Vol. 34 (2024)
Artículos de Investigación

Identification and participatory mapping of ecosystem services in Marismas Nacionales Sinaloa, Mexico

PDF (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))
  • Aimée Cervantes-Escobar,
  • Arturo Ruiz-Luna
Aimée Cervantes-Escobar
Posdoc-CIAD
Arturo Ruiz-Luna
Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2024.4247

Published 2024-12-11

How to Cite

Cervantes-Escobar, A. ., & Ruiz-Luna, A. (2024). Identification and participatory mapping of ecosystem services in Marismas Nacionales Sinaloa, Mexico . Acta Universitaria, 34, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2024.4247

Abstract

The Marismas Nacionales Sinaloa (MNS) wetland system, in northwest Mexico, constitutes a socio-ecosystem providing important ecosystem services (SE). Currently, MNS shows signs of degrdation linked to anthropogenic activities, compromising the flow of SE, making it necessary to guarantee its continuity, beginning with its recognition. With this objective and through social mapping and participatory collaboration techniques, 28 sub-categories of SE were identified, mainly provisioning services (57%). The cartography outputs spatially explicit information about the SE supplying areas and their relationship with users. Priority areas for users were identified for their provision of ecosystem services, such as marshes, mangroves, sites of cultural and recreational importance, and aquifers. It was evident that activities related to wetlands have increased recently, indicating an intensification in the use of natural resources, with negative interactions between the activities developed and the natural components. This work provides essential information for future studies in the region and contributes with elements for the ecological planning of MNS.

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

References

  1. Akker, I., Corona, M., Lummis, S., Wong, H., & Zabel, C. (2012). Marismas Nacionales Conservation & Carbon Sequestration, preliminary report. Stanford Students Environmental Consulting, Stanford University.
  2. Al-Kodmany, K. (2001) Visualization tools and methods for participatory planning and design. Journal of Urban Technology, 8(2), 1-37, https://doi.org/10.1080/106307301316904772
  3. Asselen, S. V., Verburg, P. H., Vermaat, J. E., & Janse, J. H. (2013). Drivers of wetland conversion: a global meta-analysis. PloS One, 8(11), e81292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081292
  4. Azuela, A. (2006). Visionarios y pragmáticos: una aproximación sociológica al derecho ambiental. Fontamara/UNAM. https://antonioazuela.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/visionarios-y-pragmc3a1ticos.pdf
  5. Balvanera, P., & Cotler, H. (2007). Acercamientos al estudio de los servicios ecosistémicos. Gaceta Ecológica, (84-85), 8-15. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/539/53908502.pdf
  6. Balvanera, P., Quijas, S., Martín-López, B., Barrios, E., Dee, L., Isbell, F., Durance, I., White, P., & Blanchard, R. (2017). The links between biodiversity and ecosystem services. En M. Potchin, R. Haines-Young, & K. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of Ecosystem Services (pp.45-59). Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775302-5
  7. Barnaud, C., & Antona, M. (2014). Deconstructing ecosystem services: uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum, 56, 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.07.003
  8. Barragán, D. F., & Amador, J. C. (2014). La cartografía social-pedagógica: una oportunidad para producir conocimiento y re-pensar la educación. Itinerario Educativo, 28(64), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.21500/01212753.1422
  9. Baskent, E. Z. (2020). A framework for characterizing and regulating ecosystem services in a management planning context. Forests, 11(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010102
  10. Berlanga-Robles, C. A., & Ruiz-Luna, A. (2002). Land use mapping and change detection in the coastal zone of northwest Mexico using remote sensing techniques. Journal of Coastal Research, 18(3), 514-522. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280015628_Land_use_mapping_and_change_detection_in_the_coastal_zone_of_northwest_Mexico_using_remote_sensing_techniques
  11. Berlanga-Robles, C. A., Fernández, G., Ruiz-Luna, A., Cervantes-Escobar, A., & Castellanos-Tapia, F. (2024). Landscape changes in a critical subtropical coastal wetland in northwestern Mexico: Is shrimp farming a driver concern? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 302,108754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2024.108754
  12. Berlanga-Robles, C. A., & Ruiz-Luna, A. (2007). Análisis de las tendencias de cambio del bosque de mangle del sistema lagunar Teacapán-Agua Brava, México. Una aproximación con el uso de imágenes de satélite Landsat. Universidad y Ciencia, 23(1), 29-46. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/154/15423104.pdf
  13. Berlanga-Robles, C. A., & Ruiz-Luna, A. (2020). Assessing seasonal and long-term mangrove canopy variations in Sinaloa, Northwest Mexico, based on time series of enhanced vegetation index (EVI) data. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 28, 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09709-0
  14. Berlanga-Robles, C. A., Ruiz-Luna, A., & Nepita, M. R. (2019). Seasonal trend analysis (STA) of MODIS vegetation index time series for the mangrove canopy of the Teacapan-Agua Brava lagoon system, Mexico. GIScience & Remote Sensing, 56(3), 338-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2018.1533679
  15. Bordt, M., & Saner, M. (2019). Which ecosystems provide which services? A meta-analysis of nine selected ecosystem services assessments. One Ecosystem, 4, e31420.
  16. Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, J. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 616–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
  17. Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13, 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007
  18. Cabrera, E. (2000). Usos y costumbrs en la hechura de las políticas públicas en México. Límites de las policy sciences en contextos cultural y políticamente diferentes. Gestión y Política Pública, 9(2), 189-229. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=13309201
  19. Camacho-Valdez, V., & Ruiz-Luna, 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
  20. Camacho-Valdez, V., Ruiz-Luna, A., Ghermandi, A., & Nunes, P. A. L. D. (2013). Valuation of ecosystem services provided by coastal wetlands in northwest Mexico. Ocean and Coastal Management, 78, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.02.017
  21. Camacho-Valdez, V., Ruiz-Luna, A., Ghermandi, A., Berlanga-Robles, C. A., & Nunes, P. A. L. D. (2014). Effects of land use changes on the ecosystem service values of coastal wetlands. Environmental Management, 54(4), 852–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0332-9
  22. Carvajal, M., Bolado, M. E., Sáenz, A. A., & Rolón, E. (2011). Servicios ambientales en Marismas Nacionales. Percepción histórica de sus habitantes. https://sumar.org.mx/media/projects/servicios-ambientales/docs/20110510%20-%20Documento%20-%2001%20-%20Servicios%20Ambientales%20de%20Marismas%20Nacionales.pdf
  23. Carvajal-Rascón, M. A., Torres-Origel, J. F., Farell-Campos, S. G., Bolado-Martínez, E., & Martínez-Escalante, G. (2017). La pesca en Marismas Nacionales 2001-2015. https://sumar.org.mx/media/projects/pescavante/docs/La%20pesca%20en%20Marismas%20Nacionales%202001-2015.pdf
  24. Cervantes-Escobar, A., & Camacho-Valdez, V. (2021). Importancia de los humedales y sus servicios ecosistémicos en el sur de Sinaloa. En A. Cervantes-Escobar, R. Hernández-Guzmán & A. Montijo-Galindo (Eds.), Vulnerabilidad costera en el noroeste de México. Un enfoque multidisciplinario (pp. 165-185). CIAD.
  25. Cervantes-Escobar, A., Ruiz-Luna, A., & Berlanga-Robles, C. A. (2023). Social perceptions of ecosystem services delivered by coastal wetlands: their value and the threats they face in northwestern Mexico. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 12. https://doi.org/doi:10.15451/ec2023-02-12.06-1-15
  26. Cicin-Sain, B., & Knecht, R. W. (1998). Integrated coastal and ocean management: concepts and practices. Island Press.
  27. Comisión Nacional Forestal (Conafor) (2020). El Gobierno de México apoya a dueños y poseedores de bosques, selvas, manglares, humedales y zonas áridas. Conafor. https://www.gob.mx/conafor/acciones-y-programas/apoyos-conafor
  28. Costanza, R., d´Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O´Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., & Van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world´s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 38, 253-260. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40197297_The_value_of_the_world's_ecosystem_services_and_natural_capital_Nature#fullTextFileContent
  29. Cruz-López, L., Digón-Regueiro, P., & Méndez-García, R. M. (2022). Social cartography as a participatory process for mapping experiences of Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship: an account of the design. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 45(2), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1966621
  30. Davidson, N. (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
  31. De la Lanza, G., Ruiz-Luna, A., Camacho, V., Blanco, M., Zamorano, P., López, A., Robles, E., Ortiz, A., Penie, I., & Arroyo, R. (2013). Propuesta metodológica para la valoración económica en sistemas costeros de México. Investigación Ambiental, Ciencia y Política Pública, 5(1), 7-32. https://www.researchgate.net/
  32. publication/262259112_Propuesta_metodologica_para_la_valoracion_economica_en_sistemas_costeros_de_Mexico
  33. De la Rosa-Velázquez, M. I., & Ruiz-Luna, A. (2023). Valoración social de humedales costeros en el noroeste de México. Acta universitaria, 33, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2023.3889
  34. Delgado, C. (2022). Estrategias didácticas para fortalecer el pensamiento creativo en el aula. Un estudio meta-analítico. Revista Innova Educación, 4(1), 51-64. https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rie.2022.01.004
  35. Díaz-Gallegos, J. R., Mas, J. F., & Velázquez, A. (2010). Trends of tropical deforestation in Southeast Mexico. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 31(2), 180-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2010.00396.x
  36. Finisdore, J., Rhodes, C., Haines-Young, R., Maynard, S., Wielgus, J., Dvarskas, A., Houdet, J., Quétier, F., Lamothe, K. A., Ding, H., Soulard, F., Van Houtven, G., & Rowcroft, P. (2020). The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems. Ecosystem Services, 45, 101160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101160
  37. Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
  38. Goldman, R. L., Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., & Daily, G. C. (2008). Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(27), 9445-9448. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0800208105
  39. Grave, L. A. (2021). La Fiesta del Mar de Las Cabras. Inventio, 17(42), 1-9. http://doi.org/10.30973/inventio/2021.17.42/7
  40. Habershon, N. (1993). Metaplan (R): Achieving two-way communications. Journal of European Industrial Training, 17(7), 8-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090599310042528
  41. Havard, L., Brigand, L., & Cariño, M. (2015). Stakeholder participation in decision-making processes for marine and coastal protected areas: case studies of the south-western Gulf of California, Mexico. Ocean and Coastal Management, 116,: 116-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.017
  42. Hernández-Guzmán, R., Berlanga-Robles, C. A., Ruiz-Luna, A., & Suazo-Ortuño, I. (2021). Cambios en la extensión de los humedales costeros del estado de Sinaloa, México. En A. Cervantes-Escobar, R. Hernández-Guzmán & A. Montijo-Galindo (Eds.), Vulnerabilidad costera en el noroeste de México. Un enfoque multidisciplinario (pp. 147-164). CIAD.
  43. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services- IPBES, (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio E.S., H. T. Ngo, M. Gu`eze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Moln´ar, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, & C. N. Zayas (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579
  44. Lebreton, B., Rivaud, A., Picot, L., Prévost, B., Barillé, L., Sauzeau, T., Beseres, J., & Lavaud, J. (2019). From ecological relevance of the ecosystem services concept to its socio-political use. The case study of intertidal bare mudflats in the Marennes-Ol´eron Bay, France. Ocean and Coastal Management, 172(9), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.01.024
  45. Legaz, I., Gutiérrez, L., & Luna, A. (2017). Brainstorming como recurso docente para desarrollar competencia investigadora. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 74(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1300/J141v05n02_01
  46. Luyet, V., Schlaepter, R., Parlange, M. B., & Buttler, A. (2012). A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 111, 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.026
  47. Maass, J. M., Balvanera, P., Castillo, A., Daily, G. C., Mooney, H. A., Ehrlich, P, Miranda, A., Jaramillo, V. J., García-Oliva, F., Martínez-Yrizar, A., López-Blanco, H., Pérez-Jiménez, A., Búrquez, A., Tinoco, C., Ceballos, G., Barraza, L., Ayala, R., & Sarukhán, J. (2005). Ecosystem services of tropical dry forests: insights from long-term ecological and social research on the Pacific coast of Mexico. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 17. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art17/
  48. Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E. G., La Note, A., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Paracchini, M. L., Braat, L., & Bidoglio, G. (2012). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004
  49. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Island Press. http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf
  50. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf
  51. Moomaw, W. R., Chmura, G. L., Davies, G. T., Finlayson, C. M., Middleton, B. A., Natali, S. M., Perry, J. E., Roulet, N., & Sutton-Grier, A. E. (2018). Wetlands in a changing climate: science, policy and management. Wetlands, 38, 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1023-8
  52. Nelson, E. J., & Daily, G. C. (2010). Modeling ecosystem services in terrestrial systems. F1000 Biology Reports, 2(53), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.3410/B2-53
  53. Ramírez-Zavala, J. R., Cervantes-Escobar, A., & Tapia-Hernández, F. J. (2012). Marismas nacionales Sinaloa: futuro y conservación. Pronatura Noroeste-UAS.
  54. Reyes, H., Álvarez, P. A., Calderón, L. E, Erosa, C. E., Fernández, F. J., Frausto, M. T. C., Luna B. M., Moreno X. G., Mozqueda, M. C., Norzagaray, C. O., & Petatán D. (2014). Servicios Ambientales de Arrecifes Coralinos: El Caso del Parque Nacional Cabo Pulmo, Baja California Sur. En J. I. Urciaga García (eds.), Desarrollo regional en Baja California Sur: una perspectiva de los servicios ecosistémicos (pp. 49-77). UABCS. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263890790_Servicios_Ambientales_de_Arrecifes_Coralinos_El_Caso_del_Parque_Nacional_Cabo_Pulmo_Baja_California_Sur
  55. Rambaldi, G., Kyem, P. A. K., McCall, M., & Weiner, D. (2006). Participatory spatial information management and communication in developing countries. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00162.x
  56. Ramsar. (2010). Misión Ramsar de Asesoramiento no. 67. Laguna Huizache-Caimanero (Sitio Ramsar no. 1689) y Sitio Ramsar Marismas Nacionales (Sitio Ramsar No. 732). https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ram_rp_67-mexico_sp.pdf
  57. Rozas-Váquez, D., Fürst, C., Geneletti, D., & Almendra, O. (2018). Integration of ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment across spatial planning scales. Land Use Policy, 71, 303-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.015
  58. Rubio-Cisneros, N. T., Aburto-Oropeza, O., Jackson, J., & Ezcurra, E. (2017). Coastal exploitation throughout Marismas Nacionales wetlands in Northwest Mexico. Tropical Conservation Science, 10: 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917697261
  59. Sanjurjo, E. (2001). Valoración económica de servicios ambientales prestados por ecosistemas: Humedales en México. Instituto Nacional de Ecología. Scemama, P., Regnier, E., Blanchard, F., & Thebaud, O. (2022). Ecosystem services assessment for the conservation of mangroves in French Guiana using fuzzy cognitive mapping. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4, 769182. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.769182
  60. Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., & Chang, A. (2008). An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9457–9464. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705797105
  61. United Nations (UN). (1992). Agenda 21. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21.
  62. Valderrama-Hernández, R. (2013). Diagnóstico participativo con cartografía social. Innovaciones en metodología Investigación-Acción Participativa (IAP). Anduli, 12, 53-65. https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/anduli/article/view/3635/3149
  63. Vilardy, S. P., González, J. A., Martín-López, B., & Oteros-Rozas, E. (2012). Los servicios de los ecosistemas de la Reserva de Biosfera Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. Revibec: Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, 19, 66-83. https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Revibec/article/view/261795
  64. Wilder, M. (2010). Water governance in Mexico: political and economic apertures and a shifting state-citizen relationship. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 1-15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268136