Abstract
In this chapter, we introduce the scenario of the book and provide the theoretical foundations of its key topics—socio-environmental regimes, innovation niches, local visions, and transdisciplinary approaches, as well as the interactions among these topics—which we use to analyze indigenous and other rural production systems in Latin American (LA) territories and communities. Most of the studied territories are located in diverse geographic regions, including the Mayan jungles and the Amazon that the literature recognizes as lands in which high biodiversity and indigenous and traditional peoples are interwoven. In order to analyze diverse rural productive sectors in LA territories, we propose the Local Socio-Environmental Systems framework which is rooted in systems theory. This approach is sufficiently flexible to be compatible with the particular assumptions and theories that a given research team chooses to apply to a given territory. We used Bonfil-Batalla’s cultural control theory to explore the territories addressed in this book, categorizing them according to the sources of rural producers’ key local resources and their capacity for decision-making regarding these resources. We also discuss the manner in which we have shifted from disciplinarity to transdisciplinarity in our research in indigenous and other rural territories. We view transdisciplinarity as a way of combining scientific knowledge and social practices. Thus, transdisciplinarity involves praxis as well as discussion and consideration through a spiral of exchanges of knowledge in which participants play interchangeable roles: we are all novices; we all learn; and we all produce knowledge. Transdisciplinarity involves a critical interculturalism perspective to promote dialogue among different worldviews. The final section briefly summarizes the book’s chapters, which present case studies from seven LA countries—Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, and Mexico.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We understand the term “neoliberal” as a characteristic of neoliberalism, which according to Harvey (2006, p. 145): “Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices which proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by the maximization of entrepreneurial freedoms within an institutional framework characterized by private property rights, individual liberty, free markets and free trade.”
- 2.
We understand a system to be a set of components which are interconnected such that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time. As most systems consist of a large number of components, they may be fully understood by analyzing not only their components but also the complex interactions among components, as well as between the system and its environment (Cilliers, 1998; Meadows, 2008).
- 3.
Although in our LSES model, we generally regard members of both NGOs and research institutions as belonging to the same socio-academic group, in some territories members of global NGOs have assisted the political-economic group in implementing territorial regimes that benefit intermediaries and the market more than rural producers (see Chapin, 2004).
- 4.
In this chapter, local visions consist of people’s subjectivities as well as a range of community and regionally based personal and family processes that—when faced with economic, social, and/or political impositions by national and international regimes—may or may not be capable of collaborating with socio-academic actors to develop niches of collective action in an attempt to attain life with dignity.
References
Appendini, K., & Nuijten, M. (2002). El papel de las instituciones en contextos locales. Revista de la CEPAL, 76, 71–78.
Arce-Ibarra, A. M., & Gastelú-Martínez, A. I. (2007). Linking social and natural sciences methods using Mind Maps: A case study of human-nature interactions in Mexico’s Lowland Maya area. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2, 39–52.
Armitage, D., Charles, A., & Berkes, F. (Eds.). (2017). Governing the coastal commons: Communities, resilience and transformation. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Bello-Baltazar, E., Naranjo-Piñera, E., & Vandame, R. (2012). La otra innovación para el ambiente y la sociedad en la frontera sur de México. San Cristóbal de las Casas: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur.
Berkes, F. (2015). Coasts for people: Interdisciplinary approaches to coastal and marine resource management. New York: Routledge.
Bobbio, N., Matteucci, N., & Pasquino, G. (1991). Diccionario de Política. México: Siglo XXI.
Bonfil-Batalla, G. (1991). La teoría del control cultural en el estudio de procesos étnicos. Revista Estudio sobre las Culturas Contemporáneas., 4(12), 165–204.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Alta costura y alta cultura. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), Sociología y cultura (pp. 215–224). México: Grijalbo.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1995). Respuestas: Por una antropología reflexiva. [Capítulo La lógica de los campos] (pp. 63–78). México, DF: Grijalbo.
Chapin, M. (2004). A challenge to conservationists. World Watch. November/December: 17–31. Retrieved January 8, 2017, from https://firstlightlearningjourney.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/A-Challenge-to-Conservationists-WorldWatch.pdf.
Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351.
Chuenpagdee, R., & Jentoft, S. (2019). Transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance. Analysis and practice. Cham: Springer Nature.
Cilliers, P. (1998). Postmodernism and complexity: A study of complex systems. London: Routledge.
Conde Flores, A., Ortiz Báez, P. A., Delgado Rodríguez, A. & Gómez Rábago, F. (Coordinadores) (2013). Naturaleza-Sociedad. Reflexiones desde la Complejidad. Tlaxcala: Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala.
De Grammont, H. C., & Mackinlay, H. (2006). Las organizaciones sociales y la transición política en el campo mexicano. In H. C. de Grammont (Ed.), La construcción de la democracia en el campo latinoamericano (pp. 23–68). Buenos Aires: CLACSO, Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales.
de Moerloose, S. (2014). Estándares Ambientales y sociales en la condicionalidad del Banco Mundial (Social and Environmental Safeguards in World Bank Conditionality). Revista De Derecho Ambiental De La Universidad De Palermo, 3(2), 44.
Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
Estrada Lugo, E. I. J. (2011). El parentesco maya contemporáneo: grupo doméstico y usos del parentesco entre mayas de Quintana Roo, México. Saarbrücken: Editorial Académica Española.
FAO (Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la alimentación y la Agricultura). (2019). Desarrollo territorial. Plataforma de territorios inteligentes. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/in-action/territorios-inteligentes/resumen-del-proyecto/desarrollo-territorial/es/.
Futemma, C. (2013). Small-scale farmers and the challenges of environmental conservation and rural development: Case studies from the state of São Paulo and the Amazon region. In E. Brondízio & E. Moran (Eds.), Human-environment interactions (Vol. 1). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gómez, E. S. (2000). Organizaciones rurales en América Latina (marco para su análisis). Revista austral de ciencias sociales, 4, 27–54.
Haesbaert, R. (2013). Del mito de la desterritorialización a la multiterritorialidad. Cultura y representaciones sociales, 8(15), 9–42.
Harvey, D. (2006). Neo-liberalism as creative destruction. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 88(2), 145–158.
Hernández, X. E. (1959). La agricultura. In E. Beltrán (Ed.), Los recursos naturales del sureste y su aprovechamiento, tomo 111. México, DF: Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables.
Hernández, X. E. (1977). El agroecosistema, concepto central en el análisis de la enseñanza, la investigación y la educación agrícola en México. In E. Hernández X. (Ed.), Agroecosistemas de México: Contribuciones a la enseñanza, investigación y divulgación agrícola en Chapingo (pp. xv–xix). México: Colegio de Postgraduados.
Hernández, X. E., Inzunza, M. F. R., Solano, S. C. B., Arias, R. L. M., & Parra, V. M. R. (2011). La tecnología del cultivo. Revista de Geografía Agrícola, 46–47, 91–96.
Hernández, X. E., & Solano, S. B. C. (1982). Proceso de producción agrícola en los aluviones bajos de Ocotlán, Oaxaca. In A. Bárcenas, A. Barrera, J. Caballero, & L. Durán (Eds.), Memorias del Simposio de Etnobotánica 1976 (p. 17). México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Herrera, O. B., Parra, M., Liscovsky, I., Ramos, P., & Gallardo, D. (2017). Lifeways and territorial innovation: Values and practices for promoting collective appropriation of territory. Community Development Journal, 54, 427–445.
Infante-Ramírez, K. D., Arce-Ibarra, A. M., & Bello-Baltazar, E. (2014). Valoración no monetaria de unidades de paisaje en la zona maya de Quintana Roo, México. Economía, sociedad y territorio, 14(45), 309–357.
Ingram, J. (2015). Framing niche-regime linkage as adaptation: An analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. Journal of Rural Studies, 40, 59–75.
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., et al. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25–43.
Lazos-Chavero, E., Mwampamba, T. H., & García-Frapolli, E. (2018). Uncovering links between livelihoods, land-use practices, vulnerability and forests after hurricane Jova in Jalisco, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management, 426, 27–38.
Leff, E. (2006). La ecología política en América Latina. Un campo en construcción. In Los tormentos de la materia. Aportes para una ecología política latinoamericana (pp. 21–39). Buenos Aires: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales.
Long, N. (2004). Actors, interfaces and development interventions: Meanings, purposes and powers. In T. Kontinen (Ed.), Development intervention. Actors and activity perspectives (pp. 14–36). University of Helsinki: Helsinki.
Luhmann, N. (1990). Sociedad y sistema: la ambición de la teoría. System and function: The ambition of theory. Barcelona: Paidós.
Martínez-López, A., Cruz-León, A., Sangerman-Jarquín, D. M., Cárdenas, S. D., Herrera, J. C., & Ramírez-Valverde, B. (2019). El estudio de los saberes agrícolas como alternativa para el desarrollo de las comunidades cafetaleras. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, 10(7), 1615–1626.
Max-Neef, M. A. (2004). Fundamentos de la Transdisciplinariedad. Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile.
Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5–16.
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Mejía-Ávila, D. (2007). Delimitación de las unidades de paisaje del parque Nacional Natural Paramillo. Revista Electrónica Hominis, 1, 8–17.
Merino, M. (2013). Políticas Públicas. Ensayo sobre la intervención del Estado en la solución de problemas públicos. México, DF: CIDE.
Nieto Masot, A., & Cárdenas Alonso, G. (2015). Los Grupos de Acción Local en el período de programación FEADER (2007-2013) en Extremadura. Revista de Estudios Extremeños, LXXI(1), 595–628.
Parra-Vázquez, M. R., & Díaz-Hernández, B.M. (1985). Hacia una comprensión integral de la producción silvoagropecuaria: Experiencias Teórico-Metodológicas. Seminar Presentation introduced at the COLOQUIO DE ESTUDIOS INTEGRALES DE LA AGRICULTURA. Centro de Investigación, Enseñanza y Extensión en Ganadería Tropical. FMVZ-UNAM. Tlapacoyan Veracruz. May, 1985.
Parra-Vázquez, M. R., González-Espinosa, M., Nahed-Toral, J., García-Barrios, L., Bello-Baltazar, E., Estrada-Lugo, E.I.J. & Cruz-Morales, J. (in press). Respuestas de los grupos domésticos rurales a las intervenciones de los regímenes territoriales en la Frontera Sur de México. In García-Barrios, L.E., E. Bello-Baltazar & M. R. Parra-Vázquez (Eds.). Cambio social y agrícola en territorios campesinos. Respuestas locales al régimen neoliberal en la frontera sur de México. San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur.
Parra-Vázquez, M. R., Herrera Hernández, O. B., Ramos Pérez, P. P., Liscovsky, I. J., Huerta-Silva, M. H., Araújo Santana, R., et al. (2010). Innovación territorial basada en los “modos de vida”. In E. Bello Baltazar, E. Naranjo, & R. Vamdame (Eds.), Innovación socioambiental y desarrollo en la frontera sur de México (pp. 34–38). San Cristóbal de Las Casas: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur.
Peña-Azcona, I., Estrada-Lugo, E. I. J., Arce-Ibarra, A. M., & Bello-Baltazar, E. (2020). Meanings of conservation in Zapotec communities of Oaxaca, México. Conservation and Society, 19, 1–11.
Pereira, J. M.M. (2014). Poder, política e dinheiro: a trajetória do Banco Mundial entre 1980 e 2013. In: Pereira, J. M.M. & Pronki, M. (Org.). A demolição de direitos: um exame das políticas do Banco Mundial para a educação e a saúde (1980-2013) (pp. 19–64). Rio de Janeiro: Escola Politécnica de Saúde Joaquim Venâncio.
Pigrau Solé, A. (2015). Régimen alimentario global y derecho a la alimentación. CEDAT. Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Working Paper N° 1. Retrieved September 17, 2018, from http://www.dret-public.urv.cat/media/upload/domain_89/arxius/working%20papers/DEFINITIUS/working%20paper%201.pdf.
Puc-Alcocer, M., Arce-Ibarra, A. M., Cortina-Villar, S., & Estrada-Lugo, E. I. J. (2019). Rainforest conservation in Mexico’s lowland Maya area: Integrating local meanings of conservation and land-use dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management, 448, 300–311.
Said, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Aguilar-Perera, A., Arce-Ibarra, M., Bahadur Gurung, T., Bishop, B., et al. (2019). The principles of transdisciplinary research in small-scale fisheries. In R. Chuenpagdee & S. Jentoft (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance. Analysis and practice (pp. 411–431). Cham: Springer.
Scott, W. R. (2005). Organizaciones: características duraderas y cambiantes. Gestión y política pública, XIV(3), 439–463.
Vordtriede, J. (2019). World Bank and International Monetary Fund conditionality lending: A supply-side inquiry into economic growth for Sub-Saharan Africa. PhD Dissertation, Charles Sturt University, Sydney.
Wallerstein, I. (2005). Análisis de Sistemas-Mundo. Una Introducción. México DF: Siglo XXI Editores.
WRI (World Resources Institute). (2003). Ecosistemas y Bienestar Humano: Marco para la Evaluación. Resumen. World Resources Institute. 20 p. Retrieved November 15, 2015, from https://www.millenniumassessment.org/es/Framework.html.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Parra Vázquez, M.R., Arce Ibarra, M., Bello Baltazar, E., Gomes de Araujo, L. (2020). Local Socio-Environmental Systems as a Transdisciplinary Conceptual Framework. In: Arce Ibarra, M., Parra Vázquez, M.R., Bello Baltazar, E., Gomes de Araujo, L. (eds) Socio-Environmental Regimes and Local Visions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49767-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49767-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49766-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49767-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)