Economic valuation of fishery provisioning ecosystem services: a case study of Santander and Santoña bays

Abstract

[EN]The remainder of the thesis is organised into four additional chapters. Each chapter develops a distinct part of the overall argument, moving from the conceptual foundations of the research to the methodological framework, the empirical results and their broader analytical implications. Chapter 2 establishes the conceptual basis of the thesis and reviews the relevant literature. It traces the evolution from ecosystem services approaches to natural capital accounting, while also defining the key analytical concepts required for the study, including marine provisioning services, fisheries economics and resource rent. In doing so, it provides the theoretical foundation needed to situate the thesis within the broader debates on environmental valuation and accounting. Chapter 3 develops the methodological framework of the research. It details the analytical architecture through which ecosystem-dependent value is spatialised, integrating landing records, AIS-based behavioural information and cost structures within a common accounting logic. The chapter also explains how these components are organised over a high-resolution spatial grid in the Bay of Biscay in order to reconstruct the geography of fisheries-related economic value. Chapter 4 presents the empirical results of the thesis. It applies the methodological framework to the five study ports selected within the MARBEFES project and reveals the resulting geography of value in the Bay of Biscay. The chapter shows the spatial decoupling between physical extraction and economic return, identifies the macro-spatial gradient in unit profitability and examines the micro-spatial concentration of resource rent within a southern cluster of high value. Chapter 5 synthesises the main findings of the research and discusses their broader implications. It interprets the contribution of the thesis in relation to fisheries governance and marine spatial planning, reflects on the analytical significance of the framework, acknowledges the limitations of the study and identifies possible directions for future research.