Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Participatory Landscape Conservation: A Case Study of a Seasonally Dry Tropical Forest in Michoacan, Mexico

Altmetrics

Downloads

89

Views

22

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

supplementary.xlsx (22.84KB )

Submitted:

04 September 2023

Posted:

08 September 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Participatory landscape conservation is an innovative approach that weaves theory and practice to bridge the gap between theoretical models and practical applications. Intertropical regions as the case of Mexico face challenges to conciliate regional governability, social justice, and nature conservation. The State of Michoacan is one of these regions where the challenges exacerbate since nature conservation is last due to its ongoing territorial disputes. We implemented the participatory landscape conservation approach by creating a complementary form of protected areas with ongoing conflicts, drought conditions, and extreme poverty. We conducted participatory mapping and land cover/use analyses as main methodological tools to reach consensus among stakeholders. We integrated, macro, micro and social scales to provide sound arguments to integrate local, scholar and policy makers perceptions. The outcomes of the participatory mapping analyses were assessed. The present papers provide evidence of the positive outcome of using a Participatory Landscape Conservation to establish a Biosphere Reserve, safeguarding one of the most biologically diverse and delicate ecosystems consisting of seasonally dry tropical forests within a rather disputed region. We discussed the relevance of our findings and compared them to ongoing regional and global trends in the light of other forms of establishing protected areas.
Keywords: 
Subject: Environmental and Earth Sciences  -   Environmental Science

Introduction

1.1. Land-based conservation

An estimated one-third of the world's population relies on forests for subsistence, while more than two-thirds rely on resources and services derived from native vegetation areas (Díaz et al. 2018). Unfortunately, natural resources are dwindling rapidly, especially in tropical areas where community identity and culture are crucial to daily life. Such regions heavily depend on livelihoods derived from their ecosystems (Curtis et al. 2018). Protected Areas (PAs) have long been considered a primary tool for preserving natural biodiversity. However, due to different cultures and contexts, the effectiveness of these areas has become contested in recent years. For example, some studies suggest that PAs may be instrumental in ensuring long-term conservation efforts (Terborgh et al. 2002). Nevertheless, other researchers argue that their failure to prevent deforestation in tropical regions is cause for alarm (Brunner 2002; Yannelli et al. 2022).
Additional research must be conducted to discover solutions that will safeguard the environment. Studies suggest that half of all PAs are inadequately managed, resulting in ecological upheaval, vegetation cover depletion, and plummeting endangered species populations (Watson et al. 2014). Shockingly, in certain circumstances, ecological destruction increased after the Protected Area was created (Liu et al. 2001). Therefore, several authors are requesting new strategies to bolster PAs performance, especially in tropical areas (Vanclay 2001; Brunner 2002), as a means of assuring that socio-geo-ecological systems and livelihoods will endure within these territories (Cumming and Allen 2017). Conservation should be done through interdisciplinary approaches (Berkes and Folke 1994; Holling and Gunderson 2002; Walker et al. 2006) where scientific and local knowledge and political wills are evenly integrated (Cash et al. 2003; Ens et al. 2012, 2015; Yannelli et al. 2022). In the face of our increasingly contested world, Bray and Velázquez (2009) proposed that a vital landscape approach should be conducted to redirect public policy decisions and financing in line with sustainability principles. Landscape approach is an ever-evolving construct comprising interactions between natural and sociocultural components. It is regulated to meet human values, such as equity and development targets, with long-term environmental repercussions (Pérez-Valladares et al. 2022). This approach aims at ensuring the sustainable utilization of existing resources while meeting societal objectives simultaneously.

1.2. Participatory science and landscape

As highlighted by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993), the outcomes of scientific studies must abide by governance principles, forming a bond between those involved in public/civil society/citizenship matters and their institutions with ruling bodies such as government entities, private sector organizations, and related establishments. Robust codes of conduct, accountability, and effectiveness should be established to ensure sound stewardship. Such management must also be participatory and comprehensive (UNCEN 1992). As a result, stakeholders must collaborate to develop practical solutions that simultaneously address the territory's biophysical constraints and fulfill its socio-cultural expectations. Furthermore, this negotiation process is essential to effectively mediate conflicting interests on the landscape. Therefore, emphasis is placed on "pluralism" in negotiated landscapes (Wollenberg et al. 2001; Ingersoll 2003). This concept finds its best illustration in "national park" environments, where people who have been around since the beginning of these areas' conservation efforts and may still reside within them, assert their right to participate actively in their management (Bray and Velázquez 2009).

