Ecosystems

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 630–643 | Cite as

Understanding the Interaction of Rural People with Ecosystems: A Case Study in a Tropical Dry Forest of Mexico

  • Alicia Castillo
  • Antonieta Magaña
  • Anna Pujadas
  • Lucía Martínez
  • Carmen Godínez
Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to help understand the interaction of rural people with tropical dry forests. It was based on social research conducted in the Chamela-Cuixmala region, on the Pacific coast of Mexico. The analytical tools used in the study included stakeholder identification, environmental history and social perceptions. The two main social groups in the study were ejidatarios, who own most of the territory, and avecindados, who possess no land but have high population numbers. Through an interpretative methodological approach we documented the vision and meaning that rural people give to their natural and social worlds. The agricultural development model promoted by the Mexican government for decades was identified as the main driver of ecosystem transformation. Rural people, who arrived recently in the region, were proud of the pasture-lands that were transformed from tropical forests. Conservation policies implemented during the last two decades were viewed as impositions although people recognized the value of services provided by ecosystems. This case study has helped to unravel the main dimensions of the human system and how it relates to structures of signification. The social panorama unveiled can be used as an initial basis to promote further research on the social-ecological system of the Chamela-Cuixmala region and to develop future participatory management schemes.

Keywords

human systems social-ecological systems ecosystem management tropical deciduous forest LTER developing countries stakeholders environmental history social perceptions 

References

  1. Alcorn JB, Toledo VM. 1998. Resilient resource management in Mexico’s forest ecosystems: the contribution of property rights. In: Berkes F, Folke C, Eds. Linking social and ecological systems. Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p 216–49Google Scholar
  2. Arizpe L, Paz F, Velázquez. M. 1993 Cultura y cambio global: percepciones sociales sobre la deforestación en la selva Lacandona. México DF (México): Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias UNAM, Grupo Editorial Miguel Angel PorrúaGoogle Scholar
  3. Batisse M. 1982. The biosphere reserve: a tool for environmental conservation and management. Environ Conserv 9(2):101–11Google Scholar
  4. Berkes F, Folke C, Eds. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems. Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown K. 2003. Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional misfit. Front Ecol Environ 1(9):479–87Google Scholar
  6. Burgos A, Maass M. 2004. Vegetation change associated with land-use in Tropical Dry Forest areas of Western Mexico. Agroecosystems 19:475–481Google Scholar
  7. Ceballos G, García A. 1995. Conserving neotropical biodiversity: the role of dry forests in western Mexico. Conserv Biol 9(6):1349–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ceballos G, Székely A, García A, Rodríguez P, Noguera F. 1999. Programa de manejo de la Reserva de la Biosfera Chamela-Cuixmala. México DF (México): Instituto Nacional de Ecología, SEMARNAPGoogle Scholar
  9. Challenger A. 1998. Utilización y conservación de los ecosistemas terrestres de México. Pasado, presente y futuro. México DF (México): CONABIO, UNAM, Sierra MadreGoogle Scholar
  10. Congreso Constituyente. 1917. Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (vigente en 2004). (http://www.senado.gob.mx)
  11. Dachary AC, Arnaiz SM. 2001. El turismo y el desarrollo sostenible en el Caribe Hispano y Centroamérica. In: Arnaiz SM, Fernández JS, Dachary AC. (Eds). Desarrollo sustentable y turismo. Guadalajara (México): Universidad de Guadalajara. p 43–66Google Scholar
  12. Daily GC Ed. 1997. Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington DC (WA): Island PressGoogle Scholar
  13. De Ita C. 1983. Patrones de producción agrícola en un ecosistema tropical estacional en la costa de Jalisco. [dissertation]. México DF (México): Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 87Google Scholar
  14. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. 2000. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Eds. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications. p 1–28Google Scholar
  15. Descola P, Pálsson G. 2002. Nature and Society Anthropological perspectives. London (UK): RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Endter-Wada J, Blahna D, Krannich R, Brunson M. 1998. A framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 8:891–904Google Scholar
  17. Esteva J, Marquez D, Cipirano H. 2002. Ambiente y ciudadanía en la región de Pátzcuaro, explorando el futuro. Des/Encuentros 2(5):36–51Google Scholar
  18. Fontana A, Frey JH. 2000. The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Eds. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications. p 645–72Google Scholar
  19. Gentry AH. 1995. Diversity and floristic composition of neotropical dry forests. In: Bullock SH, Mooney HA, Medina E. Eds. Seasonally dry tropical forests. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press. p 146–94Google Scholar
  20. Gerez FP. 1998. Aprendizaje de dos estrategias aparentemente contradictorias hacia los bosques: manejo forestal y protección de la biodiversidad. Foro Intergeneracional del Programa de Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable (LEAD-Mex) Colegio de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  21. Godinez C. 2003. Percepciones del sector turismo sobre el ambiente, los servicios ecosistémicos y las instituciones relacionadas con la conservación del ecosistema de selva baja caducifolia en la costa sur de Jalisco. [dissertation]. Morelia (México): Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 117 pGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimble R, Chan MK. 1995. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries. Nat Resour Forum 19(2):113–24Google Scholar
  23. Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS Eds. 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York (NY): Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Holling CS. 1995. What barriers? What bridges? In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS Eds. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press. p 3–34Google Scholar
  25. Holling CS. 1998. Two cultures of ecology. Conserv Ecol 2(2):4. (http://www.consecol.org/Journal/)Google Scholar
  26. INEGI 2001. Principales resultados por localidad, Estados Unidos Mexicanos. XII Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000. Aguascalientes (México): INEGIGoogle Scholar
  27. Lara G, Taboada M Eds. 1996. Historias de mis abuelos. México DF (México): Desarrollo Educativo y Cultural Costa Alegre, A.CGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazos E, Paré L. 2000. Miradas indígenas sobre una naturaleza “entristecida”: percepciones del deterioro ambiental entre nahuas del sur de Veracruz. México DF (México): UNAM, Plaza Valdés EditoresGoogle Scholar
  29. Maass JM. 1995. Conversion of tropical dry forest to pasture and agriculture. In: Bullock SH, Money H, Medina E Eds. Seasonally dry tropical forests. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press. p 399–422Google Scholar
  30. Maass JM, Jaramillo V, Martínez-Yrízar A, García-Oliva F, Sarukhán J. 1994. The Chamela Watershed Project. A study of the structure and functioning of a tropical deciduous forest in west Mexico. (leaflet)Google Scholar
  31. Maass JM, Jaramillo V, Martínez-Yrízar A, García-Oliva F, Pérez Jiménez A, Sarukhán J. 2002. Aspectos funcionales del ecosistema de selva baja caducifolia en Chamela, Jalisco. In: Noguera F, Vega-Rivera JH, García Aldrete AN, Quezada Avendaño M. Eds. Historia Natural de Chamela. México DF (México): Instituto de Biología UNAM. pp 525–42Google Scholar
  32. Magaña MA. 2003. Actitudes y percepciones de productores rurales y sus familias hacia la conservación de la selva y el área natural protegida: Reserva de la Biosfera Chamela-Cuixmala, Jalisco, México [dissertation]. Morelia (México): Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo. 217 pGoogle Scholar
  33. Martínez L. 2003. Percepciones sociales sobre los servicios ecosistémicos en dos comunidades aledañas a la Reserva de la Biosfera Chamela-Cuixmala, Jalisco [dissertation]. Morelia (México): Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo. 174 pGoogle Scholar
  34. Murphy PG, Lugo AE. 1995. Dry forests of Central America and the Caribbean islands. In: Bullock SH, Mooney HA, Medina E Eds. Seasonally dry tropical forests. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. pp 9–34Google Scholar
  35. O’Neill RV. 2001. Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? (with full military honors of course). Ecology 82:3275–84Google Scholar
  36. Noguera F, Vega Rivera JH, Aldrete García AN. 2002. Introducción. In: Noguera FA, Vega Rivera JH, García Aldrete AN, Quesada Avendaño M Eds. Historia natural de Chamela. Instituto de Biología Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. pp xv–xxiGoogle Scholar
  37. Ortega AT. 1995. El desarrollo socioeconómico de Jalisco. Perspectivas de recursos naturales. Revista Universidad de Guadalajara (abril):41–48Google Scholar
  38. Pace ML, Groffman PM Eds. 1998. Successes, limitations, and frontiers in ecosystem science. New York (NY): SpringerGoogle Scholar
  39. Pretty JN, Pimbert MP. 1995. Beyond conservation ideology and the wilderness myth. Nat Resour Forum 19:5–14Google Scholar
  40. Pujadas A. 2003. Comunicación y participación social en el Programa de Ordenamiento Ecológico Territorial de la costa de Jalisco y la Reserva de la Biosfera Chamela-Cuixmala [dissertation]. Morelia (México): Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 285 pGoogle Scholar
  41. Sarukhán J, Estrada A, Pérez A. 1979. Plan de desarrollo de las estaciones del Instituto de Biología UNAM. Manuscrito inédito. México DF (México): UNAMGoogle Scholar
  42. SEMADES. 1999. Ordenamiento Ecológico de la Región Costa del Estado de Jalisco. Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco (http://www.semades.gob.mx/oe/)
  43. Toledo VM. 1996. The ecological consequences of the 1992 agrarian law in Mexico. In: Randall L Ed. Reforming Mexico’s Agrarian Reform. New York: M.E. Sharpe. p 247–60Google Scholar
  44. Toledo VM. 1997. Sustainable development at the village community level: a Third World perspective. In: Smith F, Ed. Environmental sustainability: practical global applications. Boca Raton (FL): St Lucie Press. pp 233–50Google Scholar
  45. Toledo VM. 2001. Indigenous peoples, biodiversity and. In: Encyclopaedia of Biodiversity. Volume 3. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. p 451–63Google Scholar
  46. Toledo VM, Carabias J, Toledo C, González-Pacheco C. 1989. La producción rural en México: alternativas ecológicas. México DF (México): Fundación Universo XXIGoogle Scholar
  47. Trejo I, Dirzo R. 2000. Deforestation of seasonally dry tropical forest: a national and local analysis in Mexico. Biol Conserv 94:133–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warman A. 2001. El campo mexicano en el siglo XX. México DF (México): Fondo de Cultura EconómicaGoogle Scholar
  49. Westley F, Carpenter SR, Brock WA, Holling CS, Gunderson LH. 2002. Why systems of people and nature are not just social and ecological systems. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS. Eds. Panarchy Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington DC (WA): Island Press. p 103–19Google Scholar
  50. Worster D. 1988. Doing environmental history (Appendix). In: Worster D Ed. The ends of the Earth. Perspectives on modern environmental history. Cambridge University Press, New York. p 289–307Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicia Castillo
    • 1
  • Antonieta Magaña
    • 1
  • Anna Pujadas
    • 1
  • Lucía Martínez
    • 1
  • Carmen Godínez
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Investigaciones en EcosistemasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMoreliaMEXICO

Personalised recommendations