Advertisement

Influence of local context variables on the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services. Evidence from San Antonio del Barrio, Oaxaca, Mexico

  • Karla Juliana Rodríguez-RobayoEmail author
  • Maria Perevochtchikova
  • Sophie Ávila-Foucat
  • Gabriela De la Mora De la Mora
Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is the main economic instrument developed for natural resource conservation. Evidence has shown the importance of local context in PES design and implementation and the complexity of defining and specifying that context. Using the socio-ecological systems framework, through surveys and interviews conducted in San Antonio, an indigenous community in Mexico with a forest socio-ecological system, this paper analyzes 13 variables as a way to approximate local context. The results show that the main contextual variables are forest cover, opportunity costs, livelihood, income, motivations and attitudes toward conservation, confidence and cooperation, traditional management practices, internal organization, land tenure, rules for the management and use of natural resources, presence and history of non-governmental organizations, economic and conservation history and distance to markets. In addition, the analysis of local context and PES outcomes in San Antonio leads us to conclude that a close relationship exists between the local context variables and the variables defined as causes of the PES outcomes.

Keywords

Payments for environmental services Local context Socio-ecological systems Economic instruments for natural resource conservation Livelihoods 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thanks to the community members of San Antonio for sharing their PES experience with us and to the external actors for the time invested answering the extensive interviews. We also wish to acknowledge the Postdoctoral Fellowships Program of National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Coordination of Humanities and Social Research Institute, the National Problems Project No. 246947 of the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT). Thank you to Elvira Duran and Carolina Navarrete for their valuable help in data collection, to Arturo Ramos for the elaboration of Fig. 1, and to American Journal Experts for their editing services.

References

  1. Alix-Garcia, J., Sims, K., Yanez-Pagans, P., Radeloff, V., & Shapiro, E. (2015). Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in programs of payments for ecosystem services. American Economic Journal—Economic Policy, 7(4), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderies, J., Janssen, M., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anta, S. (2010). Ordenamiento territorial comunitario. In J. Carabias, J. Sarukhán, J. de la Maza, & C. Galindo (Eds.), Patrimonio natural de México. Cien casos de éxito. Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.Google Scholar
  4. Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  5. Balvanera, P., Uriarte, M., Almeida-Leñero, L., Altesor, A., De Clerck, F., Gardner, T., et al. (2012). Ecosystem services research in Latin America: The state of the art. Ecosystem Services, 2, 56–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder, C., Hinkel, J., Bots, P., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bray, D., Duran, E., & Molina, O. (2012). Beyond harvests in the commons: multi-scale governance and turbulence in indigenous/community conserved areas in Oaxaca, Mexico. International Journal of the Commons, 6(2), 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrasco, M., & Barkin, D. (2011). Concesiones forestales, exclusión y sustentabilidad. Lecciones desde las comunidades de la Sierra norte de Oaxaca. Desacatos, 37, 93–110.Google Scholar
  9. Chan, K., Guerry, A., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., et al. (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience, 62(8), 744–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CONAFOR, (2016). Polígonos de las zonas receptoras del programa de PSA Federal y Fondos Concurrentes en México. Retrieved November 17, 2016 from https://www.infomex.org.mx/gobiernofederal/home.action.
  11. Corbera, E., González, C., & Brown, K. (2009). Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics, 68, 443–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cranford, M., & Mourato, S. (2011). Community conservation and a two-stage approach to payments for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 71, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Departamento de Desarrollo Sostenible, Organización de Estados Americanos (DDS-OEA). (2008). Guía Conceptual y Metodológica para el Diseño de Esquemas de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales en Latino-América y el Caribe. Washington DC: DDS-OEA.Google Scholar
  14. Díaz, S., Quétier, F., Cáceres, D., Trainor, S., Pérez-Harguindeguy, N., Bret-Harte, M., et al. (2011). Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature’s benefits to society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(3), 895–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher, B., Turner, R., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68, 643–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fregoso, A. (2006). La oferta y el pago de los servicios ambientales hídricos: una comparación de diversos estudios. Gaceta Ecológica, 78, 29–46.Google Scholar
  17. Frost, P., & Bond, I. (2008). The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services. Ecological Economics, 65, 776–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galindo, C. (2010). Corredor biológico de la sierra norte. In J. Carabias, J. Sarukhán, J. de la Maza, & C. Galindo (Eds.), Patrimonio natural de México. Cien casos de éxito. Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.Google Scholar
  19. García-Mendoza, A. Ordóñez, M., Briones-Salas, M. (Ed.). (2004). Biodiversidad de Oaxaca. Mexico: Instituto de Biología Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Fondo Oaxaqueño para la conservación de la naturaleza, World Wildlife Fund.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., & Wolff, H. (2015). An institutional analysis of payment for environmental services on collectively managed lands in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 118, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Janssen, M., & Ostrom, E. (2006). Chapter 30 Governing social-ecological systems. In L. Tesfatsion & J. Kenneth (Eds.), Handbook of computational economics (Vol. 2). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Lapeyre, R., Pirard, R., & Leimona, B. (2015). Payments for environmental services in Indonesia: What if economic signals were lost in translation? Land Use Policy, 46, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Licha, I. (2000). El análisis del entorno: Herramienta de la gerencia social. Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, Instituto Interamericano para el Desarrollo (INDES).Google Scholar
  24. López, G., Espinoza, J., Espinosa, J., Jolalpa, J., & Vélez, A. (2014). Variables del contexto nacional e internacional en los sistemas de producción lecheros mexicanos. AGROFAZ, 14(1), 15–31.Google Scholar
  25. Martínez-Alier, J., & Roca, J. (2001). Economía ecológica y política ambiental (2nd ed.). España: Fondo de cultura económica de España.Google Scholar
  26. Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Del Amo, D. G., et al. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One, 7(6), e38970.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayran, K., & Paquin, M. (2004). Pago por servicios Ambientales: Estudio y evaluación de esquemas vigentes. Montreal: Unisféra International Centre, CCA.Google Scholar
  28. McElwee, P. (2012). Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? Geoforum, 43, 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGinnis, M., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social–ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merino, L., Martínez, E. (2014). A vuelo de pájaro. Las condiciones de las comunidades con bosques templados en México. Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, CONABIO.Google Scholar
  31. Molina, S., Pérez, J., & Herrera, M. (2014). Assessment of environmental payments on indigenous territories: The case of Cabecar-Talamanca, Costa Rica. Ecosystem Services, 8, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Molina-González, O. (2011). Análisis de las instituciones de gobernanza multi-escala para la acción colectiva de conservación de la naturaleza en la Chinantla, Oaxaca, México. Tesis para obtener grado de M.Sc. en Conservación y aprovechamiento de recursos naturales. Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional, Unidad Oaxaca. Instituto Politécnico Nacional.Google Scholar
  33. Molnar, J. L., & Kubiszewski, I. (2012). Managing natural wealth: Research and implementation of ecosystem services in the United States and Canada. Ecosystem Services, 2, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morales, I. (2013). La vida entorno al café: Marginación social de pequeños productores en San Pedro Cafetitlán, Oaxaca, México. Diálogos: Revista de Historia, 14(1), 79–96.Google Scholar
  35. Nieratka, L., Bray, D., & Mozumder, P. (2015). Can payments for environmental services strengthen social capital, encourage distributional equity, and reduce poverty? Conservation and Society, 13(4), 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Panelli, R. (2002). Young rural lives: Strategies beyond diversity. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(2), 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perevochtchikova, M. (2016). Estudio de los efectos del programa de pago por servicios ambientales. Experiencia en Ajusco, México. Mexico: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
  38. Perevochtchikova, M., & Ochoa, M. (2012). Avances y limitantes del programa de pago por servicios ambientales hidrológicos en México, 2003–2009. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales, 3(10), 89–112.Google Scholar
  39. Perevochtchikova, M., & Rojo Negrete, I. (2015). The actors’ perception about Payment schemes for Ecosystem Services. Study case of San Miguel and Santo Tomás Ajusco Community, Mexico. Ecosystem Services, 14, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. RAN. (2017). Tierras de uso común. Entidad Federativa Oaxaca. Retrieved March 15, 2017 from http://datos.ran.gob.mx/filescd/dgcat/ran_da_dgcat_poligonos_tierras_uso_comun_oax.kml.
  41. Rico, L., Ruiz, M., Reyes, F., Barraza, S., & Contreras, E. (2011). Efficiency of payments for environmental services: equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas. Mexico. Ecological Economics, 70, 2361–2368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Great Britain: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Rodríguez-Robayo, K., & Ávila-Foucat, S. (2013). Instrumentos económicos voluntarios para la conservación: una mirada a su surgimiento y evolución en México. Sociedad y Economía, 25, 75–106.Google Scholar
  44. Rodríguez-Robayo, K., Ávila-Foucat, V., & Maldonado, J. (2016). Indigenous communities’ perception regarding payments for environmental services programme in Oaxaca Mexico. Ecosystem Services, 17, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rodríguez-Robayo, K., & Merino-Pérez, L. (2017). Contextualizing context in the analysis of payment for environmental services. Ecosystem Services, 23, 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saldaña-Herrera, D. (2013). Sistematización y documentación de mecanismos locales de pago por servicios ambientales en México. USAID.Google Scholar
  47. Sastre, S. (2008). Análisis de la gestión forestal comunitaria y sus implicaciones sociales en Ixtlán de Juarez, Thesis of Forestry Engineer. Madrid: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.Google Scholar
  48. SEMARNAT. (2012). Evaluando el desempeño del Gobierno Federal 20072012. Retrieved November 10, 2012 from http://www.ceesp.org.mx/sites/default/files/Home/pdf/SEMARNAT.pdf.
  49. Toledo, V. (1999). El otro zapatismo: Luchas indígenas de inspiración ecológica en México. Ecología Política, 18, 11–22.Google Scholar
  50. Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., & Windey, C. (2015). Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate. Ecological Economics, 120, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Vleet, E., Bray, D., & Durán, E. (2016). Knowing but not knowing: Systematic conservation planning and community conservation in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca, Mexico. Land Use Policy, 59, 504–5015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Velasco, A., Durán, E., Rivera, R., & Bray, D. (2014). Cambios en la cobertura arbolada de comunidades indígenas con y sin iniciativas de conservación, en Oaxaca, México. Investigaciones Geográficas, 83, 55–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Council of Science and TechnologyCenter for Geospatial Information Science ResearchMerida CityMexico
  2. 2.Center for Demographic, Urban and Environmental StudiesEl Colegio de MexicoMexico CityMexico
  3. 3.Institute for Economic ResearchNational Autonomous University of MexicoMexico CityMexico
  4. 4.Regional Center for Multidisciplinary ResearchNational Autonomous University of MexicoMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations