Vol. 33 (2023)
Artículos de Investigación

Social valuation of coastal wetlands in northwestern Mexico

PDF (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))
  • Mayra Isabel de la Rosa-Velázquez,
  • Arturo Ruiz Luna
Mayra Isabel de la Rosa-Velázquez
Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo
Arturo Ruiz Luna
Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, A.C.
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2023.3889

Published 2023-11-01

How to Cite

de la Rosa-Velázquez, M. I. ., & Ruiz Luna, A. (2023). Social valuation of coastal wetlands in northwestern Mexico. Acta Universitaria, 33, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2023.3889

Abstract

Wetlands provide the necessary ecosystem services for human well-being; however, their value and importance have been mainly estimated from an economic perspective, providing relevant information that does not necessarily contribute to their conservation, and sometimes displacing other forms of management defined by the close or direct beneficiaries. Based on this, we estimated the social value that local beneficiaries assign to coastal wetlands and their ecosystem services in southern Sinaloa, from a participatory, spatially explicit methodological framework. Findings suggest that the social value is associated with the location where the beneficiaries live, with the presence of provision services with economic value offered by wetlands, as well as with the social conditions that favor environmental education. Issues related to history and spirituality had little relevance in the evaluation of wetlands.

PDF (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))

References

  1. Analytic Technologies. (s.f.). [Anthropac 4.98]. http://www.analytictech.com/products.htm
  2. Arias-Arévalo, P., Martín-López, B., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2017). Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4), 43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443
  3. Ayala, L., Roldán, H., Íñiguez, Y. P., & Ayala, L. (2021). Los nuevos retos del turismo frente al cambio climático en Sinaloa. Topofilia. Revista de Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Territorios, (22), 41–53. https://topofilia.buap.mx/index.php/topofilia/article/view/166
  4. Barbier, E. B., Hacker, S. D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E. W., Stier, A. C., & Silliman, B. R. (2011). The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81(2), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1
  5. Berlanga-Robles, C. A., Ruiz-Luna, A., & Hernández-Guzmán, R. (2021). Caracterización socioeconómica y ambiental de la zona costera del noroeste de México, por medio de indicadores. En A. Cervantes-Escobar, R. Hernández-Guzmán & A. Montijo-Galindo (eds.), Vulnerabilidad costera en el Noroeste de México. Un enfoque multidisciplinario (pp.15-41). Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, A. C.
  6. Berlanga-Robles, C. A., Ruiz-Luna, A., & de La Lanza Espino, G. (2008). Esquema de clasificación de los humedales de México. Investigaciones Geográficas, (66), 25–46. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0188-46112008000200003&lng=es&tlng=es
  7. Blake, D., Augé, A. A., & Sherren, K. (2017). Participatory mapping to elicit cultural coastal values for Marine Spatial Planning in a remote archipelago. Ocean & Coastal Management, (148), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.08.010
  8. Brown, G., & Reed, P. (2000). Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. Forest Science, 46(2), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/46.2.240
  9. Brown, G., Strickland-Munro, J., Kobryn, H., & Moore, S. A. (2017). Mixed methods participatory GIS: an evaluation of the validity of qualitative and quantitative mapping methods. Applied Geography, 79, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.12.015
  10. Bryce, R., Irvine, K. N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2016). Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21(Part B), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.015
  11. Cabana, D., Ryfield, F., Crowe, T. P., & Brannigan, J. (2020). Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 42, 101085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101085
  12. Camacho, V., & Ruiz, A. (2012). Marco conceptual y clasificación de los servicios ecosistémicos. Revista Bio Ciencias, 1(4), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.15741/revbio.01.04.02
  13. Consejo Nacional de Población (Conapo). (2020). Índice de marginación por municipio. Base de datos por municipio 2020. http://www.conapo.gob.mx/work/models/CONAPO/Marginacion/Datos_Abiertos/Municipio/IMM_2020.xls
  14. Convención de Ramsar sobre los Humedales (2018). Perspectiva mundial sobre los humedales: Estado de los humedales del mundo y sus servicios a las personas 2018. Secretaría de la Convención de Ramsar. https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/gwo_s.pdf
  15. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28(Part A), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
  16. Dalu, M. T. B., Mukhuwana, O., Cuthbert, R. N., Marambanyika, T., Gunter, A. W., Murungweni, F. M., & Dalu, T. (2022). Understanding communities’ perceptions, demographics and uses of wetlands in Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, South Africa. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 30, 1231–1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-022-09892-2
  17. Darvill, R., & Lindo, Z. (2015). Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosystem Services, 13, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.004
  18. Davidson, N. C. (2014). How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater Research, 65(10), 934–941. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14173
  19. Davidson, N. C., & Finlayson, C. M. (2019). Updating global coastal wetland areas presented in Davidson and Finlayson (2018). Marine and Freshwater Research, 70(8), 1195–1200. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF19010
  20. De la Lanza, G., Ruiz, A., Fuentes, P., Camacho, V., Blanco, M., Zamorano, P., López P. R. A., Robles, E., Ortiz, A., Penié, I., & Arroyo, R. (2013). Propuesta metodológica para la valoración económica en sistemas costeros de México. Investigación Ambiental, 5, 7-32. https://www.academia.edu/30981197/Propuesta_metodol%C3%B3gica_para_la_valoraci%C3%B3n_economica_en_sistemas_costeros_de_M%C3%A9xico
  21. De Rito, M., Auer, A., Arnaiz, C., Maceira, N., & Herrera, L. (2020). Linking farmers’ management decision, demographic characteristics and perceptions of ecosystem services in the Southern Pampa of Argentina. Journal of Rural Studies, 76, 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.03.002
  22. Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Comin, F. A., & Escalera-Reyes, J. (2015). A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services. AMBIO, 44, 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0555-2
  23. Franco, D., & Luiselli, L. (2014). Shared ecological knowledge and wetland values: a case study. Land Use Policy, 41, 526–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.007
  24. Grave, L. A. (2016). El Calón, un espacio sagrado en las marismas del sur de Sinaloa. Estudios Mesoamericanos, 1(8), 19–39. https://revistas-filologicas.unam.mx/estudios-mesoamericanos/index.php/em/article/view/33
  25. Harrison, P. A., Dunford, R., Barton, D. N., Kelemen, E., Martín-López, B., Norton, L., Termansen, M., Saarikoski, H., Hendriks, K., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Czúcz, B., García-Llorente, M., Howard, D., Jacobs, S., Karlsen, M., Kopperoinen, L., Madsen, A., Rusch, G., van Eupen, M.,… & Zulian, G. (2018). Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: a decision tree approach. Ecosystem Services, 29(Part C), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.016
  26. Huerta, R. C., Flores, S., & Pérez, A. Y. (2021). Evaluación de la sustentabilidad turística en destinos costeros del sur de Sinaloa. En S. Flores & E. Olmos (eds.). Perspectivas Multidisciplinarias en el Turismo (pp. 35–57). Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Occidente, Academia Mexicana de Investigación Turística. https://www.amiturismo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2021_Perspectivas-multidiciplinarias_DGT.pdf
  27. Ibarra, G. E., & Moreno, A. (2015). La subversión del edén mazatleco: empresarialismo turístico especulativo en la Isla de la Piedra. ROTUR. Revista de Ocio y Turismo, 10(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17979/rotur.2015.10.1.1452
  28. Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P. A., Montes, C., & Martín-López, B. (2014). Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecological Economics, 108, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028
  29. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). (2020). Censo de población y vivienda 2020. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/ccpv/2020/default.html#Resultados_generales
  30. Lau, J. D., Hicks, C. C., Gurney, G. G., & Cinner, J. E. (2018). Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education. Ecosystem Services, 29(Part A), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.005
  31. Ledesma, R., Molina, G., & Valero, P. (2002). Análisis de consistencia interna mediante Alfa de Cronbach: un programa basado en gráficos dinámicos. Psico-USF, 7(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-82712002000200003
  32. Loomis, D. K., & Paterson, S. K. (2014). The human dimensions of coastal ecosystem services: managing for social values. Ecological Indicators, (44), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.035
  33. Lopes, R., & Videira, N. (2013). Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem services: an integrated participatory framework. Ocean & Coastal Management, 84, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2013.08.001
  34. Maestre-Andrés, S., Calvet-Mir, L., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2016). Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services to improve protected area management: a multi-method approach applied to Catalonia, Spain. Regional Environmental Change, 16(3), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0784-3
  35. Mair, P., De Leeuw, J., & Groenen, P. J. F. (2019). Gifi: multivariate analysis with optimal scaling. R package version 0.3-9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Gifi
  36. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
  37. Morzaria-Luna, H. N., Castillo-López, A., Danemann, G. D., & Turk-Boyer, P. (2014). Conservation strategies for coastal wetlands in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 22, 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-013-9328-0
  38. Nainggolan, R., Perangin-angin, R., Simarmata, E., & Tarigan, A. F. (2019). Improved the Performance of the K-Means Cluster Using the Sum of Squared Error (SSE) optimized by using the Elbow Method. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1361(1), 12015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1361/1/012015
  39. Navarro, J. M., Casas, G. M., & González, E. (2010). Análisis de componentes principales y análisis de regresión para datos categóricos. Aplicación en la hipertensión arterial. Revista de Matemática: Teoría y Aplicaciones, 17(2), 199–230. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=45326933006
  40. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., González, J. A., Plieninger, T., López, C. A., & Montes, C. (2014). Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Regional Environmental Change, 14, 1269–1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0571-y
  41. Perez-Verdin, G., Sanjurjo-Rivera, E., Galicia, L., Hernandez-Diaz, J. C., Hernandez-Trejo, V., & Marquez-Linares, M. A. (2016). Economic valuation of ecosystem services in Mexico: Current status and trends. Ecosystem Services, 21 (Part A), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.003
  42. Portman, M. E. (2013). Ecosystem services in practice: challenges to real world implementation of ecosystem services across multiple landscapes – A critical review. Applied Geography, 45, 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.011
  43. Quinlan, M. B. (2018). The freelisting method. In P. Liamputtong (ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1–16). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_12-2
  44. R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  45. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C. H., & Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2009.01.001
  46. Secretaría de la Convención de Ramsar (2023). ¿Qué son los humedales? [Documento informativo Ramsar No.1]. https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/info2007sp-01.pdf
  47. Smith, J. J., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). Salience counts -and so does accuracy: correcting and updating a measure for free-list-item Salience. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7(2), 208–209. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1997.7.2.208
  48. Turner, R. K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., & Georgiou, S. (2003). Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 493-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00189-7
  49. Tusznio, J., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., Rechciński, M., Olszańska, A., & Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. (2020). Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations. Ecosystem Services, 42, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101077
  50. van Riper, C. J., Kyle, G. T., Sherrouse, B. C., Bagstad, K. J., & Sutton, S. G. (2017). Toward an integrated understanding of perceived biodiversity values and environmental conditions in a national park. Ecological Indicators, (72), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.029
  51. Villalobos, C. E. (2022). Técnicas tradicionales de las pesquerías en Sinaloa. Un análisis histórico, arqueológico y etnográfico [Tesis de Doctorado]. Universidad de Cádiz. https://www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/imprimirFicheroTesis.do?idFichero=yeTGKdUEZ4E%3D
  52. Wei, H., Fan, W., Wang, X., Lu, N., Dong, X., Zhao, Y., Ya, X., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: a review. Ecosystem Services, 25, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.017
  53. Xu, X., Chen, M., Yang, G., Jiang, B., & Zhang, J. (2020). Wetland ecosystem services research: a critical review. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e01027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01027
  54. Zhou, L., Guan, D., Huang, X., Yuan, X., & Zhang, M. (2020). Evaluation of the cultural ecosystem services of wetland park. Ecological Indicators, 114, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106286
  55. Zoeller, K. C., Gurney, G. G., Marshall, N., & Cumming, G. S. (2021). The role of socio-demographic characteristics in mediating relationships between people and nature. Ecology and Society, 26(3) 1-20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12664-260320