IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i22p6391-d286671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Productivity vs. Ecological Protection in Danube Floodplain. Case Study: Danube’s Sector between Olt and Vedea

Author

Listed:
  • Iuliana Vijulie

    (Faculty of Geography, Bucharest University, N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Mihaela Preda

    (Faculty of Geography, Bucharest University, N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Ana Irina Lequeux-Dincă

    (Faculty of Geography, Bucharest University, N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Roxana Cuculici

    (Faculty of Geography, Bucharest University, N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Elena Matei

    (Faculty of Geography, Bucharest University, N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Alina Mareci

    (Faculty of Geography, Bucharest University, N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Gabriela Manea

    (Faculty of Geography, Bucharest University, N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Anca Tudoricu

    (Faculty of Geography, Bucharest University, N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

For a long time, wetlands were perceived as non-productive areas and were drained in an attempt to increase Romania’s agricultural surface, without acknowledging their ecological functions. This paper aims to identify possible ecological restoration models for the Danube floodplain according to the principles of sustainable development and the needs of the population living and working here. The research methodology included direct field observation, GIS techniques, and the survey method. The analysis proved the need for achieving the ecological restoration of this area while ensuring a harmonious relationship between nature and economic activities. After evaluating the views of local decision-making actors, different groups of stakeholders with divergent opinions emerged. While owners of agricultural holdings and agriculture experts pleaded for maintaining the status quo, NGOs voted for complete ecological restoration, and landowners with small farms, local authorities’ representatives, and environmental experts argued for partial ecological restoration. The study emphasises that the ecological restoration of the Danube floodplain is necessary but only possible through a consensus between the existing stakeholders and done based on the principles of sustainable development (conserving its biodiversity, protection against floods, economic activities).

Suggested Citation

  • Iuliana Vijulie & Mihaela Preda & Ana Irina Lequeux-Dincă & Roxana Cuculici & Elena Matei & Alina Mareci & Gabriela Manea & Anca Tudoricu, 2019. "Economic Productivity vs. Ecological Protection in Danube Floodplain. Case Study: Danube’s Sector between Olt and Vedea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6391-:d:286671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6391/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6391/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zbigniew Kundzewicz & Uwe Ulbrich & Tim brücher & Dariusz Graczyk & Andreas Krüger & Gregor Leckebusch & Lucas Menzel & Iwona Pińskwar & Maciej Radziejewski & Małgorzata Szwed, 2005. "Summer Floods in Central Europe – Climate Change Track?," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 36(1), pages 165-189, September.
    2. Biyun Guo & Taiping Xie & M.V. Subrahmanyam, 2019. "The Impact of China’s Grain for Green Program on Rural Economy and Precipitation: A Case Study of Yan River Basin in the Loess Plateau," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    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. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    2. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    4. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Katharina Löhr & Christian Hochmuth & Frieder Graef & Jane Wambura & Stefan Sieber, 2017. "Conflict management programs in trans-disciplinary research projects: the case of a food security project in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1189-1201, December.
    6. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    7. repec:sae:envval:v:18:y:2009:i:2:p:153-176 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Viveros, Hector, 2017. "Unpacking stakeholder mechanisms to influence corporate social responsibility in the mining sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    9. Raphael Hoerler & Fabian Haerri & Merja Hoppe, 2019. "New Solutions in Sustainable Commuting—The Attitudes and Experience of European Stakeholders and Experts in Switzerland," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Saint Ville, Arlette S. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Phillip, Leroy E., 2017. "How do stakeholder interactions influence national food security policy in the Caribbean? The case of Saint Lucia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 53-64.
    11. Edossa, D. C. & Babel, M. S. & Das Gupta, A. & Awulachew, Seleshi Bekele, 2005. "Indigenous systems of conflict resolution in Oromia, Ethiopia," IWMI Books, Reports H038765, International Water Management Institute.
    12. Cécile Barnaud & Annemarie van Paassen, 2013. "Equity, power games, and legitimacy: dilemmas of participatory natural resource management," Post-Print hal-01386409, HAL.
    13. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    14. Segadlo, Nadine, 2021. "Navigating through an external agenda and internal preferences: Ghana's national migration policy," IDOS Discussion Papers 8/2021, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    15. Shang-Shu Shih & Sheng-Chi Yang & Huei-Tau Ouyang, 2014. "Anthropogenic effects and climate change threats on the flood diversion of Erchung Floodway in Tanshui River, northern Taiwan," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 73(3), pages 1733-1747, September.
    16. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    17. Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "No Stakeholder Is an Island: Human Barriers and Enablers in Participatory Environmental Modelling," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, February.
    18. Edossa, D. C. & Awulachew, Seleshi Bekele & Namara, Regassa E. & Babel, M. S. & Das Gupta, A., 2007. "Indigenous systems of conflict resolution in Oromia, Ethiopia," IWMI Books, Reports H040692, International Water Management Institute.
    19. Xenarios, S. & Tziritis, I., 2007. "Improving pluralism in Multi Criteria Decision Aid approach through Focus Group technique and Content Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 692-703, May.
    20. Marion Glaser & Rosete Da Silva Oliveira, 2004. "Prospects for the co‐management of mangrove ecosystems on the North Brazilian coast: Whose rights, whose duties and whose priorities?," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 28(3), pages 224-233, August.
    21. Huber, Robert & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Brown, Calum & El Benni, Nadja & Feil, Jan-Henning & Grohmann, Pascal & Joormann, Ineke & Leonhardt, Heidi & Mitter, Hermine & Müller, Birgit, 2024. "Farm typologies for understanding farm systems and improving agricultural policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6391-:d:286671. 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.