Sergio TFM

Design of policy measures to protect ecosystem services from
cultural landscapes. A case study in the traditional vineyards
of Doñana, Spain.
Photo: Sergio Baraibar
Master´s Degree in Interdisciplinary Studies in Environmental, Economic and
Social Sustainability
Major: Ecological Economics
Selected scientific journal: Journal of Land Use Policy
Supervisor: Erik Gómez-Baggethun
Co-supervisor: Ignacio Palomo
Submission date: 01/09/2015

1
Design of policy measures to protect ecosystem services from cultural landscapes.
A case study in the traditional vineyards of Doñana, Spain
SERGIO BARAIBAR MOLINA
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Autonomous University of
Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
Abstract
Traditional vineyards in the surroundings of the Doñana protected areas (SW Spain) are
outstanding cultural landscapes with important economic, ecological and historical values.
Since 1980, however, they are shrinking in terms of cultivated surface, number of employed
farmers, and production, matching with the world´s overall tendency since 2000. The aim of the
thesis is to examine the applicability of the ecosystem services concept to raise awareness of the
societal importance of cultural multifunctional landscapes and to contribute to the design of
policy measures for their protection and sustainable use. The specific objectives are to (1)
identify the ecosystem services associated with traditional vineyards and their perceived
importance for human well-being, (2) assess the trends followed by vineyards ecosystem
services over the last 20 years and the drivers of change explaining these trends, and (3) explore
the perceived importance and viability of different policy measures for their protection.
Methods for data sampling included semi-structured interviews, a participatory workshop, and a
survey (n=172). We identified 17 ecosystem services provided by Doñana’s vineyards,
including many regulating ecosystem services and cultural values. Overall, ecosystem services
are perceived to be declining strongly over the past 20 years, in particular provisioning and
regulating services. Economic and cultural factors, including lack of generational turnover and
stagnant grape prices were identified as major drivers behind the loss of traditional vineyards
and associated services. Policy measures such as efforts to raise awareness of the vineyards’
ecological and cultural importance, ecological labelling and subsidy reforms were perceived to
be both important and viable policy options by the locals whereas policy instruments such as tax
exemptions and payments for ecosystem services where considered less important and less
viable. Our results renders visible unaccounted ecological and cultural impacts from land use
changes driven by market-driven policies that are oblivious of environmental externalities and
cost shifts. In doing so, we hope that our data may give encourage the development of policy
instruments designed in the basis of more balanced consideration of the economic, ecological
and cultural dimensions at stake.
Key words:
Ecosystem services; cultural landscapes; Doñana; Protected Areas; Traditional rain-fed
vineyards; policy instruments

2
1) INTRODUCTION
Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005a) demonstrated that
60% of the world´s ecosystem services (ES) are degrading, interest in the ES approach has
grown exponentially (Fisher et al., 2007). In order to protect biodiversity and the ES it supports,
one of the most important worldwide conservation tools in recent decades has been protected
areas (Chape et al., 2005; Naughton-Treves et al., 2005; Pyke, 2007). Research, however
suggests that protected areas alone cannot secure the long-term sustenance of biodiversity and
ES (Palomo et al. 2013). The stewardship of critical ecological processes at the surrounding and
more distant areas is necessary for a long-term sustainable territorial planning that prevents
degradation from land use change (Defries et al., 2005, Naughton-Treves et al., 2005). The case
for an integrated approach towards broader territorial stewardship is further motivated by
mounting research indicating that intensive land use often increases around protected areas
(Joppa et al., 2008; Radeloff et al., 2010; Svancara et al., 2009; Gimmi et al., 2011). From this
point of view, rethinking the “fortress conservation” model is necessary (Phillips, 2003). More
holistic approaches able to integrate conservation measures into territorial policies beyond
protected areas are increasingly necessary (Bengtsson et al., 2003), including the rural areas that
often surrounds protected areas.
One possible approach to integrated territorial planning in rural areas is to account for landscape
multifunctionality through the delivery of ES. The concept of Multifunctional Agriculture
(MFA) was endorsed in the Agenda 21´s documents of Rio Earth Summit in 1992 (UNCED,
1992). It stresses that, besides standard commodities such as food or biomass, agriculture also
produces important environmental, social and cultural non-commoditized outputs (Renting H. et
al., 2009; Hervieu, 2003). These include ES such as recreational opportunities, cultural identity,
aesthetic values, and biodiversity refugee, which directly or indirectly sustain quality of life
(Manson, 2014; MEA, 2003). In Europe, many rural areas are hotspots of ES delivery (Pinto-
Correira et al., 2006; Solymosi, 2011; Stenseke, 2009). These rural areas, including cultural
landscapes, are often managed by families with locally adapted traditional agriculture
techniques and/or subsistence-oriented practices (van Berkel and Verburg, 2014; IEEP, 2007).
Such areas represent a dynamic interface between culture and the environment that sustains
multiple cultural, ecological and economic values (van Berkel and Verburg, 2014). Today, these
cultural landscapes are threatened by demographic, urban and economic development. Due to
agricultural intensification, rural landscapes are suffering land use changes that hinder long-term
capacity to sustain biodiversity and ES (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010). In fact, land use
change has become one of the major drivers behind the loss of ES (Zorrilla-Miras et al., 2014;
Zimmermann, 2006).
The aim of this paper is to examine the applicability of the ES concept to raise awareness of the
societal importance of cultural multifunctional landscapes and to contribute to the design of
policy measures for their protection and sustainable use. Our analysis is based on the case study
of the traditional vineyards surrounding the Doñana protected area, in SW Spain. Specifically,
we (1) identify the ES associated with traditional vineyards and their perceived importance for
human well-being, (2) assess trends followed by vineyards ES over the last 20 years and the
drivers of change behind these trends, and (4) explore the perceived importance and viability of
different policy measures for maintaining traditional vineyards and associated bundles of ES.

3
2) CASE STUDY
2.1) Doñana Social Ecological System
Doñana is located at the end of the Guadalquivir watershed, in Andalusia, on the southwestern
coast of Spain (37°13´N, 6°27´W) (Fernández et al., 2010). Because of its long history of
human-nature co-evolution (Ojeda, 1987; 1990), Doñana has been characterized as a social-
ecological system (SES) (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Palomo et al., 2014). The Doñana SES
covers 3713 km2 of the provinces of Huelva, Sevilla and Cádiz and embeds 16 municipalities
(Figure1). The population amounts to 650,000 inhabitants and the economy is mostly based on
agriculture and tourism, both activities that are increasingly characterized as dependent on ES
(Palomo et al., 2014; Martín-López et al., 2010).
Figure1. Map of the municipalities of the Doñana Socio-ecological system showing the location
of the sample points and the limits of the Doñana Protected Area.
Doñana is one of the most emblematic wetlands in Europe for its outstanding ecological and
cultural values. It hosts a great biodiversity, is home to numerous unique invertebrate, animals
and plants species, and a main European stopover point for Europe-Africa birds migration
(Fernández et al., 2010; Scheffer et al., 2015). However, development policies over the 20th
century resulted in the conversion of about 75% of the wetlands for agricultural purposes
(Zorrilla-Miras et al., 2014), with severe loss of ES (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2011b). In order
to halt this degradation conservation polices were implemented since the 1960s. In 1969 545
km2 of Doñana were declared National Park and in 1989 540 km2 of the surrounding area were
declared a Natural Park. In 2005 both parks were unified under the umbrella of the Doñana
Natural Protected Area. Internationally, Doñana was recognized as an International Biosphere

4
Reserve in 1980, a special protected area for birds in 1988, Ramsar site in 1982 and a Natural
World Heritage site in 1995.
2.2) Traditional vineyards of Doñana
Traditional rain-fed vineyards are an historical crop of Doñana that compose multifunctional
cultural landscapes that witness a long-term human nature co-evolution (figure2). Today the
area they cover belongs to the “Wines from Huelva County” and entails a Designation of Origin
“County of Huelva wine and vinegar” which encompasses 18 municipalities since 1962. Eight
of them belongs to the Doñana SES and produces 80% of the “Wines from Huelva County”,
only 10ha (0,1km2
) from the Sevillan municipalities of the Doñana SES are aimed to vineyards
and none from Cádiz.
Figure2. Map of the traditional Doñana vineyards at the North of the Doñana protected area.
Source: courtesy of Fundación Doñana 21.
Huelva County vineyards employ around 3180 farmers very unevenly distributed in the
territory: 39% are from Bollullos Par del Condado, 16% from Rociana del Condado and 12%
from Almonte, whereas the remaining 33% is distributed among the other 15 municipalities.
The vast majority of the vineyards farmers (92%) are members of cooperatives. The area covers
around 54km2
split among smallholders, owning 1.5ha (0.015km2
) per farmer on average. The
municipality covering the largest share of the vineyard is Bollullos Par del Condado (41% of the
total), followed by Rociana del Condado (21%), and Almonte (15%). Although new varieties of
grapes are slowly increasing and gaining popularity (e.g. Palomino Fino, Listan B and Garrido
Fino), Huelva County produces mainly a single-variety of autochthonous grape called Zalema
covering 90% of the vineyard’s area.

5
Despite the good productivity of Doñana vineyards (76 hl/ha per year compared to the 30 hl/ha
per year of Spanish average), a local study found out that without the contribution of family
labor, no vineyard exploitation would be economically sustainable (Polonio et al., 2005).
According to this study, the vineyards survive only because of the importance of non-economic
values such as the farmers’ strong attachment to land, property distribution (the small size of the
exploitations allows for 100% familiar employees) solidarity networks (the labor exchange with
neighbors reduces costs to “0”) and because the use draft animals that are subsequently
amortized on typical local fetes such as the Saca de yeguas. Almost all of Doñana vineyards act
as a household income supplement.
Wine consumption in the European Union (UE) has declined since the sixties. In order to
mitigate the subsequent production overage, subsidies to the uprooting were provided by the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) between 1988 and 1998 (in 1995 the sum amounted 4327€
per uprooted hectare). Besides, other factors such as a stagnant grape price, the aging of the
farmers or the lack of generational turnover contributed to negatively affect Doñana vineyards.
Since 1980, they are decreasing in terms of surface, employment and production. The 147 km2
covered by vineyards in 1983, was halved to 73 km2
over the course of the following decade and
today covers 54km2
. Coinciding with the economic crisis started in 2008, with the return of the
young workforce devoted to construction during the housing bubble, and the rise of wine
tourism, the sector has experienced a slight recovery but is still far from its historical levels. The
municipalities with larger vineyard area loss since 1999 were Almonte (5.5 km2
), Bollullos (3.5
km2
), and Rociana (1.7 km2
). During the period 1993-2003 the number of vineyard workers
declined by 30%, from 4155 to 2876. In parallel with these trends, production declined from an
average of 90.000 tons/year in the 1980s and 1990s to stagnate around 46.000 tons/year in the
last decade.
Vineyards form part of the Doñana identity and throughout the difficulties locals have managed
to maintain them alive for generations. However, if appropriated measures are not taken, their
surface might continue to be reduced and be replaced by more intensive crops as has already
happened in the area (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Zorrilla-Miras et al., 2014). In this
scenario, vineyards reduction could increase marsh siltation within Doñana National Park, and
critical regulating and cultural services could be degraded or lost.
3) METHODS
We used quantitative and qualitative methods including a literature review, semi-structured
interviews, participatory observation, a survey, and a participatory workshop. Field work was
conducted over 35 days (from the 17th
of November to the 21st
of December of 2014) in the
municipalities of Bollullos Par del Condado, Rociana del Condado and Almonte.
3.1) Background information and semi-structured interviews
A literature review was conducted from early September 2014 to March 2014 to gain general
knowledge of the area´s geography, history and socio-economic characteristics. Early in the
process, we contacted a local partner, the regional and rural development agency “Fundación
Doñana 21” (FD21), which provided abundant information and an initial list of contacts and key
stakeholders associated with the Doñana vineyards. The initial list of informants provided by
FD21 was thereafter enlarged using a snowball technique (Bernad, 2005).

6
Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted among key local informants, defined here
people having a long-term relation to the vineyards. These included winegrowers (two),
winemakers (two), a winery owner; a wine tourism entrepreneur; local elders with broader
perspectives about the vineyard evolution and land use change (two), and administrative staff of
a local municipality and the Doñana protected area (two). The interview was structured in three
main parts broadly corresponding with the research’s specific objectives. The first part gathered
information on the most important ES as perceived by the interviewees. The second section
aimed at assessing the main drivers of change affecting the vineyards and their services. Finally,
the third section gathered proposal about possible policy measures to protect the vineyards.
3.2) Workshop with local stakeholders
A workshop was organized at Privilegio Del Condado wineries on November 28th
2014 with the
participation of 13 local stakeholders (Figure3).
Figure3. Participatory workshop at Privilegio Del Condado wineries, Doñana. Photo: Sergio
Baraibar
Attendants included representatives from local municipalities, wine cooperatives, wine growers,
scientists and conservationists. The main objective of the workshop was to create an Advisory
Board in the framework of the project “Operationalizing natural capital and ecosystem services:
From concepts to real world applications - Openness” (http://www.openness-project.eu/) to
analyze options for applying the conceptual framework of ES to promote the protection of the
socio-cultural, ecological and economic values of Doñana vineyards. The methodology used
consisted of two questionnaires whose design was based on the semi-structured interviews with
stakeholders. The first questionnaire aimed to identify: i) the most important vineyards ES, ii)

7
the main drivers of change underlying their loss, and iii) the participant’s perception about the
viability of a series of policy measures affecting Doñana vineyards. The second questionnaire
was designed to gather information on the composition and functions of the advisory board
(Baraibar et al., 2014-unpublished document).
3.3) Survey
Finally, a survey was designed from the information gathered in the literature review, the semi-
structured interviews and the participatory workshop. It was conducted among 172 informants
in the municipalities of Bollullos par del Condado, Almonte, and Rociana del Condado
(figure1). Surveys lasted about 30 minutes and were structured into five main sections. Section
one gathered demographic and socioeconomic data of the respondents such as sex, age, place of
origin, profession and level of income and education. Section two gathered information about
the perceived level of importance of vineyards in the respondents´ well-being, using a closed-
ended question with the options “high”, “substantial”, “small” and “negligible”. Next,
informants were asked to select and rank the five ES they deemed most important for their well-
being out of 17 ES identified from the semi-structured interviews. To do so, we made use of
panels that included the names and photographs of the 17 ES thereafter validated in the
workshop organized with the members of the local Advisory Board. In the third section,
respondents were asked to indicate the perceived trend in the condition of the selected ES over
the last 20 years providing four possible choices (enhancing, stable, declining, or do not
know/do not answer). In the fourth section we offered the list of drivers of change identified
from the semi-structured interviews and asked respondents to numerically mark each proposal
between one and five (from very low to very high), according to their perceived importance.
The fifth section of the survey asked the perceived viability and importance of different policy
measures to protect the vineyards and associated ES, we used the same methodology than in the
section four with a list of ten possible measures identified from the semi-structured interviews.
3.4) Data analysis
Survey results were codified on a spreadsheet. To analyze data gathered in the survey we first
produced descriptive statistics for each ES, including perceived importance (proxied as number
of respondents who selected each ES as percentage of the total sample, N=172); aggregate
perception (summing the weights from one to five based on the ES position -one if it is ranked
last and five if it ranked first-) and tendency of ES over the last 20 years (standardization of
alternatives in: declining, stable, enhancing and do not know / answer, and percentages of the
total). Subsequently, to relate the answers on the most important ES with the tendencies over the
last 20 years, we created a scatter plot diagram representing the level of perceived importance
and vulnerability of each ES.
Next, we conducted a descriptive statistical analysis of the answers on the importance of
different drivers of change and on the importance and viability of each different policy measure.
Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed with the following variables: respondent
decision on ES and ES categories, drivers of change, policy measures and socio-demographic
variables.

