@article{RODRIGUEZRODRIGUEZ2024100965,

title = {Socioeconomic impacts of small conserved sites on rural communities in Madagascar},

author = {D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez and N. Knecht and J. C. Llopis and R. A. Heriarivo and H. Rakotoarison and V. Andriamampionomanjaka and E. Navarro-Jurado and V. Randriamamonjy},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211464524000034},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2024.100965},

issn = {2211-4645},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-01-01},

urldate = {2024-01-01},

journal = {Environmental Development},

pages = {100965},

abstract = {Madagascar is considered one of the top global biodiversity hotspots while at the same time is among the world's least developed countries. Pressing socioeconomic needs such as food provision often lead to unsustainable land use and widespread loss, fragmentation and degradation of natural habitats. Thus, ascertaining the socioeconomic effects of small conserved sites is urgent in order to show their benefits and identify their costs to attain sustainable rural development on the island. Here, we used structured questionnaires in two surveys to key local stakeholders, including 1) managers of three conserved sites smaller than 100 ha, and 2) local communities living around such sites (cases) and similar neighbouring communities unaffected by those conserved sites (controls), following a Before-After-Control-Impact design. Median income did not differ between case and control communities, although case communities reported better self-perception of their economic situation and wider availability of basic services. Substantial revenues from tourism accrued only to one local community from a conveniently located, community-managed site: Anja Community Reserve. No differences in the economic effects from the establishment of the conserved sites were found between sex, age or education levels of community members. Exploitation of natural resources from conserved sites was either prohibited (two sites) or severely restricted (one site). As a result, case communities tended to collect fewer natural resources from nearby areas than control communities. Contrary to expectations, case communities reported less economic impact than control communities during the COVID-19 pandemic even though visitors were reduced to zero, which likely indicate greater socioeconomic resilience due to previous community investments and greater availability of ecosystem services. Successful, bottom-up and replicable approaches to locally manage natural resources sustainably are urgently needed in a country with rich and vanishing biodiversity, weak institutions, high poverty rates and strong dependence on natural resources for subsistence.},

keywords = {Biodiversity, Conservation and management, Ecosystem services, Environmental conservation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Petersen2022,

title = {Ecosystem extent accounts for Europe},

author = {J.E. Petersen and E. Mancosu and S. King},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101457},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101457},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-07-31},

journal = {Ecosystem Services},

volume = {57},

number = {101457},

issue = {October 2022},

abstract = {This paper describes the set-up and results for ecosystem extent accounts at European level, developed in the context of the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting - Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). These accounts inform on the opening and closing ‘stocks’ of ecosystems and provide essential geo-spatial data to support the calculation of ecosystem condition and services accounts. The paper presents the first set of ecosystem extent accounts for Europe, covering the period 2000–2018. These show that ecosystems are relatively stable at the European scale, with significant increases in Urban ecosystems and some decrease in Heathland and shrub and Grassland ecosystems. The paper demonstrates the use of a flexible geo-spatial database to gain analytical insights for different ecosystem accounting areas, using European biogeographical regions and Natura 2000 areas as examples. More detailed ecosystem extent accounts (tier II and tier III) show trends inter alia for Agro-forestry, Peat Bog, Beaches, dunes and sands as well as Salt marsh ecosystems, important for biodiversity and ecosystem services. The accounting approach presented delivers a geo-spatial data foundation that can support further ecosystem analysis and accounts. This enables the targeting of ecosystem analysis on specific geographic areas and policy instruments.},

keywords = {Conservation and management, Ecosystem, Ecosystem services, Environmental conservation, Land and soil},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Rodríguez-Rodríguez2021,

title = {Are protected areas good for the human species? Effects of protected areas on rural depopulation in Spain},

author = {D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez and R. Larrubia and J.D. Sinoga},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720379304#!},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144399},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-04-21},

journal = {Science of The Total Environment},

volume = {763},

abstract = {Protected areas (PAs) seek to conserve valuable genes, species and ecosystems by applying a legal regime that restricts some socioeconomic activities and also offers opportunities for new ones. As a result, PAs have been claimed by some authors to boost socioeconomic conditions in rural areas mainly through tourism activities. However, others have claimed that PAs contribute to rural depopulation through the worsening of living conditions of local residents because of restrictions resulting from protection regulations. Here, we applied a multiple-paired Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) research design on a census on protected rural municipalities (cases; N = 52) versus unprotected rural municipalities (controls; N = 55) in Spain to ascertain whether PAs had positive or negative effects on rural populations using three indicators on depopulation with official municipal data from 1996 until 2019: Compound annual growth rate (CAGR); Proportion of reproductive individuals (REP); and Proportion of reproductive females (WREP). We controlled for some confounders such as biophysical characteristics and regional regulations by carefully selecting our sample of municipalities spatially. Our results show that depopulation figures were worse in cases than in controls, with some exceptions whose characteristics should be further explored. Municipalities in Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) performed best against rural depopulation and generally better than their controls, whereas municipalities in Biosphere Reserves and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) showed mostly worse figures. Our findings suggest that, while necessary and important for biodiversity, multiple-use PAs generally entailed negative consequences for Spanish rural populations that need to be offset by State's intervention.},

keywords = {Conservation and management, Ecosystem services, Environmental conservation, Marine protected areas, Protected areas},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Hatziiordanou2019,

title = {Indicators for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition and of the ecosystem service habitat maintenance in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020},

author = {L. Hatziiordanou and E. Fitoka and E. Hadjicharalampous and N.E. Votsi and D. Palaskas and D. Abdul-Malak},

url = {https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/article/32704/},

doi = {10.3897/oneeco.4.e32704},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-06-13},

journal = {One Ecosystem},

volume = {4},

number = {e32704},

abstract = {A systematic approach to map and assess the “maintenance of nursery populations and habitats” ecosystem service (ES) (hereinafter called “habitat maintenance”) has not yet emerged. In this article, we present an ecosystem service framework implementation at landscape level, by proposing an approach for calculating and combining a series of indicators with spatial modelling techniques. Necessary conceptual elements for this approach are: a) ecosystem condition, b) supply and demand of the targeted ecosystem service and c) spatial relationships between the Service Providing Units (SPU) and the Service Connecting Units (SCU). Ecosystem condition is quantified and mapped based on two indicators, the Biodiversity State and the Anthropogenic Impact. Quantification and mapping of supply and demand are based on the hypothesis that high supply can be activated in strictly protected areas and that a demand is localised in the Natura 2000 sites (N2K), considering them as the Service Benefit Areas (SBA). Wetlands are assessed as SCU between the SBA and the landscape areas where the habitat maintenance ES is supplied. By assessing wetlands as SCU, we intent to highlight their role as biodiversity stepping stones and as green infrastructures. Overall, we conclude that the EU biodiversity policy demand for no net loss and for a coherent N2K network can be met by enhancing the delivery of the habitat maintenance ES. This approach can assist policy-makers in prioritisation of conservation and restoration targets, in line with the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 and the preparation of the post-2020 Strategy.},

keywords = {Biodiversity, Climate Change, Conservation and management, Ecosystem services, Forest, Land and soil, Pressures, Wetlands},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Rodríguez-Rodríguez2018e,

title = {Representation and protection of the threatened biodiversity by the largest Spanish regional network of protected areas},

author = {D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez and J. Martínez-Vega},

url = {https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00878},

doi = {10.3354/esr00878},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-03-15},

journal = {Endangered Species Research},

volume = {35},

pages = {125-139},

abstract = {The main global strategy to stop biodiversity loss is the designation of protected areas (PAs). Spain is a highly biodiverse country. It has one of the world's greatest terrestrial PA coverages. However, the status of its biodiversity is delicate as a result of serious pressures, and some important areas for biodiversity are outside PAs. We used official census data to spatially assess how 71 habitats of community interest (HCIs), 126 regionally threatened flora, fauna and fungi species and subspecies (RTSs), and 33 globally threatened species or subspecies (GTSs) are represented in a network of 404 PAs in Andalusia, a region rich in biodiversity in southern Spain. We also assessed the legal and managerial protection afforded to these threatened habitats and species by those PAs. The Andalusian PA network expands across one-third of the region’s territory and includes the threatened species’ richest areas. However, it only covers 57% of the area of occupancy of RTSs, 81% of the regional area of occupancy of GTSs, and 53% of the extent of HCIs. Over 61% of the regional PA network area is assigned more than 1 PA designation category, although cumulative legal protection is marginally related to RTS richness and unrelated to GTS richness. RTSs and especially GTSs occupy the most relative area in Ramsar sites (i.e. wetlands of international importance), although these are of relatively minor importance for threatened habitats. Wetlands and agricultural areas are the broad ecosystem types showing the greatest numbers of RTSs and GTSs. Seven GTSs were not included in the Andalusian Register of Threatened Species. One hundred and eleven unprotected Areas of High Importance for Threatened Species (AHITSs) and one Area of High Importance for Threatened Biodiversity (AHITB) were identified. Those species and sites are good candidates for a targeted expansion of legal protection of biodiversity in the region.},

keywords = {Biodiversity, Conservation and management, Ecosystem services, Pressures, Protected areas, SOSTPARK},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{etal.al.2018,

title = {Practical solutions for bottlenecks in ecosystem services mapping},

author = {I. Palomo et al.},

url = {https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/article/20713/element/8/46777/},

doi = {10.3897/oneeco.3.e20713},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

journal = {One Ecosystem},

volume = {3},

abstract = {Background

Ecosystem services (ES) mapping is becoming mainstream in many sustainability assessments, but its impact on real world decision-making is still limited. Robustness, end-user relevance and transparency have been identified as key attributes needed for effective ES mapping. However, these requirements are not always met due to multiple challenges, referred to here as bottlenecks, that scientists, practitioners, policy makers and users from other public and private sectors encounter along the mapping process.



New information

A selection of commonly encountered ES mapping bottlenecks that relate to seven themes: i) map-maker map-user interaction; ii) nomenclature and ontologies; iii) skills and background; iv) data and maps availability; v) methods-selection; vi) technical difficulties; and vii) over-simplification of mapping process/output. The authors synthesise the variety of solutions already applied by map-makers and map-users to mitigate or cope with these bottlenecks and discuss the emerging trade-offs amongst different solutions. Tackling the bottlenecks described here is a crucial first step towards more effective ES mapping, which can in turn ensure the adequate impact of ES mapping in decision-making.},

keywords = {Ecosystem services, Geotechnology, Land and soil},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{etal.al.2016,

title = {An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020},

author = {J. Maes et al.},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041615300504},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-02-01},

journal = {Ecosystem Services},

volume = {17},

pages = {14-23},

abstract = {In the EU, the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, abbreviated to MAES, is seen as a key action for the advancement of biodiversity objectives, and also to inform the development and implementation of related policies on water, climate, agriculture, forest, marine and regional planning. In this study, we present the development of an analytical framework which ensures that consistent approaches are used throughout the EU. It is framed by a broad set of key policy questions and structured around a conceptual framework that links human societies and their well-being with the environment. Next, this framework is tested through four thematic pilot studies, including stakeholders and experts working at different scales and governance levels, which contributed indicators to assess the state of ecosystem services. Indicators were scored according to different criteria and assorted per ecosystem type and ecosystem services using the common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) as typology. We concluded that there is potential to develop a first EU wide ecosystem assessment on the basis of existing data if they are combined in a creative way. However, substantial data gaps remain to be filled before a fully integrated and complete ecosystem assessment can be carried out.},

keywords = {Biodiversity, Conservation and management, Ecosystem services, Forest, Wetlands},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}