Abstract
Context
Understanding the complex interdependencies between nature and people is a major challenge for the sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Spatially explicit identification of these interdependencies is particularly relevant for managing biodiversity hotspots, such as Tropical Dry Forests (TDF).
Objectives
We provided a methodology to spatially identify the components of social-ecological systems that have been shaped by both environmental conditions and management practices at three relevant decision-making scales: plots owned by individuals, plot owners, and governance units. To do so, we identified and characterized: (1) ecological clusters (EC), (2) social-management clusters (SC), and (3) social-ecological systems units (SESU) in a TDF in western Mexico.
Methods
We used multivariate analysis to identify and characterize the ECs, SCs, and SESU at the respective decision-making scales.
Results
We found four EC, SC, and SESU clusters. Differences between ECs were based on their elevation and land cover type. The SC differed according to the management intensity of cattle and forests. Differences between SESU were based on land management regime (individual vs collective), plot sizes, and time under private schemes.
Conclusions
Our findings suggested that decision-makers (ejidatarios) are bounded by the topographical characteristics and the public policies that determine communal (or private) governance, also by the number of resources available to them. The methodology can be applied to other contexts and nested decision-making scales. The spatial identification of these interdependencies is critical for landscape planning since it can contribute to reconciling productive activities and biodiversity conservation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Tropical dry forests (TDF) are important biodiversity hotspot areas and the second-largest tropical forest in Latin America (Quijas et al. 2019). A close historical relationship between human settlements and TDF use has led to the conversion of approximately 80% of the original TDF surface into pastures for cattle ranching and agricultural activities (Balvanera et al. 2011; Dirzo 2011; Gavito et al. 2014). Growing efforts have taken place to monitor and understand the social-ecological dynamics in these forests (Mastrangelo and Laterra 2015; Quijas et al. 2019; Jara-Guerrero et al. 2019). Exemplary social-ecological dynamics in TDF include ecosystem services provided to society (Maass et al. 2005), ecosystem services contribution to human well-being (Tauro et al. 2018), management strategies that guarantee the sustainable provision of ecosystem services (Mastrangelo and Laterra 2015; Trilleras et al. 2015; Monroy-Sais et al. 2020; Sánchez-Romero et al. 2021), and the successional dynamics of the forest recovery (Jara-Guerrero et al. 2019; Gavito et al. 2021; Cortés-Calderón et al. 2021; Pérez-Cárdenas et al. 2021). However, the concept of social-ecological systems (SES; Berkes et al. 1998; Ostrom 2009) is underexplored as a means to understand the complex interactions of social-ecological systems in TDFs.
A challenge to spatially identifying social-ecological units is the nested and hierarchical nature of social and biophysical components, which underpin management decisions (Hanspach et al. 2016; Martín-López et al. 2017; Lazzari et al. 2019) in response to local people's needs (Castillo et al. 2018). Social factors, which are embedded and driven by culture, politics, economics, and governance across scales (Chapin et al. 2009; Martín-López et al. 2017), determine the conditions in which people manage the land. Therefore, identification of social-ecological units (sensu Martín-López et al. 2017) entails understanding the interactions between the social and ecological factors that affect decision-making (Cumming et al. 2005; Virapongse et al. 2016). However, scales at which ecological and social data are collected do not correspond to the scales at which people make land management decisions. Among the few studies have spatially characterized social-ecological systems in land and seascapes (e.g. Martín-López et al. 2017; Lazzari et al. 2019; Pacheco-Romero et al. 2020); efforts to do so in TDFs have already started (Monroy-Sais et al. 2020; Sánchez-Romero et al. 2021). However, incorporating the minimum local governance level and decision-making scales remains a methodological challenge.
The goal of this study was to provide a methodological approach to identify and characterize the components of social-ecological system units at three relevant decision-making scales. Specifically, we: (1) identified ecological clusters (EC) at the plot scale, (2) identified social-management clusters (SC) at the plot owner scale, and (3) spatially characterized the social-ecological system units (SESU) within the landscape at the smallest governance unit scale. We discussed how ecological-social interlinkages determine current landscape configuration in the western TDF in Mexico. We then explored how this methodological approach can contribute to the identification of opportunities to reconcile productive activities and biodiversity conservation.
Methods
Study area
The Chamela-Cuixmala region is part of the TDF biome located along the Mexican Pacific coast (Ceballos and García 2010). It is a biodiversity hotspot area where a Long Term Social-Ecological Research network has been working for almost three decades (Maass et al. 2005; Castillo et al. 2018; Balvanera et al. 2021). The region comprises the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve and its transition area (UNESCO 2022), located in the municipalities of La Huerta and Villa Purificación in the state of Jalisco, Mexico (Fig. 1). Topography is dominated by hills between 20 and 180 m, although some flatlands occur in floodplains and valleys along the main rivers and seasonal streams (Cotler and Ortega-Larrocea 2006). Soils on hills are poorly developed, predominated by entisols with sandy loams in texture (Cotler and Ortega-Larrocea 2006). Rainfall is seasonal with an annual mean of 800 mm, concentrated between June and October (Maass et al. 2018). The mean annual temperature is 25.6 °C (1980–2015), with a monthly minimum and maximum of 16.4 °C and 32.6 °C respectively (Maass et al. 2018).
Biosphere reserves have core, buffer, and transition areas with different protection and restriction levels that foster social-ecological sustainable activities; therefore this region is mainly covered by TDF in different successional stages and patches (Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. 2009; Flores-Casas and Ortega-Huerta 2019). Within the reserve, most of the forest is old-growth with no signs of human intervention in recent decades. In the surroundings, the region has undergone extensive land-use change in the last five decades, mainly to crop fields in flatlands and induced pastures for cattle grazing on hills. Pastures are burned to reduce woody species and foster pasture growth, which leads to nutrient depletion and long-term reduction in forage quality (Burgos and Maass 2004; Trilleras et al. 2015). These lands are sometimes left unmanaged, allowing the forest to regrow. As a result, the landscape outside the reserve is a mosaic of grassland patches, secondary forests, and old-growth forests (Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. 2009; Flores-Casas and Ortega-Huerta 2019).
The ownership regime is a critical factor that affects the landscape configuration in the transition areas. Most of the land (70–80%) is under a governance unit specific to Mexico, called ejido, a semi-communal land tenure regime that emerged from the land redistribution policies following the Mexican Revolution of the 1910s (Castillo et al. 2005; Monroy-Sais et al. 2020; Fig. 2). Local collective management arrangements have been developed in many ejidos, and are operationalized through an ejidal assembly (Toledo 1996; Agrawal 2007; Schroeder and Castillo 2013). In the Chamela-Cuixmala region, ejido formation occurred between 1950 and 1975 and was linked to a governmental program called “March to the sea” (“Marcha al mar”), designed to colonize uninhabited and isolated coasts and to promote tourism (Castillo et al. 2005; Lazos-Chavero et al. 2016). Today, the region comprises the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve core area, the buffer area that corresponds to some lands surrounding the southern area of the reserve (Ceballos et al. 1999), including private ecotouristic alternatives from private owners, and the transition area that includes five small towns (Careyes, Cuixmala, Zapata, Villa, Chamela), eight ejidos in the Biosphere Reserve boundaries, and three tourist developments (Costa Cuixmala, Club Med, Careyes) (Ceballos et al. 1999; Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. 2009). In this study, we focused on seven of the eight ejidos in the transition area, plus two more in the contiguous area of the Northern part where farming activities and forest land cover are highly represented (Fig. 1).
The methodological approach used to spatially identify the Social-Ecological Systems Units (SESU). PCA principal component analysis. FAMD factorial analysis of mixed data. Ejidal plots are owned by the ejidatarios, who have legal rights to inherit and sell the land, as well as vote in the Assembly for making decisions on the communal areas. Ejidos are semi-communal land tenures with private and communal lands
Land rights within ejidos in this region can take place in three different ways (Schroeder and Castillo 2013). First, ejidatarios, or the landholding members of the ejido, can inherit the land right (ejidal plots), sell it, and vote in the ejidal assembly to take communal decisions. Ejidatarios have rights over communal lands within the ejido. Second, posesionarios possess land within the ejido but cannot pass it to the following generation. Posesionarios do not hold rights over communal lands and cannot vote in the ejidal assembly. Each ejido determines the level of posesionarios participation in collective management. Finally, avecindados are those who have settled within the ejido for more than a year, and neither possesses land rights nor vote in the Assembly. Traditionally, men hold most of these three types of land rights and make land-related decisions; although there are few “ejidatarias” (women).
Ejidatarios within ejidos surrounding the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve are aligned with the extensive cattle ranching and silvopastoral culture (Tauro et al. 2021). Cattle ranching is strongly limited by biophysical aspects such as water availability, as well as economic aspects such as financial resources to invest in cattle maintenance (Maass et al. 2005). There have been identified three different types of ejidatarios in the area; the first one includes ejidatarios with a high financial income that own larger extensions of land and cattle. They have better means to fulfil their livelihood needs. The second group is comprised of ejidatarios with lower education and are highly dependent on cattle activities. The third group is ejidatarios, which have a diversity of productive activities and a high number of plot areas (Naime Sánchez Henkel 2016). Emigration in the area has resulted in a lack of young producers and many abandoned areas (Cohen-Salgado 2014; Torales-Ayala 2015). Traditionally in the region, a strong emphasis on biodiversity conservation has excluded the local communities and neglected their needs, particularly ejidatarios surrounding the Biosphere Reserve (deeper historical explanation in Supplementary information 1). This has led to a general rejection of the Biosphere Reserve and conservation activities (Castillo et al. 2018).
Methodological approach
Our methodology was adapted from Martín-López et al. (2017), and structured in three phases (Fig. 2) that align with our objectives (see above). Social-ecological dynamics are the result of interconnection among three decision-making scales (Supplementary information 2).
For our study site, we characterized homogeneous spatial clusters based on topography, soil information, and landscape ecological conditions. We used the ejidal plot (individual plot) as the unit of ecological analysis since it is the minimum decision-making spatial scale. Then, we characterized clusters of ejidatarios (the plot owners) based on similar social and management decisions. Finally, we identified social-ecological system units at the ejido scale (minimum governance unit) based on the governance and infrastructure connectivity context at the landscape level, where we described the existing relations between the ecological and social-management clusters. We relied on available data on ecological, social, and management decisions as well as on governance dynamics (Table 1).
Data sources
Individual plots: We selected 63 ejidal plots (7–30 ha) for this study. The first 30 were randomly selected to cover: (i) a range of land cover and topographic landscape composition patterns; (ii) heterogeneous land use intensity; and (iii) geographic dispersion across the ejidos surrounding the reserve (Pérez-Cárdenas et al. 2021). The remaining 33 were randomly selected to represent variation in the stand age and structure of TDF across the hilly region (Mora et al. 2018). We also used soil data available for a subset of these (Supplementary information 3). The georeferenced location of each plot was used to identify the corresponding polygon reported by the Mexican Agrarian Record “Registro Agrario Nacional” (RAN 2022). For 26 plots for which polygon data were missing, a polygon with an area equal to the median area size of the plots across the region (~ 25 hectares) was simulated. Polygons for which no ecological data were available (n = 1757) were excluded. In the case of two or more points located within the same polygon (ejidal plot), we calculated the average value for each quantitative variable among all the points within the plot. The 63 plots assessed here included different successional forest stages, and represent 3.5% of the existing ejidal plots (n = 1820). For each plot, we calculated nine topographical variables using data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) (Farr 2000) in Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al. 2017; Tables 1, S.1).
Plot owners: We focused on 67 ejidatarios who participated in previous studies and for whom management data were available (Cohen-Salgado 2014; Mora et al. 2018; Pérez-Cárdenas et al. 2021, Ramírez-Ramírez unpublished data). These ejidatarios were selected to maximize the representation of different ejidal plot successional stages and by financial resources and educational level. There are at least three ejidatarios per ejido, covering ejidatarios from the nine ejidos surrounding the reserve, which results in a high representation of the ejidatarios in the area despite the small sample size. We selected five ordinal variables and five quantitative variables (see Table 1) for which consistent information was available across ejidatarios, and had shown to be key descriptors of tropical forest (dry and wet) management intensity: (1) land extension, (2) time of management, and (3) intensity of use (Benitez-Malvido 2006; Holl 2007; Martínez-Ramos and García Orth 2007; Zermeño-Hernández et al. 2015). We developed an index of management intensity in which the qualitative intensity (1 low, 2 intermediate, 3 high) was assessed for the nine most relevant variables that explained the variance among ejidatario.Footnote 1 Higher values in the index indicated greater management intensities. We summed the ordinal assessment to obtain a management intensity index per social-management cluster. The social data were linked with the ecological data based on their belonging to the same ejido, as there was not 100% correspondence between the ejidal plots and the ejidatarios (plot owners). We considered core variables for undertaking the analyses as those with less than 15% of missing data. The rest of the variables were used to complement the description of the clusters (more details in Table S.1). Nine variables with missing data (less than 15%) were imputed using the package “missMDA” (Josse and Husson 2016).
Minimum governance units: Data were gathered on the land tenure and on the communications infrastructure for nine ejidos (1400–18,000 ha); seven are in the transition area (Schroeder and Castillo 2013). Land rights held within the ejidos (Monroy-Sais et al. 2020) and distance to human settlements and roads (Maass et al. 2005; Flores-Casas and Ortega-Huerta 2019) have an important effect on the land cover transformation in the area. Therefore, data on the type of land tenure management (collective or individual), the types of land rights holders, and the number of years under private legal schemes (Program for Certification of Ejido Rights and Titling of Urban Plots, PROCEDE) were extracted from the National Agrarian Registry “Registro Agrario Nacional” (RAN 2022). The number of roads crossing the ejidos was obtained from the cartography provided by RAN (see Table 1).
Data analysis
The general clustering procedure consisted in performing a factorial analysis on each set of data (i.e. ecological, social-management, governance). Then we applied a hierarchical clustering on the components (HCPC) to identify clusters. Only principal components weighted with eigenvalues higher than 1 were included in the clustering procedure (i.e. Kaiser Criteria; e.g. Andrews et al. 2004). To identify the suitable number of clusters (e.g. similar plot types), we followed the entropy criterion that stops aggregating clusters when dissimilarity significantly decreased (Cornillon et al. 2012).
Ecological clusters (EC)
To find ecologically homogeneous ejidal plots, we first performed a principal component analysis (PCA) on the core ecological variables to summarise main patterns (Table 2). All the variables were previously transformed with log10 (n + 0.5) to avoid biases in the analysis. Once the clusters were created we used supplementary variables from soil data to further describe their characteristics (see Table 1). For points lacking soil information, data were estimated using Ordinary Kriging, which is considered a robust technique for spatial interpolation of soil properties (e.g. Robinson and Metternicht 2006).
Social-management clusters (SC)
To identify the social-management clusters, we performed a Factorial Analysis of Mixed Data (FAMD) using the core variables of the management carried out by the ejidatarios (Table 2; Lê et al. 2008). We described the clusters according to their management intensity.
Social-Ecological-Systems Units (SESU)
To identify Social-Ecological-Systems Units, we performed a PCA. We used the ejido as a unit of analysis and nine social-ecological variables that refer to access to land, land tenure, and governance (Table 2). Once the clusters were created, we used the percentage of plots from each ejido belonging to EC and the percentage of ejidatarios belonging to each SC as supplementary. We used these two variables to visualize how each SESU is associated with both EC and SC using a scatter plot.
We tested for significant differences among clusters at each scale (EC, SC, and SESU) by conducting ANOVA (for variables that are normally distributed) and Kruskal–Wallis tests to analyze differences in quantitative variables among clusters (p < 0.05). To test for the normal distribution of these variables, we used the Shapiro–Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk 1965). Post hoc tests were implemented when significant differences among clusters were identified, using a Tukey and Dunn´s (with Bonferroni correction) test. To evaluate differences among clusters for qualitative data, we used the chi-square test.
All the analyses were carried out using the FactoMineR package (Lê et al. 2008) for R version 4.0.5 (R core Team 2014). We used the packages “car” (Fox and Weisberg 2019) for the ANOVAs, the package “multcomp” (Hothorn et al. 2008) for the post hoc tests, and “FSA” (Ogle et al. 2023) for the Dunn test.
Results
Ecological clusters (EC)
Ejidal plots mainly differed with respect to their land cover, carbon storage and topography (elevation, slope, aspect) (Fig.S.1). The three first principal components explained 69.5% of the variance (Table S.2). The first dimension PCA1 (34%) divided the plots along a gradient ranging from those covered by old growth forest to those with introduced grasslands. PCA2 (20%) showed a strong association between carbon storage, elevation, and slope. PCA3 (15%) grouped plots at higher altitudes covered with secondary forests (Table S.3).
The four clusters represented a gradient of land-use intensity that is embedded into the heterogeneous landscape of the Chamela-Cuixmala region (Tables 3, S.4; Fig. S.2). The first cluster, EC1 comprised Ejidal plots that had significantly more conserved forests (72%) of older ages (~ 52 years old), as well as those with the highest percentage of permanent crop cover, which are located adjacent to the Biosphere Reserve (Fig. 3). The second cluster, EC2 included the Ejidal plots found at the highest elevations (> 160 m) and in sites with steepest slopes (> 11.40°), mostly including older aged forests (~ 42 years old), and were mostly found northeast of the Biosphere Reserve (Fig. 3). The third cluster, EC3, comprised Ejidal plots with the highest values of carbon storage (27.85 mgC ha−1), and soils with the highest levels of phosphatase activity (827), were mostly found in moderate north-facing slopes with high coverage of secondary forests (23%), and north of the Biosphere Reserve. The fourth cluster, EC4, was dominated by Ejidal plots covered by introduced grasslands (47%) with the most compacted soils (with a high bulk density 1.42), northeast-oriented, and found across the Chamela-Cuixmala region (Fig. 3).
Geographical representation and description of the ecological clusters (EC) at the ejidal plot level. EC1 = Dominance of conserved and old forests. Permanent crops. EC2 = Highest elevations and slope. Dominance of old forests. EC3 = Dominance of secondary forests. High carbon storage. High phosphatase activity in soil. Moderate slopes facing north. EC4 = Dominance of introduced grasslands. Compacted soil (high bulk density). Northeast oriented
Social-Management Clusters (SC)
Ejidatarios mainly differed in the way they manage their land with respect to the number of cattle owned, the number of years using their plot, the intensity of wood extraction and plot size (Fig.S.3). The first seven components of the FAMD explained 77% of the variance (Table S.5). The first dimension FAMD1 (21%) divided the owners based on the number of cattle owned. FAMD2 (15%) was associated with the number of years of using the plots. FAMD3 (11%) was related to the intensity of wood extraction and plot size. FAMD4 (8%) represented the intensity of selective slashing. FAMD5 (7%) represented the differences regarding the number of paddocks. FAMD6 (7%) was associated with cattle rotation. FAMD7 (6%) was related to the number of clearings per year (Table S.6).
Four social-management clusters (SC) of the plot owners revealed a gradient in management intensity (Figs. 4, S.4). SC1 managed their plots for a longer time (35 years on average), had no forest clearings and no or low wood extraction, lowest cattle owned (10–32), and 93% of them rotated the cattle among paddocks. SC2 had the largest plot sizes (~ 136.4 ha) and numbers of cattle owned (~ 82 cows). SC3 performed the most intense pasture management, with the highest frequency of burning (5 times) and clearing (9), and owned the smallest plots (44 ha). SC4 undertook the highest intensity of wood extraction and slashing (> 200 rods/ha, and 80 poles/ha respectively); 100% of them do clearings, and 75% do not rotate their cattle. While the nature of the management is heterogeneous within and among SC, the intensity index revealed a gradient from SC1 with the lowest overall management intensity, to SC2, SC3 and SC4, with the highest overall management intensity (Tables S.7, S.8).
We observed an association between plot size and management intensity; larger plots tended to have the lowest management intensity (SC1), while plots with the most intensive management were smaller (SC3 and SC4) (Table 4). A gradient was also observed in cattle rotation since larger plots represented by SC1 were the ones where 100% of the ejidatarios rotated cattle, while smaller plots are related to less cattle rotation (SC3) (Table 4). In addition, those plots represented by SC4, where there is the least cattle rotation, are the ones with the highest intensity of wood extraction (Table 4).
Social-ecological systems units (SESU)
The variance among ejidos was mainly explained by the percentage of total ejidal surface allocated to individuals, the number of years under private tenure (registration in PROCEDE), and the average individual ejidal plot extension (Fig. S.5). The first three components of the PCA presented eigenvalues greater than 1 and explained 87% of the variance (Table S.9). PCA1 (41% of the variance) divided the ejidos based on the percentage of ejidal surface allocated to common lands versus those allocated to individuals. There was a positive relation between the number of ejidatarios per ejido and the percentage of common lands, and between the number of avecindados and the percentage of land allocated to individuals. PCA2 (26%) showed a strong relation with the number of years under the private tenure of PROCEDE. PCA3 (20%) grouped ejidos according to the average size of the individual plots (Table S.10).
The four social-ecological systems units (SESU) differed with respect to communal or individual governance and tenure rights. SESU1 and SESU4 were the most dissimilar, representing a gradient characterised by the percentage of land allocated to individuals, the percentage of avecindados, and the percentage of ejidatarios (Figs. 5, S.6; Table 5). The duration under private tenure regulated by PROCEDE explained the differences between SESU2 and SESU3 (Tables 5, S.11).
SESU1 comprised the ejidos Nacastillo and José María Morelos in the eastern part of the Biosphere reserve (Fig. 5). These ejidos do not have land allocated to individuals and had the highest percentage of ejidatarios (97%). SESU2 included the ejidos Los Ranchitos and Juan Gil Preciado at the North of the Biosphere Reserve, and had the higher number of years under the private schemes of PROCEDE (26 years) and the highest average size of individual (ejidal) plots (27 ha). SESU3 comprised two ejidos at the north and south of the Biosphere, i.e. Santa Cruz de Otates and Ley General de Reforma Agraria. The ejidos of SESU3 were the last ones to join the private scheme of PROCEDE (18 years under PROCEDE). SESU4 included the ejidos Emiliano Zapata, La Fortuna, and San Mateo, which are at the north and south of the Reserve, closest to the coastline and with the highest percentage of avecindados (72%), and the lowest percentage of ejidatarios (24%). Finally, SESU3 and SESU4 presented the highest percentage of surface allocated to individuals (79%).
While topography (EC) and plot owner individual resources (SC) underpin land cover transformations and management intensity, they are also modulated by communal governance (Fig. 6, SESU). SESU4, the most distinct one (Fig. 6), was ecologically characterised by flatter lands at lower elevations (less EC2) and secondary forests with high phosphatase (as represented by EC3) (Tables 3, 5). At the same time, SESU4 was dominated by ejidatarios who frequently undertake burnings and clearings (SC3) (Table 4). It presented a highest percentage of avecindados. By contrast, SESU1 was characterised by the high % of ejidatarios, and dominated by mature forests, including the oldest groves (EC1), and those at the highest elevations (EC2); socially it was dominated by ejidatarios with the largest plot size (SC2), moderate cattle management intensity with no rotation and the highest wood extraction most frequent forest management (SC4) (Table 4). In between SESU1 and SESU4, SESU2 and SESU3 presented an intermediate land-cover transformation (Fig. 6), but differed with respect to the number of years under private tenure of PROCEDE (Table 5). In addition to the longest period under PROCEDE, SESU2 is also characterized by a majority of ejidatarios with the lowest management intensity (SC1). SESU3 instead, had the lowest number of years under private tenure of PROCEDE and was dominated by plots at the highest elevations (EC2), where ejidatarios had the largest plot size (SC2) (Tables 3, 4).
Discussion
Land-use intensity and trade-offs between nature’s contributions to people: the relevance of co-production
Topography was a major driver of land use change within individual ejidal plots. Areas with rugged topography tended to maintain more forest cover while flatter areas have been more drastically transformed into pastures. This supports other studies focused on the role of topography in land cover change (Martín-López et al. 2017; Flores-Casas and Ortega-Huerta 2019; Aik et al. 2021). The prevalence of secondary forest in some of the plots results in a combination of productive activities that suggested that biodiversity conservation and livelihoods can be reconciled under certain conditions, similar to as found elsewhere (Pérez-Cárdenas et al. 2021; Balvanera et al. 2021). From our results, we found that important nature contributions to people, such as regulation of soil quality (represented by high phosphatase activityFootnote 2 and less soil compaction) and regulation of climate change (measured with the variable carbon storage) are provided in these forests (EC3; Table 3). By contrast, in the introduced grasslands (EC4; Table 3), phosphatase is usually low and soil compaction is high, indicating the low provision of soil quality. It is also in the introduced grasslands where the most widespread land use is intensive cattle farming (SC4; Table 4), which suggested a relation between intensive rangeland use and soil degradation, something previously reported at the plot scale (Jaramillo et al. 2003; Trilleras et al. 2015; Ayala-Orozco et al. 2018).
The size of the plots owned by ejidatarios underpins their decisions about management. For example, most ejidatarios do not use their entire plot for cattle due to factors like the high cost to transform forests into grasslands in areas with high slopes (such as SESU 1 and SESU 2, Fig. 6). Conversely, ejidatarios of small-sized plots use the greatest amount of available resources, removing the forest area and intensifying the management of the land (SC3 and SC4; Table 4).
Decisions on how to manage land in the Chamela-Cuixmala Region are based on adaptive management and learning processes, as well as access to anthropogenic capitals (Sánchez-Romero et al. 2021). Ejidatarios' motivations to burn or not to burn their land depend on their benefit–cost knowledge (i.e. human capital) (Ramírez-Ramírez et al. in review), which supports that nature’s contributions also require inputs from humans, a process known as “co-production” (Díaz et al. 2015; Palomo et al. 2016). Recent empirical research has shown that the type of anthropogenic capital involved in the co-production determines the level of land-use intensity and leads to trade-offs and synergies among nature’s contributions (Torralba et al. 2018; Lavorel et al. 2020; Bruley et al. 2021). García-Llorente et al. (2015) found that while high use of inorganic pesticides, fertilizers, and technology (manufactured and financial capitals) was strongly used in intensively managed greenhouses in the lowlands of Sierra Nevada Mountains, small-scale farming systems at higher altitudes were mainly supported by collective action of irrigation communities (i.e. social capital). Studies on how spatial configuration of the use of anthropogenic capitals lead to trade-offs between nature’s contributions to people and maintenance of multi-functional landscapes contribute to reconciling biodiversity conservation and productivity activities (e.g. Schermer et al. 2016; Pachoud et al. 2020; Grosinger et al. 2021).
The examples portrayed above highlight the relevance of operationalizing social-ecological system units (SESU), only possible if there is long-term interdisciplinary research, and collaborative efforts to create place-based social and ecological datasets (Haberl et al. 2006; Collins et al. 2010; Maass et al. 2016). In this study, the characterization of a large number of plots (N = 67) based on a wide range of ecological variables (N = 20) was only possible because of the collaborative nature of the long-term explorations of the social-ecological dynamics in the Chamela-Cuixmala region (Maass et al. 2005, 2016; Balvanera et al. 2021). Likewise, the identification of social-management clusters relied on a rich database of in-depth interviews to ejidatarios (N = 63) conducted over time.
Although there have been some efforts to collect social and ecological data in long-term research programs (e.g. Fischer et al. 2010; Bretagnolle et al. 2019), challenges remain around mismatches between ecological, social, and management data. Although our methodological approach was limited by our sample size that might not have fully represented existing ecological conditions within ejidal plots (Cohen-Salgado 2014), the spatial representation of ejidal plots and ejidos was critical to explore social-ecological dynamics for the Chamela-Cuixmala region.
Land management decisions: the relevance of governance systems across scales
Decisions of plot owners (ejidatarios) were bounded by the topographical characteristics of their plot, and by the governance system in which their decision-making is embedded. Historical privatization trends and level of communal management (see the introduction and Supplementary information 1) have had a clear impact on the social-ecological dynamics in the Chamela-Cuixmala region. For example, the ejidos that were the last in applying the private tenure fostered by PROCEDE (i.e. Santa Cruz de Otates and Ley General de Reforma Agraria—SESU3) are the ejidos with the highest percentage of surface allocated to individuals, with a high number of ejidatarios and large plot sizes (Table 5). This governance of land tenure has led to a moderate management intensity that allows the co-existence of forest preservation and productive activities. Including the governance level in our approach made visible similarities between ejidos that are very distinct in ecological and social-management conditions (i.e. SESU3). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) explicitly recognized this central role of governance in its conceptual framework and stated that governance systems determine, to various degrees, the access to, and the control, allocation, and distribution of components of nature and anthropogenic assets and their benefits to people” (Díaz et al. 2015, p. 6).
There are social-ecological dynamics mediated by land management decisions that were not covered in this study and should be considered in future research. For example, (Vallet et al. 2019) found that the co-production of nature’s contributions to people were subject to inequalities in access to different types of capital. In addition, Martín-López et al. (2019) found that power relations were exerted across governance scales, where institutions and stakeholders at larger scales often shape the decisions of local actors. Therefore, future social-ecological research in the Chamela-Cuixmala region needs to explore the role played by external stakeholders, such as external land buyers who recently arrived in the region, or landless inhabitants that can rent or work the land, power dynamics that shape the distribution of access to land, and the anthropogenic capitals underpinning co-production (Felipe-Lucia et al. 2015; Berbés-Blázquez et al. 2017; Vallet et al. 2019; Martín-López et al. 2019).
Moreover, this study did not evaluate the optimum number of clusters produced by different clustering statistical methods, and did not validate the SESU characterizations with the ejidatarios and other relevant stakeholders of the Chamela-Cuixmala region. Future applications of this methodology should consider a broad spectrum of available biophysical, social, and governance data, test for different clustering methods, and validate the results with relevant stakeholders. Here, it is important to point out that the resulting SESU maps are statistical constructs and might differ from the maps constructed by different stakeholders. Yet, the SESU maps obtained through the suggested methodological approach can create spaces for dialogues with different stakeholders about sustainable management options.
Conclusions
Place-based research on social-ecological systems has immensely advanced in the last decade by deepening the understanding of human-nature interactions across scales (Epstein et al. 2015; Folke et al. 2021; Norström et al. 2022). This body of research demonstrates that although social-ecological interactions are of relevance at larger scales than locally, it is usually at the local scale where diverse and innovative solutions emerged to reconcile productive activities and biodiversity conservation (Norström et al. 2022). This study provided a multi-scale methodological approach to identify spatially explicit social-ecological units across three decision-making scales. This approach helped address scale mismatches between ecological, social, and governance data, and navigate the inherent complexities of the interactions between people and nature.
Notes
Number of cattle, number of years, plot size, wood extraction, selective slashing, number of paddocks, cattle rotation, number of clearings and number of pasture burnings.
Phosphatase activity is a good indicator of soil quality in TDF because phosphorus is the element most limiting plant productivity (Campo et al. 2001) and is affected by land management in the long term (Van Der Sande et al. 2022). This enzyme helps to release phosphorus it from the organic forms of decomposing biomass thus improving local P recycling and P availability in the absence of other sources, such as P fertilizers, that are not used in this region (Sandoval-Pérez et al. 2009).
References
Agrawal A (2007) Forests, governance, and sustainability: common property theory and its contributions. Int J Commons 1:111
Aik DHJ, Ismail MH, Muharam FM, Alias MA (2021) Evaluating the impacts of land use/land cover changes across topography against land surface temperature in Cameron Highlands. PLoS ONE 16:e0252111
Andrews SS, Karlen DL, Cambardella CA (2004) The soil management assessment framework: a quantitative soil quality evaluation method. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:1945–1962
Ayala-Orozco B, Gavito ME, Mora F et al (2018) Resilience of soil properties to land-use change in a tropical dry forest ecosystem. Land Degrad Dev 29:315–325
Balvanera P, Castillo A, MartÍnez-Harms MJ (2011) Ecosystem services in seasonally dry tropical forests. In: Seasonally dry tropical forests. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, Washington, pp 259–277
Balvanera P, Paz H, Arreola-Villa F et al (2021) Social ecological dynamics of tropical secondary forests. For Ecol Manag 496:119369
Benitez-Malvido J (2006) Effect of low vegetation on the recruitment of plants in successional habitat types1. Biotropica 38:171–182
Berbés-Blázquez M, Bunch MJ, Mulvihill PR et al (2017) Understanding how access shapes the transformation of ecosystem services to human well-being with an example from Costa Rica. Ecosyst Serv 28:320–327
Berkes F, Folke C, Colding J (1998) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bretagnolle V, Benoit M, Bonnefond M et al (2019) Action-orientated research and framework: insights from the French long-term social-ecological research network. Ecol Soc 24:28
Bruley E, Locatelli B, Lavorel S (2021) Nature’s contributions to people: coproducing quality of life from multifunctional landscapes. Ecol Soc 26:260112
Burgos A, Maass JM (2004) Vegetation change associated with land-use in tropical dry forest areas of Western Mexico. Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:475–481
Campo J, Maass M, Jaramillo VJ et al (2001) Phosphorus cycling in a Mexican tropical dry forest ecosystem. Biogeochemistry 53:161–179
Castillo A, Magaña A, Pujadas A et al (2005) Understanding the interaction of rural people with ecosystems: a case study in a Tropical Dry Forest of Mexico. Ecosystems 8:630–643
Castillo A, Vega-Rivera JH, Pérez-Escobedo M et al (2018) Linking social-ecological knowledge with rural communities in Mexico: lessons and challenges toward sustainability. Ecosphere 9:e02470
Ceballos G, García A (2010) Diversidad, amenazas y áreas prioritarias para la conservación de las Selvas Secas del Pacífico de México. In: Ceballos G, Martínez L, García A et al (eds). Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp 441–447
Ceballos G, Szekely A, García A. Rodríguez P, Noguera F (1999) Programa de Manejo de la Reserva de la Biósphera Chamela-Cuixmala. México
Chapin FS, Folke C, Kofinas GP (2009) A framework for understanding change. In: Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, New York, pp 3–28
Cohen-Salgado D (2014) Estrategias de manejo del bosque tropical seco: un estudio de caso en Jalisco. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
Collins SL, Carpenter SR, Swinton SM et al (2010) An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social-ecological research. Front Ecol Environ 9:351–357
Cornillon P-A, Guyader A, Husson F et al (2012) Statistique avec R, 3rd edn. Presses Universitaires de Rennes (PUR), Unité pédagogique Mathématiques appliquées, Rennes
Cortés-Calderón S, Mora F, Arreola-Villa F, Balvanera P (2021) Ecosystem services supply and interactions along secondary tropical dry forests succession. For Ecol Manag 482:118858
Cotler H, Ortega-Larrocea MP (2006) Effects of land use on soil erosion in a tropical dry forest ecosystem, Chamela watershed, Mexico. In: Catena. pp 107–117
Cumming GS, Barnes G, Perz S et al (2005) An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems 8:975–987
Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J et al (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16
Dirzo R (2011) Seasonally dry tropical forests: ecology and conservation. Island Press, Washington
Epstein G, Pittman J, Alexander SM et al (2015) Institutional fit and the sustainability of social–ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:34–40
Farr T (2000) Shuttle Radar Topography Mission | NASA’s Earth Observing System. https://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle-radar-topography-mission. Accessed 23 Mar 2023
Felipe-Lucia MR, Martín-López B, Lavorel S et al (2015) Ecosystem services flows: why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PLoS ONE 10:e0132232
Fischer M, Bossdorf O, Gockel S et al (2010) Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: the biodiversity exploratories. Basic Appl Ecol 11:473–485
Flores-Casas R, Ortega-Huerta MA (2019) Modelling land cover changes in the tropical dry forest surrounding the Chamela-Cuixmala biosphere reserve, Mexico. Int J Remote Sens 40:6948–6974
Folke C, Polasky S, Rockström J et al (2021) Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 50:834–869
Fox J, Weisberg S (2019) An R companion to applied regression. Sage, Thousand Oaks
García-Llorente M, Iniesta-Arandia I, Willaarts BA et al (2015) Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds. Ecol Soc 20:200339
Gavito ME, Martínez-Yrizar A, Ahedo R, et al (2014) La vulnerabilidad del socio-ecosistema de bosque tropical seco de Chamela, Jalisco, al cambio global: un análisis de sus componentes ecológicos y sociales. Investig Ambient Cienc y política pública 6
Gavito ME, Paz H, Barragán F et al (2021) Indicators of integrative recovery of vegetation, soil and microclimate in successional fields of a tropical dry forest. For Ecol Manag 479:118526
Gorelick N, Hancher M, Dixon M et al (2017) Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens Environ 202:18–27
Grosinger J, Vallet A, Palomo I et al (2021) Collective capabilities shape the co-production of nature’s contributions to people in the alpine agricultural system of the Maurienne valley, France. Reg Environ Change 21:1–17
Haberl H, Winiwarter V, Andersson K et al (2006) From LTER to LTSER: conceptualizing the socioeconomic dimension of long-term socioecological research. Ecol Soc 11:13
Hanspach J, Loos J, Dorresteijn I et al (2016) Characterizing social-ecological units to inform biodiversity conservation in cultural landscapes Characterizing social-ecological units to inform biodiversity conservation in cultural landscapes Characterizing social-ecological units to inform biodiversity conservation in cultural landscapes. Divers Distrib 22:853
Holl KD (2007) Oldfield vegetation succession in the Neotropics. In: Cramer VA, Hobbs RJ (eds) Old Fields: dynamics and restoration of abandoned farmland. Island Press, Washington, pp 93–118
Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical J 50:346–363
Jara-Guerrero AK, Maldonado-Riofrío D, Espinosa CI, Duncan DH (2019) Beyond the blame game: a restoration pathway reconciles ecologists’ and local leaders’ divergent models of seasonally dry tropical forest degradation. Ecol Soc 24:240422
Jaramillo VJ, Kauffman JB, Rentería-Rodríguez L et al (2003) Biomass, carbon, and nitrogen pools in Mexican Tropical Dry Forest landscapes. Ecosystems 6:609–629
Josse J, Husson F (2016) missMDA: a package for handling missing values in multivariate data analysis. J Stat Softw 70:1–31
Lavorel S, Locatelli B, Colloff MJ, Bruley E (2020) Co-producing ecosystem services for adapting to climate change. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 375:20190119
Lazos-Chavero E, Zinda J, Bennett-Curry A et al (2016) Stakeholders and tropical reforestation: challenges, trade-offs, and strategies in dynamic environments. Biotropica 48:900–914
Lazzari N, Becerro MA, Sanabria-Fernandez JA, Martín-López B (2019) Spatial characterization of coastal marine social-ecological systems: insights for integrated management. Environ Sci Policy 92:56–65
Lê S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw 25:1–18
Maass J, Balvanera P, Castillo A et al (2005) Ecosystem services of Tropical Dry Forests: insights from long- term ecological and social research on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Ecol Soc 10:17
Maass M, Balvanera P, Bourgeron P et al (2016) Changes in biodiversity and trade-offs among ecosystem services, stakeholders, and components of well-being: the contribution of the International Long-Term Ecological Research network (ILTER) to Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS). Source Ecol Soc 21
Maass M, Ahedo-Hernández R, Araiza S et al (2018) Long-term (33 years) rainfall and runoff dynamics in a tropical dry forest ecosystem in western Mexico: management implications under extreme hydrometeorological events. For Ecol Manag 426:7–17
Martínez-Ramos M, García Orth X (2007) Sucesión ecológica y restauración de las selvas húmedas. Boletín la Soc Botánica México 80:69–84
Martín-López B, Palomo I, García-Llorente M et al (2017) Delineating boundaries of social-ecological systems for landscape planning: a comprehensive spatial approach. Land Use Policy 66:90–104
Martín-López B, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM et al (2019) A novel telecoupling framework to assess social relations across spatial scales for ecosystem services research. J Environ Manag 241:251–263
Mastrangelo ME, Laterra P (2015) From biophysical to social-ecological trade-offs: integrating biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in the Argentine Dry Chaco. Ecol Soc 20:200120
Monroy-Sais S, García-Frapolli E, Mora F et al (2020) Unraveling households’ natural resource management strategies: a case study in Jalisco, Mexico. Ecosyst People 16:175–187
Mora F, Jaramillo VJ, Bhaskar R et al (2018) Carbon accumulation in neotropical dry secondary forests: the roles of forest age and tree dominance and diversity. Ecosystems 21:536–550
Naime Sánchez Henkel J del C (2016) Valoración económica de cuatro servicios ecosistémicos de la Región de Chamela, Jalisco. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México
Norström AV, Agarwal B, Balvanera P et al (2022) The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS)—a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus. Ecosyst People 18:598–608
Ogle DH, Doll JC, Wheeler AP, Dinno A (2023) Simple fisheries stock assessment methods [R package FSA version 0.9.4]
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422
Pacheco-Romero M, Alcaraz-Segura D, Vallejos M, Cabello J (2020) An expert-based reference list of variables for characterizing and monitoring social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 25:250301
Pachoud C, Delay E, Da Re R et al (2020) A relational approach to studying collective action in dairy cooperatives producing mountain cheeses in the alps: the case of the primiero cooperative in the Eastern Italians Alps. Sustainability 12:4596
Palomo I, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM et al (2016) Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Pérez-Cárdenas N, Mora F, Arreola-Villa F et al (2021) Effects of landscape composition and site land-use intensity on secondary succession in a tropical dry forest. For Ecol Manag 482:118818
Quijas S, Romero-Duque LP, Trilleras JM et al (2019) Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and beneficiaries of tropical dry forests of Latin America: review and new perspectives. Ecosyst Serv 36:100909
R core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In: MSOR Connect. https://www.r-project.org. Accessed 26 Mar 2023
Ramírez-Ramírez R, Suazo-Ortuño I, Mora F, et al Dissecting the role of biodiversity and anthropic capitals in the co-production of nature´s contributions to people. In review
RAN (2022) Registro Agrario Nacional. https://sig.ran.gob.mx/
Robinson TP, Metternicht G (2006) Testing the performance of spatial interpolation techniques for mapping soil properties. Comput Electron Agric 50:97–108
Sánchez-Azofeifa GA, Quesada M, Cuevas-Reyes P et al (2009) Land cover and conservation in the area of influence of the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. For Ecol Manag 258:907–912
Sánchez-Romero R, Balvanera P, Castillo A et al (2021) Management strategies, silvopastoral practices and socioecological drivers in traditional livestock systems in tropical dry forests: an integrated analysis. For Ecol Manag 479:1–10
Sandoval-Pérez AL, Gavito ME, García-Oliva F, Jaramillo VJ (2009) Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and enzymatic activity under different land uses in a tropical, dry ecosystem. Soil Use Manag 25:419–426
Schermer M, Darnhofer I, Daugstad K et al (2016) Institutional impacts on the resilience of mountain grasslands: an analysis based on three European case studies. Land Use Policy 52:382–391
Schroeder NM, Castillo A (2013) Collective action in the management of a tropical dry forest ecosystem: effects of Mexico’s property rights regime. Environ Manag 51:850–861
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611
Tauro A, Balvanera P, Hernández AA (2021) Valoración plural de la naturaleza: visibilizando relaciones intricadas mediante foto entrevistas. Hacia una valoración incluyente y Plur la Biodivers y los Serv ecosistémicos 100–129
Tauro A, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Frapolli E et al (2018) Unraveling heterogeneity in the importance of ecosystem services: individual views of smallholders. Ecol Soc 23:art111
Toledo V (1996) The ecological consequences of the 1992 Agrarian Law of Mexico. In: Randall L (ed) Reforming Mexico’s Agrarian reform. Routledge, London, pp 247–261
Torales-Ayala G de J (2015) La relación ambiente—cultura en una sociedad ranchera ante el proceso de ganaderización: San Miguel, Villa Purificación, Jalisco. Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia
Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Hartel T et al (2018) A social-ecological analysis of ecosystem services supply and trade-offs in European wood-pastures. Sci Adv 4:eaar2176
Trilleras JM, Jaramillo VJ, Vega EV, Balvanera P (2015) Effects of livestock management on the supply of ecosystem services in pastures in a tropical dry region of western Mexico. Agric Ecosyst Environ 211:133–144
UNESCO (2022) Biosphere reserves. https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/about
Vallet A, Locatelli B, Levrel H et al (2019) Linking equity, power, and stakeholders’ roles in relation to ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10904-240214
Van Der Sande MT, Powers JS, Kuyper TW et al (2022) Soil resistance and recovery during neotropical forest succession. Philos Trans R Soc B 378:20210074
Virapongse A, Brooks S, Metcalf EC et al (2016) A social-ecological systems approach for environmental management. J Environ Manag 178:83–91
Zermeño-Hernández I, Méndez-Toribio M, Siebe C et al (2015) Ecological disturbance regimes caused by agricultural land uses and their effects on tropical forest regeneration. Appl Veg Sci 18:443–455
Acknowledgements
The first author acknowledges the PhD scholarship received from Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) and the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD). She also thanks Alejandra Tauro, Lizbeth Márquez,Mauricio Sánchez,Lidia García Rodríguez and Jasmin Pearson for insightful discussions, exchanges and comments for this paper. We thank the journal´s editor Anita Morzillo for improving this manuscript. We thank Ana Lidia Sandoval-Pérez for technical assistance performing soil sampling and analyses. We thank Angélica U. Salmerón for the design of the icons. We thank the ejidatarios from the Chamela-Cuixmala region that have participated widely in the research made in this area.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was supported by the Conacyt-DAAD PhD scholarship (CVU 545221) to the first author Patricia Santillán-Carvantes. Author Patricia Balvanera has received research support from UNAM-PAPIIT (Grant IN-211417) and SEP-CONACYT (Grants 2009-129740 and 2015- 255544). Francisco Mora has received support from Rufford Foundation (Grant 19426-2). Nathalia Pérez-Cárdenas has received a MSc scholarship from CONACYT (CVU 864299).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
PS-C: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Visualisation. PB: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, funding acquisition, Supervision. ST: Spatial analysis, maps creation, Writing—review & editing. FM: Data ownership (collection), Writing—review & editing. NP-C: Data ownership (collection), Writing—review & editing. DC-S: Data ownership (collection), Writing—review & editing. RR-R: Data ownership (collection), Writing—review & editing. MEG: Data ownership (collection), Writing—review & editing. BM-L: Conceptualization, Writing—review & editing, funding acquisition, Supervision.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Santillán-Carvantes, P., Balvanera, P., Thomsen, S. et al. Spatial characterization of social-ecological systems units for management in Tropical Dry Forests. Landsc Ecol 38, 4303–4323 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01714-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01714-x