8
4) RESULTS
4.1 Perceived importance of ecosystem services provided by vineyards
Respondents to the semi-structured interviews identified 17 ES provided by the vineyards,
covering provisioning services - such as food products -, regulating services – such as the
function of vineyards as ecological corridors and soil retention through their root systems-, and
cultural services, such as their role in cultural identity and their aesthetic value. Many identified
services broadly correspond with categories or subcategories of established international ES
classifications such as the MA (2005) or TEEB (2010) whereas others capture benefits that are
more specific of local vineyards (e.g. village fetes or wine tourism).
Results from the ranking of ES obtained from the survey according to perceived importance for
well-being can be summarized as follows. Out of the total sample of 172 respondents, 91.3%
perceived that vineyards areas provide "high" (66.9%) or "substantial" (24.4%) benefits to their
well-being while the rest perceived these benefits as being “small” (6.4%), or “negligible”
(1.2%), or didn´t answer (1.1%). All the 17 ES compiled in the panels were selected by some
respondent. Services that stand out for being selected by more than 50% of the sample include,
by order of importance: “Grapes, wine and vinegar” (63% of respondents), “Cultural identity”
(62%), “Ecological corridor” (55%), and “Sedimentation and erosion control” (55%) (Figure4).
Figure4. Perceived importance of ecosystem services provided by vineyards. Percentage represents the
proportion between the number of time respondents selected the ES in relation with the total number of
respondents (N=172)
The aggregate perception (Appendix A), after weighting the values based on the ES position,
shows only a raise of agro-biodiversity refugee in detriment of the provisioning service of
biomass. In the participatory workshop four ES were predominant among others. Participants
considered the regulating service of “sedimentation and erosion control” the most important
5%
8%
8%
9%
11%
13%
15%
21%
23%
29%
35%
42%
44%
55%
55%
62%
63%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Firewall
Pest and disease control
Agrobiodiversity refugee
Biomass
Traditional farming techniques
Traditional ecological knowledge
Climate regulation
Artistic manifestations associated to vineyard
Cohesive and social unifier
Village fetes
Water regulation
Wine tourism
Aesthetic value
Sedimentation and erosion controls
Ecological corridor
Cultural identity
Grapes, wine and vinegar

9
vineyard ES then with the same score “ecological corridor”, “grapes wine and vinegar” and
“cultural identity”. Being very consistent with the results obtain in the survey.
When the sample was divided by work field our nonparametric K-W test shows statistical co-
relations regarding the prioritization of the ES category. Appendix B show that workers with
relation to vineyards present a statistical tendency to elect as the most important ES, a
provisioning service (mostly “grape wine and vinegar”) (K=11.95; p-value=0.001). Appendix C
shows that the same sub-sample presents a marked tendency to select ES from the three
different ES categories, the rest of the sample present similar tendency but less frequent
(K=12.13; p-value=0.001).
4.2 Trends in ecosystem services provision and drivers of change
Overall, our results suggest a generalized decline in the flow of ES, with all provisioning and
regulating services perceived to be either stable or declining and more mixed results for cultural
services. Aggregated data shows that 49.6% of the respondents perceived that ES from the
vineyards have declined overall compared to the, 23.6% and 13.3% which think respectively
they were stable or enhanced.
Table1 presents results on perceived trends by ES category. Excluding “do not know/do not
reply” answers (an indication of uncertainty), 65.5% of respondents perceived provisioning ES
to be declining compared to 20% who believes their condition is stable and 14.5% believe they
have enhanced. Similar result is obtained for regulating ES, where these proportions are 68.4%
(declining), 25.2% (stable) and 6.4% (enhance). With regard to cultural services, 47.7%
perceived them to be declining against 30.8% and 21.5% that perceived their condition to be
stable and enhancing respectively.
Table1. Tendency perceived in the last 20 years of the vineyards ecosystem services separated by
provisioning services, regulating services and cultural services.
ES tendency Provisioning services Regulating services Cultural services
Decline 72 65.5% 171 68.4% 183 47.7%
Stable 22 20% 63 25.2% 118 30.8%
Enhance 16 14.5% 16 6.4% 82 21.5%
Regarding individual ES (table2), “grape, wine and vinegar”, “biomass”, “ecological corridor”,
“sedimentation and erosion control”, “aesthetic value”, “traditional ecological knowledge”,
“traditional farming techniques” and “cohesive and social unifier” were perceived to be
declining. On the other hand ES like “village fetes”, “artistic manifestations associated to
vineyards”, “agro-biodiversity refugee”, “plague resistance” and “firewall function” are
perceived by the majority of respondents as having remained stable over the analyzed period.
The only ES that a majority of people perceives as having enhanced its condition is “wine
tourism”. Finally ES like “cultural identity”, “water regulation” and “climate regulation” present
similar values between declining and the other two variables.
Crossing our results of ES trends with results of ES importance (presented in the previous
section), the Scatter-plot diagram below (Figure5) classify the assessed ES according to
perceived level of vulnerability and importance, where the top right grid embeds ES perceived
as most important and most vulnerable. Our results show that the ES “Grape, wine and

10
vinegar”, “cultural identity”, “ecological corridor” and “sedimentation and erosion control” are
perceived as being both highly important and highly vulnerable.
Table2. Perception of vineyards ecosystem services trends over the last 20 years.
Ecosystem Service
Perceived condition
Declining Stable Enhancing
Do not know /
do not answer
Overall
perceived ES
conditionn % n % n % n %
Provisioning 72 58% 22 18% 16 13% 15 12% ↘
Food (grapes, wine and
vinegar)
63 57.8% 19 17.4% 16 14.7% 11 10.1% ↘
Biomass 9 56.3% 3 18.7% - - 4 25% ↘
Regulating 171 57.4% 63 21.1% 16 5.4% 48 16% ↘
Ecological corridor 65 68.4% 10 10.5% 7 7.3% 13 13.7% ↘
Sedimentation and
erosion control
67 70.5% 7 7.4% 4 4.2% 17 17.9% ↘
Water regulation 25 41% 23 37.7% 5 8.2% 8 13.1% ↘/↔
Climate regulation 11 42.3% 9 34.6% - - 6 23.1% ↘/↔
Plague resistance 3 21.4% 10 71.4% - - 1 7.2% ↔
Firewall 1 12.5% 4 50% - - 3 37.5% ↔
Cultural 183 42% 118 27% 82 19% 53 12% ↔
Cultural identity 50 46.7% 37 34.6% 11 10.3% 9 8.4% ↘/↔
Aesthetic value 41 54% 19 25% 3 3.9% 13 17.1% ↘
Wine tourism 3 4.1% 10 13.7% 52 82.5% 8 12.7% ↗
Village fetes 14 28% 28 56% 3 6% 5 10% ↔
Cohesive and social
unifier
26 66.7% 6 15.4% 2 5.1% 5 12.8% ↘
Artistic manifestations
associated to vineyards
9 25% 11 30.6% 7 19.4% 9 25% ↔
Traditional ecological
knowledge
19 86.5% 1 4.5% 1 4.5% 1 4.5% ↘
Traditional farming
techniques
18 94.7% - - - - 1 5.3% ↘
Agrobiodiversity
refugee
3 21.4% 6 42.9% 3 21.4% 2 14.3% ↔
TOTAL 426 49.6% 203 23.6% 114 13.3% 116 13.5% ↘
Figure5. Scatter-plot: Importance vs. vulnerability of the vineyards ecosystem services. Represent
the relation between the level of importance and vulnerability of the different ecosystem services. Data
collected from appendix A and table 2.
cultural identityaesthetic value
wine tourism
village fetes
social cohesive
art associated to
vineyards
traditional
ecological
knowledge
traditional
farming
techniques
agrobiodiversity
refugee
grape
biomass
ecological corridor
erosion control
water regulation
climate
regulation
pest controlfirewall
-50
-30
-10
10
30
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Levelofvulnerability
level of importance
Cultural services Provisioning services regulating services

11
Twelve major drivers of change were identified from the semi-structured interviews. Data from
the survey shows that of those 12 drivers, eight were perceived as having a very strong
influence, with mode values of five - equivalent to the highest level of importance (Figure6/
Appendix D). Drivers of change identified as affecting vineyards most strongly were, sorted by
perceived relevance, "lack of generational turnover", "subsidies to abandonment/uprooting",
"stagnant grape prices" and "changes in lifestyle”, all of which obtained similar score and mean
values (between four and five). Next drivers on the list by importance (average between 3.5 and
3.9) are “Lack of market channels”, “emergence of new sectors”, “devaluation of farming
profession” and “replacement with others crops”. Our data shows that the last four drivers of
change: “excess of intermediaries”, “Market liberalization”, “Smallholder organization” and
“Migration to the cities” were not perceived to have a major influence on vineyards trend.
Figure6. Drivers of change behind the loss of vineyards and associated ecosystem services.
Quantities represents the obtained mean relative to the minimum (1) and maximum (5) possible score.
The results obtained from the survey are highly consistent with the results obtained in the
participatory workshop, were the drivers perceived to be most prejudicial were “stagnant grape
price”, “loss of general change” and “subsidies to abandonment/uprooting”.
Our nonparametric K-W tests shows statistical significant co-relations between elected drivers
of change and age, educational levels and profession (Appendix E). For example, we observed
that perception of “subsidies to abandonment/uprooting” is positively correlated to age, where
from people over 40 granted greater importance to this driver (K=4.66; p-value=0.031). Divided
by educational level, we found statistically relevant correlations with the perceived importance
of “lack of generational turnover” (K=7.12; p-value 0.008), “replacement with other
crops”(K=8.51; p-value=0.004), “emergence of new sectors”(K=3.94; p-value=0.04), “market
liberation”(K=13.9; p-value=0,0001), “excess of intermediaries” (K=6.62; p-value=0.01),
“small holder organization” (K=11.43; p-value=0.001) and “migration to the cities”(K=6.82; p-
value=0.009), were higher perceived importance corresponded with higher levels of education.
Divided by work field, “Stagnant grape prices”(K=22.46; p-value=0.0001) was perceived as
being more importance by respondents with work related to vineyards, whereas “devaluation of
the farming profession” (K=12.64; p-value=0.0001); “emergence of new sectors”(K=4.95; p-
1,98
2,26
2,38
2,69
3,56
3,83
3,85
3,92
4,16
4,23
4,28
4,31
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
Migration to the cities
Smallholder organization
Market liberalization
Excess of intermediaries
Replacement with others crops
Devaluation of the farming profession
Emergence of new sectors
Lack of market channels
Changes in lifestyle
Stagnant grape prices
Subsidies to abandonment/uprooting
Lack of generational turnover

12
value=0.02); “replacement with other crops”(K=7.97; p-value=0.005); “market liberalization”
(K=5.34; p-value=0.02); and “smallholder organization” (K=7.23; p-value=0.007) obtained
lower values of perceived importance from respondents related to vineyards.
4.3 Policy measures to protect traditional rain-fed vineyards and related ES
Ten possible policy measures to protect traditional vineyards and the ES they provide stand out
from the semi-structured interviews to key informants, covering from educational measures (e.g.
awareness rising) to harder economic measures (Payments for Ecosystem Services and subsidy
reforms). Figure7 shows the distribution of responses. Two measures stand out both in terms of
importance and viability: “increasing social awareness” and “declaration as zone of high natural
value”.
Figure7. Perceived importance and viability of policy measures to improve the vineyards situation.
Percentages represent the proportion between obtained scores in relation with the maximum possible
score.
Third policy measure in the ranking is “Re-directing incentives from CAP”, perceived as highly
important (88%) but relatively less viable (77%). In contrast, “eco-labeling” and “supporting
farmers in marketing” (fourth and fifth in the ranking), obtained higher scores of viability than
of importance. The following two, “fee on water withdrawal” and “declaring as world heritage
by UNESCO”, present similar scores of importance but a significantly lower score of viability,
particularly the former. Next, “receiving aids from the II sustainable development plan”
obtained same value in terms of importance and viability. The last two options, both in terms of
importance and viability are “tax exemptions” and “Payment for ecosystem services”, which
received the lowest level of perceived viability.
31%
44%
69%
60%
44%
75%
83%
73%
87%
91%
48%
65%
70%
70%
71%
71%
76%
88%
89%
92%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Payments for ecosystem services
Tax exemption
Aids from ll sustainable development plan
Declared as World Heritage by UNESCO
Fee on water withdrawals
Supporting farmers in marketing
Eco-labelling
Re-directing incentives from CAP
Declaration as zone of high natural value
Increasing social awareness
Importance
Viability

13
We obtained similar results in the participatory workshop where we only analyzed the viability
of the different measures The four measures ranked highest in terms of perceived viability are,
in decreasing order: “increasing social awareness”, “re-directing incentives from CAP”,
“declaration as zone of high natural value”, and “eco-labeling”, similarly to what we obtained in
the survey. The next four policy measures in the ranking obtained comparable scores and “tax
exemption” and “payment for ecosystem services” were perceived again to be the less viable
measure.
Our non parametrical K-W test only shows statistical significance with the socioeconomic
variable “profession” (Appendix F), where the importance attributed to “tax exemption”
presents higher values in respondents having a job related to vineyards (K=6.91; p-
value=0.009). For respondents with jobs not related to vineyards we observe that higher scores
of importance and viability were attributed to the measures “declaring as world heritage by
UNESCO” (K=8.16; p-value=0.004) and (K=4.9; p-value=0.027).
5) DISCUSSION
5.1) Ecosystem services provided by traditional vineyards.
Our results show that 91.3% of respondents recognizes the importance of vineyards for
sustaining important ES for the well-being of the local population, illustrating strong economic
and symbolic bounds between the crop and local inhabitants. Predictably, “Grapes, wine and
vinegar” was the ES perceived to be the most important. Vineyards provide table grape, grape
for exportation and grapes for wine and vinegar production, which traditionally have been a
main economic engine in the area. The cultural service of “cultural identity” comes next. The
traditions, trade networks, architecture, gastronomy, and history of the area are intimately
related to the crop. Two regulating services follow. First, the importance attributed to the
vineyards’ function as “ecological corridor” is explained by its wide distribution at the North of
the protected area and the fact that vineyards are the habitat of singular and autochthonous
species such as red Rufou-tailed scrub robin (Cercotrichas galactotes) (SEO/BirdLife, 2015).
Next, that “prevents sedimentation and erosion control” considered a crucial ES explained by
rising problems of land erosion and siltation of Doñana marsh (Rodriguez-Ramirez et al., 2005),
aggravated by the uprooting of vineyards promoted by CAB subsidies (Gaitan Cremaschi,
2011). Most importantly, traditional rain-fed vineyards are perceived as a highly multifunctional
agricultural crop (MFA) for the multiple ecological, cultural and economic values it embeds,
shaped by centuries of human-nature co-evolutionary dynamics (van Berkel and Verburg,
2014). In Mediterranean areas, rural people have acted for centuries “designing” multifunctional
landscapes that guarantee a diverse flow of ES (Blondel et al, 2010; Gómez-Baggethun et al,
2010)
Our results are broadly consistent with an ES assessment in Spain that suggests that rural people
attribute high levels of importance to regulating services (Martín-López et al., 2012). Cultural
services, defined as “non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual
enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences” (MA,
2005), also stand out for their perceived importance. From the 17 identified ES, only two are
provisioning services, whereas six are regulating services and the remaining nine are cultural
services. A recent global analysis has stressed that, although societies become less dependent on

14
the local provisioning and regulating services in the course of a country's economic
development, their dependency on cultural services increases (Guo et al., 2010). This may be
explained because some provisioning and regulating services (or substitutes therein) can be
acquired through markets or technological and scientific development, whereas cultural services
often cannot, both because they are on readily commodifiable and because their loss is generally
irreversible in short to medium terms (Ojeda, 1997). In Doñana, cultural services are greatly
valued, they play an spiritual, cognitive and symbolic roles (Gomez-Baggethun et al., 2010) as
well as an economic one, especially in relation to tourism activities (Martín-López et al., 2009).
Active development policies since the early 20th
century followed by conservation policies over
the last 50 years have produced a marked territorial split in the Doñana SES (Martin-Lopez et
al., 2011): food from agriculture is the main ES supplied outside the protected area, while
regulating and cultural services are mainly delivered inside it (Palomo et al., 2014). In this
context, MFA of traditional rain-fed vineyards have become a critically important stronghold
for regulating services and cultural services outside the protected area, where the production of
ES from these categories has been strongly impaired over recent decades.
5.2. Ecosystem service trends and drivers of change
The general pattern depicted by our results is a generalized decline of ES associated to
traditional vineyards, where half of the responses signal a declining trend (table 2). Our result
parallels those obtained from ES conducted for Doñana as a whole (e.g. Gómez-Baggethun et
al., 2011b). Land use transformation in Doñana over recent decades has swapped the area from
an economy strongly dependent on ES from traditional multifunctional landscapes, to an export
oriented economy firmly integrated in the national and international market. Through top-down
implementation of development and conservation policies the area was segregated from an
integrated multifunctional territory providing rich flows of ES, into a limited set of mono-
functional territories (Zorrilla-Miras et al., 2014).The natural capital of Doñana has been
globalized, producing provisioning services for international markets in detriment of regulating
and cultural services at the local scale. Although since 1956 only 30% of land inside the
protected area suffered transformations, more than 93% has been converted outside its borders
(Martín-López et al., 2011). This pattern of rapid land use change in the surroundings of
protected areas is occurring throughout the world (Joppa et al., 2008).
Since 1980 the Doñana vineyards are shrinking in surface, workers and production, matching
with the world´s total vineyards area tendency which is decreasing since 2000. Europe´s share
of the world vineyards has declined from about 63% of the total in 2000 to 55% in 2013. Area
under vine has fallen considerably in Spain (-17%), France (-13%) and Italy (-17%) over the
same period (OIV, 2013). In Doñana, vineyards most affected ES were provisioning and
regulating services (Table 1). In contrast, cultural services were perceived to be more stable.
The perceived decline of provisioning services may be explained by the fact that good from
traditional agriculture suffered severely from conversions to intensive production systems. This
land use transformation affected the traditional vineyards their ES and associated ecological
values. The perceived decline of regulating services can be explained by well documented
ecological impacts such as the imbalance in the main aquifer of Doñana due to a massive
extraction for irrigated agriculture (WWF estimates the number of illegal wells in more than
1000), siltation of the marsh accelerated by the uprooting of traditional crops and impaired
capacity to control erosion, nursery, water regulation, and waste treatment functions
(Fernández-Delgado 1997; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2011b). In 2015 UNESCO rated Doñana as

15
being under “very high threat”. The relatively more stable trend of cultural ES, may be
explained by the fact that the vineyards remain deeply rooted in culture and traditions (Polonio
et al., 2005).
The perceived decline of some of the most important ES such as “grapes wine and vinegar”,
“Ecological corridor”, “sedimentation and erosion control” and “aesthetic values” (Table2) can
be explained from land use changes, the vineyards surface and production has strongly decline
since 1983 from 147km2
to 45km2
and from 90.000 to 46.000 tons/year. Also perceived as
declining were: “traditional ecological knowledge”, “traditional farming techniques” and
“cohesive and social unifier”, traditional ecological knowledge and farming techniques are
bundled with regulating services related to water and soil so most traditional land management
practices in Spain focus on managing these ecosystem components to tackle soil erosion,
aridity, drought, and flooding (Butzer, 2005). However, this Mediterranean social-ecological
memory is currently endangered along with the ES delivered by multifunctional landscapes in
Spain (EME, 2011). In Doñana, as in many parts of the world, users of traditional knowledge
have lost their influence in land use management (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2012). Although
these three cultural services are perceived as declining, the broad “cultural identity” is perceived
with similar values for decline and being stable/enhance furthermore cultural services of
“village fetes”, “artistic manifestation” and “agrobiodiversity refugee” are considered of being
stable in past 20 years.
Also indicating the relative health of cultural ES relative to provisioning and regulation service
stands the emergence of “wine tourism”, the only service perceived to be growing by a majority
of informants. Emerging as a complementary source of income; it exploits the already present
infrastructures and creates a connection between vineyards products, landscapes, local
traditions, and the Doñana protected area. Hence, our results on cultural services parallel
findings from previous research in Spain, identifying a metamorphosis in the flow of cultural ES
characterized by the rise of cultural services demanded by urban people (Martín-López et al.,
2012) - in our case ES of “wine tourism”-, and a decline of cultural services more directly
demanded by the locals (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2012).
Overall, this trend signals the increasing commodification of cultural services and the associated
“terciarization” of rural areas.
Besides land use change, eight other drivers were perceived as greatly influencing vineyards
(figure6/Appendix D). Doñana vineyards are rarely profitable any longer; “stagnant grape price”
and “lack of market channels” hamper the obtention of enough benefits to secure household
income and most of Doñana vineyards remain as a mere income supplement (Polonio et al.,
2005). This is linked in turn to the “lack of generational turnover”, as younger generations
search for more highly remunerated works with the “emergence of new sectors”. Rural areas of
Europe suffer a marked depopulation process as younger people migrate to cities in search of
jobs and urban lifestyles (Gutman, 2007). Additionally, the private benefits of conversion to
new crops are inflated by economic accounts oblivious of externalities and cost shifts that foster
implementation of environmentally harmful subsidies (de Groot, 2006). Given the lack of
economic profitability, in the decade 1988-1998 European Union through the CAP implement
“subsidies to abandonment and uprooting”, well accepted among Doñana farmers. Abandoned
and unproductive vineyards are gradually "replaced with other crops", more economically
profitable but also more environmentally harmful and impoverished in terms of cultural and
symbolic values. The shift toward land uses that provide specific services with higher market

16
value is a major driver of land use change in ecosystems all over the world (Lambin et al., 2010)
and not least in Doñana (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2011b; Zorrilla-Miras et al., 2014).
Finally, it is worth noting that in some cases perception of the driver’s importance correlated
with socioeconomic variables. Our K-W test (Appendix E) shows that respondents above 39
years old (n=126), perceived “subsidies to abandonment/uprooting” of greater importance than
the younger, they probably have memories of 1988-1998 period, when the reform of European
wine production brought about a decline in traditional practices and associated institutions
(familiar farmers and cooperatives) (Pretty and Smith, 2004) . When we divided by work field
area, respondents directly related to vineyards shows statistical significance granting high levels
of importance to “stagnant grape price”, logically they directly depend on grape price, and this
situation hampers economic efficiency.
5.3. Policy measures for maintaining traditional rain-fed vineyards
Although much funding has been allocated to the Doñana Protected area for conservation
purposes (Matín-López et al., 2009b) the unsustainable resource use at its surrounding results in
high levels of habitat fragmentation, contamination, soil erosion and overharvesting of ground
water (Fernández-Delgado, 2005). This is partly because the existing protected area model
considers the territorial matrix in which it is embedded into a very limited extent. It’s long term
maintenance involves a shift from the actual conservation vs. development paradigm toward
multi-scale governance systems, aimed at securing broad diversity of ES supply beyond the
boundaries of the protected area (Palomo et al., 2014). For the immediate future, protected areas
should be complemented with a tiered conservation strategy (Eigenbrod et al., 2010).
Our proposed policy measures to protect multifunctional vineyards obtained very similar results
from the participatory workshop and from the surveys. The four predominant were the same
only with a change in order; the last two were the same. Respondents perceive the most viable
and important policy measure to carry on was “increasing social awareness” (Figure7). This
management option aims to reassess all the cultural services and recover this cultural identity
that despite remained deeply rooted in the area, has been badly affected by vineyards tendencies
(Table 1). Besides increasing awareness in terms of culture and identity, this measure also focus
on environmental awareness, and will explain all the benefits vineyards provide to create a
sustainable SES. This measure is directly related with the multifunctionality of the crop and the
conceptual framework of ES is essential to carry on it. More over for the majority of the
respondents it was an easy and not expensive measure to achieve, crucial to prevent vineyards
disappearance. The second policy measure in terms of importance and viability was
“declaration as zone of high natural value”. This measure particularly focuses on environmental
aspects; it will increase protection to vineyards and raise the regulating services offered, it could
increase vineyards value and probably will limit land use transformation. For doing so, it is
crucial to involve third actors, with influence on the territory and probably a political
background, to create a leading figure aimed to protect multifunctional landscapes. Third policy
measure with a similar value in terms of importance, present lower rates of viability, it is “Re-
directing incentives from CAP”. Instead of to uprooting or abandon, orient them to replant and
subsidizes farmers, it present lower rate of viability because few respondents believe in EU
intervention. Similar situation to “Declared as World Heritage by UNESCO” despite
respondents believed vineyards deserve such qualification, they do not considered appropriate
involving UNESCO. Next two measures are perceived to be more viable than important, first

17
“eco-labeling”, specifying vineyards multifunctional role it will introduce and revalue the
product to a recent growing market with organic and ecological products. The problem is that it
already existed and results were not the expected, due in part for the high percentage of bulk
sales preventing labeling it. Second, “Supporting farmers in marketing”, important to neutralize
“Lack of market channels” experienced by farmers, but not sufficient, vineyards involve a big
business structure and network with much more stakeholders than just farmers. Next “Fee on
water withdrawals” aims to relieve the problems of water over extraction, the idea to fee the
water withdrawals indirectly produce vineyards more profitable. The measure was considered
important, but too many families depend on water extraction, almost any farmer only cultivates
vineyards. The second from bottom, “tax exemption”, aimed to incentivize vineyards farmers,
badly accepted among the rest of population it shows positive co-relations when respondent was
directly related to vineyards. Finally with the lowest level in both variables: “Payment for
ecosystem services”; the difficult socio-economical situation in Mediterranean Europe since
2008 precludes taking such measures.
6) CONCLUSION
We demonstrate that there is a strong recognition of the importance vineyard ES for the welfare
and well-being of local inhabitants. The traditional vineyards of Doñana provide manifold
services for human well-being including important regulating services and cultural values.
However, Doñana’s vineyards and the services they provide are suffering a strong decline,
especially of regulating and provisioning services.
Protecting traditional rain-fed Doñana vineyards could be an important tool to restore ES in
degraded zones and to strengthen cultural landscapes. The policy measures perceived to be most
viable and more important by local stakeholders to secure the viability of the vineyard include:
“increasing social awareness” and “declaration as zone of high natural value” enlarging the
concept of conservation outside the physical borders of the Doñana protected area. Interestingly
economic instruments such as PES, taxes and subsidy reforms, which currently stand among the
most widely discussed in the ES literature where perceived as less viable as they touch on
vested economic interests difficult to overcome in the short term.
The decline of vineyards and their services is driven to a large extent by economic drivers, such
as lack of profitability that prevents the necessary generational turnover and economic subsidies
for uprooting motivated by this lack of profitability. The economic accounts that inform these
policies are oblivious of environmental externalities and cost shifts, privileging land uses that
provide ES holding higher market value at the expense of the many uncommodified ecological
and cultural values associated to traditional crops. Our results illustrate unaccounted ecological
and cultural impacts from land use changes driven by narrow market-driven decisions and
potentially give basis for the development of policy instruments designed in the basis of more
balanced consideration of economic, ecological and cultural dimensions. We hope that our
results will provide guidance for local planners, decision-makers and practitioners interested in
raising awareness about the societal and ecological importance of traditional vineyards and in
implementing measures for the protection and sustainable use.

18
Acknowledgment:
I wish to thank those who have helped and encouraged me during the project, all the participants
in the workshop and the Fundación Doñana 21for their support during fieldwork and the
organization of the workshop, particularly Ana Villa and Jesus Mateos. Finally I wanted to
thanks my both supervisors Erik Gómez-Baggethun and Ignacio Palomo.
Bibliography
1. Bengtsson J.P., Angelstam T., Elmqvist U., (2003). Reserves, resilience and dynamic
landscapes. Ambio 32: 389–96.
2. Berkel D.B., van & Verburg P.H., (2014). Spatial quantification and valuation of
cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological Indicators, 37: 163-
174.
3. Bernard H.R., (2005). Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamir Press. p. 824
4. Blondel J., Aronson J., Bodiou J.Y., Boeuf G., (2010). Mediterranean Region
Biological Diversity in Space and Time. Oxford University Press, 392.
5. Butzer K., (2005). Environmental history in the Mediterranean world: cross disciplinary
investigation of cause-and-effect for degradation and soil erosion. Archaeol Sci, 32:
1773–1800.
6. Chape S., Harrison J., Spalding M., Lysenko I. (2005). Measuring the extent and
effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets.
Proceedings of the Royal Society 360: 443–455.
7. De Groot R.S., Stuip M.A.M., Finlayson C.M., Davidson N. (2006). “Valuing wetlands:
guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services”. Ramsar
Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27.
8. DeFries R., Hansen A. J., Newton A.C., Hansen M., Townshend J. (2005). Isolation of
protected areas in tropical forests over the last twenty years. Ecological Applications,
15: 19–26.
9. Eigenbrod F., Anderson B.J., Armsworth P.R., Heinemeyer A., Gillings S., Roy D.B.,
Thomas C.D., et al., (2010). Representation of ecosystem services by tiered
conservation strategies. ConservLett, 3(3):184–191.
10. Fernández N., Paruelo J.M, Delibes M. (2010). “Ecosystem functioning of protected
and altered Mediterranean environments: A remote sensing classification in Doñana,
Spain”. Remote sensing of Environment, 114(1): 211-220.
11. Fernández-Delgado C., (1997). Conservation management of a European natural area:
Doñana National Park, Spain. 458-467.
12. Fernández-Delgado C., (2005). Conservation management of a European natural area:
Doñana national park, Spain. In: Groom, M.J., Meffe, G.K., Carroll, C.R., (Eds.),
Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates Inc., USA: Massachusetts, 536–
543.

19
13. Fisher B., Costanza R., Turner R.K., Morling P., (2007). Defining and classifying
ecosystem services for decision making, CSERGE Working PaperEDM, No. 07-04.
14. Gaitán-Cermaschi D., (2011). Conserving Beyond Boundaries: Quantifying, Valuing
and Financing Ecosystem Services: A case of study of the Doñana Fluviolitoral System.
15. Gimmi U., Lachat T., Bürgi M., (2011). Reconstructing the collapse of wetland
networks in the Swiss lowlands 1850–2000. Landscape Ecol, 26:1071–1083.
16. Gómez-Baggethun E., Martín-López B., Lomas P., Zorrilla-Miras P., & Montes, C.
(2011b). Evolution of ecosystem services in a Mediterranean cultural landscape:
Doñana case study, Spain (1956-2006). InTech Press, 27-46.
17. Gómez-Baggethun E., Mingorría S., Reyes-García V., Calvet L., & Montes C. (2010).
Traditional ecological knowledge trends in the transition to a market economy:
Empirical study in Doñana natural areas. Conservation Biology, 24:721-729.
18. Gómez-Baggethun E., Reyes-García V., Olsson P., & Montes C. (2012). Traditional
ecological knowledge and community resilience to environmental extremes. A case
study in Doñana, SW Spain. Global Environmental Change, 22:640–650.
19. Guo Z., Zhang L., & Li Y. (2010). Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem
services and biodiversity. PLoS ONE, 5(11):e13113.
20. Gutman P. (2007). Ecosystem services: Foundations for a new rural–urban compact.
Ecological Economics, 62(3):383-387.
21. Hervieu B. (2003). Multifunctionality: a conceptual framework for a new organization
of research and development on grasslands and livestock systems. Paris (INRA)
22. IEEP, Institute for European Environmental Policy, (2007). Final report on the study of
HNV indicators for evaluation. European Commission, DG Agriculture, Brussels.
23. Joppa L., Loarie S., Pimm S., (2008). On the protection of “protected areas”. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA, 105:6673-6678.
24. Lambin E. F., & Meyfroidt P. (2010). Land use transitions: Socio-ecological feedback
versus socio-economic change. Land use policy, 27(2):108-118.
25. Manson S.M, Jordan Nicholas R., Kristen C.N, Brummel R.F. (2014). Modeling the
effect of social networks on adoption of multifunctional agriculture.
26. Martín López B., Gómez-Baggethun E., Lomas P.L., Montes C. (2009). Effects of
spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. Journal of Environmental
Management, 1050–1059.
27. Martín-López B., Iniesta-Arandia I., García-Llorente M., Palomo I., Casado-Arzuaga I.,
Amo DGD. (2012). Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social
Preferences. PLoS ONE, 7(6): e38970.
28. Martín-López B., García-Llorente M., Palomo I., Montes C. (2011). The conservation
against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in
the Doñana social–ecological system. Ecological Economics, 70:1481-1491.
29. Martín-López B., García-Llorente M., Gómez-Baggethun E., Montes C., (2010).
Evaluación de los servicios de los ecosistemas del sistema socio-ecológico de Doñana.
Fórum de Sostenibilidad, 4:91-111.
30. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystems and Human well-being: A
framework for Assessment. Island Press (245pp), Washington, D.C.
31. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human well-being:
Wetlands and waters Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
32. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of Spain (2011). Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment of Spain (EME) - Managing Biodiversity and Ecosystem services for

20
human well-being. Madrid, Spain: Fundación Biodiversidad, Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino. 304 p.
33. Naughton-Treves L., Holland M., & Brandon K. (2005). The role of protected areas in
conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Review of Environment and
Resources, 30:219–252.
34. OIV, International Organization of Vine and wine (2013). Statistical report on world
vitiviniculture. http://www.oiv.int/oiv/cms/index?rubricId=44538631-7ad2-49cb-9710-
ad5b957296c7
35. Ojeda-Rivera J. F. (1987). Organización del territorio en Doñana y su Entorno próximo
(Almonte). Siglos XVIII-XX. Instituto para la Conservación de la Naturaleza,
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid, Spain.
36. Ojeda-Rivera, J. F. (1990). Doñana cultural landscape. In Doñana: la naturaleza en
España 18-25.
37. Palomo I., Martín-López B., Potschin M., Haines-Young R., Montes C. (2013).
National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows.
Ecosystem Services, 4:104–116.
38. Palomo I., Martín-López B., Zorrilla-Miras P., García del Amo D., Montes C. (2014).
Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around Doñana National Park in
relation to land use change. Regional Environmental Change, 14(1):237-251
39. Phillips A. (2003). A modern paradigm. World Conservation Bulletin, 2: 6–7.
40. Pinto-Correia T., Gustavsson R., Pirnat J., (2006). Bridging the gap between centrally
defined policies and local decisions towards more sensitive and creative rural landscape
management. Landscape Ecol, 21:333–346.
41. Polonio B., Méndez M.A., Lucena B., Cáceres F., Manrique T. (2005).
Diagnóstico del sector vitivinícola del marco del Condado de Huelva. Junta de
Andalucía, consejería de Agricultura y pesca. Sevilla.
42. Pretty J. & Smith D. (2004). Social Capital in Biodiversity Conservation and
Management. Conservation Biology, 18: 631–638.
43. Pyke C.R., (2007). The implications of global priorities for biodiversity and ecosystem
services associated with protected areas. Ecology and Society, 12(1): 4
44. Radeloff V.C., Stewart S.I., Hawbaker T.J. et al. (2010). Housing growth in and near
United States protected areas limits their conservation value. Acad. Sci. 107:940–945.
45. Renting H., Rossing W. A. H., Groot J. C. J., Van der Ploeg J. D., Laurent C., Perraud
D., et al. (2009). Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual
approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional Framework. Environmental
Management, 90:S112-S123.
46. Rodríguez-Ramírez C., Yañez-Camacho C., Gascó, Clemente-Salas L., & Antón M.P.,
(2005). Natural and anthropogenic siltation of the Doñana National Park marsh:
Implications for its conservation and management, in Spanish Cuaternario y
Geomorfología, 19:39–48.
47. Scheffer M., Barret S., Carpenter S.R., Folke C., Green A.J., Holmgren M., Hughes
T.P., Kosten S., van de Leemput I.A., Nepstad D.C., van Nes E.H., Peeters E.T.H.M.,
Walker B. (2015). Creating a safe operating space for iconic ecosystems. Science,
347:1317-1319.
48. SEO/BirdLife (2015). Estudiamos la biodiversidad asociada al viñedo tradicional de
Doñana. http://www.seo.org/2015/07/10/estudiamos-la-biodiversidad-asociada-al-
vinedo-tradicional-de-donana/

21
49. Solymosi K., (2011). Indicators for the identification of cultural landscape hotspots in
Europe. Landscape Res, 36:3–18.
50. Stenseke M., (2009). Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: lessons
from Sweden. Land Use Policy, 26:214–223.
51. Svancara L. K., Scott J.M., Loveland T.R., Pidgorna A.B. (2009). Assessing the
landscape context and conversion risk of protected areas using satellite data
products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 113:1357–1369.
52. UNCED (1992) AGENDA 21, United Nations Conference on Environment &
Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Chapter 14.
53. Zimmermann R.C., (2006). Recording rural landscapes and their cultural associations:
some initial results and impressions. Environmental Science Policy, 9:360–369.
54. Zorrilla-Miras P., Palomo I., Gómez-Baggethum E., Martín-López B., Lomas P.L.,
Montes C. (2014). Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: A case
study in the Doñana Natural Areas marshes, SW Spain. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 122:16-31

22
Appendix A. Distribution of the respondents ES selection and the aggregate perception on
importance.
Ecosystem services
ES selection ES values after weighting
n %
Weighting
values
Mean
(standard deviation)
Grapes, wine and vinegar 109 63% 405 3,71 (1,59)
Cultural identity 107 62% 351 3,28 (1,36)
Ecological corridor 95 55% 328 3,45 (1,35)
Prevents sedimentation and erosion
controls
95 55% 309 3,25 (1,29)
Aesthetic value 76 44% 202 2,65 (1,36)
Wine tourism 73 42% 196 2,68 (1,33)
Water regulation 60 35% 168 2,8 (1,24)
Village fetes 50 29% 130 2,6 (1,26)
Cohesive and social unifier 39 23% 102 2,61 (1,20)
Artistic manifestations associated
to vineyard
36 21% 85 2,36 (1,26)
Climate regulation 26 15% 70 2,69 (1,34)
Traditional ecological knowledge 22 13% 57 2,59 (1,46)
Traditional farming techniques 19 11% 54 2,84 (1,06)
Satisfaction for maintaining
agrobiodiversity
14 8% 41 2,92 (1,32)
Biomass 16 9% 37 2,31 (1,49)
Pests resistance such as phylloxera 14 8% 30 2,14 (1,09)
Firewall 8 5% 14 1,75 (1,03)
Appendix B. The distribution of the category (1= provisioning, 2= regulating, 3= cultural) of
each respondents five most important ecosystem services (ES1 to ES5) dividing the sample
between field work.
Variables n
Mean
K P-values
ES1 work related to vineyards 60 1.68 (0.83)
11.95 0.001
ES1 work not related to vineyards 112 2.14 (0.79)
5.43 0.02
9.63 0.002
0.33 0.56
0.10 0.74

23
Appendix C. The quantity of different categories in each respondents five most important
ecosystem services dividing the sample between field work.
variables n
Minimum
categories
Maximum
categories
Mean (standard
deviation)
K
P-
values
Quantity of ES categories –
work related to vineyards 60 2 3 2.76 (0.42)
12.13 >0.001
Quantity of ES categories –
work not related to vineyards 112 1 3 2.45 (0.58)
Appendix D. Distribution of the collective perception about the importance of the drivers of change (each
driver of change was ranked between one and five)
Drivers of Change
total
score
%
mean
mode
Loss of generational change 742 86% 4,31 (1.01) 5
Subsidies to abandon 737 86% 4,28 (0.86) 5
Stagnant grape price 727 85% 4,23 (1.00) 5
Lifestyle changes 712 83% 4,16 (0.95) 5
Lack of market channels 674 78% 3,92 (1.06) 5
Emergence of new sectors 662 77% 3,85 (1.14) 5
Devaluation of the farming
profession
659 77% 3,83 (1.21) 5
Replacement with others crops 612 71% 3,56 (1.20) 5
Too many intermediaries 463 54% 2,69 (1.13) 3
Market liberalization 403 47% 2,38 (1.10) 3
Smallholder organization 388 45% 2,26 (1.27) 1
Migration to the cities 336 39% 1,98 (1.06) 1

24
Appendix E. Non-parametrical Kruskal Wallis test relating respondents decisions on drivers of change and socio-demographic variables.
- age: n =126 (years ≥ 40) / n =46 (years < 40)
- study: n = 140 (with formal education) / n = 27 (without formal education)
- work field: n = 60 (work field related to vineyards) / n = 112 (work field with no relation to vineyards)
Drivers of
Change
age study work field
n
mean
k p-value n
Mean
k p-value n
mean
k p-value
Stagnant grape
price
126 4,254 1,043
1,742 0,187
140 4,229 0,939
0,784 0,376
60 4,633 0,823
22,464 0,0001
46 4,152 0,894 27 4,222 1,281 112 4,009 1,027
Smallholder
organization
126 2,317 1,294
1,107 0,293
140 2,421 1,325
11,430 0,001
60 1,933 1,247
7,230 0,007
46 2,087 1,226 27 1,481 0,643 112 2,429 1,264
Lack of
generational
turnover
126 4,302 0,998
0,255 0,614
140 4,421 0,945
7,124 0,008
60 4,300 1,109
0,089 0,765
46 4,348 1,079 27 3,778 1,281 112 4,321 0,970
Subsidies to
abandon/uproot
126 4,373 0,817
4,660 0,031
140 4,257 0,868
0,392 0,531
60 4,333 0,933
0,953 0,329
46 4,043 0,965 27 4,333 0,920 112 4,259 0,836
Emergence of new
sectors
126 3,905 1,155
1,585 0,208
140 3,943 1,051
3,943 0,047
60 3,550 1,281
4,956 0,026
46 3,696 1,133 27 3,296 1,514 112 4,009 1,044
Replacement with
others crops
126 3,587 1,202
0,298 0,585
140 3,693 1,137
8,513 0,004
60 3,200 1,219
7,976 0,005
46 3,478 1,206 27 2,889 1,368 112 3,750 1,151
Devaluation of the
farming profession 126 3,817 1,196
0,233 0,629
140 3,893 1,210
2,061 0,151
60 3,350 1,351
12,644 0,000
46 3,870 1,293 27 3,519 1,312 112 4,089 1,062
Lack of market
channels
126 3,937 1,064
0,156 0,692
140 3,964 1,028
1,465 0,226
60 3,783 1,151
1,106 0,293
46 3,870 1,067 27 3,667 1,209 112 3,991 1,009
Excess of
intermediaries
126 2,706 1,118
0,107 0,744
140 2,793 1,160
6,625 0,010
60 2,467 1,127
3,791 0,052
46 2,652 1,197 27 2,185 0,921 112 2,813 1,127
Market
liberalization
126 2,379 1,086
0,026 0,871
140 2,521 1,128
13,907 0,000
60 2,136 1,106
5,341 0,021
46 2,400 1,176 27 1,667 0,679 112 2,518 1,090
Lifestyle changes 126 4,136 1,003
0,070 0,791
140 4,193 0,921
0,602 0,438
60 4,033 1,104
0,679 0,410
46 4,239 0,822 27 3,963 1,160 112 4,234 0,863
Migration to the
cities
126 2,008 1,086
0,255 0,614
140 2,079 1,093
6,827 0,009
60 1,780 1,018
3,617 0,057
46 1,891 0,994 27 1,481 0,700 112 2,081 1,071

25
Appendix F. Non-parametrical Kruskal Wallis test relating respondents decisions policy measures and the
socio-demographic variable of work field. n = 60 (work field related to vineyards) / n = 110 (work field with no
relation to vineyards)
Variables n
Mean
(Standard deviation)
K P-value
Importance of aids from II SDP
60 3,236 (1,515)
0.214 1.541
110 3,567 (1,342)
Viability of aid from II SDP
60 3,407 (1,499)
0.579 0.307
110 3,544 (1,460)
Importance of declaration as zone of
high natural value
60 4,446 (0,807)
0.431 0.620
110 4,370 (0,768)
Viability of declaration as zone of
high natural value
60 4,509 (0,879)
0.154 2.029
110 4,336 (0,921)
Importance of tax exemption
60 3,607 (1,171)
0.009 6.917
110 3,000 (1,414)
Viability of tax exemption
60 2,109 (1,165)
0.828 0.047
110 2,243 (1,379)
Importance of declare it as world
heritage by UNESCO
60 3,000 (1,489)
0.004 8.161
110 3,694 (1,249)
Viability of declare it as world
heritage by UNESCO
60 2,691 (1,477)
0.027 4.901
110 3,255 (1,525)
Importance of PES
60 2,393 (1,231)
0.882 0.022
110 2,434 (1,273)
Viability of PES
60 1,618 (0,828)
0.336 0.926
110 1,551 (0,924)
Importance of re-directing incentive
from CAP
60 4,339 (1,116)
0.606 0.267
110 4,380 (0,883)
Viability of re-directing incentive
from CAP
60 3,818 (1,428)
0.305 1.053
110 3,636 (1,390)
Importance of supporting farmers in
marketing
60 3,482 (1,362)
0.875 0.025
110 3,509 (1,188)
Viability of supporter farmers in
marketing
60 3,782 (1,462)
0.687 0.162
110 3,776 (1,298)
Importance of eco-labeling
60 3,536 (1,293)
0.132 2.271
110 3,833 (1,227)
Viability of eco-labeling
60 4,145 (1,224)
0.717 0.132
110 4,236 (1,143)
Importance of social awareness
60 4,571 (0,628)
0.775 0.082
110 4,481 (0,814)
Viability of social awareness
60 4,636 (0,704)
0.718 0.130
110 4,613 (0,684)
Importance of fee on water
withdrawals
60 3,636 (1,128)
0.470 0.522
110 3,449 (1,326)
Viability of fee on water
withdrawals
60 2,333 (1,197)
0.177 1.823
110 2,159 (1,381)

Sergio TFM

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Sergio TFM

Similar to Sergio TFM (20)

Sergio TFM