Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of local context variables on the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services. Evidence from San Antonio del Barrio, Oaxaca, Mexico

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is the main economic instrument developed for natural resource conservation. Evidence has shown the importance of local context in PES design and implementation and the complexity of defining and specifying that context. Using the socio-ecological systems framework, through surveys and interviews conducted in San Antonio, an indigenous community in Mexico with a forest socio-ecological system, this paper analyzes 13 variables as a way to approximate local context. The results show that the main contextual variables are forest cover, opportunity costs, livelihood, income, motivations and attitudes toward conservation, confidence and cooperation, traditional management practices, internal organization, land tenure, rules for the management and use of natural resources, presence and history of non-governmental organizations, economic and conservation history and distance to markets. In addition, the analysis of local context and PES outcomes in San Antonio leads us to conclude that a close relationship exists between the local context variables and the variables defined as causes of the PES outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Hand-embroidered traditional blouses.

  2. Social inclusion program of the Secretariat of Social Development.

  3. Direct support to producers from the field program of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food.

  4. Pension for seniors’ program of the Secretariat of Social Development.

References

  • Alix-Garcia, J., Sims, K., Yanez-Pagans, P., Radeloff, V., & Shapiro, E. (2015). Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in programs of payments for ecosystem services. American Economic Journal—Economic Policy,7(4), 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderies, J., Janssen, M., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anta, S. (2010). Ordenamiento territorial comunitario. In J. Carabias, J. Sarukhán, J. de la Maza, & C. Galindo (Eds.), Patrimonio natural de México. Cien casos de éxito. Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balvanera, P., Uriarte, M., Almeida-Leñero, L., Altesor, A., De Clerck, F., Gardner, T., et al. (2012). Ecosystem services research in Latin America: The state of the art. Ecosystem Services,2, 56–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, C., Hinkel, J., Bots, P., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society,18(4), 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, D., Duran, E., & Molina, O. (2012). Beyond harvests in the commons: multi-scale governance and turbulence in indigenous/community conserved areas in Oaxaca, Mexico. International Journal of the Commons,6(2), 151–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrasco, M., & Barkin, D. (2011). Concesiones forestales, exclusión y sustentabilidad. Lecciones desde las comunidades de la Sierra norte de Oaxaca. Desacatos,37, 93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K., Guerry, A., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., et al. (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience,62(8), 744–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAFOR, (2016). Polígonos de las zonas receptoras del programa de PSA Federal y Fondos Concurrentes en México. Retrieved November 17, 2016 from https://www.infomex.org.mx/gobiernofederal/home.action.

  • Corbera, E., González, C., & Brown, K. (2009). Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics,68, 443–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranford, M., & Mourato, S. (2011). Community conservation and a two-stage approach to payments for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics,71, 89–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Departamento de Desarrollo Sostenible, Organización de Estados Americanos (DDS-OEA). (2008). Guía Conceptual y Metodológica para el Diseño de Esquemas de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales en Latino-América y el Caribe. Washington DC: DDS-OEA.

  • Díaz, S., Quétier, F., Cáceres, D., Trainor, S., Pérez-Harguindeguy, N., Bret-Harte, M., et al. (2011). Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature’s benefits to society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,108(3), 895–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B., Turner, R., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68, 643–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fregoso, A. (2006). La oferta y el pago de los servicios ambientales hídricos: una comparación de diversos estudios. Gaceta Ecológica,78, 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, P., & Bond, I. (2008). The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services. Ecological Economics,65, 776–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galindo, C. (2010). Corredor biológico de la sierra norte. In J. Carabias, J. Sarukhán, J. de la Maza, & C. Galindo (Eds.), Patrimonio natural de México. Cien casos de éxito. Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Mendoza, A. Ordóñez, M., Briones-Salas, M. (Ed.). (2004). Biodiversidad de Oaxaca. Mexico: Instituto de Biología Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Fondo Oaxaqueño para la conservación de la naturaleza, World Wildlife Fund.

  • Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., & Wolff, H. (2015). An institutional analysis of payment for environmental services on collectively managed lands in Ecuador. Ecological Economics,118, 81–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., & Ostrom, E. (2006). Chapter 30 Governing social-ecological systems. In L. Tesfatsion & J. Kenneth (Eds.), Handbook of computational economics (Vol. 2). Elsevier.

  • Lapeyre, R., Pirard, R., & Leimona, B. (2015). Payments for environmental services in Indonesia: What if economic signals were lost in translation? Land Use Policy,46, 283–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Licha, I. (2000). El análisis del entorno: Herramienta de la gerencia social. Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, Instituto Interamericano para el Desarrollo (INDES).

    Google Scholar 

  • López, G., Espinoza, J., Espinosa, J., Jolalpa, J., & Vélez, A. (2014). Variables del contexto nacional e internacional en los sistemas de producción lecheros mexicanos. AGROFAZ,14(1), 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Alier, J., & Roca, J. (2001). Economía ecológica y política ambiental (2nd ed.). España: Fondo de cultura económica de España.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Del Amo, D. G., et al. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One,7(6), e38970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mayran, K., & Paquin, M. (2004). Pago por servicios Ambientales: Estudio y evaluación de esquemas vigentes. Montreal: Unisféra International Centre, CCA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElwee, P. (2012). Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? Geoforum,43, 412–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, M., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social–ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merino, L., Martínez, E. (2014). A vuelo de pájaro. Las condiciones de las comunidades con bosques templados en México. Mexico: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, CONABIO.

  • Molina, S., Pérez, J., & Herrera, M. (2014). Assessment of environmental payments on indigenous territories: The case of Cabecar-Talamanca, Costa Rica. Ecosystem Services,8, 35–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina-González, O. (2011). Análisis de las instituciones de gobernanza multi-escala para la acción colectiva de conservación de la naturaleza en la Chinantla, Oaxaca, México. Tesis para obtener grado de M.Sc. en Conservación y aprovechamiento de recursos naturales. Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional, Unidad Oaxaca. Instituto Politécnico Nacional.

  • Molnar, J. L., & Kubiszewski, I. (2012). Managing natural wealth: Research and implementation of ecosystem services in the United States and Canada. Ecosystem Services,2, 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morales, I. (2013). La vida entorno al café: Marginación social de pequeños productores en San Pedro Cafetitlán, Oaxaca, México. Diálogos: Revista de Historia,14(1), 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieratka, L., Bray, D., & Mozumder, P. (2015). Can payments for environmental services strengthen social capital, encourage distributional equity, and reduce poverty? Conservation and Society,13(4), 345–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panelli, R. (2002). Young rural lives: Strategies beyond diversity. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(2), 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perevochtchikova, M. (2016). Estudio de los efectos del programa de pago por servicios ambientales. Experiencia en Ajusco, México. Mexico: El Colegio de México.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perevochtchikova, M., & Ochoa, M. (2012). Avances y limitantes del programa de pago por servicios ambientales hidrológicos en México, 2003–2009. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales,3(10), 89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perevochtchikova, M., & Rojo Negrete, I. (2015). The actors’ perception about Payment schemes for Ecosystem Services. Study case of San Miguel and Santo Tomás Ajusco Community, Mexico. Ecosystem Services,14, 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • RAN. (2017). Tierras de uso común. Entidad Federativa Oaxaca. Retrieved March 15, 2017 from http://datos.ran.gob.mx/filescd/dgcat/ran_da_dgcat_poligonos_tierras_uso_comun_oax.kml.

  • Rico, L., Ruiz, M., Reyes, F., Barraza, S., & Contreras, E. (2011). Efficiency of payments for environmental services: equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas. Mexico. Ecological Economics,70, 2361–2368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Great Britain: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Robayo, K., & Ávila-Foucat, S. (2013). Instrumentos económicos voluntarios para la conservación: una mirada a su surgimiento y evolución en México. Sociedad y Economía,25, 75–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Robayo, K., Ávila-Foucat, V., & Maldonado, J. (2016). Indigenous communities’ perception regarding payments for environmental services programme in Oaxaca Mexico. Ecosystem Services,17, 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Robayo, K., & Merino-Pérez, L. (2017). Contextualizing context in the analysis of payment for environmental services. Ecosystem Services,23, 259–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña-Herrera, D. (2013). Sistematización y documentación de mecanismos locales de pago por servicios ambientales en México. USAID.

  • Sastre, S. (2008). Análisis de la gestión forestal comunitaria y sus implicaciones sociales en Ixtlán de Juarez, Thesis of Forestry Engineer. Madrid: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEMARNAT. (2012). Evaluando el desempeño del Gobierno Federal 2007–2012. Retrieved November 10, 2012 from http://www.ceesp.org.mx/sites/default/files/Home/pdf/SEMARNAT.pdf.

  • Toledo, V. (1999). El otro zapatismo: Luchas indígenas de inspiración ecológica en México. Ecología Política,18, 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., & Windey, C. (2015). Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate. Ecological Economics,120, 117–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vleet, E., Bray, D., & Durán, E. (2016). Knowing but not knowing: Systematic conservation planning and community conservation in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca, Mexico. Land Use Policy,59, 504–5015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasco, A., Durán, E., Rivera, R., & Bray, D. (2014). Cambios en la cobertura arbolada de comunidades indígenas con y sin iniciativas de conservación, en Oaxaca, México. Investigaciones Geográficas,83, 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thanks to the community members of San Antonio for sharing their PES experience with us and to the external actors for the time invested answering the extensive interviews. We also wish to acknowledge the Postdoctoral Fellowships Program of National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Coordination of Humanities and Social Research Institute, the National Problems Project No. 246947 of the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT). Thank you to Elvira Duran and Carolina Navarrete for their valuable help in data collection, to Arturo Ramos for the elaboration of Fig. 1, and to American Journal Experts for their editing services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Council of Science and Technology, Center for Geospatial Information Science Research, Merida City, Mexico

    Karla Juliana Rodríguez-Robayo

  2. Center for Demographic, Urban and Environmental Studies, El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

    Maria Perevochtchikova

  3. Institute for Economic Research, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

    Sophie Ávila-Foucat

  4. Regional Center for Multidisciplinary Research, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

    Gabriela De la Mora De la Mora

Authors
  1. Karla Juliana Rodríguez-Robayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Perevochtchikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sophie Ávila-Foucat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gabriela De la Mora De la Mora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karla Juliana Rodríguez-Robayo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodríguez-Robayo, K.J., Perevochtchikova, M., Ávila-Foucat, S. et al. Influence of local context variables on the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services. Evidence from San Antonio del Barrio, Oaxaca, Mexico. Environ Dev Sustain 22, 2839–2860 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00321-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00321-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation