainability. Frontiers in
González Bernáldez. Madrid. Ecology and the Environment 10:153-160.
Europarc-España. 2012. Anuario 2011 del Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J.
estado de las áreas protegidas en España. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-
Ed. Fundación Fernando González ecological systems. Annual Reviews
Bernáldez. Madrid. Environment and Resources 30:441-473.
Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: The
España. 2011. La Evaluación de los ecology of landscapes and regions.
Ecosistemas del Milenio de España. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Síntesis de resultados. Fundación UK.
Biodiversidad. Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino. Fundación Doñana 21, 2004. El viñedo
tradicional en secano de Doñana, signo de
Ewers, R.M., Rodrigues, A.S.L. 2008. biodiversidad y paisaje vital.
Estimates of reserve effectiveness are
confounded by leakage. Trends in Ecology Gallardo Martín, D., González Bernáldez, F.
and Evolution 23(3):113-116. 1989. Determinación de los factores que
intervienen en las preferencias
Fernández, J. 1999. El hombre de los Picos de paisajísticas. Arbor: Ciencia, pensamiento
Europa. Organismo Autónomo de Parques y cultura 15-39.
Nacionales. Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente. Gallardo, A., Covelo, F., Morillas, L., Delgado,
M. 2009. Ciclos de nutrientes y procesos
Fernández-Escalante, A.E., García, M., edáficos en los ecosistemas terrestres:
Villarroya, F. 2006. Las acequias de careo, especificidades del caso mediterráneo y
un dispositivo pionero de recarga artificial sus implicaciones para las relaciones
de acuíferos en Sierra Nevada, España. suelo-planta. Ecosistemas 18(2):4-19.
Caracterización e inventario. Tecnología y
desarrollo. Revista de Ciencia, Tecnología García-Llorente, M. 2011. Visibilizándo los
y Medio Ambiente 4:1-33. vínculos entre naturaleza y sociedad.
Evaluación de servicios de los ecosistemas
Ferraro, P.J., Hanauer, M.M., Sims, K.R.E., desde las unidades suministradoras a los
2011. Conditions associated with beneficiarios. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad
protected area success in conservation Autónoma de Madrid.
and poverty reduction. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta-
United States of America 108:13913–8. Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C.A., Aguilera,
P.A., Montes, C. 2012. The role of multi-
Fisher, J., Brosi, B., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., functionality in social preferences toward
Goldman, R., Goldstein, J., Lindenmayer, semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem
D.B., Manning, A.D., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, service approach. Environmental Science
L., Ranganathan, J., Tallis, H. 2008. Should & Policy 19-20:136-146.
agricultural policies encourage land
sparing or wildlife-friendly farming?
285
Discusión
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta- Gómez Mendoza, J. (dir.), Mata Olmo, R., Sanz
Arandia, I., Willaarts, B., Mar Bayo, M., Herráiz, C., Galiana Martín, L., Manuel
Aguilera, P.A., Montes, C. Submitted. Key Valdés, C.M., Molina Holgado, P. 1999. Los
social-ecological processes behind paisajes de Madrid: Naturaleza y medio
ecosystem services management in semi- rural. Madrid, Alianza Editorial-Fundación
arid watersheds. Caja Madrid.
García, M.R., Montes, C. 2011. AN + 20. El Gómez Orea, D. 2001. Ordenación territorial.
desafío de la gestión de los espacios Edición Agrícola Española, S.A. Madrid.
naturales de Andalucía en un mundo
cambiante. Una cuestión de valores. Junta Gómez Sal., A. 2000. The variability of
de Andalucía. Sevilla. Mediterranean climate as an ecological
condition of livestock production systems.
García, S. 2010. Mecanismos financieros In: Livestock Production and climatic
innovadores para la conservación de la uncertainty in the Mediterranean. F.
biodiversidad. Ed. FUNGOBE. Madrid Guessous, N. Rihani y Iíham, A. (eds.).
EAAP publication Nº 94. Wageningen. Pp.
Gimmi, U., Schmidt, S.L., Hawbaker, T.J., 3-12.
Alcántara, C., Gafvert, U., Radeloff, V.C.
2011. Increasing development in the Gómez Sal, A. 2007. Componentes del valor
surroundings of U.S. National Park service del paisaje mediterráneo y el flujo de
holdings jeopardizes park effectiveness. servicios de los ecosistemas. Ecosistemas
Journal of Environmental Management 3:96-106.
92:229-239.
González Bernáldez, F. 1981. Ecología y
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Kelemen, E., Martín- paisaje. Blume, Madrid.
López, B., Palomo, I., Montes, C. 2013
(Accepted). Institutional diversity for González Bernáldez, F. 1992. La frutalización
ecosystem services governance across del paisaje mediterráneo. Pp 136-141 en
scales. Society & Natural Resources. VVAA. Paisaje Mediterráneo. Electa, Milán.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García, V., González Bernáldez, F. 1979. “El medio

Olsson, P., Montes, C. 2012. Traditional ambiente y las ciencias de la naturaleza”,
knowledge and community resilience to Necesidades científico-técnicas del medio
environmental extremes. A case study in ambiente, CIFCA, Madrid.
Doñana, SW Spain. Global Environmental
Change 22:40-650. Gordon, L.J., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M.
2008. Agricultural modifications of
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Mingorría, S., Reyes- hydrological flows create ecological
García, V., Calvet, L., Montes, C. 2010a. surprises. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Traditional ecological knowledge trends 23:211–19.
in the transition to a market economy:
Empirical study in Doñana natural areas. Grumbine, E. 1990. Protecting biological
Conservation Biology 24:721-729. diversity through the greater ecosystem
concept. Natural Areas Journal 10(3): 114-
Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, 120.
P.L., Montes, C. 2010b. The history of
ecosystem services in economic theory Gunderson, L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and
and practice: from early notions to adaptive management - antidotes for
markets and payment schemes. Ecological spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology
Economics 69:1209-1218. (1):7.
286
Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S. (eds) 2002. Joppa, L. N., Pfaff, A. 2009. High and Far:
Panarchy. Understanding transformation Biases in the Location of Protected Areas.
in human dominated systems. Island PloS One 4(12).
Press. Washington, D.C:
Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H., Maguire, L.
Hansen A.J., De Fries, R. 2007. Ecological 2009. Buying into conservation: intrinsic
mechanisms linking protected areas to versus instrumental value. Trends in
surrounding lands. Ecological Ecology & Evolution 24(4):187-191.
Applications 17(4):974-988.
Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., et al. 2001.
Hector, A., Bagchi, R. 2007. Biodiversity and Sustainability Science. Science
ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 292(5517):641-642
448:188–90.
Kroll, F., Müller, F., Haase, D., Fohrer, N.
Holdgate, M.W. 1994. Protected areas in the 2012. Rural-urban gradient analysis of
future: the implications of change, and the ecosystem services supply and demand
need for new policies. Biodiversity and dynamics. Land Use Policy 29:521-535.
Conservation 3:406-410.
Laliberté, E., Wells, J.A., DeClerck, F., et al.
Holland, J.H. 1995. Hidden Order: How 2010. Land use intensification reduces
Adaptation Builds Complexity. New York: functional redundancy and response
Helix Books (Addison Wesley). diversity in plant communities. Ecology
Letters 13:76-86.
Holling, C.S. 1973. "Resilience and stability of
ecological systems". Annual Review of Laliberté, E., Tylianakis, J.M. 2012. Cascading
Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23. effects of long-term land-use changes on
plant traits and ecosystem functioning.
Holling, C.S., Meffe, G.K. 1996. Command and Ecology 93:145-155.
Control and the Pathology of Natural
Resource Management. Conservation Lacasta Dutoit, C., Benitez, M., Maire, N.,
Biology 10(2):328-37. Meco, R. 2006. Las rotaciones de cultivos
en los agrosistemas de cereales y su
Ibáñez, J.J., Valero, B.L., Machado, C. (Eds.) influencia sobre diferentes parámetros
1997. El paisaje mediterráneo a través del bioquímicos. VII Congreso SEAE:
espacio y el tiempo. Implicaciones en la Agricultura y Alimentación Ecológica
desertificación, Geoforma, Logroño. 2006. Trabajo 152.
Iniesta-Arandia, I., García del Amo, D., García- Lebel, L., Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B., Folke,
Nieto, A., Piñeiro, C., Montes, C., Martín- C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T.P., Wilson,
López, B. Submitted. Factors influencing J. 2006. Governance and the Capacity to
local ecological knowledge maintenance Manage Resilience in Regional Social-
in Mediterranean watersheds: insights for Ecological Systems. Ecology & Society
conservation policies. 11(1):19.
Joppa, L.N., Loarie, S.R., Pimm, S.L. 2008. On LeHouerou, H.N. 2004. An agro-bioclimatic
the protection of “protected areas”. classification of arid and semiarid lands in
Proceedings of the National Academy of the isolimatic Mediterranean zones. Arid
Sciences of the United States of America Land Research and Management 18:301-
105: 6673–6678. 346.
287
Discusión
Levin, S.A. 1998. Ecosystems and the Martín-López, B., González, J.A., Díaz, S.,
Biosphere as Complex Adaptive Systems. Castro, I., García-Llorente, M. 2007.
Ecosystems 1:431-436. Biodiversidad y bienestar humano: el
papel de la diversidad funcional.
Lomas, P.L. 2009. Aportaciones de la síntesis Ecosistemas XVI, 3.
emergéticas a la evaluación multiescalar
del empleo de los servicios de los Martín-López, B. 2007. Bases socio-
ecosistemas a través de casos de estudio. ecológicas parta la valoración económica
Tesis Doctoral. Universidad Autónoma de de los servicios generados por la
Madrid. biodiversidad: implicaciones en las
políticas de conservación. Tesis doctoral.
Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., Walters, C. 1993. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Uncertainty, resource exploitation and
conservation: lessons from history. Martín-López B., Montes, C., Ramírez, L.,
Science 260:1736. Benayas, J. 2009. What drives policy
decision-making related to species
Ludwig, D. 2001. The era of management is conservation? Biological Conservation
over. Ecosystems 4(8):758-764. 142:1370-1380.
MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Palomo,

Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well- I., Montes, C. 2011. The conservation
Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC. against development paradigm in
protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem
MA, 2005b. Ecosystems and Human Well- services in the Doñana social–ecological
Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. system (southwestern Spain). Ecological
World Resources Institute, Washington, Economics 70:1481–1491.
DC.
Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-
Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L. 2000. Systematic Llorente, M., et al. 2012. Uncovering
Conservation Planning. Nature 405:243- Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social
253 Preferences. PloS one 7: e38970.
Martínez Alandi, C. 2006. Paisajes reticulados Martín-López, B., González, J.A., Vilardy, S.P.,
y conectividad en ambiente mediterráneo. Montes, C., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I.,
Tesis Doctoral. Departamento Aguado, M. 2013. Ciencias de la
Interuniversitario de Ecología. Sostenibilidad: Guía Docente. Instituto
Universidad Alcalá. Alcalá de Henares, Humboldt, Universidad del Magdalena,
Madrid, España. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Bogotá,
Madrid. (ISBN: 978-84-695-4527-0)
Martínez Alier, J. 1999. Introducción a la
economía ecológica. Rubes, España. Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M. 2013.
The relative cost of saving species. En:
Martínez-Harms, M. J., Balvanera, P. 2012. Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia
Methods for mapping ecosystem service Extinction, pp:857-866. Gale Cengage,
supply: a review. International Journal of USA. (ISBN: 978-1414490670)
Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services
& Management 8:17-25. Mata, R., Sanz, C. (dirs.) 2004. Atlas de los
Paisajes de España. Madrid, Ministerio de
Martínez de Pisón, E. 1983. Cultura y ciencia Medio Ambiente.
del paisaje. Agricultura y sociedad 27:9-
32. Mata, R. 2006:“Un concepto de paisaje para la
gestión sostenible del territorio”, en Mata
288
Olmo, R. y Tarroja, A. (2006): El paisaje y Mulero, A., Garzón, R. 2005. Espacios

la gestión del territorio. Criterios naturales protegidos y desarrollo rural en
paisajísticos en la ordenación del España: los planes de desarrollo
territorio y el urbanismo, Barcelona, sostenible. Eria 68:315-330.
Diputació de Barcelona- CUIMP, pp. 17-40.
Muñoz Jiménez, J. 1992. Perspectiva
McNeely, J.A. 1994. Protected areas for the ambiental e integración disciplinar en
21st century: working to provide benefits geografía. Boletín de la Asociación de
to society. Biodiversity and conservation Geógrafos Españoles 14:1-6.
3:390‐405.
Muradian, R. In press. Payments for
Medail, F., Quézel, P. 1999. Biodiversity ecosystem services and the fatal attraction
Hotspots in the Mediterranean Basin: of win-win solutions. Conservation
Setting Global Conservation Priorities. Letters. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-
Conservation Biology 13(6):1510-1513. 263X.2012.00309.x
Méndez, P.F., Isendahl, N., Amezaga, J.M., Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented
Santamaria, L. 2012. Facilitating forests: implications for conservation.
Transitional Processes in Rigid Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Institutional Regimes for Water 10(2):52- 62.
Management and Wetland Conservation:
Experience from the Guadalquivir Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G.,
Estuary. Ecology and Society 17(1):26. da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J. 2000.
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation
Menzel, S., Buchecker, M. 2013. Does priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.
Participatory Planning Foster the
Transformation Toward More Adaptive Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., McClain, M.E. 2005.
Social-Ecological Systems? Ecology & Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and
Society 18(1):13. Management of Streamside Communities.
San Diego, CA: Elsevier
Mitchell, M.G.E., Bennett, E.M., Gonzalez, A. In
press. Linking Landscape Connectivity and Naval, J.L. 2004. Los Corrales de Pesquería.
Ecosystem Service Provision: Current Junta de Andalucia, Consejería de
Knowledge and Research Gaps. Relaciones Institucionales y Autoridad
Ecosystems. Portuaria de Sevilla.
Montalvo, J., Casado, M.A., Levassor, C., Naveh, Z. 2001. Ten major premises for a
Pineda, F.D. 1993. Species diversity holistic conception of mutlifunctional
patterns in Mediterranean grasslands. landscapes. Landscape and Urban
Journal of Vegetation Science 4(2):213– Planning, 57:269–284.
222.
Norgaard, R.B., Baer, P. 2005. Collectively
Mooney, H.A., Duraiappah, A., Larigauderie, A. seeing complex systems: the nature of the
2013. Evolution of natural and social problem. BioScience 55:953–60.
science interactions in global change
research programs. Proceedings of the North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, institutional
National Academy of Sciences change and economic performance.
110(1):3665-3672. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Moreno, J. M., Oechel, W.C. 1994. The role of
fire in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Ojeda J. F. 1986. Protéction ou développment.
Springer-Verlag, New York, USA. La creation et l'abuse d'un faux dilemme
289
Discusión
relative au P.N. Doñana et de sa región. Pp. interdisciplinary and participatory

275-279 in L'Harmattan, editor. Du rural à framework. GAIA 21:185-193.
l'environnement. XII Colloque National de
lÁssociation des Ruralistes Français Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López-Santiago,
(A.R.F.), Paris, France C., Montes, C. 2011. Participatory Scenario
Planning for Protected Areas Management
Ojeda, J. F. 1999. Espacios naturales under the Ecosystem Services
protegidos y desarrollo sostenible. Pages Framework: the Doñana Social-Ecological
273-286 in Federación de espacios System in Southwestern Spain. Ecology
naturales protegidos de Andalucía: and Society 16, 23.
Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles.
Geografía y espacios naturales protegidos, Palomo, I., Martin-López, B., López-Santiago,
Sevilla, Spain. C., Montes, C. 2012. El sistema socio-
ecológico de Doñana ante el cambio
Ojeda , F. 2001. El fuego como factor clave en global: planificación de escenarios de eco-
la evolución de plantas mediterráneas. futuro. Fundación Fernando González
Pages 319-349 in R. Zamora and F. I. Bernáldez. Madrid. ISBN: 978-84-937702-
Pugnaire, editors. Ecosistemas 8-0.
Mediterráneos: Análisis funcional. Textos
universitarios, nº 32, CSIC/AEET, Madrid, Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Potschin, M.,
Spain. Haines-Young, R., Montes, C. 2013a.
National Parks, buffer zones and
Olsson, P., Folke, C. 2001. Local ecological surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem
knowledge an institutional dynamics for service flows. Ecosystem Services.
ecosystem management: A study of lake
Racken watershed. Ecosystems 4:85-104. Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Zorrilla-Miras, P.,
García-Amo, D., Montes, C. 2013b.
Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional Deliberative mapping of ecosystem
diversity. Princeton University Press. services within and around Doñana
National Park (SW Spain) in relation to
Ostrom, E., Janssen , M.A., Anderies, J.M. 2007. land use change. Regional Environmental
Going beyond Panaceas. Proceedings of Change. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-013-0488-
the National Academy of Sciences 5.
104(39):15176-15178.
Parrot, L., Meyer, W.S. 2012. Future
Oteros-Rozas, E., González, J.A., Martín-López, landscapes: managing within complexity.
B., López, C.A., Montes, C. 2012a. Frontiers in Ecology and the environment
Ecosystem services and social-ecological 10:382-389.
resilience in trashumance cultural
landscapes: learning from the past, Peloquin, C., Berkes, F. 2009. Local
loooking for a future. Pages 242-260 in: Knowledge, subsistence harvest, and
Plieninger, T., Bieling, M. (eds) Resilience social-ecological complexity in James Bay.
and the cultural landscape. Understanding Human Ecology 37:533-545.
and managing change in human-shaped
environments. Cambridge University Peterson, G.D., Allen, C.R., Holling, C.S. 1998.
Press, UK. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and
scale. Ecosystems 1:6–18.
Oteros-Rozas, E., González, J.A., Martín-López,
B., López, C.A., Zorrilla-Miras, P., Montes, Peterson, G.D., Cumming, G.S., Carpenter, S.R.
C. 2012b. Evaluating ecosystem services 2003. Scenario Planning: a tool for
in transhumance cultural landscapes. An conservation in an uncertain world.
Conservation Biology 17(2):358-366.
290
Pineda, F.D., Montalvo, J. 1995. Dehesa Públicas y Transportes. Sevilla: Consejería

systems in western mediterranean. de Obras Públicas y Transportes, 2007.
Biological diversity in traditional land use
systems. En: Halladay, P., Gilmour, D.A. POTAD, 2003. Plan de Ordenacion del
(eds). Conserving biodiversity outside territorio del ambito de Donana.
protected areas. The role of traditional Consejeria de obras publicas y
agro-ecosystems. UICN, Forest transportes. Secretaria general de
Conservation Programme, Gland:107-122. ordenación del territorio y urbanismo.
Junat de Andalucia.
Pineda, F.D., De Miguel, J.M., Casado, M.A.
Montalvo, J. (Eds.) Halffter, G. (Coord.). Price, M.F. 1996. People in biosphere
2002. “La Diversidad Biológica de reserves: An evolving concept. Society &
España”, La Diversidad Biológica de Natural Resources 9(6):645-654.
Iberoamérica, Vol. IV. CITED, Prentice
Hall, Madrid. Pulido-Bosch, A., Ben Sbih, Y. 1995. Centuries
of artificial recharge on the southern edge
Pineda, F.D. 2007. Conservación del paisaje of the Sierra Nevada (Granada, Spain).
mediterráneo. Contexto actual y Environmental Geology 26:57–63.
perspectivas. En: Fundación Santander
Central Hispano (eds.). El paisaje Ramalho, C.E., Hobbs, R.J. 2012. Time for a
mediterráneo. Opciones de change: dynamic urban ecology. Trends in
multifuncionalidad. Cuadernos de Ecology & Evolution 27(3): 179–188.
Sostenibilidad y Patrimonio Natural 11.
Fundación Santander Central Hispano. Rands, M.R.W., Adams, W.M., Bennun, L.,
Madrid: 101-112. Butchart, S.H.M., Clements, A., Coomes, D.,
Entwistle, A., Hodge, I., Kapos, V.,
Pineda, F.D, Schmitz, M.F. (coords) 2011. Scharlemann, J.P.W., Sutherland, W.J., Vira,
Conectividad ecológica territorial. Estudio B. 2010. Biodiversity Conservation:
de casos de conectividad ecológica y Challenges Beyond 2010. Science
socio-ecológica. OAPN. Ministerio de 239:1298-1303
Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino.
Reed, M.S. 2008. Stakeholder participation
Plieninger, T., Bieling, M. 2012a. Connecting for environmental management: A
cultural landscapes to resilience. In: literature review. Biological Conservation
Plieninger, T., Bieling, M. (eds.) Resilience 141:2417-2431.
and the cultural landscape. Understanding
and managing change in human-shaped Roberts, C.M., Bohnsack, J.A., Gell, F.,
environments. Cambridge University Hawkins, J.P., Goodridge, R. 2001. Effects
Press, UK. of Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries.
Science 294(5548):1920-1923.
Plieninger, T., Bieling, M. 2012b. Resilience
and cultural landscapes: opportunities, Rico García-Amado, L., Ruiz Pérez, M.,
relevance and ways ahead. In: Plieninger, Barrasa García, S. 2013. Motivation for
T., Bieling, M. (eds.) Resilience and the conservation: Assessing integrated
cultural landscape. Understanding and conservation and development projects
managing change in human-shaped and payments for environmental services
environments. Cambridge University in La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve,
Press, UK. Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics
89:92-100.
POTA. Plan de Ordenación del Territorio de
Andalucía: Decreto 206/2006, de 28 de Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson,
noviembre de 2006/Consejería de Obras Å,. Chapin, F. S., et al. 2009. A safe
291
Discusión
operating space for humanity. Nature Schneiders, A., Van Daele, T., Van Landuyt, W.,
461:472-475. Van Reeth, W., 2012. Biodiversity and
ecosystem services: Complementary
Rodríguez, A., Yáñez, C., Gascó, C., Clemente, approaches for ecosystem management?
L., Antón, M.P. 2005. Colmatación natural Ecological Indicators 21:123–133.
y antrópica de las marismas del Parque
Nacional de Doñana: implicaciones para Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F.V.,
su manejo y conservación. Cuaternario y Lautenbach, S., Schmidt, S. 2011. A
Geomorfología 19:37-48. quantitative review of ecosystem service
studies: approaches, shortcomings and
Rodríguez-Vaquero, J.E. 2007. Clasificación e the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology
ilustración de los paisajes hidráulicos de 48(3):630-636.
la Cuenca del rio Andarax y los campos de
Nijar (Almería). Nimbus 19-20:215-232. Syrbe, R.-U., Walz, U. 2012. Spatial indicators
for the assessment of ecosystem services:
Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D. 2012. Integrated Providing, benefiting and connecting
networks. A territorial planning proposal areas and landscape metrics. Ecological
for biodiversity conservation in urban, Indicators 21:80–88.
densely populated regions. The case of the
Autonomous Region of Madrid, Spain. Tamames, R. 2007. El futuro del paisaje
Journal of Environmental Planning and mediterráneo. Pp: 101-112En: Fundación
Management 55(5): 667-683. Santander Central Hispano (eds.). El
paisaje mediterráneo. Opciones de
Roux, D.J., Rogers, H.C., Biggs, H.C.. Ashton, multifuncionalidad. Cuadernos de
P.J., Sergeant, A. 2006. Bridging the Sostenibilidad y Patrimonio Natural 11.
science– management divide: moving Fundación Santander Central Hispano.
from unidirectional knowledge transfer to Madrid.
knowledge interfacing and sharing.
Ecology & Society 11(1):4. Tengö, M., Belfrage. K. 2004. Local
management practices for dealing with
Ruiz, M. 1986. Sustainable food and energy change and uncertainty: a cross-scale
production in the Spanish Dehesa. The comparison of cases in Sweden and
food Energy Nexus Programme, UNU, The Tanzania. Ecology and Society 9(3):4.
United Nations University, FEN
Res.Reports. Thompson, J. D. 2005. Plant evolution in the
Mediterranean. Oxford University Press,
Saunders, D.L., Meeuwig, J.J., Vincent, A. C.J., Oxford, UK.
2002. Freshwater Protected Areas:
Strategies for Conservation. Conservation Toledo, V.M., 2000. Antropología y Ecología:
Biology 16:30–41. historia de un romance. Revista CUHSO, 7:
55-62.
Sánchez-Peréz Moneo, L. 2010. Informe sobre
el grado de cumplimiento del Plan de Tolón, A., Lastra, X., 2008. Los espacios
Acción de Madrid (2008-2013) por parte naturales protegidos. Concepto, evolución
de las Reservas de Biosfera españolas en y situación actual en España. M+A. Revista
su período intermedio 2010. Electrónic@ de Medioambiente 5:1-25.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S.R., Foley, J., Folke, C., Turner, W.R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T.M.,
Walker, B.H. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in Costanza, R., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Portela, R.,
ecosystems. Nature 413:591–96. 2007. Global Conservation of Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services. BioScience
57:868–873.
292
Turner II, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., conservation. Conservation Biology
et al. 2003. A framework for vulnerability 21:48–58.
analysis in sustainability science.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Wunder, S. In press. When payments for
Sciences of the United States of America environmental services will work for
100(14):8074-8079. conservation. In Press. Conservation
Letters. doi: 10.1111/conl.12034.
UNESCO, 2008a. Operational guidelines for
the implementation of the World Heritage Zorrilla-Miras, P., Palomo, I., Gómez-
Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Baggethum, E., Martín-López, B., Lomas,
Heritage Centre. P.L., Montes, C. Submitted. Effects of land-
use change on wetland ecosystem
UNESCO, 2008b. Plan de Acción de Madrid services: A case study in the Doñana
para las Reservas de la Biosfera (2008- Natural Areas marshes, SW Spain.
2013). UNESCO / Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino.
van Nes, E.H., Scheffer, M. 2005. Implications

of spatial heterogeneity for catastrophic
regime shifts in ecosystems. Ecology
86:1797–807.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R.

Kinzig, A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability
and transformability in social–ecological
systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5.
West, P., Igoe, J., Brockington, D. 2006. Parks

and peoples: the social impact of
protected areas. Annual Review of
Anthropology 35:251-277.
Wilkie, D.S., Morelli, G.A., Demmer, J., Starkey,

M., Telfer, P., Steil, M. 2006. Parks and
people: Assessing the human welfare
effects of stablishing protected areas for
biodiversity conservation. Conservation
Biology 20:247-249.
Williamson, O. 2000. The new institutional

economics: Taking stock, looking ahead.
Journal of Economic Literature 38:595-
613.
Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg, J.R. 1998. Edge

effects and the extinction of populations
inside protected areas. Science 280:2126-
2128.
Wunder, S. 2007. The efficiency of payments

for environmental services in tropical
293
Capítulo 6 Conclusiones generales
6. Conclusiones generales
Conclusiones generales
1. Los cambios de usos del suelo provocan una pérdida de biodiversidad y de servicios de los
ecosistemas y, por tanto, de bienestar humano. Las diferentes aproximaciones a la ordenación del
territorio que existen en la actualidad no incorporan un marco integrador ni tienen la
complejidad necesaria para frenar este deterioro y mantener la resiliencia de los paisajes
culturales mediterráneos. Por ello, resulta necesario generar nuevos marcos conceptuales y
metodológicos que incorporen los procesos socio-ecológicos característicos de los ecosistemas
mediterráneos.
2. Un análisis crítico basado en la experiencia adquirida y una revisión profunda sobre las áreas
protegidas ha permitido analizar la evolución del concepto de área protegida como el principal
instrumento de conservación. La evolución se sintetiza en tres etapas: (i) las áreas protegidas
“isla”, (ii) las áreas protegidas “en red” y (iii) la “aproximación del paisaje” a las áreas protegidas.
Actualmente, el Antropoceno impone nuevos desafíos a las áreas protegidas que hacen necesaria
la evolución del concepto para integrarlo dentro de los sistemas socio-ecológicos. Por ello, se
requiere el paso de un modelo de áreas protegidas como fin en sí mismo a un modelo de áreas
protegidas integradas en el territorio a través del objetivo de la conservación para el bienestar
humano.
3. Las principales limitaciones de las áreas protegidas, tales como su falta de apoyo social por
parte de las poblaciones locales, su sesgo hacia lugares elevados y remotos y el aislamiento
debido a la transformación de usos del suelo de su entorno, se pueden solucionar mediante la
aplicación del marco de los sistemas socio-ecológicos y los servicios de los ecosistemas a la
ordenación del territorio. Este marco permite además, centrar la ordenación del territorio en la
gestión de los trade-offs y sinergias de servicios, aportando a la misma un carácter integrador y
holístico.
4. La revisión sistemática de la cartografía de servicios ha permitido mostrar el estado de la

cuestión de esta área emergente de investigación. Ante la multitud de formas de cartografiar los
servicios, es necesario un proceso de sistematización de la información necesaria para la
cartografía y un cuestionamiento de nuevos retos académicos. Para abordar los actuales vacíos de
información de cartografía de los servicios de los ecosistemas es necesario avanzar más allá de la
cartografía de las unidades suministradoras de servicios, incorporando la dimensión social del
concepto a través de la cartografía de la demanda de servicios y la cartografía deliberativa.
5. Los mapas de flujos de servicios (i.e., desde el suministro de servicios hacia la demanda de
los mismos) muestran la existencia de tramas socio-ecológicas que vinculan las unidades
suministradoras de servicios del interior de las áreas protegidas con los beneficiarios de las
mismas ubicados fuera de los límites de las mismas. Estos flujos ayudan, por tanto, a romper la
297
Conclusiones generales
concepción de los límites de las áreas protegidas como una barrera impermeable para la gestión
del territorio. De hecho, la mayoría de los problemas a los que se enfrentan los Espacios Naturales
de Doñana (END) y Sierra Nevada (ENSN) -especialmente Doñana- se originan fuera de los límites
de éstos.
6. La cartografía deliberativa de servicios por parte de gestores e investigadores constituye una

metodología que permite una primera evaluación espacial del suministro y la demanda de
servicios, mostrando los flujos de los mismos. Asimismo, este tipo de cartografía aporta
información relevante para la toma de decisiones al localizar áreas prioritarias para la
preservación de un flujo variado de servicios y para la restauración de la capacidad de los
ecosistemas de suministrar servicios.
7. El análisis de la transformación de usos del suelo permite evaluar en parte la eficacia de las
áreas protegidas. La creación del END ha permitido evitar las transformaciones dentro de sus
límites. Sin embargo, la dualidad de usos del suelo entre el exterior del END (usos agrícolas y
urbanos) y el interior (humedal, bosque, matorral) crea una dualidad en el suministro de
servicios (alimento de la agricultura en el exterior y resto de servicios en el interior),
comprometiendo la capacidad de los ecosistemas del interior del END de suministrar un flujo
variado de servicios a largo plazo por los efectos de borde. Por tanto, es necesario analizar el
efecto de los cambios de usos del suelo a diferentes escalas espaciales, desde lo local (i.e., área
protegida) hasta la escala espacial de cuenca hidrográfica.
8. Puesto que los cambios de usos del suelo emergen de la historia socio-ecológica, el análisis
multi-escalar de este impulsor de cambio debe ser explorado incorporando la dimensión
temporal. El estudio de documentos y mapas históricos permite reconstruir la historia del efecto
de los impulsores indirectos de cambio y su papel en la intensificación de los cambios de usos del
suelo. La reconstrucción histórica de los cambios de usos del suelo permite entender los procesos
subyacentes en la simplificación del flujo de los servicios de los ecosistemas disfrutados por la
población.
9. Ante la transformación de los hábitats, la respuesta institucional principal ha sido la creación

de áreas protegidas, las cuales se gestionan siguiendo un esquema de zonificación. Sin embargo, la
zonificación del END y ENSN ha limitado en parte los procesos socio-ecológicos que han
moldeado los paisajes culturales mediterráneos con consecuencias negativas sobre la diversidad
de los servicios de los ecosistemas, afectando principalmente a aquellos disfrutados por los
actores sociales locales. Queda por tanto manifiesta la necesidad de incorporar los procesos socio-
ecológicos a la gestión de las áreas protegidas para no limitar el flujo de servicios.
10. Para incorporar la complejidad característica de los sistemas socio-ecológicos, es necesario

trabajar desde la dimensión social (usando entrevistas, encuestas y talleres participativos) con el
298
objetivo de obtener una perspectiva integradora de las tramas socio-ecológicas asociadas a las
áreas protegidas. En Doñana los muestreos sociales participativos confirman la existencia de dos
Doñanas enfrentadas debido a la dualidad de los objetivos de ordenación territorial que
persiguen: conservación dentro del END y desarrollo económico fuera de sus límites.
11. Ante la existencia de realidades enfrentadas (conservación y desarrollo) resulta necesario

emplear nuevas metodologías para acercar estas dos realidades. La planificación participativa de
escenarios de futuro permite incorporar la incertidumbre y la complejidad inherentes a la
ordenación territorial en la actualidad, y mostrar caminos para superar la dualidad territorial. Las
principales recomendaciones de gestión del backasting para Doñana son la creación de planes de
gestión consensuados, la gestión a escala de cuenca hidrográfica y una mayor educación
ambiental.
12. Los resultados de la tesis permiten avanzar en una nueva aproximación a las áreas
protegidas y al territorio basada en las Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad. La planificación socio-
ecológica permitiría el mantenimiento de la resiliencia de los sistemas socio-ecológicos siguiendo
tres premisas: (i) mantenimiento de la diversidad (biodiversidad, diversidad funcional y
diversidad institucional), (ii) mantenimiento de la conectividad (ecológica y social) y (iii)
mantenimiento de las variables lentas (servicios de regulación y procesos de retro-alimentación,
y conocimiento ecológico local y científico).
299
General conclusions
General conclusions
1. Land use changes undermine biodiversity and ecosystem services affecting human well-
being. The different landscape planning approaches that currently exist are not integrative
enough and do not incorporate the complexity of the landscape to maintain successfully the
resilience of the Mediterranean cultural landscapes. Therefore new conceptual and
methodological frameworks that incorporate the social-ecological processes of Mediterranean
ecosystems are needed.
2. An in depth literature review and experience in the topic, are the basis of a critical analysis of
the evolution of the main conservation concept, protected areas, which shows three stages: (i)
protected areas as “islands”, (ii) protected area “networks”, and (iii) the “landscape approach” to
protected areas. Anthropocene poses new challenges on protected areas conservation demanding
the evolution of the concept to integrate it into social-ecological systems. Therefore, it is needed
to change from designing protected areas as ends in themselves to protected areas fully
integrated in the landscape due to their capacity to maintain human well-being.
3. The application of the ecosystem services framework provides several insights to address
the main protected areas limitations such as their lack of local social support, their bias towards
high and remote places and their isolation due to the transformation of their surroundings.
Moreover, it allows focusing landscape planning in ecosystem services trade-offs and bundles,
providing an integrative and holistic framework.
4. A systematic literature review of ecosystem service mapping studies allows understanding

the state of the art of the discipline. Given the current diversity of ecosystem service mapping
studies, a blueprint to classify current information and the questioning of current knowledge
needs are needed. To overcome knowledge gaps, we need to go further than mapping ecosystem
service supply and to incorporate the social side of ecosystem services by mapping the demand
and using deliberative mapping processes.
5. Ecosystem service flow maps (including service providing units and service benefiting areas)
show the existence of socio-ecological weaves linking service delivery within the protected areas
with ecosystem service beneficiaries located beyond the limits of protected areas. The ecosystem
service flow maps allow shifting from the concept of protected area boundaries as non-permeable
barriers. In fact, the main problems that the protected areas of Sierra Nevada and specially
Doñana face are originated outside the boundaries of the protected areas.
6. Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services by researchers and policy makers allows a first
step approach to map ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem service maps allow the identification of
300
priority areas for conservation and restoration. Results from this deliberative approach match
with non-participatory approaches.
7. Land use transformation analysis allows a partial evaluation of protected area efficiency.
Doñana protected area has avoided land use transformation within its limits. However the
dichotomy of land uses in the Doñana Social-ecological system (farming and urban areas outside
the protected area and wetland, forests and scrublands within it) creates a duality in ecosystem
service delivery (food from agriculture outside the protected area and the remainder of the
services within it), which threatens the long term delivery of services within the protected area
due to border effects. Therefore it is needed to analyze land use changes effects on several spatial
scales ranging from local (i.e. protected area) to the watershed scale.
8. As land use changes are the result of socio-ecological history, multi-scale analysis of this
driver of change needs the temporal dimension. Historical documents and maps analysis allow
describing the drivers of change and land use changes that happen in a certain landscape. The
historical analysis of land use changes allow understanding the process driving the simplification
of ecosystem services enjoyed by society.
9. The main conservation response to habitats transformation has been the designation of
protected areas, which are managed with a zoning scheme. However, in the Doñana and Sierra
Nevada protected areas, zoning has limited the social-ecological processes that have shaped the
Mediterranean cultural landscapes affecting ecosystem services diversity and local ecosystem
service beneficiaries. Therefore it is needed to incorporate social-ecological processes into
protected area management to maintain a diversity of services.
10. To incorporate the complexity of social-ecological systems we need to work including the
social dimension (using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews) to obtain an integrative
perspective of social-ecological weaves associated to protected areas. In Doñana, participative
social sampling confirms the existence of two confronted Doñanas given the opposed
management aims they pursue: conservation within the protected area limits and economic
development outside them.
11. Given the existence of two opposite trends (conservation and development), new tools are
needed to bring these closer. Participatory scenario planning allows the incorporation of
uncertainty and complexity of landscape planning and proposes future paths to overcome this
landscape duality. In Doñana the main recommendations from the scenario and backasting
process are to create consensual management plans, to manage the land at a watershed scale and
to promote environmental education.
301
General conclusions
12. The results of this thesis provide a major step in the application of Sustainability Science to
protected areas and landscape management. A social-ecological approach to landscape
management would allow the maintenance of resilience of social-ecological systems fostering: (i)
diversity (biodiversity, functional diversity and institutional diversity), (ii) connectivity
(ecological and social) and (iii) slow variables (regulating services and feed-backs and local
ecological and scientific knowledge).
302
Glosario de términos
Actores sociales: Personas u organizaciones que pueden afectar o verse afectados por la
gestión de los servicios de los ecosistemas (Martín-López et al., 2013).
Antropoceno: Nombre de la edad “geológica” actual utilizado para destacar el gran impacto de
las actividades humanas en los ecosistemas (Crutzen, 2002).
Bienestar humano: libertad de los individuos para poder vivir el tipo de vida que valoran en
función de cinco componentes: (1) la seguridad y estabilidad para la vida, (2) la salud física y
mental, (3) las relaciones sociales, (4) los bienes materiales básicos para vivir -alimento/agua,
vivienda y vestimenta-, y (5) la posibilidad de elegir las vías de obtención de las cuatro variables
precedentes en función de los deseos y necesidades individuales (MA, 2005). También ha sido
definido cómo el estado de una persona en el que, una vez son cubiertos los requerimientos
materiales más esenciales que conducen al buen funcionamiento de su actividad somática y
psíquica, se alcanza una vida buena, tranquila, decente y lograda sin sobrepasar en el empeño los
límites biofísicos de los ecosistemas (EME, 2011).
Cambios de estado (regime shifts): son reorganizaciones de magnitud considerable en la

