Future Land Use Change Dynamics in Natural Protected Areas

Madrid Region Case Study

Marta Gallardo

and Javier Martínez-Vega

Department of Geography, University of Murcia, Santo Cristo 1, 30001 Murcia, Spain

Institute of Economics, Geography and Demography, Spanish National Research Council,

Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid, Spain

Keywords: Land Use Changes, Land Use Scenarios, Natural Protected Areas, Region of Madrid, Spain.

Abstract: Natural protected areas are declared to safeguard their environment, goods and services. However,

sometimes they are affected by land use changes related to human activity, which affects their ecosystem

functions and their sustainability. Problems such as fragmentation or low habitat connectivity are some of

its consequences. Developing future land use scenarios is essential if a preventive approach to the

management of protected areas is to be adopted. In this paper, three different land use change scenarios in

natural protected areas in Madrid region are modelled: a “business as usual” scenario, an economic crisis

scenario and a green scenario. All protected areas are studied, from National and Nature Parks to Special

Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas; changes in a buffer area of 5 km around PAs are also

studied. The CLUE model (based on logistic regression) is used. Biophysical, socio-economic and

accessibility factors and incentives and restrictions are considered. In recent decades, the region of Madrid

has experienced intense urban and infrastructure development (48,332 ha). Protected areas have been

affected by this urbanization process (almost 5,000 ha) and its surroundings (30,000 ha). These findings

should alert land use planners and the managers of protected areas to the potential threats.

1 INTRODUCTION

Natural protected areas occupy nowadays 15.4% of

the land area and of continental and inland waters,

3.4% of the global ocean area, 8.4% of marine areas

covered by national jurisdictions and 10.9% of

coastal waters (Juffe-Bignoli et al. 2014). In Spain,

from 1990 to 2013 the number of protected natural

areas multiplied by 7 and their surface area tripled

(EUROPARC-España 2014). Over 27% of the

surface occupied by terrestrial ecosystems are

protected by national, European or worldwide

networks. Within the EU, Spain is the largest

contributor to the Natura 2000 network.

In spite of their importance, Protected Areas

(PAs) are increasingly under threat from factors such

as climate change (Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015), land

use / land cover (LULC) changes (Martínez-

Fernández et al. 2015), deforestation (FRA 2010),

forest fires (Chuvieco et al. 2013), habitat

fragmentation (Dantas de Paula et al. 2015),

propagation of invasive species (Lei et al. 2014),

urban pressure (McDonald 2013) and public use

(López Lambas and Ricci 2014).

Land-use change is a matter of concern for the

scientific community. Spatio-temporal analysis can

be used for a number of purposes (Lambin et al.

2001): (1) to observe LULC changes in the past and

explore the factors explaining them, (2) to simulate

possible environmental and socio-economic impacts,

and (3) to assess the influence of political

alternatives in order to improve planning.

However, little is known about LUCC trends at

different protection levels. Recent studies have

focused on analysing changes in protected areas of

differing importance and in the unprotected areas

around them (Romero-Calcerrada et al. 2004; Ruiz-

Benito et al. 2010; Hewitt et al. 2016). It is

important to simulate future land-use scenarios so

that a dual approach can be adopted in preventive

planning for protected areas and their surroundings

(Martinuzzi et al. 2015). The simulated scenarios

and initial knowledge of their consequences for

landscape structure could be a good starting-point

370

Gallardo, M. and Martinez-Vega, J.

Future Land Use Change Dynamics in Natural Protected Areas - Madrid Region Case Study.

DOI: 10.5220/0006387903700377

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management (GISTAM 2017), pages 370-377

ISBN: 978-989-758-252-3

for discussion and for reaching agreements between

local communities and managers of protected areas.

The objective of this paper is to simulate LULC

in 2025 in PAs and their surrounding areas in the

region of Madrid using the free software CLUE,

based on logistic regression. LUCC that took place

between 1990 and 2006 and the changes expected by

2025 are analysed in order to determine trends and

threats arising inside and around PAs.

2 STUDY AREA

The Madrid region covers an area of 8,027 km

and

in 2016 had a population of 6,436,996 inhabitants

(http://www.madrid.org/iestadis, last accessed

February 18, 2017). It is the most densely populated

region in Spain with about 800 inhabitants /km

In the region of Madrid, PAs occupy 329,164 ha,

equivalent to 41% of the region’s total surface area

(Figure 1).

Figure 1: Study area. Different types of protected areas

and buffer. Madrid region, Spain.

Table 1 shows these PAs, listing them in order of

protection – from greatest to least. 15% of the

Madrid Region is protected in SACs (Special Areas

of Conservation), 12% in Regional Parks (RP), 10%

in an SPA (Special Protection Area), about 3%

belongs to a National Park (NP) and the remaining

1% is occupied by the Peripheral Protection Zone

(PPZ) around this National Park and by a Nature

Reserve (NR). All the PAs studied contain terrestrial

ecosystems typical of the Mediterranean

biogeographic region.

A 5-km buffer zone around all the PAs in the

region was took into account. It occupies 372,865

, this is 46% of the region’s area. Its aim is to

mitigate threats to the PAs and as such it plays a

strategic role in the conservation of biodiversity.

About 13% of the region’s land surface falls outside

the scope of the study. Most of it is occupied by the

city of Madrid and by other towns within the

metropolitan area.

Table 1: Natural protected areas considered in the study.

Protected area Designation year

El Regajal-Mar de Ontígola Nature

Reserve

1994

Sierra de Guadarrama National Park 2013

Cuenca Alta del Manzanares

Regional Park

1985

Sureste Regional Park 1994

Curso medio del río Guadarrama

Regional Park

1999

Cuenca del río Lozoya y Sierra

Norte SAC

1998 / 2014*

Cuenca del río Manzanares SAC 1998 / 2014*

Cuenca del río Guadalix SAC 1998 / 2014*

Cuencas de los ríos Jarama y

Henares SAC

1998 / 2014*

Vegas, Cuestas y Páramos del

Sureste de Madrid SAC

1998 / 2014*

Encinares de los ríos Alberche y

Cofio SPA

1990

Peripheral Protection Zone

Guadarrama National Park

2013

* For the SACs, two dates are given in the “Designation

year” field. The first refers to the year when the regional

government proposed to the EU that the area be declared

an SAC. This marked the beginning of their commitment

to preventive protection in order to conserve the

biodiversity of the area’s habitats. The second date is the

actual date of the declaration, after which the

corresponding management plans were approved.

3 DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Regarding to the information related to PAs, two

sets of geographical data were selected: the updated

perimeters and their corresponding attributes for the

Nationally Designated Protected areas (NDP) in the

Madrid region and the Natura 2000 Network areas

(Nn2000), both downloaded from the Spanish

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and

Environment (MAPAMA) web page (last accessed

February 1, 2017). In order to find the dates for final

approval of the SACs, the cartography was linked

Future Land Use Change Dynamics in Natural Protected Areas - Madrid Region Case Study

371

with the Common Database on Designated Areas

(CDDA) of the European Environment Agency

(http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-

maps/data/natura-6#tab-european-data, last accessed

February 1, 2017).

Regarding to the information needed to develop

the LULC scenarios, maps from CLC project for the

years 1990, 2000 and 2006 were downloaded

(http://centrodedescargas.cnig.es/CentroDescargas/b

uscadorCatalogo.do?codFamilia=02113, last

accessed February 1, 2017). We did not consider the

most recent map (CLC 2012) because it is still under

review.

A collection of auxiliary geographic data was

taken into account in order to map the driving

factors and the restrictive and incentive factors

during design of future LULC scenarios. A Digital

Elevation Model (raster 30 m GMES RDA, EU-

DEM) was used to generate altitude and slope maps.

Roads, rivers and railway stations (Numerical

Cartographic Base 1:100,000, obtained from the

Spanish National Geographical Institute) were

considered to calculate cost of transport and

distances to the city of Madrid, to other cities, to the

airport and to the roads themselves. Other

information used was the lithological map of

Madrid, the map of public-utility forest areas

(Regional Government of Madrid), PA zoning in the

region (Autonomous Body for National Parks) and

specific legislation on land and territorial planning

(General Urban Land Plan for Madrid for 1997, Law

9/2001 of 17 July on land in the Region of Madrid,

Law 9/1995 of 28 March on measures for territorial

policy, land and planning, and Law 3/1991 of 7

March on roads in the Region of Madrid).

CLC vector maps were converted to 50*50m

pixel size raster format. To simulate future LULC in

2025, a simplification of CLC legend was made,

from CLC level 3 to seven categories was made: (1)

urban fabric, (2) industrial and commercial, (3)

arable land and permanent crops, (4) heterogeneous

agricultural areas, (5) forests, (6) shrubs and

herbaceous vegetation, and (7) others (open spaces

with little vegetation, wetlands and water bodies).

Using CLUE three different scenarios were

developed: (a) “business as usual” scenario, (b)

economic crisis scenario and (c) green scenario. The

first one, shows what would happen if the past trend

observed during 1990-2000-2006 was to continue

until 2025. The crisis scenario shows what would

happen if the economic crisis in Spain and the region

of Madrid was to continue until 2025. The green

scenario shows what would happen if there were

more active reforestation policies and if greater

importance was placed on the natural environment.

It does, however, take into account that Madrid is an

urban region and that built-up areas will continue to

grow. This means on the one hand, that greater

protection is offered to natural uses than in the past

and, on the other, that greater growth is assigned to

built-up land (for more information see Gallardo

2014; Gallardo et al. 2016).

LULC and driving factors were related by means

of logistic regressions (LR). Previously, correlations

between the selected variables were observed by a

Pearson’s correlation analysis. The future demand

for each land use was assigned specifying the

number of hectares for each land use in 2025, based

on what had happened in previous years. For the

trend scenario, each LULC type evolves according

to the observed past trend. For the economic crisis

scenario, experts’ opinion was included as input

data. A questionnaire was distributed among 117

experts that were asked about how much the

different LULC types could grow or decrease under

an economic crisis scenario and where these LULC

changes could preferentially be located. Finally, the

green scenario was calculated as a halfway scenario

between the trend and the economic crisis scenarios

for agricultural and artificial LULC types while for

forest and shrub and pastures, an increase of about

13 and 0.2 %, respectively, comparing to 2006 is

defined.

Calibration processes were taken into account in

order to improve the scenario results. This was done

in different ways: changing the future

demand/extension of each LULC, changing the

conversion matrix, selecting the driving factors, etc.

Taking the sequence of maps 1990-2000 as a base, a

simulation of a land-use model in 2006 was carried

out and compared it with the real map for 2006. The

amount of land-use change, the driving factors used

and/or the size or weight of the neighbourhood were

changed in order to obtain a better result. For

validation, comparisons in terms of quantity and

location were analysed. Kappa statistics, K Location

(location) and K Histogram (quantity) (Pontius

2000; Van Vliet 2009) was used. Results were

compared with a null model and a random model.

Values and maps of hits, misses and false alarms

were obtained (Eastman 2012; Sangermano et al.

2012). (See Gallardo, 2014)

PAs were analysed regarding to their level of

priority. Areas that overlapped are classified as areas

of greatest protection. In descending order, the level

of priority is as follows: (1) Nature Reserve, (2)

National Park, (3) Regional Park, (4) SAC, (5) SPA,

GAMOLCS 2017 - International Workshop on Geomatic Approaches for Modelling Land Change Scenarios

372

(6) Peripheral Protection Zone in Sierra de

Guadarrama National Park.

A 5-km buffer of unprotected area around each

PA, joining up areas that are adjacent to each other

was established. From this buffer land that might be

protected for other reasons (public-utility forest,

public waters, roads, etc.) was excluded.

Cross-tabulation matrices (Pontius 2004) were

drawn to obtain values and maps of changes

between 1990-2006 and 2006-2025, comparing the

results with the protected areas depending on their

level of priority and with the 5-km buffer.

Table 2 shows the reclassification made in order

to analyse five different processes: a)

Artificialization (ART1 and ART2), b) Agricultural

land intensification and natural areas plowing (INT-

AGR), c) Agricultural land abandonment and natural

vegetation colonization (A-AGR), d) Forest

regeneration (FRG), and e) Natural vegetation

degradation (DEGR).

Table 2: Cross-tabulation matrix showing the land use

processes analysed.

4 RESULTS

Table 3 shows the percentage by zone (types of PAs

and their surroundings) of a given change process

(from categories i, j to categories l, m) that took

place between 1990 and 2006 regarding to the total

LULC change, a period of intense change. It refers

to shows which processes are more intense in each

PA.

There are large differences depending on the

degree of protection enjoyed by the different PAs.

The Regional Park, Peripheral Protection Zone,

Special Protection Area and Special Area of

Conservation were the most affected by the growth

of urban areas. In the surrounding area, almost 69%

of the change is related with urban growth. During

these years, 10% of the urbanization was developed

inside PAs and 60% in their neighbourhoods.

However, the principal process in the PAs with

highest degree of protection is the intensification of

the agriculture in the Nature Reserve and the forest

regeneration in the National Park. Its management

plans prioritize these processes. It is also remarkable

the abandonment of land and its recolonization by

natural vegetation in the context of a traditional

dryland agriculture crisis. This process is less

intense in the buffer area because most of the

abandoned agricultural land is now urbanized.

Table 3: Principal processes that took place between 1990

and 2006 in protected areas and their surroundings, in

percentage of total change.

1990-2006 ART INT-AGR DEGR A-AGR FRG

NR 1,01 97,97 0,00 1,01 0,00

NP 0,00 0,00 28,24 0,00 71,76

RP 42,45 13,87 6,08 35,34 1,69

SAC 27,34 11,33 25,03 20,70 14,56

SPA 30,84 4,78 14,59 35,23 15,56

PPZ 40,60 0,00 0,00 0,00 59,40

BUFFER 68,90 4,56 3,32 18,71 3,78

NR Nature Reserve, NP National Park, RP Regional Park,

SAC Special Area of Conservation, SPA Special

Protection Area, PPZ Peripheral Protection Zone.

Artificialization (ART), Agricultural land intensification

and natural areas plowing (INT-AGR), Agricultural land

abandonment and natural vegetation colonization (A-

AGR), d) Forest regeneration (FRG), and e) Natural

vegetation degradation (DEGR).

Figure 2 show the location of LULC changes

and their processes in the different PAs and in its

surroundings, between 1990 and 2006. Inside the

PAs, a change gradient according to its hierarchy is

shown. In the Natural Reserve there has almost been

no change as a result of its strict regulation. In the

National Park there has been an exchange between

natural land use classes: natural vegetation losses are

associated probably with forest fires, and on the

other hand, gains in this land use are related with a

policy of promotion of forest ecosystems. It should

be noted that the National Park Sierra de

Guadarrama has recently been declared (2013);

however, its mountains were formerly included in

the Natural Park of Peñalara and in the Regional

Park of Cuenca Alta del Manzanares, both with an

strict legislation regarding to land use changes.

5.000 ha have been urbanized in the three

Regional Parks. This change is related with forest

losses in the North and with agrarian losses in the

South and East of the region. In the Regional Park

UICALHASPF

IC INT-UR

FDEGR

FR RG

A-AGR

ART1

ART2

INT- AGR

Future Land Use Change Dynamics in Natural Protected Areas - Madrid Region Case Study

373

Parque Regional del Sureste, it is noteworthy a

forest fire that destroyed almost 200 ha of pine forest

in 2003.

SAC near to Madrid have also been affected by

new urban, industrial and infrastructure areas. The

more distant ones, located in mountain

environments, have increased their forest lands

related with the agriculture abandonment. In

addition, they have also recorded important forest

fires: in 1995, a forest fire burned more than 1.000

ha of pine trees in Somosierra.

Figure 2: Land use change dynamics occurred in the

Region of Madrid between 1990 and 2006. Sources:

CLC1990, CLC2006 and perimeters of Protected Areas

(MAPAMA). Own elaboration.

In this period, one of the most dynamic PAs has

been the SPA Encinares de los ríos Alberche y

Cofio, located in the Southwest of the region. More

than 1.200 ha of agricultural land has been

abandoned. In addition, fires have burned hundreds

of hectares of pine forest. Finally, about 600 ha of

forest and agricultural land have been urbanized.

The largest patch is a new development of single-

family homes built near the San Juan reservoir.

Since 1990 no agreement has been reached between

local and regional governments to approve a

management plan in this PA. Local governments

have taken advantage and they have modified their

urban planning in favor of this type of transitions.

Biggest LULC changes are located outside the

PAs. The buffer registered the largest new

urbanizations (more than 30.000 ha). In the north,

this new developments are located in former forest

ecosystems and in the south they occupy former

agriculture lands. PAs managers consider this urban

pressure as their main threat.

Tables 4 to 6 show the percentage of total LUCC

change that might take place between 2006 and the

three different scenarios run to year 2025.

Logistic regression was evaluated using the

receiver operating characteristics (ROC), which

varied between 0.763 (for Heterogeneous agriculture

land use) and 0.852 (Urban land use). Locations of

artificial uses are more related with driving factors

associated with distances and accessibilities. Travel

cost to the city of Madrid and distances to other

cities and to the airport are the explanatory variables

which defines the location of urban uses. Location of

industrial and commercial uses is related with the

accessibility to highways and other cities and the

airport and with distances to rivers and train

network. Agriculture lands, forests and shrub and

pastures are more related with the typology of soils,

slope and distance to rivers.

A Kappa value of 0.868 was obtained comparing

the real 2006 LULC map with the “business as

usual” scenario run to year 2006. K Location was

0.869 and K Histogram 0.925. The worst-calibrated

land use was the industrial and commercial use (just

35% of hits), while the others had over 60% of hits.

Table 4: Principal processes that might take place between

2006 and 2025 in the business as usual scenario, in

protected areas and their surroundings, in percentage of

total change.

2006-2025 ART INT-AGR DEGR A-AGR FRG

NR 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

NP 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

RP 38,57 51,51 0,00 9,91 0,01

SAC 55,56 0,00 0,00 25,34 19,10

SPA 0,05 0,00 1,54 88,13 10,28

PPZ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

BUFFER 99,44 0,00 0,00 0,55 0,00

In the “business as usual” scenario (table 4) there

is no land use change expected in the Nature

Reserve and National Park. Changes in the Regional

Park may be related with an intensification of

agriculture (51.51% of the total change) and

artificialization (38.57%). In the Special Area of

Conservation and Special Protected Area will likely

be an increase of colonization of natural vegetation

due to land abandonment and also a forest

GAMOLCS 2017 - International Workshop on Geomatic Approaches for Modelling Land Change Scenarios

374

regeneration process. In the surrounding area the

most important process may be the artificialization

(almost 100% of the total change). It should be

noted that, unlike in the past years, there might be

not a big increase in the artificialization because

restriction on PA planning has taken into account in

the scenario development. It is expected that

restrictions might be respected in the future. This has

not occurred during the period 1990-2006.

Table 5: Principal processes that might take place between

2006 and 2025 in the economic-crisis scenario, in

protected areas and their surroundings, in percentage of

total change.

2006-2025 ART INT-AGR DEGR A-AGR FRG

NR 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

NP 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

RP 99,65 0,00 0,07 0,00 0,28

SAC 0,87 10,20 74,09 12,12 2,72

SPA 0,00 0,00 3,23 87,62 9,14

PPZ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 100,00

BUFFER 98,58 0,03 0,02 1,37 0,01

Table 6: Principal processes that might take place between

2006 and 2025 in the green scenario, in protected areas

and their surroundings, in percentage of total change.

2006-2025 ART INT-AGR DEGR A-AGR FRG

NR 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 100,00

NP 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

RP 9,74 0,00 0,00 18,22 72,05

SAC 12,12 0,00 0,00 2,93 84,95

SPA 0,01 0,00 1,19 55,11 43,69

PPZ 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 100,00

BUFFER 67,64 0,00 0,00 7,56 24,79

In the economic-crisis scenario and green

scenario there might be no change in the PAs with

highest protection. However, in the first one

artificialization will likely be the principal process in

the Regional Park and degradation might be the

most important process in the Special Area of

Conservation. It highlights also the change to natural

vegetation in the Special Protection Area with an

important natural colonization process and in the

Peripheral Protection Zone where the only change

might be an increase of forest regeneration.

In the green scenario the most important

processes in the different PAs may be related with

the abandonment of the agriculture and the

regeneration of the vegetation. It is expected that

policies promoted by PAs managers will encourage

these processes

Figure 3 show the location of expected LULC

changes between 2006 and 2025 in the “business as

usual” scenario.

Figure 3: Land use change dynamics expected in the

Region of Madrid between 2006 and 2025 under a

“business as usual” scenario. Sources: CLC1990,

CLC2006, perimeters of Protected Areas (MAPAMA) and

other auxiliary geographic data. Own elaboration.

In figure 3 is remarkable the expected

progression of forest ecosystems on agriculture

lands (almost 4.000 ha) and the natural regeneration

of vegetation (almost 500 ha) in the SPA located in

the Southwest of the region. This process is also

expected to occur in the south of the Regional Park

Cuenca Alta del Manzanares.

In this PA, 900 ha of urbanization is expected,

associated with the accessibility provided by A6 and

M607 highways.

In the PA neighborhoods, highlights the

expected urban and industrial increase.

In this area almost 28.000 hectares might be

added to the current urban area. The impacts that

will likely generate (soil sealing, biodiversity loss,

fragmentation, habitat isolation) are subject of

concern for environmental groups and PAs

managers.

Future Land Use Change Dynamics in Natural Protected Areas - Madrid Region Case Study

375

5 DISCUSION OF THE RESULTS

In order to update our study, it would be very useful

to have access to CLC2012. However, there has

been a change in the elaboration of its methodology,

so at the present time CLC2012 can only be

compared with CLC2006 version 18.5.

Another topic for discussion is the size of the

buffer. A width of 10 km is often used in the

literature, (Bruner et al. 2001; Figueroa and

Sánchez-Cordero 2008; Martinuzzi et al. 2015). In

the case of the region of Madrid, a 10km buffer

would be a complex solution because, with the

territorial distribution of its PAs, much of the

regional surface area would be within that buffer and

it would include ecosystems that are very different

to those represented in the PAs that were urbanised

many decades ago. Other works have used a

dynamic buffer (1km inside and 1km and 5km

outside the PA, Spracklen et al., 2015).

Scenarios show that in year 2025 it can be

expected no LULC changes in the Nature Reserve,

National Park and Peripheral Protection Zone,

except in the green scenario which will likely be

forest regeneration in the first and last ones. It can be

expected that in a green scenario, local production

and local markets may get more relevance and

diminish the need for transportation of food.

However, in an urban region such as Madrid, it is

expected that agriculture lands with biophysical

limitations (edaphic, topographical and climatic)

will be abandoned, despite the fact that local markets

may be encouraged. If this scenario comes true,

management plans will promote the regeneration of

natural vegetation.

The results obtained in our research are in line

with the findings of previous studies on land use

change in similar or nearby areas (Hewitt and

Escobar 2011; Díaz-Pacheco and Gutiérrez 2013;

Gallardo and Martínez-Vega 2016). They are also in

line with the results of future scenarios in protected

areas and their surroundings in the region of Madrid

(Ruiz-Benito et al. 2010) and in the USA

(Martinuzzi et al. 2015)

6 CONCLUSIONS

In general, agricultural areas contributed most to the

growth of urban areas. Although in relative terms

persistence is very high inside the PAs, the increase

in built-up area is a worrying process from an

ecological point of view. Naturalisation of

abandoned agricultural land is less worrying from

the ecological point of view. Revegetation affected

over 10,000 ha, about 3% of the area studied. Both

processes occurred with greater intensity in the areas

around the PAs.

In urban areas such as the Madrid region the

spill-over effect of protected areas should be

monitored. It is clear that they attract urban

developments to less protected areas around them.

Transformation of their agricultural and natural

habitats may have irreversible effects on

biodiversity. Fragmentation brings with it longer

exterior and interior edges. It can also create external

threats for protected areas such as invasion by exotic

species or the propagation of forest fires. These

threats increase the potential ecological vulnerability

of these spaces.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research received funding from the Spanish

National R&D project DISESGLOB (CSO2013-

42421-P). Marta Gallardo was sponsored by a JAE-

Predoc Grant from the Spanish National Research

Council (CSIC).

REFERENCES

Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, da Fonseca GAB.

2001. Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical

Biodiversity. Science 291: 125-128

Chuvieco E, Martínez S, Román MV, Hantson S, Pettinari

L. 2013. Integration of ecological and socio-economic

factors to assess global vulnerability to wildfire. Glob

Ecol Biogeogr 23(2):245-258. doi:10.1111/geb.12095

Dantas de Paula M, Groeneveld J, Huth A. 2015. Tropical

forest degradation and recovery in fragmented

landscapes. Simulating changes in tree community,

forest hidrology and carbon balance. Global Ecology

and Conservation 3:664–677.

doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2015.03.004

Díaz-Pacheco J, Gutiérrez J. 2013. Exploring the

limitations of CORINE Land Cover for monitoring

urban land-use dynamics in metropolitan areas.

Journal of Land Use Science.

doi:10.1080/1747423X.2012.761736

Eastman JR. 2012. IDRISI Selva. Guía para SIG y

procesamiento de imágenes. Clark University,

Worcester

Figueroa F, Sánchez-Cordero, V. 2008. Effectiveness of

natural protected areas to prevent land use and land

cover change in Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 17:3223–

3240. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9423-3

GAMOLCS 2017 - International Workshop on Geomatic Approaches for Modelling Land Change Scenarios

376

FRA. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010.

FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/

i1757e.pdf. Accessed 22 January 2017

Gallardo M. 2014. Cambios de usos del suelo y simulación

de escenarios en la Comunidad de Madrid (Changes

in land use and simulation scenarios in the region of

Madrid). Universidad Complutense, Madrid

http://eprints.ucm.es/25253/. Accessed January 2017

Gallardo M, Martínez-Vega J. 2016. Three decades of

land-use changes in the region of Madrid and how

they relate to territorial planning. Eur Plan Stud 24(5):

1016-1033 doi.10.1080/09654313.2016.1139059

Hewitt R, Escobar, F. 2011. The territorial dynamics of

fast-growing regions: Unsustainable land use change

and future policy challenges in Madrid, Spain. Appl

Geogr 31(2):650–667. doi:10.1016/

j.apgeog.2010.11.00

Hewitt, R., Pera, F. and Escobar, F. 2016. Cambios

recientes en la ocupación del suelo de los parques

nacionales españoles y su entorno. Cuadernos

Geográficos 55(2), 46-84.

Juffe-Bignoli D, Burgess ND, Bingham H, Belle EMS, de

Lima MG, Deguignet M, Bertzky B, Milam AN,

Martinez-Lopez J, Lewis E, Eassom A, Wicander S,

Geldmann J, van Soesbergen A, Arnell AP, O’Connor

B, Park S, Shi YN, Danks FS, MacSharry B, Kingston

N. 2014. Protected Planet Report 2014. UNEP-

WCMC, Cambridge https://portals.iucn.org/library/

sites/library/files/documents/2014-043.pdf. Accessed

22 January 2017

Lambin EF, Turner BLI, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen

A, Bruce JW, Coomes OT, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke

C, George PS, Homewood K, Imbernon J, Leemans R,

Li X, Moran EF, Mortimore M, Ramakrishnan PS,

Richards JF, Skänes H, Steffen W, Stone GD, Svedin

U, Veldkamp TA, Vogel C, Xu J. 2001. The causes of

land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the

myths. Glob Environ Change 11:261–269.

doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3

Lei C, Lin Z, Zhang Q. 2014. The spreading front of

invasive species in favorable habitat or unfavorable

habitat. Journal of Differential Equations 257:145-

166. doi:10.1016/j.jde.2014.03.015

López Lambas ME, Ricci S. 2014. Planning and

management of mobility in natural protected areas.

Procedia Soc Behav Sci 162:320-329.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.213

Martínez-Fernández J, Ruiz-Benito P, Zavala MA. 2015.

Recent land cover changes in Spain across

biogeographical regions and protection levels:

Implications for conservation policies. Land Use

Policy 44:62-75.

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.021

Martinuzzi S, Radeloff VC, Joppa LN, Hamilton CM,

Helmers DP, Plantinga AJ, Lewis DJ. 2015. Scenarios

of future land use change around United States’

protected areas. Biol Conserv 184:446-455.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.015

McDonald RI. 2013. Implications of Urbanization for

Conservation and Biodiversity Protection. In: Levin

SA (ed.) Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2nd edn.

Academic Press, Amsterdam, p 231–244

Pontius Jr RG. 2000. Quantification error versus location

error in comparison of categorical maps.

Photogramm

Eng and Remote Sens 66:1011-1016.

Romero-Calcerrada R, Perry GLW. 2004. The role of land

abandonment in landscape dynamics in the SPA

Encinares del rio Alberche y Cofio, Central Spain,

1984–1999. Landsc Urban Plan 66:217–232.

doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00112-9

Ruiz Benito P, Cuevas JA, Bravo de la Parra R, Prieto F,

García del Barrio JM, Zavala MA. 2010. Land use

change in a Mediterranean metropolitan region and its

periphery: assessment of conservation policies through

CORINE land cover data and Markov models. For

Syst 13(3):315–328

Ruiz-Mallén I, Corbera E, Calvo-Boyero D, Reyes-García

D. 2015. Participatory scenarios to explore local

adaptation to global change in biosphere reserves:

Experiences from Bolivia and Mexico. Environ Sci

Policy 54:398-408. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.027

Sangermano F, Toledano J, Eastman JR. 2012. Land cover

change in the Bolivian Amazon and its implications

for REDD+ and endemic biodiversity. Landsc Ecol

27:571–584. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9710-y

Spracklen BD, Kalamandeen M, Galbraith D, Gloor E,

Spracklen DV. 2015. A global analysis of

deforestation in moist tropical forest Protected Areas.

PlosOne 10(12): e0143886.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143886

Van Vliet J. 2009. Assessing the accuracy of changes in

spatial explicit land use change models. In: 12th

AGILE International Conference on Geographic

Information Science, Leibniz Universität, Hannover,

2-5 June 2009

Future Land Use Change Dynamics in Natural Protected Areas - Madrid Region Case Study

377