Advertisement

Influence of the Rural/Urban Context in the Implementation of Forest Conservation Programs in Mexico: Two Case Studies from Oaxaca and Mexico City

  • Karla Juliana Rodríguez-RobayoEmail author
  • Maria Perevochtchikova
  • Veronique Sophie Ávila-Foucat
  • Gabriela De la Mora-De la Mora
Chapter

Abstract

Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is one of the most commonly used economic instruments developed for biological conservation. Evidence has shown the importance of the local context in PES design and implementation, and the complexity of defining and specifying this context. We developed a proposal to narrow the local context, using the social-ecological system’s framework, through two case studies: San Antonio, an indigenous community in Oaxaca, Mexico, and El Ajusco, a community in the periphery of Mexico City. This chapter discusses ten variables drawn from a series of interviews to approach the local context. Four of these variables stand out because of their incidence on the way PES outcomes are perceived, and on the local context definition: opportunity costs, confidence and cooperation, internal organization, and the presence and experience of NGOs.

Keywords

Social-ecological systems Latin America Complexity Mexico Forest conservation Local context 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the interviewees (internal and external actors) for sharing their PES experience with us. We also wish to express our acknowledgments to the National Problems Project N° 246947 of the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT), and the 290832 ANR-CONACyT projects. Finally, we are grateful to Arturo Ramos for the elaboration of Fig. 1a, b.

References

  1. Abelairas-Etxebarria P, Astorkiza I (2012) Farmland prices and land-use changes in periurban protected natural areas. Land Use Policy 29:674–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alix-García J, de Janvry A, Sadoulet E (2004) Payments for environmental services: to whom, where, and how much? In: Annual meeting, American agricultural economics association, Denver, 1–4 AugGoogle Scholar
  3. Alix-Garcia J, Sims K, Orozco-Olvera V et al (2018) Payments for environmental services supported social capital while increasing land management. PNAS 115(27):7016–7021PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Almaraz M (2014) Servicios ambientales forestales y prácticas de aprovechamiento de recursos de uso común en el suelo de conservación del Distrito Federal: Caso de estudio los B.C. San Miguel y Santo Tomás Ajusco. Tesis de Licenciatura en Geografía, FFL-UNAMGoogle Scholar
  5. Balvanera P, Uriarte M, Almeida-Leñero L et al (2012) Ecosystem services research in Latin America: the state of the art. Ecosyst Serv 2:56–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bicudo da Silva R, Delgado M, Aparecida S et al (2017) Perspectives for environmental conservation and ecosystem services on coupled rural-urban systems. Perspect Ecol Conserv 15(2):74–81Google Scholar
  7. Binder C, Hinkel J, Bots P et al (2013) Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(4):26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosselmann A, Lund J (2013) Do intermediary institutions promote inclusiveness in PES programs? The case of Costa Rica. Geoforum 49:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. Int J Commons 6(2):151–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrasco M, Barkin D (2011) Concesiones forestales, exclusión y sustentabilidad. Lecciones desde las comunidades de la Sierra norte de Oaxaca. Desacatos 37:93–110Google Scholar
  11. CEPAL, PNUMA, SEMARNAP (1998) Instrumentos económicos para la gestión ambiental en América Latina y el Caribe. SEMARNAP, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  12. Chávez C (2011) Identidad y luchas por las tierras en San Miguel y Santo Tomás Ajusco. Tesis de licenciatura en Arqueología, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e HistoriaGoogle Scholar
  13. CONANP (2016) Áreas destinadas voluntariamente a la conservación. https://www.gob.mx/conanp/acciones-y-programas/areas-destinadas-voluntariamente-a-la-conservacion. Accessed 21 June 2018
  14. Corbera E, González C, Brown K (2009) Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecol Econ 68:443–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costanza R, D’Arge R, De Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cranford M, Mourato S (2011) Community conservation and a two-stage approach to payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 71:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daily G (1997) Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Denham D (2017) Community forest owners evaluate a decade of payment for ecosystem services in the Mexican cloud forest: the importance of attention to indigenous sovereignty in conservation. Soc Nat Resour 30:1064–1079.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1295495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dietz F, Vollebergh H (2002) Explaining instrument choice in environmental policies. In: Van den Bergh J (ed) Handbook of environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  20. DOF (1975) Resolución sobre reconocimiento y titulación de bienes comunales del poblado denominado San Miguel Ajusco, Delegación de Tlalpan, DF, 03/01/1975. MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  21. Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65:663–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher B, Turner R, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frost P, Bond I (2008) The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services. Ecol Econ 65:776–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. George A, Pierret A, Boonsaner C et al (2009) Potential and limitations of payments for environmental services (PES) as a means to manage watershed services in mainland Southeast Asia. Int J Commons 3(1):16–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas P et al (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 69:1209–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanley N, Shogren J, White B (2007) Environmental economics in theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Hejnowicz A, Raffaelli D, Rudd M et al (2014) Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework. Ecosyst Serv 9:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huber-Stearns H, Goldstein J, Duke E (2013) Intermediary roles and payments for ecosystem services: a typology and program feasibility application in Panama. Ecosyst Serv 6:104–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jack B, Kousky C, Sims R (2008) Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. PNAS 105(28):9465–9470.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705503104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaczan D, Pfaff A, Rodriguez L et al (2017) Increasing the impact of collective incentives in payments for ecosystem services. J Environ Econ Policy 86:48–67Google Scholar
  31. Kosoy N, Corbera E, Broen K (2008) Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39:2073–2083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar P, Kumar M, Garrett L (2014) Behavioral foundation of response policies for ecosystem management: what can we learn from payments for ecosystem services (PES). Ecosyst Serv 10:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lapeyre R, Pirard R, Leimona B (2015) Payments for environmental services in Indonesia: what if economic signals were lost in translation? Land Use Policy 46:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leimona B, van Noordwijk M, de Groot R et al (2015) Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosyst Serv 12:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mañez M (2011) A participatory framework for conservation payments. Land Use Policy 28:423–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martínez T (2015) Valoración económica del Suelo de Conservación en un contexto periurbano. Caso de estudio de la Delegación Tlalpan. Tesis de Maestría en Estudios Urbanos, CEDUA-COLMEX, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  37. Matthew J, Segerson K (2019) On the use of group performance and rights for environmental protection and resource management. PNAS 116(12):5285–5292.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802881115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McElwee P (2012) Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: panacea or problem? Geoforum 43:412–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGinnis M, Ostrom E (2014) Social–ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2):30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MEA (2005) Ecosystem and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  41. Metzger M, Rounsevell M, Acosta-Michlik L et al (2006) The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 de Maestría en Ciencias. Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional Unidad Oaxaca. Instituto Politécnico Nacional, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  43. Ortega M (2010) Pueblos originarios, autoridades locales y autonomía al sur del Distrito Federal. Nueva Antropología 23(73):87–117Google Scholar
  44. Page G, Belloti B (2015) Farmers value on-farm ecosystem services as important, but what are the impediments to participation in PES schemes? Sci Total Environ 515–516:12–19PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (2002) Selling forest environmental services: market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Pascual U, Corbera E (2011) Pagos por servicios ambientales: perspectivas y experiencias innovadoras para la conservación de la naturaleza y el desarrollo rural. Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros 228:11–29Google Scholar
  47. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S et al (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perevochtchikova M (2016) Estudio de los efectos del programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales. Experiencia en Ajusco, México. El Colegio de México, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  49. Perevochtchikova M (coord) (2018) Pago por servicios ambientales desde el enfoque de sistemas socio-ecológicos: casos de estudio en Oaxaca y Ciudad de México. El Colegio de México, México (in edit process)Google Scholar
  50. 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):89–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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. Ecosyst Serv 14:27–36Google Scholar
  52. Pérez R, Ávila S, Aguilar A (2010) Introducción a las economías de la naturaleza. UNAM, Instituto de investigaciones económicas, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  53. Pérez-Campuzano E, Avila-Foucat S, Perevochtchikova M (2016) Environmental policies in the peri-urban area of Mexico City: the perceived effects of three environmental programs. Cities 50:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rodríguez-Robayo K, Merino-Pérez L (2017) Contextualizing context in the analysis of payment for environmental services. Ecosyst Serv 23:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodríguez-Robayo K, Merino-Pérez L (2018) Preserve and produce: experience in implementing payments for environmental services in two indigenous communities in the northern and southern ranges of Oaxaca, Mexico. J Sustain For 37(5):504–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodríguez-Robayo K, Ávila-Foucat V, Maldonado J (2016) Indigenous communities’ perception regarding payments for environmental services programme in Oaxaca Mexico. Ecosyst Serv 17:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rodríguez-Robayo K, Perevochtchikova M, Ávila-Foucat S et al (2019) Influence of local context variables on the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services. Evidence from San Antonio del barrio, Oaxaca, Mexico. Environ Dev Sustain.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00321-8
  58. Ruiz N, Delgado J (2008) Territorio y nuevas ruralidades: un recorrido teórico sobre las transformaciones de la relación campo–ciudad. Revista. EURE XXXIV(102):77–95Google Scholar
  59. Saavedra Z, Perevochtchikova M (2017) Evaluación ambiental integrada de áreas inscritas en el programa federal de Pago por Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos: caso de estudio Ajusco, México. Investigaciones Geográficas 93:76–94Google Scholar
  60. Sandoval E, Gutiérrez J (2012) Servicios Ambientales, experiencia federal en el Distrito Federal. In: Pérez-Campuzano E, Perevochtchikova M, Ávila-Foucat S (coord) Hacia un manejo sustentable del suelo de conservación del Distrito Federal, IPN. M.A. Porrúa, México, pp 74–79Google Scholar
  61. Sastre S (2008) Análisis de la gestión forestal comunitaria y sus implicaciones sociales en Ixtlán de Juarez. Tesis para optar el título de Ingeniero de montes en la Escuela técnica superior de ingenieros de montes, Universidad Politécnica de MadridGoogle Scholar
  62. SIDESO (2000) Siste de Información de Desarrollo Social. http://www.sideso.df.gob.mx/index.php?id=68. Accessed 12 June 2019
  63. Sierra R, Russman E (2006) On the efficiency of environmental service payments: a forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 59:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sterner T (2008) Instrumentos de política económica para el manejo del ambiente y los recursos naturales. CATIE, TurrialbaGoogle Scholar
  65. Toledo V (1999) El otro zapatismo: Luchas indígenas de inspiración ecológica en México. Ecología Política 18:11–22Google Scholar
  66. Toscana A (1998) Análisis geomorfológico detallado del Volcán Ajusco y zonas adyacentes. Tesis de Geografía, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, UNAM, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  67. Uscanga L (2018) De pago por servicios ambientales hidrológicos a fondos concurrentes: el análisis de la percepción social en la comunidad de San Antonio del Barrio, Oaxaca. Tesis de Maestría en Sostenibilidad, UNAM, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  68. 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. Ecol Econ 120:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wendland K, Honsák M, Portela R et al (2010) Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar. Ecol Econ 69:2093–2107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wunder S (2015) Revising the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 117:234–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karla Juliana Rodríguez-Robayo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Perevochtchikova
    • 2
  • Veronique Sophie Ávila-Foucat
    • 3
  • Gabriela De la Mora-De la Mora
    • 4
  1. 1.Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Centro de Investigación en Ciencias de Información GeoespacialMeridaMexico
  2. 2.Centro de Estudios Demográficos, Urbanos y Ambientales, El Colegio de México A.C.MexicoMexico
  3. 3.Instituto de Investigaciones EconómicasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexicoMexico
  4. 4.Centro Regional de Investigaciones MultidisciplinariasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCuernavacaMexico

Personalised recommendations