IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v5y2013i2p654-663d23573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Isolation and Natural Park Coverage for Landrace In situ Conservation: An Approach from the Montseny Mountains (NE Spain)

Author

Listed:
  • Martí Boada

    (Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193, Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
    Department of Geography, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193, Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain)

  • Jordi Puig

    (Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193, Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain)

  • Carles Barriocanal

    (Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193, Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
    Department of Geography, Universitat de Girona, 17071, Girona, Spain)

Abstract

Human isolation in mountain areas has an extra cost for the people living there, because they occasionally have to face harsh environmental conditions. Such adaptation to the environment can be faced in several ways, and in situ landrace conservation is a proposed strategy that concerns food acquisition and maintenance. However, human isolation could also be affected as a result of residing inside a protected area. In this paper, we assess the correlation between the in situ landraces conserved by farmers and the location of the farms inside or outside of a protected area (Montseny Mountains Biosphere Reserve and Natural Park). The variables of isolation, calculated as the time needed to reach the nearest market and the effect of altitude, were also considered. We interviewed 28 farmers, 12 inside and 16 outside of the protected area, and identified a total of 69 landraces. Those farms located inside the boundaries of the Natural Park retained more landraces than those located outside. There was also a positive and significant correlation between the landraces cultivated and the degree of isolation. The effect of altitude did not appear to be a relevant variable. Finally, a total of 38 landraces were located only on farms inside the Natural Park, 13 were found outside and 18 were cropped in both territories.

Suggested Citation

  • Martí Boada & Jordi Puig & Carles Barriocanal, 2013. "The Effects of Isolation and Natural Park Coverage for Landrace In situ Conservation: An Approach from the Montseny Mountains (NE Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-10, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:5:y:2013:i:2:p:654-663:d:23573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/2/654/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/2/654/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Calvet-Mir, Laura & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Reyes-García, Victoria, 2012. "Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 153-160.
    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. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Soy-Massoni, Emma & Langemeyer, Johannes & Varga, Diego & Sáez, Marc & Pintó, Josep, 2016. "The importance of ecosystem services in coastal agricultural landscapes: Case study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 43-52.
    3. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    4. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    5. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    6. Leslie Gray & Laureen Elgert & Antoinette WinklerPrins, 2020. "Theorizing urban agriculture: north–south convergence," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(3), pages 869-883, September.
    7. Giulia Giacchè & Jean-Noël Consalès & Baptiste J-P. Grard & Anne-Cécile Daniel & Claire Chenu, 2021. "Toward an Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services Delivered by Urban Micro-Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Bliss, Sam & Egler, Megan, 2020. "Ecological Economics Beyond Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    9. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. McPhearson, Timon & Kremer, Peleg & Hamstead, Zoé A., 2013. "Mapping ecosystem services in New York City: Applying a social–ecological approach in urban vacant land," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 11-26.
    11. Wubante Fetene Admasu & Annelies Boerema & Jan Nyssen & Amare Sewnet Minale & Enyew Adgo Tsegaye & Steven Van Passel, 2020. "Uncovering Ecosystem Services of Expropriated Land: The Case of Urban Expansion in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, October.
    12. Hellen Naigaga & Joseph Ssekandi & Ablaye Ngom & Godfrey Sseremba & Mame Samba Mbaye & Kandioura Noba, 2021. "Ethnobotanical knowledge of home garden plant species and its effect on home garden plant diversity in Thies region of Senegal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7524-7536, May.
    13. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    14. Palomo-Campesino, Sara & García-Llorente, Marina & Hevia, Violeta & Boeraeve, Fanny & Dendoncker, Nicolas & González, José A., 2022. "Do agroecological practices enhance the supply of ecosystem services? A comparison between agroecological and conventional horticultural farms," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    15. Albizua, Amaia & Pascual, Unai & Corbera, Esteve, 2019. "Large-scale Irrigation Impacts Socio-cultural Values: An Example from Rural Navarre, Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 354-361.
    16. Sam Bliss, 2019. "The Case for Studying Non-Market Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-30, June.
    17. Affek, Andrzej Norbert & Kowalska, Anna, 2017. "Ecosystem potentials to provide services in the view of direct users," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 183-196.
    18. Tibesigwa, Byela & Ntuli, Herbert & Muta, Telvin, 2022. "We can incorporate agriculture ecosystems into urban green economy in Tanzania: Dar es Salaam households are willing to pay," EfD Discussion Paper 22-19, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    19. Marina García-Llorente & Cristiano M. Rossignoli & Francesco Di Iacovo & Roberta Moruzzo, 2016. "Social Farming in the Promotion of Social-Ecological Sustainability in Rural and Periurban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-15, November.
    20. Sarah Duddigan & Paul D. Alexander & Liz J. Shaw & Taru Sandén & Chris D. Collins, 2020. "The Tea Bag Index—UK: Using Citizen/Community Science to Investigate Organic Matter Decomposition Rates in Domestic Gardens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.

    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:5:y:2013:i:2:p:654-663:d:23573. 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.