estructura, las funciones y los feed-backs en un sistema (Scheffer et al., 2001; Walker et al., 2004).
Capital natural: Todo stock que genera un flujo de servicios útiles o renta natural a lo largo del
tiempo (Costanza y Daly, 1992; Gómez-Baggethun y de Groot, 2007). Recientemente también se
ha definido como aquellos ecosistemas con integridad ecológica y aptitud para lidiar con las
perturbaciones y por tanto, con capacidad de generar un flujo de servicios al ser humano (Martín-
López et al., 2009).
Caracteres de respuesta: aquellos que determinan la respuesta de una especie a un factor

ambiental, incluyendo recursos, condiciones climáticas y perturbaciones (Martín-López et al.,
2007).
Conocimiento ecológico tradicional o local: un cuerpo acumulativo de conocimiento,

prácticas y creencias, que evoluciona por procesos adaptativos, transmitido culturalmente a
través de generaciones y que trata sobre la relación de los seres vivos entre sí y con su medio
ambiente (Berkes et al., 2000).
Demanda de servicios: Suma de los servicios de los ecosistemas disfrutados en una zona
determinada (Burkhard et al., 2012).
303
Diversidad funcional: el rango, el valor y la abundancia relativa de los caracteres funcionales

de una comunidad dada; donde los caracteres son los rasgos morfológicos, fisiológicos,
fenológicos o de comportamiento de un organismo relacionados con el papel funcional del mismo
en el ecosistema (Díaz, et al., 2006).
Feed-backs o procesos de retroalimentación: son una característica de los sistemas

complejos adaptativos que consiste en un funcionamiento retroactivo de determinadas variables
(Holling, 1973).
Gestión adaptativa: modelo de gestión integrador y multidisciplinar para afrontar la

incertidumbre que incluye un aprendizaje activo ante los cambios constantes de los sistemas
gestionados (Gunderson, 1999).
Impulsores directos de cambio: factores inducidos por los seres humanos que actúan
directamente sobre los procesos biofísicos de los ecosistemas afectando a los ecosistemas y su
flujo de servicios. Los principales impulsores directos de cambio son: cambios en los usos del
suelo, cambio climático, contaminación, alteración de los ciclos biogeoquímicos y especies
exóticas invasoras (EME, 2011).
Impulsores indirectos de cambio: factores y procesos sociopolíticos que actúan de un modo

difuso alterando los ecosistemas a través de su acción sobre uno o más impulsores directos de
cambio. Los principales son los impulsores demográficos, económicos, sociopolíticos, género,
ciencia y tecnología y culturales (EME, 2011).
Instituciones: el conjunto de reglas, normas y convenciones que regulan la interacción entre

individuos y grupos sociales, así como entre éstos y los ecosistemas (Crawford y Ostrom, 2005).
Planificación socio-ecológica: Aquella que conceptualizando el territorio como un socio-

ecosistema ordena espacialmente las tramas socio-ecológicas para alcanzar un bienestar humano
que no comprometa los límites biofísicos de los ecosistemas del territorio.
Resiliencia: Capacidad de un sistema de lidiar con las perturbaciones sin colapsar, es decir, sin
cambiar a un estado no deseado (EME, 2011).
Redundancia funcional: se refiere a que varias especies pueden contribuir de forma similar a
una función del ecosistema (Laliberté et al., 2010).
Servicios de los ecosistemas: las contribuciones directas e indirectas de los ecosistemas al

bienestar humano (EME, 2011).
304
Sistemas complejos adaptativos: aquellos que constan de múltiples elementos que

interactúan entre sí creando propiedades emergentes y en los que existen procesos de
retroalimentación, haciendo que la no linealidad y la incertidumbre sean propiedades básicas del
sistema (Holland, 1995; Levin, 1998).
Sistema socio-ecológico o socio-ecosistema: son sistemas complejos adaptativos formados

por el acoplamiento de sistemas sociales en los sistemas naturales (Liu et al., 2007; Martín-López
et al., 2013).
Suministro de servicios: Capacidad de una zona determinada para generar servicios de los
ecosistemas (Burkhard et al., 2012).
Valores instrumentales: Aquellos referidos a la utilidad que le otorgamos a los ecosistemas y

su biodiversidad por su capacidad de proporcionar bienestar humano.
Valores intrínsecos: Aquellos que son inherentes, e independientes de si son utilizados o no

por el ser humano. Se asocian con la dimensión ética de la conservación (Callicott, 2006; Martín-
López y García-Llorente, 2013).
Trama socio-ecológica (social-ecological weaves): conjunto de interacciones entre los

sistemas ecológicos y sociales que tienen lugar en el territorio.
Referencias
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery Crutzen, P.J. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature
of traditional ecological knowledge as 415:23.
adaptive management. Ecological Applications
10(5):1251–1262 Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Stuart Chapin III, F., Tilman,
D. 2006. Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F. 2012. Well-Being. PLoS Biol 4(8):e277
Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand
and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21:17–29 Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de
España (EME). 2011. La Evaluación de los
Callicott, J.B. 2006. Explicit and implicit values. En Ecosistemas del Milenio de España. Síntesis de
The Endangered Species Act at Thirty (Scott, resultados. Fundación Biodiversidad.
J.M. et al., eds), pp:36–48, Island Press Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural
y Marino
Crawford, S.E.S., Ostrom, E. 2005. A grammar of
institutions. En: Understanding institutional Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R. 2007. Capital
diversity (Ostrom, E. ed.), pp. 137–174. natural y funciones de los ecosistemas:
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA explorando las bases ecológicas de la
economía. Ecosistemas 16(3):4-14
Costanza, R. Daly, H. 1992. Natural Capital and
Sustainable Development. Conservation Gunderson, L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and
Biology 6:37–46 adaptive management - - antidotes for
305
spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Montes,

(1):7 C, 2009. Un marco conceptual para la gestión
de las interacciones naturaleza-sociedad en
Holland J.H. 1995. Hidden Order: How Adaptation un mundo cambiante. Cuides 3: 229-258
Builds Complexity. Helix Books. New York
Martín-López, B., González, J.A., Vilardy, S.P.,
Holling, C.S. 1973 Resilience and stability of Montes, C., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I.,
ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology Aguado, M. 2013. Ciencias de la
and Systematics 4:1-23 Sostenibilidad: Guía Docente. Instituto
Humboldt, Universidad del Magdalena,
Laliberte, et al. 2010. Land use intensification Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Bogotá,
reduces functional redundancy and response Madrid (ISBN: 978-84-695-4527-0)
diversity in plant communities. Ecology
Letters 13:76-86 Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M. 2013. The
relative cost of saving species. En: Grzimek’s
Levin, S.A. 1998. Ecosystems and the Biosphere Animal Life Encyclopedia Extinction, pp:857-
as Complex Adaptive Systems. Ecosystems 866. Gale Cengage, USA. (ISBN: 978-
1:431-436 1414490670)
Liu, J., et al. 2007. Complexity of coupled human Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S.R., Foley, J., Folke, C.,
and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516 Walker, B.H. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in
ecosystems. Nature 413:591–596
MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Walker, B., Holling, C.S:, Carpenter, S.R., Kinzig, A.
Synthesis. Washington, DC 2004. Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social–ecological systems.
Martín-López, B., González, J.A., Díaz, S., Castro, I., Ecology and Society 9(2):5
García-Llorente, M. 2007. Biodiversidad y
bienestar humano: el papel de la diversidad
funcional. Ecosistemas XVI:3
306
Anexos
Anexo 1. Listado de publicaciones académicas relacionadas con la tesis
En revistas de revisión por pares:
 Gaitán Cremaschi, D., Gómez-Baggethum, E., de Groot, R., Palomo, I. Designing public
reward mechanisms to maintain ecosystem services in multi-functional agricultural
landscapes. En revisión en Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.
 Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., López, C.A., Palomo, I., González, J.A. Envisioning the
future of transhumant pastoralism through participatory scenario planning: a case
study in Spain. The Rangeland Journal. Aceptado.
 Gómez-Baggethum, E., Kelemen, E., Martín-López, B., Palomo, I., Montes, C. Institutional
diversity for ecosystem services governance across scales. Society & Natural Resources.
Aceptado.
 Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I.,
García del Amo, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-rozas, E., Palacios-Agundez, I.,
Willaarts, B., González, J.A., Santos-Martín, F., Onaindia, M., López-Santiago, C.A., Montes,
C. 2012, Uncovering ecosystem services bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE
7(6): e38970.
 Martín-López., B, García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Montes, C. 2011. The conservation

against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in
the Doñana social–ecological system (southwestern Spain)”. Ecological Economics 70:
1481-1491.
En libros:
 Martín-López, B., González, J.A., Vilardy, S.P., Montes, C., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I.,
Aguado, M. 2013. Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad: Guía Docente. Instituto Humboldt,
Universidad del Magdalena, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Bogotá, Madrid. ISBN:
978-84-695-4527-0
 Palomo, I., Martin-López, B., López-Santiago, C., Montes, C. 2012. El sistema socio-
ecológico de Doñana ante el cambio global: planificación de escenarios de eco-futuro.
Fundación Fernando González Bernáldez. Madrid. ISBN: 978-84-937702-8-0.
 Palomo, I., Martin-López, B., López-Agustín, C., Montes, C., Arufe, C., Hernández, E.,
Rodríguez, G., Segovia, E. 2011. “Un futuro para Doñana”. WWF. Depósito Legal: M-
41.594-2010.
309
Anexo 1
En congresos:
 Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Zorrilla, P., Montes, C. 2012. Land use change and ecosystem
services simplification around protected areas, ESP Conference, Portland.
 Alcorlo, P., Willaarts, B., Palomo, I., Torres, A., Montes, C. 2012. Linking land use changes
in Doñana to water demand: needs and implication for water planning. Congreso de la
Asociación Ibérica de Limnología.
 Palomo, I., Alcorlo, P., Martín-López, B., Montes, C. 2011. Influence on ecosystem services
provision of two Mediterranean protected areas (Doñana and Sierra Nevada): linking to
beneficiaries, ESP Conference, Wageningen.
 Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López-Santiago, C., Montes, C. 2011. Building resilience
through multi-scale scenarios under the ecosystem services framework in a protected
area: the Doñana Social-Ecological system, SW Spain, Resilience Conference, Arizona.
 Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López-Santiago, C., Montes, C. 2010. Construcción

participativa de escenarios de futuro para la gestión de espacios naturales protegidos:
El Espacio Natural de Doñana, V Seminario de Investigación en EA y EDS, Valsain.
 Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Montes, C. 2008. Mapping Ecosystem Services: Current
Trends, ACES 2008, A conference for Ecosystem Services, Florida, USA.
310
Anexo 2. Listado de publicaciones no académicas
Divulgativas:
 Palomo, I. 2012. Reflexiones tras las jornadas: “La Sierra de Guadarrama. Presente y
futuro” Creando un parque nacional en el siglo XXI. Peñalara 541: 164-167.
 Palomo, I. 2011. Los servicios de los ecosistemas de las montañas o la contribución de las
montañas al bienestar humano. Peñalara (2º trimestre 2011): 38-39.
En internet:
 Blog sobre conservación y áreas de montaña: http://lucesdemontana.wordpress.com/
En televisión:
 Programa “Tierra y mar” de la televisión autonómica de Andalucía. Reportaje sobre el

taller de planificación de escenarios de futuro de Doñana.
En prensa:
 Diversas notas de prensa en el boletín del Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacionales,

en EUROPAPRESS y en el servicio de divulgación científica de la UAM.
311
Anexo 3. Paneles utilizados para la identificación de servicios de los ecosistemas. Mapas base utilizados para la cartografía de flujos de servicios.
Figura 1. Paneles de servicios utilizados durante la realización de encuestas y entrevistas en Doñana. Elaborados por Erik Gómez Baggethun.
313
Beneficios que el ser humano obtiene de la naturaleza de manera directa a Beneficios que el ser humano obtiene de la naturaleza de manera Beneficios que el ser humano obtiene de la naturaleza de manera
través del ABASTECIMIENTO de productosRanada indirecta a través de la REGULACIÓN de los procesos que se dan en el intangible relacionados con aspectos CULTURALES
ecosistema Caso concreto en
Caso concreto en Sierra Beneficio Imagen
Beneficio Imagen Caso concreto en Sierra Sierra Nevada
Nevada Beneficio Imagen
Nevada Satisfacción de saber que
existen/conservan especies:
Agricultura extensiva Función de los insectos
Olivo, almendro, vid, cereales, Conservación de especies cabra montés (Capra pyrenaica),
(huertas, minifundios, ag. frutales Polinización polinizadores manzanilla de la sierra (Artemisa
ecológica) granatensis)
Agricultura intensiva Papel de la vegetación en el
Pimiento, tomate, judía verde, Tranquilidad, relajación, Paisajes con agua, nieve y
(monocultivos, melón, sandia, calabacino Regulación del clima
secuestro de CO2 y en los procesos
paz montaña
plásticos/invernaderos) de lluvia
Borreguiles de alta montaña, hábitat

Ganadería/pastoreo Oveja, cabra, vaca Sabiduría de los mayores sobre
Provisión de hábitat para de endemismos de Sierra Nevada Conocimiento tradicional el campo
especies (Collalba gris ( Oenanthe oenanthe ))
Micología (setas), bellota, frutos Educación ambiental, libros

Recolección del bosque
Papel de la vegetación en el
Educación ambiental
Calidad del aire/aire secuestro de CO2, mantiene el aire sobre tradiciones alpujarreñas
limpio libre de contaminación
Esparto, seda, material para Investigaciones desarrolladas
Fibras y otros materiales cestería, artesanía Conocimiento científico en la zona
Regulación hídrica (flujos Vegetación aledaña al cauce del río,
de agua, riadas, recarga infiltraciones
Materiales tradicionales de Pizarras, esquistos, gneis, launas de acuíferos) Ecoturismo/ turismo de Senderismo, equitación,
construcción naturaleza actividades de alta montaña
Efecto de los macroinvertebrados y
Tratamiento/
la vegetación acuática en la
Riego de campos de cultivo en la purificación Asociado a cortijadas,
Agua para riego y consumo purificación del agua.
vega, abastecimiento humano del agua Turismo rural gastronomía, agroturismo
Ej. Balates que evitan la pérdida del
Protección del suelo,
suelo
Molinos de viento para energía control/regulación de la
Energía Turismo de esquí Estación de esquí
eólica, paneles solares erosión Raíces de árboles
Vegas de los ríos, ramblas Caza menor (conejo, perdiz),

Aprovechamiento forestal Madera de encina, olivo, pino Fertilidad de los suelos Caza recreativa caza mayor (jabalí, cabra)
Aceites esenciales, aloe vera, Vegetación de alta montaña en el

Regulación/mitigación de
Productos medicinales, zahareña (Sideritis hirsuta), control de los aludes y la vegetación Paisajes bonitos como la sierra
accidentes naturales Valores estéticos
terapéuticos, cosméticos manzanilla de la sierra (Artemisa riparia en la regulación de las riadas nevada
granatensis)
(incendios o avalanchas)
Figura 2. Paneles de servicios utilizados en el taller de cartografía de servicios de Sierra Nevada. Elaborados por Marina García Llorente.
314
Tabla 1. Tablas de servicios utilizadas en el taller de cartografía de servicios de Doñana.
Elaborados por Berta Martín López.
SERVICIOS DE DEFINICIÓN EJEMPLOS

ABASTECIMIENTO
1.- Alimentos obtenidos de: Productos derivados de la Agricultura, ganadería,
 Agricultura biodiversidad de interés pesca, acuicultura,
 Ganadería alimentario. apicultura, alimentos
 Acuicultura silvestres.
 Pesca/marisqueo
 Caza
 Recolección
 Apicultura
2.- Agua dulce Agua dulce de calidad Agua subterránea y
derivada de flujos superficial para consumo
epicontinentales y humano, agrícola, e
acuíferos. industrial. Incluye también
el agua desalada.
3.- Materias primas de Materiales procedentes de Madera, celulosa, fibra

origen biótico (madera, la producción orgánica textil, etc.
fibras vegetales,…) para elaborar bienes de
consumo.
4.- Sal de origen marino o Sales de origen marino o Sales de origen marino o
continental continental procesados continental.
para elaborar bienes de
consumo.
5.- Energía Aprovechamiento de Biomasa, hidroelectricidad,
renovable energía de procesos energía eólica.
geofísicos y componentes
de los ecosistemas de
origen biótico o geótico
que se usan o transforman
como fuente de energía.
6.- Medicinas naturales y Principios activos para Tisanas, aceites varios,

principios activos industria farmacéutica y ácidos vegetales,
medicinas tradicionales. alcaloides, etc
315
SERVICIOS DE REGULACIÓN DEFINICIÓN EJEMPLOS
1.- Regulación micro- Capacidad vegetal para Captura y almacenamiento

climática absorber CO2, efectos de carbono.
mesoclimáticos de Papel mesoclimático de
intercepción, ralentización bosques y riberas.
hídrica, amortiguación Régimen
térmica, etc. termopluviométrico
regional.
2.- Purificación de aire Capacidad de retener Retención de
gases o partículas contaminantes por
contaminantes del aire, vegetales y
regulación térmica microorganismos edáficos,
regulación térmica.
3.- Depuración del agua Procesos autodepurativos Determinados organismos y
del agua sustratos depuran
contaminantes
4.- Regulación hídrica Capacidad de ralentización Suelos permeables facilitan

hídrica la recarga de acuíferos
5.- Control de la erosión Control de la erosión por Limitación de deslizamientos

la vegetación y debido a la de suelo y de colmatación
estructura edáfica de ríos y humedales
6.- Fertilidad del suelo Mantenimiento de la Ralentización del ciclo de
humedad y capacidad nutrientes, disponibilidad
catiónica del suelo de materia orgánica y
humus.
7.- Amortiguación de Amortiguación de Adaptaciones al fuego en
perturbaciones perturbaciones naturales, ambientes mediterráneos.
fundamentalmente ligadas Laderas conservadas,
al clima llanuras de inundación y
humedales amortiguan las
inundaciones
8.- Control biológico Capacidad de regulación Ciertos organismos
de plagas y vectores depredan sobre otros que
patógenos de humanos, son plagas en
cosechas y ganado. agroecosistemas.
9.- Polinización Simbiosis entre ciertos Los insectos son el
organismos con resultado principal polinizador de
de transporte de polen y cultivos agrícolas y de
reproducción. plantas aromáticas o
medicinales.
10.- Hábitat para especies Mantenimiento de hábitat Conservación de hábitat de
para especies de especial especies importantes
relevancia
316
SERVICIOS CULTURALES DEFINICIÓN EJEMPLOS
1.- Conocimiento científico Los ecosistemas son un Conocimiento científico de

laboratorio de componentes y procesos
experimentación y ecológicos esenciales
desarrollo del conocimiento.
2.- Conocimiento ecológico Experiencias de base Habilidades tradicionales
local empírica, prácticas, agro-silvo-pastorales.
creencias y costumbres
transmitidos
generacionalmente.
3.- Educación ambiental Formación sobre el Aulas de la naturaleza,
funcionamiento de los centros de interpretación,
procesos ecológicos y su museos de naturaleza, etc.
función social. Sensibilización Transmisión de hábitos de
y conciencia uso y consumo responsables.
de los servicios de
los ecosistemas.
4.- Actividades recreativas y Lugares, sitios, comarcas Camping, picnic,
turismo de naturaleza que son escenario de senderismo, ciclismo,
actividades lúdicas y paseos a caballo, escalada,
deportes al aire libre que caza o pesca recreativas,
proporcionan salud y etc.
relajación.
5.- Valor estético de los Apreciación de lugares, Exposiciones de fotografía,
paisajes sitios, comarcas que audiovisuales,
generan satisfacción y documentales, cuadros.
placidez por su estética o Admiración de un paisaje.
inspiración creativa o
espiritual.
6.- Disfrute espiritual y Uso no material del Lugares y elementos
religioso paisaje y sus elementos, venerados (árboles,
frecuentemente ligados al romerías y rituales
ocio y recreo, a veces con religiosos en el campo,
componentes de como la ‘romería de El
creencias, dogmas o Rocío’, ‘Camino de
divinidades. Santiago’, etc).
7.- Identidad cultural y Sentimiento patrimonial Actividades que favorecen la
sentido de pertenencia de ecosistemas silvestres identidad cultural: ‘Rapa das
y culturales (asociados a bestas’, vendimia,
las propias interacciones y trashumancia, Saca de
conocimientos humanos). Yeguas, etc..
8.- Valor de existencia Satisfacción moral al conocer Satisfacción individual ética
que determinadas especies y al conocer que especies en
ecosistemas existen peligro de extinción,
endémicas o carismáticas
existen
317
Figura 3. Mapa base utilizado para la cartografía de flujos de servicios en Sierra Nevada. En la imagen, el resultado de la cartografía de los flujos del servicio
turismo de naturaleza por el grupo de trabajo 3.
318
Figura 4. Mapa base utilizado para la cartografía de flujos de servicios en Doñana. En la imagen, el
resultado de la cartografía de los flujos del servicio hábitat para especies por el grupo de trabajo 5.
319
Anexo 4. Cuestionario de los talleres de cartografía de servicios por
gestores e investigadores de los espacios naturales de Doñana y
Sierra Nevada. (Modelo de Sierra Nevada)
Nombre del participante: _______________ ________________________________
SESIÓN 4: CARTOGRAFÍA PARTICIPATIVA DE SERVICIOS DE LOS ECOSISTEMAS
Responde de forma individual a las siguientes preguntas:
1. ¿Cuáles crees que son los 5 servicios principales generados por el Espacio Natural de
Sierra Nevada para el bienestar humano? Ordenar según importancia (con paneles).
1-_____________________________________ 2-_____________________________________
3-_____________________________________ 4-_____________________________________
5-_____________________________________
2. ¿Qué tendencia (mejora, se mantiene, empeoramiento) crees que siguen estos

servicios en el Espacio Natural de Sierra Nevada y por qué?
Mejora Se Empeora ¿Por qué?

mantiene
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
3. ¿A qué escala crees que disfrutan los beneficiarios cada uno de los servicios? ¿Dónde
se ubican los beneficiarios?
Global Nacional/Autonómica Local

1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
321
Anexo 4
4. Con base en tu experiencia, ¿crees que el Espacio Natural de Sierra Nevada utiliza el
marco de los servicios de los ecosistemas en su gestión?
 Mucho
 Bastante
 Poco
 Nada
¿De qué forma?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
5. ¿Cómo crees de importante utilizar la cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas en la

planificación de los Espacios Naturales Protegidos?
 Muy importante
 Importante
 Poco importante
 No es necesario
¿Por qué?, ¿Qué cosas puede aportar?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
6. ¿A qué aspectos de la gestión de los espacios naturales protegidos crees que puede
aportar mas la cartografía de servicios?
Mucho Basante Poco Nada ¿De qué forma?

Uso público
Gestión de recursos
naturales
Conservación de la
biodiversidad
Educación
ambiental
Investigación
Comunicación y
participación social
Otros, ¿Cuál?
322
7a. Según tu experiencia, ¿cuáles crees que son los principales problemas del Espacio
Natural de Sierra Nevada?
Problema
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
7b. ¿Crees que trabajar con servicios de los ecosistemas puede ayudar a solucionar
alguno de estos problemas?
Si No ¿De qué forma?

1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
9. Según tu experiencia, ¿crees que las actuales políticas de conservación de Espacios

Naturales Protegidos en España consideran los servicios de los ecosistemas?
 Sí
 No
¿Por qué?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
323
Anexo 4
Grupo nº: _________________________
SESIÓN 4: CARTOGRAFÍA PARTICIPATIVA DE SERVICIOS DE LOS ECOSISTEMAS
Responde a las siguientes preguntas consensuando en tu grupo las respuestas:
1. ¿Cuáles crees que son los 5 servicios principales generados por el Espacio Natural de
Sierra Nevada para el bienestar humano? Ordenar según importancia (con paneles).
1-_____________________________________
2-_____________________________________
3-_____________________________________
4-_____________________________________
5-_____________________________________
2. ¿Qué tendencia (mejora, se mantiene, empeoramiento) crees que siguen estos

servicios en el Espacio Natural de Sierra Nevada y por qué?
Mejora Se mantiene Empeoramiento ¿Por qué?

1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
3. ¿A qué escala crees que disfrutan los beneficiarios cada uno de los servicios? ¿Dónde
se ubican los beneficiarios? Explicitar lugares concretos.
Global Regional Local

1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
4. Cartografía en subgrupos de las unidades suministradoras y beneficiarios de los

servicios.
324
Anexo 5. Encuesta para la planificación de escenarios de futuro en
Doñana
Hacia un nuevo modelo de gestión del sistema socio-ecológico de Doñana basado en los vínculos entre el bienestar humano y
los servicios de sus ecosistemas
…Hola, venimos de parte de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid y estamos realizando una encuesta para ver de qué
modo las personas se benefician de la naturaleza en la comarca de Doñana (mostrar el mapa). Si tiene usted 10
minutos, ¿sería tan amable de contestarme a una breve encuesta?....Explicar el panel
1. Enumere del siguiente panel las cinco cosas de las que más se beneficia usted en la comarca de Doñana.
Ordénelos según cuanto se beneficie de cada uno (1 mayor beneficio, 5 mínimo beneficio).
Servicio Orden
Servicio 1°: _______________
Época: Primavera Verano Otoño Invierno Todo el año
Frecuencia: Diaria Semanal Mensual Anual
Lugar/es: _______________________________________________________
Dentro del Parque Nacional Dentro del Parque Natural (Preparque) Fuera
¿Qué instituciones relaciona con ese servicio? ¿Quién toma las decisiones?
Puntúelas según como de bien lo hacen del 1 al 5 con respecto a ese servicio (1 mínimo, 5 máximo)
1___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
2___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
3___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
Servicio 2: _______________
Lugar/es: _______________________________________________________
1___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
2___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
3___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
325
Anexo 5
Servicio 3: _______________
Lugar/es: _______________________________________________________
¿Qué instituciones relaciona con ese servicio? Puntúelas del 1 al 5 con respecto a ese servicio (1 mínimo, 5
máximo)
1___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
2___________________________________, Puntuación: ____ 3___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
Servicio 4: _______________
Lugar/es: ________________________________________________________
1___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
2___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
3___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
Servicio 5: _______________
Lugar/es: ___________________________________________________________
1___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
2___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
3___________________________________, Puntuación: ____
326
2. De las instituciones que me ha mencionado en la pregunta anterior (repetírselas), ordénelas de mayor a

menor por su influencia o poder en la comarca de Doñana. ¿Cómo está de acuerdo con las siguientes frases? (del
1 al 5; Muy en desacuerdo (1), en desacuerdo (2), indiferente (3), de acuerdo (4) o muy de acuerdo (5)).
Instituciones Cumple bien Cuenta con Es eficiente en el uso Funciona de manera

sus funciones la gente en sus de sus recursos (utiliza transparente, informando
decisiones bien sus recursos) de lo que hace
1
2
3
4
5
3. ¿Qué tal conoce las siguientes instituciones? ¿Cómo está de acuerdo con las siguientes frases? (omitir las
valoradas en la anterior pregunta) (del 1 al 5; Muy en desacuerdo (1), en desacuerdo (2), indiferente (3), de acuerdo (4) o
muy de acuerdo (5)).
Instituciones Grado de Cumpl Cuenta Es eficiente Funciona de

conocimiento e bien sus con la gente en el uso de sus manera
(1 al 5) funciones en sus recursos (los transparente,
decisiones utiliza bien) informando de lo
que hace
Estación Biológica Doñana
END (PN y P. Natural)
Fundación Doñana 21
Municipios/Ayuntamientos
Consejería M. ambiente
Consejería agricultura
Confed. Hidro. del Guadalq.
ONG ecologistas
4. Describa lo que para usted significa la comarca de Doñana con 5 palabras.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5. A) Enumere las 5 cosas que más feliz le hacen en la comarca de Doñana. B) Enumere los 5 servicios del
panel que le proporcionan mayor felicidad. C) Diga 3 actividades que hace en su tiempo libre o hobbies.
Cosas Servicios Hobbies

1. 1. 1.
2. 2. 2.
3. 3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
6. ¿Cuáles son para usted los problemas más graves de la comarca de Doñana? Enumérelos de mayor a
menor
Problema 1: ______________________________________________________________________________
Solución: _________________________________________________________________________________
Problema 2: ______________________________________________________________________________
327
Anexo 5
Solución: _________________________________________________________________________________
Problema 3: ______________________________________________________________________________
Solución: _________________________________________________________________________________
Problema 4: ______________________________________________________________________________
Solución: _________________________________________________________________________________
7. ¿Cuáles son para usted los 5 servicios del panel más vulnerables, que más peligro corren en la comarca de
Doñana?
Ordénelos del 1 al 5 según corran más peligro (1) o menos (5). ¿Por qué están en peligro (causa)?
Servicios Pelig Causa

ro
8. Cuáles son los límites para usted de Doñana. Cuando usted piensa en Doñana, Doñana es:
El Parque Nacional y Natural Toda la comarca Un municipio concreto ¿cuál?:_______________
Otro Explicar: ________________________________
9. ¿Qué categorías o figuras de protección conoce en Doñana?
Parque Nacional Reserva de Biosfera Zepas (Zona de especial protección para

aves)
Parque natural LIC (Lugares de importancia comunitaria) Ramsar
10. ¿Sabía que el Parque Nacional y el Parque Natural se habían unido para formar el Espacio Natural
Doñana?
No Si en caso afirmativo valore la mejoría de la unión del 1 al 5 (5 máximo) ______
11. Evalúe del 1 al 10 los siguientes aspectos de la gestión actual del Espacio Natural Doñana (Parque
Nacional y Natural):
Educación Ambiental: ___
Protección de las especies: ___
Conservación de la naturaleza: ___
Usos tradicionales: ___
Relación con las personas: ___
12. ¿Le beneficia a usted la existencia del Espacio natural de Doñana (Parque nacional y natural)?
Si/No, ¿Por qué? ________________________________________________________
Puntúe del 1 al 5 cómo se beneficia del Espacio natural de Doñana (1 mínimo, 5 máximo):____
13. ¿Cree que a usted le tiene en cuenta Espacio Natural Doñana (Parque Nacional y Natural)?
Si/No, ¿Por qué? _________________________________________________________
14. ¿Ha visitado algún Espacio Natural Protegido en el 2008? ___, ¿cuántos? ___
328
15. ¿Es miembro de alguna asociación conservacionista, de reducción de la pobreza o de otro tipo?
Si/No, ¿de cuál? _______________________
16. ¿Usted recicla?
Siempre: __ A veces: __
Bastante: __ Nunca: __
17. Lugar de residencia:
18. Usted se siente más: de su municipio/de Doñana/Andaluz/Español
Municipio: _______________
19. Edad: 20. Sexo: M/F
21. Profesión: 22. Localidad o municipio en el que trabaja:
23. Nivel de Estudios:
Sin estudios Bachillerato Universitarios

Escolares Formación profesional
24. Nivel de ingresos netos:
Menos de 1000 Eur/mes: __ 2000-3000 Eur/mes: __

1000-1500 Eur/mes: __ Más de 3000 Eur/mes: __
1500-2000 Eur/mes: __
25. Nr. de encuesta: 26. Fecha: 27. Lugar:
28. Actitud del encuestado: Buena/Indiferente/poco dispuesto
29. Entendimiento de la encuesta: Alto/medio/bajo
329
Anexo 6. Entrevista semi-estructurada realizada para la planificación
de escenarios de futuro en Doñana.
…Ya sabe que venimos de parte de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid queríamos realizarle
una entrevista para ver de qué modo las personas se benefician de la naturaleza en la comarca de
Doñana (mostrar el mapa). Explicar el panel
Conteste a las siguientes preguntas para los 5 servicios de los ecosistemas de los que más se
beneficia usted:
¿Qué usa / disfruta / ¿Cuándo lo usa/ disfruta? ¿Dónde lo usa/disfruta/

aprovecha de Doñana? (época del año) Con qué aprovecha? (ecodistrito)
(ordenar por importancia frecuencia? todos los días, Marcar en el mapa. ¿A qué
para usted) semanas/meses/años escala lo usa? (sólo en ese
sitio o en otros)
¿Hay algo que no funcione ¿Desde cuándo hay ese ¿Por qué hay ese
con eso que usa? ¿Tiene problema? problema? ¿Cuál es la causa?
algún problema?
¿Cómo se podría ¿Ha variado con el Parque ¿Ha variado su uso con los
solucionar ese problema? Nacional? Mucho peor/peor/ EENNPP? Mucho peor/peor/
¿Qué se hace y qué se mejor/mucho mejor Explicar mejor/mucho mejor
debería hacer? límites 1969
¿Por qué ha mejorado o ¿Cómo se podría mejorar (si ¿Qué tan importante es
empeorado? está empeorado por el PN) o para usted y su vida?
mantener la mejora (si ha (Esencial, Muy necesario,
mejorado)? Necesario, Importante pero no
necesario, Prescindible)
¿Quién toma las ¿Cómo cree que será en el ¿Cómo le gustaría que
decisiones sobre eso? 2020?, y en el 2040? fuese en el futuro?
¿Quiénes cambian más eso?
330
Laboratorio de Socio-ecosistemas, Departamento de

Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Hacia un nuevo modelo de gestión del sistema socio-ecológico de Doñana basado en los vínculos
entre el bienestar humano y los servicios de sus ecosistemas
1. ¿Es importante Doñana? SI__ NO__; ¿Por qué?
2. ¿Cómo definiría Doñana? Diga 10 palabras.
1- 6-
2- 7-
3- 8-
4- 9-
5- 10-
3. ¿Es importante el Parque Nacional? SI__ NO__; ¿Por qué?
4. ¿Para usted cuales son los límites de Doñana?
Norte Oriente
Sur Occidente
5. ¿Qué le hace Feliz en Doñana? ¿Qué le hace sentirse bien? Diga 10 cosas (1
palabra por cosa)
1- 6-
2- 7-
3- 8-
4- 9-
5- 10-
6. De las 5 cosas que me dijo antes (servicios), ¿cuáles son los 3 que más le
ayudan a conseguir esa felicidad que me ha dicho? Dígalas en orden
1- 3-
2- 4-
331
Anexo 6

7. ¿Hay algo de la naturaleza de Doñana que no le guste o le moleste?
8. Ordene lo siguiente según afecte más o menos a Doñana en el futuro

Cambios en la población (demografía), inmigración, clima, usos del suelo, economía,
política, carreteras, dragado del Guadalquivir, conservación, otros
Lo que hace que cambie Como cambiará
9. ¿Le interesaría participar en un taller con gente de Doñana en Marzo para

tratar los problemas de que hay en Doñana y diseñar un futuro?
10. ¿Me podría decir su edad?
11. Sexo, M__F__
12. ¿Colabora con alguna ONG, asociación de vecinos o asociación política o de

cualquier tipo?
13. ¿Me podría decir su profesión?
332

14. ¿Me podría decir su nivel de estudios?
Sin estudios: __ Formación Profesional: __

Escolares: __ Universitarios: __
Bachillerato: __
15. ¿Me podría decir sus ingresos?
Menos de 1000 Eur/mes: __ 2000-3000 Eur/mes: __

1000-1500 Eur/mes: __ Más de 3000 Eur/mes: __
1500-2000 Eur/mes: __
NUMERO DE ENTREVISTA:
NOMBRE:
DATOS DE CONTACTO PARA EL TALLER:
DISPONIBILIDAD DE FECHA:

333

(Palomo, 2013) Gestionando Las Áreas Protegidas Más Alláde Sus Límites PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

(Palomo, 2013) Gestionando Las Áreas Protegidas Más Alláde Sus Límites PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gestionando las

Áreas Protegidas más allá

Ignacio Palomo Ruiz

Departamento Interuniversitario de Ecología

Gestionando las áreas protegidas mas allá de sus límites.

Una proximación Socio-Ecológica a la ordenación territorial

en Ecología por la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Carlos Montes del Olmo

Madrid, junio de 2013

Diseño de portada: Manuel Castellano (mcastellano.com)

Edición: Jorge Navacerrada (Altekio, S.Coop.Mad.)

Impreso en Madrid en Junio de 2013

Cover design: Manuel Castellano (mcastellano.com)

Thesis edition: Jorge Navacerrada (Altekio, S.Coop.Mad.)

Printed in Madrid in June 2013

5th IUCN World Parks Congress, South Africa, 2003

(World Resources Institute & World Conservation Union,

“Climb the mountains and get their good tidings”

(Advocate of the first protected area of our age)

El creciente carácter participativo que está tomando la investigación ambiental implica la

Ignacio Palomo Ruiz

Madrid, Junio de 2013

Methodological approach and study area

(1) Analyze the historical evolution of

(3) Explore the role of deliberative Deliberative mapping

(7) Create management guidelines Participatory scenario

Conceptual framework & literature review

Chapter 1 From Islands to Networks to Multi-functional Landscapes: Incorporating the Socio-

Chapter 2 A blueprint for mapping and modeling ecosystem services

Biophysical dimension Social dimension

Chapter 7 Participatory Scenario Planning for

Guideliness for landscape planning and management

A multi-scale participatory scenario planning and backasting approach in Doñana is presented

(1) Incorporation of Sustainability Science in conservation planning including

We finally suggest a new definition of protected areas to be discussed: “a defined geographical

El principal objetivo de la presente Tesis es integrar el enfoque más reciente de la conservación

En este contexto, la planificación participativa de escenarios de futuro es una herramienta que

Finalmente, discutimos la idoneidad de las principales concepciones de gestión del territorio

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... III

Resumen .......................................................................................................................................................................... XII

Índice de contenidos .................................................................................................................................................. XV

Índice de tablas......................................................................................................................................................... XVIII

Índice de figuras ....................................................................................................................................................... XXIII

Listado de publicaciones que conforman la Tesis........................................................................................ XXX

Listado de Acrónimos ............................................................................................................................................ XXXI

1. Introducción general ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Las áreas protegidas: ayer, hoy y retos actuales ............................................................................ 3

1.2. Marco conceptual y analítico. Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad y servicios de los

1.2.1. Las metodologías participativas en la investigación en las Ciencias de la

1.2.2. La cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas como forma de implementación de

1.2.3. La planificación de escenarios para abordar la incertidumbre, la complejidad

1.3. Objetivos de la tesis .................................................................................................................................. 14

1.4. Planteamiento y estructura de la tesis ............................................................................................. 16

2. Área de estudio ......................................................................................................................................................... 43

Área de estudio ................................................................................................................................................... 26

3. Metodología general ............................................................................................................................................... 31

4.1. De islas a redes y paisajes multifuncionales. Incorporando la aproximación socio-

4.2. Un patrón para la modelización y la cartografía de servicios de los ecosistemas ........ 74

4.4. Cartografía deliberativa de servicios de los ecosistemas en el Parque Nacional de

4.6. Evaluación de la zonificación de áreas protegidas mediante el marco de los servicios

4.7. Planificación participativa de escenarios de futuro para la gestión de áreas protegidas

5. Discusión .................................................................................................................................................................. 225

5.1. Un binomio en evolución: Seres humanos y naturaleza. ....................................................... 225