Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Nutrition and Cost Efficiency in Kenyan School Meals Using Neglected and Underutilized Species and Linear Programming: A Case Study from an Informal Settlement
Previous Article in Journal
Environmental Dependence and Economic Vulnerability in Rural Nepal
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biological Resources for Renewable Energies in the European Union: A Hierarchical Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/su17062435
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Economic Loss and Ecosystem Service Decline in Mediterranean Ponds (Andalusia, Spain): The Impact of Olive Groves over the Last 20 Years

by
Gema Ortega
1,
Juan Manuel Barragán
1,
Juan Diego Gilbert
1,2,
Fernando Ortega
1 and
Francisco Guerrero
1,2,*
1
Departamento de Biología Animal, Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Universidad de Jaén, Campus de Las Lagunillas, s/n, 23071 Jaén, Spain
2
Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ciencias de la Tierra, Energía y Medio Ambiente (CEACTEMA), Universidad de Jaén, Campus de Las Lagunillas, s/n, 23071 Jaén, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(6), 2435; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062435
Submission received: 29 January 2025 / Revised: 4 March 2025 / Accepted: 6 March 2025 / Published: 11 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advancements in Safeguarding Biocultural Diversity: The Path to Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Wetlands play an important role, not only in relation to diversity but also to human health and well-being, supporting a large number of ecosystem services. One of the most important losses of wetland ecosystem values is established by anthropogenic impacts or aggressions, which are magnified in the current context of global change. This study investigates the economic losses resulting from anthropogenic environmental impacts on wetlands in the Alto Guadalquivir region (Jaén, southeastern Spain) between 1997–2003 and 2022, specifically focusing on the devaluation of ecosystem services. We assessed the economic value lost due to wetland surface reduction by comparing it with the economic gains derived from the conversion of these lands into olive groves, the primary driver of wetland destruction in the study area. Our findings reveal a substantial decline in wetland surface area, leading to significant economic losses that are not offset by the establishment of olive groves within these wetland basins. These results emphasize the critical need to protect the integrity of these ecosystems, recognizing their dual value from both economic and environmental perspectives through the sustained provision of crucial ecosystem services.

1. Introduction

Freshwater ecosystems are crucial not just for their biodiversity value but also for human health and well-being, contributing to sustainable ecosystem development [1]. Aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, wetlands are vital for achieving several Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs—https://sdgs.un.org/goals, accessed on 28 November 2024), including (i) ending hunger (SDG 2); (ii) good health and well-being (SDG 3); (iii) quality education (SDG 4); (iv) clean water and sanitation (SDG 6); (v) sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11); (vi) responsible consumption and production (SDG 12); (vii) climate action (SDG 13); (viii) life below water; and (ix) life on land (SDG 15) [2].
Since 1971, with the Ramsar Convention, there has been a global conscience about the need for rational and sustainable use of aquatic ecosystems. This awareness has been further strengthened by international initiatives like the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [3], as well as regional efforts such as the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Default.aspx, accessed on 28 November 2024) and the Spanish Strategic Plan for Wetlands to 2030 [4].
Ecosystem services encompass the direct and indirect benefits humans derived from ecosystems, stemming from their physical environment, biodiversity, or natural processes [5]. The four principal basic ecosystem services according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment are provisioning, supporting, regulating, and cultural services [3]. In this sense, wetlands include services of great importance for human well-being including (i) provisioning services like food, fresh water, raw materials, biochemical and medicinal resources, genetic materials, or ornamental species; (ii) offering an essential contribution to support biodiversity, breeding sites, soil formation, and nutrient cycling; (iii) providing regulation services such as air quality regulation, climate regulation, hydrological regimes, pollution control, erosion protection, or natural risk mitigation; and (iv) contributing to cultural and recreative services such as tourism, promoting not only cultural heritage and identity but also spiritual and artistic inspiration [6,7,8,9].
Economic valuation of ecosystem services [6,10] is a key factor in economic decision-making, but it must be balanced with political, social, and cultural considerations. Unfortunately, policymakers often prioritize purely economic factors, making it increasingly important to emphasize the economic value of intact wetlands to promote their rational use and conservation [11]. Quantifying the economic value of ecosystem services is crucial for understanding the true value of wetlands relative to the environmental resources they provide [10]. This valuation encompasses direct and indirect use values, as well as non-use values. Use values involve interaction (direct or indirect) with human activities (economic and non-economic), including commercial activities, subsistence activities, and protective functions. Non-use values, such as cultural values, are independent of direct or indirect human use and are more challenging to quantify [8].
One of the most important losses of the ecosystem values of wetlands is established by impacts or aggressions of anthropic origin, which are magnified in the current context of global change [4]. In the Mediterranean context, these impacts primarily stem from land use changes, such as intensive agriculture, livestock pressures, water pollution, and aquifer overexploitation [12,13]. Our working hypothesis is that the net effect of converting wetlands to olive groves is a statistically significant decrease in overall value due to the loss of ecosystem services outweighing the agricultural gains. This analysis assesses the overall economic and environmental impact on the study area. It compares the economic value of the wetlands with the cost–benefit balance of olive cultivation, the most impactful economic activity on wetlands in the study area, and evaluates the resulting loss of ecosystem services. To assess this, the economic value of the inventoried wetlands in the Alto Guadalquivir region (Jaén–Córdoba, southeast of Spain) was estimated between the late 20th century and 2022. This study aims to highlight the importance of maintaining wetland ecosystem services and to integrate the economic losses from wetland area reduction into future management and conservation strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area is located in the southeast of Spain, encompassing almost the entire province of Jaén and the easternmost part of the province of Córdoba (Figure 1). In this territory, a total of 90 ponds have been detected [14]. The ponds have been classified according to the three geomorphological regions presented in the study area [15]: (i) the Betic mountains; (ii) the Sierra Morena mountains, and (iii) the Guadalquivir valley. The climate is characterized as continental Mediterranean, with markedly seasonal rainfall patterns and high temperatures. Specifically, data from 2022 show an average annual temperature of 17.15 °C and an average annual rainfall of 422.20 mm (https://portalrediam.cica.es/, accessed on 28 November 2024).
The majority of wetlands in the study area are located in the Guadalquivir valley, with a smaller number in the Betic mountains and in Sierra Morena. These ecosystems are predominantly temporary, with an endorheic origin; most of them, principally those located in the Guadalquivir valley, are affected by human impacts, especially of agricultural origin [14].

2.2. Data Analysis

The study evaluated the impact of human activities on the economic value and ecosystem services of the wetlands by measuring the loss of wetland surface area. This was carried out by comparing images of each wetland taken at two different times. The images were sourced from the PNOA historic comparator (Spanish National Geographic Institute—IGN, Madrid, Spain, https://visualizadores.ign.es/comparador_pnoa/, accessed on 15 May 2023), specifically using SIGPAC images from 1997 to 2003 and PNOA images from 2022. The calculation of surface areas for each study moment was performed using the tools provided by the National Geographic Institute’s Iberpix 5 viewer, which facilitated the determination of surface area variations. Moreover, at the conclusion of the evaluation period, a field verification was performed for each of the wetlands included in the study.
Given that olive cultivation is the primary threat to wetlands in the Alto Guadalquivir region, this study compares the average economic profit from olive cultivation differentiated by geographic areas (counties of the study area) with the economic value of the wetlands. To determine the economic impact of losing wetland surface area due to olive grove expansion, the study utilized data from Costanza and collaborators [6]. Since Costanza’s original valuation dates back to 1996 (14,758 USD/ha), the figures were adjusted to account for inflation up to 31 December 2021 (26,483.19 USD/ha), and then converted from US dollars to euros (26,081.97 EUR/ha). The application of the inflation value has been obtained from the website https://westegg.com/inflation (accessed on 28 September 2022), which can be used to obtain inflation rates between specified dates based on the CPI (Consumer Price Index). This process allowed the researchers to estimate the current economic value of the lost wetland area. To calculate the economic benefits of olive groves, we used profitability data from 2019 [16]. This source provides a detailed breakdown of olive grove costs and benefits, differentiated by county and cultivation method (irrigated vs. non-irrigated, and level of mechanization). The analysis considers three main olive grove types: (i) mechanized dryland olive groves (MDOGs); (ii) mechanized irrigated olive groves (MIOGs); and (iii) non-mechanized dryland olive groves, typical of mountain areas (NMDOGs). Using this information, we establish an average olive grove profit value for counties, taking into account the different EU common agricultural policy (CAP) regions (https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2014-13257 (accessed on 26 July 2022)—annex II), and production data from each municipality within the study area (Table 1).
Finally, the producer profits were determined by multiplying the wetland area planted with olive trees by the average price received for olive oil minus the cost of production according to each form of cultivation (see Table 1). Production costs encompassed both the production costs of the olive grove cultivation (plowing, pruning, fertilizers, etc.) and those incurred in the production of olive oil. This evaluation deliberately avoids using olive oil market prices as a direct measure of economic gain. The complex market structure, involving intermediaries between producers and consumers, means that olive oil prices often do not accurately represent the economic returns realized by those directly involved in the conversion of wetlands to olive groves. In this sense, consumer market prices have been documented to be 7 to 20 times higher than producer prices [18]. So, we consider the mean olive oil price reported to producer (3882 EUR/kg—http://m.poolred.com, accessed on 28 September 2022) because this approach aims to provide a more realistic assessment of the economic drivers behind land use change in the region.

3. Results

Table 2 shows the results obtained for each of the ponds included in this study. Of the three geomorphological regions, the Guadalquivir valley has the largest number of ponds, with 54, and also the largest surface area at the start of the study (period 1997–2003), with a total of 428.93 ha, followed by the Betic mountains, with 19 ponds and 93.80 ha, and, finally, Sierra Morena with 9 ponds and 24.70 ha. Nine wetlands cited by Ortega and collaborators [14] have not been included in this study because they already appeared as drained in that publication (ponds number 15, 20, 21, 55, 59, 69, 81, 85, and 87).
This study reveals a significant decline in wetland surface area. At the turn of the 21st century (1997–2003), the total wetland area was 547.43 hectares, which decreased to 407.81 hectares by 2022. This represents a 25.5% loss across the study area. While wetland reduction was observed in all regions, the Guadalquivir valley experienced the most substantial loss at 28.8%; Sierra Morena saw a 21.5% reduction, and the Betic mountains a 12% loss. The primary driver of this decline is the expansion of olive groves into former wetland basins (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). Olive cultivation is a significant contributor to wetland loss in the Guadalquivir valley, accounting for 22.4% of the total loss. This translates to 77.85% of the wetland area lost in this region being attributed to olive groves. In the Betic mountains, olive cultivation is responsible for 8% of wetland loss, representing 73.04% of the total wetland area lost. Similarly, in Sierra Morena, olive groves account for 1.6% of wetland loss, which constitutes 7.53% of the total wetland area lost in that region (Figure 2A). Other contributing factors include cereal agriculture (2.02% loss in Guadalquivir valley, 1.97% in Betic mountains, and 19.9% in Sierra Morena) and urban development/infrastructure construction (4.35% loss in Guadalquivir valley, 1.13% in Betic mountains, and 1.6% in Sierra Morena). Due to these combined impacts, sixteen wetlands vanished completely during the study period; fourteen of these were located in the Guadalquivir valley, one in the Betic mountains, and one in Sierra Morena. Olive cultivation directly caused the disappearance of eight of these wetlands, all within the Guadalquivir valley. For instance, Cañada Lucena pond experienced a complete transformation into an agricultural area, resulting in a 100% loss of wetland services. In comparison, Las Lagunillas pond retained 48% of its ecosystem functions due to less intensive agrarian encroachment.
All these impacts represent an important economic loss of ecosystem services according to calculations made using Costanza and collaborators’ values [6]. The total economic loss of ecosystem services due to these impacts is estimated at EUR 3,635,302.2. This loss is distributed with EUR 3,193,513.63 in the Guadalquivir valley, EUR 296,351.66 in the Betic mountains, and EUR 145,436.91 in Sierra Morena. Of this total loss, olive cultivation is responsible for EUR 2,681,731.84, broken down as EUR 2,453,990.24 in the Guadalquivir valley, EUR 216,785.51 in the Betic mountains, and EUR 10,983.09 in Sierra Morena, representing 29.24%, 22.19%, and 12.94% of the total economic value lost, respectively (Figure 2B). Finally, and considering the economic gains from olive groves replacing wetlands, the final economic loss is calculated to be EUR 1,914,689.79, corresponding to a value of EUR 1,736,468.98 in the Guadalquivir valley, EUR 168,659.13 in the Betic mountains, and EUR 9561.68 in Sierra Morena, respectively.

4. Discussion

The decline of wetlands is a widespread global issue [19], particularly within the Mediterranean region [20,21,22,23]. This study’s findings confirm this trend in the Alto Guadalquivir region (south of Spain), which has experienced significant wetland impacts over the past two decades. The study also reveals substantial variations in the severity of these impacts, measured by surface area loss. Wetlands in the heavily populated and impacted Guadalquivir valley have suffered more than those in the mountainous areas of the Betic mountains and Sierra Morena. Additionally, these human-caused pressures disproportionately affect temporary wetlands [24], the most common type in the Mediterranean [13] and in the study area [14]. Figure 3A–C illustrate three wetlands now fully planted with olive trees, from which two of them, despite this conversion, retain some capacity to retain water for short periods, allowing for a rapid response and the development of some aquatic communities, thus maintaining a degree of ecosystem structure and function. While temporary wetlands are highly resilient, exhibiting strong adaptive and recovery capabilities [25], even they are vulnerable.
Human exploitation of natural resources and environmental alterations have taken a toll on wetland health [26]. The increasing human population makes it difficult to sustainably utilize and preserve the benefits and resources wetlands offer, demanding effective management strategies [27]. In the Alto Guadalquivir region, wetlands are particularly threatened by human activities, primarily agriculture. These impacts are both direct and indirect. Direct impacts include the conversion of pondbeds into farmland, often for olive groves or other crops, leading to complete wetland desiccation (Figure 3A). Indirect impacts encompass the re-excavation of wetland basins (Figure 3D), aquifer overexploitation, eutrophication and contamination from agricultural fertilizers and pesticides, waste dumping from olive oil production (Figure 3E), the construction of infrastructure like irrigation ponds (Figure 3F), and land use/land cover changes within the wetland watersheds. Further pressures include invasive species, unsustainable tourism, and global climate change impacts, such as drought resulting from reduced rainfall.
The destruction of wetlands leads to a clear loss of economic value and vital ecosystem services. This loss is particularly significant because wetlands are among the most valuable world ecosystems [28], providing a wide array of benefits to humanity [29]. These benefits encompass water storage, food production, peat extraction, building materials, essential services, flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, sediment retention, groundwater replenishment, and climate regulation [6,30], which fall into the four categories of ecosystem services outlined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting [3].
Although wetlands may not cover vast areas globally, their economic importance is immense, and is estimated to be between EUR 49,000 and EUR 3.4 billion annually, based on the cost of replacing these services [31]. In our specific study area, the economic value of wetlands surpasses EUR 3.5 million each year. Replacing these wetlands with olive groves, the region’s dominant and most productive crop [32], fails to recoup this value. In fact, this replacement results in a net loss of nearly EUR 2 million annually (see Table 2). This economic deficit would be even more substantial if the study included earlier periods (the 19th and 20th centuries), given the extensive wetland loss during that time [14]. Despite increased social and political support for nature conservation, this study demonstrates that tangible results in this area remain limited.
Restoring these unique ecosystems could contribute to global sustainability and drive much-needed regional economic recovery because wetland restoration fulfills important functions in landscapes, helping to regulate recreational, esthetic, and provisioning ecosystem services [33]. The study area’s economy is heavily reliant on agriculture, particularly olive groves, which has not translated into significant regional economic improvement. This is further exacerbated by the declining population (https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/institutodeestadisticaycartografia/sima/index.htm, accessed on 14 January 2025), highlighting the urgent need to revitalize the region’s natural environment. Wetland restoration could serve as a catalyst for sustainable tourism [34], generating new revenue streams. The combination of this value with the potential carbon sequestration subsidies for healthy wetlands would create economic, social, and environmental benefits for this struggling region. However, current trends indicate that increasing human activity is expanding beyond lowlands and developed areas into mountainous regions, such as the Betic mountains and Sierra Morena, where the impact on wetlands is becoming increasingly apparent.
Furthermore, the recovery of ecosystem services is directly linked to ecosystem health, a key concept in assessing ecosystem condition [3]. Two common indicators of ecosystem health are the capacity to respond to disturbances and the ability to provide ecological services [35], with a healthy ecosystem being described as one that is stable and sustainable, meaning it maintains its function, structure, and self-sufficiency over time, while also demonstrating resilience to environmental disturbances and stresses [36]. Otherwise, the health of an ecosystem is related to its ability to continue providing a particular set of ecological services within the surrounding landscape. Achieving sustainable use and maintaining wetland goods and services in the context of current population growth trends is very difficult and requires appropriate management. This idea is supported by the World Bank [37], which indicates that investments in preventative measures, including maintaining healthy ecosystems, are seven times more effective than the costs incurred by disasters.
This research, demonstrating the degradation of the Alto Guadalquivir wetlands, has significant implications for international conservation initiatives, notably the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Nationally, the Spanish Strategic Plan for Wetlands to 2030 offers potentially valuable incentives for wetland conservation. These incentives should be strategically deployed to acquire crucial ponds from private landowners (following the proposals outlined by García-Muñoz and collaborators [38] and Gilbert and collaborators [39]), thereby facilitating conservation efforts aimed at preserving regional biodiversity within these essential meta-ecosystems [40].
Scientists and practitioners concur that sound management is required for restoration and conservation of these endangered ecosystems [25]. Although no restoration actions have been implemented in the study area’s wetlands, ecosystem restoration has proven effective in revitalizing ecosystem services, with several Andalusian wetlands providing notable examples. At Zóñar lake (Córdoba), the application of rotenone successfully eradicated invasive fish species, leading to increased macrophyte diversity [41]. Sediment and Tamarix spp. removal has also effectively promoted aquatic diversity in other Andalusian wetlands [42,43]. Furthermore, nature-based solutions implemented at the Fuente de Piedra wetland (Málaga) have contributed to a reduction in eutrophication [44], thus improving overall ecosystem health. Similar wetland restoration efforts have been implemented elsewhere in Europe. For example, perifluvial wetlands along the Po River (Italy) have seen the reintroduction of floating and submerged plants, riparian plantings, and the introduction of native shrub species [45]. In lowland spring-wells within the same region, restoration involved the removal of exotic ornamental shrubs, hazardous trees, and ruderal and exotic herbaceous plants [46]. Crucially, this latter project employed a methodology involving the creation of buffer zones around aquatic ecosystems where only low-input agricultural practices, such as organic agriculture, are permitted to combat eutrophication. This buffer zone strategy, potentially applicable to the Alto Guadalquivir ponds and supported by the European and Spanish 2030 strategies, could integrate integrated crop management to enhance biodiversity within olive groves [47]. Such a measure would not only increase heritage, environmental sustainability, and landscape values, but also facilitate the recovery of traditional landscape planning. These agricultural strategy shifts have been associated with reduced erosion, decreased contamination of groundwaters, less use of toxic substances, and increased land use heterogeneity. These actions could promote a long-term value loss, mainly in terms of biodiversity conservation within various aquatic communities in the Alto Guadalquivir region, including amphibians [38], reptiles [48], and zooplankton [49].
Regrettably, land management decisions made by both public administrations and private landowners often fail to consider the loss of ecosystem services and values. In this sense, transitioning to more sustainable, or even ecological, olive cultivation in wetland drainage basins is a crucial consideration for improved ecosystem health and conservation. A shift in land use economic strategy to one that recognizes existing wetlands not simply as landscape features to be protected but as actively contributing to global ecological and economic well-being is crucial. This approach would obviate the need for costly substitute elements and infrastructure for water maintenance and conservation, erosion prevention, water flow regulation, and greenhouse gas regulation, among the many free benefits wetlands provide [50]. For a more accurate future economic valuation of wetlands, it is essential to improve the quantification of their role as carbon sequestration ecosystems. This is a crucial aspect of combating climate change and requires precise measurement of this service [29]. Furthermore, while precise figures quantifying these benefits may be debatable due to potential inaccuracies in wetland use and service accounting, they nonetheless provide a clear and compelling argument for the necessity of more rational wetland management, promoting appropriate management practices and subsequent conservation.
In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that the reduction in wetland surface area, consequent to the expansion of olives groves in lake basins, results in a net economic loss. The economic benefits derived from olive cultivation do not compensate for the diminished economic value of the wetlands. Furthermore, this process is accompanied by a significant environmental cost, reflecting the global decline in aquatic ecosystems, exacerbated by climate and global change, particularly within the Mediterranean basin. This underscores the urgent need to raise societal awareness regarding the intrinsic value of these ecosystems and the importance of their conservation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.G.; methodology, G.O. and J.M.B.; validation, F.G., F.O., and J.D.G.; writing—original draft preparation, G.O., J.M.B., and F.G.; writing—review and editing, F.G., J.D.G., and F.O.; visualization, all authors; supervision, F.G. and F.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the Andalusian Environmental Office (Consejería de Sostenibilidad, Medio Ambiente y Economía Azul, Junta de Andalucía, Spain) for allowing drone flights over the wetlands studied. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. This feedback has led to significant improvements in the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Libala, N.; Griffin, N.; Nyingwa, A.; Dini, J. Freshwater ecosystems and interactions with the SDG 2030 Agenda: Implications for SDG implementation in South Africa. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 2022, 47, 353–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Scaling Up Wetland Conservation, Wise Use and Restoration to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals; Ramsar Convention Secretariat: Gland, Swiss, 2018; 13p. [Google Scholar]
  3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; 137p. [Google Scholar]
  4. MITECO. Plan Estratégico de Humedales a 2030; Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico: Madrid, Spain, 2023; 116p. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nabout, J.C.; Borges Machado, K.; Maciel David, A.C.; Gómez Mendonça, B.; Pereira da Silva, S.; Carvalho, P. Scientific literature on freshwater ecosystems services: Trends, biases, and future directions. Hydrobiologia 2023, 850, 2485–2499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Hernández, M.E. Carbon balance in tropical freshwater wetlands on the coastal plain of the Gulf of Mexico. Limnetica 2020, 39, 653–665. [Google Scholar]
  8. De Groot, R.; Stuip, M.; Finlayson, M.; Davidson, N. Valoración de Humedales: Lineamientos para Valorar los Beneficios Derivados de los Servicios de los Ecosistemas de Humedales; Cuaderno Técnico CBD. 2007. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-27-es.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2024).
  9. Csanák, E. Arts and nature: The contribution of artists to understanding of the world and the development of natural sciences. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Biosphere and Environmental Safety, 1st ed.; ICEEE, Óbuda University: Budapest, Hungary, 2022; pp. 141–152. [Google Scholar]
  10. Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change 2014, 26, 152–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barbier, E.B.; Acreman, M.; Knowler, D. Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A Guide for Policy Makers and Planners; Ramsar Convention Bureau: Gland, Switzerland, 1997; 127p. [Google Scholar]
  12. Beja, P.; Alcazar, R. Conservation of Mediterranean temporary ponds under agricultural intensification: An evaluation using amphibians. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 114, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Álvarez-Cobelas, M.; Rojo, C.; Angeler, D.G. Mediterranean limnology: Current status, gaps and the future. J. Limnol. 2005, 64, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ortega, F.; Parra, G.; Guerrero, F. Los humedales del Alto Guadalquivir: Inventario, tipologías y estado de conservación. In Ecología, Manejo y Conservación de los Humedales. Actas de la XIII Aula de Ecología, 1st ed.; Paracuellos, M., Ed.; Instituto de Estudios Almerienses: Almería, Spain, 2003; pp. 113–123. [Google Scholar]
  15. Vera, J.A. Geología de Andalucía. Enseñanzas Tierra 1994, 2, 306–315. [Google Scholar]
  16. Parras-Rosa, M.; Ruz-Carmona, A.; Torres-Ruiz, F.J.; Colombo, S. Los costes del olivar en la provincia de Jaén. Mercacei Mag. 2021, 106, 46–50. [Google Scholar]
  17. Penco Valenzuela, J.M. Aproximación a los Costes del Cultivo del Olivo, 1st ed.; Asociación Española de Municipios del Olivo: Córdoba, Spain, 2020; 56p. [Google Scholar]
  18. Segrelles, J.A. Las ayudas agrarias y sus repercusiones sobre la agricultura familiar en la última reforma de la política agraria común (2014–2020) de la Unión Europea: ¿cambiar todo para que todo siga igual? Boletín Asoc. Geógrafos Españoles 2017, 74, 161–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Davidson, N.C. How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2014, 65, 936–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Casado, S.; Montes, C. Guía de los Lagos y Humedales de España, 1st ed.; JM Reyero: Madrid, Spain, 1995; 225p. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gallego, J.B.; García-Mora, M.R.; García-Novo, F. Small wetlands lost: A biological conservation hazard in Mediterranean landscapes. Environ. Conserv. 1999, 26, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zacharias, I.; Dimitriou, E.; Dekker, A.; Dorsman, E. Overview of temporary ponds in the Mediterranean region: Threats, management and conservation issues. J. Environ. Biol. 2007, 28, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Zacharias, I.; Zamparas, M. Mediterranean temporary ponds: A disappearing ecosystem. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 3827–3834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Calhoun, A.J.K.; Mushet, D.M.; Bell, K.P.; Boix, D.; Fitzsimons, J.A.; Isselin-Nondedeu, F. Temporary wetlands: Challenges and solutions to conserving a disappearing ecosystem. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 211, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Angeler, D.G. Conceptualizing resilience in temporary wetlands. Inland Waters 2021, 11, 467–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Finlayson, C.M.; Horwitz, P. Wetlands as settings for human health—The benefits and the paradox. In Wetlands and Human Health, 1st ed.; Finlayson, C.M., Horwitz, P., Weinstein, P., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hotaiba, A.M.; Salem, B.S.; Waseem, M.; Halmy, A. Assessment of wetlands ecosystem’s health using remote sensing—case study: Burullus wetland—Ramsar Site. Estuaries Coast 2023, 47, 201–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. Wetlands, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2000; 920p. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mitsch, W.J.; Bernal, B.; Hernández, M.E. Ecosystem services of wetlands. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2015, 11, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Turner, R.K.; Georgiou, S.; Fisher, B. Valuing Ecosystem Services. The Case of Multi-Functional Wetlands, 1st ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008; 240p. [Google Scholar]
  31. Schuyt, K.; Brander, L. The Economic Values of the World’s Wetlands, 1st ed.; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2004; 32p. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sánchez Martínez, J.D.; Gallego Simón, V.J.; Araque Jiménez, E. El olivar andaluz y sus transformaciones recientes. Estud. Geográficos 2011, 270, 203–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gleason, R.A.; Laubhan, M.K.; Euliss, N.H. Ecosystem Services Derived from Wetland Conservation Practices in the United States Prairie Pothole Region with an Emphasis on the U.S.; Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs; US Geological Professional Paper 1745; USGS: Reston, VA, USA, 2008; 58p. [Google Scholar]
  34. Félix-Massa, T. Valoración de servicios ecosistémicos y planificación. Una propuesta de gestión sostenible del turismo en humedales. Rev. Atlántica De Econ. 2018, 1, 30. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rapport, D.; Costanza, R.; McMichael, A.J. Assessing ecosystem health: Challenges at the interface of social, natural and health sciences. TREE 1998, 13, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Costanza, R. Toward an operational definition of health. In Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management, 1st ed.; Costanza, R., Norton, B., Haskell, B., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1992; pp. 239–256. [Google Scholar]
  37. World Development Report 2004. Making Services Work for Poor People; The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; 271p. [Google Scholar]
  38. García-Muñoz, E.; Gilbert, J.D.; Parra, G.; Guerrero, F. Wetlands classification for amphibian conservation in Mediterranean landscapes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 901–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gilbert, J.D.; de Vicente, I.; Ortega, F.; Jiménez-Melero, R.; Parra, G.; Guerrero, F. A comprehensive evaluation of the crustacean assemblages in southern Iberian Mediterranean wetlands. J. Limnol. 2015, 74, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Loreau, M.; Mounquet, N.; Holt, R.D. Meta-ecosystems: A theoretical framework for a spatial ecosystem ecology. Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6, 673–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Álvarez-Cobelas, M.; Cirujano, S.; Rojo, C.; García-Murillo, P.; Rubio, A.; Moreno, M.; Segura, M. Limnología de la Laguna de Zóñar (Córdoba): Efectos de la Retirada Total de Carpas; Serie LimnoIberia, 4; Grupo de Investigación del Agua: Madrid, Spain, 2014; 138p. [Google Scholar]
  42. Díaz-Paniagua, C.; Ramírez-Soto, M.; Aragonés, D. Pond basin colonization by terrestrial vegetation indicates wetland deterioration. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2023, 33, 798–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ortiz, I.; Luque, J.; de la Cruz, J. Proyecto de restauración hidrológica y ambiental de la laguna de Jarata. Montilla (Córdoba). In Humedales Cordobeses. 40 Años de Investigación, 1st ed.; de la Cruz, J., Ed.; Consejería de Sostenibilidad y Medio Ambiente. Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain, 2024; pp. 55–62. [Google Scholar]
  44. De los Ríos-Mérida, J.; Reul, A.; Muñoz, M.; Arijo-Andrade, S.; Tapia-Paniagua, S.; Rendón-Martos, M.; Guerrero, F. How efficient are the semi-natural ponds on the assimilation of wastewater effluents? The case of a Mediterranean Ramsar wetland (Fuente de Piedra, south of Spain). Water 2017, 9, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bodini, A.; Ricci, A.; Viaroli, P. A multimethodological approach for the sustainable management of perifluvial wetlands of the Po River (Italy). Environ. Manag. 2000, 26, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Giupponi, L.; Borgonovo, G.; Leoni, V.; Zuccolo, M.; Bischetti, G.B. Vegetation and water of lowland spring-wells in Po Plain (Northern Italy): Ecological features and management proposals. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 30, 357–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rey-Zamora, P.J.; Gutiérrez, J.E.; Valera, F.; Ruiz, C. El olivar andaluz, ¿un bosque humanizado? Aldaba 2017, 41, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  48. De Castro-Expósito, A.; García-Muñoz, E.; Guerrero, F. Reptile diversity in a Mediterranean wetlands landscape (Alto Guadalquivir region, southeastern Spain): Are they affected by human impacts? Acta Herpetol. 2021, 16, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gilbert, J.D.; de Vicente, I.; Ortega, F.; García-Muñoz, E.; Jiménez-Melero, R.; Parra, G.; Guerrero, F. Linking watershed land uses and crustacean assemblages in Mediterranean wetlands. Hydrobiologia 2017, 799, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Woodward, R.T.; Yong-Suhk, W. The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 37, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 02435 g001
Figure 1. Geographical location of the wetlands included in the Alto Guadalquivir study area. Numbers of wetlands are coincident with those shown in the Results Section.
Figure 1. Geographical location of the wetlands included in the Alto Guadalquivir study area. Numbers of wetlands are coincident with those shown in the Results Section.
Sustainability 17 02435 g001
Sustainability 17 02435 g002
Figure 2. Percentage of wetland area lost due to olive cultivation (A) and its corresponding percentage loss of economic value in euros (B) relative to the total loss across the three geomorphological areas in the study site.
Figure 2. Percentage of wetland area lost due to olive cultivation (A) and its corresponding percentage loss of economic value in euros (B) relative to the total loss across the three geomorphological areas in the study site.
Sustainability 17 02435 g002
Sustainability 17 02435 g003
Figure 3. Example images showing how olive farming impacts wetlands in the Alto Guadalquivir region. Direct impacts are caused by physically occupying the wetland basin itself (totally or partially), like when the land is converted for olive groves: (A) Cañada Lucena pond; (B) Obispo pond; (C) Villardompardo pond; and (D) Rumpisaco pond. Indirect impacts result from activities related to olive farming but not directly occupying the wetland basin: (E) Ranal pond, impacted by olive oil production waste, and (F) Perales pond, impacted by irrigation reservoirs built for olive cultivation.
Figure 3. Example images showing how olive farming impacts wetlands in the Alto Guadalquivir region. Direct impacts are caused by physically occupying the wetland basin itself (totally or partially), like when the land is converted for olive groves: (A) Cañada Lucena pond; (B) Obispo pond; (C) Villardompardo pond; and (D) Rumpisaco pond. Indirect impacts result from activities related to olive farming but not directly occupying the wetland basin: (E) Ranal pond, impacted by olive oil production waste, and (F) Perales pond, impacted by irrigation reservoirs built for olive cultivation.
Sustainability 17 02435 g003
Table 1. Olive grove/oil yield (I—in kilograms of olive oil per hectare) [16] and cost of olive oil production (II—in EUR/kg) [17] in the CAP regions included in the study area, and according to the different cultivation methods used in the Alto Guadalquivir region (see text).
Table 1. Olive grove/oil yield (I—in kilograms of olive oil per hectare) [16] and cost of olive oil production (II—in EUR/kg) [17] in the CAP regions included in the study area, and according to the different cultivation methods used in the Alto Guadalquivir region (see text).
CAP RegionsMDOGMIOGNMDOG
I/III/III/II
Region 19.2 (A)2854/2.643989/2.182543/3.52
Region 20.2 (B)3499/2.644758/2.183013/3.52
Region 21.2 (C)4843/2.646768/2.184314/3.52
Table 2. Data from the studied ponds: (i) numbers of wetlands (coincident with those shown in Figure 1); (ii) name of the ponds; (iii) the EU common agricultural policy (CAP) region in which the pond is included (see Table 1); (iv) olive tree form of cultivation; (v) total loss of wetland surface area (in hectares) and total loss resulting from the implementation of olive grove cultivation in the pond basin between 1997–2003 and 2022, indicating the percentage of loss compared to the total area in each geomorphological region; (vi) loss of economic value in euros of the wetland according to the value indicated by Constanza and collaborators [6] in 2019 as a consequence of the loss of the wetland surface and that same value as a consequence of the loss caused by the implementation of olive grove cultivation; (vii) benefit in euros generated by olive cultivation in the pond basins in 2019; and (viii) balance in euros between both values (benefits/costs) for each of the ponds.
Table 2. Data from the studied ponds: (i) numbers of wetlands (coincident with those shown in Figure 1); (ii) name of the ponds; (iii) the EU common agricultural policy (CAP) region in which the pond is included (see Table 1); (iv) olive tree form of cultivation; (v) total loss of wetland surface area (in hectares) and total loss resulting from the implementation of olive grove cultivation in the pond basin between 1997–2003 and 2022, indicating the percentage of loss compared to the total area in each geomorphological region; (vi) loss of economic value in euros of the wetland according to the value indicated by Constanza and collaborators [6] in 2019 as a consequence of the loss of the wetland surface and that same value as a consequence of the loss caused by the implementation of olive grove cultivation; (vii) benefit in euros generated by olive cultivation in the pond basins in 2019; and (viii) balance in euros between both values (benefits/costs) for each of the ponds.
NumberPond NameCAP RegionProduction TypeSurface Difference (ha)Loss of Wetland Value (EUR)Olive Benefits (EUR)Balance (EUR)
Ponds in Betic mountains
1La LagunaBMIOG−0.30 (11%)−8216.772429.43−5787.34
22La MuelaC-----
23Hoya de la LagunaA-----
24Nava del EspinoA-----
30Hoya de HuelmaBNMDOG−1.30 (100%)/−0.52 (40%)−35,606.02/−14,242.41567.17−13,675.24
31La LagunaB-----
36BermejaBMIOG−0.60 (86%)−16,433.554858.87−11,574.68
43La LagunaBMDOG−3.29 (10%)−90,110.6314,297.54−75,813.08
46Hoyas PanderaB-----
56MaribelaBMIOG−5.34 (88%)/−3.20 (53%)−146,258.58/−87,755.1525,946.36−61,808.79
60Hoya Noalejo IB-----
61Hoya Noalejo IIB-----
62Hoya Noalejo IIIB-----
63OrceraA-----
67Cañada de la CruzA-----
71Siles IA-----
72Siles IIA-----
82Hoya del AlmadénB-----
83Hoya de TorresB-----
Summary −10.83 (12%)/−7.91 (8%)−296,351.66/−216,758.5148,099.38−168,659.13
Ponds in Sierra Morena
25PedernosoA-----
29CastilloA-----
44TobaruelaB-----
45ArdalBMIOG−4.60 (100%)/-−125,990.54/---
57Perales IA-----
58Perales IIA-----
59VallejosA-----
68SantistebanAMDOG−0.24 (3%)/−0.07 (1%)−6573.42/1972.03255.22−1716.81
70ChaparralAMDOG−0.47 (80%)/−0.33 (56%)−12,872.95/9011.061166.20−7844.87
Summary −5.31 (21.5%)/−0.40 (1.6%)−145,436.91/−10,983.091421.41−9561.68
Ponds in the Guadalquivir valley
2HondaBMIOG−1.48 (12%)−40,536.0911,985.21−28,550.88
3Chinche IB-----
4Chinche IIB-----
5Tumbalagraja IBMIOG−1.83 (11%)−50,122.3214,819.55−35,302.77
6Tumbalagraja IIBMIOG−0.23 (15%)−6299.531862.57−4436.96
7Cañada LucenaBMIOG−28.70 (100%)−786,071.42232,415.93−553,655.49
8RanalB-----
9ObispoBMIOG−0.50 (100%)−13,694.324049.06−9645.57
10QuintaBMIOG−0.60 (5%)−16,433.554858.87−11,574.68
11Rincón del MuertoBMIOG−0.78 (14%)−21,363.616316.5315,047.08
12CasasolaBMIOG−1.58 (44%)−43,275.0112,795.0230,479.99
13Guadajoz IB-----
14Guadajoz IIB-----
16ButaquillosB-----
17GrandeC-----
18ChicaC-----
19ArgamasillaCMIOG−0.44 (8%)−12,051.275068.42−6982.85
26TorrealcazarBMDOG−2.60 (100%)−71,212.0411,298.97−59,913.07
27Los PradosBMDOG−9.40 (100%)/−7.99 (85%)−257,458.93/−218,840.0934,722.61−184,117.48
28San JoséBMDOG−11.90 (100%)/−4.76 (40%)−325,932.05/−130,372.8220,685.81−109,687.01
32Prados del Moral IBMIOG−3.20 (100%)−87,645.5925,913.97−61,731.62
33Prados del Moral IIBMIOG−4.70 (100%)−128,729.4738,061.15−90,668.32
34Las LagunillasBMIOG−11.35 (52%)/−1.14 (5%)−310,867.96/−31,086.809191.36−21,895.43
35MarquésBMIOG−0.08 (4%)−2191.14647.85−1543.29
37BrujueloBMIOG−4.19 (50%)−114,760.9533,931.11−80,829.84
38CirueñaBMIOG−0.35 (9%)−9586.242834.34−6751.90
39TorrebuenavistaBMIOG−2.80 (100%)−76,689.8922,674.72−54,015.17
40BarriosBMIOG−1.36 (52%)−37,249.3811,013.44−26,235.94
41AlmenaraB-----
42CorbúnBMIOG−2.70 (100%)/−2.43 (90%)−73,950.97/−66,555.8719,678.42−46,877.45
47SalobralB-----
48Hituelo IBMIOG−0.90 (18%)−24,650.327288.30−17,362.02
49Hituelo IIBMIOG−3.30 (100%)−90,384.5226,723.78−63,660.74
50MojonesBMIOG−4.00 (89%)/−1.32 (29%)−109,556.99/−36,153.8110,689.51−25,464.29
51NaranjerosBMIOG−0.30 (12%)−8216.772429.43−5787.34
52RumpisacoBMIOG−2.99 (75%)−81,893.8524,213.37−57,680.48
53Las CerasBMIOG−2.10 (100%)/−0.85 (41%)−57,517.42/−23,294.566887.45−30,182.00
64La OrdenBMIOG−0.21 (30%)−5751.741700.60−4051.14
65ValdeutielBMIOG−0.94 (72%)/-−25,745.89/---
66San BartoloméBMIOG−0.80 (100%)/0.48 (60%)−21,911.40/−13,146.843887.10−9259.74
73Garcíez IB-----
74Garcíez IIBMIOG−1.42 (13%)−38,892.7311,499.32−27,393.41
75ColmeneroB-----
76Casillas IBMIOG−0.91 (41%)−24,924.227369.29−17,554.93
77Casillas IIBMIOG−0.19 (7%)−5203.961538.64−3665.32
78Casillas IIIBMIOG−0.05 (4%)−1369.46404.91−964.56
79Las Navas IBMIOG−2.06 (38%)−56,349.1616,660.63−39,688.54
80Las Navas IIB-----
81HornilloB-----
84La Laguna ICMDOG−5.20 (100%)/−2.08 (40%)−142,424.09/−56,969.6412,511.21−44,458.42
86HerraduraC-----
88Villardompardo IB-----
89Villardompardo IIB-----
90Villardompardo IIIBMIOG−1.30 (100%)−35,606.0210,527.55−25,078.47
Summary −123.48 (28.8%)/−96.13 (22.4%)−3,193,513.63/−2,453,990.24717,521.26−1,736,468.98
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ortega, G.; Barragán, J.M.; Gilbert, J.D.; Ortega, F.; Guerrero, F. Economic Loss and Ecosystem Service Decline in Mediterranean Ponds (Andalusia, Spain): The Impact of Olive Groves over the Last 20 Years. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062435

AMA Style

Ortega G, Barragán JM, Gilbert JD, Ortega F, Guerrero F. Economic Loss and Ecosystem Service Decline in Mediterranean Ponds (Andalusia, Spain): The Impact of Olive Groves over the Last 20 Years. Sustainability. 2025; 17(6):2435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062435

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ortega, Gema, Juan Manuel Barragán, Juan Diego Gilbert, Fernando Ortega, and Francisco Guerrero. 2025. "Economic Loss and Ecosystem Service Decline in Mediterranean Ponds (Andalusia, Spain): The Impact of Olive Groves over the Last 20 Years" Sustainability 17, no. 6: 2435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062435

APA Style

Ortega, G., Barragán, J. M., Gilbert, J. D., Ortega, F., & Guerrero, F. (2025). Economic Loss and Ecosystem Service Decline in Mediterranean Ponds (Andalusia, Spain): The Impact of Olive Groves over the Last 20 Years. Sustainability, 17(6), 2435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062435

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop