BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, researchlibraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Efficacy of Management Policies on Protection and Recovery of NaturalEcosystems in the Urdaibai Biosphere ReserveAuthor(s): Gloria Rodríguez-Loinaz, Ibone Amezaga and Miren OnaindiaSource: Natural Areas Journal, 31(4):358-367. 2011.Published By: Natural Areas AssociationDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3375/043.031.0406URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3375/043.031.0406

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, andenvironmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books publishedby nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance ofBioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiriesor rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

358 Natural Areas Journal Volume 31 (4), 2011

Natural Areas Journal 31:358–367

•

Efficacy of Management Policies

on Protection and Recovery of Natural Ecosystems in the

Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve

Gloria Rodríguez-Loinaz1,2

1Department of Plant Biology andEcology

University of the Basque CountryP.O. Box 644

48980 Bilbao, Spain

Ibone Amezaga1

Miren Onaindia1

•

2 Corresponding author:gloria.rodriguez@ehu.es

ABSTRACT: Knowledge of landscape patterns and dynamics is essential for land use planners andnatural resources managers. They need to know how landscapes have changed in order to determinethe consequences and efficacy of the management policies and implement future decision-making. Thisstudy characterized the landscape of the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve, which has been affected by theintroduction of exotic tree species since the beginning of the 20th century. We examined the dynamicsof this landscape between 1991 and 2009 and the consequences of having been declared a UNESCOBiosphere Reserve in 1984. Most of the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve potential vegetation (80%) ismixed-oak (Quercus robur L.) forest, but, currently, this forest is found in only 6.5% of the area. Mostof the current vegetation (54%) comprises Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus sp. plantations. Over the periodstudied, land use had changed in only 11.8% of the area. Nearly 30% of the change was the replacementof traditional grasslands, crops, and heathlands by P. radiata and Eucalyptus sp. plantations. However,22% of the change had reflected a recovery of the native vegetation, namely mixed-oak and Cantabrianevergreen-oak (Quercus ilex subsp. Ilex) forest, coastal sandy areas, or broad-leaf plantations. Thisrecovery of the native vegetation has countered the tendency towards landscape degradation observedsince 1957. Thus, despite the small change described, the first effects of conservation and environmen-tal recovery policies can be detected. Nevertheless, there remains much to be done for recovering thenatural ecosystem; the most difficult obstacles include the fact that most of the land is privately ownedand an existence of the administrative complexity gives rise to problems that exist between differentAdministrations.

Index terms: conservation policies, landscape pattern, land use changes, northern Spain

INTRODUCTION

Landscape change is an important themein landscape ecology (Bürgi et al. 2004;Bolliger et al. 2007; Leyk and Zimmermann2007; Van Doorn and Bakker 2007). Thelandscape is a dynamic system; it integratesthe effects of all natural processes and hu-man interventions, and it accommodatesand changes in response to them. Somechanges occur very rapidly, and the naturalenvironment does not have time to adapt;thus, it sustains significant impact (Aladoset al. 2004). This reduces ecological capac-ity, diversity, and scenic beauty, and has, inthe past, damaged cultural landscapes thatwere considered highly valuable (Bastianet al. 2006).

Proper landscape management and con-servation must, therefore, consider therelationships between landscape patternsand the processes that caused them (Aladoset al. 2004; Domon and Bouchard 2007).Understanding landscape structure is aprerequisite for determining the state of thelandscape and for identifying the processesthat have given rise to that state (Wascher2003). Knowledge of those processes andthe extent of the changes is necessary todesign proper strategies for managementand restoration (Bender et al. 2005; Grantand Murphy 2005; Plieninger 2006).

In past centuries, the Urdaibai landscape

followed a traditional agro-silviculture-grazing model, in which the role of thefarm was very important as a self-sufficiententity. This resulted in a wide variety ofcrops and resources that ensured highlandscape diversity (Atauri 1995). In the1950s, industrialization in the area initiateda crisis in the rural world. The immediateconsequence of this crisis was a rural exo-dus, with consequent farm abandonment,and the spread of fast-turnover forestplantations (Groóme 1990). The returnsfrom the first harvests of timber, togetherwith the policy of subsidizing forest planta-tions, motivated the landowners to devotetheir land holdings to tree plantations asthe landowners went to work in industry.This gave rise to an enormous expansionof monocultures of P. radiata and Euca-lyptus sp. in the area. These monocultureplantations of fast growing evergreenspecies, together with the type of manage-ment applied, gave rise to environmentalproblems, including soil loss and com-paction (Merino and Edeso 1999; Merinoet al. 2004), nutrient loss (Merino et al.2004), and surface water turbidity causedby increased surface runoff. Although alarge part of Urdaibai was covered byP. radiata plantations by the 1980s, theremainder of the area was covered by adiverse, pleasant landscape that includedvillages, traditional farmhouses surroundedby grasslands and crops, and urban nuclei.In those areas, various natural systems of

C O N S E R V A T I O N I S S U E S

Volume 31 (4), 2011 Natural Areas Journal 359

extraordinary importance flourished with acceptable levels of conservation. In 1984, the International Panel for Coordination of the MAB Program of UNESCO decided to include this region in the International Biosphere Reserve Network with the aim of protecting its integrity. The reserve included the zones of P. radiata and Euca-lyptus sp. plantations; because these zones were situated in the high areas of water catchment, and their management could have a large effect on the lower zones that were considered valuable. Including these tree plantation zones in the reserve made it possible to establish some limitations in their management, with the aim of mini-mizing the potential negative effects they might have on the areas of interest.

In 1989, the Basque Government estab-lished a special legislation for the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve (UBR). This legislation established the zoning of the UBR, deter-mined authorized and prohibited uses in the different zones, and regulated urban development. The aim of this legislation was to minimize the risks of environ-mental deterioration, due to the current techniques of exploiting P. radiata and Eucalyptus sp. plantations. It also aimed to protect the integrity and promote the recovery of the natural ecosystems, in terms of natural, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational, and socio-economic interest. Currently, after two decades of this legislation, land use planners and natural resources managers need to know how landscapes have changed in order to determine the consequences and efficacy of the measures taken and to inform those who will be involved in future decision-making (Ward et al. 2007).

This study provides a categorization of the current landscape (2009) of the UBR and an evaluation of its dynamics between 1991 and 2009. The principal aims were: (1) to determine the current state of the UBR landscape and identify potential prob-lems; (2) to examine changes in landscape patterns from 1991 to 2009 as a starting point for a continuing analysis of landscape dynamics; (3) to analyze the efficacy of the established legislation in the conservation and recovery of the natural environment; and, finally (4) to identify management ac-

tions that might accelerate restoration and promote the development of a sustainable economy for the inhabitants.

METHODS

Study area

The study was undertaken in the UBR of the northern Iberian Peninsula (43º19´N, 2º40´W) (Figure 1). The UBR is bordered by the Oka River water catchment in Bizkaia and occupies an area of 220 km2 with approximately 45,000 inhabitants. Economic activity is essentially based on metallurgy, ocean fishing, and development of local natural resources, particularly farming, grazing, and forestry.

The UBR’s climate is temperate and humid, regulated by the Cantabrian Sea, which ensures uniformity in atmospheric vari-ables. The principal characteristics of this climate are its slight thermal oscillations (average temperature 12.5 ºC), uniform rainfall distribution throughout the year (average annual rainfall 1200 mm), and relative lack of frost.

The UBR is a diverse, pleasant landscape with villages, traditional farmhouses, and urban nuclei where a wide spectrum of flora and fauna can be observed. Within the wide range of ecosystems, various natural systems of extraordinary impor-tance are present with acceptable levels of conservation. Outstanding areas include the estuarine or maritime system that was declared the Ramsar zone in 1992, the karstic system that supports extensive Cantabrian evergreen-oak forests (Quer-cus ilex subsp. Ilex), and a coastline with beaches and cliffs. These three zones were declared Sites of Community Interest in the Natura 2000 Network, and the UBR was designated a Special Protection Area under the EU Birds Directive in 1994. Apart from the coastal zones and the karst outcrops, the greater part of the reserve has a potential vegetation of mixed-oak forest (GESPLAN 2002). This forest is dominated by Quercus robur L., but also supports Fraxinus excelsior L. and Cas-tanea sativa L. (Onaindia et al. 2004). During the 19th and 20th centuries, this forest was fragmented, and it currently occupies a small proportion of its potential area (Rodríguez-Loinaz et al. 2007). It

Figure 1: Location of the study area.

360 Natural Areas Journal Volume 31 (4), 2011

has been replaced by forest plantations ofPinus radiata and Eucalyptus sp. and bygrasslands and crops.

Zoning and regulation of the UBR

The inclusion of Urdaibai in the Interna-tional Biosphere Reserve Network wasbased on the recognition of a geographi-cally singular enclave and the recommenda-tion of protecting and preserving it. How-ever, this did not imply the establishmentof zoning or any concrete obligations forthe administration or citizens. Those wereimposed later, when a special legislationwas established for the UBR.

The UBR has its own management plans.First, there is the “Urdaibai Protectionand Regulation Law” (UPRL), which wasapproved in 1989. Its objective was theestablishment of special legislation for theUBR to protect the integrity and promoterecovery of all its ecosystems in termsof their natural, scientific, educational,cultural, recreational, and socio-economicinterests. Second, the legislation objectivesare developed by the Governance Plan forUse and Management (GPUM), which wasapproved in 1993. These two plans estab-lished UBR zones (Figure 2), designatedauthorized and prohibited uses in thosezones, and generated urban developmentregulations.

In the special protection and protectionzones, the principal aim is the conserva-tion and regeneration of the natural forestand, thus, very few activities are allowed.In the forest and agrarian interest zones, alarge number of uses, activities, and evennew constructions are allowed. However,these zones have limitations in the useof herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers,which are allowed only when they do notendanger the soil and water resources.

The development of the GPUM objectiveshas been very limited. Only one documentwith conservation objectives has been ap-proved – the “TerritorialAction Plan (TAP)for Cantabrian evergreen-oak forests andtheir protected zones.” Other territorialaction plans have been formulated, buthave not yet been approved, including:

the “TAP for the estuary special protectionarea” and the “TAP for the stream-banksprotection area.” Currently, the GPUM isbeing revised.

Source for the GIS database

In this study, a GIS database was producedto examine the composition, the spatialpattern, and the dynamics of the UBRlandscape. For this purpose, maps of landuse in 1991 and 2009 were generated fromorthophotos at a scale of 1:10,000, providedby the cartography service of the CountyCouncil of Bizkaia. These maps wereelaborated by manual digitalization andautomatic scanning of the orthophotos, andwere prepared and saved in GIS in vectorformat with the ARC/INFO program. Incases where the land use type was not clear,field visits were conducted to investigatethe area concerned.

A total of 16 land uses were identified ac-cording to the classifications used in theenvironmental cartography system of theAutonomous Region of the Basque Coun-try (GESPLAN 2002). These included (1)birch (Betula sp.), (2) coastal sands, (3)heath-gorse-ferns (heathlands), (4) reedbeds, (5) coastal cliffs, (6) grasslands andcrops, (7) Cantabrian evergreen-oak forest,(8) scrub, (9) broad-leaf plantations, (10)P. radiata and Eucalyptus sp. plantations,(11) riparian forests, (12) mixed-oak forest,(13) vegetation on exposed limestone, (14)population nuclei, (15) zones without veg-etation, and (16) marshland vegetation.

The landscape changes were identified byoverlaying the two maps and determiningthe zones that had experienced land usechange and the direction of that change.

Landscape characterization

Once the database was created, the nextstep was to characterize the landscape inboth years by calculating landscape indicesat three levels: (1) patch, (2) land use, and(3) landscape. With the vLATE program(Lang and Tiede 2003), the followingindices were calculated at the patch level:area (A), perimeter (P), and distance ofa patch to the nearest patch of the same

land use (NND).

Based on the indices at the patch level,the indices at the land use level werecalculated with the formulation proposedin the FRAGSTATS program (Mc Garigalet al. 2002). For each land use type, thefollowing indices were calculated: thenumber of patches (NP), total area (CA),average patch size (MPS), and averagedistance to the nearest patch of the sameland use (MNND). The indices of disper-sion (R) (Forman 1995) and fragmentation(F) (Gurutxaga 2003) were also calculated.The fragmentation index was calculatedas follows:F = CA/ (NP x R)

This index is inversely proportional tothe degree of fragmentation. Thus, anincrement in the F value is related to areduction in the degree of fragmentation,and vice versa.

For the landscape as a whole, the calculatedindices were: number of patches (NPL),average patch size (MPSL), richness (PR),and the Simpson indices of diversity (SIDI)and equitability (SIEI).

RESULTS

The UBR landscape structure after two decades of protection

In 2009, the total UBR area was 21,941ha: 54% (11,853 ha) was covered by forestplantations of P. radiata and Eucalyptus sp.; 21.6% (4748 ha) by grasslands andcrops; and 14.4% by other forest formations(Figure 3; Table 1). It should be noted thatthe mixed-oak forest, although the poten-tial vegetation of a majority (80%) of thestudy area, was only present in 6.5% of thetotal area (1421 ha; Table 1). However, thenumber of patches showed that the mixed-oak forest was the most frequent land usetype, with a total of 562 (35%) patches,though most were small in size (area < 2ha). Mixed-oak was also the most frag-mented habitat (F=1.12; Table 1). The nextmost frequent land use types were forestplantations of P. radiata and Eucalyptus sp.and grasslands and crops; each comprisednearly 17% of all patches.

Volume 31 (4), 2011 Natural Areas Journal 361

Figure 2: Zoning of the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve established by the Governance Plan for Use and Management. P0, P1, P1.1, P2, C1: Special protec-tion zones of the estuary. C2: Special protection zones of the coastline. P3: Special protection zones of the Cantabrian evergreen-oak forests. P4: Protectionzones of the margins of streams and coastline. P5: Protection zones of the Cantabrian evergreen-oak forests. P6: Landscape protection zones. A1: Agrarianzones in fertile plains. A2: Agrarian zones in aquifer recharge zones. A3: Agrarian zones without specific limitations for the aquifer recharge. F1: Forestzones with high risk of erosion. F2: Forest zones with moderate risk of erosion.

362 Natural Areas Journal Volume 31 (4), 2011

The average patch size at the landscapelevel (MPSL) was 13.64 ha (Table 2).However, this parameter showed a veryhigh standard deviation (41 ha), becausesome land use patches were of a consider-able size, like the P. radiata and Eucalyptus sp. plantations (MPS: 45.1 ha) and theCantabrian evergreen-oak forest (MPS:52.6 ha); in contrast, other land uses formedvery small patches, like the riparian for-ests (MPS: 1.9 ha) and the vegetation onexposed limestone (MPS: 0.6 ha).

The distribution of patch sizes, consider-ing the landscape as a whole, showeda predominance of small-sized patches.Most (61%) of the landscape patches weresmaller than 2 ha and only 9.4% werelarger than 10 ha.

Changes in the landscape of the UBR between 1991 and 2009

The landscape structure of the UrdaibaiBiosphere Reserve did not show significant

changes in the time frame studied. Ofthe 21,941 ha of the reserve, only 2596ha (11.8%) showed detectable land usechanges. Of these 2596 ha, 950 ha werenew plantations of P. radiata and Eucalyp-tus sp. that mostly replaced grasslands andcrops (479 ha) and heathlands (241 ha).Conversely, 365 ha of the 2596 ha werenew grasslands and crops that mostly (259ha) replaced plantations of P. radiata andEucalyptus sp., and 322 ha of the 2596were new heathlands that mostly (272ha) replaced plantations of P. radiata andEucalyptus sp. (Figure 4).

The small changes in the landscape werereflected in small variations in the land-scape indices (Table 2). There was anincrease in the number of patches (289)in the time period studied. The major-ity of these patches were small in size.In fact, the MPS dropped from 16.38 to13.64 ha. The landscape diversity indices(SIDI, SIEI) were virtually unaffected bythe small changes.

Of the 16 land uses, 10 showed changesin patch number (Table 3). Among these,seven (heathlands, grassland and crops,scrub, broad-leaf plantations, mixed-oakforest, population nuclei, and zones withoutvegetation) underwent greater than 10%variation. The number of population nucleihad fallen (16.7%), and the number ofpatches of heathlands, grassland and crops,scrub, broad-leaf plantations, mixed-oakforest, and zones without vegetation hadincreased (148%, 13.6%, 16.4%, 510%,26.9%, and 116%, respectively).

The majority of changes caused only smallincrements or reductions in the area occu-pied by the different land uses. Only three(broad-leaf plantation, mixed-oak forest,and population nuclei) underwent incre-ments greater than 10% (90.7%, 17.9%,and 27.4%, respectively).

Finally, only three of the land uses (heath-lands, broad-leaf plantations, and zoneswithout vegetation) underwent significantincrements in the degree of fragmentation(Table 3).

Figure 3: Map of land uses for the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve in 2009.

Volume 31 (4), 2011 Natural Areas Journal 363

DISCUSSION

UBR landscape structure

The landscape of the UBR is characterizedby the presence of forest; around 70% of itsarea is forested. This is a much higher per-centage than other temperate agriculturallandscapes, both along the Cantabrian coast(Garcia et al. 2005) and in other parts worldwide (Pan et al. 2001), where the averagecoverage is less than 30%. This fact canbe explained by the changes in land usethat have occurred over the past decades.Due to the crisis in traditional agriculture,a large change in the UBR landscape tookplace between 1957 and 1987. This led tothe result, in 1987, of pine plantations that

occupied over 50% of the reserve’s totalarea (Atauri 1995). In that period, the areacovered by pine plantations increased from4500 ha to 11,000 ha. Conversely, the areacovered by grasslands and crops decreasedfrom 13,500 ha to 6000 ha and that ofnatural forests decreased from 3500 hato 2500 ha (Atauri 1995). Currently, 54%of the UBR area is covered by P. radiataand Eucalyptus sp. plantations. This factappears to contrast with the idea of a bio-sphere reserve, where the aim is the con-servation and sustainable development ofthe natural environment. But, as explainedpreviously, the zones with predominantlyP. radiata and Eucalyptus sp. plantationswere included in the reserve because theirmanagement can have a large effect on the

zones of great value. Therefore, includingthese zones in the reserve facilitated theestablishment of limitations in the man-agement practices, etc., of these zones,with the aim of minimizing the potentialnegative effects that they might have onthe areas of interest.

The expansion of plantations of fastgrowing species (mainly P. radiata andEucalyptus sp.) has had a significant ef-fect on the semi-natural forest that hadpreviously been substituted by grasslandsand crops in a large part of the territory.Thus, the mixed-oak forest, which is thepotential vegetation of 80% of the reserve(GESPLAN 2002), has come to occupyonly 6.5% of the total area, as has hap-

Table 1. Landscape indices for the 16 land use types in the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve in 2009. CA= total area, %CA= % of the total area, NP= numberof patches, F= fragmentation index, MPS= average patch size, MNND= average distance to the nearest patch of the same land use, R= patch dispersion.The most meaningful values are shown in bold type.

Table 2. Landscape level indices for the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve in 1991 and 2009. TA= total area, NPL= number of patches, MPSL= average patchsize, SIDI= Simpson’s diversity index, PR= richness, SIEI= Simpson’s equitability index.

364 Natural Areas Journal Volume 31 (4), 2011

pened with other oak woodlands in otherparts of the world (McCreary 2004). Inthis region, the mixed-oak forest has beenreplaced in the valleys by grasslands andcrops, and on mountain slopes by the for-est plantations. As a result, the mixed-oakforest is very fragmented. In contrast, theCantabrian evergreen-oak forests have beenpreserved in large patches, because theyare the potential vegetation of the karsticoutcrops that form great, semi-bare, rockypatches (GESPLAN 2002). These areasare not suitable for the establishment ofP. radiata plantations due to the verystony, poorly structured soil. In its naturalhabitat, P. radiata requires at least 35 cmof soil for establishment, and it requiresmore than 90 cm to reach 30 m in height(Gandullo et al. 1974).

The riparian forest is another semi-naturalforest that has been seriously affected byland use changes. Despite the ecologicalimportance of this forest (stabilization ofthe banks, ecological corridors, etc.) (Fer-reira et al. 2005), the vast majority hasbeen eliminated by urban areas, grasslandsand crops, and forest plantations, where

these systems grow to the very edges ofthe watercourses.

Effect of conservation law

The results of this study showed a smallchange in the UBR landscape over thestudy period (11.8% of the area; i.e., 2596ha). The changes mainly included new P. radiata and Eucalyptus sp. plantations.Thus, the series of guidelines includedin the GPUM of the UBR have not beenvery effective. They aimed to set baselinesfor minimizing the risks of environmentaldeterioration posed by these plantationsand for promoting the recovery of naturalecosystems. The fulfilment of the guide-lines would limit these plantations to about6000 ha, mainly in forest zones. There aredifferent reasons for the lack of efficacy.First, the application of guidelines hasbeen difficult, mainly because the major-ity of the reserve (94%-95%) is privatelyowned, and the average property area isonly 5 ha. Thus, there are approximately4000 plantations; a third range between 2ha and 5 ha, and only 70 are larger than

70 ha (Cantero and Garcia 2000). Second,there are administrative problems. TheGPUM establishes some guidelines, butthe TAPs must establish the definitiveregulations. To date, only one of thoseplans has been approved. Furthermore,there is a lack of communication betweenthe different policymakers. Since a changein Urdaibai’s GPUM is approved, it mustbe immediately fulfilled, but incorporatingthat change into the local urban develop-ment plans may take months or years. Themunicipalities are based on these localplans to issue licenses and enforce regula-tions. Finally, Urdaibai is characterized byits administrative complexity. The differentAdministrations are based on differentsector-specific plans that may overlap,fall outside, or even contradict the UPRLand the GPUM. The UPRL prescribes theneed for information exchange, collabora-tion, coordination, and respect betweenthe different Administrations; however,these prescriptions have not always beenfulfilled. In some cases, issues betweenthe legislation of the reserve (UPRL andGPUM) and the sectorial legislations (lawsof coasts, waters, environment, roads, soil,

Table 3. Number of patches (NP), total area (CA), and index of fragmentation (F) for the 16 land use types in the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve in 1991and 2009.

Volume 31 (4), 2011 Natural Areas Journal 365

land management, evaluation of environ-mental impact, etc.) have not been resolvedin favor of the former.

Although the measures taken do not seemto have been very effective, it is possibleto appreciate the first signs, though quan-titatively insignificant, of changes due tothe policies for conservation and recoveryof the natural environment. Among the

changes detected, the most noteworthy isthe positive evolution in the Cantabrianevergreen-oak forest cover. This forestsustained continued retreat until 1990, dueto replacement by pines, a phenomenon thatwas accelerated in the 1980s (Atuari 1995).The Cantabrian evergreen-oak forest, lo-cated over the karstic outcrops, is one ofthe most highly valued natural ecosystemsof the Reserve. Thus, the Protection and

Regulation Law of the UBR classified theensemble of five areas that comprised thisnatural system as areas of special protec-tion. Later, the approval of the GPUM forUrdaibai supported these areas of specialvalue with some peripheral protectionzones to ensure the preservation and con-servation of the environmental resourcespresent in those areas. As a final step, anintegrated overall TAP was developed forthese forests and their protection zones.The aim was to create an active manage-ment plan of the area, based on deepknowledge of its bio-physical and socialrealities, which would conserve the areaand help it recover. In the period studied,the retreat of this forest did not continue;furthermore, there was even an incrementin its area. Thus, this trend of change canbe recognized as the beginnings of posi-tive effects brought about by the appliedprotection measures.

The coastal sands is another zone of spe-cial protection established by the GPUMthat increased in area. This increment wasmainly in Laida Beach, where a dune re-generation project was started in 1999 bythe Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve Board.The Laida dunes existed until the 1950s,when they disappeared as the result of ahuge ocean storm. In recent decades, thisregion has been subjected to massive hu-man influences (dredging the river, pres-sure of swimmers, dike construction, andother civil works in the estuary) that haveprevented natural processes from restoringthe area to its original state.

The increase in broad-leaf plantations isalso a positive trend, due to the ecologicalbenefits they provide, in contrast to theplantations of fast-growing species. Theseplantations contribute to soil stabilization,the development of wildlife communities,and an increase in biological and landscapediversity (Basque Government 1993). Thistype of plantation has been recommendedfor all forestlands that have a high erosionrisk; nevertheless, until recently their pro-liferation has been limited. They are mainlyconcentrated in public lands, because thesubsidies provided are insufficient to de-velop these plantations, and, therefore, theyrepresent a cost to the landowner.

Figure 4: Changes in land use in the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve between 1991 and 2009.

366 Natural Areas Journal Volume 31 (4), 2011

The increase in the population nuclei ofthe reserve has been lower than that for theAutonomous Region of the Basque Countryas a whole. The area of population nuclei inthe reserve was increased by 27.4% in 2009and in the Autonomous Region by 32% in2005 (IKT 1995, 2005). This could be dueto the limitations on new construction thatthe GPUM established. The creation ofnew population nuclei is forbidden and theexisting ones can increase up to 40% only.The growth was concentrated principallyaround Gernika, the main urban nucleus ofthe Reserve. The concentrated growth inGernika could be explained by the tendencyin recent years of the active population toestablish homes in well-connected areaswhere an active housing policy had beenimplemented (Murua et al. 2001).

Finally, two important natural systems,the riparian and mixed-oak forests, did notshow any effects from the measures taken.The riparian forest has not shown any re-covery, despite the ecological importanceof this type of formation. The margins ofstreams were included as protected areas inthe GPUM of the UBR. These areas consistof a 25-m wide strip of land running thelength of the watercourse. The aim was toregenerate the natural forest (art. 93 of theGPUM). The main impediment to changein these areas was that the continuationof agricultural and grazing activities (likeforest plantations, grasslands and crops,which were in place when the GPUM cameinto effect in 1993) is permitted (art. 118of the GPUM). These activities are stillpermitted because the TAP for these zoneshas not been approved. As for the mixed-oak forest, the majority of new patches didnot emerge due to the new measures. Mostof the new patches were small, elongatedareas on the edges of forest plantations.In the 1991 orthophotos, these sites wereeither identified as scrublands (20% ofthe new mixed-oak forest area) or werejoined to P. radiata plantations (55% ofthe new mixed-oak forest area). By 2009,due to the growth of the trees, they couldbe seen clearly; therefore, the incrementwas due to natural succession, rather thanthe conservation measures.

In conclusion, despite the small changesin the UBR landscape structure in the

period studied, it is possible to appreciatethe first effects, although quantitativelyinsignificant, of implementing policies forconservation and recovery of the naturalenvironment. There remains much to bedone; the pine and eucalyptus plantationscontinue to thrive in all zones of watercatchment – in special protection zones andin agrarian and protection zones. The workthat lies ahead will be difficult, because95% of the Reserve is privately owned. Inaddition, some administrative complexitiesmay contribute to the difficulties.

Future management guidelines

Apart from solving the administrativeproblems mentioned above, proper ter-ritory management should include andimplement some incentives for the con-servation, recovery, and regeneration ofthe natural vegetation as observed in otherlocations (Higgins et al. 2007; Ernst andWallace 2008). At present, new forms ofmanagement are being analyzed, namelythe custody of the territory and the paymentfor environmental services. An agreementof custody of the territory is a voluntaryprocedure in which an owner and anentity of custody agree on the methodsfor preserving and managing a territory.The mechanisms for taking custody ofthe territory can vary from implementingawareness actions and education activitiesto voluntary agreements for managing theproperties. These agreements can involvedifferent levels of commitment, and theycan imply different legal requirements.For example, they may involve a transferof property management, the acquisi-tion of legal rights, or the purchase ofthe property by the entity of custody. Todate, only one non-profit-non-governmentorganization, the Lurgaia Foundation, hascarried out some actions for custody of theterritory in Urdaibai; but, due to its limitedresources, it only covers 16 ha, distributedamong eight zones, where projects are be-ing conducted to recover the riparian andmixed-oak forests.

In addition to the conservation of naturalecosystems, it is important to keep inmind that Urdaibai supports approximately45,000 inhabitants that demand economicdevelopment. Thus, the Strategy of Sustain-

able Development of the UBR 2009-2012has been developed. This strategy aimsfor sustainable tourism and ecologicalagriculture. In this sector, some transfor-mations of relevancy are currently takingplace. For example, the area dedicated toecological agriculture has tripled between2004 and 2006. In addition, the viability ofimplanting a brand image of quality tied tothe UBR is being studied. Finally, methodsare under consideration for stimulating thefishing sector.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge financialsupport from the Spanish Ministry ofEducation and Science (CGL2008-05579-C02-01), UNESCO Chair of the Univer-sity of the Basque Country and BasqueGovernment (Industry Department-EtortekProject). We would also like to thank SirMarrack Goulding for his contribution tothe editing of this document.

Gloria Rodríguez-Loinaz has been a re-searcher in the forest ecology laboratory at the Department of Plant Biology and Ecology of the University of the Basque Country since 2004.

Miren Onaindia is a Professor of Ecology at the Department of Plant Biology and Ecology and the Director of the UNESCO Chair on “Sustainable Development and Environmental Education” of the Univer-sity of the Basque Country

Ibone Amezaga is a Lecturer of Ecology at the Department of Plant Biology and Ecology at the University of the Basque Country. They and their group have studied many aspects of forest ecology, and nowa-days their research is focused in landscape ecology and ecosystem services studies.

LITERATURE CITED

Alados, C.L., Y. Pueyo, O. Barrantes, J. Escós,L. Giner, and A.B. Robles. 2004. Variationsin landscape patterns and vegetation coverbetween 1957 and 1994 in a semiarid Medi-

Volume 31 (4), 2011 Natural Areas Journal 367

terranean ecosystem. Landscape Ecology19:543-559.

Atauri, J.A. 1995. Efectos ecológicos de loscambios de uso del suelo en la Reservade la Biosfera de Urdaibai. Tesis doctoral,Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Basque Government. 1993. Governance Plan forUse and Management of Urdaibai BiosphereReserve. Department of Urbanism, Housingand Environment, Basque Government,Vitoria-Gasteiz.

Bastian, O., R. Krönert, and Z. Lipský. 2006.Landscape diagnosis on different space andtime scales – a challenge for landscape plan-ning. Landscape Ecology 21:359-374.

Bender, O., H. Juergen Boehmer, D. Jens,and K.P. Schumacher. 2005. Analysis ofland-use change in a sector of Upper Fran-conia (Bavaria, Germany) since 1850 usingland register records. Landscape Ecology20:149-163.

Bolliger, J., F. Kienast, R. Soliva, and G. Ruth-erford. 2007. Spatial sensitivity of specieshabitat patterns to scenarios of land usechange (Switzerland). Landscape Ecology22:773-789.

Bürgi, M., A.M. Hersperger, and N. Schnee-berger. 2004. Driving forces of landscapechange – current and new directions. Land-scape Ecology 19:857-868.

Cantero, A., and D. García. 2000. Avance enel plan de acción territorial de las áreasforestales (F1 y F2) de Urdaibai. GestiónForestal Sostenible. Pp. 171-176 in UnescoEtxea, ed., Conservación, Uso y Gestión delos Sistemas Forestales. VI. Jornadas de Ur-daibai Sobre Desarrollo Sostenible. UnescoEtxea and Basque Government, Bilbao.

Domon, G., and A. Bouchard. 2007. The land-scape history of Godmanchester (Québec,Canada): two centuries of shifting relation-ships between anthropic and biophysical fac-tors. Landscape Ecology 22:1201-1214.

Ernst, T., and G.N. Wallace. 2008. Characteris-tics, motivations, and management actionsof landowners engaged in private landconservation in Larimer County Colorado.Natural Areas Journal 28:109-120.

Ferreira, M.T., F.C. Aguilar, and C. Nogueira.2005. Changes in riparian woods overspace and time: influence of environmentalland use. Forest Ecology and Management212:145-159.

Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: the Ecol-ogy of Landscapes and Regions. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Gandullo, J.M., S. González, and O. Sánchez.1974. Ecología de los pinares españolesIV. Pinus radiata D. Don. Colección Mono-grafías INIA Nº 13. Madrid. Availableonline<http://www.gestionforestal.cl/pt_02/plantaciones/txt/ReqEcol/REPIN.htm>.

