Pego-Oliva Wetland is located in the Western Mediterranean, on the Spanish coast, on the boundary between the provinces of Valencia and Alicante (Figure 1), and belongs to two municipalities (Pego and Oliva) (Figure 2 and Table 1). In [13], there is a detailed description of the complexity of this ecosystem. This wetland is located on a coastal plain, set on a detrital aquifer, which is separated from the sea by a sand bar nine kilometers long, and has water depths of several feet deep. Groundwater upwelling creates water ponds, known as “ullals”, in the wetland environment. The Bullent River and the Racons River are the wetland boundaries to the north and south, respectively. These rivers have a continuous flow regime and are fed by groundwater discharges from near karstic aquifers. This system has a total dependence on groundwater resources. These rivers are the natural drainage of the wetland to the sea, although water is also drained by pumping depending on the rice crop needs. In natural regime, estimated flow into the wetland is 54 hm³/year.

La Safor Wetland is located north of Pego-Oliva Wetland in Valencia (Figure 1), and belongs to four municipalities (Gandía, Xeresa, Xeraco and Tavernes de la Valldigna) (Figure 2 and Table 1). This wetland sits on La Plana Gandia-Denia detrital aquifer and is separated from the sea by a sand bar ten kilometers long. The main entrance of water comes from groundwater discharge of karst aquifers (Serra Grossa) feeding the detrital aquifer. The San Nicolás and Vaca Rivers limit the wetland area to the north and south respectively. The San Nicolás is an ephemeral watercourse; it carries great quantities of water only when torrential rain falls. The flow is only continuous in the last 1.5 km due to the inputs of freshwater draining La Safor Wetland and it flows into Gandia Harbour [4]. The Vaca River flows directly into the sea in the town of Xeraco; this river often floods the wetland due to storm events characteristic of the Mediterranean climate [16].

The authors of [12] described several representative cases of conflicts between groundwater use and conservation of coastal wetlands, including the case of Pego-Oliva Wetland. The study considered this case as a “paradigm in which conflicting interests converge”, with numerous confrontations between different users in the past 40 years: since the 1970s, when the administration still had a transformationalist attitude (corresponding to the exploitation era [8]), until the last decade of the 20th century, which culminates with the declaration of Natural Park and corresponds to the conservation era [8].

The first crop in Pego-Oliva Wetland was the rice, which was introduced by the Arabs. However, its cultivation was banned in 1403 due to epidemics of malaria and cholera, and this prohibition was maintained over several centuries [17]. In 1805, rice cultivation was again authorized by Royal Order, which began to be effective in 1839 [17]. From this period dates the construction of various drainage ditches [12]. The expansion of rice cultivation intensified in the last two decades of the 19th century with 330 ha transformed in 1886 [13]. In 1916, an Irrigation Community was created, which is still active today [12]. In 1918, a law that promoted wetland drying and transformation due to insalubrity reasons was passed; it was named “Cambó law”. Furthermore, the strong demand for rice because of international conflicts and a civil war, was the cause of the maximum expansion of this crop between 1920 and 1945, and in 1950 there were 1000 ha in operation (almost all of the wetland) [12].

In the period of 1960–1985, the profitability of rice cultivation declined and there were attempts to transform the wetland into horticultural crops. The “rice crisis” was caused by excessive production over domestic demand, excessive fragmentation of farms that prevented the introduction of mechanization measures and closure of international markets as a result of changing circumstances. The wetland was declared “Public Domain Land” in this period [18]. During the sixties, in 1967 to be precise, the economic report “Valencian Economic Promotions” proposed as possible solutions to the rice crisis the following: cooperative development, land consolidation and transformation. These measures were applied in Pego and in Tavernes de la Valldigna (La Safor Wetland). In 1970, the land consolidation project developed by the IRYDA (National Institute of Agrarian Reform and Development) was approved and it affected about 90% of the wetland surface. This transformation project raised expectations of reassessment of land prices among smallholders. Some companies began buying land on a large scale at the prospect of large projects, such as locating a Disney theme park in this area [17]. These perspectives help to explain the opposition encountered by the administration conservation measures later.

In the 1980s, we are already in the era of transition, marked by the entry of Spain into the EU on 1 January 1986. In Europe, as reference [3] say, “the period from 1980 to 2000 marked a transition in agricultural policy from a focus on production to one that addressed growing concerns about the scale of agricultural subsidies and the environmental impacts of intensive farming.” At this stage, the administration began to abandon their developmental ideas and aquifers protection, to fight against salinization problems, began to be considered a priority issue [17]. Thus, the project of land consolidation and transformation of the wetland was not carried out, and was finally halted in 1990 by decree. Frequent flooding during this period ruined most investments (large farms, fisheries, infrastructure, etc.), and were also a key factor in the abandonment of the project [17]. In this period the regional government became responsible for planning and environment [12].

In 1994, the first conservation measure was this wetland inclusion in the Ramsar Convention and declaration as Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA). In this year, it was also declared Natural Park by Law 11/1994, 27 December, with an area of 1253 ha [19]. The declaration of Natural Park met with opposition from the town of Pego, not only from the Pego City Council, but also from the local Irrigation Union, agricultural associations, landowners, and hunting and fishing associations opposed to the declaration of Natural Protected Area. Confrontation lasted more than a decade, and there was a lengthy legal process that ended with the imprisonment of the mayor of the municipality (Judgment of the Supreme Court 1073/2003). To appease the strong tensions, a range of uses and activities were allowed within the wetland, such as the growing of organic rice and vegetables, the hunting of protected birds and sport fishing. The administration purchased parcels of private land with funds from a LIFE Project granted by the EU in 1993, as a solution to conflicts with owners [17]. Land acquisition by authorities has been postulated as one of the solutions to improve the implementation of conservation measures [3,7].

In 1999, the Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) was passed by Decree 70/1999, dated 4 May 1999, of the Valencian Government [20]. This management tool was provided in the Law 11/1994. However, this NRMP was abrogated in 2004 by Decree 280/2004, dated 17 December 2004, Consell de la Generalitat, and a new document was passed. The new NRMP tried to solve the conflicts following the Natural Park declaration, as it declares in the preamble: “during the implementation of this important document, the natural area was subjected to a situation that can be described as exceptional, which, not only complicated the effective management of its natural values, but also seriously compromised the future conservation of natural resources” and “the Plan adopted in 1999 laid the foundations for establishing the improvement of various areas, always from the perspective of ensuring the survival of habitats and species in the park, but also from the standpoint of promoting the harmonious development of those human activities that had shaped that space.”

In 2002, the List of wetlands of the Region of Valencia was approved, and included the Pego-Oliva Wetland Natural Park. The List determined the prohibition to change the status of the land from undeveloped to developable. This meant that expectations regarding the process of reassessment of land prices derived from speculation were not met. Moreover, without any compensation, the owners of farms and livestock were condemned to preserve existing land uses, in the best case. In addition, it was banned to crop those plots that had been abandoned prior to the List approval.

The Spanish Wetlands Inventory is regulated by Royal Decree Law 435/2004, dated 12 March 2004 [21]. Pego-Oliva Wetland (1254.994 ha) and La Safor Wetland were included in 2011 by Resolution of 9 March Dirección General de Medio Natural y Política Forestal (Spanish Official Gazette (BOE), Number 71, 24 March 2011) [22].

This ecosystem is also protected by other regulations of National level such as the Water Act [23]. Table 2 summarizes the regulations and plans in force affecting this wetland.

Land use evolution in La Safor Wetland is similar to that described for Pego-Oliva Wetland, so we will only highlight the particularities of this ecosystem. During the rice crisis, land consolidation and agricultural cooperatives were also promoted, but they were only developed in Tavernes de la Valldigna, while rice cultivation was abandoned in other municipalities. The division and ownership of the marshes in these municipalities was different. During the Spanish Civil War, large companies acquired most of the land, such as Rusticas S.A., which (currently) still owns most of the marsh. Most agricultural transformations occurred from the seventies onward. A new production system called “bancs” was introduced and the height of the plots was raised with the materials dredged from adjoining plots that became ponds. Then, vegetable and citrus crops, which could be sold at higher prices, were introduced in raised plots. Local smallholders copied the cropping system that also spread next to large farms. The land level was also raised with external contributions. Semi-confined cattle and sheep farming were also introduced. Mining licenses for peat were granted when excavating up to one and a half meters below ground level. In the 1980s and 1990s, Rusticas S.A. continued its agricultural transformation projects to create large citrus farms in Xeraco with the support of the City Council.

Development pressure was (and still is) very important due to the substantial tourism activity in Gandia Beach (Table 1). In the mid-seventies the question of the construction of the “Renaissance City” arose in the town of Xeresa; this project was originally approved by the City Council but was rejected by subsequent democratic corporations. In the eighties and nineties new development schemes related to marine leisure sports and golf emerged. In Gandia beach, housing developments spread reaching the marsh, which was already occupied by detached houses in an undeveloped area, which eventually became a residential area. In this area a number of facilities including a tennis club, a shooting range, a campsite, several clubs, a university campus and a secondary education center were also built.

The 21st century began with the first measures taken by the regional administration to halt the progressive deterioration of the ecosystem. The first protection step was the wetland inclusion in the List of wetlands of the Region of Valencia with 1226.68 ha (Table 2). By this time, almost the entire wetland was already classified as protected undevelopable land in municipal general plans (Figure 3), but city councils still had exploitation ideas and submitted various development projects linked to tourism.

In 2009, the “Mondúver-Safor Wetland SPA” was included in the new proposal of the Generalitat Valenciana (passed by Resolution of 5 June 2009, of the Consell, expansion of the network of SPA of the Region of Valencia, DOCV Number 6031, dated on 9 June 2009) [24]. In 2011, it was included in the Spanish Wetlands Inventory. In this period, the Hydrographic Confederation of Júcar, which is the authority responsible for water management, at national level, carried out various actions with the help of European Regional Development Funds (ERDF), such as the recovery of “ullals” and the purchase of surrounding land (ERDF-Natura 2000 Sites).

Since the List’s approval to the present, the policy of the Regional and Local Government has been an almost total abandonment of the wetland management. The Councils of Tavernes, Xeraco, Xeresa, and Gandia have followed permissive policies to the actions of landowners, such as wetland filling for agriculture, groundwater drainage, construction of illegal buildings, and have opposed protectionist proposals of the regional administration. Action has been taken only when environmental groups have complained to the courts about filling projects developed by large farms owners. Most of these legal proceedings have ended with judgments favorable to the tenets of environmental groups. However, the regeneration projects required by the final judgments have not been finally executed.

As a consequence of all the above, nowadays we can find here the land uses represented in Figure 2, being rice, citrus crops and marsh the most important ones. The author of [25] identified 50 well surveys that pump water for crop irrigation (12.7 hm³/year) and urban supply (3 hm³/year). In addition, 16.5 hm³/year are pumped to drain the citrus farm known as “La Finca del Rosario”, which is near 200 ha [13], in order to decrease piezometric level and avoid root asphyxia. This causes problems of seawater intrusion in the area according to [26].

In the analysis [12], they highlight the great social opposition that originated in the second half of the 1980s to the installation of urban water supply catchments for the neighboring municipality (Denia) with a flow rate of about 4 hm³/year. This led to the abandonment of the project, while pumping in citrus farms continued thanks to previously acquired rights.

In Pego-Oliva Wetland, pressure on communication infrastructure is very high (Figure 2). The AP-7 motorway is the artificial boundary of the park in the NO-SE direction. The CV-715 road, located in the west, joins the towns of Oliva and Pego. The CV-700 road, located in the south, joins Pego and Denia. In addition, the CV-678 road, which joins Pego with the beach, crosses the wetland. Various nearby developments located between the park and the waterfront and the proximity of resorts such as Oliva Nova Golf are an additional pressure.

This Natural Park has an administrative office whose duties are activities aimed at studying the flora, fauna, and ethnology.

In Figure 2, the current status of this wetland is observed. Among the main land uses, citrus and horticultural crops stand out. In this wetland, there are at least 14 wells for urban supply (e.g., Gandia beach and Xeresa) and crop irrigation (such as Gandia’s Irrigation Community) are listed. Some of the wells are operating only during the summer in the peak tourist season [4]. As in Pego-Oliva Wetland, groundwater is pumped to the sea to decrease the phreatic level and avoid citrus root asphyxia [4].

As seen in Figure 2, the wetland is subjected to the pressure of various linear structures. The Nazaret–Oliva road borders the wetland to the east, and separates the marsh and the coastal ridge. To the west, the AP-7 motorway, the N-332 national road and the Gandia-València railroad separate the alluvial valley from the Mondúver Mountain, and are located in the main groundwater upwelling area called “ullals”. Currently the doubling of the railway line is projected. There is also a network of paths crossing the marsh west to east, parallel to each other. These paths are used to communicate towns and beaches. Currently, the City Council of Gandia is pressing to create a new road connecting the exit of the AP-7 motorway with Nazaret-Oliva road for a direct access to Gandia Beach, which is a major tourist destination [4]. Overhead power lines also cross this wetland.

Unlike Pego-Oliva Wetland, the Safor Wetland has no management document approved, so it is governed by the multiplicity of regulations and plans detailed in Table 2. The different councils are the mediators between residents and owners and the responsible authorities. However, they cannot issue licenses or perform maintenance of this space, so any petition filed before the City Council must be dealt with the competent administration and expect permission.

As we have mentioned before, the Xeresa City Council, in an attempt to overcome the daily difficulties found in the local management of this area, developed and initially approved a “Special Plan” in 2011. This Plan established zoning and regulation for each zone. At present this proposal has not yet been approved by the Regional Government. At the same time, the City of Gandia prepared a Special Plan, but with a completely different purpose: reordering uses to allow the construction of a mini golf course on protected undeveloped land in the wetland. The Special Plan, as a tool for urban planning, could be a useful instrument to improve the effectiveness of local authorities. However, it has been revealed inadequate for two main reasons: (1) limited scope; and (2) diversity of purposes depending on the interests of the local authority.

SWOT analysis is a leading tool for strategic analysis [27]. This tool was designed to be used in the preliminary stages of decision-making and as a precursor to strategic management planning [28]. SWOT analysis has been successfully used in planning processes related to local and regional development [29]. The authors of [30] applied this methodology for river basin management, and they emphasized that public participation and stakeholders’ involvement are key elements for its successful implementation due to the special cultural and social attitudes toward water.

There are many variations on the basic SWOT analysis [31]. In this study, we followed the next steps:

Step 1. Define the objective of the SWOT analysis

The SWOT analysis aims to identify the best strategy to effectively manage coastal wetlands at local and regional level.

Step 2. Initial diagnosis of current plans and regulations

We analyzed the effectiveness of different protection figures and the influence of municipal policies. A comparison was made between two representative coastal wetlands: La Safor Wetland and Pego-Oliva Wetland. Knowledge of the evolution experienced by these coastal wetlands, which has led to the current situation, is essential to make a good analysis. This evolution has been described in detail for local case studies; however, it is also representative of the conflicts experienced in other coastal areas, located on the Mediterranean Sea [13] and in different geographical regions [7,8,15].

Step 3. Stakeholder analysis

This analysis is the first step to involve local actors in the planning/management process; it reduces the risk of neglecting an important actor and gives us an idea of the different perspectives from which the problem is viewed [30].

At an initial stage, the stakeholder analysis was developed for the representative case of Xeresa town, and later it was applied to the rest of study cases. Most wetland conservation issues can be observed in this municipality. This is a non-coastal town with a low population density (Table 1) and few development opportunities, as it is protected by the Mondúver-Safor Wetland Site of Community Importance (SCI). Most of the marsh plots are privately owned and are, on average, quite small. This municipality does not benefit from coastal tourism but suffers its pressure (e.g., demand of a road that links it to Gandia Beach).

The processes of public participation implemented in the Special Plan of Xeresa’s Wetland and Agenda 21 served as a basis for the stakeholder analysis. The main groups identified were: owners, farmers, irrigators, hunters, fishermen, residents, conservationists, and companies.

Step 4. Diagnosis configuration in SWOT matrix

This step involved experts, members of the local administration and stakeholders representatives. In the SWOT matrix, strengths and weaknesses are seen as internal factors, which can be acted upon. Thus, in this analysis, we considered as internal factors those that can be controlled by the local authority and the municipality. Opportunities and threats are external, uncontrollable factors, which form the external environment within which the organization operates [31]. In this analysis, these are those factors depending on a supra-municipal organism or affecting a vaster territory.

Step 5. Selection of strategies

Assessment and selections of strategies was accomplished by experts. According to [31], a primary misuse of the SWOT tool is the failure to link SWOT results to any subsequent strategic planning application. However, in this study the objective is to apply the results of SWOT analysis to local planning and management.

The matrix with the SWOT diagnosis is presented in Table 3.

The results of the SWOT analysis are discussed taking into account the practical recommendations of the Ramsar Secretariat for stakeholders to respond to the value of water and wetlands in decision making [10].

The most important strength of local authorities in managing wetlands is the proximity to the territory, which allows first-hand knowledge of the issues affecting these ecosystems (e.g., the interactions between wetland ecosystems, communities, man-made infrastructures, and the economy in the area). This knowledge should be shared with decision makers [10]. Water and wetlands provide a wide range of values and benefits to society [9]; however, disseminating knowledge of these benefits to local communities is essential because these are often either not recognized, or only one is appreciated [10].

An effective and efficient regulation of activities that impact water and wetlands is also necessary [10]. Local authorities can improve regulation and land use planning because they hold the competencies for zoning regulations in municipalities. Special Plans are local planning tools that regulate uses and activities. However, as we have seen before, these plans present several disadvantages (e.g., limited scope, diversity of purposes and need to be approved by the Regional authorities). In addition, Special Plans are limited to local scale, thus, they do not solve problems affecting the wetlands because these ecosystems have a wider influence area (aquifers and watersheds).

The main identified weaknesses here are common to other coastal wetlands, although some are particularly relevant in the study area. There is widespread consensus that private land ownership complicates management of protected areas and limits the scope of action of the various administrations. In some countries, the protection of wetlands on private land has been identified as a national priority. It is the case of New Zealand, where over 75% of small wetlands (smaller than 10 ha) are on private land [2]. In the case studies described, private property accounts for more than 90% of the land (90.1% in the case of Pego-Oliva Wetland and 91.9% for La Safor Wetland). One solution to this increasing problem is the purchase of land by the administration [3]. However, the associated cost can make this alternative impractical in the case of small towns like those involved in this study, where the land purchases were made possible thanks to the help of European Funds. In this situation it is particularly important to involve the owners and users in decision-making and in the daily management of the protected area.

Local authorities usually need to mediate when conflicting interests among different users arise. Conflicting demands for water and land are continuous and inevitable, and usually are in conflict with wetland conservation (e.g., infrastructure pressure and developable land demand) [8,32]. Recognizing and strengthening the link of local communities to wetlands is critical in transforming the management approach [10]. In addition, depending on the political orientation of the administration, these conflicts can be solved with different purposes and usually governments take decisions having into account the political repercussions at the polls. Corruption can be a major impediment to maintain the integrity of these ecosystems [10].

The poor definition of prohibited, permitted and conditional uses and activities creates insecurity among users, through ignorance of the applicable regulations and fear of sanctions. In this context, farmers abandon some practices, which sometimes play an important role in wetland conservation. In fact, the role of traditional practices has not only been recognized, but also has been recommended to consider them in wetland management [10]. To avoid this undesired situation, environmental regulation should focus on three approaches [10]: regulation of water (discharges, management practices, limits of abstraction, etc.), regulation of products (product use and production standards), and spatial planning (which regulates land uses).

The main threat to the management of local authorities is the division of administrative competences in coastal wetlands of Spain. Environment responsibilities were transferred to the regional authorities (Autonomous Communities), but Water and Coast are responsibility of National authorities [33]. To this must be added the multiplicity of existing environmental figures.

Groundwater abstraction for various purposes (irrigation, drainage of farmland and urban supply) poses a threat to the quality and quantity of water resources essential to the survival of these ecosystems. Despite the different types of protection, these abstractions continue. Even in cases as serious as that of Tablas de Daimiel National Park, national and regional authorities did not dare to enforce restrictive measures, which were unpopular among groundwater users [5,34]. Almost all the factors that may affect wetlands occur outside the limits of the wetland itself (e.g., groundwater abstraction for urban supply, fertilizers and pesticides runoff, etc.). In the study area, the definition of a 500 m buffer area around the wetland was an arbitrary choice (Wetland List) that did not follow any scientific criteria. For instance, there is an industrial park located in Xeresa, outside the buffer area limits but into the catchment area of the Safor Wetland. Thus, industrial discharges flow directly into the wetland. To avoid these problems the ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Thus, proper management boundaries must be defined by users, managers, scientist and local people and should consider the influence area (watersheds and aquifers) [5].

Protection of wetlands does not usually bring economic benefits to many people, but can negatively impact other stakeholders [10]. Social fairness should be included as an objective of ecosystem management. Compensation measures may be necessary to recognize ecosystem service providers, especially those whose interests are more severely affected.

To solve the effectiveness of local authorities in daily management, new supra-municipal level tools that incorporate the rest of opportunities identified in the analysis should be developed. Thus, it should serve to coordinate the responsible authorities, aim to an integral management of the influence area and involve users in the management taking into account their needs. Local experts and stakeholders can provide insights into the dynamics of the system and help assessing the feasibility and acceptance of proposed management measures [11].