IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v70y2011i8p1481-1491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The conservation against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana social-ecological system (southwestern Spain)

Author

Listed:
  • Martín-López, Berta
  • García-Llorente, Marina
  • Palomo, Ignacio
  • Montes, Carlos

Abstract

The ecosystems of the Doñana social-ecological system (southwestern Spain) provide numerous ecosystem services to society. We valued the most important ecosystem services through a market-based approach, revealed-preference and stated-preference methods to assess the conservation effectiveness of the Doñana Protected Area, with consideration of existing human activities in surrounding lands. We also analysed the spatial distribution of the ecosystem services beneficiaries and the scale of their related markets. We found a clear trade-off between the local and global market values of ecosystem services because landscape management outside of the Doñana Protected Area promotes the provision of ecosystem services associated with international markets. Our results suggest that a conservation against development model occurs in the Doñana social-ecological system, in which land use intensification takes place outside of the Protected Area borders as a result of promoting marketed ecosystem services, while biodiversity conservation is the main activity inside the Protected Area. We conclude that protected areas should be part of a larger-scale, adaptive landscape management strategy in which conservation planning should be the focal element in coordinating sectoral policies in the context of social-ecological systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Martín-López, Berta & García-Llorente, Marina & Palomo, Ignacio & Montes, Carlos, 2011. "The conservation against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana social-ecological system (southwestern Spain)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1481-1491, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:8:p:1481-1491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091100098X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    2. Gordon, Line J. & Finlayson, C. Max & Falkenmark, Malin, 2010. "Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 512-519, April.
    3. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bunse, Lukas & Rendon, Olivia & Luque, Sandra, 2015. "What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 88-97.
    2. Willaarts, Bárbara A. & Volk, Martin & Aguilera, Pedro A., 2012. "Assessing the ecosystem services supplied by freshwater flows in Mediterranean agroecosystems," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 21-31.
    3. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    4. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Stefano Bartolini & Francesco Sarracino, 2021. "Happier and Sustainable. Possibilities for a post-growth society," Department of Economics University of Siena 855, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    6. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    7. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    8. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    9. Oliver Fromm, 2000. "Ecological Structure and Functions of Biodiversity as Elements of Its Total Economic Value," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 303-328, July.
    10. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2000. "A note on the warm glow of giving and scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 343-349, August.
    11. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, January.
    12. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    13. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    14. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    15. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    16. Inderst, Roman & Opp, Markus, 2022. "Socially optimal sustainability standards with non-consequentialist ("warm glow") investors," SAFE Working Paper Series 346, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    17. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    18. Haobo Feng & Jian Hou & Jiahui Jiang & Linfang Shi, 2024. "Land Use Optimization from the Perspective of Multiple Stakeholder Groups: A Case Study in Yongsheng County, Yunnan Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, September.
    19. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August.
    20. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:8:p:1481-1491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.