Forgotten Social Issues for Achieving Long-Term Conservation in Protected Areas

  • Daniel Torres-Orozco JiménezEmail author
  • Benito Vázquez-Quesada
  • Cecilia L. Jiménez-Sierra


Protected areas (PAs) are probably the most important conservation instrument in Mexico. Historically, their planning and implementation have focused on ecological data ignoring values, attitudes, behaviors, and institutions of the people living in the PA, thus inhibiting its long-term effectiveness. Here, we review three social disciplines that might enhance the understanding of the social sphere around PAs: conservation psychology (CP), social-ecological system framework (SESF), and conservation marketing (CM). CP is crucial to understand human behavior toward nature or conservation. We present different tools for evaluating values, attitudes, and behaviors that are relevant for understanding conservation outcomes. SESF allows to systematically map and diagnose the pattern of interactions of relevant variables in search of factors that can be promoted or restricted to enable the involvement of local people in the planning and implementation of conservation programs and instruments. Finally, CM allows us to modulate and design conservation programs with specific end-state behaviors and target audiences to improve the success of the conservation actions. We proposed that using these disciplines in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the conservation programs, we will enable effective long-term conservation inside Mexican PAs.


Local governance Co-management Conservation marketing Conservation psychology Social-ecological system framework 


  1. Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27(4):629–649. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2006) Political science and conservation biology: a dialog of the deaf. Conserv Biol 20(3):681–682. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal A, Redford K (2006) Poverty, development, and biodiversity conservation: shooting in the dark? Working Paper, (26). Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, pp 1–50Google Scholar
  4. Aguilar J, Gómez T, Illslet C, Flores A, Quintapar E, Tlacotempa A, … Mancilla S (2011) Normas comunitarias indígenas y campesinas para el acceso y uso de los recursos naturales. Vasa. Retrieved from
  5. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Adams WM, Hutton J (2007) People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Soc 5(2):147–183Google Scholar
  7. Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J, Hutton J, Wolmer WM (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306(5699):1146–1149. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Andreasen AR (2003) The life trajectory of social marketing: some implications. Mark Theory 3(3):293–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arciniega L, González L (2000) Development and validation of the Work Values Scale EVAT 30. Rev Psicol Soc 15(3):281–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Alcorn JB, Toledo VM (1997) Resilient resource management in Mexico’s forest ecosystems: the contribution of property rights. In: Berkes F, Folke C (eds) Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Beijer International Institute for Ecological Economics, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bascompte J, Berlow EL, Brown JH, Fortelius M et al (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth’ s biosphere. Nature 486(7401):52–58. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Basurto X, Ostrom E (2009) The core challenges of moving beyond garrett hardin. J Nat Res Policy Res 1(3):255–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Basurto X, Gelcich S, Ostrom E (2013) The social-ecological system framework as a knowledge classificatory system for benthic small-scale fisheries. Glob Environ Chang.
  14. Balcazar-Arias A (2010) Reporte final de la Campaña por el Orgullo en la Costa Central de Veracruz corredor migratorio de importancia mundial. RARE-CONANP. Veracruz, México Retrived from
  15. Bechtel RB, Corral-Verdugo V, Asai M, Riesle AG (2006) A cross-cultural study of environmental belief structures in USA, Japan, Mexico, and Peru. Int J Psychol 41(2):145–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan KMA, Clark DA, Cullman G, Veríssimo D (2017) Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv Biol.
  17. Beléndez-Hernández Z (2008) Campaña por el Orgullo Tehuacán-Mixteca Poblana y Mixteca Chazumba. CONANP-RARE-CUCSUR. Retrived from: Campaña por el Orgullo Tehuacán-Mixteca Poblana y Mixteca Chazumba Zayareth
  18. Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bezaury-Creel J, Gutiérrez-Carbonell D (2009) Conservación de la biodiversidad en México. Capital Natural de México Vol II: Estado de Conservación Y Tendencias de CambioGoogle Scholar
  20. Bilsky W, Peters M (1999) Estructura de los valores y la religiosidad. Una investigación comparada realizada en México. [Structure of values and religiosity. A comparative investigation carried out in Mexico.]. Rev Mex Psicol 16(1):77–87Google Scholar
  21. Balmford A, Cowling RM (2006) Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conserv Biol 20(3):692–695. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Boege E (2009) Retos y perspectivas de conservación en México. Capital Natural de México, Vol. II: Estado de Conservación Y Tendencias de Cambio., 49. Retrieved from Guia de lectura Indice Siglas.pdf
  23. Breckler SJ (1984) Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. J Pers Soc Psychol 47(6):1191–1205. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Brockington D, Wilkie D (2015) Protected areas and poverty. Philos Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 370(1681):20140271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cardador L, Brotons L, Mougeot F, Giralt D, Bota G, Pomarol M, Arroyo B (2015) Conservation traps and long-term species persistence in human-dominated systems. Conserv Lett 8(6):456–462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cifuentes M, Izurieta A, Henrique de Faria H (2000) Medición de la Efectividad del Manejo de Areas Protegidas. IUCN, WWF, GTZ (eds).Turrialba. Retrived from:ón-de-la-efectividad-del-manejo-de-areas-protegidas
  27. CONAFOR Comisión Nacional Forestal (2015) Certificación Forestal. Retrieved from the website: Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  28. CONANP (2015) Programa de Conservación para el Desarrollo Sostenible (PROCODES). Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  29. CONANP (2017a) Programa de recuperación y repoblación de especies en riesgo (PROCER). Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  30. CONANP (2017b) Programa de empleo temporal (PET). Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  31. Contreras O, Del Carpio G, Manzanero R (2001) Campaña El Quetzal: Promoviendo la conservación del quetzal y la reserva de la biosfera El Triunfo a través del Orgullo. RARE, Tuxtla GutierrezGoogle Scholar
  32. Corral-Verdugo V, Armendáriz LI (2000) The “new environmental paradigm” in a Mexican community. J Environ Educ 31(3):25–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cox M (2011) Advancing the diagnostic analysis of environmental problems. Int J Commons 5(2):346–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cumming GS, Allen CR (2017) Protected areas as social-ecological systems: perspectives from resilience and social systems theory. Ecol Appl 27(6):1709–1717. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Cumming GS, Allen CR, Ban NC, Biggs D, Biggs HC, Cumming DHM et al (2015) Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-scale, social-ecological approach. Ecol Appl 25(2):299–319. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Clayton S, Brook A (2005) Can psychology help save the world? A model for conservation psychology. Anal Soc Issues Publ Pol 5(1):87–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Clayton S, Myers G (2009) Conservation psychology: understanding and promoting human care for nature. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  38. De-la-Garza-Carranza MT, Guzmán-Soria E, Cervantes-Maldonado A (2014) Análisis comparativo de profesionistas, profesores y estudaites mexicanos en cuanto a sus valores y sus implicaciones respecto al trabajo. Cienc Soc 39(3):509–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):335–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56(3):425–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Epstein G (2015) Political science, environmental governance and conservation. In: Bennett N, Roth R (eds) The conservation social sciences: what?, how? and why? Canadian Wildlife Federation And Institute for Resources, Environmental and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, pp 26–31Google Scholar
  42. Evans L, Maio GR, Corner A, Hodgetts CJ, Ahmed S, Hahn U (2013) Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nat Clim Chang 3(2):122–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Figueroa F, Sánchez-Cordero V (2008) Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 17(13):3223–3240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Figueroa F, Sánchez-Cordero V, Meave J a, Trejo I (2009) Socioeconomic context of land use and land cover change in Mexican biosphere reserves. Environ Conserv 36(3):180–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Figueroa F, Illoldi-rangel P, Sánchez-Cordero V, Linaje M (2011) Evaluación de la efectividad de las áreas protegidas para contener procesos de cambio en el uso del suelo y la vegetación. ¿ Un índice es suficiente ? Evaluation of. Rev Mex Biodivers 82(3):951–963Google Scholar
  46. Gifford R, Sussman R (2012) Environmental attitudes. In: Clayton SD (ed) The oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 65–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Griskevicius V, Cantú SM, van Vugt M (2012) The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship. J Publ Pol Mark 31(1):115–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hansen AJ, DeFries R (2007) Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas. Ecol Appl 17(4):974–988. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Hawcroft LJ, Milfont TL (2010) The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: a meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 30(2):143–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Halfter G (2005) Towards a culture of biodiversity conservation. Acta Zool Mex 21(2):133–153 Retrieved from Google Scholar
  51. Jiménez-Sierra CL, Torres-Orozco D, Martínez-Lopez JC, Toledo-Guzmán AD (2017) Una visión socioecosistémica de las reservas naturales: la reserva de la biosfera barranca de Metztitlán como caso de estudio. In: Calderón-Contreras R (ed) Los Sistemas Socioecológicos y su Resiliencia, 1st edn. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana; Geodesia, México, pp 138–158Google Scholar
  52. Kaiser FG, Scheuthle H (2003) Two challenges to a moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: moral norms and just world beliefs in conservationism. Personal Individ Differ 35(5):1033–1048. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kaiser FG, Wölfing S, Fuhrer U (1999) Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. J Environ Psychol 19:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kotler P (1972) A generic concept of marketing. J Mark 36(2):46–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kotler P, Levy SJ (1969) Broadening the concept of marketing. J Mark 33(1):10. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31(1):297–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lopez Ventura A (2007) Campaña Del Orgullo Llano La Soledad, La Hediondilla y La Trinidad Informe Final. Pronatura Noreste – The Nature Conservancy - RARE. Retrived from:
  58. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Dietsch AM (2016) Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 30(2):287–296. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Manfredo MJ, Bruskotter JT, Teel TL, Fulton D, Schwartz SH, Arlinghaus R et al (2017) Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv Biol 31(4):772–780. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Martin J-L, Maris V, Simberloff DS (2016) The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(22):6105–6112. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Mayer FS, Frantz CMP (2004) The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol 24(4):503–515. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014) Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2):30 Retrieved from CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mckenzie-Mohr D (2000) Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing. J Soc Issues 56(3):543–554. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McKenzie-Mohr D, Schultz PW (2014) Choosing effective behavior change tools. Soc Mark Q 20(1):35–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Minteer BA, Miller TR (2011) The new conservation debate: ethical foundations, strategic trade-offs, and policy opportunities. Biol Conserv 144(3):945–947. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Milfont TL, Duckitt J (2004) The structure of environmental attitudes: a first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. J Environ Psychol 24(3):289–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Milfont TL, Duckitt J (2010) The environmental attitudes inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. J Environ Psychol 30(1):80–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ortiz S, Ortega-Rubio A (2015) Índice para la toma de decisiones sobre recursos bióticos en Áreas Naturales Protegidas. In: Ortega-Rubio A, Pinkus-Rendón MJ, Espitia-Moreno IC (eds) Las áreas naturales protegidas y la investigación científica en México, 1st edn. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste S. C., Morelia, p 572 La Paz B. C. S., Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán y Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacán, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  69. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press, New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(39):15181–15187. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–423Google Scholar
  72. Pisanty I, Urquiza-Haas E, Vargas-Mena A, Amezcua et al (2016) Instrumentos de conservación in situ en México: logros y retos, en Capital natural de México. IV Capacidades humanas e institucionales, Conabio, México, pp 245–302​Google Scholar
  73. Palomo I, Montes C, Martín-López B, González JA, García-Llorente M, Alcorlo P, Mora MRG (2014) Incorporating the social-ecological approach in protected areas in the anthropocene. Bioscience 64(3):181–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. RARE (n.d.-a). RARE pride: the marketing of conservation table of contents. ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  75. RARE (n.d.-b) Theory change for community-based conservation. ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  76. Redford KH, Sanderson SE (2000) Extracting humans from nature. Conserv Biol 14(5):1362–1364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Root TL, Schneider SH (2006) Conservation and climate change: the challenges ahead. Conserv Biol 20(3):706–708. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Salafsky N (2011) Integrating development with conservation. A means to a conservation end, or a mean end to conservation? Biol Conserv 144(3):973–978. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sánchez-García M (2008) Campaña de Educación para la Conservación de los Recursos Naturales en la Reserva de la Biosfera Barranca de Metztitlan. CONANP-RARE. Retrived from:
  80. Sarukhán J, Larson J (2001) When the commons become less tragic: Land Tenure, social organization and fair trade in Mexico. In: Burger J, Ostrom E, Norgaard RB, Policansky D, Goldstein BD (eds) Protecting the commons: a framework for resource management in the Americas. Island Press, Washington, D.C, pp 45–69Google Scholar
  81. Sarkar S (1999) Wilderness preservation and biodiversity conservation – keeping divergent goals distinct. Bioscience 49(5):405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Saunders CD (2003) The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecol Rev 10(2):137–149Google Scholar
  83. Saunders CD, Brook AT, Eugene Myers O (2006) Using psychology to save biodiversity and human well-being. Conserv Biol 20(3):702–705. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Schlager E (2007) A comparison of frameworks, theories, and model of policy processes. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, Colorado, pp 293–320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schneller AJ, Johnson B, Bogner FX (2015) Measuring children’s environmental attitudes and values in Northwest Mexico: validating a modified version of measures to test the model of ecological values (2-MEV). Environ Educ Res 21(1):61–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21(4):327–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schultz PW (2012) Conservation means behavior. Conserv Biol 25(6):1080–1083. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schultz PW (2014) Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: lots of tools but few instructions. Eur Psychol 19(2):107–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Schultz PW, Zelezny LC (1998) Values and proenvironmental behavior. J Cross-Cult Psychol 29(4):540–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schultz PW, Zelezny L (1999) Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J Environ Psychol 19(3):255–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50(4):19–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W (1987) Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(3):550–562. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J (2016) Values. In: International test commission handbook of testing and assessment, p 106–119Google Scholar
  94. SEMARNAT & CONAFOR (2015) Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  95. SEMARNAT & CONANP (2017) Áreas Naturales Protegidas de México.
  96. Smith RJ, Veríssimo D, MacMillan D (2010) Marketing and conservation: how to lose friends and influence people. In: Leader-Williams N, William AM, Smith RJ (eds) Trade-offs in conservation: deciding what to save. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Smith RJ, Veríssimo D, Isaac NJB, Jones KE (2012) Identifying Cinderella species: uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal. Conserv Lett 5:205–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Stead M, Gordon R, Angus K, McDermott L (2007) A systematic review of social marketing effectiveness. Health Educ 107.
  99. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel TD, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism a value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements : the case of environmentalism. Res Human Ecol 6(2):81–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Struch N, Schwartz SH, van der Kloot WA (2002) Meanings of basic values for women and men: a cross-cultural analysis. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 28(1):16–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Thiel A, Adamseged ME, Baake C (2015) Evaluating an instrument for institutional crafting: how Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework is applied. Environ Sci Policy 53:152–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Torres-Orozco D, Arroyo B, Pomarol M, Santangeli A (2016) From a conservation trap to a conservation solution: lessons from an intensively managed Montagu’s harrier population. Anim Conserv.
  104. Van Vugt M, Griskevicius V, Schultz PW (2014) Naturally green: harnessing stone age psychological biases to foster environmental behavior. Soc Issues Policy Rev 8(1):1–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Verissimo D, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ (2011) Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conserv Lett 4(1):1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Veríssimo D, Fraser I, Girão W, Campos AA, Smith RJ, Macmillan DC (2014) Evaluating conservation flagships and flagship fleets. Conserv Lett 7(3):263–270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Veríssimo D, Vaughan G, Ridout M, Waterman C, MacMillan D, Smith RJ (2017) Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species. Biol Conserv 211(November 2016):95–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1999) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277(5325):494–499. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Williams PH, Burgess ND, Rahbek C (2000) Flagship species, ecological complementarity and conserving the diversity of mammals and birds in sub-Saharan Africa. Anim Conserv 3(3):249–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wilshusen PR, Brechin SR, Fortwangler CL, West PC (2002) Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent ‘protection paradigm’ in international biodiversity conservation. Soc Nat Res 15(1):17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Walpole MJ, Leader-Williams N (2002) Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodivers Conserv 11:543–547. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wright AJ, Verisssimo D, Pilfold K, Parsons ECM, Ventre K, Cousins J et al (2015) Competitive outreach in the 21st century: why we need conservation marketing. Ocean Coast Manag 115(October):41–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Torres-Orozco Jiménez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Benito Vázquez-Quesada
    • 1
  • Cecilia L. Jiménez-Sierra
    • 2
  1. 1.Facultad de CienciasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MexicoMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Laboratorio de EcologíaUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad IztapalapaCiudad de MéxicoMexico

Personalised recommendations