Biosphere Reserves in Spain: A Holistic Commitment to Environmental and Cultural Heritage Within the 2030 Agenda

Abstract

Biosphere Reserves (BRs), designated by UNESCO, are uniquely positioned to serve as model territories for sustainable development, as they aim to harmonize biodiversity conservation with the socio-economic vitality and cultural identity of local communities. This work examines the commitment of the Spanish Network of Biosphere Reserves to the United Nations 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Using a survey-based research design, this study assesses the extent to which the reserves have integrated the SDGs into their strategic frameworks and operational practices. It also identifies and analyses successful initiatives and best practices implemented across Spain that exemplify this integration. The findings highlight the need for enhanced awareness and understanding of the 2030 Agenda among stakeholders, alongside stronger mechanisms for participation, cooperation, and governance. The conclusion emphasises the importance of equipping all reserves with strategic planning tools and robust systems for monitoring, evaluation, and accountability. Moreover, the analysis of exemplary cases reveals the transformative potential of sustainability-oriented projects—not only in advancing environmental goals but also in revitalizing local economies and reinforcing cultural heritage. These insights contribute to a broader understanding of how BRs can act as dynamic laboratories for sustainable development and heritage preservation.

1. Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly agreed to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1]. Most countries, along with their public administrations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and associations, launched programs to advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), addressing the social, environmental, and economic challenges that must be tackled globally [2].

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defined Biosphere Reserves (BRs) as protected areas focused on balancing conservation with sustainable development. These reserves aim to conserve nature, promote scientific research, and foster sustainable human activities. They consist of three zones: a core area for conservation, a buffer zone to protect the core area, and a transition area to promote sustainable activities that foster local sustainable development and a broader community involvement [3]. The Spanish Network of BRs (SNBR), the largest among those that are part of the World Network of the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MaBP) of the UN agency itself [4], has been carrying out actions and initiatives related to the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda. These efforts must be analysed, disseminated, and evaluated, with the aim of enhancing understanding and promoting best practices; as a result, SNBR can function as laboratories for sustainability, capable of applying existing experiences to benefit other reserves and to foster the development of a network genuinely committed to global action in support of the SDGs [5].

Although other institutions like national parks have more recognition than BRs in Spain [6], the choice to focus on the BRs stems from the fact that this designation is based on a commitment made to the UNESCO—not only by public administrations but also by associations, social groups, and the inhabitants of these areas—to promote and implement sustainable development models in their territories. The commitment of institutions and individuals is the driving force that enables BRs to achieve the objectives of UNESCO’s MaB. This commitment must be fostered through participatory management processes that allow the inhabitants of the reserves to feel and be an essential part of their operation [7,8,9].

However, since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, time has steadily advanced, and with the target year drawing closer, it is clear that—despite significant efforts—much remains to be carried out. Having passed the halfway point of the 2015–2030 fifteen-year period, we aimed to conduct an in-depth analysis of the current state of the SNBRs. The year 2025 is a landmark year for BRs, as it marks the conclusion of three of UNESCO’s strategic plans: The Strategy of the MaB (2015–2025) [1]; the Lima Action Plan and its World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBRs) (2016–2025) [10]; and the Action Plan for the SNBR (2017–2025) [11]. For all these reasons, we consider it both justified and timely to conduct a study in Spain—the country with the highest number of BRs worldwide—to assess the progress made toward achieving the SDGs and to identify the remaining challenges to be addressed by 2030. This will allow us to propose future strategies, building tools to raise awareness of, strengthen, and implement the values of the 2030 Agenda from within the reserves that constitute the network. At this point, it is important to highlight that, according to UNESCO, Spain currently hosts 55 BRs, including four transboundary sites and the first intercontinental biosphere reserve in the Mediterranean region [12].

The objective of this work is to gain an in-depth understanding of the status of the SNBR in relation to the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. This work also identifies and analyses the most successful experiences (good practices) implemented by some of the reserves that make up the SNBR. The ultimate goal is to promote the commitment of BRs to the 2030 Agenda and provide them with practical tools to work on the SDGs and foster engagement with them.

2. Theoretical Background: Legitimation Theory

Weber in 1922 introduced the concept of legitimacy in the context of authority, identifying three types: traditional legitimacy, based on customs; charismatic legitimacy, based on personal qualities; and rational–legal legitimacy, based on formal rules [13]. Though not focused on organizations per se, his work laid the groundwork for understanding how legitimacy underpins authority and institutional structures.

The theory of legitimation in organizational studies explores how and why organizations seek to gain, maintain, or repair legitimacy in the eyes of their stakeholders and society. For instance, Lenz and Söderbaum [14] have introduced the Agents–Audiences–Environment framework, emphasizing how legitimation strategies are shaped not only by stakeholder expectations but also by internal beliefs and institutional norms. The work of Vaara et al. [15] provides a comprehensive and current synthesis of how organizations establish legitimacy through discourse. When legitimacy is damaged, the study of Crawford et al. [16] explores how organizations must repair it through visual and discursive tactics, introducing a model of repair-focused deinstitutionalization that blends maintenance with transformative change. Together, these perspectives underscore the centrality of legitimacy in organizational life—highlighting that legitimacy is not only constructed and maintained but also actively repaired when threatened. Legitimacy is crucial for organizational survival, as it reflects the perception that an organization’s actions are desirable, proper, or appropriate within a socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.

Over time, the theory of legitimation has evolved through several key developments, one of which is the articulation of distinct legitimation processes. According to Suchman’s typology [17], the first is gaining legitimacy, wherein new organizations must align with prevailing norms or introduce innovations that become socially accepted. Once established, organizations focus on maintaining legitimacy, which requires continuous alignment with stakeholder expectations and evolving societal standards. When legitimacy is threatened—due to scandals, failures, or public criticism—organizations must engage in repairing legitimacy, a process that often involves crisis management, public apologies, or structural reforms.

In contemporary contexts, organizational legitimacy is increasingly understood as dynamic and contested. It varies across stakeholder groups and shifts over time, reflecting broader societal changes. Organizations must navigate multiple institutional logics—such as those of the market, community, and state—while responding to heightened demands for transparency and accountability. In this environment, shaped by social media, online activism, and real-time scrutiny, sustainable and socially responsible performance has become central to the construction and preservation of legitimacy [18].

Building on the theory of legitimation, we can argue that BRs—as designated areas that aim to reconcile nature conservation with sustainable development—are increasingly invited, and even compelled, to promote the SDGs to gain, maintain, and reinforce their legitimacy [19]. New or recently designated BRs must demonstrate alignment with globally accepted norms and values. By integrating SDG principles, such as poverty reduction, climate action, and inclusive governance, BRs can position themselves as legitimate actors within both local and international sustainability networks.

As societal expectations evolve, BRs must continuously adapt their practices to remain relevant and credible [20]. This includes engaging local communities in participatory governance (SDG 16), promoting sustainable livelihoods (SDG 8), protecting ecosystems and biodiversity (SDG 15), and supporting education and awareness (SDG 4). These actions help maintain trust among stakeholders, including governments, NGOs, researchers, and local populations.

In cases where BRs face criticism [21], such as for ineffective management, exclusion of local voices, or environmental degradation, aligning with the SDGs provides a roadmap for reform. Demonstrating measurable progress toward these goals can help restore credibility and public support.

In today’s interconnected world, legitimacy is no longer static or locally confined [18,22]. BRs operate within a global arena of scrutiny, where legitimacy is shaped by international standards (e.g., UNESCO’s MaBP), digital transparency (e.g., social media, open data), and cross-sectoral expectations (e.g., from tourism, academia, indigenous communities).

By actively promoting the SDGs, BRs not only fulfill their conservation and development mandates but also signal their relevance and accountability in a rapidly changing world. BRs derive legitimacy from their alignment with global frameworks like the SDGs. This normative alignment reinforces their role as legitimate spaces for experimentation and policy innovation.

First, BRs have an integrated approach to sustainability and conservation. According to Barraclough et al. [23], BRs embody holistic, human-rights-based approaches that align with global biodiversity frameworks, making them ideal for testing and scaling sustainable development strategies. For Dabard et al. [21], the legitimacy of BRs is enhanced when they are perceived as inclusive, transparent, and responsive to local needs. This legitimacy fosters community engagement, which is essential for both sustainable development and the safeguarding of cultural and natural heritage.

Second, legitimation theory also explains how BRs can serve as policy laboratories. When BRs are seen as legitimate, they are more likely to attract funding, stakeholder collaboration, and policy support, enabling them to pilot innovative approaches that can be scaled or replicated elsewhere. For example, transboundary conservation initiatives like the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park show how legitimacy at multiple governance levels (local, national, and international) is crucial for success [24].

Third, BRs demonstrate community involvement and cultural heritage preservation. BRs emphasize participatory governance, involving local and indigenous communities in decision-making [25,26,27]. This not only enhances the legitimacy and effectiveness of conservation efforts but also safeguards intangible cultural heritage [28].

Fourth, BRs serve as platforms for co-producing knowledge between scientists, policymakers, and local stakeholders. This fosters adaptive management practices that are responsive to environmental and social changes.

Because BRs are internationally recognized yet locally managed, they offer a unique space for policy innovation. Successful models developed in BRs can be replicated in other regions, contributing to broader SDGs.

3. Context of This Study

Previous research has indirectly highlighted the critical role of BRs in enhancing SDGs under the lens of legitimacy theory. For instance, related to community participation in the effectiveness of BRs management, Stoll-Kleemann et al. [25] conducted two parallel global surveys that provide compelling evidence of the positive correlation between participatory governance and successful BR outcomes. Their study demonstrated that inclusive management approaches, which actively engage local stakeholders, contribute significantly to the legitimacy, adaptability, and resilience of conservation strategies. These findings emphasize that community involvement is not merely a procedural formality but a foundational element for achieving the integrated goals of conservation, development, and logistic support within BRs.

In 2017, under the theme “Spanish Biosphere Reserves: Territory, Culture, Nature, and Sustainability”, the Second Spanish Congress of BRs was held in the Ordesa-Viñamala BR. During this event, the Action Plan for the SNBR for 2017–2025 was approved. This plan was developed from a preliminary document based on the Lima Action Plan for UNESCO’s MaBP and its World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WRBRs) (2016–2025). All these programs share the objective of integrating the guidelines and proposals of the SDGs. These documents emphasize that UNESCO BRs should function as sites of excellence, serving as territorial, social, and environmental instruments for achieving the SDGs. In doing so, they support the implementation of sustainable socio-economic models.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. First Step: Visibility of the SDGs in the SNBRs

In 2024, an initial analysis and diagnostic assessment were conducted to evaluate the visibility of the SNBRs in relation to the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda. This study aimed to assess both the degree of compliance and the extent to which actions undertaken thus far have been made visible. This assessment consisted of analysing the websites of the various BRs, as well as informational materials and publications disseminated through media. It represents a step toward a more comprehensive diagnostic self-assessment process to be carried out by the BRs’ managers.

To determine the visibility of the SDGs within the BRs, the analysis focused on four key criteria:

(i)

The Presence of the SDG Logo on the Official Websites:

The growing importance of visually and clearly communicating a commitment to sustainability is a key factor that justifies the use of this criterion. The presence of the SDG logo on a website signals an explicit commitment to these goals and enhances visitors’ understanding of the organization’s objectives and actions.

(ii)

Availability of Information on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development:

By their very nature, BRs are closely aligned with the principles of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. However, the way this information is presented and the extent to which the SDGs are addressed can vary significantly from one reserve to another.

(iii)

Accessibility of the Action Plan on the Website:

All BRs are required to have a policy, action, or management plan, as this document is mandatory and serves to achieve the declared objectives of the BR in a structured and measurable manner, as stated in the Technical Guidelines for BRs [3].

(iv)

Dissemination of Activities Related to the SDGs:

By making this information visible and sharing it, the important role that BTs play in building a more sustainable future is effectively promoted.

4.2. Second Step: The Managers’ Diagnostic

Also, in 2024, a survey was designed and sent to the managers responsible for the BRs within the SNBR to assess the degree of implementation, engagement, and concern regarding the achievement of the SDGs, as well as the existence or absence of a 2030 Agenda within the reserves. The questionnaire also inquired about the presence of good practices and/or successful experiences carried out within the SNBR and their willingness to disseminate and share them.

The questionnaire utilized in this study was adapted from the Sustainability Questionnaire developed by the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities in 2019 [29]. It is an association that represents Spanish universities and promotes sustainability. While the original instrument was designed to assess the implementation of sustainable practices in university settings, including areas such as environmental management, energy efficiency, waste management, and sustainable mobility, it provided a valuable framework for evaluating sustainability in other institutional contexts. Although the original questionnaire is not publicly available, its structure and thematic focus enabled the development of a robust tool for assessing sustainability practices in these protected areas for the purposes of this research, ensuring methodological rigor and comparability with broader sustainability benchmarks.

A total of seven key areas of analysis, with their respective indicators, formed an information system that enabled the assessment of progress (Appendix A). They are the following: characterization of the BR; the 2030 Agenda and SDGs; participation of reserve managers in relation to the SDGs; commitment of the BRs to the SDGs; organization and governance; SDGs in education, learning, research, and development; SDGs, collaboration, and partnerships.

The data obtained from the questionnaires were processed using a descriptive statistical approach. Each item in the questionnaire was assigned a specific code to facilitate its organization and subsequent analysis. For post-processing, the data underwent a thorough cleaning procedure to identify and address missing values, inconsistencies, and potential outliers. Valid responses were entered into a database and analysed using descriptive statistics, which provided an overview of patterns and trends across the different BRs.

4.3. Population and Sample

Figure 1 and

Table 1. Technical sheet of this study.

Technical Information
Geographical Scope	Spain
Target Population	SNBR (55 BRs)
Data Collection Method	Questionnaire
Time Frame	July 2024–March 2025
Participants	Reserve managers
Sample Size	40 valid questionnaires
Participation Rate	72.73%

Source: The authors.

give details of the sample. As a complement, Appendix B breaks down Spain’s 55 BRs into separate blocks organized by an Autonomous Community. Each table includes the following details: name of the reserve, approximate coordinates, typology, year of designation, area (in hectares), estimated population, and approximate number of staff. All names have been maintained in their original language, as not all have English translations. First, BRs located within a single Autonomous Community in Spain are listed. Then, reserves shared between multiple Autonomous Communities or spanning more than one country (transboundary), including Spain, are included. BRs shaded in grey indicate participation in this study.

The study population consists of 55 BRs, all of which are currently part of the SNBR. Forty managers responded to the questionnaire, representing a participation rate of approximately 74 percent. Most of the BRs in the sample are located within national territory (84.4 percent), with three being transboundary (Gerês-Xurés BR, Tajo-Tejo International BR, and Meseta Ibérica BR), one intercontinental (Mediterranean Intercontinental BR), and one global (La Palma BR).

5. Results

5.1. Results Regarding the Visibility

After reviewing the information available on all the websites, it was found that only La Palma included the SDG logo. We also found that only three BRs explicitly included information about the 2030 Agenda. These are La Palma, Montseny, and Urdaibai.

Regarding the management plan, even though the UNESCO MaB Programme requires each BR to have one as a condition for its recognition, only 9 of the 55 SNBR (approximately 16%) have published theirs on their official website, and of those, 2 were outdated. After reviewing the projects and activities, it was found that 17 of the 55 SNBR (approximately 31%) have disseminated this information through their official websites. However, only 3 of them explicitly link any of their activities to the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. Figure 2 shows these findings graphically.

Although it is known that all 55 BRs are working in alignment with the SDGs, the analysis reveals significant data gaps and a lack of clearly identified action priorities—an essential element for effective policymaking. Furthermore, there is no evidence of strategic initiatives to drive the implementation of the SDGs, leaving this process to chance or to external proposals aligned with specific interests, such as the Volkswagen–UNESCO project aimed at improving sustainable mobility in several BRs.

5.2. Results Regarding the Diagnostic

Given that this study required a nuanced differentiation of opinions, a 10-point Likert scale was employed to assess the relationship between the SDGs and BRs, following the recommendation of Mohd Rokeman [30]. On this scale, where 1 indicates the lowest and 10 the highest level of alignment, the average score reflecting the perceived connection between BRs and the SDGs was 7. When asked whether the reserve they manage explicitly demonstrates its commitment to the SDGs, 60% of managers responded affirmatively.

• Sectors

In relation to sustainable development, the data reveals a clear prioritization of sectors within BRs’ engagement with sustainable development. Tourism emerges as the most prominent area of involvement, with 93.3% of managers indicating active participation. This suggests that BRs are leveraging their natural and cultural assets to promote sustainable tourism, which aligns with global trends emphasizing ecotourism as a tool for conservation and local development. However, it is important to note that ecotourism does not automatically function as a conservation tool. In certain cases, when neither the ecological footprint nor the carrying capacity of the territory is adequately considered, ecotourism can lead to unintended environmental degradation.

Following the tourism sector, agriculture and livestock, along with culture and heritage (both at 80%), also rank highly. This reflects the dual role of BRs in preserving traditional land-use practices and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. These areas are often deeply intertwined in rural contexts, where sustainable agricultural practices contribute to both environmental stewardship and cultural continuity. Education and learning (77.8%) follow closely, underscoring the importance of BRs as platforms for environmental education and knowledge exchange. This aligns with the UNESCO MaBP’s emphasis on learning for sustainability. At this point, it is necessary to point out that tradition and sustainability are not always aligned. For instance, practices that emerged after the 1950s—often derived from unsustainable models—are frequently identified as ancestral, despite not reflecting long-standing, sustainable land-use systems.

Moderate levels of engagement are reported in the domains of economy and business and social engagement (both at 62.2%). This indicates a growing, though still developing, integration of BRs into broader socio-economic systems, potentially through partnerships with local enterprises and community-based initiatives. Research (53.3%) appears slightly less emphasized, which may point to resource constraints or a need for stronger institutional linkages with academic and scientific communities. Finally, industry and commerce (44.4%) show the lowest level of involvement, possibly reflecting a cautious approach to integrating more intensive economic activities within conservation-oriented spaces.

• Barriers

The findings highlight two predominant structural barriers faced by BRs in advancing sustainable development: lack of personnel (73.3%) and insufficient funding (71.1%). These constraints are consistent with broader trends observed in protected area management, where limited human and financial resources often hinder the effective implementation of long-term sustainability strategies. Secondary challenges include the lack of cooperation with other institutions, community organizations, and/or businesses and the absence of initiatives (both at 24.4%). These figures suggest a need to strengthen multi-stakeholder collaboration and foster innovation ecosystems within and around BRs. Other notable, though less frequently cited, obstacles include lack of leadership support (17.8%), lack of interest and limited cooperation in research (both at 15.6%), knowledge gaps (13.3%), and limited training opportunities (11.1%). These issues point to deeper systemic and cultural factors that may affect the capacity of BRs to act as effective laboratories for sustainable development.

• Opportunities

The data suggest that BRs’ managers perceive several key opportunities for advancing sustainable development. The most frequently cited opportunities—each identified by 51.1% of respondents—include the following: the emergence of new development initiatives; collaboration with institutions, community organizations, and/or businesses; and interestingly, the very challenge of limited funding. This last point may reflect a recognition that financial constraints can also drive innovation, partnerships, and the search for alternative funding mechanisms.

Other significant opportunities include the need to allocate specialized personnel (33.3%), which highlights the importance of professionalization and capacity-building within reserve management teams. Economic development (28.9%), training opportunities (26.7%), and the generation of new knowledge (20%) are also seen as promising avenues, indicating a strong interest in linking conservation with socio-economic progress and education.

Less frequently mentioned, but still relevant, are opportunities in research, leadership support, and institutional recognition (each at 15.6%). These suggest that while not universally prioritized, there is a subset of reserves that see strategic value in strengthening their scientific and institutional foundations.

• Interest in sustainable development

The adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs appears to have had a moderate to significant impact on raising awareness and interest in sustainable development among BRs. Specifically, 15.6% of managers reported a substantial increase in interest, while 40% observed a moderate increase. These figures suggest that the global sustainability agenda is resonating at the local level, encouraging action and reflection within the reserves. However, the presence of 17.8% who are uncertain and 4.4% who perceive little or no increase in interest indicates that the influence of the SDGs is not uniformly felt, possibly due to contextual factors such as resource availability, institutional support, or local priorities.

• Impact of crises

Regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, 42.2% of respondents acknowledged that the health crisis influenced their sustainable development strategies or related activities. This suggests that the pandemic acted as a catalyst for rethinking priorities, adapting practices, or accelerating certain initiatives. Conversely, 28.9% reported no impact, and 22.2% were unaware of any influence, pointing to a heterogeneous response across reserves. A small proportion also highlighted the effort and opportunity that the pandemic represented, hinting at a resilience-oriented perspective that views crises as openings for transformation. Together, these insights reflect the dynamic interplay between global frameworks and local realities and underscore the importance of context-sensitive approaches to sustainability planning within BRs.

In addition, more than half of the BRs surveyed (53.3%) acknowledge that economic crises have influenced their sustainable development strategies or related activities. This finding underscores the vulnerability of sustainability initiatives to broader macroeconomic conditions, which can affect funding availability, stakeholder engagement, and institutional priorities. A significant proportion of respondents (37.8%) reported uncertainty regarding the influence of economic crises. This may reflect a lack of systematic evaluation mechanisms or limited communication between management and external economic actors. Only 8.9% of managers stated that economic crises have no influence, suggesting that for the vast majority, economic instability is either a direct or indirect factor shaping their strategic decisions.

These results highlight the need for resilience-oriented planning within BRs, including the development of adaptive strategies that can withstand or respond to economic shocks. They also point to the importance of diversifying funding sources and strengthening institutional partnerships to buffer against financial volatility.

• SDG Engagement

The analysis of the managers’ responses indicates that BRs engage with all 17 SDGs to varying degrees (Figure 3). However, this engagement is often implicit and integrated into operational practices, rather than being framed as explicit strategic objectives. This suggests that while the principles of sustainable development are embedded in the day-to-day functioning of the reserves, there is still room for more deliberate alignment with the SDG framework.

This pattern is particularly evident in relation to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), which is broadly reflected in collaborative efforts, yet not always articulated as a central objective. The emphasis on partnerships aligns with the core mission of BRs as opportunities for cooperation among diverse stakeholders. Conversely, SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water) are identified as the least addressed, even at an implicit level. This may be due to the geographic and thematic focus of many reserves, which are often located in terrestrial or rural contexts where marine ecosystems are not a priority and where poverty and hunger are not always addressed through conservation-led strategies. These findings point to the need for greater strategic articulation of how BRs contribute to the SDGs, particularly those less directly connected to environmental conservation. Doing so could enhance their visibility and impact within the global sustainability agenda.

• Actions

The actions and programs implemented by BRs reflect a broad and multidimensional approach to sustainable development. These initiatives span across environmental, social, and economic domains, demonstrating the integrative nature of the SDG framework. Key areas of activity include the following:

-

Education, training, and awareness-raising, which align with SDG 4 (Quality Education) and reinforce the role of Biosphere Reserves as learning sites for sustainability.

-

Entrepreneurship, economic incentives, and support for local responsible consumption and production, which contribute to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

-

Sustainable tourism and the promotion of clean energy are directly linked to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

-

Health and well-being initiatives support SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), while environmental protection and ecosystem conservation are central to SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

-

Infrastructure improvement; research, development, and innovation projects; and the development of brands and designations of origin reflect efforts to enhance local identity and innovation, contributing to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).

• Organization and governance

The data indicate a generally positive trend regarding strategic planning for sustainable development within BRs (Figure 4). Over 70% of the reserves report having a strategic plan in place or currently under development. Specifically, 57.8% of the reserves already have a strategic plan, while an additional 13.3% are in the process of developing one. This suggests a widespread institutional commitment to structured, long-term planning aligned with sustainability goals. However, a notable 24.4% of the reserves report not having a strategic plan, and 4.4% indicate uncertainty regarding their existence. These figures highlight a gap that may reflect disparities in institutional capacity, governance structures, or access to technical and financial resources.

The presence (or absence) of strategic planning is a critical factor in the effectiveness of BRs as models for sustainable development. Strategic plans not only provide a roadmap for action but also serve as tools for coordination, stakeholder engagement, and accountability. The data reveal a more fragmented picture regarding the explicit integration of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs into the strategic frameworks of BRs. While 44.4% of the reserves report having a specific Agenda 2030 or strategic plan aimed at achieving the SDGs, and an additional 8.9% are currently developing one, a significant 46.7% indicate that they do not have such a plan in place. This distribution suggests that, although there is a growing awareness of the importance of aligning local actions with global sustainability frameworks, nearly half of the reserves have yet to formalize this alignment. The absence of a dedicated Agenda 2030 plan may reflect institutional limitations, competing priorities, or a lack of technical guidance on how to operationalize the SDGs at the local level.

The findings highlight the need for capacity-building initiatives, knowledge exchange, and policy support to ensure that all BRs can effectively contribute to the global sustainability agenda. The data indicate that most BRs (62.2%) have implemented instruments or mechanisms for the assessment, monitoring, and evaluation of sustainable development actions. This is a positive sign, as it reflects a commitment to evidence-based management and continuous improvement—key principles in adaptive governance and sustainability science. However, a significant proportion of reserves (31.1%) report not having such mechanisms in place, and 6.7% are uncertain about their existence. Management reports are the most used tool (60.7%), followed by external evaluations (35.7%) and working groups (28.6%). Less frequently used are staff surveys (17.9%) and activity/result reports (7.1%). Most reserves (71.1%) do not have a dedicated budget, while only 22.2% do. A small portion (6.7%) are unsure about the existence of such a budget.

• SDGs, Education, Learning, Research, and Development

More than half of the BRs (53.3%) do not offer specific training or courses related to the SDGs, the 2030 Agenda, or sustainable development. In contrast, 44.4% of the reserves do provide such training opportunities, while 2.2% of respondents were unaware of whether such educational offerings exist within their reserve. Only 28.9% of BRs report that the research conducted within their territories explicitly incorporates themes related to SDGs.

• SDGs, Collaboration, and Partnerships

A significant proportion of BRs (71.1%) report engaging in collaborative efforts with other reserves or institutions on matters related to the SDGs. This indicates a strong orientation toward inter-institutional cooperation, which is essential for knowledge exchange, capacity building, and the scaling of good practices across territories. Collaboration between BRs and other institutions on issues related to the SDGs occurs primarily at the regional level (43.8%), followed by the national level (37.5%), and to a lesser extent at the global level (12.5%). Notably, 40.6% of the reserves report engaging in cooperation across all three levels—regional, national, and global.

The types of instruments that influence BRs in their commitment to the 2030 Agenda are, in order of importance, as follows: regulatory instruments (e.g., legal obligations, accreditation requirements, audits, non-binding policy declarations), cited by 80% of the reserves; incentive-based instruments (e.g., financial incentives, reputation tools such as national rankings, labels, awards), mentioned by 55.6%; and capacity-building tools (e.g., guidance from specialized units, self-assessment tools, optional institutional reviewers, guidelines), identified by 46.7%.

Finally, managers expressed a strong interest in gaining deeper knowledge on: good practices from other BRs; collaboration and participation in related activities and projects; joint training actions and seminars; outreach and awareness-raising programs; publications; creation of specific working groups to foster alliances; research programs.

5.3. Successful Practices

A total of 23 good practices were identified, from which 3 were selected to exemplify the diversity of aspects considered:

• A good practice committed to cultural environmental heritage: Green Ring for Inclusion, a project carried on by the Tajo-Tejo International BR.

The project was launched during the 2022–2023 academic year and is expected to continue indefinitely. The initiative was an educational project based on the service-learning methodology. It focused on the creation of green infrastructure that implements climate change adaptation measures by enhancing urban biodiversity through the re-naturalization of degraded spaces. Simultaneously, it promoted the social inclusion of older adults and people with disabilities, while encouraging the active participation of young people from Alcántara, in the region of Extremadura in the South–West of Spain, and the surrounding areas of the Tajo-Tejo International BR. This initiative contributed to the achievement of several SDGs, including SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), highlighting its multidimensional impact on social inclusion, environmental sustainability, and participatory governance.

• A good practice committed to cultural heritage: Lives and Places with History, a project carried on by the Gerês-Xurés Transboundary BR.

The project was implemented between 2016 and 2021 in the north of Spain, in the region of Galicia, under the leadership of the Regional Authority of the Environment, with the support of the Provincial Council of Ourense, as well as several local municipalities and social actors involved in promoting citizen participation. This initiative encompassed the comprehensive study, critical analysis, and diagnostic assessment of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage within the Gerês-Xurés Transboundary BR. It aimed to promote the valorization and dissemination of this heritage, fostering cross-border cultural understanding and sustainable preservation practices. The project was aligned with several SDGs, specifically SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 15 (Life on Land), thereby reinforcing its commitment to inclusive, equitable, and environmentally sustainable development. This project, recognized as a good practice, emerged from the need to recover and document neglected intangible cultural heritage, including traditional practices, crafts and trades, legends, medicinal recipes, folk songs, and other forms of vernacular knowledge.

• A good practice committed to both environmental and cultural heritage: Building Community, a project carried on by the Gran Canaria BR.

Public participation, particularly within designated BRs, should be understood as an omnipresent, continuous, and ultimately transformative process. The de-technification of so-called participatory processes brings the opportunity to be closer to local populations through more human-centered forms, moments, environments, and dialogues. This approach invited and fostered the creation of a “biosphere community”. The project, launched in October 2024 and planned to run for a duration of four years, is being developed in the Canary Islands. It consists of organizing a series of diverse events specifically aimed at the population living within the Gran Canaria BR. These gatherings are held in spaces that encourage the participation of key local stakeholders and include a wide range of activities such as workshops, talks, panel discussions, and film forums. Among the SDGs addressed by the project, particular emphasis was placed on SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). The events tend to serve as a unifying platform for sharing experiences and knowledge about ways of living within the BR. The various participatory dynamics, developed in an environment that fostered coexistence and active engagement, aim to highlight the contributions of residents, share the challenges they faced, and reflect on proposals for building a sustainable future. Ultimately, the project aims to create shared spaces that strengthen the sense of belonging to a community with a distinct identity—spaces that serve as meeting points for dialogue, debate, and participation within the framework of the Gran Canaria BR.

6. Discussion

On the one hand, the analysis of data has revealed a notable divergence between the insights obtained from secondary sources and the perspectives expressed by the managers. While the BRs broadly align with the SDGs—as might be anticipated—noticeable disparities have emerged both between individual reserves and across the different SDGs. In addition, a range of structural barriers and critical needs have been identified, which constrain the potential for improved implementation and impact. Overall, the responses reflect a proactive outlook among managers, who identify both internal and external levers for enhancing the role of BRs as catalysts for sustainable development. The data also underscore the importance of investing in human capital, fostering institutional partnerships, and creating enabling environments for innovation and learning within BRs. The results suggest that while progress has been made, there remains a need to strengthen institutional capacities and promote the adoption of standardized evaluation frameworks across the SNBR.

On the other hand, the analysis of exemplary cases has revealed the transformative potential of sustainability-oriented projects—not only in advancing environmental goals but also in revitalizing local economies and reinforcing cultural heritage. These insights contribute to a broader understanding of how BRs can act as dynamic laboratories for sustainable development and heritage preservation.

7. Conclusions, Strategic Recommendations for BRs

In today’s interconnected world, the legitimacy of BRs is no longer just a local or national matter. Instead, it is shaped by international standards and scrutiny, such as those set by the SDGs. BRs have added SDGs compliance to their compliance with MaB (e.g., participatory governance, sustainability, scientific research) [4]. This is essential for a BR to be recognized and respected globally. For this reason, periodic reviews ensure that BRs maintain their status and credibility. Global networks like the WNBR [10] foster collaboration and benchmarking, reinforcing legitimacy through shared values and practices.

In this context, legitimation theory posits that institutions must align with societal norms and values to gain legitimacy. BRs, by integrating conservation with sustainable development and involving local communities, align with widely accepted global values. In fact, BRs are considered dynamic laboratories for achieving a balance between sustainable development and heritage preservation. To sum up, and in line with Lawrence [19], BRs are increasingly expected to align with the SDGs not only for practical impact but also to reinforce their legitimacy in a global governance context.

In this work, even acknowledging successful initiatives implemented across Spain, the study of the SDGs’ visibility has revealed a rather discouraging scenario, as only seven BRs make their commitment publicly visible through digital platforms accessible either to the network itself or to other relevant stakeholders. In addition, the analysis of the survey results has revealed several critical areas for strengthening the role of BRs in advancing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. These findings point to both structural needs and strategic opportunities:

-

Strategic Planning and Institutional Commitment: A significant proportion of BRs still lack formal strategic frameworks aligned with the SDGs. It is essential that all reserves develop and implement a dedicated Agenda 2030 or equivalent strategic plan. This should be accompanied by the allocation of specific budgets and the establishment of robust monitoring, evaluation, and assessment mechanisms to ensure accountability and progress tracking.

-

Capacity Building and Resource Allocation: The effectiveness of BRs in promoting sustainable development is constrained by limited human and financial resources. Addressing these gaps through increased staffing, targeted funding, and professional development is crucial for enhancing management efficiency and long-term impact.

-

Knowledge, Education, and Research Integration: There is a clear need to expand educational offerings and training programs focused on the SDGs, sustainable development, and related global challenges such as climate change and economic transformation. Furthermore, research activities within BRs should more systematically incorporate sustainability themes to reinforce their role as knowledge hubs and innovation platforms.

-

Visibility, Engagement, and Governance: The commitment of BRs to the SDGs must be made more visible, both within their territories and across the broader network. This includes fostering greater engagement from political leaders, reserve managers, local communities, and civil society actors in sustainability initiatives.

-

Collaboration and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships: Strengthening collaboration—both among BRs and with external institutions, community organizations, and private sector actors—is essential. Public–private partnerships and joint initiatives can amplify impact, facilitate knowledge exchange, and mobilize additional resources for sustainable development.

8. Limitations and Future Lines of Research

Although this study provides valuable insights into the integration of the SDGs within BRs, several limitations must be acknowledged. The findings are based on a specific sample of reserves, which may not fully capture the diversity of contexts and governance structures across the broader network. As such, the generalizability of the results is constrained.

The data were collected through self-reported surveys, which are inherently subject to biases such as social desirability and selective interpretation. This may affect the reliability and objectivity of the responses. Furthermore, this study offers a static view of current practices without accounting for temporal changes or long-term trends. A longitudinal approach would be necessary to assess the evolution of SDGs integration over time.

The survey design, while structured, may not have captured the full complexity of local dynamics, challenges, and innovations. The absence of complementary qualitative methods, such as interviews or case studies, limits the depth of contextual understanding. Additionally, variability in how respondents interpret key concepts—such as sustainability, strategic planning, or collaboration—may have introduced inconsistencies in the data.

These limitations suggest that future research should adopt mixed-method approaches, expand the sample size, and develop standardized frameworks to enhance comparability and depth of analysis.

To be aligned with the SDGs is of critical importance for BRs, as these territories are uniquely positioned to serve as living laboratories for sustainability. Their integrative approach to conservation, development, and cultural heritage makes them ideal platforms for testing and demonstrating innovative solutions to global challenges. For these reasons, by aligning their strategies and actions with the 2030 Agenda, BRs can not only enhance their local impact but also contribute meaningfully to global sustainability efforts. Strengthening their role in this context reinforces their relevance as models of territorial resilience, social inclusion, and ecological stewardship in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.