Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Socioeconomic effects of protected areas in Spain across spatial scales and protection levels

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Impacts of the legal designation of protected areas (PAs) may have contrasting implications for different stakeholders, and at different spatial scales. In this study, we analysed the organisational perception on the socioeconomic effects of PA designation from all sectors of activity in Spain, accounting for PAs’ legal stringency. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to 68 organisations at national, regional (Andalusia) and local scales (two municipalities in the Almeria province, Andalusia) through an online survey. Local stakeholders and the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors were most concerned about the social and economic impacts of PAs designation on their organisations. By contrast, organisations at the national or regional scales together with public institutions, the quaternary sector and other miscellaneous stakeholders perceived predominantly positive effects. Only national organisations perceived an increase in local social and economic effects from the designation of legally stringent PAs with regard to multiple-use PAs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ADGSS, Asociación de Directores y Gerentes de Servicios Sociales. 2017. Informe sobre el Estado Social de la Nación 2017. ¿Nos están robando el futuro? Una sociedad dual instalada en la precariedad. http://www.directoressociales.com/images/documentos/Novedades/INFORME%20ESTADO%20SOCIAL%20NACION%202017.pdf.

  • Alló, M., M. Barrio, and M. Loureiro. 2010. Impactos socioeconómicos de la red de parques nacionales: Una aproximación al Parque Nacional de las Islas Atlánticas. Ecosistemas 19: 112–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andam, K.S., P.J. Ferraro, K.R.E. Sims, A. Healy, and M.B. Holland. 2010. Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 9996–10001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Basha, M.B., C. Mason, M.F. Shamsudin, H.I. Hussain, and M.A. Salem. 2015. Consumers attitude towards organic food. Procedia Economics and Finance 31: 444–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, N.J., and P. Dearden. 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44: 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhola, N., D. Juffe-Bignoli, N. Burguess, T. Sandwith, and N. Kington. 2016. Protected Planet Report 2016. How protected areas contribute to achieving global targets for biodiversity. Cambridge and Gland: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/protected-planet-report-2016.

  • Blicharska, M., E.H. Orlikowska, J.M. Roberge, and M. Grodzinska-Jurczak. 2016. Contribution of social science to large scale biodiversity conservation: A review of research about the Natura 2000 network. Biological Conservation 199: 110–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S., M. Tolley, C. Montes, M. Jones, N. Burguess, N. Kingston, and J. Hutton. 2014. Protected areas and the extractive industry: Challenges and opportunities. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvet-Mir, L., E. Corbera, A. Martin, J. Fisher, and N. Gross-Camp. 2015. Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: A closer look at effectiveness and equity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 150–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. Programme of work on protected areas. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/pa-text-en.pdf.

  • CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity. 2008. COP 9 Decision IX/18. Protected Areas. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=11661.

  • CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Strategic Plan 2011–2020. Aichi Biodiversity Targets. http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/.

  • Christiansen, G., and N. Conner. 1999. The contribution of Montague island nature reserve to regional economic development. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/projects/ReportMontagueIsland.htm.

  • Coad, L., A. Campbell, L. Miles, and K. Humphries. 2008. The costs and benefits of forest protected areas for local livelihoods: A review of the current literature. Cambridge: UNPE-WCMC. https://www.unep-wcmc.org/system/dataset_file_fields/files/000/000/128/original/Coad_et_al_2008_Working_Paper.pdf?1398683633.

  • Dillman, D.A., L.M. Christian, and J.D. Smyth. 2015. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method, 4th ed. New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley, N. (ed.). 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagles, P.F.J., S.F. McCool, and C.D. Haynes. 2002. Sustainable tourism in protected areas. Guidelines for planning and management. Gland: IUCN.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • EEC, European Economic Community. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31992L0043.

  • EUROSTAT. 2018. Data. Browse statistics by theme. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/browse-statistics-by-theme.

  • Expansión. 2016. Directorio de Empresas. http://www.expansion.com/directorio-empresas.html.

  • Ferranti, F., E. Turnhout, R. Beunen, and J.H. Behagel. 2014. Shifting nature conservation approaches in Natura 2000 and the implications for the roles of stakeholders. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57: 1642–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, P.J. 2002. The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 43: 261–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, P.J., M.M. Hanauer, and K.R.E. Sims. 2011. Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 13913–13918.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks, P., and R. Small. 2016. Social Assessment for Protected Areas (SAPA). Methodology Manual for SAPA Facilitators. London: IIED. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14659IIED.pdf.

  • Hauck, J., J. Schmidt, and A. Werner. 2016. Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level. Ecology and Society 21: 49. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08596-210249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heagney, E.C., M. Kovac, J. Fountain, and N. Conner. 2015. Socio-economic benefits from protected areas in southeastern Australia. Conservation Biology 29: 1647–1657.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, G., and C.J. Cavanagh. 2016. A review of the social impacts of neoliberal conservation: Formations, inequalities, contestations. Geoforum 75: 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadística. 2016. Anuario Estadístico de España 2016. http://www.ine.es/prodyser/pubweb/anuarios_mnu.htm.

  • INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadística. 2018. Encuesta de Población Activa (EPA). Serie histórica. http://www.ine.es/prensa/epa_tabla.htm.

  • Järv, H., J. Kliimask, R. Ward, and K. Sepp. 2016. Socioeconomic impacts of protection on residents of national parks. European Countryside 8: 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jentoft, S., J.J. Pascual-Fernández, R. de la Cruz, M. González-Ramallal, and R. Chuenpagdee. 2012. What stakeholders think about marine protected areas: Case studies from Spain. Human Ecology 40: 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, L.M. 2012. Sostenibilidad en España 2012. Capítulo especial energía sostenible para todos (2012 Año Internacional de la Energía). Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kati, V., T. Hovardas, M. Dieterich, P.L. Ibisch, B. Mihok, and N. Selva. 2015. The challenge of implementing the European network of protected areas Natura 2000. Conservation Biology 29: 260–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelboro, G., and T. Stellmacher. 2015. Protected areas as contested spaces: Nech Sar National Park, Ethiopia, between ‘local people’, the state, and NGO engagement. Environmental Development 16: 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettunen, M., and P. ten Brink. (Eds.) 2013. Social and economic benefits of protected areas: An assessment guide. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • López, I., and M. Pardo. 2018. Tourism versus nature conservation: reconciliation of common interests and objectives—An analysis through Picos de Europa National Park. Journal of Mountain Science 15: 2505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Fernández, J., P. Ruiz-Benito, and M.A. Zavala. 2015. Recent land cover changes in Spain across biogeographical regions and protection levels: Implications for conservation policies. Land Use Policy 44: 62–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, M.L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. BioScience 52: 883–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Médail, F., and P. Quézel. 1999. Biodiversity hotspots in the Mediterranean Basin: Setting global conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 13: 1510–1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montes, C., F. Santos, M. Aguado, B. Martín-López, J.A. González, J. Benayas, C. López, C. Piñeiro et al. 2011. Ecosistemas y bienestar humano. Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de España. Síntesis de resultados. Madrid: Fundación Biodiversidad y Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino. http://www.ecomilenio.es/informe-sintesis-eme/2321.

  • Múgica, M., C. Martínez, J.A. Atauri, J. Gómez-Limón, J. Puertas, and D. García. 2016. EUROPARC-España 2017. Anuario 2016 del estado de las áreas protegidas en España. Madrid: Fundación Fernando González Bernáldez.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagendra, H. 2008. Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Ambio 37: 330–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolte, C., F. Leverington, A. Kettner, M. Marr, G. Nielsen, B. Bomhard, S. Stolton, S. Stoll-Kleemann et al. 2010. Protected area management effectiveness assessments in Europe. A review of application, methods and results. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz. https://www.unep-wcmc.org/system/dataset_file_fields/files/000/000/029/original/PAME_assessments_in_Europe_2010.pdf?1395144885.

  • Oldekop, J.A., G. Holmes, W.E. Harris, and K.L. Evans. 2016. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology 30: 133–141.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pallares-blanch, M. 2012. Natural protected areas and rural/local development: A sustainable strategy in remote areas. Urbani Izziv 23: 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, B., M. Agarwala, G. Atkinson, and T. Clements. 2015. Monitoring local wellbeing in environmental interventions: a consideration of practical trade-offs. Oryx 51: 68–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez de Oliveira, L. 2013. Fishers as advocates of marine protected areas: a case study from Galicia (NW Spain). Marine policy 41: 95–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. (ed.). 1998. Economic values of protected areas—Guidelines for protected area managers. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rekola, M., E. Pouta, J. Kuuluvainen, O. Tahvonen, and C.Z. Li. 2000. Incommensurable preferences in contingent valuation: the case of Natura 2000 Network in Finland. Environmental Conservation 27: 260–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., S.E. Rees, L.D. Rodwell, and M.J. Attrill. 2015a. IMPASEA: A methodological framework to monitor and assess the socioeconomic effects of marine protected areas—An English Channel case study. Environmental Science & Policy 54: 44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., S.E. Rees, L.D. Rodwell, and M.J. Attrill. 2015b. Assessing the socioeconomic effects of multiple-use MPAs in a European setting: A national stakeholders’ perspective. Environmental Science & Policy 48: 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., J. Martínez-Vega, M. Tempesta, and M.M. Otero-Villanueva. 2015c. Limited uptake of protected area evaluation systems among managers and decision-makers in Spain and the Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Conservation 42: 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., J. Rodríguez, and D. Abdul Malak. 2016. Development and testing of a new framework for rapidly assessing legal and managerial protection afforded by marine protected areas: Mediterranean Sea case study. Journal of Environmental Management 167: 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., P. Ibarra, M. Echeverría, and J. Martínez-Vega. 2017. Perceptions, attitudes and values of two key stakeholders on the oldest and newest Spanish national parks. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0051-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., and I. López. 2018. Effects of legal designation and management of a multiple-use protected area on local sustainability. Sustainability 10: 3176. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., and J. Martínez-Vega. 2018. Protected area effectiveness against land development in Spain. Journal of Environmental Management 215: 345–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreckenberg, K., I. Camargo, K. Withnall, C. Corrigan, P. Franks, D. Roe, L.M. Scherl, and V. Richardson. 2010. Social assessment of conservation initiatives social assessment of conservation initiatives. Natural Resource Issue, No. 22. London: IIED. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14589IIED.pdf.

  • Spanish Government. 2007. Ley 42/2007, de 13 de diciembre, del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad. BOE 299: 51275–51327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanish Government. 2014. Ley 30/2014, de 3 de diciembre, de Parques Nacionales. BOE 293: 99762–99792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanish Government. 2018. Patrimonio Mundial. http://www.mecd.gob.es/cultura/areas/patrimonio/mc/patrimoniomundial/presentacion.html.

  • Štraus, S., F. Bavec, and M. Bavec. 2011. Organic farming as a potential for the development of protected areas. Acta Geographica Slovenica 51: 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suding, K., E. Higgs, M. Palmer, J.B. Callicott, C.B. Anderson, M. Baker, J.J. Gutrich, K.L. Hondula, et al. 2015. Committing to ecological restoration. Science 348: 638–640.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tomićević, J., M.A. Shannon, and M. Milovanović. 2010. Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: Case study from Serbia. Forest Policy and Economics 12: 157–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN, United Nations. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf.

  • UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. 2018. Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) [On-line], April 2018. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. www.protectedplanet.net.

  • UNESCO. 2018. World Heritage Centre. The State Parties. Spain. http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/es.

  • UNIVERSIA. 2016. Guía de Empresas Españolas. https://guiaempresas.universia.es/.

  • (The) World Bank. 2018. Data. Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper recognizes contributions through the ‘sequence-determines-credit approach’. We would like to thank all the people and organisations that replied to the survey. DRR was funded for this study by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness in the framework of the SOSTPARK project (CSO2014-54611-JIN).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Economy, Geography and Economy, Spanish National Research Council (IEGD-CSIC), C/Albasanz, 26-28, 28037, Madrid, Spain

    David Rodríguez-Rodríguez

  2. European Topic Centre – University of Malaga (ETC-UMA), C/Arquitecto Francisco Peñalosa, 18. Ampliación Campus de Teatinos s/n, 29010, Málaga, Spain

    David Rodríguez-Rodríguez

  3. Faculty of Social Science and Work, University of Zaragoza (UNIZAR), Calle Violante de Hungría, 23, 50009, Saragossa, Spain

    Iván López

Authors
  1. David Rodríguez-Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iván López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Rodríguez-Rodríguez.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 453 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., López, I. Socioeconomic effects of protected areas in Spain across spatial scales and protection levels. Ambio 49, 258–270 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01160-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01160-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation