**5. Two projects looking at the sustainability of Spanish National Parks: DISESGLOB and SOSTPARK**

#### **5.1. DISESGLOB: Design of a methodology to assess the global sustainability of national parks**

The DISESGLOB Project forms part of the Spanish Research, Development and Innovation Plan for 2013–2016, whereby the state programmes its scientific research priorities. It was awarded a budget of 25,000€ and its duration was 3 years, from 2014 to 2017. The Project sought to respond to the following research questions: Are NPs effective to achieve their conservation objectives? Are the municipalities in which NPs are designated sustainable? Are NP managers and territorial planners aware of future opportunities and risks to conservation under different scenarios of change? (**Figure 5**).

As a pilot study, different methods were applied to two emblematic NPs: Ordesa NP, designated on the Pyrenean Mountains in 1918, and Guadarrama NP, the last NP of the Spanish network, designated in the Central Mountain Range, between the provinces of Madrid and Segovia, in 2013. Both NPs protect high mountain biodiversity but have clear historical, geographical and socioeconomic differences. Ordesa NP is a long-history, rural, peripheral NP with very low population density and relatively difficult accessibility. In contrast, Guadarrama NP is a new, peri-urban, easily accessible NP located just 40 min away by car from the city of Madrid. Those differences determine different states of, pressures on and responses for conservation features.

> The project seeks to assess the environmental, social, economic and institutional effects of five terrestrial PA networks and one marine PA network with clear legal and managerial characteristics in Spain. The five terrestrial PA networks include nature reserves, NPs, nature parks, SCIs/SACs and SPAs. The environmental effects of those networks were assessed using indicators of two essential natural resources: soil and biodiversity. Their socioeconomic and institutional effects were assessed through indicators such as employment, education or exis-

A Centennial Path Towards Sustainability in Spanish National Parks: Biodiversity…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73196

111

Environmental sustainability in 12 of the 15 Spanish NPs, including their statutory peripheral zones, between 2005 and 2011, was assessed by the SOSTPARK project (**Figure 8**). Those NPs represent 85% of the whole NP network area, 83% of the peripheral protection zone area in the network and 87% of the socioeconomic influence zone area of the network by November of 2015. Two indicators of environmental sustainability were analyzed: land use-land cover

Results show that wildfires were the most widespread pressure in Spanish NPs in the 2005–2011 period (**Figure 8**). Three NPs, and their respective external zones, showed great LULC stability in that period, suggesting effective conservation inside and outside NPs: Ordesa y Monte Perdido NP, Aguastortas y Lago de San Mauricio NP and Caldera de Taburiente NP. The greatest proportion of LULC changes occurred in the statutory zones of Teide NP, Doñana NP, Tablas de Daimiel NP, Cabañeros NP and Sierra Nevada NP. Of these, clearly negative LULC changes occurred in

tence of basic infrastructure in PAs and their surrounding areas.

**5.3. Environmental sustainability: main results of both projects**

(LULC) changes and wildfires.

**Figure 6.** Logo of the SOSTPARK project.

**Figure 7.** Outline of the SOSTPARK project.

**Figure 5.** Logo of the DISESGLOB project.

#### **5.2. SOSTPARK: Analysis of sustainability of Spanish protected areas: implications for the sustainability of the territory**

The SOSTPARK Project is also part of the Spanish Research, Development and Innovation Plan for 2013–2016. It was funded with 193.000€ by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness for 3 years, from 2015 to 2018 (**Figures 6** and **7**).

**Figure 6.** Logo of the SOSTPARK project.

**5. Two projects looking at the sustainability of Spanish National** 

**5.1. DISESGLOB: Design of a methodology to assess the global sustainability of** 

The DISESGLOB Project forms part of the Spanish Research, Development and Innovation Plan for 2013–2016, whereby the state programmes its scientific research priorities. It was awarded a budget of 25,000€ and its duration was 3 years, from 2014 to 2017. The Project sought to respond to the following research questions: Are NPs effective to achieve their conservation objectives? Are the municipalities in which NPs are designated sustainable? Are NP managers and territorial planners aware of future opportunities and risks to conservation

As a pilot study, different methods were applied to two emblematic NPs: Ordesa NP, designated on the Pyrenean Mountains in 1918, and Guadarrama NP, the last NP of the Spanish network, designated in the Central Mountain Range, between the provinces of Madrid and Segovia, in 2013. Both NPs protect high mountain biodiversity but have clear historical, geographical and socioeconomic differences. Ordesa NP is a long-history, rural, peripheral NP with very low population density and relatively difficult accessibility. In contrast, Guadarrama NP is a new, peri-urban, easily accessible NP located just 40 min away by car from the city of Madrid. Those differences determine different states of, pressures on and

**5.2. SOSTPARK: Analysis of sustainability of Spanish protected areas: implications** 

Competitiveness for 3 years, from 2015 to 2018 (**Figures 6** and **7**).

The SOSTPARK Project is also part of the Spanish Research, Development and Innovation Plan for 2013–2016. It was funded with 193.000€ by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and

**Parks: DISESGLOB and SOSTPARK**

110 National Parks - Management and Conservation

under different scenarios of change? (**Figure 5**).

responses for conservation features.

**for the sustainability of the territory**

**Figure 5.** Logo of the DISESGLOB project.

**national parks**

**Figure 7.** Outline of the SOSTPARK project.

The project seeks to assess the environmental, social, economic and institutional effects of five terrestrial PA networks and one marine PA network with clear legal and managerial characteristics in Spain. The five terrestrial PA networks include nature reserves, NPs, nature parks, SCIs/SACs and SPAs. The environmental effects of those networks were assessed using indicators of two essential natural resources: soil and biodiversity. Their socioeconomic and institutional effects were assessed through indicators such as employment, education or existence of basic infrastructure in PAs and their surrounding areas.

#### **5.3. Environmental sustainability: main results of both projects**

Environmental sustainability in 12 of the 15 Spanish NPs, including their statutory peripheral zones, between 2005 and 2011, was assessed by the SOSTPARK project (**Figure 8**). Those NPs represent 85% of the whole NP network area, 83% of the peripheral protection zone area in the network and 87% of the socioeconomic influence zone area of the network by November of 2015. Two indicators of environmental sustainability were analyzed: land use-land cover (LULC) changes and wildfires.

Results show that wildfires were the most widespread pressure in Spanish NPs in the 2005–2011 period (**Figure 8**). Three NPs, and their respective external zones, showed great LULC stability in that period, suggesting effective conservation inside and outside NPs: Ordesa y Monte Perdido NP, Aguastortas y Lago de San Mauricio NP and Caldera de Taburiente NP. The greatest proportion of LULC changes occurred in the statutory zones of Teide NP, Doñana NP, Tablas de Daimiel NP, Cabañeros NP and Sierra Nevada NP. Of these, clearly negative LULC changes occurred in

**Ordesa y Monte Perdido National Park**

**Designation date: 1918 (1982 re-classified) Evaluation date: 2016–2017 Evaluation: 1st Index/indicator Value State Trend Evaluation** 

Population trends of endangered species or subspecies 2 NA 2012–2015

Changes in the features for which the PA was designated 0 NA 2012–2015

Surface water quality 2 ↔ 2014–2015

Health of vegetation 1 ↓ 2012; 2013; 2015

Changes in the extent of focal habitats 0 NA 2013

Visual impact 1 NA 2010

Appropriateness of protection regulation 1 NA 2017

Existence of updated management plan 2 NA 2017

Existence of updated socioeconomic plan 2 NA 2017

Effectiveness of public participation bodies 2 ↔ 2012–2015

Existence of sufficient management staff 1 ↔ 2014–2015

Local population density 0 ↓ 2015–2016

2 ↔ 2014–2015

**(ha): 19,679**

A Centennial Path Towards Sustainability in Spanish National Parks: Biodiversity…

**Socioeconomic Influence Zone area (ha): 89,341** 113

**period**

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73196

**National Park area (ha): 15,608 Peripheral Protection Zone area** 

STATE OF CONSERVATION 0

PLANNING 2

MANAGEMENT 1

Degree of fulfillment of management objectives

Existence of environmental education and volunteering

SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT 0

activities

**Figure 8.** Location of wildfire area between 2005 and 2012 in each national park network zone included in the study across the Spanish biogeographic regions. NP: National Park; PPZ: Peripheral protection zone; SIZ: Socioeconomic influence zone.

Teide's three statutory zones, including extensive land artificialization in the NP's external zones. It was also the NP most impacted by wildfires, which affected its three zones. Both facts make Teide NP the Spanish NP with the most worrisome recent environmental trends [16] (**Figure 8**).

The DISESGLOB project sought to optimize the System for the Integrated Assessment of PAs (SIAPA) [17], a tool developed to evaluate potential environmental effectiveness of PAs. It was applied to two pilot, emblematic Spanish NPs: Ordesa NP and Guadarrama NP. The SIAPA allows NP managers to easily identify conservation strengths and weaknesses for enhanced PA effectiveness. **Tables 2** and **3** show the summary results1 of implementing the optimized version of the SIAPA to both NPs [14].

The DISESGLOB project also produced land use-land cover (LULC) scenarios for both NPs and their surroundings between 2006 and 2030, taking into account recent developmental trends [18]. The results show that no major LULC changes are expected inside both NPs. Only inside Guadarrama NP is it likely that some grassland and scrubland areas will become forest areas, following natural succession. However, worrisome changes from agrarian and forest areas to urban areas are expected in the southern part of this NP as a result of easy access and proximity to the city of Madrid (in red in **Figure 9**).

#### **5.4. Socioeconomic sustainability: main results of the DISESGLOB project**

Extensive surveys on social perception and valuation of the project's pilot NPs, Ordesa y Monte Perdido NP and Sierra de Guadarrama NP, were conducted on two key stakeholder groups: local residents (n = 401) and visitors (n = 542) [19]. There were similarities and differences between stakeholder groups and NPs. Both samples were mostly made of middle-aged women employed in the tertiary sector in the two NPs, although the proportion of residents

<sup>1</sup> The specific results from which these summary results were obtained can be freely accessed from: http://www.mdpi. com/2076-3298/4/4/68.


Teide's three statutory zones, including extensive land artificialization in the NP's external zones. It was also the NP most impacted by wildfires, which affected its three zones. Both facts make Teide NP the Spanish NP with the most worrisome recent environmental trends [16] (**Figure 8**). The DISESGLOB project sought to optimize the System for the Integrated Assessment of PAs (SIAPA) [17], a tool developed to evaluate potential environmental effectiveness of PAs. It was applied to two pilot, emblematic Spanish NPs: Ordesa NP and Guadarrama NP. The SIAPA allows NP managers to easily identify conservation strengths and weaknesses for enhanced

**Figure 8.** Location of wildfire area between 2005 and 2012 in each national park network zone included in the study across the Spanish biogeographic regions. NP: National Park; PPZ: Peripheral protection zone; SIZ: Socioeconomic

The DISESGLOB project also produced land use-land cover (LULC) scenarios for both NPs and their surroundings between 2006 and 2030, taking into account recent developmental trends [18]. The results show that no major LULC changes are expected inside both NPs. Only inside Guadarrama NP is it likely that some grassland and scrubland areas will become forest areas, following natural succession. However, worrisome changes from agrarian and forest areas to urban areas are expected in the southern part of this NP as a result of easy access and

Extensive surveys on social perception and valuation of the project's pilot NPs, Ordesa y Monte Perdido NP and Sierra de Guadarrama NP, were conducted on two key stakeholder groups: local residents (n = 401) and visitors (n = 542) [19]. There were similarities and differences between stakeholder groups and NPs. Both samples were mostly made of middle-aged women employed in the tertiary sector in the two NPs, although the proportion of residents

The specific results from which these summary results were obtained can be freely accessed from: http://www.mdpi.

**5.4. Socioeconomic sustainability: main results of the DISESGLOB project**

of implementing the optimized

PA effectiveness. **Tables 2** and **3** show the summary results1

proximity to the city of Madrid (in red in **Figure 9**).

version of the SIAPA to both NPs [14].

112 National Parks - Management and Conservation

influence zone.

1

com/2076-3298/4/4/68.


**Sierra de Guadarrama National Parka**

**Designation date: 2013 Evaluation date: 2016–2017 Evaluation: 1st Index/indicator Value State Trend Evaluation** 

Visual impact 0 NA 2010

Surface water quality 2 ↔ 2014–2015

Health of vegetation 1 ↑ 2014–2015

Appropriateness of protection regulation 2 NA 2017

Existence of updated management plan 0 NA 2017

Existence of updated socioeconomic plan 2 NA 2017

Effectiveness of public participation bodies 1 ↔ 2015

Local population density 2 ↑ 2015–2016

2 NA 2014

**62,687**

A Centennial Path Towards Sustainability in Spanish National Parks: Biodiversity…

**Socioeconomic Influence Zone area (ha): 173,632**

115

**period**

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73196

**National Park area (ha): 33,960 Peripheral Protection Zone area (ha):** 

STATE OF CONSERVATION 1

PLANNING 1

MANAGEMENT 1

Existence of environmental education and volunteering

SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT 2

Degree of fulfillment of management objectives

Existence of sufficient management staff

activities

Population trends of endangered species or sub-species

Changes in the extent of focal habitats

designated

Changes in the features for which the PA was

**Table 2.** Summary results of the implementation of the optimized SIAPA in Ordesa National Park.

employed in the primary sector was substantially greater in Ordesa NP. Residents visited Guadarrama NP less frequently than Ordesa NP, whereas visitors to Guadarrama NP visited it much more regularly than visitors to Ordesa NP, most of which were first-timers. The proportion of foreign visitors was five times greater in Ordesa NP, as it is located on the border with France. Both stakeholder groups perceived the conservation state of Ordesa NP to be better than Guadarrama's, something unsurprising given their contrasting geographic and demographic contexts. They, however, coincided in their main perceived threats to both NPs: wildfires, massive visitation and insufficient environmental awareness by visitors. Residents deemed local participation in NPs' management improvable in both cases. Both


employed in the primary sector was substantially greater in Ordesa NP. Residents visited Guadarrama NP less frequently than Ordesa NP, whereas visitors to Guadarrama NP visited it much more regularly than visitors to Ordesa NP, most of which were first-timers. The proportion of foreign visitors was five times greater in Ordesa NP, as it is located on the border with France. Both stakeholder groups perceived the conservation state of Ordesa NP to be better than Guadarrama's, something unsurprising given their contrasting geographic and demographic contexts. They, however, coincided in their main perceived threats to both NPs: wildfires, massive visitation and insufficient environmental awareness by visitors. Residents deemed local participation in NPs' management improvable in both cases. Both

**Ordesa y Monte Perdido National Park**

**Designation date: 1918 (1982 re-classified) Evaluation date: 2016–2017 Evaluation: 1st Index/indicator Value State Trend Evaluation** 

Land use changes 1 NA 2006; 2012

Degree of knowledge on the PA 2 NA 2016

Personal importance 2 NA 2016

Fragmentation 0 ↔ 2006; 2012

Density of visitors 1 ↓ 2014–2015

Climate change 2 NA 1976–2016

Pasture encroachment by woody vegetation 0 NA 2006; 2012

**Table 2.** Summary results of the implementation of the optimized SIAPA in Ordesa National Park.

Density of alien invasive species 0 NA 2016

Activities performed by visitors 0 NA 2016

**(ha): 19,679**

**Socioeconomic Influence Zone area (ha): 89,341**

**period**

**National Park area (ha): 15,608 Peripheral Protection Zone area** 

SOCIAL PERCEPTION AND VALUATION 2

114 National Parks - Management and Conservation

THREATS TO CONSERVATION 0

EFFECTIVENESS 1


a The relatively high proportion of blank boxes relate to indicators that could not be evaluated due to lack of raw data provision by the NP managers.

**Table 3.** Summary results of the implementation of the optimized SIAPA in Guadarrama National Park.

social groups highly valued the two NPs from a subjective perspective. However, only half of residents and two-thirds of visitors would be willing to pay an entrance fee to those NPs (**Figure 10**). Most residents and visitors who were willing to pay an entrance fee to the NPs considered that 3€ per person per day would be an acceptable fee. Willingness to pay was negatively correlated with the frequency of visits in Guadarrama NP.

On average, approximately 25% of residents and 50% of visitors who were initially reluctant to pay an entrance fee to those NPs would change their minds if measures to ensure equity, such as exemptions to less favored groups, transparency (clear use of collected funds) and accountability (investment of funds in the NP) were implemented. These results provide interesting information on social worries, preferences and attitudes to help NP management, for instance, by considering implementing entrance fees as a response to massive visitation in some NPs, such as Guadarrama NP [12], or by designing evidence-based environmental education programmes.

**Figure 9.** Simulated model of LULCs between 2006 and 2030 in a trend scenario with restrictions and incentives (TS30-WRI) in the Guadarrama NP and its surroundings (above) and in Ordesa NP (below). URB=urban areas; IND = Industrial areas; AGR = Agricultural areas; HET = Heterogeneous agricultural areas; GRAS = Grasslands; SHR = Shrubs; SHR-GRAS=shrubs and grasslands, FOR = Forests. The yellow perimeters represent the boundaries of each NP. Black and white colors represent increasing altitude, ranking from 473 to 3337 m in Ordesa NP's study area, and from 605 to 2462 m in Guadarrama NP's.

A Centennial Path Towards Sustainability in Spanish National Parks: Biodiversity…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73196

117

A Centennial Path Towards Sustainability in Spanish National Parks: Biodiversity… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73196 117

**Figure 9.** Simulated model of LULCs between 2006 and 2030 in a trend scenario with restrictions and incentives (TS30-WRI) in the Guadarrama NP and its surroundings (above) and in Ordesa NP (below). URB=urban areas; IND = Industrial areas; AGR = Agricultural areas; HET = Heterogeneous agricultural areas; GRAS = Grasslands; SHR = Shrubs; SHR-GRAS=shrubs and grasslands, FOR = Forests. The yellow perimeters represent the boundaries of each NP. Black and white colors represent increasing altitude, ranking from 473 to 3337 m in Ordesa NP's study area, and from 605 to 2462 m in Guadarrama NP's.

social groups highly valued the two NPs from a subjective perspective. However, only half of residents and two-thirds of visitors would be willing to pay an entrance fee to those NPs (**Figure 10**). Most residents and visitors who were willing to pay an entrance fee to the NPs considered that 3€ per person per day would be an acceptable fee. Willingness to pay was

**Table 3.** Summary results of the implementation of the optimized SIAPA in Guadarrama National Park.

The relatively high proportion of blank boxes relate to indicators that could not be evaluated due to lack of raw data

**Sierra de Guadarrama National Parka**

**Designation date: 2013 Evaluation date: 2016–2017 Evaluation: 1st Index/indicator Value State Trend Evaluation** 

Degree of knowledge on the PA 2 NA 2016

Personal importance 2 NA 2016

Density of visitors 2 ↓ 2014–2015

**62,687**

**Socioeconomic Influence Zone area (ha): 173,632**

**period**

**National Park area (ha): 33,960 Peripheral Protection Zone area (ha):** 

Land use changes

Fragmentation

Climate change

a

Density of alien invasive species

Activities performed by visitors

provision by the NP managers.

SOCIAL PERCEPTION AND VALUATION 2

116 National Parks - Management and Conservation

THREATS TO CONSERVATION 2

EFFECTIVENESS 0

On average, approximately 25% of residents and 50% of visitors who were initially reluctant to pay an entrance fee to those NPs would change their minds if measures to ensure equity, such as exemptions to less favored groups, transparency (clear use of collected funds) and accountability (investment of funds in the NP) were implemented. These results provide interesting information on social worries, preferences and attitudes to help NP management, for instance, by considering implementing entrance fees as a response to massive visitation in some NPs, such as Guadarrama NP [12], or by designing evidence-based environmental education programmes.

negatively correlated with the frequency of visits in Guadarrama NP.

**Figure 10.** Results on willingness to pay and entrance fee by residents (R) around and visitors (V) to Guadarrama NP and Ordesa NP.


The values of the indices rank from +∞ (highest sustainability) to −∞ (lowest sustainability). ESI: Environmental sustainability; SSI: Social sustainability; ECSI: Economic sustainability.

**5.5. Global sustainability: main results of the DISESGLOB project**

A Municipal Sustainability Assessment Indicator System was developed whereby the municipalities included in Ordesa NP (n = 6) and Guadarrama NP (n = 35) as well as adjacent external municipalities (n = 16 and n = 72, respectively) were assessed according to five environmental

**Figure 11.** Sustainability maps of municipalities included in Guadarrama NP (left column) and Ordesa NP (right column) and their external municipalities. The values of (a) environmental, (b) economic and (c) social sustainability indexes are shown. National Park boundaries are depicted in black. Maps' legends only show extreme municipal values.

A Centennial Path Towards Sustainability in Spanish National Parks: Biodiversity…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73196

119

**Table 4.** Descriptive statistics on the three indices of municipal sustainability by municipality type.

A Centennial Path Towards Sustainability in Spanish National Parks: Biodiversity… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73196 119

**Figure 11.** Sustainability maps of municipalities included in Guadarrama NP (left column) and Ordesa NP (right column) and their external municipalities. The values of (a) environmental, (b) economic and (c) social sustainability indexes are shown. National Park boundaries are depicted in black. Maps' legends only show extreme municipal values.

#### **5.5. Global sustainability: main results of the DISESGLOB project**

**Guadarrama NP Ordesa NP**

**Figure 10.** Results on willingness to pay and entrance fee by residents (R) around and visitors (V) to Guadarrama NP

**municipalities**

0.52 0.90 0.14 0.91

0.51 1.16 1.09 0.93

−0.44 1.18 0.54 0.97

The values of the indices rank from +∞ (highest sustainability) to −∞ (lowest sustainability). ESI: Environmental

**NP municipalities External** 

**municipalities**

**NP municipalities External** 

Standard deviation

and Ordesa NP.

118 National Parks - Management and Conservation

Standard deviation

Standard deviation

ESI Median 0.98 −0.74 0.95 −0.23

SSI Median −0.12 −0.12 0.02 −0.15

ECSI Median −0.09 −0.34 0.97 −0.56

**Table 4.** Descriptive statistics on the three indices of municipal sustainability by municipality type.

sustainability; SSI: Social sustainability; ECSI: Economic sustainability.

A Municipal Sustainability Assessment Indicator System was developed whereby the municipalities included in Ordesa NP (n = 6) and Guadarrama NP (n = 35) as well as adjacent external municipalities (n = 16 and n = 72, respectively) were assessed according to five environmental indicators, five social indicators and five economic indicators [20]. Those indicators were subsequently integrated in three indices depicting Environmental Sustainability, Social Sustainability and Economic Sustainability. The results show that, generally, the municipalities included in both NPs were more sustainable than those located outside them (**Table 4**).

[3] Dudley N, editor. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories.

A Centennial Path Towards Sustainability in Spanish National Parks: Biodiversity…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73196

121

[4] EEC, European Economic Community. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. 1979. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

[5] Múgica M, Martínez C, Atauri JA, Gómez-Limón J, Puertas J, García D. Anuario 2016 del Estado de Las áreas Protegidas en España. Madrid: Fundación Fernando González

[6] CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity. Convention. Strategic Plan 2011-2020. Aichi Biodiversity Targets. 2010. Available online from: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/

[7] Rodríguez-Rodríguez D, Rodríguez J, Abdul Malak D, Nastasi A, Hernández P. Marine protected areas and fisheries restricted areas in the Mediterranean: Assessing "actual" marine biodiversity protection coverage at multiple scales. Marine Policy. 2016;**64**:24-30

[8] Rodríguez-Rodríguez D, Martínez-Vega J, Tempesta M, Otero-Villanueva MM. Limited uptake of protected area evaluation systems among managers and decision-makers in Spain and the Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Conservation. 2015;**42**(3):237-245 [9] Spanish Government. Ley 5/2007, de 3 de abril, de la Red de Parques Nacionales. 2007. Available online from: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2007-7108

[10] Spanish Government. Ley 30/2014, de 3 de diciembre, de Parques Nacionales. 2014. Available from: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2014/12/04/pdfs/BOE-A-2014-12588.pdf

[11] EEA. European Environment Agency. Data and maps. Datasets. Biogeographical regions. 2015. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/ biogeo-

[12] MAGRAMA, Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente. Memoria de la Red de Parques Nacionales 2015. 2015. Available from: http://www.mapama.gob.es/ es/red-parques-nacionales/la-red/gestion/memoria-2015\_tcm7-454259.pdf [Accessed:

[13] OAPN, Organismo Autónomo Parques Nacionales. II Jornada de investigación en el Parque Nacional de Ordesa y Monte Perdido. 2016. Available from: http://www.aragon. es/estaticos/GobiernoAragon/Departamentos/AgriculturaGanaderiaMedioAmbiente/ TEMAS\_MEDIO\_AMBIENTE/AREAS/RED\_NATURAL\_ARAGON/RED\_ ESPACIOS\_NATURALES\_PROTEGIDOS/PARQUE\_NACIONAL\_ORDESA/

[14] Rodríguez-Rodríguez D, Ibarra P, Martínez-Vega J, Echeverría M, Echavarría P. Finetuning of a protected area effectiveness evaluation tool: Implementation on two emblematic Spanish National Parks. Environments. 2017;**4**(4):68. DOI: 10.3390/environments4040068

content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l28046 [Accessed: 06/10/2017]

Gland: IUCN; 2008

Bernáldez; 2017

[Accessed: 24/09/2017]

[Accessed: 06/10/2017]

[Accessed: 24/09/2017]

06/10/2017]

graphical-regions-europe [Accessed: 29/11/2016]

IIJornadaInvestigacion\_PNOMP.pdf [Accessed: 05/10/2017]

Ninety-one percent and 83% of the municipalities included in Guadarrama NP and Ordesa NP were in the first and second quartiles of environmental sustainability, respectively. In contrast, only 29 and 31% of the external municipalities were in those quartiles. In Ordesa NP, 100% and 31% of the municipalities inside and outside the NP were in the first or second quartiles of economic sustainability, respectively. There is not a clear pattern on local social sustainability, though. In Guadarrama NP, external municipalities close to the cities of Madrid (to the south) and Segovia (to the north) showed greater social sustainability (**Figure 11**).
