Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Holistic Approach Including Biological and Geological Criteria for Integrative Management in Protected Areas

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biodiversity hotspots and geosites are indivisible parts of natural heritage. Therefore, an adequate spatial delimitation and understanding of both and their linkages are necessary in order to be able to establish conservation policies. Normally, biodiversity hotspots are a typical target for those policies but, generally, geosites are not taken into account. Thus, this paper aims to fill this gap by providing an easily replicable method for the identification and integration of the geosites and the biodiversity hotspots in a Network for Integrative Nature Conservation that highlights their linkages. The method here presented has been applied to Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve situated in southeastern of the Bay of Biscay. The obtained results indicate that some geosites that are not directly related with biodiversity hotspots remain unprotected. Thus, from the study carried out, it can be stated that we conserving just the biodiversity hotspots is not enough to conserve the whole natural heritage of a protected area, as some plots interesting due to their relevant geoheritage remain unprotected. Therefore, it is necessary to fully integrate geosites into the planning documents of protected areas as a part of an ecosystem approach. The ecosystem approach recognizes the integrity of abiotic and biotic elements in nature conservation policies. Moreover, the proposed framework and the innovative methodology can be used as an easy input to identify priority areas for conservation, to improve the protected areas conservation planning, and to demonstrate the linkages between biodiversity hotspots and geosites.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen G (2008) Conservation hotspots of biodiversity and endemism for Indo-Pacific fishes. Aquat Conserv 18:541–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amezaga I, Mendarte S, Albizu I, Besga G, Garbisu C, Onaindia A,M (2004) Grazing Intensity, aspect, and slope effects on limestone grassland structure. J Range Manag 57:606–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnáiz F, Loidi J (1982) Estudio fitosociológico de los zarzales y espinares del País Vasco. Lazaroa 4:5–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Basque Government (2016) ftp://ftp.geo.euskadi.net/cartografia/

  • Benito I, Onaindia M (1991) Estudio de la distribución de las plantas halófitas y su relación con los factores ambientales en la marisma de Mundaka-Urdaibai. Implicaciones en la gestión del Medio Ambiente. Eusko Ikaskuntza. Sociedad de Estudios Vascos. Cuadernos de la Sección de Ciencias Naturales. p 116

  • Brilha J (2016) Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: a review. Geoheritage 8(2):119–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calviño-Cancela M, Rubido-Bará M, van Etten E (2012) Do eucalypt plantations provide habitat for native forest biodiversity? For Ecol Manag 270:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carcavilla L, Lopez Martínez J, Duran Valsero JJ (2007) Patrimonio geológico y geodiversidad: investigación, conservación, gestión y relación con los espacios naturales protegidos. Publicaciones del Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid, Serie: Cuadernos del Museo Geo- minero 7, p 405

    Google Scholar 

  • Carcavilla L, Durán J, García-Cortés A, López-Martínez J (2009) Geological Heritage and Geoconservation in Spain: Past, Present, and Future. Geoheritage 1:75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cendrero A (1996) El patrimonio geológico. Ideas para su protección, conservación y utilización. In: El Patrimonio Geológico. Bases para su valoración, protección, conservación y utilización. Ed. Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente, Madrid, pp 17–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Dech JP, Robinson LM, Noskoj P (2008) Understorey plant community characteristics and natural hardwood regeneration under three partial harvest treatments applied in a northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) stand in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest region of Canada. For Ecol Manag 256:760–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingwall PR (2000) Legislation and international agreements: the integration of the geological heritage in nature conservation policies. In: Barettino D, Wimbledon WAP, Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation and management. Instituto Tecnológico Geominero de España, Madrid, pp 15–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley N (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, p 86

    Google Scholar 

  • Erikstad L (2012) Geoheritage and geodiversity management— the questions for tomorrow. Proc Geol Assoc. doi:10.1016/j.pgeola.2012.07.003. Accessed 2015

  • Erikstad L, Lindblom I, Jerpåsen G, Hanssen MA, Bekkby T, Stabbetorp O, Bakkestuen V (2008) Environmental value assessment in a multidisciplinary EIA setting. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28:131–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2010) ArcGIS 10. Redlands. Enviromental Systems Research Institute, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuertes-Gutiérrez I, Fernández-Martínez E (2012) Mapping geosites for geoheritage management: a methodological proposal for the regional park of Picos de Europa (León, Spain). Environ Manage 50:789–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon JE, Barron HF (2012) Valuing geodiversity and geoconservation: developing a more strategic ecosystem approach. Scott Geogr J 128:278–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant PBC, Samways MJ (2011) Micro-hotspot determination and buffer zone value for Odonata in a globally significant biosphere reserve. Biol Conserv 144:772–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray JM (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. Wiley, Chichester, p 434

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray JM (2008) Geodiversity: a new paradigm for valuing and conserving geoheritage. Geosci Can 35:51–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray M, Gordon JE, Brown EJ (2013) Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc Geol Assoc 124:659–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjort J, Heikkinien RK, Luoto M (2012) Inclusion of explicit measures of geodiversity improves biodiversity models in a boreal landscape. Biodivers Conserv 21:3487–3506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson PF, Inbar M (2012) Land degradation and geodiversity: anthropogenic controls on environmental change. Land Degrad Dev 23:307–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IGME (2016) http://www.igme.es/patrimonio/GlobalGeosites.htm

  • Knight J (2011) Evaluating geological heritage: correspondence on Ruban, D.A. “quantification of geodiversity and its loss” (PGA, 2010, 121(3): 326-333). Proc Geol’ Assoc 122:508–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loidi J, García-Mijangos I, Herrera M, Berastegi A, Darquistade A (1997) Heathland vegetation of the Northern-central part of the Iberian Peninsula. Folia Geobot Phytotaxon 32:259–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loidi J, Herrera M (1990) The Quercus pubescens and Quercus faginea forests in the Basque country (Spain): distribution and typology in relation to climatic factors. Plant Ecol 90:81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchese C (2015) Biodiversity hotspot: A shortcut for a more complicated concept. Global Ecol Conserv 3:297–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews TJ (2014) Integrating geoconservation and biodiversity conservation: Theoretical foundations and conservation recommendations in a European Union context. Geoheritage 6:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendia M, Aranburu A, Carracedo M, González MJ, Monge-Ganuzas M, Pascual A (2010) Lugares de Interés Geológico de la Reserva de la Biosfera de Urdaibai. Gobierno Vasco. http://www.ingurumena.ejgv.euskadi.net/r49-orokorra/es/contenidos/informe_estudio/ligsde_urdaibai_2010/es_doc/indice.html.Accessed 2015

  • Mendia M, Monge-Ganuzas M (2011) Estrategia de Geodiversidad de la Reserva de la Biosfera de Urdaibai. Avances y retos en la conservación del Patrimonio Geológico de España. Actas de la IX Reunión Nacional de la Comisión de Patrimonio Geológico (S.G.E.), Universidad de León, León, 196–200

  • Monge-Ganuzas M, Martínez-Jaraiz C (2013) El Patrimonio Geológico en la Red de Reservas de la Biosfera. In: Vegas J, Salazar A, Díaz-Martínez E, Marchán C (eds) Patrimonio geológico, un recurso para el desarrollo. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid, pp 313–321. En:15

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Onaindia M (1986) Estudio de la distribución de las comunidades vegetales hidrófilas en los ríos de Vizcaya. Boletín de la estación central de ecología 15(30):41–56. Ministerio de agricultura, pesca y alimentación. ISSN: 0210-2536

    Google Scholar 

  • Onaindia M (1989) Estudio fitoecológico de los encinares vizcaínos. Estudia Oecol 6:7–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Onaindia M, Benito I, Domingo M (1991) A vegetation gradient in dunes of Northern Spain. Vie Milieu 41:107–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Onaindia M, Domínguez I, Albizu I, Garbisu C, Amezaga I (2004) Vegetation diversity and vertical structure as indicators of forest disturbance. For Ecol Manag 195:341–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onaindia M, Ballesteros F, Alonso G, Monge-Ganuzas M, Peña L (2013a) Participatory process to prioritize actions for a sustainable management in a biosphere reserve. Environ Sci Policy 33:283–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onaindia M, Fernández de Manuel B, Madariaga I, Rodríguez-Loinaz G (2013b) Co-benefits and trade-offs between biodiversity, carbon storage and water flow regulation. For Ecol Manag 289:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onaindia M, Mitxelena A (2009) Potential use of pine plantations to restore native forests in a highly fragmented river basin. Ann For Sci 66:13–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks KE, Mulligan M (2010) On the relationship between a resource-based measure of geodiversity and broad scale biodiversity patterns. Biodivers Conserv 19:2751–2766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peña L, Amezaga I, Onaindia M (2011) At which spatial scale are plant species composition and diversity affected in beech forests? Ann For Sci 68:1351–1362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peña L, Casado-Arzuaga I, Onaindia M (2015) Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and social evaluation approach. Ecosyst Serv 13:108–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Abell R, Brooks TM, Gittleman JL, Joppa LN, Raven PH, Roberts CM, Sexton JO (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344:1246752

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Loinaz G, Amezaga I, Onaindia M (2011) Efficacy of management policies on protection and recovery of natural ecosystems in the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve. Nat Areas J 31:358–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan S, Jenkins CN, Joppa LN, Gaveau DLA, Laurance WF (2014) Remaining natural vegetation in the global biodiversity hotspot. Biol Conserv 177:12–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terrado M, Sabater S, Chaplin-Kramer B, Mandle L, Ziv G, Acuña V (2016) Model development for the assessment of terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in conservation planning. Sci Total Environ 540:63–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (1995) The statutory framework of the world network of biosphere reserves. UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Weighell T (2004) Geoconservation at a local, national and global scale: making the links. Paper presented at The International Conference on World Heritage-Earth Heritage, Dorset

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Department of Environment and Regional Planning of the Basque Government and the Sustainability and Natural Environment Department of the Regional Government of Biscay for funding the Ecosystem Services Assessment of the Basque Country Project, of which this article is part.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Biology and Ecology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), P.O. Box 644, Bilbao, 48080, Spain

    Lorena Peña, Miren Onaindia & Beatriz Fernández De Manuel

  2. Department of Environment and Territorial Policy. Basque Government, Service of Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve, Madariaga Tower. Gernika-Bermeo road. San Bartolome, Busturia, 48350, Spain

    Manu Monge-Ganuzas

  3. Department of Mineralogy and Petrology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), P.O. Box 644, Bilbao, 48080, Spain

    Miren Mendia

Authors
  1. Lorena Peña
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manu Monge-Ganuzas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miren Onaindia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Beatriz Fernández De Manuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miren Mendia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorena Peña.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peña, L., Monge-Ganuzas, M., Onaindia, M. et al. A Holistic Approach Including Biological and Geological Criteria for Integrative Management in Protected Areas. Environmental Management 59, 325–337 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0781-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0781-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation