Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:21:03.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multi-level social-ecological networks in a payments for ecosystem services programme in central Veracruz, Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2020

Alfonso Langle-Flores Open the ORCID record for Alfonso Langle-Flores [Opens in a new window] ,
Adriana Aguilar Rodríguez ,
Humberto Romero-Uribe ,
Julia Ros-Cuéllar  and
Juan José Von Thaden Open the ORCID record for Juan José Von Thaden [Opens in a new window]
Alfonso Langle-Flores*
Affiliation:
Centro Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de Guadalajara, CP48280, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
Adriana Aguilar Rodríguez
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación en Ciencias de Información Geospacial, CP20313Aguascalientes, Mexico
Humberto Romero-Uribe
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología, A.C., CP91070, Xalapa, Mexico
Julia Ros-Cuéllar
Affiliation:
University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-AlzetteCO4366, Luxembourg
Juan José Von Thaden
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología, A.C., CP91070, Xalapa, Mexico
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Alfonso Langle-Flores, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) programmes have been considered an important conservation mechanism to avoid deforestation. These environmental policies act in social and ecological contexts at different spatial scales. We evaluated the social-ecological fit between stakeholders and ecosystem processes in a local PES programme across three levels: social, ecological and social-ecological. We explored collaboration among stakeholders, assessed connectivity between forest units and evaluated conservation activity links between stakeholders and forest units. In addition, to increase programme effectiveness, we classified forest units based on their social and ecological importance. Our main findings suggest that non-governmental organizations occupy brokerage positions between landowners and government in a dense collaboration network. We also found a partial spatial misfit between conservation activity links and the forest units that provide the most hydrological services to Xalapa. We conclude that conservation efforts should be directed towards the middle and high part of the Pixquiac sub-watershed and that the role of non-governmental organizations as mediators should be strengthened to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the local PES programme.

Keywords

environmental governanceparticipatory mappingsocial-ecological fitsocial-ecological networks
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 41 - 47
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asbjornsen, H, Manson, RH, Scullion, JJ, Holwerda, F, Muñoz-Villers, LE, Alvarado-Barrientos, MS 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: 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albaum, G, Smith, SM (2012) Why people agree to participate in surveys. In: Gideon, L (ed.), Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences (pp. 179–194). New York, NY, USA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, R, Barabási, AL (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics 74: 47–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggio, JA, Burnsilver, SB, Arenas, A, Magdanz, JS, Kofinas, GP, De Domenico, M (2016) Multiplex social ecological network analysis reveals how social changes affect community robustness more than resource depletion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113: 13708–13713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bai, Y, Zhuang, C, Ouyang, Z, Zheng, H, Jiang, B (2011) Spatial characteristics between biodiversity and ecosystem services in a human-dominated watershed. Ecological Complexity 8: 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berardo, R, Scholz, JT (2010) Self-organizing policy networks: risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science 54: 632–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodin, Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357: eaan114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodin, Ö, Crona, BI (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change 19: 366–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodin, Ö, Tengö, M (2012) Disentangling intangible social-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change 22: 430–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, S, Everett, M, Freeman, L (2002) UCINET for Windows: software for social network analysis [www document]. URL https://sites.google.com/site/ucinetsoftware/home Google Scholar
Borgatti, S, Mehra, A, Brass, D, Labianca, G (2009) Network analysis in the social science. Science 323: 892–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börner, J, Baylis, K, Corbera, E, Ezzine-de-Blass, D, Honey-Rosés, J, Persson, UM, Wunder, S (2017) The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development 96: 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosselmann, AS, Lund, JF (2013) Do intermediary institutions promote inclusiveness in PES programs? The case of Costa Rica. Geoforum 49: 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruijnzeel, LA, Mulligan, M, Scatena, FN (2011) Hydrometeorology of tropical montane cloud forests: emerging patterns. Hydrological Processes 25: 465–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, RS (2003) The social capital of structural holes. In: Guillen, MF, Collins, R, Englan, P, Meyer, M (eds), The New Economic Sociology: Developments in an Emerging Field (pp. 148–189). New York, NY, USA: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
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
CONAFOR (2010) Informe de Autoevaluación 2010 [www document]. URL https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/126562/Informes_2010_-_Informe_de_Autoevaluacion.pdf Google Scholar
Cumming, GS, Cumming, DHM, Redman, CL (2006) Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society 11: 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DOF (1937) Decreto que declara Parque Nacional la montaña denominada Cofre de Perote o Naucampatépetl en el Estado de Veracruz [www document]. URL https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5379137&fecha=21/01/2015 Google Scholar
Dakos, V, Quinlan, A, Baggio, JA, Bennett, E, Bodin, Ö, Silver, SB (2015) Principle 2 – manage connectivity. In: Biggs, R, Schlüter, M, Schoon, ML (eds), Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems (pp. 80–104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernstson, H, Barthel, S, Andersson, E, Borgström, ST (2010) Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of Stockholm. Ecology and Society 15: 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzine-de-Blas, D, Wunder, S, Ruiz-Pérez, M, Del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, R (2016) Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS ONE 11: e0149847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folke, C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16: 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C, Pritchard, L Jr, Berkes, F, Colding, J, Svedin, U (2007) The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecology and Society 12: 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Coll, I Martínez-Otero, A, Vidriales-Chan, G (2019) Balance hídrico de la cuenca del río Pixquiac. Proyecto: NCMA3-08-03: Delimitación de Zonas Prioriarias y Evaluación de los Mecanismos Existentes para el Pago de Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos en la Cuenca del río Pixquiac, Veracruz, México [www document]. URL https://es.scribd.com/document/389750249/01-Anexo1-INFORME-BALANCE-HIDRICO1-pdf Google Scholar
Guerrero, AM, Wilson, KA (2017) Using a social-ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans. Conservation Biology 31: 290–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollstein, B (2014) Mixed methods social networks research: an introduction. In: Dominguez, S, Hollstein, B (eds), Mixed Methods Social Networks Research: Design and Applications (pp. 3–35). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, KW, Foucat, SA, Pischke, EC, Salcone, J, Torrez, D, Selfa, T, Halvorsen, KE (2019) Exploring the connections between participation in and benefits from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz State, Mexico. Ecosystem Services 35: 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kininmonth, S, Bergsten, A, Bodin, Ö (2015) Closing the collaborative gap: aligning social and ecological connectivity for better management of interconnected wetlands. Ambio 44: 138–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kossinets, G (2006) Effects of missing data in social networks. Social Networks 28: 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosoy, N, Corbera, E, Brown, K (2008) Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39: 2073–2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langle-Flores, A, Ocelík, P, Pérez-Maqueo, O (2017) The role of social networks in the sustainability transformation of Cabo Pulmo: a multiplex perspective. Journal of Coastal Research 77: 134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laumann, EO, Marsden, PV, Prensky, D (1989) The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In: Freeman, LC, White, DR, Romney, AK (eds), Research Methods in Social Network Analysis (pp. 61–89). London, UK: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Lin, N (1997) A network theory of social capital. In: Castiglione, D, Van Deth, JW, Wolleb, G (eds), The Handbook of Social Capital (pp. 50–69). New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lubell, M, Robins, G, Wang, P (2014) Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecology and Society 19: 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, RRJ, Robinson, CJ, Brown, A, Maclean, K, Perry, S, Liu, S. (2017) Balancing collaboration with coordination: contesting eradication in the Australian plant pest and disease biosecurity system. International Journal of the Commons 11: 330–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz-Piña, C (2011) Restos de la focalización del Programa de Pago por los Servicios Ambientales en México. Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros 228: 87–113.Google Scholar
Natural Capital Project (2020) InVEST [www document]. URL https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/ Google Scholar
Nava-López, M, Selfa, TA, Cordoba, D, Pischke, EC, Torrez, D, Ávila-Foucat, S et al. (2018). Decentralizing payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: challenges and implications for long-term sustainability. Society & Natural Resources 31: 1389–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E, Mendoza, G, Regetz, J, Polasky, S, Tallis, H, Cameron, DR et al. (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, MEJ, Girvan, M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E 69: 1–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Olsson, P, Folke, C, Berkes, F (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34: 75–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfaff, A, Rodriguez, LA, Shapiro-Garza, E (2019) Collective local payments for ecosystem services: new local PES between groups, sanctions, and prior watershed trust in Mexico. Water Resources and Economics 28: 100119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paré, L, Gerez, FP (2012) Al filo del agua: cogestión de la subcuenca del río Pixquiac, Veracruz. Mexico City, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Ecología.Google Scholar
Quantum GIS Development Team (2013). Quantum GIS geographic information system. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project [www document]. URL https://qgis.org Google Scholar
Rathwell, KJ, Peterson, GD (2012) Connecting social networks with ecosystem services for watershed governance: a social-ecological network perspective highlights the critical role of bridging organizations. Ecology and Society 17: 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, RAW (1996) The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies 44: 652–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saldaña-Herrera, JD (2013) Sistematización y documentación de mecanismos locales de pago por servicios ambientales en México [www document]. URL https://www.gestiopolis.com/sistematizacion-documentacion-mecanismos-locales-pago-servicios-ambientales-mexico/ Google Scholar
SAS (2000) JMP. Data analysis software for Mac and Windows. SAS Institute [www document]. URL https://www.jmp.com Google Scholar
Saura, S, Rubio, L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33: 523–537.Google Scholar
Schomers, S, Matzdorf, B (2013) Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services 6: 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scullion, J, Thomas, CW, Vogt, KA, Perez-Maqueo, O, Logsdon, MG (2011) Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews. Environmental Conservation 38: 426–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro-Garza, E (2013) Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services programs: four sites of articulation and hybridization. Geoforum 46: 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, R, Douglass, J, Wolny, S, Arkema, K, Bernhardt, J, Bierbower, W et al. (2020) InVEST User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund [www document]. URL https://invest-userguide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ Google Scholar
Sims, KRE, Alix-Garcia, JM, Shapiro-Garza, E, Fine, LR, Radeloff, VC, Aronson, G et al. (2014) Improving environmental and social targeting through adaptive management in Mexico’s payments for hydrological services program. Conservation Biology 28: 1151–1159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A Synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB [www document]. URL http://www.teebweb.org Google Scholar
Van Eck, NJ, Waltman, L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84: 523–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Thaden, J, Manson, RH, Congalton, RG, López-Barrera, F, Salcone, J (2019) A regional evaluation of the effectiveness of Mexico’s payments for hydrological services. Regional Environmental Change 19: 1751–1764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidriales-Chan, G, García-Coll, I, Martínez, A, Gerez, P, Muñiz-Castro, MA (2012) Caraterísticas del medio natural. In: Paré, LPG, Fernandez, PG (eds), Al filo del agua: congestión de la subcuenca del río Pixquiac, Veracruz (pp. 75–134). Mexico City, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Ecología.Google Scholar
Waltman, L, Van Eck, NJ, Noyons, ECM (2010) A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics 4: 629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S, Börner, J, Ezzine-de-Blas, D, Feder, S, Pagiola, S (2020) Payments for environmental services: past performance and pending potentials. Annual Review of Resource Economics 12: 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O, Underdal, A (1997) Institutional dimensions of global change. IHDP Scoping Report. Bonn, Germany: International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Langle-Flores et al. supplementary material

Langle-Flores et al. supplementary material

Download Langle-Flores et al. supplementary material(File)
File 156.7 KB