Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social-ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and Challenges

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Collective work practice, it is a mandatory work without remuneration.

References

  • Abelairas-Etxebarria P, Astorkiza I (2012) Farmland prices and land-use changes in periurban protected natural areas. Land Use Policy 29:674–683

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Aug

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):7016–7021

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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-UNAM

    Google Scholar 

  • Balvanera P, Uriarte M, Almeida-Leñero L et al (2012) Ecosystem services research in Latin America: the state of the art. Ecosyst Serv 2:56–70

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):74–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder C, Hinkel J, Bots P et al (2013) Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(4):26

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosselmann A, Lund J (2013) Do intermediary institutions promote inclusiveness in PES programs? The case of Costa Rica. Geoforum 49:50–60

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):151–178

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • CEPAL, PNUMA, SEMARNAP (1998) Instrumentos económicos para la gestión ambiental en América Latina y el Caribe. SEMARNAP, México

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Historia

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Corbera E, González C, Brown K (2009) Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecol Econ 68:443–761

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, D’Arge R, De Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cranford M, Mourato S (2011) Community conservation and a two-stage approach to payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 71:89–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily G (1997) Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/10.1080/08941920.2017.1295495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • DOF (1975) Resolución sobre reconocimiento y titulación de bienes comunales del poblado denominado San Miguel Ajusco, Delegación de Tlalpan, DF, 03/01/1975. México

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65:663–674

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Turner R, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost P, Bond I (2008) The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services. Ecol Econ 65:776–787

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):16–40

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 69:1209–1218

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Shogren J, White B (2007) Environmental economics in theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:83–97

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:104–116

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.0705503104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaczan D, Pfaff A, Rodriguez L et al (2017) Increasing the impact of collective incentives in payments for ecosystem services. J Environ Econ Policy 86:48–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosoy N, Corbera E, Broen K (2008) Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39:2073–2083

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:128–136

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:15–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Mañez M (2011) A participatory framework for conservation payments. Land Use Policy 28:423–433

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, México

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.1802881115

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McElwee P (2012) Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: panacea or problem? Geoforum 43:412–426

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis M, Ostrom E (2014) Social–ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2):30

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2005) Ecosystem and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger M, Rounsevell M, Acosta-Michlik L et al (2006) The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1):69–85

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega M (2010) Pueblos originarios, autoridades locales y autonomía al sur del Distrito Federal. Nueva Antropología 23(73):87–117

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 515–516:12–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (2002) Selling forest environmental services: market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 228:11–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S et al (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Perevochtchikova M (2016) Estudio de los efectos del programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales. Experiencia en Ajusco, México. El Colegio de México, México

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 14:27–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez R, Ávila S, Aguilar A (2010) Introducción a las economías de la naturaleza. UNAM, Instituto de investigaciones económicas, México

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 50:129–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Robayo K, Merino-Pérez L (2017) Contextualizing context in the analysis of payment for environmental services. Ecosyst Serv 23:259–267

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):504–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Robayo K, Ávila-Foucat V, Maldonado J (2016) Indigenous communities’ perception regarding payments for environmental services programme in Oaxaca Mexico. Ecosyst Serv 17:163–171

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Ruiz N, Delgado J (2008) Territorio y nuevas ruralidades: un recorrido teórico sobre las transformaciones de la relación campo–ciudad. Revista. EURE XXXIV(102):77–95

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 93:76–94

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 74–79

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • SIDESO (2000) Siste de Información de Desarrollo Social. http://www.sideso.df.gob.mx/index.php?id=68. Accessed 12 June 2019

  • Sierra R, Russman E (2006) On the efficiency of environmental service payments: a forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 59:131–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterner T (2008) Instrumentos de política económica para el manejo del ambiente y los recursos naturales. CATIE, Turrialba

    Google Scholar 

  • Toledo V (1999) El otro zapatismo: Luchas indígenas de inspiración ecológica en México. Ecología Política 18:11–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Toscana A (1998) Análisis geomorfológico detallado del Volcán Ajusco y zonas adyacentes. Tesis de Geografía, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, UNAM, México

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, México

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 120:117–125

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 69:2093–2107

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S (2015) Revising the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 117:234–243

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Centro de Investigación en Ciencias de Información Geoespacial, Merida, Mexico

    Karla Juliana Rodríguez-Robayo

  2. Centro de Estudios Demográficos, Urbanos y Ambientales, El Colegio de México A.C., Mexico, Mexico

    Maria Perevochtchikova

  3. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico, Mexico

    Veronique Sophie Ávila-Foucat

  4. Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cuernavaca, Mexico

    Gabriela De la Mora-De la Mora

Authors
  1. Karla Juliana Rodríguez-Robayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Perevochtchikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Veronique Sophie Ávila-Foucat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gabriela De la Mora-De la Mora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karla Juliana Rodríguez-Robayo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Escuela de Ciencias Facultad de Ciencias Universidad de Chile, Fundación Centro Transdisciplinario de Estudios FES-Sistémicos, Santiago, Chile

    Luisa E. Delgado

  2. Laboratorio de Modelación Ecológica Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Víctor H. Marín

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rodríguez-Robayo, K.J., Perevochtchikova, M., Ávila-Foucat, V.S., De la Mora-De la Mora, G. (2019). Influence of the Rural/Urban Context in the Implementation of Forest Conservation Programs in Mexico: Two Case Studies from Oaxaca and Mexico City. In: Delgado, L., Marín, V. (eds) Social-ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and Challenges. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28452-7_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation