IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i6p785-d1407169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Spanish Population Pro-Conservation or Pro-Utilitarian towards Threatened Flora? Social Analysis on the Willingness to Protect Biodiversity

Author

Listed:
  • Jose A. Algarra

    (Department of Botany, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
    Botanic Garden Hoya de Pedraza (Sierra Nevada), The Environment and Water Agency of Andalusia, 18014 Granada, Spain)

  • María M. Ramos-Lorente

    (Department of Sociology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain)

  • Paloma Cariñanos

    (Department of Botany, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
    Andalusian Institute for Earth System Research (IISTA-CEAMA), University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain)

Abstract

Conserving biodiversity in the context of global change is a challenge for the sustainability of life as we know it. Scientific protection work, particularly for flora, often lacks interdisciplinary approaches that consider human dynamics. The main objective is to evaluate the level of commitment of Spanish society toward the conservation of biodiversity in general and vascular flora in particular. As a secondary objective, it aims to contribute to the transfer between management and the general population. Methodologically, the survey has been used to estimate the willingness to protect threatened flora. The surveyed population is structured on the basis of its commitment to biodiversity conservation into: pro-conservation or pro-utilitarian group. The results are conclusive and indicate a high commitment of the Spanish society to conservation in aspects such as fees or legislative limitations on owners. It also reveals a deficiency in the transfer of the efforts made, from management, to society. It can be concluded that the survey, as a tool, allows us to know the starting social reality, detect weaknesses and deficiencies that allow management to be adapted to that reality, replicate work longitudinally to know the evolution of the measures and, indirectly, bring reality closer, of conservation to the people surveyed (science transfer).

Suggested Citation

  • Jose A. Algarra & María M. Ramos-Lorente & Paloma Cariñanos, 2024. "Is the Spanish Population Pro-Conservation or Pro-Utilitarian towards Threatened Flora? Social Analysis on the Willingness to Protect Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-34, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:6:p:785-:d:1407169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/6/785/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/6/785/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kareiva, Peter & Tallis, Heather & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Daily, Gretchen C. & Polasky, Stephen (ed.), 2011. "Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199589005, December.
    2. B. A. Bastien-Olvera & M. N. Conte & X. Dong & T. Briceno & D. Batker & J. Emmerling & M. Tavoni & F. Granella & F. C. Moore, 2024. "Unequal climate impacts on global values of natural capital," Nature, Nature, vol. 625(7996), pages 722-727, January.
    3. Alvarado, Rafael & Tillaguango, Brayan & López-Sánchez, Michelle & Ponce, Pablo & Işık, Cem, 2021. "Heterogeneous impact of natural resources on income inequality: The role of the shadow economy and human capital index," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 690-704.
    4. F. Stuart Chapin III & Erika S. Zavaleta & Valerie T. Eviner & Rosamond L. Naylor & Peter M. Vitousek & Heather L. Reynolds & David U. Hooper & Sandra Lavorel & Osvaldo E. Sala & Sarah E. Hobbie & Mic, 2000. "Consequences of changing biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 234-242, May.
    5. Myo Myo Khine & Uma Langkulsen, 2023. "The Implications of Climate Change on Health among Vulnerable Populations in South Africa: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-19, February.
    6. Paul F. Whiteley, 2000. "Economic Growth and Social Capital," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(3), pages 443-466, June.
    7. Edward B Barbier, 2019. "The concept of natural capital," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(1), pages 14-36.
    8. N. Jones & J. Clark, 2014. "Social capital and the public acceptability of climate change adaptation policies: a case study in Romney Marsh, UK," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(2), pages 133-145, March.
    9. Zhen Guo & Xiaoxing Ren & Jinzhe Zhao & Liying Jiao & Yan Xu, 2021. "Can Pets Replace Children? The Interaction Effect of Pet Attachment and Subjective Socioeconomic Status on Fertility Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-12, August.
    10. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, 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. Han-Shen Chen & Wan-Yu Liu & Chi-Ming Hsieh, 2017. "Integrating Ecosystem Services and Eco-Security to Assess Sustainable Development in Liuqiu Island," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-14, June.
    2. De Valck, Jeremy & Broekx, Steven & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Testing the influence of substitutes in nature valuation by using spatial discounting factors," Working Papers 182808, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    3. Fletcher, Ruth & Baulcomb, Corinne & Hall, Clare & Hussain, Salman, 2014. "Revealing marine cultural ecosystem services in the Black Sea," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PA), pages 151-161.
    4. Jeremy Valck & Steven Broekx & Inge Liekens & Joris Aertsens & Liesbet Vranken, 2017. "Testing the Influence of Substitute Sites in Nature Valuation by Using Spatial Discounting Factors," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(1), pages 17-43, January.
    5. Daniel Horn & Hubert Kiss Janos & Sára Khayouti, 2020. "Does trust associate with political regime?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2013, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    7. Oasis Kodila-Tedika & Julius Agbor, 2016. "Does Trust Matter for Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Cross-Section of Countries," Economies, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Martin Van Bueren & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32, March.
    9. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. 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.
    11. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    12. Kostakis, Ioannis & Lolos, Sarantis & Doulgeraki, Charikleia, 2020. "Cultural Heritage led Growth: Regional evidence from Greece (1998-2016)," MPRA Paper 98443, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    14. Veeman, Michele M. & Unterschultz, James R., 2000. "Pork Market Development Research Project: Market Potential For Alberta'S Pork In Selected U.S. Markets," Project Report Series 24054, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    15. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    16. Tabi, Andrea & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2014. "What makes people seal the green power deal? — Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 206-215.
    17. Tiziano Gomiero, 2015. "Are Biofuels an Effective and Viable Energy Strategy for Industrialized Societies? A Reasoned Overview of Potentials and Limits," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-31, June.
    18. Bogoni, Juliano André & Peres, Carlos A. & Ferraz, Katia M.P.M.B., 2020. "Effects of mammal defaunation on natural ecosystem services and human well being throughout the entire Neotropical realm," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    19. Chang, Jae Bong & Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K., 2009. "Health Concerns and Consumer Preferences for Soy Foods: Choice Modeling Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49591, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Lienhoop, Nele & Ansmann, Till, 2011. "Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1250-1258, May.

    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:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:6:p:785-:d:1407169. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.