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 (0,1km

2) 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 (0.015km

2) 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 km

2). 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 21

st 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

condition n % 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 identity aesthetic 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 control firewall

-50

-30

-10

10

30

50

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Lev

el

of

vu

lne

rab

ilit

y

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 45km

2 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

(standard deviation) 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)

ES2 work related to vineyards 60 2.28 (0.61) 5.43 0.02

ES2 work not related to vineyards 112 2.5 (0.61)

ES3 work related to vineyards 60 2.33 (0.60) 9.63 0.002

ES3 work not related to vineyards 112 2.6 (0.59)

ES4 work related to vineyards 60 2.43 (0.69) 0.33 0.56

ES4 work not related to vineyards 112 2.5 (0.65)

ES5 work related to vineyards 60 2.45 (0.69) 0.10 0.74

ES5 work not related to vineyards 112 2.39 (0.75)

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

(standard deviation) 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

(standard deviation) k p-value n

Mean

(standard deviation) k p-value n

mean

(standard deviation) 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)