, Volume 41, Issue 5, pp 467–478 | Cite as

Applying Fuzzy Logic to Assess Human Perception in Relation to Conservation Plan Efficiency Measures Within a Biosphere Reserve

  • Dulce M. Ruíz-López
  • Alberto E. Aragón-Noriega
  • Antonio Luna-Gonzalez
  • Hector A. Gonzalez-Ocampo


The objective of this study is to present an efficiency-perception impact assessment based upon the integration of fuzzy logic (FL) of the “Productive Reconversion” conservation program (PRP) instituted by the Mexican government, in the upper Gulf of California and the Colorado Delta Biosphere Reserve. This approach enables environmental analysts to deal with the intrinsic imprecision and ambiguity associated with people’s judgments and conclusions. The application of FL to the assessment of program efficiency is illustrated in this work, demonstrating how subjective perceptions can be converted into quantitative values easy to evaluate during the decision-making process.


Fuzzy logic Marine protected area Biosphere reserve Human perception assessment Gulf of California 



We thank Instituto Politécnico Nacional (SIP 20080127, SIP 20090442), Consejo Estatal de Ciencia y Tecnología del Estado de Sinaloa (CECyT-SIN 2009), and Fondos Mixtos de Fomento a la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONACyT, FOMIX-SIN-2008-C01-99712) for financial support. Special thank goes to the three anonymous reviewers for their brilliant comments.

Supplementary material

13280_2012_252_MOESM1_ESM.doc (131 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 107 kb)


  1. Adriaenssens, V., B. De Baets, P.L. Goethals, and N. De Pauw. 2004. Fuzzy rule-based models for decision support in ecosystem management. Science of Total Environment 319: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alverson, D.L. 2002. Factors influencing the scope and quality of science and management decisions (The good, the bad and the ugly). Fish and Fisheries 3: 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aragón-Noriega, E.A., G.M.A. Rodríguez-Quiroz, M.A. Cisneros-Mata, and A. Ortega-Rubio. 2010a. Managing a protected marine area for the conservation of critically endangered vaquita (Phocoena sinus Norris, 1958) in the Upper Gulf of California. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 17: 410–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aragón-Noriega, E.A., W. Valenzuela-Quiñones, H. Esparza-Leal, A. Ortega-Rubio, and G. Rodríguez-Quiroz. 2010b. Analysis of management options for artisanal fishing of the Bigeye Croaker Micropogonias megalops (Gilbert, 1890) in the Upper Gulf of California. International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management 5: 208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. PNAS 104: 15188–15193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bojorquez Tapia, L.A., L. Juárez, and G. Cruz Bello. 2002. Integrating fuzzy logic, optimization and GIS for Ecological Impact Assessments. Environmental Management 30: 418–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brower, A., C. Reedy, and J. Yelin-Kefer. 2001. Consensus versus Conservation in the Upper Colorado River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. Conservation Biology 15: 1001–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casale, P., L. Laurent, and G. De Metrio. 2004. Incidental capture of marine turtles by the Italian trawl fishery in the north Adriatic Sea. Biological Conservation 119: 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, Z., J. Yang, and Z. Xie. 2005. Economic development of local communities and biodiversity conservation: A case study from Shennongjia National Nature Reserve, China. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2095–2108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cochran, G. 1989. Sampling Techniques. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. D’agrosa, C., C.E. Lennert-Cody, and O. Vidal. 2000. Vaquita bycatch in Mexico’s Artisanal Gillnet Fisheries: Driving a small population to extinction. Conservation Biology 14: 1110–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 1993. DECRETO por el que se declara área natural protegida con el carácter de Reserva de la Biosfera, la región conocida como Alto Golfo de California y Delta del Río Colorado, ubicada en aguas del Golfo de California y los municipios de Mexicali, B.C., de Puerto Peñasco y San Luis Río Colorado, Son. 10 de Junio de 1993: 25–28.Google Scholar
  14. Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2002. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2001, que determina las especies y subespecies de flora y fauna silvestres terrestres y acuáticas en peligro de extinción, amenazadas, raras y las sujetas a protección especial y que establece especificaciones para su protección. 6 de Marzo de 2002. Segunda sección: 1–153.Google Scholar
  15. Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2005a. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Acuerdo mediante el cual se establece el área de refugio para la protección de la vaquita (Phocoena sinus).8 de septiembre 2005 (primera sección): 6–7.Google Scholar
  16. Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2005b. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Programa de protección de la vaquita dentro del Área de Refugio ubicada en la porción occidental del Alto Golfo de California. 29 de diciembre 2005 (primera sección): 19–24.Google Scholar
  17. Ekmekçioğlu, M., T. Kaya, and C. Kahraman. 2010. Fuzzy multicriteria disposal method and site selection for municipal solid waste. Waste Management 30: 1729–1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erdik, T. 2009. Fuzzy logic approach to conventional rubble mound structures design. Expert Systems with Applications 36: 4162–4170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frondel, M., and C.M. Schmidt. 2005. Evaluating environmental programs: The perspective of modern evaluation research. Ecological Economics 55: 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gagliardi, F., M. Roscia, and G. Lazaroiu. 2007. Evaluation of sustainability of a city through fuzzy logic. Energy 32: 795–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerrodette, T., B.L. Taylor, R. Swift, S.D. Rankin, A.M. Jaramillo-Legorreta, and L. Rojas-Bracho. 2011. A combined visual and acoustic estimate of 2008 abundance, and change in abundance since 1997, for the vaquita, Phocoena sinus. Marine Mammal Science 27: E79–E100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gevrey, M., S. Worner, N. Kasabov, and J. Giraudel. 2006. Estimating risk of events using SOM models: A case study on invasive species establishment. Ecological Modelling 197: 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenberg, J.B. 1993. Local preferences for development. In Marine community and biosphere reserve: Crises and response in the Upper Gulf of California, eds. T.R. McGuire and J.B. Greenberg. Occasional paper number 2. Tucson: BARA, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  24. Greiner, R., I. Gordon, and C. Cocklin. 2009. Ecosystem services from tropical savannas: Economic opportunities through payments for environmental services. The Rangeland Journal 31: 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guidetti, P., and J. Claudet. 2009. Comanagement practices enhance fisheries in marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 24: 312–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guidetti, P., S. Bussotti, F. Ciccolella, and A. Pizzolante. 2010. Assessing the potential of an artisanal fishing co-management in the Marine Protected Area of Torre Guaceto (southern Adriatic Sea, SE Italy). Fisheries Research 101: 180–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guo, P., G.H. Huang, H. Zhu, and X.L. Wang. 2010. A two-stage programming approach for water resources management under randomness and fuzziness. Environmental Modelling & Software 25: 1573–1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hillborn, R. 2007. Managing fisheries is managing people: What has been learned? Fish and Fisheries 8: 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Immordino, G. 2000. Self-protection, information and the precautionary principle. The GENEVA Papers on Risk and Insurance – Theory 25: 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). 2000. Anuario estadístico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Sonora. Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática.Google Scholar
  31. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). 2005. Anuario estadístico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Sonora [Statistical Yearbook of the United Mexican States. Sonora]. Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática.Google Scholar
  32. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). 2011. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. Resultados finales [Population and Housing Census 2011. Final results]. Accessed June 2011.
  33. Jaramillo-Legorreta, A., L. Rojas-Bracho, R.L. Brownell Jr, A.J. Read, R.R. Reeves, K. Ralls, and B.L. Taylor. 2007. Saving the vaquita: Immediate action, not more data. Conservation Biology 21: 1653–1655.Google Scholar
  34. Kittinger, J.N., K.N. Duin, and B.A. Wilcox. 2010. Commercial fishing, conservation and compatibility in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Marine Policy 34: 208–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lercari, D., and E.A. Chávez. 2007. Possible causes related to historic stock depletion of the totoaba, Totoaba macdonaldi (Perciformes: Sciaenidae), endemic to the Gulf of California. Fisheries Research 86: 136–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewison, R.L., S.A. Freeman, and L.B. Crowder. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: The impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7: 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li, Y.P., and G.H. Huang. 2010. An interval-based possibilistic programming method for waste management with cost minimization and environmental-impact abatement under uncertainty. Science of the Total Environment. Science of the Total Environment 408: 4296–4308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Li, J., G.H. Huang, G. Zeng, I. Maqsood, and Y. Huang. 2007. An integrated fuzzystochastic modeling approach for risk assessment of groundwater contamination. Journal of Environmental Management 82(2): 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lluch-Cota, S.E., E.A. Aragón-Noriega, F. Arreguín-Sánchez, D. Aurioles-Gamboa, J.J. Bautista-Romero, R.C. Brusca, R. Cervantes-Duarte, R. Cortés-Altamirano, et al. 2007. The Gulf of California: Review of ecosystem status and sustainability challenges. Progress in Oceanography 73: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lu, Y., B. Fu, L. Chen, Z. Ouyang, and J. Xu. 2006. Resolving the conflicts between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development in China: Fuzzy clustering approach. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 2813–2827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mancini, A., and V. Koch. 2009. Sea turtle consumption and black market trade in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Endangered Species Research 7: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moore, J.E., and A.J. Read. 2008. A Bayesian uncertainty analysis of cetacean demography and bycatch mortality using age-at-death data. Ecological Applications 18(8): 1914–1931.Google Scholar
  43. Ochoa-Gaona, S., C. Kampichler, B.H.J. de Jonga, S. Hernández, V. Geissen, and E. Huerta. 2010. A multi-criterion index for the evaluation of local tropical forest conditions in Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 618–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. PACE-Vaquita. 2008. Conservation program for the species: vaquita (Phocoena sinus), Integrative strategy for sustainable management of marine and coastal resources in the Upper Gulf of California. Mexico/SEMARNAT.Google Scholar
  45. Rodríguez-Quiroz, G., E.A. Aragon-Noriega, W. Valenzuela-Quiñonez, and H. Esparza-Leal. 2010. Artisanal fisheries in the conservation zones of the Upper Gulf of California. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía 45: 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rojas-Bracho, L., R.R. Reeves, and A. Jaramillo-Legorreta. 2006. Conservation of the vaquita Phocoena sinus. Mammal Review 36: 179–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. SAGARPA-CONAPESCA. 2007. Anuario Estadístico de Pesca 2008. Secretaria de Agricultura, Alimentación y Pesca-Consejo Nacional de la Pesca-Dirección Nacional de Acuacultura. México, DF. January 2010.
  48. Salihoglu, G., and F. Karaer. 2004. Ecological risk assessment and problem formulation for Lake Uluabat, a Ramsar State in Turkey. Environmental Management 33: 899–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Santos, R.S., S. Christiansen, B. Christiansen, and S. Gubbay. 2009. Toward the conservation and management of Sedlo Seamount: A case study. Deep-Sea Research II 56: 2720–2730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suzuki, N., and D.H. Olson. 2002. Options for biodiversity conservation in managed forest landscapes of multiple ownerships in Oregon and Washington, USA. Biodiversity Conservation 16: 3895–3917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tambiah, C. 1999. Interviews and market surveys. In Research and management techniques for the conservation of sea turtles, eds. K.L. Eckert, K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  52. Thur, S.M. 2010. User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National Marine Park. Marine Policy 34: 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turvey, S.T., R.L. Pitman, B.L. Taylor, J. Barlow, T. Akamatsu, L.A. Barrett, X. Zhao, R.R. Reeves, V.S. Stewart, K. Wang, Z. Wei, X. Zhang, L.T. Pusser, M. Richlen, J.R. Brandon, and D. Wang. 2007. First human-caused extinction of a cetacean species? Biology Letters 3: 537–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Young, Z. 1999. NGOs and the global environmental facility: Friendly foes? Environmental Politics 8: 264–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dulce M. Ruíz-López
    • 1
  • Alberto E. Aragón-Noriega
    • 2
  • Antonio Luna-Gonzalez
    • 3
  • Hector A. Gonzalez-Ocampo
    • 3
  1. 1.Paseo Claussen CentroMazatlanMexico
  2. 2.Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, S.C.La PazMexico
  3. 3.Instituto Politecnico NacionalGuasaveMexico

Personalised recommendations