IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bcc/wpaper/2012-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Towards a Participatory Integrated Assessment Approach for Planning and Managing Natura 2000 Network Sites

Author

Listed:
  • Iker Etxano
  • Eneko Garmendia
  • Unai Pascual
  • David Hoyos
  • María A. Díez
  • José A. Cadiñanos
  • Pedro J. Lozano

Abstract

Managing protected areas implies dealing with complex social-ecological systems where multiple dimensions (social, institutional, economic and ecological) interact over time for the delivery of ecosystem services. Uni-dimensional and top-down management approaches have been unable to capture this complexity. Instead, new integrated approaches that acknowledge the diversity of social actors in the decision making process are required. In this paper we put forward a novel participatory assessment approach which integrates multiple methodologies to reflect different value articulating institutions in the case of a Natura 2000 network site in the Basque Country. It integrates within a social multi-criteria evaluation framework, both the economic values of ecosystem services through a choice experiment model and ecological values by means of a spatial bio-geographic assessment. By capturing confronting social and institutional conflicts in protected areas the participatory integrated assessment approach presented here can help decision makers for better planning and managing Natura 2000 sites.

Suggested Citation

  • Iker Etxano & Eneko Garmendia & Unai Pascual & David Hoyos & María A. Díez & José A. Cadiñanos & Pedro J. Lozano, "undated". "Towards a Participatory Integrated Assessment Approach for Planning and Managing Natura 2000 Network Sites," Working Papers 2012-10, BC3.
  • Handle: RePEc:bcc:wpaper:2012-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bc3research.org/index.php?option=com_wpapers&task=downpubli&iddoc=54&repec=1&Itemid=279
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2003. "The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2993.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    3. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    4. A. J. Dougill & E. D. G. Fraser & J. Holden & K. Hubacek & C. Prell & M. S. Reed & S. Stagl & L. C. Stringer, 2006. "Learning from Doing Participatory Rural Research: Lessons from the Peak District National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 259-275, July.
    5. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    6. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, December.
    7. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    8. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    10. Limburg, Karin E. & O'Neill, Robert V. & Costanza, Robert & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Complex systems and valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 409-420, June.
    11. Bergseng, Even & Vatn, Arild, 2009. "Why protection of biodiversity creates conflict - Some evidence from the Nordic countries," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 147-165, August.
    12. Paneque Salgado, P. & Corral Quintana, S. & Guimarães Pereira, Â. & del Moral Ituarte, L. & Pedregal Mateos, B., 2009. "Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 990-1005, February.
    13. Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2006. "Social multi-criteria evaluation of different development scenarios of the Aysen region, Chile," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 157-170, August.
    14. Giuseppe Munda & Daniela Russi, 2008. "Social Multicriteria Evaluation of Conflict over Rural Electrification and Solar Energy in Spain," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 26(4), pages 712-727, August.
    15. Parolo, Gilberto & Ferrarini, Alessandro & Rossi, Graziano, 2009. "Optimization of tourism impacts within protected areas by means of genetic algorithms," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(8), pages 1138-1147.
    16. De Marchi, B. & Funtowicz, S. O. & Lo Cascio, S. & Munda, G., 2000. "Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 267-282, August.
    17. D. Strijker & F. Sijtsma & D. Wiersma, 2000. "Evaluation of Nature Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 363-378, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Iker Etxano & Eneko Garmendia & Unai Pascual & David Hoyos & María-à ngeles Díez & José A. Cadiñanos & Pedro J. Lozano, 2015. "A participatory integrated assessment approach for Natura 2000 network sites," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1207-1232, October.
    2. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    3. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    4. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    5. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    6. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Ester Comas Argemí & Àngela D. Bosch Serra & Mamen Cuéllar Padilla & Gonzalo Gamboa Jiménez, 2012. "Sostenibilidad de la producción porcina en Cataluña (España). Aplicación del análisis multicriterio," Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, Red Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, vol. 18, pages 1-19, Abril.
    8. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Artitzar Erauskin-Tolosa & Pedro José Lozano & Itxaro Latasa, 2019. "Individual and Social Preferences in Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    9. Gevrek, Z.Eylem & Uyduranoglu, Ayse, 2015. "Public preferences for carbon tax attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 186-197.
    10. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    11. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Fernández-Macho, Javier, 2009. "The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2372-2381, June.
    12. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation of land-use scenarios in the Chaco Salteño: Complementing the three-pillar sustainability approach with environmental justice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    13. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    14. Riccardo SCARPA & Fiorenza SPALATRO & Maurizio CANAVARI, 2005. "Investigating Preferences For Environment Friendly Production," Others 0505003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Ortega, David L. & Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B. & Clay, Daniel C. & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2016. "Sustainable Intensification and Farmer Preferences for Crop System Attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s Central and Southern Regions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 139-151.
    16. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl-Johan Lagerkvist, 2004. "Consumer Benefits of Labels and Bans on GMO Foods: An Emprical Analysis Using Choice Experiments," Working Papers 04-02, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    17. Rocha, Marta & Baddeley, Michelle & Pollitt, Michael & Weeks, Melvyn, 2019. "Addressing self-disconnection among prepayment energy consumers: A behavioural approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 273-286.
    18. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    19. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    20. Collins Asante‐Addo & Daniela Weible, 2020. "Is there hope for domestically produced poultry meat? A choice experiment of consumers in Ghana," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 281-298, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bcc:wpaper:2012-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sergio Henrique Faria (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.bc3research.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.