Mi

Ma

b

a

ARRA

KPMES

1

ihrsa(eg(

teotm

h1

Ecological Indicators 43 (2014) 56–68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators

jo ur nal ho me page: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / ecol ind

ulti-criteria participative evaluation of Pinus halepensis plantationsn a semiarid area of southeast Spain

chich Deraka,∗, Jordi Cortinab

Direction Régionale des Eaux et Forêts et de la Lutte Contre la Désertification du Rif, Avenue Mohamed V, BP 722, 93000 Tétouan, MoroccoUniversity of Alicante, Department of Ecology and IMEM, Ap. 99, 03080 Alicante, Spain

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 7 June 2013eceived in revised form 12 February 2014ccepted 17 February 2014

eywords:ine plantationsulti-criteria analysis

cosystem servicestakeholders

a b s t r a c t

Semiarid areas host several hotspots of biodiversity, and provide vital ecosystem services. Afforesta-tion has been extensively used to restore these areas. However, studies on the impact of afforestationon the provision of ecosystem goods and services are scarce. We have evaluated changes in the pro-vision of ecosystem services after afforestation in a semiarid area in southeastern Spanish. Through amulti-criteria analysis, Pinus halepensis plantations were compared to four unrestored landscape units(grasslands, Stipa tenacissima steppes, shrublands and abandoned agricultural fields), using six ecologicaland socioeconomic criteria and fourteen indicators. The weights of criteria and indicators were obtainedfrom the opinion of 38 stakeholders. The values of each indicator per landscape unit were obtained fromempirical data and bibliographic sources. From the stakeholders’ perspective, regulating and supportingservices and biodiversity were more important than provisioning, cultural and economical services. Pine

plantations enhanced ecosystem services as hydrological and climatic regulation, and aesthetic value,but decreased the provision of other services as forage productivity, water availability, and small andbig game habitat. Pine plantations provided the highest levels of ecosystem services. The multi-criteriaand participatory assessment allowed managers to check the overall impact of their decisions, and itrepresents an efficient tool for reciprocal learning and negotiation.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Drylands cover over 40% of the emerged land worldwide and arenhabited by one third of the world’s population. They host severalotspots of biodiversity and have historically provided key geneticesources for human use (FAO, 1998). Desertification represents aerious threat to the provision of ecosystem services in these areasnd may compromise human well-being (Millennium AssessmentMA), 2005; Reynolds et al., 2007). Ecological restoration plays a rel-vant role to combat desertification by improving the provision ofoods and services, and enhancing livelihoods in degraded drylandsCortina et al., 2011).

In semiarid areas, forest plantation has been a common practiceo combat land degradation. Traditionally, plantations favoured thestablishment of one or a few species, and prioritized a small set

f ecosystem services, commonly hydrological control, soil protec-ion and, albeit implicitly, the creation of working opportunities in

arginal areas (Ortuno, 1990). The suitability of forest plantation

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +212 666371927.E-mail addresses: Mchich78@gmail.com, mchich78@hotmail.com (M. Derak).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.017470-160X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

in semiarid areas has been widely discussed. Many authors havestudied the impact of pine plantations on soil fertility (Bastida et al.,2007; Ruíz-Navarro et al., 2009), erosion (Chaparro, 1994; López-Bermúdez et al., 1998; Sánchez, 1997), water (Bellot et al., 1999;Chirino, 2003) and ecological succession (Gómez-Aparicio et al.,2009; Pausas et al., 2004). However, other impacts of forest plan-tations in semiarid areas have been barely addressed. For example,our knowledge on the effect of forest plantations on biodiversity,water and carbon cycles, and aesthetics is still scarce (Cortina et al.,2011). Indeed, comprehensive studies of the impact of afforesta-tion on the provision of ecosystem goods and services, and henceon the enhancement of human well-being in semiarid areas, arerare. However, we need to adopt a multidisciplinary approach usingecological, technical, socioeconomic and cultural indicators to fullyevaluate the effect of forest plantations in semiarid areas (Alloza,2003; Vallejo, 2009).

Multi-criteria analysis includes some of the most common sup-port decision tools in environmental management (Kiker et al.,

2005; Mendoza and Martins, 2006), including forest planning(Diaz-Balteiro and Romero, 2008). This set of tools is suitablefor objectively integrating a wide variety of ecosystem services,taking into account expert judgement and stakeholders’ opinion.

gical Indicators 43 (2014) 56–68 57

Panp

uagkhabati

2

2

0s(mttgfl

ad4r(

Loc(

geics

2

catrrgTdt(e

naa

tiful/traditional landscape and the value of 1 to the least one. Forindicators on soil fertility, erosion control, climatic regulation (esti-mated by the phytovolume), forage productivity, small and big

Table 1Area covered by the main landscape units identified in Ventós. Only the first 5 wereincluded in the analysis.

Landscape unit Surface area (ha) Surface area (%)

Pine plantations 501 30Shrublands 122 7Alfa steppes 624 37Grasslands 24 1Abandoned fields 298 18

M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecolo

articipative evaluation of forest plantations allows taking intoccount deep social demands and perspectives, and generates tech-ical and social learning, by bringing up past experiences andromoting knowledge exchange and dissemination.

Our objective in this study is to perform a comprehensive eval-ation of changes in the provision of ecosystem services afterfforestation in a representative semiarid area. To achieve thisoal, we have compiled empirical information on the provision ofey ecosystem services in areas planted with Aleppo pine (Pinusalepensis Miller) and unplanted areas in southeast Spain, and used

participative approach and a multi-criteria analysis to compareoth situations. By doing so, we try to conciliate scientific findingsnd social perception, in order to enhance our understanding ofhe impacts of ecological restoration actions in semiarid areas andmprove future interventions.

. Materials and methods

.1. Study area

The study was carried out in Ventós area (38◦26′–38◦31′ N;◦36′–0◦43′ W). This area of 1600 ha is located in Agost (Alicante,outheast Spain), and it is highly threatened by desertificationMMA, 2009). It is characterized by a semiarid Mediterranean cli-

ate, with mean annual precipitation of 292 mm, mean annualemperature of 18 ◦C and mean annual potential evapotranspira-ion of 920 mm (Ramirez, 2006). Rainfall is torrential and mayenerate surface runoff (Chirino, 2003) leading to a high risk ofooding (PATRICOVA, 2002).

Topography is rough, with slopes ranging from 25 to 35%. Soilsre developed from marls and limestone. They are shallow (averageepth 30 cm) and highly carbonated. Texture is loamy (34% silt,6% sand and 20% clay). Organic carbon in the surface soil horizonanges from of 3.7 to 4.7%, and bulk density from of 1.0 to 1.3 g cm−3

Bellot et al., 1999; Chirino, 2003; Ramirez, 2006).Vegetation is mostly dominated by Alfa grass (Stipa tenacissima

.) steppes, Aleppo pine (P. halepensis Miller) forests, dry grasslandsf Brachypodium retusum, and degraded shrublands with Quercusoccifera, Pistacia lentiscus, Rhamnus lycioides and Erica multifloraPena, 2001).

Aleppo pine has been planted in the area since 1945. The mainoal of early plantations was hydrological control, and they werestablished by opening holes on the highest terraces of north fac-ng slopes. More recent plantations, dating from 1995, have beenarried out by subsoiling on the lowest part of the catchment andouth facing slopes.

.2. Multi-criteria analysis

Our multi-criteria analysis is based on a data matrix whichrosses five alternative landscape types (hereafter landscape units),nd six criteria which are further divided into fourteen indica-ors. The five alternatives distinguish between a restored landscapeepresented by pine plantations, and four unrestored landscapesepresented by shrublands, Alfa grass (S. tenacissima L.) steppes,rasslands and abandoned agricultural fields (Fig. 1 and Table 1).he six criteria correspond to four categories of ecosystem servicesescribed by the MA (supporting, regulating, provisioning and cul-ural services), in addition to biodiversity and economic benefitsTable 2). The list of indicators was identified after consulting tenxperts on ecology, hydrology, soil science, forestry and sociology.

Data had three main sources: (i) field sampling, (ii) a question-aire distributed among stakeholders in the Ventós area, and (iii)

bibliographic survey of previous studies carried out in Ventósnd similar semiarid areas. Plant species richness was evaluated by

Fig. 1. Main landscape units in Ventós area (Alicante, southeast Spain).

recording all perennial vascular plants present in four 20 m × 20 mplots per landscape unit. Two cultural indicators (aesthetic valueand traditional value) were assessed on the basis of 55 interviews.We used five pictures illustrating the fundamental biophysicalcomponents and most relevant aspects of the five studied landscapeunits (Appendix A). We selected homogenous pictures, reducingthe impact of external factors such as chromatic composition, lightconditions, brightness, depth, date and time of the day, to avoid bias(Arriaza et al., 2004; Kaltenborn and Bjerke, 2002). The 55 inter-viewed stakeholders were asked to classify the pictures accordingto both indicators. The value of 5 corresponded to the most beau-

Crops 39 2Badlands 10 1Urban 52 3

Total 1671 100

58 M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecological Indicators 43 (2014) 56–68

Table 2Description of the 14 indicators of ecosystem services used in the study. RU: relative unit. N: number of species.

Criteria Indicator Measurement unit Description

Supporting services Organic soil carbon % Content of organic carbon in the A horizon (meandepth: 24.0 ± 0.5 cm)

Regulating services Erosion rate g m−2 year−1 Sediment yieldPhytovolume m3 m−2 Indirect estimation of air quality by vegetation volume

(m3 m−2 of surface)

Provisioning services Total biomass kg ha−1 Plant biomass accumulatedForage productivity UF ha−1 year−1 Quantity of forage available for herbivores. UF = unit of

forage = 1 kg of barleyNumber of plants with alimentary and artisanalinterest

% Alfa fibre, edible rhizomes and non-agricultural fruits

Number of aromatic and medicinal plants % Plants commonly used for aromatic and medicinalpurposes

Water retention % Fraction of superficial and subterranean wateravailable in the watershed which results from runoff,deep drainage and soil water content

Cultural services Aesthetic value RU Value expressing social preference according to itsbeauty

Traditional value RU Value expressing social preference according to itscultural relevance

Biodiversity Specific richness N Total number of plant speciesNumber of rare and endangered plants N Plant species reported as rare and endangeredSmall and big game preferences for habitats UR Based on the preferences of wild rabbit (Oryctolagus

cuniculus), hare (Lepus granatensis); red partridge(Alectoris rufa), wood pigeon (Columba palumbus),turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur), woodcock (Scolopaxrusticola), and thrush species (Turdus spp.) and boar(Sus scrofa)

gpoob

p(w1tMaifi

2

(bmtlee

2

aidM

additional comparisons which made the questionnaire heavy andannoying. For these reasons, we asked the 38 stakeholders to ratethe six services by assigning a value from 1 to 6 to each one, accord-ing to its importance in the enhancement of human well-being in

Table 3Composition of the stakeholder platform established to evaluate ecosystem servicesin Ventós (Alicante, southeast Spain).

Variable Categories Number of stakeholders Subtotal

Status

Researchers Scientists, Universityprofessors

812

Post-graduate students 4Managers Forest Administration 7

14Local authority 4Environmental Administration 1Public and private farms 2

Others Neighbours 6Environmental NGOs 2

Economical benefits Employment

ame, freshwater and employment, data were collected from 30revious studies carried out in Ventós and other semiarid areasf southeast Spain. In addition, five studies from semiarid areasf Morocco and Tunisia were used to complete the database oniomass provision (Appendix B).

Our multi-criteria analysis is presented as a multi-attributeroblem. Among the multi-attributes decisional methodsMalczewski, 1999; Montserrat and Cano, 2005; Romero, 1996),e applied a modified Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP; Saaty,

980). The multi-criteria analysis was performed using bothhe PriEsT program (School of Computer Science, University of

anchester, UK; www.sourceforge.net/projects/priority/files/)nd the DEFINITE 2.0 program (Institute for Environmental Stud-es, University, Amsterdam, Netherlands; www.ivm.vu.nl). Theve steps of the analysis are briefly described as follows:

.3. Structuring

The hierarchical structure of our analysis includes three levelsFig. 2). Following Ventós conditions, the first level is representedy four categories of ecosystem services, biodiversity and employ-ent (hereafter considered as six ecosystem services; MA, 2005),

he second level by fourteen indicators, and the third level by fiveandscape units. The global goal is to check the contribution ofach landscape unit to the provision of ecosystem services and thenhancement of human well-being in the area.

.4. Standardization

Data of the indicators of cultural services were standardized on

scale of 0–1 by using the Goal method (Romero, 1996). For otherndicators, whose utility function requires deep scientific analysis,ata were standardized using the simple and direct method of theaximum.

days ha−1 year−1 Number of work days generated by 1 ha of eachlandscape unit

2.5. Weighting

Weights of criteria and indicators were obtained through a par-ticipative process. We established a stakeholder platform formedby 38 people directly and indirectly affected by landscape and nat-ural resources management in the area (Table 3). The platformenclosed a wide and representative sample of age, gender and edu-cation level (Appendix C). For the two higher levels, and in orderto facilitate stakeholders’ contributions, weights were obtained bytwo different techniques: direct rating and pairwise comparisons.Indeed, for the first hierarchical level, a preliminary test of pair-wise comparisons showed that the interviewees found difficultiesin comparing pairs of services, as each service encompasses a widearray of complex elements. Furthermore, such exercise required

12Teachers (Local SecondarySchool)

3

Hunters 1Total 38

M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecological Indicators 43 (2014) 56–68 59

Criteria (services)

Indicators

Alternatives (landscape units)

Supporting services

Regulating services

Economic benefits

Provisioning services

Cultural services

Biodiversity

Soil Organic Carbon

Erosioncontrol

Phytovolume

Forage

Biomass

Alimentary & artisanal

plants

Small & big game

Traditional value

Aesthetic value

Emplo yment

Waterretention

Aromatic &

medicinal plants

Rare &Endangered

plants

Pine plantation

Alfa steppeShrublands Grasslands Abandoned fields

Human well being in drylands

Plantrichness

show

sttscaipfascw(ipiaa1omwtitob

2

bm

Fig. 2. Hierarchical scheme of the multi-criteria analysis

emiarid areas. The value of 1 corresponded to the least impor-ant service, and the value of 6 to the most important one. Fromhe assigned value, we deduced the weight of each service. For theecond level, we asked the 38 stakeholders to compare pairs of indi-ators within the same category of services, using values from 1 to 9ccording to Saaty scale (Saaty, 1980). Preferences between the twondicators in the pairwise comparisons were expressed as equallyreferred, weakly preferred, strongly preferred, very strongly pre-erred, or extremely preferred, corresponding to values of 1, 3, 5, 7nd 9, respectively. Pairwise comparisons within the provisioningervices and biodiversity corresponded to 5 × 5 and 3 × 3 recipro-al matrices, respectively. Cardinal inconsistency of these matricesas calculated using the Consistence Ratio (CR) proposed by Saaty

1980). As we could not ask stakeholders to revise their judgments,nconsistent judgments within matrices with CR > 0.10 were com-utationally resolved using the PriEsT program (Siraj, 2011). The

ndividual relative preferences for each pair of indicators wereggregated using the geometric mean to obtain the overall rel-tive preferences for the 38 stakeholders (Forman and Peniwati,998). As our hierarchical structure contains an uneven numberf indicators by service (1–5), we constructed a 14 × 14 reciprocalatrix where preferences were directly imported from the pair-ise comparisons of indicators (intra-services), and indirectly from

he ratio between pairs of service weights (inter-services). Thenndicator weights were deduced by the eigenvalue method. For thehird level, we used quantitative and semi-quantitative measuresf each indicator in each landscape unit obtained from differentibliographic sources described above.

.6. Integrated evaluation

The integrated score of each landscape unit was obtainedy simple additive weighting of the standardized values of theeasures of the indicators in each landscape unit. Scores were

ing the three levels: criteria, indicators and alternatives.

proportional to the contribution of each landscape unit the pro-vision of ecosystem services.

2.7. Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analyses were employed to evaluate changes in theprovision of ecosystem services in each landscape unit resultingfrom modifications in the weights of indicators and from possiblechanges in the number of working days demanded by afforestedareas.

2.8. Statistics analysis

Differences between the five landscape units in terms of thosevariables that were directly measured by us (number of aromaticand medicinal plants, aesthetic value, traditional value, specificrichness and number of rare and endangered plants), and betweenthe six ecosystem services, according to stakeholder opinions, weretested by using ANOVA with one fixed factor and five and six lev-els, respectively, followed by Tukey HSD tests for post hoc pairwisecomparisons. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 13.0package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Biodiversity and the provision of goods and services

Soil organic carbon (SOC) in the soil surface ranged from 1.4to 3.0% (Table 4). Pine plantations presented intermediate SOCvalues in comparison with other of landscape units in the area.

Afforestation enhanced regulating services. For hydrological reg-ulation, pine plantations, shrublands and grasslands showed verylow erosion rates (<1 g m−2 year−1). Alfa steppes and abandonedfields showed the highest erosion rates, 72 and 297 times higher

60 M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecological Indicators 43 (2014) 56–68

Table 4Evaluation matrix showing the value of each indicator in each landscape unit. Standard error is shown when available. One-way ANOVA was applied for five of the indicatorsmeasured in this study: number of medicinal and medicinal plants, aesthetic value, traditional value, specific richness and number of rare and endangered plants. Differentexponent letters correspondent to significant differences for these variables (Tukey HSD test, p < 0.05).

Indicators Measurement unit Landscape unit

Pine plantations Shrublands Alfa steppes Grasslands Abandoned fields

Organic soil carbon % 2.0 ± 0.6 1.4 ± 0.5 1.8 ± 0.2 3.0 ± 0.4 1.4 ± 0.2

Erosion rate g m−2 year−1 0.6 0.2 42.9 1.1 178.0Phytovolume m3 m−2 4.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4

Total biomass kg ha−1 9473 1018 808 749 892Forage productivity UF ha−1 year−1 144 254 90 278 267Number of plants with alimentary and artisanal interest N 1 1 2 1 1Number of aromatic and medicinal plants N 10.0a ± 0.7 6.0a ± 2.2 6.0b ± 0.0 8.0a ± 1.0 8.0a ± 0.7Water retention % 11 11 32 18 9

Aesthetic value RU 4.1a ± 0.1 3.2b ± 0.1 2.8b ± 0.1 3.2b ± 0.2 1.7c ± 0.1Traditional value RU 3.2 ± 0.2 2.9 ± 0.2 3.0 ± 0.2 2.8 ± 0.2 3.1 ± 0.2

Specific richness N 29.0 ± 1.7 19.0 ± 4.3 23.0 ± 2.4 25.0 ± 2.0 28.0 ± 0.3Number of rare and endangered plants N 3.0 ± 0.4 2.0 ± 0.3 3.0 ± 1.0 4.0 ± 0.3 3.0 ± 0.9

+

0.7

twst

otmbAlhstAt

eaitaw

osefwp

3

iumvmetmis

sensitive to changes in indicator weights. As shown in the examplespresented (Appendix D), if SOC weight would increase from 0.08 to0.26, grasslands would be the most valued landscape unit. Similarly,if a weight of 0.27 or higher had been assigned to water retention,

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

EconomyCultureProvisioningSuppor�ngBiodiversityRegula�ng

Wei

ghts

Ecosystem services

F5,38 = 12.081; p<0.0001

a a

b b

b

a

Small and big game preferences for habitats UR

Employment days ha−1 year−1

han observed under pines, respectively. For climatic regulation,hile pine plantation phytovolume was 4.85 m3 m−2, other land-

capes units showed mean values below 0.5 m3 m−2, thus 12–54imes lower than pine plantations.

Total biomass was enhanced by afforestation. With a mean valuef 9473 kg ha−1, biomass was substantially higher in pine planta-ions than in other landscape units. The number of aromatic and

edicinal plants in the whole area ranged from 6 to 10. The num-er of these plants in pine plantations was slightly higher than inlfa steppes, and similar to those in other three landscape units. All

andscape units contained one plant species with alimentary andandicraft interest, excepting Alfa steppes which contained twopecies. Forage production in pine plantations was slightly higherhan in Alfa steppes but lower than in shrublands and grasslands.fforestations retained small amounts of water (11%), i.e., three

imes lower than Alfa steppes.From a cultural perspective, pine plantations obtained the high-

st aesthetic score, largely higher than abandoned fields. However,fforestations did not significantly differ from other landscape unitsn terms of traditional value, as the score obtained by all units forhis indicator was approximately 3. From an economic perspective,fforestation was the only alternative to generate employment,ith a mean demand of 0.7 labour days ha−1 year−1.

Plant species richness in pine plantations showed a mean valuef 29 species, which was similar to the richness found in other land-cape units. We found no significant differences in the number ofndangered and rare plants in the five landscape units, as it rangedrom 2 to 4. In comparison with other landscape units, especiallyith shrublands, afforestation had a negative impact on habitatreferences in small and big game.

.2. Social perception

Ecosystem services were arranged in two sets of disparatemportance. According to the opinion of the 38 stakeholders, reg-lating and supporting services and biodiversity were significantlyore important than provisioning, cultural and economical ser-

ices (Fig. 3). Many indicators of ecosystem services were clearlyore important than others of the same category (Table 5). Thus,

rosion control was more important than climate regulation (phy-

ovolume). Freshwater availability was consistently considered the

ost important provisioning service, whereas biomass productiv-ty was the least important. Indeed, freshwater availability waseven times more important than biomass productivity. To most

+++ ++ ++ ++

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

stakeholders, landscape aesthetics were of lesser importance thantheir link to traditional values as indicators of cultural services.For biodiversity, stakeholders expressed more interest in rare andendangered plants than in species richness as a whole, or the pres-ence of small and big game. By considering their final weights, thefive most important indicators among the fourteen assessed were(i) water retention, (ii) erosion control, (iii) number of rare andendangered plants, (iv) specific richness, and (v) organic soil carbon.

3.3. Integrated evaluation and sensitivity analyses

The integrated scores, resulting from the combination of empir-ical data and stakeholder opinions, showed that afforestation hadthe highest integrated level of ecosystem services. Grasslands, Alfasteppes and shrublands showed intermediate levels, and aban-doned fields provided the lowest levels (Fig. 4). Classification was

Fig. 3. Weights of the different categories of ecosystem services as estimated bystakeholders in Ventós (southeast Spain). Bars are means and standard errors.Results of a one-way ANOVA are shown. Bars with different letters indicate sig-nificant differences (Tukey HSD test, p < 0.05).

M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecological Indicators 43 (2014) 56–68 61

Table 5Partial and global weights of the indicators, resulting from pairwise comparisons within ecosystem services and overall aggregation, respectively.

Category Indicators Partial weight Global weight

Supporting Organic soil carbon 1.000 0.077

Regulating Erosion rate 0.696 0.088Phytovolume 0.304 0.075

Provisioning Total biomass 0.074 0.048Forage productivity 0.112 0.055Number of plants with alimentary and artisanal interest 0.128 0.059Number of aromatic and medicinal plants 0.180 0.066Water retention 0.506 0.120

Culture Aesthetic value 0.288 0.056Traditional value 0.712 0.065

Biodiversity Specific richness 0.346 0.081Number of rare and endangered plants 0.456 0.088Small and big game preferences for habitats 0.198 0.072

Ahssf

4

vepe

4

S2wchTaVt

Ff

Economy Employment

lfa steppes would be the most valued unit. On the contrary, if aigher weight had been assigned to employment, the integratedcore of afforestation would increase, and that of the other land-cape units would decrease. It is worth noting that abandoned fieldsrequently showed the lowest integrated values.

. Discussion

Afforestation enhanced the provision of several ecosystem ser-ices, but not all. Site preparation techniques that did not harmxtant vegetation and did not preclude further colonization, andoor pine growth probably contributed to the neutral and positiveffect of Aleppo pine on some services.

.1. Supporting services

Colonization by woody vegetation has contrasting effects onOC content, depending on average precipitation (Knapp et al.,002). Considering average precipitation in Ventós, changes in SOCere similar to those described in Knapp et al. (2002). Higher

ontent of SOC under Aleppo pine compared to unplanted areasas been reported in other studies. For example, in arid southern

unisia, open areas in Alfa steppes showed lower SOC content thanreas covered by 10-year-old Aleppo pine (Jeddi et al., 2009). Inentós, Chirino (2003) observed that SOC content in pine plan-

ations was higher than in Alfa steppes, but similar to that in

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

Pine planta�ons

Abandoned ShrublandsAlfa steppesGrasslandsfields

Inte

grat

ed sc

ore

Landscape units

ig. 4. Results of the integrated and participative evaluation of the landscape unitsound in Ventós (southeast Spain).

1.000 0.050

shrublands and grasslands. However, there are exceptions to this,as Ruíz-Navarro et al. (2009) found no significant effect of Aleppopine on SOC. It is important to note that the database that we usedwas built up after a comprehensive review covering a wide range ofsoil profiles in the semiarid area of the Iberian Peninsula (Romanyàet al., 2007), and thus, it may provide an accurate estimation of theaverage impact of pine plantations on SOC content.

4.2. Regulating services

We found low rates of soil erosion under pine. This is in con-trast with other studies in southeast Spain. Thus, Chaparro (1994)observed a decrease in hillslope stability and an increase in sedi-ment yield in terraces planted with Aleppo pine in Murcia. Sánchez(1997) found that afforestation promoted short term erosion,independently of the site preparation technique used. When sitepreparation is not aggressive, soil protection may strongly dependon the management of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. Whenthese strata are not removed during planting, they contribute to soilprotection. Conversely, when site preparation is intense and shrubsand herbaceous vegetation are cleared, plantation may have nega-tive effects on soil protection. In Ventós, site preparation by diggingplanting holes and subsoiling, and disturbance of extant vegeta-tion was low, and the increase in plant and litter cover provided byAleppo pine probably compensated their deleterious effects.

Vegetation volume was substantially higher in pine plantationsthan in the other landscape units. This led to reductions in albedo,in the amount of radiation reaching the surface soil, and in soil sur-face temperature (García et al., 2005; Van Dijk and Keenan, 2007;Vertessy, 2000). In addition, trees increased the proportion of inter-cepted and transpired water (Calder, 2007). Taking these effectstogether, the increase in vegetation volume by afforestation prob-ably enlarged land capacity for climate regulation (MA, 2005). Inaddition, it must be noted that phytomass accumulation and thepresence of trees increase stand capacity to reduce the effects of airpollution (Beckett et al., 1998; Freer-Smith et al., 1997; McDonaldet al., 2007).

4.3. Provisioning services

In comparison with unrestored semiarid landscape units,afforestation increased biomass stock. However, biomass values

were low, and much lower than reported in other Mediter-ranean communities under dry subhumid and humid conditions.As an example, average biomass of natural and planted Aleppopine stands in the semiarid part of the province of Alicante

6 gical In

(spcnrr

aapisedv(e

shpPwotfotlo2

m(vmpsaeiesss

otPa2TmsDSp(rapeitC

conclusion has been drawn in other bioclimatic contexts. For exam-ple, Palomares et al. (2001) reported that in Donana National Park

2 M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecolo

southeast Spain) is 2715 kg ha−1 (IFN3, 2007), which is sixfoldmaller than average biomass accumulation values for the wholerovince, including dry subhumid areas. In addition to climateonstrains, it is worth noting that soils in this area are oftenutrient-depleted and shallow (Cortina and Maestre, 2005). Theseesults clearly show why semiarid pine plantations play a minorole in wood production in this region.

Afforestation had a weak effect on forage production. In semi-rid areas, forage production is commonly associated with openreas, covered by shrublands and grasslands, rather than to forestlantations (Le Houérou, 1981; Robles et al., 2001). The decrease

n forage supply after afforestation has been described in sometudies (Alrababah, 2007; Papanastasis, 1982), but not in oth-rs (Jeddi et al., 2009). Disagreement may be a consequence ofifferences in climatic conditions, phenology, soil properties, pre-ious land use, plantation age and density, and observation scaleBraziotis and Papanastasis, 1995; Papanastasis, 2009; Weigandtt al., 2011).

The significance of pine plantations for the production of arti-anal fibre was low compared to Alfa grass steppes. Until the secondalf of the XXth century, Alfa grass was harvested to produceaper paste, ropes, baskets, fishing nets and other crafts (Fernándezalazón, 1974). Revalorization of traditional uses of Alfa grassould be a suitable option to enhance the socioeconomic condition

f these semiarid areas (De la Cruz et al., 2010). This is particularlyrue in the Southern Mediterranean sub-region, where non-timberorest products are a relevant primary resource for the subsistencef local economies (Palahí et al., 2009). Thus, in eastern Morocco,he government has recently assisted several cooperatives in 67 vil-ages covering an area of 650,000 ha to restore the traditional usef Alfa and create work opportunities for poor people (DREFLCD-O,010).

Semiarid areas host an important number of aromatic andedicinal plants, particularly in steppes and natural forests

UNESCO, 1960). These plants are diverse and thrive on a wideariety of habitats (Marshall, 2011). Our study showed that aro-atic and medicinal plants are found in the understorey of pine

lantations of the Ventós area. This result is in agreement withtudies in China and New Zealand showing that many aromaticnd medicinal plants can be successfully grown under pines (Raot al., 2004), but is in contrast with studies showing a decreasen understorey cover when pines grow (Padilla, 1998; Chirinot al., 2006). As previously mentioned, mild site preparation andlow pine growth probably favoured the persistence of under-torey plants in Ventós and thus of aromatic and medicinalpecies.

Pine canopies intercept rainfall and return substantial amountsf water to the atmosphere by transpiration, leading to a reduc-ion in soil water content and deep seepage (Boulet et al., 1997;ilgrim et al., 1982; White et al., 2001). Reductions in water avail-bility by afforestation have been reported worldwide (Brown et al.,005; Calder, 2007; Van Dijk and Keenan, 2007; Vertessy, 2000).his reduction can be crucial in semiarid areas, and may compro-ise colonization by other species (Maestre et al., 2003), and the

uccess of ecological restoration (Bellot et al., 1999; Chirino, 2003).eep seepage is needed to refill underground aquifers (Jacobus andimmers, 2001; Rushton, 1988), which in Ventós have been over-umped in the last decades for crop irrigation and domestic useAbdelli, 1998; Andreu et al., 2002). In this area, with an extractionate of 0.3 Mm3 year−1, the water table dropped 30 m between 1979nd 2007 (Andreu et al., 2011), which emphasizes the importance oflant cover type and land planning for water management (Bellott al., 2001). This point is particularly important, as most peoplen the area and other semiarid areas believe that forest planta-

ions increase water availability for human use (Andreassian, 2004;alder, 2007).

dicators 43 (2014) 56–68

4.4. Cultural services

According to Ventós stakeholder preferences, afforestationincreased landscape aesthetic value compared to unrestoredlandscape units. This finding is in agreement with studies inAustralia and the United Kingdom, showing that forest planta-tions are aesthetically better appreciated by the public than otherlandscape types (Ribe, 1989). However, our results disagree withthose of Munoz-Pedreros and Larrain (2002) who reported thatPinus radiata plantations were less attractive to local populationsof southern Chile than native forests and shrublands. The aes-thetic valuation of landscapes depends on their visual features, butalso on silvicultural traits as tree species, stand density and forestmanagement (Brown and Daniel, 1984; Ribe, 1989), and respon-dent characteristics as age, attitude, previous experience, educationlevel and socio-professional status (Bernáldez and Gallardo, 1989;De la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; Kaltenborn and Bjerke, 2002). Thus,results can hardly be extrapolated from one area to another.

The similarity in traditional value between the five landscapeunits is probably the result of the lack of specific traditional landuses that may capture stakeholder attention. This indicator wouldthus gain importance if the area was larger or contained outstand-ing cultural landmarks. It is important to note that the conceptof relevance for traditional culture was less easily understood bystakeholders than that of aesthetic value.

4.5. Biodiversity

Plant richness was relatively high under pines compared toother landscape units. Similar results have been reported innearby areas (Pena, 2001; Rigual, 1984). In contrast, other authorsfound decreases in plant richness after Aleppo pine afforestation(Alrababah, 2007; Gómez-Aparicio et al., 2009). Pine plantationsmay have a deleterious impact on plant cover and diversity becauseof the removal of shrub and herbaceous layers during plantingworks (Pastor, 1995), but also as a consequence of direct andindirect negative interactions between pines and neighbouringvegetation (Chirino et al., 2006; Hartley, 2002; Maestre et al., 2003;Padilla, 1998). Causal factors for the decline in species richness canbe various, including competition for light and water, and indirectcompetition (Gómez-Aparicio et al., 2009; Maestre et al., 2004).In addition, interaction between pines and understorey vegetationis dynamic, the outcomes depending on environmental conditions(Maestre et al., 2003). Thus, complexity in the interaction betweenpines and understorey species may explain why effects of pineplantations on species richness reported in the literature are highlyidiosyncratic.

The number of endangered and rare plants was not relatedto species richness, and was similar in the five landscape unitsstudied. The distribution of these species depends on many fac-tors as climate, altitude, topography, lithology, level of isolationand anthropic disturbance (Laguna et al., 1998). Studies on theeffects of native forest plantations on endangered and rare plantsare scarce (Carnus et al., 2006), but the spatial scale of the studyand the afforestation was probably too small to elicit any significantresponse in this variable.

Afforested areas showed low suitability for wildlife. With theexception of wild boar and woodpigeon, afforestation offers lessfood and refuge to small game as wild rabbit, hare, red partridge andwoodcock than other landscape units (Belda et al., 2011). The same

(southern Spain), wild rabbit abundance was 15–20 times lower inpine plantations than in nearby shrublands.

gical In

4

tsfiadgpgfc1oeo5f

4

pcsbivshh(ctrsTwicmcsvvd

svuveewsaofa

tbesa

M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecolo

.6. Economic benefits

Afforestation was the only unit offering work opportunities. Forhis reason it received a standardized value of 1, compared to the 0cored by other landscape units. This difference did not affect thenal classification of landscape units, as results of the sensitivitynalysis showed (Appendix E). Despite the relatively high stan-ardized value, afforestation does not substantially contribute toenerate employment in this area. Indeed, in semiarid areas, pineroductivity is low, pine plantations are hardly profitable, and theyenerate few working opportunities. In addition, labour demandor managing pine forests has been largely reduced over time, espe-ially after the conclusion of the General Spanish Afforestation Plan939–1986 (Ortuno, 1990; Pastor, 1995). In these areas, forestryffers less working opportunities than other economic sectors. Forxample, in the Province of Alicante (southeast Spain), the numberf labour-days demanded by forest planting and maintenance is0 and 65 times lower than the demands for rainfed and irrigatedarming, respectively (Spanish Agricultural Census, 2009).

.7. Integrated evaluation

Our overview of the role of pine afforestations in enhancing therovision of ecosystem services in semiarid areas emphasizes theomplexity of management decisions, and the need to account forociety needs and aspirations. Decisions can be more transparenty considering the opinion of large sectors of the society. Accord-

ng to our study, regulating and supporting services where the mostalued ecosystem services, together with biodiversity. Conversely,takeholders considered that semiarid areas could not provide aigh level of provisioning, cultural and economic services. Stake-olders were particularly concerned with biophysical problemsdrought, storms, poor soils, low plant cover), and their negativeonsequences (water scarcity, floods, soil degradation and erosion,hreats to flora and fauna). Concerns were also reflected in the highelative weights assigned to indicators of water availability, ero-ion, endangered and rare plants, specific richness, and soil fertility.he role of pine plantations in hydrological regulation seems to beidely accepted. A valuation study of P. radiata D. on plantations

n New Zealand reported that stakeholders considered that erosionontrol and water regulation ensured by these plantations wereore relevant than other environmental services as biodiversity,

limate regulation and nutrient cycling (Rivas Palma, 2008). Theame study showed, however, that employment was more rele-ant than other services like recreation, and aesthetic and culturalalues. Disagreement with our results reflects contrasts in labouremand and economical benefits.

The combination of empirical data and stakeholder opinionshowed that pine forests provided a high level of ecosystem ser-ices. This was a result of the strong contribution of this landscapenit to the enhancement of ecosystem services that were highlyalued by stakeholders (e.g., services related to soil fertility androsion control). However, Aleppo pine plantations had a negativeffect on one of the most valued services: water retention. Thus,e should be careful in recommending this landscape unit as the

ole restoration target. In our multi-criteria analysis, we did notttempt to rank landscape units in terms of good or bad, but tobtain a comprehensive picture of the services provided by the dif-erent landscape units, and society needs and aspirations, to be useds tools for management.

Our approach has various advantages. (1) It is based on ecosys-em services, that is, on values that can be easily understood

y most stakeholders. (2) It integrates biophysical and socio-conomic dimensions. (3) It allows integrating data from differentources, taking advantage of previous studies and already avail-ble databases. (4) It is participative, and reflects the perspectives

dicators 43 (2014) 56–68 63

of most relevant stakeholders. (5) It allows simulation of futurescenarios, within the range of landscape units considered in thestudy. (6) It can be an efficient tool for reciprocal learning, i.e.,to help exchange information on restoration programmes, ser-vices provided by the different landscape units, trade-offs betweenecosystem services, and society valuation of ecosystem services andlandscape units or management alternatives.

However, our participatory and integrated evaluation has somelimitations that recommend a flexible use of final rankings. (1) Theindicators used in this study belong to the list of indicators rec-ommended by MA for drylands (MA, 2005). They were selectedby experts, but stakeholders had no chance to incorporate furtherindicators. Our approach should be improved to allow stakeholdersto participate in this phase of the evaluation. (2) The imbalancedstructure of the hierarchy slightly affected the weighting process.The adoption of a more homogenous hierarchical structure wouldincrease the consistency of the analysis. (3) Biodiversity was mea-sured using a taxonomic group, vascular plants. They are of keyimportance, as they provide resources for many taxa. However,their abundance may not necessarily covariate with that of othertaxonomic groups. (4) Our approach is designed to work at a localscale (i.e., landscape units), whereas management decisions shouldtake into account the landscape scale and higher. Thus, heterogene-ity in landscape units remains a desirable feature, despite that somelandscape units as pine plantations and grasslands provided higherlevels of ecosystem services. Similarly, stakeholders probably hadlocal scales in mind when answering the questionnaire, and theywould likely disagree if favoured landscape types would be exten-sively established in Ventós. (5) The cost of establishing differentlandscape units was not explicitly addressed, whereas this wouldbe a key point when selecting a particular unit. (6) The study wasretrospective, and thus it may only be applicable when biophysi-cal and socio-economic conditions are maintained. This is clearlynot the case as climate and social values are constantly changing.Under this framework, the incorporation of new landscape units(with unknown capacity to provide ecosystem services) is not pos-sible, and adaptive management is hampered. (7) Our approachrequires deep knowledge of available landscape alternatives andthe ecosystem services attached to them. This information is notalways available, and extrapolation from similar areas is frequentlyneeded. (8) The model cannot deal with uncertainties, and thus itprovides false precise evaluation of landscape units. (9) The compo-sition of the stakeholder platform may strongly affect the outcomeof the evaluation. In our case, despite differences in education level,degree of attachment and else, stakeholders provided quite consis-tent weights. Indeed, in a separate study involving meetings withlocal stakeholders from Ventós, they showed a high degree of coin-cidence in their responses, and low levels of conflict (J. Cortina, pers.obs.). Still some social sectors may not be well represented in thestakeholder platform, particularly urban citizens, who can collec-tively influence policy making and management, but have no directattachment to this land.

5. Conclusion

Our multi-criteria and participative assessment allowed theevaluation of ecosystem services provided by landscape units inthe Ventós Region. Pine plantations provided the highest provisionof ecosystem services. These results are consistent between stake-holder groups and sensitive to indicator weights. Our approach can

be used in other semiarid areas, under the fore-mentioned method-ological limitations, to predict potential impacts of landscapemanagement strategies on the provision of ecosystem services andthe well-being of local populations.

6 gical In

A

MrUpCe(

4 M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecolo

cknowledgements

Research funded by the International Centre for Advancedediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM) through the Mediter-

anean Agronomic Institute of Zaragoza (IAMZ), Spain and projectsNCROACH (Gobierno de Espana, Ministerio de Economía y Com-etitividad, CGL2011-30581-C02-01), SEMER (Agencia Espanola de

ooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo, Programa de Coop-ración Interuniversitaria AECI-PCI AP/040315/11) and GRACCIEMinisterio de Educación y Ciencia, Programa Consolider-Ingenio

dicators 43 (2014) 56–68

2010; CSD2007-00067). The study was carried out at the Univer-sity of Alicante, in collaboration with the Support Action Preventionand Restoration Actions to Combat Desertification – An IntegratedAssessment (PRACTICE, EU GA N◦ 226818). We thank Juan Bellot,Ramón Vallejo, Susana Bautista, Barron Orr, Carlos Romero, FelipeGil, Luís Díaz Balteiro, Dunixi Gabiria, Sajid Siraj, the stakeholdersand two anonymous reviewers for their help in different phases ofthe study.

Appendix A. Studied landscape units in Ventós. (A)abandoned agricultural fields; (B) shrublands; (C)grasslands; (D) Alfa grass steppes; and (E) pine plantations.

Ap

A

M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecological Indicators 43 (2014) 56–68 65

ppendix B. Bibliographic sources of data to estimate therovision of ecosystem services per landscape unit.

Indicator Source of data

Organic soil carbon Chirino (2003) and Romanyà et al. (2007)Erosion rate Martínez-Mena et al. (2008), Quine et al. (1994), Serrato et al. (1998), and Vallejo and Bellot (2010)Phytovolume Bonet and Pausas (2004), Cerdà (1997a), Cerdà (1997b), García Mayor (2008), IFN3 (2007),

Lesschen et al. (2008), López-Bermúdez et al. (1998), Maestre and Cortina (2004),Martínez-Fernández et al. (1995), and Pena (2001)

Total biomass Aidoud (1995), Moroccan Eastern Direction of Forest (DREFLCD-O, 2010; DREFLCD-NE, 2010),Robles et al. (2001), Tunisian Forest and Pastoral Inventories IFN1 (1995)

Forage productivity Robles et al. (2001) and Robles and González- Rebollar (2006)Water retention Bellot et al. (1999), Chirino (2003), and Ramirez (2006)

Small and big game preferences for habitats Belda et al. (2011), Peiró et al. (1992), Virgós et al. (2003), and Willott et al. (2000)

Employment Environmental Service of Alicante (Generalitat Valenciana). Internal report

ppendix C. Summary of age, gender and studies level of the 38 stakeholders participating in the integrated evaluation.

Characteristic Category Value

Age(years)

Minimum 29Maximum 64Average 46

Gender(%)

Men 87Women 13

Studieslevel(%)

Primary 3Secondary 13University 39Post-university 45

6

Aw

6 M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecological Indicators 43 (2014) 56–68

ppendix D. Changes in the integrated values of the landscape units with changes in the weights of (a) soil organic carbon (b)ater supply and (c) employment.

A

R

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecological Indicators 43 (2014) 56–68 67

ppendix E. Changes in the integrated values of the landscape units with changes in the value of employment.

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

Inte

grat

edsc

ore

Employment offere d by pine planta�ons (Days ha-1 year-1)

Pin e pla nta�ons

Shrubla nds

Alfa step pes

Grassla nds

Abandoned fiel ds

Orig inal value

eferences

bdelli, F., (Tesis máster) 1998. Análisis comparativo de la contribución de distintascomunidades vegetales a la conservación de agua en el suelo y su contribucióna la recarga de acuíferos. IAMZ, Zaragoza.

idoud, A., 1995. Las poblaciones vegetales bajas en el norte de África. In: Pastor-López, A., Seva-Roman, E. (Eds.), Restauración de la Cubierta Vegetal enEcosistemas Mediterráneos. Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert, Alicante, pp.53–80.

lloza, J.A., (Tesis Doctoral) 2003. Análisis de repoblaciones forestales en la comu-nidad valenciana: Desarrollo de criterios y procedimiento de evaluación.Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.

lrababah, M.A., 2007. Biodiversity of semi-arid Mediterranean grasslands: impactof grazing and afforestation. Appl. Veg. Sci. 10 (2), 257–264.

ndreassian, V., 2004. Waters and forests: from historical controversy to scientificdebate. J. Hydrol. 291, 1–27.

ndreu, J.M., Delgado, J., García-Sánchez, E., Pulido-Bosch, A., Bellot, J., Chirino, E.,Ortiz de Urbina, J.M., 2002. Influencia de los episodios lluviosos recientes en larecarga del acuífero del Ventós–Castellar (Alicante). Geogaceta 31, 55–58.

ndreu, J.M., Alcalá, F.J., Vallejos, A., Pulido-Bosch, A., 2011. Recharge to mountainouscarbonated aquifers in SE Spain: different approaches and new challenges. J. AridEnviron. 75, 1262–1270.

rriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J.F., Canas-Madueno, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assessingthe visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 69, 115–125.

astida, F., Moreno, J.L., Hernández, T., García, C., 2007. The long-term effects of themanagement of a forest soil on its carbon content, microbial biomass and activityunder a semi-arid climate. Appl. Soil Ecol. 37, 53–62.

eckett, K.P., Freer-Smith, P.H., Taylor, G., 1998. Urban woodlands: their role inreducing the effects of particulate pollution. Environ. Pollut. 99, 347–360.

elda, A., Martínez-Perez, J.E., Peiró, V., Seva, E., Arques, J., 2011. Main landscapemetrics affecting abundance and diversity of game species in a semi-arid agroe-cosystem in the Mediterranean region, Spain. J. Agric. Res. 9, 1197–1212.

ellot, J., Bonet, A., Sánchez, J.R., Chirino, E., 2001. Likely effects of land use changeson the runoff and aquifer recharge in a semiarid landscape using a hydrologicalmodel. Landscape Urban Plan. 55, 41–53.

ellot, J., Sánchez, J.R., Chirino, E., Hernández, N., Abdelli, F., Martínez, J.M., 1999.Effect of different vegetation type cover on the soil water balance in semi-aridareas of South Eastern Spain. Phys. Chem. Earth 24 (4), 353–357.

ernáldez, F., Gallardo, D., 1989. Determinación de los factores que intervienen enlas preferencias paisajísticas. Arbor 518–519, 15–44.

onet, A., Pausas, J., 2004. Species richness and cover along a 60-year chronose-quence in old-fields of southeastern Spain. Plant Ecol. 174, 257–270.

oulet, G., Braud, I., Vauclin, M., 1997. Study of the mechanism of evaporation underarid conditions unsing a detailed model of the soil–atmosphere continuum.Application to the EFEDA I experiment. J. Hydrol. 193, 114–141.

raziotis, D.C., Papanastasis, V.P., 1995. Seasonal changes of understorey herbageyield in relation to light intensity and soil moisture content in a Pinus pinasterplantation. Agroforest. Syst. 29, 91–101.

rown, A.E., Zhang Lu McMahon, T.A., Western, W.A., Vertessy, R.A., 2005. A reviewof paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resultingfrom alterations in vegetation. J. Hydrol. 310, 28–61.

rown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: concepts and appli-cation to Ponderosa Pine. USDA Forest Service. Research paper RM 256.

alder, I.R., 2007. Forest and water—ensuring forest benefits outweigh water costs.Forest Ecol. Manage. 251, 110–120.

Cerdà, A., 1997b. Seasonal changes of the infiltration rates in a Mediterranean scrub-land on limestone. J. Hydrol. 198, 209–225.

Chaparro, J., (Tesis de Licenciatura) 1994. Consecuencias ambientales derepoblaciones forestales mediante aterrazamientos en ambientes semiáridos.Universidad de Murcia.

Chirino, E., (Tesis Doctoral) 2003. Influencia de las precipitaciones y de la cuberturavegetal en el balance hídrico superficial y en la recarga de acuíferos en climasemiárido. Universidad de Alicante.

Chirino, E., Bonet, A., Bellot, J., Sánchez, J.R., 2006. Effects of 30-year-old Aleppo pineplantations on runoff, soil erosion, and plant diversity in a semi-arid landscapein South Eastern Spain. Catena 65, 19–29.

Cortina, J., Maestre, F.T., 2005. Plant effects on soils in drylands: implications for com-munity dynamics and drylands restoration. In: Binkley, D., Menyailo, O. (Eds.),Tree Species Effects on Soils: Implications for Global Change. NATO ScienceSeries Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 85–118 (Chapter 6).

Cortina, J., Amat, B., Derak, M., Ribeiro Da Silva, M.J., Disante, K.B., Fuentes, D., Tormo,J., Trubat, R., 2011. On the restoration of degraded drylands. Sécheresse 22,69–74.

De la Cruz, J., Yanes, M., Sánchez, C.P., Simón, M., 2010. Ambientes semiáridos delsureste andaluz. Altiplano estepario. Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta deAndalucía, Sevilla – Espana.

De la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J.A., Lucio, J.V., 2006. Relationship between landscapevisual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 77, 393–407.

Diaz-Balteiro, L., Romero, C., 2008. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria:a review and an assessment. Forest Ecol. Manage. 255, 3222–3241.

Direction Régionale des Eaux et Forêts et de la Lutte Contre la Désertificationde l’Oriental (DREFLCD-O), 2010. Plan d’aménagement et de gestion sylvo-pastorale des nappes alfatières de l’Oriental. Procès verbal d’aménagement.Rapport de synthèse.

Direction Régionale des Eaux et Forêts et de Lutte Contre la Désertification du Nord-est à Taza (DREFLCD–NE), 2010. Etude d’aménagement des nappes de romarins.Etat actuel et potentialités forestières. Rapport de synthèse.

FAO, 1998. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Fernández Palazón, G., 1974. Aspectos socioeconómicos de la explotación del espartoen Espana. Rev. Geogr. 8 (1), 203–212.

Forman, E., Peniwati, K., 1998. Aggregating individual judgments and priorities withthe analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 108, 165–169.

Freer-Smith, P.H., Holloway, S., Goodman, A., 1997. The uptake of particulates by anurban woodland: site description and particulate composition. Environ. Pollut.95, 27–35.

García Mayor, A., (Tesis Doctoral) 2008. El papel de la dinámica fuente-sumidero enla respuesta hidrológica, a varias escalas, de una zona mediterránea semi-árida.Universidad de Alicante.

García, M., Contreras, S., Domingo, F., Puigdefábregas, J., 2005. Estimating land sur-face energy fluxes in SE Spain using Aster and MODIS data. Remote Sensing andGeoinformation processing in the assessment and monitoring of land degrada-tion and desertification. Trier, Germany, Available from: http://www.eeza.csic.es/eeza/documentos/s7060860.pdf

Gómez-Aparicio, L., Zavala, M.A., Bonet, F.J., Zamora, R., 2009. Are pineplantations valid tools for restoring Mediterranean forests? An assess-ment along abiotic and biotic gradients. Forest Ecol. Manage. 19,

arnus, J.M., Parrotta, J., Brockerhoff, E., Arbez, M., Jactel, H., Kremer, A., Lamb, D.,O’Hara, K., Walters, B., 2006. Planted forests and biodiversity. J. Forest 104 (2),65–77.

erdà, A., 1997a. The effect of patchy distribution of Stipa tenacissima L. on runoffand erosion. J. Arid Environ. 36, 37–51.

2124–2141.Hartley, M.J., 2002. Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in: plantation

forests. Forest Ecol. Manage. 155, 81–95.IFN1, 1995. Résultats du premier inventaire forestier et pastoral national en Tunisie.

Direction Générale des Forêts.

6 gical In

I

J

J

K

K

K

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

O

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

8 M. Derak, J. Cortina / Ecolo

FN3, 2007. Tercer Inventario Forestal Nacional–Provincia de Alicante. Ministerio delMedio Ambiente, Espana.

acobus, J.V., Simmers, I., 2001. Groundwater recharge: an overview of process andchallenges. Hydrogeol. J. 10, 5–17.

eddi, K., Cortina, J., Chaieb, M., 2009. Acacia salicina, Pinus halepensis and Eucalyp-tus occidentalis improve soil surface conditions in arid southern Tunisia. J. AridEnviron. 73, 1005–1013.

altenborn, B., Bjerke, T., 2002. Associations between environmental value orienta-tions and landscape preferences. Landscape Urban Plan. 59, 1–11.

iker, G., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T., Linkov, I., 2005. Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental management. Integr. Environ. Assess.Manage. 2, 95–108.

napp, A.K., Fay, P.A., Blair, J.M., Collins, S.L., Smith, M.D., Carlisle, J.D., Harper,C.W., Danner, B.T., Lett, M.S., McCarron, J.K., 2002. Rainfall variability, car-bon cycling and plant species diversity in a mesic grassland. Science 298,2202–2205.

aguna, E., Crespo, M.B., Mateo, G., López, S., Fabregat, C., Serra, L., Herrero-Borgonón,J.J., Carretero, J.L., Aguililla, A., Figuerola, R., 1998. Flora Endémica, Rara o Ame-nazada en la Comunidad Valenciana. Genralitat Valenciana.

e Houérou, H.N., 1981. Impact of Man and his Animals on MediterraneanVegetation. Mediterranean-Type Shrublands. Elsevier Sci. Publ. Co., NY,pp. 479–521.

esschen, J.P., Cammeraat, L.H., Kooijman, A.M., van Wesemael, B., 2008. Devel-opment of spatial heterogeneity in vegetation and soil properties after landabandonment in a semi-arid ecosystem. J. Arid Environ. 72, 2082–2092.

ópez-Bermúdez, F., Romero-Díaz, A., Martínez-Fernández, J., Martínez-Fernández,J., 1998. Vegetation and soil erosion under a semi-arid Mediterranean climate:a case study from Murcia (Spain). Geomorphology 24, 51–58.

aestre, F.T., Cortina, J., Bautista, S., Bellot, J., 2003. Does Pinus halepensis facilitatethe establishment of shrubs in Mediterranean semi-arid afforestation? ForestEcol. Manage. 176, 147–160.

aestre, F.T., Cortina, J., 2004. Insights into ecosystem composition and function ina sequence of degraded semiarid steppes. Restor. Ecol. 12, 494–502.

aestre, F.T., Cortina, J., Bautista, S., 2004. Mechanisms underlying the interactionbetween Pinus halepensis and the native late-successional shrub Pistacia lentiscusin a semiarid plantation. Ecography 27, 1–11.

alczewski, J., 1999. GIS and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley and SonsInc., USA.

arshall, E., 2011. Health and Wealth from Medicinal Aromatic Plants. FAO Diver-sification Booklet Number 17, 73 pp.

artínez-Fernández, J., López-Bermúdez, F., Romero-Díaz, A.N., 1995. Land use andsoil–vegetation relationships in a Mediterranean ecosystem: El Ardal, Murcia,Spain. Catena 25, 153–167.

artínez-Mena, M., López, J., Almagro, M., Boix-Fayos, C., Albaladejo, J., 2008. Effectof water erosion and cultivation on the soil carbon stock in a semiarid area ofSouth-East Spain. Soil Til. Res. 99, 119–129.

cDonald, A.G., Bealey, W.J., Fowler, D., Dragosits, U., Skiba, U., Smith, R.I., Donova,G., Brett, H.E., Hewitt, C.N., Nemitz, E., 2007. Quantifying the effect of urban treeplanting on concentrations and depositions of PM10 in two UK conurbations.Atmos. Environ. 41, 8455–8467.

endoza, G.A., Martins, H., 2006. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resourcemanagement: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. ForestEcol. Manage. 230, 1–22.

illennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Cur-rent State and Trends. Washington, DC, Island.

inisterio del Medio Ambiente (MMA), 2009. Lucha Contra la desertificación, Avail-able from: http://www.mma.es/secciones/biodiversidad/desertificacion/

ontserrat, G.D., Cano, J.B., 2005. Sistemas de Información Geográfica y evaluaciónmulti-criterio en la ordenación del territorio. RA-MA, Espana.

unoz-Pedreros, A., Larrain, A., 2002. Impacto de la actividad silvoagropecuariasobre la calidad del paisaje en un transecto del sur de Chile. Rev. Chil. Hist.Nat. 75, 673–689.

rtuno, M.F., 1990. El plan para la repoblación Forestal de Espana del ano 1939:análisis y comentarios. Ecología 1, 373–392.

adilla, B.A., (Tesis Doctoral) 1998. Colonización vegetal en campos de cultivo aban-donados en la provincia de Alicante. Universidad de Alicante.

alahí, M., Birot, Y., Bravo, F., Gorriz, E., 2009. In: Palahí, M., Birot, Y., Bravo, F., Gorriz,E. (Eds.), Modelling, Valuing and Managing Mediterranean Forest Ecosystem forNon-Timber Goods and Services. EFI Proceeding No. 57.

alomares, F., Delibes, M., Revilla, E., Calzada, J., Fedriani, J.M., 2001. Spatial ecology ofIberian Lynx and abundance of European rabbits in Southwestern Spain. WildlifeMonogr., 1–36.

apanastasis, V.P., 1982. Effects of cattle grazing on young pine plantations in Kilkis,northern Greece. Dassiki Ervena 3, 215–241.

apanastasis, V.P., 2009. Grazing value of Mediterranean forests. In: Palahí, M., Birot,Y., Bravo, F., Gorriz, E. (Eds.), Modelling, Valuing and Managing MediterraneanForest Ecosystem for Non-Timber Goods and Services. EFI Proceeding No. 57.

astor, L., 1995. Repoblaciones forestales con Pinus halepensis en la Provincia deAlicante. Evaluación ecológica del método de revegetación habitual en la cuencamediterránea espanola. In: Pastor-López, A., Seva-Román, E. (Eds.), Restauraciónde la Cubierta Vegetal en Ecosistemas Mediterráneos. Instituto de Cultura Juan

Gil-Albert, Alicante, pp. 81–120.

ausas, J., Bladé, C., Valdecantos, A., Seva, J., Fuentes, D., Alloza, J., Vilagrosa, A.,Bautista, S., Cortina, J., Vallejo, R., 2004. Pines and oaks in the restoration ofMediterranean landscapes of Spain: new perspectives for an old practice – areview. Plant Ecol. 171, 209–220.

dicators 43 (2014) 56–68

Peiró, V., Seva, E., Alminana, M., 1992. Selección de hábitat de una población de perdizroja (Alectoris rufa) en una zona de sierra del sur de la provincia de Alicante.Mediterránea Ser. Biol. 14, 5–22.

Pena, J., (Tesis de Licenciatura) 2001. Análisis de los cambios de usos del suelo(1946–1999) en una cuenca semiárida (Agost, Alicante). Efectos sobre la estruc-tura del paisaje y los balances hídricos. Universidad de Alicante.

Pilgrim, D.H., Doran, D.G., Rowbottom, I.A., Mackay, S.M., Tjendana, J., 1982. Waterbalance and runoff characteristics of mature and cleared pine and eucalyptcatchments at Lidsdale, NSW. In: O’Loughlin, E.M., Bren, L.J. (Eds.), The FirstNational Symposium on Forest Hydrology. Melbourne, 11–13 May. The Insti-tution of Engineers, Australia, pp. 103–110, Preprints of papers.

Plan de Acción Territorial de carácter sectorial sobre prevención del Riesgo de Inun-dación en la Comunidad Valenciana (PATRICOVA), 2002. Generalitat Valenciana,Conselleria d’Obres Públiques, Urbanismei Transport.

Quine, T.A., Navas, A., Walling, D.E., Machín, J., 1994. Soil erosion and redistributionon cultivated and uncultivated land near Las Bardenas in the Central Ebro RiverBasin. Land Degrad. Rehabil. 5 (1), 41–55.

Ramirez, D., (Tesis Doctoral) 2006. Estudio de la transpiración del esparto (Stipatenacísima L.) en una cuenca del semi-árido alicantino: un análisis pluriescalar.Universidad de Alicante.

Rao, M.R., Palada, M.C., Becker, B.N., 2004. Medicinal and aromatic plants in agro-forestry systems. Agroforest. Syst. 61, 107–122.

Reynolds, J.F., Maestre, F.T., Kemp, P.R., Stafford-Smith, D.M., Lambin, E., 2007.Natural and human dimensions of land degradation in drylands: causes andconsequences. In: Canadell, J.G., Pataki, D.E., Pitelka, L.F. (Eds.), TerrestrialEcosystems in a Changing World. Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–257.

Ribe, R.G., 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference researchtaught us? Environ. Manage. 13, 55–74.

Rigual, A., 1984. Flora y vegetación de la Provincia de Alicante (El paisaje vegetalalicantino). Instituto de Estudios Juan Gil-Albert, Alicante.

Rivas Palma, R.M., (PhD Thesis) 2008. Environmental and Social Values from Plan-tation Forests: A Study in New Zealand with Focus on the Hawke’s Bay Region.University of Cantebury, New Zealand.

Robles, A.B., González Rebollar, J.L., Passera, C.B., Boza-López, J., 2001. Pastos de zonasáridas y semiáridas del sureste espanol. Arch. Zootec. 50, 501–515.

Robles, A.B., González- Rebollar, J.L., 2006. Pastos áridos y ganado del sureste deEspana. Sécheresse 17 (1), 309–313.

Romanyà, J., Rovira, P., Vallejo, R., 2007. Análisis del carbono en los suelos agrícolasde Espana. Aspectos relevantes en relación a la reconversión a la agriculturaecológica en el ámbito mediterráneo. Ecosistemas 16 (1), 50–57.

Romero, C., 1996. Análisis de las decisiones multi-criterio, N◦ 14. Isdefe, Madrid.Ruíz-Navarro, A., Barberá, G.G., Navarro-Cano, J.A., Albaladejo, J., Castillo, V.M., 2009.

Soil dynamics in Pinus halepensis reforestation: effect of microenvironments andprevious land use. Geoderma 153, 353–361.

Rushton, K.R., 1988. Numerical and conceptual models for recharge estimation inarid and semi-arid zones. In: Simmers, I. (Ed.), Estimation of Natural Groundwa-ter Recharge. NATO ASI Series C 222, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 223–238.

Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.Sánchez, J.R., (Tesis Doctoral) 1997. Estimación de las pérdidas erosivas inducidas

por las técnicas de preparación del suelo previa a la reforestación en el sur de laComunidad Valenciana. Universidad de Alicante.

Serrato, B.F., Romero Díaz, A., López Bermúdez, F., 1998. Efectos sobre la cubiertavegetal, la escorrentía del suelo, de la alternancia cultivo-abandonado en parce-las experimentales., pp. 95–107, Available from: http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/12471318571244833087624/catalogo22/Belmonte.pdf

Siraj, S., (Ph.D. Thesis) 2011. Preference elicitation from pairwise comparisonsin multi-criteria decision making. School of Computer Science, University ofManchester, UK.

Spanish Agricultural Census, 2009. Instituto Nacional de Estadística INE, Availablefrom: http://www.ine.es

UNESCO, 1960. Medicinal plants of the arid zones. Arid zone research, NS 59/III.17/A.Vallejo, R., Bellot, J., 2010. Estrategias de restauración para combatir la desertifi-

cación en un contexto de cambio climático. Efectos en los balances hídricos.Informe del Proyecto ESTRÉS, Ref. 063/SGTB/2007/7.1.

Vallejo, R., 2009. Problems and perspectives of drylands restoration. In: Bautista, S.,Aronson, J., Vallejo, R. (Eds.), Land Restoration to Combat Desertification: Inno-vative approaches. Quality Control and Project Evaluation. Fundación CEAM,Valencia.

Van Dijk, A.I.J.M., Keenan, R.J., 2007. Planted forests and water in perspective. ForestEcol. Manage. 251 (30), 1–9.

Vertessy, R.A., 2000. Impacts of plantation forestry on catchment runoff. In: Planta-tions, Farm Forestry and Water: Workshop Proceedings, Publication No. 01/20,Melbourne, Australia.

Virgós, E., Cabezas-Díaz, S., Malo, A., Lozano, J., López-Huertas, D., 2003. Factorsshaping European rabbit abundance in continuous and fragmented populationsof central Spain. Acta Theriol. 48 (1), 113–122.

Weigandt, M., Gyenge, J., Fernández, M.E., Varela, S., Schlichter, T., 2011. Is forageproductivity of meadows influenced by the afforestation of upstream hillsides?A case study in NW Patagonia. Forest Syst. 20, 165–175.

White, D.A., Beadle, C.L., Battaglia, M., Benyon, R.G., Dunin, F.X., Medhurst, J.L., 2001.A physiological basis for management of water use by tree crops. In: Planta-

tions, Farm Forestry and water: Workshop Proceedings, Publication No. 01/20,Melbourne, Australia.

Willott, S.J., Miller, A.J., Incoll, L.D., Compton, S.G., 2000. The contribution of rabbits(Oryctolagus cuniculus L.) to soil fertility in semi-arid Spain. Biol. Fert. Soils 31,379–384.