García, D., M. Quevedo, J.R. Obeso, and A.Abajo. 2005. Fragmentation patterns andprotection of montane forest in the Can-tabrian range (NW Spain). Forest Ecologyand Management 208:25-43.

GESPLAN. 2002. Environmental cartographysystem of the Basque Country AutonomousRegion. Department of Urbanism, Housingand Environment, Basque Government.

Grant, T.A, and R.K. Murphy. 2005. Changesin woodland cover on prairie refuges inNorth Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal25:359-368.

Groóme, H. 1990. Historia de la política for-estal en el Estado español. Pp. 81-90 in J.A.Atauri, ed., Monografías de la Agencia deMedio Ambiente Nº1. Agency of Environ-ment, of the Community of Madrid.

Gurutxaga, M. 2003. Índices de fragment-ación y conectividad para el indicador debiodiversidad y paisaje de la ComunidadAutónoma del País Vasco. Departmentof Urbanism, Housing and Environment,Basque Government.

Higgins, A., K. Serbesoff-King, M. King, andK. O’Reilly-Doyle. 2007. The power ofpartnerships: landscape scale conservationthrough public/private collaboration. NaturalAreas Journal 27:236-250.

IKT. 1995. National Forestry Inventory. De-partment of Environment, Basque Govern-ment.

IKT. 2005. National Forestry Inventory. De-partment of Environment, Basque Govern-ment.

Lang, S., and D. Tiede. 2003. vLATE Exten-sion für ArcGIS - vektorbasiertes Tool zurquantitativen Landschaftsstrukturanalyse,ESRI Anwenderkonferenz 2003 Innsbruck.Available online < http://www.geo.sbg.ac.at/larg/vlate.htm>.

Leyk, S., and N.E. Zimmermann. 2007. Improv-ing land change detection based on uncertainsurvey maps using fuzzy sets. LandscapeEcology 22:257-272.

McCreary, D. 2004. Managing and restoringCalifornia’s oak woodlands. Natural AreasJournal 24:269-275.

Mc Garigal, K., S.A. Cushman, M.C. Neel, andE. Ene. 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial PatternAnalysis Program for Categorical Maps.

Computer software program produced by theauthors at the University of Massachusetts,Amherst. Available online <www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html>.

Merino, A., and J.M. Edeso. 1999. Soil fertilityrehabilitation in young Pinus radiata D.Don. plantations from northern Spain afterintensive site preparation. Forest Ecologyand Management 116:83-91.

Merino, A., A. Fernández-López, F. Solla-Gullón, and J.M. Edeso. 2004. Soil changesand tree growth in intensively managedPinus radiata in northern Spain. Forest Ecol-ogy and Management 196:393-404.

Murua, J.R., I. Astorkiza, A.M. Ferrero, and I.Etxano. 2001. Plan rector de uso y gestiónde espacios naturales: el caso de la Reservade la Biosfera de Urdaibai. IV Congresode la Asociación Española de EconomíaAgraria. Available online <http://www.uco.es/grupos/edr/aeea/horarioamp.htm>.

Onaindia, M., I. Domínguez, I. Albizu, C.Garbisu, and I. Amezaga. 2004. Vegetationdiversity and vertical structure as indicatorsof forest disturbance. Forest Ecology andManagement 195:341-354.

Pan, D., G. Domon, D. Marceau, andA. Boucha-rd. 2001. Spatial pattern of coniferous anddeciduous forest patches in an EasternNorth America agricultural landscape: theinfluence of land use and physical attributes.Landscape Ecology 16:99-110.

Plieninger, T. 2006. Habitat loss, fragmentation,and alteration – quantifying the impact ofland-use changes on a Spanish dehesa land-scape by use of aerial photography and GIS.Landscape Ecology 21:91-105.

Rodríguez-Loinaz, G., I. Amezaga, M. SanSebastián, L. Peña, and M. Onaindia. 2007.Análisis del Paisaje de la Reserva de laBiosfera de Urdaibai. Forum de Sostenibi-lidad 1:59-69.

Van Doorn, A.M., and M.M. Bakker. 2007.The destination of arable land in a marginal agricultural landscape in South Portugal: anexploration of land use change determinants.Landscape Ecology 22:1073-1087.

Ward, K., K. Kromroy, and J. Juzwik. 2007.Transformation of the oak forest spatialstructure in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro-politan area, Minnesota, USA over 7 years.Landscape and Urban Planning 81:27–33.

Wascher, D.M. 2003. Overview on Agricul-tural landscape Indicators across OECDCountries. Pp. 19-36 in Proceedings of theNorway/OECD Expert Meeting onAgricul-tural Landscape Indicators on October 7-92002, Oslo, Norway.