Advertisement

Lessons Learned About Collaborating Across Coupled Natural-Human Systems Research on Mexico’s Payments for Hydrological Services Program

  • Erin C. PischkeEmail author
  • Z. Carter Berry
  • Randall K. Kolka
  • Jacob Salcone
  • Diana Córdoba
  • Xoco Shinbrot
  • Sergio Miguel López Ramirez
  • Kelly W. Jones
  • Russell G. Congalton
  • Robert H. Manson
  • Juan José Von Thaden Ugalde
  • Theresa Selfa
  • V. Sophie Avila Foucat
  • Heidi Asbjornsen
Chapter

Abstract

Payments for ecosystem services have become common policy tools used by governments to mitigate the damaging impacts of threats to natural systems. Our transdisciplinary, international research team encompassed 35 interdisciplinary scientists, students, and non-academic partners who collectively studied the impacts that the Mexican government’s payments for hydrological services program has had on the surrounding landscape and people. The overarching goal of our research was to advance understanding of interactions and feedbacks between payments for hydrological services policies and coupled social-ecohydrological systems in two watersheds in Veracruz, Mexico. In this chapter, we present the challenges that our team faced while conducting this research, as well as our achievements, not only in terms of generating new scientific knowledge about complex natural-human systems but also to developing transdisciplinary approaches that have the potential to impact policy.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation’s Coupled Human and Natural Systems (CNH) program #1313804. The authors do not declare any conflicts of interest and any errors or misinterpretations are the responsibility of the authors.

References

  1. Alix-Garcia, J. M., Shapiro, E. N., & Sims, K. R. (2012). Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. Land Economics, 88(4), 613–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alix-Garcia, J. M., Sims, K. R., & Yañez-Pagans, P. (2015). Only One Tree from Each Seed? Environmental Effectiveness and Poverty Alleviation in Mexico’s Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(4), 1–40.Google Scholar
  3. Asbjornsen, H., Goldsmith, G. R., Alvarado-Barrientos, M. S., Rebel, K., Van Osch, F. P., Rietkerk, M., et al. (2011). Ecohydrological Advances and Applications in Plant–Water Relations Research: A Review. Journal of Plant Ecology, 4(1–2), 3–22.Google Scholar
  4. Asbjornsen, H., Manson, R. H., Scullion, J. J., Holwerda, F., Muñoz-Villers, L. E., Alvarado-Barrientos, M. S., et al. (2017). Interactions Between Payments for Hydrologic Services, Landowner Decisions, and Ecohydrological Consequences: Synergies and Disconnection in the Cloud Forest Zone of Central Veracruz, Mexico. Ecology and Society, 22(2).Google Scholar
  5. Asbjornsen, H., Mayer, A. S., Jones, K. W., Selfa, T., Saenz, L., Kolka, R. K., et al. (2015). Assessing Impacts of Payments for Watershed Services on Sustainability in Coupled Human and Natural Systems. BioScience, 65(6), 579–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstein, J. H. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A Review of Its Origins, Development, and Current Issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1), Article R1. Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/510/412.
  7. Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., et al. (2009). Citizen Science: A Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge and Scientific Literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., Persson, U. M., et al. (2017). The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services. World Development, 96, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bray, D. B., Antinori, C., & Torres-Rojo, J. M. (2006). The Mexican Model of Community Forest Management: The Role of Agrarian Policy, Forest Policy and Entrepreneurial Organization. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(4), 470–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brouwer, R., Tesfaye, A., & Pauw, P. (2011). Meta-Analysis of Institutional-Economic Factors Explaining the Environmental Performance of Payments for Watershed Services. Environmental Conservation, 38(4), 380–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004). Hydrological Functions of Tropical Forests: Not Seeing the Soil for the Trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 104(1), 185–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruijnzeel, L. A., Mulligan, M., & Scatena, F. N. (2011). Hydrometeorology of Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Emerging Patterns. Hydrological Processes, 25(3), 465–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buizer, M., Ruthrof, K., Moore, S. A., Veneklaas, E. J., Hardy, G., & Baudains, C. (2015). A Critical Evaluation of Interventions to Progress Transdisciplinary Research. Society & Natural Resources, 28(6), 670–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bunker, D. E., DeClerck, F., Bradford, J. C., Colwell, R. K., Perfecto, I., Phillips, O. L., et al. (2005). Species Loss and Aboveground Carbon Storage in a Tropical Forest. Science, 310(5750), 1029–1031.Google Scholar
  15. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping Ecosystem Service Supply, Demand and Budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruyere, B., & Rappe, S. (2007). Identifying the Motivations of Environmental Volunteers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Calvet-Mir, L., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Fisher, J., & Gross-Camp, N. (2015). Payments for Ecosystem Services in the Tropics: A Closer Look at Effectiveness and Equity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crall, A. W., Renzl, M., Panke, B., & Newman, G. J. (2012). Is There a Role for the Public in Monitoring Invasive Species? Plant Sciences Reviews, 2011, 41–47.Google Scholar
  19. Deng, J., Sun, P., Zhao, F., Han, X., Yang, G., & Feng, Y. (2016). Analysis of the Ecological Conservation Behavior of Farmers in Payment for Ecosystem Service Programs in Eco-environmentally Fragile Areas Using Social Psychology Models. Science of the Total Environment, 550, 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Follett, R., & Strezov, V. (2015). An analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns. PLoS One, 10(11), e0143687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gleick, P. H. (1998). Water in Crisis: Paths to Sustainable Water Use. Ecological Applications, 8(3), 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldman-Benner, R. L., Benitez, S., Boucher, T., Calvache, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., et al. (2012). Water Funds and Payments for Ecosystem Services: Practice Learns from Theory and Theory Can Learn from Practice. Oryx, 46(1), 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grieg-Gran, M., Porras, I., & Wunder, S. (2005). How Can Market Mechanisms for Forest Environmental Services Help the Poor? Preliminary Lessons from Latin America. World Development, 33(9), 1511–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grillos, T. (2017). Economic vs Non-material Incentives for Participation in an In-kind Payments for Ecosystem Services Program in Bolivia. Ecological Economics, 131, 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grima, N., Singh, S. J., Smetschka, B., & Ringhofer, L. (2016). Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the Performance of 40 Case Studies. Ecosystem Services, 17, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hayes, T. M. (2012). Payment for Ecosystem Services, Sustained Behavioural Change, and Adaptive Management: Peasant Perspectives in the Colombian Andes. Environmental Conservation, 39(2), 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Hickey, G. M., & Nitschke, C. R. (2005). Crossing disciplinary Boundaries in Forest Research: An International Challenge. The Forestry Chronicle, 81(3), 321–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S., & Wiesmann, U. (2006). Implications of Transdisciplinarity for Sustainability Research. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holwerda, F., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Muñoz-Villers, L. E., Equihua, M., & Asbjornsen, H. (2010). Rainfall and Cloud Water Interception in Mature and Secondary Lower Montane Cloud Forests of Central Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Hydrology, 384(1–2), 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ingram, J. C., Wilkie, D., Clements, T., McNab, R. B., Nelson, F., Baur, E. H., et al. (2014). Evidence of Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Mechanism for Supporting Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods. Ecosystem Services, 7, 10–21.Google Scholar
  32. Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between Mainstreaming and Marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jarvis, A., & Mulligan, M. (2011). The Climate of Cloud Forests. Hydrological Processes, 25(3), 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jenerette, G. D., Marussich, W. A., & Newell, J. P. (2006). Linking Ecological Footprints with Ecosystem Valuation in the Provisioning of Urban Freshwater. Ecological Economics, 59(1), 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplowitz, M. D., Lupi, F., & Arreola, O. (2012). Local Markets for Payments for Environmental Services: Can Small Rural Communities Self-Finance Watershed Protection? Water Resources Management, 26(13), 3689–3704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lebel, L., & Daniel, R. (2009). The Governance of Ecosystem Services from Tropical Upland Watersheds. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(1), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leimona, B., van Noordwijk, M., de Groot, R., & Leemans, R. (2015). Fairly Efficient, Efficiently Fair: Lessons from Designing and Testing Payment Schemes for Ecosystem Services in Asia. Ecosystem Services, 12, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, J., Yang, H., Gosling, S. N., Kummu, M., Flörke, M., Pfister, S., et al. (2017). Water Scarcity Assessments in the Past, Present, and Future. Earth’s Future, 5(6), 545–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manson, R., Barrantes, G., & Petersen, P. B. (2013). Lecciones de Costa Rica y México para el desarrollo y fortalecimiento de programas de pago por servicios ambientales hidrológicos en América Latina. Servicios Ecosistémicos Hídricos: Estudios de Caso en América Latina y El Caribe. Valdivia, Chile. Red ProAgua CYTED, Imprenta America, 245–170.Google Scholar
  40. McAfee, K., & Shapiro, E. N. (2010). Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mexico: Nature, Neoliberalism, Social Movements, and the State. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(3), 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mokondoko, P., Manson, R. H., & Pérez-Maqueo, O. (2016). Assessing the Service of Water Quality Regulation by Quantifying the Effects of Land Use on Water Quality and Public Health in Central Veracruz, Mexico. Ecosystem Services, 22, 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mokondoko, P., Manson, R. H., Ricketts, T. H., & Geissert, D. (2018). Spatial Analysis of Ecosystem Service Relationships to Improve Targeting of Payments for Hydrological Services. PLoS One, 13(2), e0192560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moros, L., Vélez, M. A., & Corbera, E. (2019). Payments for Ecosystem Services and Motivational Crowding in Colombia’s Amazon Piedmont. Ecological Economics, 156, 468–488.Google Scholar
  44. Muñoz-Villers, L. E., Holwerda, F., Gómez-Cárdenas, M., Equihua, M., Asbjornsen, H., Bruijnzeel, L. A., et al. (2012). Water Balances of Old-Growth and Regenerating Montane Cloud Forests in Central Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Hydrology, 462, 53–66.Google Scholar
  45. Munoz-Villers, L. E., Holwerda, F., Susana Alvarado-Barrientos, M., Geissert, D., Marin-Castro, B., Gomez-Tagle, A., et al. (2015). Hydrological Effects of Cloud Forest Conversion in Central Veracruz, Mexico. BOSQUE, 36(3), 395–407.Google Scholar
  46. Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J. M., & Braña, J. (2008). Paying for the Hydrological Services of Mexico’s Forests: Analysis, Negotiations and Results. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Muñoz-Villers, L. E., & McDonnell, J. J. (2013). Land Use Change Effects on Runoff Generation in a Humid Tropical Montane Cloud Forest Region. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(9), 3543–3560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., et al. (2013). Payments for Ecosystem Services and the Fatal Attraction of Win-Win Solutions. Conservation Letters, 6(4), 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nava-López, M., Selfa, T. L., Cordoba, D., Pischke, E. C., Torrez, D., Ávila-Foucat, V. S., et al. (2018). Decentralizing Payments for Hydrological Services Programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Challenges and Implications for Long-Term Sustainability. Society & Natural Resources, 31(12), 1389–1399.Google Scholar
  50. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., et al. (2011). A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Science, 333, 1201609.Google Scholar
  51. Perevochtchikova, M., Tamayo, O., & Milena, A. (2012). Avances y limitantes del programa de pago de servicios ambientales hidrológicos en México, 2003–2009. Revista mexicana de ciencias forestales, 3(10), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Porras, I. T., Grieg-Gran, M., & Neves, N. (2008). All That Glitters: A Review of Payments for Watershed Services in Developing Countries (No. 11). London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  53. Postel, S. L., & Thompson, Jr, B. H. (2005, May). Watershed Protection: Capturing the Benefits of Nature’s Water Supply Services. In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 98–108). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. M. (2010). Ecosystem Service Bundles for Analyzing Tradeoffs in Diverse Landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11), 5242–5247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robertson, M., BenDor, T. K., Lave, R., Riggsbee, A., Ruhl, J. B., & Doyle, M. (2014). Stacking Ecosystem Services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(3), 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saldaña-Herrera, J. (2013). Sistematización y documentación de mecanismos locales de pago por servicios ambientales en México. Informe Final, USAID, Guadalajara, Mexico.Google Scholar
  57. Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A., & Jenkins, M. (2018). The Global Status and Trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3), 136.Google Scholar
  58. Sanchez, A. M. R. (2015). The Payment for Hydrological Environmental Services. Examining the Experiences of Costa Rica, Mexico, Ecuador and Colombia. Ambiente y Desarrollo, 19(36), 89–104.Google Scholar
  59. Stanton, T., Echavarria, M., Hamilton, K., & Ott, C. (2010). State of Watershed Payments: An Emerging Marketplace. Ecosystem Marketplace.Google Scholar
  60. Strober, M. H. (2006). Habits of the Mind: Challenges for Multidisciplinary Engagement. Social Epistemology, 20(3–4), 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Ritchie, M., & Siemann, E. (1997). The Influence of Functional Diversity and Composition on Ecosystem Processes. Science, 277(5330), 1300–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Trabucco, A., Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., van Straaten, O., & Verchot, L. V. (2008). Climate Change Mitigation Through Afforestation/Reforestation: A Global Analysis of Hydrologic Impacts with Four Case Studies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 126(1–2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walker, B. H., Abel, N., Anderies, J. M., & Ryan, P. (2009). Resilience, Adaptability, and Transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wendland, K. J., Honzák, M., Portela, R., Vitale, B., Rubinoff, S., & Randrianarisoa, J. (2010). Targeting and Implementing Payments for Ecosystem Services: Opportunities for Bundling Biodiversity Conservation with Carbon and Water Services in Madagascar. Ecological Economics, 69(11), 2093–2107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilcox, B. P., Huang, Y. U. N., & Walker, J. W. (2008). Long-Term Trends in Streamflow from Semiarid Rangelands: Uncovering Drivers of Change. Global Change Biology, 14(7), 1676–1689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wright, D. R., Underhill, L. G., Keene, M., & Knight, A. T. (2015). Understanding the Motivations and Satisfactions of Volunteers to Improve the Effectiveness of Citizen Science Programs. Society & Natural Resources, 28(9), 1013–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wunder, S. (2008). Payments for Environmental Services and the Poor: Concepts and Preliminary Evidence. Environment and Development Economics, 13(3), 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wunder, S. (2015). Revisiting the Concept of Payments for Environmental Services. Ecological Economics, 117, 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin C. Pischke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Z. Carter Berry
    • 2
  • Randall K. Kolka
    • 3
  • Jacob Salcone
    • 11
  • Diana Córdoba
    • 5
  • Xoco Shinbrot
    • 4
  • Sergio Miguel López Ramirez
    • 6
  • Kelly W. Jones
    • 4
  • Russell G. Congalton
    • 7
  • Robert H. Manson
    • 8
  • Juan José Von Thaden Ugalde
    • 8
  • Theresa Selfa
    • 9
  • V. Sophie Avila Foucat
    • 10
  • Heidi Asbjornsen
    • 7
  1. 1.University of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.Schmid College of Science and TechnologyChapman UniversityOrangeUSA
  3. 3.USDA Forest ServiceNorthern Research Station, Center for Research on Ecosystem ChangeGrand RapidsUSA
  4. 4.Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  5. 5.School of Environmental StudiesUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  6. 6.Michigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA
  7. 7.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  8. 8.Instituto de Ecología, A.C.XalapaMexico
  9. 9.Department of Environmental Studies, College of Environmental Science and ForestryState University of New YorkSyracuseUSA
  10. 10.Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones EconómicasMexicoMexico
  11. 11.UN EnvironmentGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations