Abstract
Recent criticisms of, and financial limits on, payment for hydrologic services (PHS) programs suggest that rigorous, spatially explicit evaluations are urgently needed to improve their effectiveness in conserving forest cover and to justify payments. To evaluate the effectiveness of Mexico’s PHS programs in the Pixquiac and Gavilanes subwatersheds in central Veracruz state, we used a grid-based approach to (1) compare the suitability of national versus regional deforestation risk models in selecting the parcels that should receive payment and (2) evaluate three metrics of program effectiveness in parcels receiving PHS: forest cover loss, additionality associated with deforestation risk, and leakage. Our results suggest that the national deforestation risk model was less effective at predicting actual deforestation patterns and tended to underestimate deforestation risk vs. models run regionally. Regional analysis showed parcels receiving PHS exhibited significantly lower deforestation in plots receiving PHS (0.76% loss) vs. control areas (6.29%) between 2003 and 2013. Furthermore, we found relatively poor additionality with only 38.5% of PHS occurring in zones with high or very high deforestation probability. Finally, we did not detect significant evidence of proximal leakage in our study subwatersheds. Our findings suggest that the PHS programs in central Veracruz have helped to reduce, but not stop forest loss completely. Using increased targeting of areas with higher deforestation risk in selecting PHS areas and updated regional deforestation risk models should be helpful in evaluating and increasing the effectiveness of these programs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aguilar-Amuchastegui N, Riveros JC, Forrest JL (2014) Identifying areas of deforestation risk for REDD+ using a species modeling tool. Carbon Balance Manag 9(1):10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-014-0010-5
Alix-Garcia JM, De Janvry A, Sadoulet E (2008) The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services. Environ Dev Econ 13:375–394. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004336
Alix-Garcia JM, Shapiro EN, Sims KR (2012) Forest conservation and slippage: evidence from Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Econ 88:613–638. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.88.4.613
Alix-Garcia J, Aronson G, Radeloff V, Ramirez-Reyes C, Shapiro E, Sims K, Yañez-Pagans P (2014) Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of Mexico’s payments for ecosystem services program. 3ie Grantee Final Report. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, New Delhi
Arriagada RA, Ferraro PJ, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK, Cordero-Sancho S (2012) Do payments for environmental services affect forest cover? A farm-level evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Econ 88:382–399. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.88.2.382
Asbjornsen H, Manson R, Scullion J, Holwerda F, Munoz-Villers LE, Alvarado-Barrientos M, Geissert D, Dawson TE, McDonnell JJ, Bruijnzeel LA (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(2):25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09144-220225
Assies W, Duhau E (2008) Land tenure and tenure regimes in Mexico: an overview. In: Ubink JM (ed) Legalising land rights: local practices, state responses and tenure security in Africa, Asia and Latin America. University Press, Leiden, pp 355–387
Aukland L, Costa PM, Brown S (2003) A conceptual framework and its application for addressing leakage: the case of avoided deforestation. Clim Pol 3:123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-3062(02)00065-7
Barnes G (2009) The evolution and resilience of community-based land tenure in rural Mexico. Land Use Policy 26:393–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.05.007
Bonilla-Moheno M, Redo DJ, Aide TM, Clark ML, Grau HR (2013) Vegetation change and land tenure in Mexico: a country-wide analysis. Land Use Policy 30:355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.002
Börner J, Baylis K, Corbera E, Ezzine-de-Blas D, Honey-Rosés J, Persson UM, Wunder S (2017) The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Dev 96:359–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020
Bruijnzeel LA, Scatena FN (2011) Hydrometeorology of tropical montane cloud forests. Hydrol Process 25(3):319–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7962
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. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.001
Campbell M, Congalton R, Hartter J, Ducey M (2015) Optimal land cover mapping and change analysis in northeastern Oregon using Landsat imagery. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81(1):37–47. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.81.1.37
Cochrane MA (2001) Synergistic interactions between habitat fragmentation and fire in evergreen tropical forests. Conserv Biol 15:1515–1521. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.01091.x
CONAFOR (2010) Informe de autoevaluación 2010. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/126562/Informes_2010__Informe_de_Autoevaluacion.pdf. Accessed 12 February 2019
CONAPO (2010) Índices de marginación de la Comisión Nacional de Población. http://www.conapo.gob.mx/es/CONAPO/Indices_de_Marginacion_Publicaciones. Accessed 10 February 2018
Congalton RG, Green K (2009) Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices, Second Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 208 pp
Costedoat S, Corbera E, Ezzine-de-Blas D, Honey-Rosés J, Baylis K, Castillo-Santiago MA (2015) How effective are biodiversity conservation payments in Mexico? PLoS One 10:e0119881. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119881
Cotler H, Garrido A, Bunge V, Cuevas ML (2010) Las cuencas hidrográficas de México: priorización y toma de decisiones. In: Las cuencas hidrográficas de México, ed. Cotler H, pp. 210–215, INECC, México
Crk T, Uriarte M, Corsi F, Flynn D (2009) Forest recovery in a tropical landscape: what is the relative importance of biophysical, socioeconomic, and landscape variables? Landsc Ecol 24(5):629–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9338-8
Daniels AE, Bagstad K, Esposito V, Moulaert A, Rodriguez CM (2010) Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica's PES: are we asking the right questions? Ecol Econ 69:2116–2126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.011
Deininger KW, Minten B (1999) Poverty, policies, and deforestation: the case of Mexico. Econ Dev Cult Chang 47:313–344. https://doi.org/10.1086/452403
De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
D.O.F. (2003) Diario Oficial de la Federación, Reglas de Operación para el otorgamiento de pagos del Programa de Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos del 2003. http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=678436&fecha=18/06/2004. Accessed 25 January 2019
D.O.F. (2009) Diario Oficial de la Federación, Reglas de Operación para el otorgamiento de pagos del Programa de Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos del 2009. http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5076668&fecha=31/12/2008. Accessed 25 January 2019
D.O.F. (2010) Diario Oficial de la Federación, Reglas de Operación para el otorgamiento de pagos del Programa de Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos del 2010. http://www.conafor.gob.mx:8080/documentos/docs/6/300Reglas%20de%20Operaci%C3%B3n%20Pro%C3%81rbol%202010.pdf. Accessed 25 January 2019
D.O.F. (2013) Diario Oficial de la Federación, Reglas de Operación para el otorgamiento de pagos del Programa de Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos del 2013. http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5290963&fecha=8/03/2013. Accessed 25 January 2019
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011
ESA (2015) Report of the European Space Agency (www.brockmann-consult.deas) provided as part of the "Coastal Watersheds Conservation in the Context of Climate Change Project". Financed by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) through the World Bank. http://www.brockmann-consult.de. Accessed 6 January 2018
Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4:e105. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105
Fidecoagua (2009) Entrega de recursos de servicios ambientales hidrológicos por “fondos concurrentes” fidecoagua-conafor. http://fidecoaguacoatepec.blogspot.com/. Accessed 1 February 2019
Figueroa F, Sánchez-Cordero V, Meave JA, Trejo I (2009) Socioeconomic context of land use and land cover change in Mexican biosphere reserves. Environ Conserv 36(3):180–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892909990221
Fu Q, Li B, Hou Y, Bi X, Zhang X (2017) Effects of land use and climate change on ecosystem services in Central Asia’s arid regions: a case study in Altay Prefecture, China. Sci Total Environ 607:633–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.241
Fuentes T (2012) Análisis de los programas de pago o compensación por servicios ambientales en la cuenca del Pixquiac, fortalezas y debilidades en el contexto local. (Documento técnico) Proyecto: NCMA3–08-03. URL https://fmcn.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/02/04_Evaluacion_de_mecanismos_de_PSAH_en_el_Pixquia c3.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2018
García CI, Matínez AA, Ramírez A, Cruz AN, Rivas AJ, Domínguez L (2004) La relación agua-bosque: delimitación de zonas prioritarias para pago de servicios ambientales hidrológicos en la cuenca del río Gavilanes, Coatepec, Veracruz. http://www2.inecc.gob.mx/publicaciones2/libros/528/relacion.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2018
Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation: tropical forests are disappearing as the result of many pressures, both local and regional, acting in various combinations in different geographical locations. Bioscience 52(2):143–150. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0143:PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2
Hall CA, Tian H, Qi Y, Pontius G, Cornell J (1995) Modelling spatial and temporal patterns of tropical land use change. J Biogeogr 22:753–757. https://doi.org/10.2307/2845977
Hamilton LS, Juvik JO, Scatena FN (Eds.) (2012) Tropical montane cloud forests (Vol. 110). Springer Science and Business Media
Hausermann H (2014) Maintaining the coffee canopy: understanding change and continuity in Central Veracruz. Hum Ecol 42(3):381–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9644-x
Hein L, Van Koppen K, De Groot RS, Van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57(2):209–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
HoneyRosés J, Baylis K, Ramirez MI (2011) A spatially explicit estimate of avoided forest loss. Conserv Biol 25(5):1032–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01729.x
INE (2011) Instituto Nacional de Ecología, México, D.F. Índice de presión económica a la deforestación. http://www.ccmss.org.mx/acervo/indice-de-presioneconomica-a-la-deforestacion/. Accessed 25 February 2018
INE (2018) Asesoría para actualizar y robustecer el índice de presión económica a la deforestación, Informe final 2018. Instituto Nacional de Ecología, México, D.F. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/398091/Reporte_extenso_taller_IR DEF_INECC_CENTROGEO.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2018
INEGI (2010) Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/ccpv/2010/. Accessed 11 January 2018
Jha S, Bacon CM, Philpott SM, Ernesto Méndez V, Läderach P, Rice RA (2014) Shade coffee: update on a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 64(5):416–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu038
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. Ecosyst Serv 35:32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.004
Kaimowitz D, Angelsen A (1998) Economic models of tropical deforestation: a review. Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia. ISBN 979–8764-17-X Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A, Bruce JW, Coomes
Lambin EF, Geist HJ, Lepers E (2003) Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:205–241. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105459
Leguía JD, Villegas QH, Aliaga LJ (2011) Deforestación en Bolivia: una aproximación espacial. Revista Latinoamericana de Desarrollo Económico (15):7–44 ISSN 2074-4706
Le Velly G, Dutilly C (2016) Evaluating payments for environmental services: methodological challenges. PLoS One 11:e0149374. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149374
Le Velly G, Sauquet A, Cortina-Villar S (2017) PES impact and leakages over several cohorts: the case of the PSA-H in Yucatan, Mexico. Land Econ 93:230–257. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.93.2.230
López-Barrera F, Manson RH, Landgrave R (2014) Identifying deforestation attractors and patterns of fragmentation for seasonally dry tropical forest in central Veracruz, Mexico. Land Use Policy 41:274–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.004
Ludeke AK, Maggio R, Reid LM (1990) An analysis of anthropogenic deforestation using logistic regression and GIS. J Environ Manage 31(3):247–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80038-6
Mas JF, Soares FB, Pontius R, Gutiérrez FM, Rodrigues H (2013) A suite of tools for ROC analysis of spatial models. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 2(3):869–887. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi2030869
Mestries F (2006) Entre la migración internacional y la diversificación de cultivos. Los pequeños productores de café en dos localidades de Veracruz. Sociológica (México) 21(60):75–107 ISSN 0187-0173
Miteva DA, Murray BC, Pattanayak SK (2015) Do protected areas reduce blue carbon emissions? A quasi-experimental evaluation of mangroves in Indonesia. Ecol Econ 119:127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.005
Müller R, Müller D, Schierhorn F, Gerold PP (2012) Proximate causes of deforestation in the Bolivian lowlands: an analysis of spatial dynamics. Reg Environ Chang 12(3):445–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0259-0
Muñoz-Piña C, Guevara A, Torres JM, Braña J (2008) Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol Econ 65:725–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.031
Muñoz-Piña C, Rivera M, Cisneros A, García H (2011) Retos de la focalización del Programa de Pago por los Servicios Ambientales en México. Landscape Ecol 228(1):87–113 ISSN: 1575-1198
Nagendra H, Southworth J, Tucker C (2003) Accessibility as a determinant of landscape transformation in western Honduras: linking pattern and process. Landscape Ecol 18(2):141–158. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102443002
Osorio LP, Mas JF, Guerra F, Maass M (2015) Analysis and modeling of deforestation processes: a case study in the Coyuquilla River Basin, Guerrero, Mexico. Investigaciones geográficas (88):60–74. https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.43853
Ptaff 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2019.01.002
RAN (2017) Listado del total de los Núcleos Agrarios que conforman la Propiedad Social del Registro Agrario Nacional (RAN). http://datos.ran.gob.mx/conjuntoDatosPublico.php . Accessed 5 February 2018
RamirezReyes C, Sims KR, Potapov P, Radeloff VC (2018) Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico reduce forest fragmentation. Ecol Appl 28:1982–1997. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1753
Ranta P, Blom TOM, Niemela J, Joensuu E, Siitonen M (1998) The fragmented Atlantic rain forest of Brazil: size, shape and distribution of forest fragments. Biodivers Conserv 7(3):385–403. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008885813543
Rosero-Bixby L, Palloni A (1998) Población y deforestación en Costa Rica. In: Conservación del bosque en Costa Rica. Academia Nacional de Ciencias y Programa Centroamericano de Población, San Jose, Costa Rica. Acad Nac Cienc 333.72 S612m:131–150
Ruelas-Monjardín LC, Nava-Tablada ME, Cervantes J, Barradas VL (2014) Importancia ambiental de los agroecosistemas cafetaleros bajo sombra en la zona central montañosa del estado de Veracruz, México. Madera y bosques 20(3):27–40 ISSN 1405-0471
Samii C, Lisiecki M, Kulkarni P, Paler L, Chavis L (2014) Effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev 10(11). https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2014.11
Schomers S, Matzdorf B (2013) Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem services 6:16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002
Scullion J, Thomas CW, Vogt KA, Pérez-Maqueo O, Logsdon MG (2011) Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews. Environ Conserv 38:426–434. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291100052X
Seok OK (2010) An assessment of deforestation models for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). Trans GIS 14:631–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2010.01227.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.10.010
Sims KR, Sims KR, Alix-Garcia JM, Shapiro-Garza E, Fine LR, Radeloff VC, Aronson G, Castillo S, Ramirez-Reyes C, Yañez-Pagans P (2014) Improving environmental and social targeting through adaptive management in Mexico’s payments for hydrological services program. Conserv Biol 28:1151–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12318
Skutsch M, Mas JF, Bocco G, Bee B, Cuevas G, Gao Y (2014) Deforestation and land tenure in Mexico: a response to Bonilla-Moheno et al. Land Use Policy 39:390–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.013
Torrez DP (2018) Gobernanza y medios de vida en programas locales de pago por servicios ambientales hidrológicos: el caso de las subcuencas del río Gavilanes y Pixquiac, Veracruz. Dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, UNAM
Verburg PH, Soepboer W, Veldkamp A, Limpiada R, Espaldon V, Mastura S (2002) Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: the CLUE-S model. Environ Manag 30:391–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2630-x
Wunder S (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol 21(1):48–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00559.x
Yu W, Zang S, Wu C, Liu W, Na X (2011) Analyzing and modeling land use land cover change (LUCC) in the Daqing City, China. Appl Geogr 31(2):600608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.11.019
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Instituto de Ecología, A.C. (INECOL) for the use of their vehicles and work spaces. Support by R. Landgrave Ramirez was essential in the GIS analysis, as was the support of H Romero Uribe and P. Mokondoko during fieldwork.
Funding
CONACyT provided a grant #483941 supporting JVT during the development of his PHD. This study was supported by grant #1313804 from NSF’s Dynamics of Coupled Natural-Human Systems (CNH) program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Editor: Ana Iglesias
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Von Thaden, J., Manson, R.H., Congalton, R.G. et al. A regional evaluation of the effectiveness of Mexico’s payments for hydrological services. Reg Environ Change 19, 1751–1764 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01518-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01518-3