1.3. Geopolitical context

Despite representing a vital global biodiversity reservoir (Groombridge and Jenkins 2000; Sarukhán et al. 2015), tropical and intertropical countries, such as Mexico experience rapid deforestation (Velázquez et al. 2002; Figueroa et al. 2021). Mexico, as most countries worldwide, rely on Pas as a mean conserve their native genetic asset. In Mexico, 185 PAs have been established to protect biodiversity. These PAs cover 90,958,374 hectares (46.5% of the national territory), and only 11% is continental (CONANP 2022). Many PAs have been evaluated as nonfunctional in their decree objectives (Figueroa et al. 2011). In Mexico, land ownership consists of public properties that belong to the nation, individual private possessions termed small property, and ejidos and indigenous lands. These last two are classified collectively as social property or agrarian communities. Unique to Mexico, agrarian communities result from historic agricultural reforms in 1934 and 1992 that created separate forms of land ownership. As a result, a massive 102 million hectares of Mexican land are dedicated to two distinct types of property - ejidos, comprising 84.5 million ha, and indigenous communities with 17.4 million ha. It accounts for 53.4% of Mexico's total land surface (Morett-Sánchez and Cosío-Ruiz 2017). Mexico is the global leader in communal forest enterprises, with more than 80% of its forests managed by stakeholders (Thoms and Betters 1998). The highest governing body of ejidos and rural communities in Mexico is the general assembly, comprised of a commissioner, secretary, and treasurer to ensure effective management. More than 5.6 million commoners and owners raise numerous products for family use and to meet national demand - crops, livestock goods, and fodder- in more than 34,000 ejidos and communities in Mexico. They also manufacture construction materials, handicrafts, tourist services, and other items suitable for international purchase (FAO 2006). This natural asset is an integral part of the nation's capital. It provides invaluable services and resources, including its unparalleled biodiversity, carbon absorption capacity, groundwater replenishment capability, supportive ecosystem functions, regulations, and cultural heritage (Bray 2022). To our knowledge, there is scanty research that integrates political and social stakeholders to accomplish valuable long-term allies in biodiversity conservation on regions with ongoing territorial disputes (Durán et al. 2011).

1.4. Objectives

The aim of the present paper is threefold. Our primary goal was to develop an active implementation of participatory landscape conservation and use it to create a system of conservation areas in the State of Michoacan. Our second goal was to apply our initial achievement by creating a complementary form of protected areas with ongoing conflicts, drought conditions, and extreme poverty. This complementary form of protected areas should ensure maximum protection while improving marginalized communities' lives. The third objective was to evaluate the success of the complementary form of protected area fifteen years after its establishment.

2. Methods

2.1. Study area

The research took place in the State of Michoacan one of the four most biodiverse states of Mexico. It is comprised by 113 municipalities and about half of its present area is governed by agrarian communities. Gopar-Merino et al. (2015) have provided a critical review of the biophysical complexity of Michoacan and it was referred as an outstanding ecogeographical complex macroregional state.

2.2. Macroregional state level

In consensus with the Michoacan State authorities, during 2005-and 2007, we conducted a state level consultation by active participatory workshops aimed at twofold goals: 1) identification of priority areas of environmental, social, and economic importance; 2) delineation of a consensual conservation strategy. The primary sources for the active participatory workshops were maps depicting abiotic (geology, landform and soils), biotic (biodiversity), and land tenure. The main source was the Mexican mapping agency (INEGI for its Spanish acronym). Furthermore, remote sensing tools such as satellite images and aerial photographs were used in conjunction with relational databases to produce maps showcasing population size and marginalization across the state territory, as well as vegetation and land use, deforestation processes, human settlements, industrial corridors, and environmental management policies. Six workshops were conducted with three stakeholders, namely: five with agrarian communities (most importantly their authorities in turn), and one with scholars and representatives from the federal, state, and municipal governments.
Due to the extent of the macroregion and the complexity for logistics, the State of Michoacán was split into five regions on basis of accessibility and positive neighbors relationships for workshops with agrarian communities and each of these followed three stages: first, the state governor of Michoacan issued a call-to-action; second, the Ministry of Urbanism and Environment (SUMA for its Spanish Acronym) handled logistical matters; third, authors and local authorities worked together for implementing the consultation process. Participants were organized in tables (of about ten to fifteen people) where maps were overlaid covered with acetates. On their maps, participants delineated areas of socio-environmental value. After the full-day workshop, partial results of each table were presented in a collective forum. During this presentation, agreements were made on proposing protecting certain areas for conservation without jeopardizing ongoing of future development projects.
The sixth workshop was attended by scholars from various backgrounds, including the natural, social, and humanities sciences in one room and split into interdisciplinary tables. Simultaneously, in another room representatives from municipal, state and federal government entities also conducted the same exercise. This workshop featured the same components as its regional counterparts, although with a heightened focus on delineating agreement among areas of immense socio-environmental merit. To maximize the effectiveness of this sixth workshop, a minimum mappable area was determined (100 hectares for maps at 1:250,000 scale). Additionally, preliminary data on biological richness (e.g., Cruz et al. 2019), climatic variability (e.g., Gopar-Merino et al. 2015), and vegetation diversity (e.g., Velazquez 2021) were provided in combination with geographical proximity to production systems (e.g., avocado plantations) and human settlements. At the end, groups of the two rooms were gathered together to review their outcomes collectively.
Outcomes of the six workshops were integrated using a Geographic Information System by overlapping all delineated areas on a raster map of cells of one squared kilometer. Each cell (pixel) was given a weight accordingly to the number of times it was selected by one of the stakeholders. Cells with less than three nominations out of the six workshops were not included in the second phase of the integrated analyses. In the second phase, assessment of contiguity, connectivity, fragmentation was computed so that cells most isolated (total distance to the next group of cells) and small (number of cells clustered together) were also pondered as second priority. This preliminary second phase weighted outcome was presented to municipal, state (Governor and Minister of Environment of the State) and federal authorities (National Commissioner of Protected areas of Mexico) so that a final decision was made to define a so-called the State System of Conservation (SSC). Policy makers pointed out that one of the areas of the SSC located in the tropical dry ecosystem was to be further evaluated for its social, cultural, environmental and political relevance.

2.3. Microregional level

The zone number 16 (Figure 1) on the SSC was pinpointed by the state and federal authorities as the region to further explore willingness for establishing a protected area. This region referred as Zicuirán-Infiernillo is one the most diverse and extended tropical dry forest, it faces high social complexity and governability; and it is regarded as vulnerable to climate change. Zicuirán-Infiernillo regional comprised parts of Huacana, Arteaga, and Churumuco municipalities, and most of the Infiernillo Dam that happens to produce about 25 % of Mexico's electricity of all hydroelectrical dams (Ramos-Gutiérrez and Montenegro-Fragoso 2012).
To organize the public consultation in the assemblies of the agrarian communities, an intergovernmental group was formed by Arteaga, Churumucao, and La Huacana City Council members, five state government entities led by the Ministry of Environment of Michoacan, the National Commission of Protected Areas, and the authors of the present paper. The group held seven meetings to discuss how to present, disseminate, and eventually engage civil society, agrarian communities, and non-government organizations (NGOs). Three steps were considered prior to the consultation:
1.- Enrollment of active NGOs that have played an important role in making aware local inhabitants of their land's natural values (e.g., The Community Biodiversity Conservation Program, the Project for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Forest Resources, El Bajo Balsas of the Non-Governmental Organization).
2.- Preparation of detailed cartography at a medium scale (1:100,000 and 1:50,000) to illustrate the agrarian community’s interconnectedness of their lands in various basins and sub-basins (water is a critical resource in the region), land cover, land use, human settlements, primary and secondary roads, and boundaries of agrarian communities.
3.- Planning open public consultations to include small landowners, experienced service providers, ejido counselors, and livestock associations.
The consultation process took place from February to July 2007, and it was conducted in presentations in general assemblies of the 64 agrarian communities identified with legal jurisdiction within zone 16 of the SSC. Due to boundary disputes, the National Agrarian Registry's boundaries were not displayed on maps during presentations in assemblies when two a more agrarian communities were participating. The goals of each assembly focused on approval for adding an agrarian community as part of the ongoing construction of the Zicuirán-Infiernillo Biosphere Reserve (hereafter as ZIBR), as well as exploring their willingness to become part of the core zone (area uniquely used for biodiversity conservation purposes). Agreements of the assemblies were stated in minutes (official debriefings) so that collective decisions were backed up legally.

2.4. Efficiency assessment of the Zicuirán-Infiernillo Biosphere Reserve

To assess the efficiency of the ZIBR, we conducted landcover/use change analyses by crossing two databases of different years (2005 and 2021). The established polygon of the ZIBR and its peripheral (buffer) zone (an adjacent area delimited by the National Commission of Protected Areas) were combined to assess the regional landcover/use trends.
We used as baseline (database T1) the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) series III of 2005 (scale 1:250,000) as the year just previous to the establishment of the ZIBR. T1 database was constructed by the visual analysis of Landsat 7 images and comprised land use and vegetation formation classes. The labels used for these classes and their distribution patterns were confirmed during on-site inspections in 2007 and supplementary aerial images. A thorough description of the integration, correction, and compilation of T1 database was given by Cuevas and Mas (2008).
The T2 database featured vegetation formations (scale 1:100,000), and it was obtained from the automated classification of SPOT images from 2018 and further verified through field research during 2020 and 2021, which included sampling tree species, according to Velazquez et al. (2021) and Rangel-Landa et al. (2022). A scale of 1:250,000 was used to ensure that the two databases (T1 and T2) were compatible. Additionally, the minimum mapping area was set to be at least one km2; thus, all polygons smaller than one km2 had to be merged with the largest adjacent polygon for compatibility.
We reclassified T1 and T2 databases into three distinct cartographic classes: temperate dry forests, tropical dry forests, and cultural land use types. This latter class included crops, settlements, and livestock grazing areas where native vegetation was not predominant. Water bodies were kept as one stable land cover. We overlapped T1 and T2 databases by layering them onto a geographic information system and analyzing shifts and patterns across different periods following the procedure described by Velázquez et al. (2003b). We then computed yearly rate of changes among classes by using the method described by Velázquez et al (2002).

3. Results

3.1. The State System of Conservation

In the Macroregional level, two hundred ninety-eight people attended the six workshops, and 2,659 surveys were collected from those who could not participate After executing surveys and workshops, we mapped out 18 initial areas, covering 10,399 km2 or about 18% of the landmass of Michoacan (Table 1). The SSC surpasses the combined federal and state protection efforts by ten times (Figure 1). This result combines bottom-up and top-down participatory processes, where social actors are the catalysts for defining, limiting, and managing potential regions to become protected areas.
Preprints 84171 g001
Figure 1. Reconciled areas from consultation among civil society and rural communities, academic circles, and government institutions. Numbers 16 became a priority because of its biocultural nature, and it was chosen as the target area to explore further participatory conservation.
Figure 1. Reconciled areas from consultation among civil society and rural communities, academic circles, and government institutions. Numbers 16 became a priority because of its biocultural nature, and it was chosen as the target area to explore further participatory conservation.
Preprints 84171 g001
Our research into participatory landscape conservation unveiled the fact that eight of the eighteen designated territories (illustrated in Table 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 17) had never been taken into consideration for conservation. The Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve (No. 2) and the Pico de Tancítaro Flora and Fauna Protection Area (No. 7), both temperate ecosystems, are currently at the heart of highly contested social disputes. Despite their ecological relevance, numbers 8, 10, 14, and 18 were relatively small areas to be considered as priorities at the state level. Numbers 11, 12, and 13 comprised outstanding biodiversity, yet these are currently ongoing social disputes, so environmental considerations are not at the top of the agenda for municipal, state, and federal governments.

3.2. Zicuirán-Infiernillo Biosphere Reserve consultation

A total of 115 assemblies were conducted in six municipalities and 64 agrarian communities with the participation of 1,999 ejidatarios (members of the agrarian communities with legal rights for land tenure). Sixty out of the 64 outvoted the other submissions to support the creation of a new biosphere reserve with signed assembly minutes. Out of the 60 agrarian communities, only 26 have agreed on establishing a portion of their land as a core zone, which implies no human action other than biodiversity conservation. For a comprehensive overview of the rural communities' name, municipality, proposed and agreed-on core zones, and agreement instrument, please refer to Appendix A1.
After a thorough assessment, it was decided that 265 thousand hectares of land should be allocated in the Arteaga, Churumuco, Huacana, and Tumbiscatío municipalities. This area would encompass four core zones spanning 22 thousand hectares and an additional 189 thousand hectares buffer zone. Sixty agrarian communities and 134 small owners joined this conservation proposal. On November 30, 2007, the Zicuirán-Infiernillo region was officially established as a Biosphere Reserve (SEMARNAT-CONANP 2014).

3.3. Biosphere reserve model efficiency

In 2005 (T1), most of the region was covered by tropical dry forest (71.56% or 317,888 hectares). Cultural land use types accounted for 19.77%, while temperate dry forest comprised 4.79%. By 2021 (T2), the tropical dry forest had significantly increased its surface by 10%, expanding to 360,781 hectares (81.22%). On the other hand, cultural land use declined to 48,202 ha accounting for 10.85%; whereas temperate dry forests almost remain even since changes accounted for less than one percent (Figure 2).
The participatory landscape conservation approach allowed us to reveal spatially explicit conversion processes (Figure 3) expressed in annual rates of change (Figure 4). Protected area establishment, however, may not be held accountable for these results alone. Factors such as territorial disputes, outmigration, and extreme drought effects have all contributed, although these have not been thoroughly studied yet.
The changes depicted in the conversion processes map (Figure 3) were field-cross-checked with the aid of the director of the protected area (Hugo Zepeda). The current maps help him to share with the rural communities to find triggers of positive or negative trends. Transition trends were also calculated, as shown in Figure 4, where the annual rate of changes is indicated. This information was crucial for managing the protected area because transition matrices were requested per municipality to design sound land-based oriented public policies. These include different incentives for those rural communities that have promoted the recovery of the native tropical dry forests in contrast to the ones that have not.

4. Discussion

4.1. Multiscale integration

The State System of Conservation for Michoacan derived from a participatory exercise that brought environmental perceptions of stake-right-land-holders. The Michoacan governor at the time (Lázaro Cárdenas Batel) and his team understood the need to develop an extensive consultation. The leading participation of public universities (in this case, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo) provided trustable grounds to have everyone on board during workshops. One example to reveal the relevance of the neutral ground of the call made by universities happened in Aguililla Municipality, where even violent organized groups could express their views since they had traffic control in specific areas, so small polygons were consensually appointed as relevant for conservation without jeopardizing local interests. Agrarian communities delineated small, specific well-located areas. In contrast, scholars, knowledgeable about the natural richness of Michoacan, insisted on selecting large conservation areas so that integral biocultural attributes may be protected. As a result, scholars delineated about 70% of the whole surface of the State of Michoacan. Overall, overlapping common interests became a powerful negotiation tool so that all “holders” became aware of the 18 areas depicted as potential for biocultural conservation policies.
Regional participatory experience in Huacana, Churumuco, and Arteaga municipalities was initially considered a burden. The first assemblies resulted in disputes among participants, sometimes claiming rights over their neighbors. At the local scale, people believe their area is more significant and affluent than one of their neighbors. To avoid that, local maps at the rural community level were prepared so that no comparisons could happen during assemblies and workshops. Nonetheless, 115 assemblies to engage 60 rural communities were needed to establish the Zicuirán-Infiernillo Biosphere Reserve (ZIBR) in Michoacan. This became a powerful platform to protect, conserve, and manage its natural resources. The abundant tropical dry forests in the ZIBR are a richly diverse ecosystem of many endemic species at risk due to human interventions. Hugo Zepeda, ZIBR Director, commented recently, “…the outcomes of the participatory approach have been remarkably positive and striking, and this area has proven resilient in the face of significant disruptions”. Utilizing the participatory landscape conservation strategy, peasants, local governments, producer organizations, and land management groups could join forces to achieve a unified regional goal. Establishing un-consensually protected areas has often triggered disputes rather than safeguarding long-term ecosystem processes (e.g., Figueroa et al. 2011; Brechin et al. 2012). A sound progress assessment of the ZIBR's performance was needed to provide evidence of its significance. This contribution revealed that native tropical dry forests are increasing their surface so that participatory environmental public policies have proven more efficient.
The last yearly assessment (2022) conducted by Hugo Zepeda Castro, Director of the Zicuirán-Infiernillo Biosphere Reserve, concluded that a synergistic effect exists between encouraging people to abandon agricultural lands and subsequent recovery of dry tropical forests. “All agrarian communities are different, yet two reasons presented themselves again and again: government disruptions due to organized crime taking over critical spaces, combined with a lack of support when faced with extreme weather conditions that adversely affect the productivity of their operations. Land fallows are then not always a result of pure environmental concern. Nowadays, the “Sembrando Vida” (https://programasparaelbienestar.gob.mx/sembrando-vida/) new policy targeted at supporting peasants to engage them in productive rural landscapes seems offering positive results; however, the extent of its impact is yet to be ascertained.

4.2. From state to national scale

In Mexico, as in most hot spot countries, this participatory landscape approach seems promising for melding together ideas and perspectives by stakeholders to formulate and execute environmental public policies. This strategy aims at engaging local players as allies in protecting their heritage; thus, their land holds more cultural and environmental values. This strategy was crafted to prevent social problems from being implemented and managed without prior discussion (Maldonado et al. 2018). A legitimate validation process needed to occur due to the constant territorial disputes in Michoacan. We can illustrate this with the Mexican Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, where academics and conservationists are behind its establishment. However, local actors were not on board with the original initiative, and current disputes persist despite the biological importance and outstanding budget allocated. At “El Vizcaíno” Biosphere Reserve in Baja California Sur, researchers concluded that its destiny relies upon a consensual governance regime.
According to Brenner and De la Vega (2014) and Rosete et al. (2014), the concept of a Biosphere Reserve can be relatively inclusive with significant potential for success. However, the redefinition of participation must be reviewed (e.g., Durand and Jímenez 2010). Mexican authorities launched an internet consultation before establishing a new protected area. Government consultation disregards that most local rural communities are not connected to the Internet, so regional agrarian conflicts are recurrent.
According to Kolb et al. (2013), solutions for sound environmental policies must be intricated due to the multi-leveled scope of institutional and geographical elements when approaching issues holistically. Thus, forming alliances and agreements is essential to establish collaborations and interventions (Velázquez et al. 2003a; Bray, 2022). According to López-Martínez and Cuanalo de la Cerda (2020), training in accounting public administrators can be instrumental in strengthening the community's ability to come together and successfully handle any identified disputes. Salas et al. (2015) analyzed participation in conservation activities between two neighboring communities in Baja, California, over ten years. Surprisingly, they found that prior experience with travelers and tourist-related development agents and temporary migration to vacation spots fostered engagement in sustainability practices and the launch of community initiatives to safeguard marine areas essential for fish reproduction. A digital atlas was created to evaluate resilience and formulate plans by actively engaging the community in research. In addition, local leaders were trained on how to use this resource effectively.
4.3.(. Inter)tropical outreach
Extensive research has demonstrated the benefits of a cyclical approach to enhancing resilience, which includes recognizing problems, brainstorming solutions with stakeholders, assessing responses, and making modifications as needed. By relying on this systematic process of constant improvement and iteration, meaningful progress can be made toward boosting landscape resiliency. With the imminent risks to food security and sovereignty, human health, biodiversity conservation, and ecosystem services in mind, indigenous and mestizo communities should be considered allies to seek alternative solutions. We must bear in mind that environmental public policies detached from other local social matters are meaningless. Climate change, one health, social security, education, cultural identity, and territorial governance are closely connected to the environment (Cumming and Allen 2017; Curtis et al. 2018; Díaz et al. 2018). Therefore, constructing effective environmental solutions requires a holistic place-based perspective that considers these aspects of achieving complete success. Overlooking this complexity implies a misjudgment of human understanding, yet articulation remains challenging in the face of new geopolitical realities.

Author Contributions

Neyra Sosa conceived the research framework, collected data, conducted social consultation, wrote a preliminary manuscript, and led the field research. Alejandro Torres contributed to the research framework, collected data, and conducted social consultation. Valerio Castro-Lopez performed statistical and geographical analyses and reviewed the last versions of the present paper. Alejandro Velazquez conceived the research framework collected data, performed statistical analyses, wrote the paper, and led the contribution of all authors.

Declarations

None.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico (CONACYT) for awarding a Ph.D. scholarship to the first author. We thank Hugo Zepeda for his valuable contribution and unstoppable support to validate and provide insight into the evidence needed for the present paper. Ana Perusquia took care of reviewing and improving an earlier English version of the present manuscript. Financial support came from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Project: DGAPA-PAPIIT IN105721).

Competing Interests

The authors state not to have conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

The table includes each agrarian nucleus's name, municipality, assemblies' dates, and meetings held to discuss core zones and agreements. After reviewing the 64 nuclei, four ultimately chose not to join the Biosphere Reserve by collective decision.
ID AGRARIAN
COMMUNITY 		MUNICIPALITY DATE OF THE ASAMBLIES (S) CORE ZONE FIRST
PROPOSAL 		CORE ZONE
SECOND
PROPOSAL 		CONSENSUAL CORE ZONE MEAN OF AGREEMENT
1 AGUA NUEVA CHURUMUCO 05 OF MAY X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
26 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
2 ARRONJADERO LA HUACANA 15 MARCH X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
04 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
11 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
3 CAJA DE ZICUIRAN LA HUACANA 4 OF MARCH X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
CAYACO LA HUACANA 11 OF MARCH X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
29 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
4 CERRO DE LA LUMBRE ARTEAGA 14 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
5 CHURUMUCO Y ANX. LAS PILAS Y TIMBIRICHE CHURUMUCO 6; 14, 16 OF MARCH X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
5 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
28 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
6 COL. FRANCISCO VILLA LA HUACANA 25 OF MARCH X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
1 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
7 COLONIA LAZARO CARDENAS LA HUACANA 11 OF MARCH X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
8 CONGURIPO LA HUACANA 19 OF MARCH X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
25 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
1 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
9 CUIMBO Y ANX. LA HUACANA 1ª. 2 MARCH X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
2ª. 29 APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
10 CUNUATO CHURUMUCO 15 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
13 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
2 OF JUNE ASSEMBLY MINUTE
6 OF JUNE ASSEMBLY MINUTE
11 DOTACION CUERAMATO CHURUMUCO 31 OF MAY X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
12 EL AHUIJOTE CHURUMUCO 27 OF MAY X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
13 EL ALGODÓN Y OROPEO Y ANX. LA HUACANA 5 OF MARCH X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
14 EL CASCALOTE ARTEAGA 11 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
15 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
15 EL CHAUZ LA HUACANA 11 OF MARCH X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
25 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
4 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
16 EL CHILAR LA HUACANA 27 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
17 EL PALMAR Y ANX. (MESA DE VICENTELO PUERTA) LA HUACANA 9 OF MARCH X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
28 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
18 EL SAUZ ARTEAGA 14 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
19 EL TERRERO LA HUACANA 14 APRIL X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
20 GENERAL LAZARO CARDENAS (CIRIANCITOS) LA HUACANA 4 OF MARCH X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
1 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
7 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
21 GUADALPE OROPEO Y ANX. LAS CRUCECITAS LA HUACANA 1 OF MARCH X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
4 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
22 HUATZIRAN Y ANEXOS (LAS VACAS Y LOS PLACERES) LA HUACANA 18 OF FEB. X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
6 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
22 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
23 ICHAMIO Y ANX. EL TIZATAL LA HUACANA 4 OF MARCH X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
24 LA HIGUERITA Y ANX. (EL PASEO) CHURUMUCO 26 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
25 LA HUACANA LA HUACANA 22 OF MARCH X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
15 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
22 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
26 LA LOMA CHURUMUCO 11 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
27 LA PAREJA ARTEAGA 11 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
28 LA PITIRERA ARTEAGA 14 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
ASSEMBLY MINUTE
29 LA VINATA ARTEAGA 1 OF APRIL X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
30 LAS ANONAS Y ANX. LA HUACANA 29 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
31 LAS CARAMICUAS TUMBISCATIO 27 OF MAY X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
3 OF JUNE ASSEMBLY MINUTE
9 OF JUNE ASSEMBLY MINUTE
32 LAS CRUCES TUMBISCATIO 27 OF MAY X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
3 OF JUNE ASSEMBLY MINUTE
9 OF JUNE ASSEMBLY MINUTE
33 LAS ESTANCIAS LA HUACANA 10 OF MARCH X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
20 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
34 LAS PILAS CHURUMUCO 26 OF MAY X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
35 LAS TAMACUAS LA HUACANA 28 OF APRIL X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
4 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
36 LIMON DE JORULLO LA HUACANA 13 OF APRIL X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
37 LLANO DE OJO DEAGUA CHURUMUCO 5 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
19 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
38 LOS CHIVOS Y ANX. TUMBISCATIO 9 OF JUNE ASSEMBLY MINUTE
39 LOS COPALES Y ANX. ARTEAGA 28 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
40 LOS CUERAMOS DE LA VINATA 1 OF APRIL X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
41 LOS HORCONES ARTEAGA 1 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
42 LOS OLIVOS LA HUACANA 1 OF MARCH X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
43 LOS POCITOS LA HUACANA 6 OF MARCH X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
27 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
1 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
44 MANGA DE CHAVEZ ANX. (EL PALMARCITO Y LA CRUCITA) LA HUACANA 29 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
ASSEMBLY MINUTE
45 MANGA DE CUIMBIO LA HUACANA 11 OF MARCH X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
13 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
46 MELCHOR OCAMPO CHURUMUCO 6 OF MAY X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
20 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
47 N.C.P. CUERAMATO CHURUMUCO 31 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
48 N.C.P.ARTEAGA. LA ESTANCIA O BELLAS FUENTES Y ANX. LA HUACANA 24 OF FEB X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
11 OF MARCH. ASSEMBLY MINUTE
28 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
20 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
49 N.C.P.E. ESFUERZO DEL CAMPESINO LA HUACANA 4 OF MARCH X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
11 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
6 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
50 PALMA, PALMA DE GUARO Y ANX. (LA CALERA, COPALITOS) CHURUMUCO 6 OF MAY X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
12 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
51 PIEDRAS NEGRAS LA HUACANA 4 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
06 OF MAY ASSEMBLY MINUTE
52 PINZANDARAN ARTEAGA 1 OF APRIL X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
53 PUEBLO VIEJO LA HUACANA 14 OF APRIL X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
ASSEMBLY MINUTE
54 SAN FRANCISCO DE LOS RANCHOS LA HUACANA 24 OF FEB X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
24 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
55 SAN ISIDRO Y LOS ADOBES LA HUACANA 18 OF FEB X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
56 SAN JOSE DEL MILAGRO ARTEAGA 12 OF APRIL X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
57 SIN AGUA LA HUACANA 1 OF FEBRERO X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
28 OF FEBRERO ASSEMBLY MINUTE
19 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
58 TOLUQUILLA ARTEAGA 14 OF APRIL X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
28 OF APRIL ASSEMBLY MINUTE
1 OF JUNE ASSEMBLY MINUTE
59 VILLA HERMOSA LA HUACANA 28 OF APRIL X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
60 ZICUIRAN LA HUACANA 4 OF MARCH X X X ASSEMBLY MINUTE
10 OF MARCH ASSEMBLY MINUTE
61 EL CAPIRE DE OROPEO LA HUACANA 29 OF APRIL X NONE
62 GRACIANO SANCHEZ TUMBISCATIO 8 OF JUNE NONE
63 LOS COPALES ARTEAGA 28 OF APRIL X NONE
64 LOS LIMONES Y LOS ANEXOS (EL CHUPADERO Y LOS BARRILLOS) LA HUACANA 17 OF MARCH X
9 OF JUNE NONE

References

  1. Berkes F, Folke C (1994) Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Beijer Discussion Papers 52:1–23.
  2. Bray DB, Velázquez A (2009) From displacement-based conservation to place-based conservation. Conservation and Society 7:11–14. [CrossRef]
  3. Bray DB (2022) Las empresas forestales comunitarias de México. Èxito en los comunes y las semillas de un buen Antropoceno. P. 442. La Cigarra editorial. ISBN: 978-607-98918-6-2. México.
  4. Brechin SR, Fortwangler CL, Wilshusen PR, West PC (2012) Contested nature: promoting international biodiversity with social justice in the twenty-first century. Suny Press, Albany.
  5. Brenner L, De la Vega Leinert AC (2014) La gobernanza participativa de áreas naturales protegidas: El caso de la Reserva de la Biosfera El Vizcaíno. Región y Sociedad 26:183–213.
  6. Brunner R (2002) Identification of the most essential transboundary protected areas in Central and Eastern Europe. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
  7. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100:8086–8091. [CrossRef]
  8. CONANP (2022) Áreas Naturales Protegidas. Comisión Nacional de Áreas Protegidas. https://www.gob.mx/conanp/documentos/areas-naturales-protegidas-278226. Accessed 1 May 2023.
  9. Cruz Angón A, Nájera C, y Melgarejo D (2019) La biodiversidad de Michoacán. Estudio de Estado 2. CONABIO, México. https://archive.org/details/biodiversidadenv320cruza/page/4/mode/2up. Accessed 1 September 2023.
  10. Cuevas G, Mas, JF (2008) Land use scenarios: a communication tool with local communities. In: Paegelow M, Camacho Olmedo MT (eds) Modelling environmental dynamics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 223–246. [CrossRef]
  11. Cumming GS, Allen CR (2017) Protected areas as social-ecological systems: Perspectives from resilience and social-ecological systems theory. Ecological Applications 27:1709–1717. [CrossRef]
  12. Curtis PG, Slay CM, Harris NL, Tyukavina A, Hansen MC (2018) Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361:1108–1111. [CrossRef]
  13. Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste I A, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Leadley PW, van Oudenhoven APE, van der Plaat F, Schröter M, Lavorel S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bukvareva E, Davies K, Demissew S, Erpul G, Failler P, Guerra CA, Hewitt CL, Keune H, Lindley S, Shirayama, Y (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359: 270–272. [CrossRef]
  14. Durand L, Jímenez J (2010) Sobre áreas naturales protegidas y la construcción de no-lugares. Notas para México. Revista Líder 12:59–72.
  15. Durán E, Bray DB, Velázquez A, Larrazábal (2011) Multi-Scale Forest Governance, Deforestation, and Violence in Two Regions of Guerrero, Mexico. World Development 39(4):611–619. https//doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.08.018.
  16. Ens EJ, Finlayson M, Preuss K, Jackson S, Holcombe S (2012) Australian approaches for managing ‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge. Ecological Management Restoration and Restoration 13:100–107. [CrossRef]
  17. Ens EJ, Pert P, Clarke PA, Budden M, Clubb L, Doran B, Douras C, Gaikwad J, Gott B, Leonard S, Locke J, Packer J, Turpin G, Wason S (2015) Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and management: Review and insight from Australia. Biological Conservation 181:133–149. [CrossRef]
  18. FAO (2006) Study of trends and perspectives of the forest sector in Latin America to the year 2020: national report: Mexico. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/3/cb6002en/cb6002en.pdf Accessed 1 May 2023.
  19. Figueroa F, Sánchez-Cordero V, Illoldi-Rangel P, 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? Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 82:951–963.
  20. Figueroa D, Galeana-Pizaña JM, Núñez JM, Gómez CA, Hernández-Castro JR, del Mar Sánchez-Ramírez M, Garduño A (2021) Assessing drivers and deterrents of deforestation in Mexico through a public policy tool. The adequacy of the index of economic pressure for deforestation. Forest Policy and Economics 133:102608. [CrossRef]
  21. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755. [CrossRef]
  22. Gopar-Merino L F, Velázquez A, de Azcárate JG (2015) Bioclimatic mapping as a new method to assess effects of climatic change. Ecosphere, 6(1), 1–12. [CrossRef]
  23. Groombridge B, Jenkins MD (2000) Global biodiversity: Earth’s living resources in the 21st century. World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK.
  24. Holling C, Gunderson L (2002) Resilience and adaptive cycles. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds.) Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 25–62.
  25. Ingersoll DW (2003) Myth, Memory, and the Making of the American Landscape. In: Shackel PA (ed) American Antiquity. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 189–190.
  26. Kolb M, Mas JF, Galicia L (2013) Evaluating drivers of land-use change and transition potential models in a complex landscape in Southern Mexico. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 27:1804–1827. [CrossRef]
  27. Liu J, Linderman M, Ouyan Z, An L, Yang J, Zhang H (2001) Ecological degradation in protected areas: The case of wolong nature reserve for giant pandas. Science 292:98–101. [CrossRef]
  28. López-Martínez O, Cuanalo de la Cerda HE (2020) Participatory action research in the design, construction, and evaluation of improved cook stoves in a rural Yucatec Maya community. Action Research 18:490–509. [CrossRef]
  29. Maldonado, E, Herrera, HA, Guerrero, HR (2018) Diseño de política ambiental e innovación social. Aportaciones teórico-metodológicas para la gestión sustentable de áreas naturales protegidas. Economía y Sociedad 22:111–128.
  30. Morett-Sánchez JC, Cosío-Ruiz C (2017) Outlook of ejidos and agrarian communities in Mexico. Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo 14:125–152.
  31. Pérez-Valladares CX, Moreno-Calles AI, Mas JF, Velazquez A (2022) Species distribution modeling as an approach to studying the processes of landscape domestication in central southern Mexico. Landscape Ecology 37(2):461–476. [CrossRef]
  32. Ramos-Gutiérrez LDJ, Montenegro-Fragoso M (2012) La generación de energía eléctrica en México. Tecnología y ciencias del agua 3(4):197–211.
  33. Rangel-Landa S, Blanco-García A, Guzmán-Gómez EL, Saucedo-Gudiño MA, Steinmann V (2022) Recursos forestales y su manejo como legado biocultural de México: el caso de la Tierra Caliente de Michoacán. La Jornada del campo. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362080029_Recursos_forestales_y_su_manejo_como_legado_biocultural_de_Mexico_el_caso_de_la_Tierra_Caliente_de_Michoacan. Accessed 1 May 2023.
  34. Rosete, FA, Velazquez A, Bocco G, Espejel I (2014) Multi-scale land cover dynamics of semiarid scrubland in Baja California, Mexico. Regional Environmental Change 14:1315–1328. [CrossRef]
  35. Salas S, Fraga J, Euan J, Chuenpagdee R (2015) Common Ground, Uncommon Vision: The importance of cooperation for small-scale fisheries governance. In: Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (eds) Interactive Governance for Small-Scale Fisheries. MARE Publication Series, Springer Cham, Switzerland 13:477–493. [CrossRef]
  36. Sarukhán J, Urquiza-Haas T, Koleff P, Carabias J, Dirzo R, Ezcurra E, Cerdeira-Estrada S, Soberón J (2015) Strategic actions to value, conserve, and restore the natural capital of megadiversity countries: the case of Mexico. BioScience 65:164–173. [CrossRef]
  37. SEMARNAT-CONANP (2014) Programa de Manejo Reserva de la Biosfera Zicuirán-Infiernillo. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Tlalpan. https://simec.conanp.gob.mx/pdf_libro_pm/73_libro_pm.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2023.
  38. Terborgh J, van Schaik C, Davenport L, Rao M (2002) Making parks work: Strategies for preserving tropical nature. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  39. Thoms C, Betters D (1998) The potential for ecosystem management in Mexico’s forest ejidos. Forest Ecology and Management 103:149–157. [CrossRef]
  40. UNCEN (1992) Agenda 21, United nations conference on Environment and development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf?_gl=1*z77eo1*_ga*MzY5MDU3NDc3LjE2ODM4MjE0NjQ.*_ga_TK9BQL5X7Z*MTY4MzgyMTQ2My4xLjEuMTY4MzgyMTUyMy4wLjAuMA. Accessed 1 May 2023.
  41. Vanclay JK (2001) The effectiveness of parks. Science 293: 1007. [CrossRef]
  42. Velázquez A, Mas JF, Díaz-Gallegos JR, Mayorga-Saucedo R, Alcántara PC, Castro R, Fernández T, Bocco G, Ezcurra E, Palacio JL (2002) Patrones y tasas de uso del suelo en México. Gaceta ecológica 62:21–37.
  43. Velázquez A, Bocco G, Romero FJ, Vega AP (2003a) A landscape perspective on biodiversity conservation. Mountain Research and Development 23:240–246. [CrossRef]
  44. Velázquez A, Duran E, Ramírez I, Mas JF, Bocco G, Ramírez G, Palacio JL (2003b) Land use-cover change processes in highly biodiverse areas: the case of Oaxaca, Mexico. Global Environmental Change 13:175–184. [CrossRef]
  45. Velazquez A, Medina-García C, Gopar-Merino F, Duran E, Pérez-Vega A, Mas JF, Giménez de Azcarate J, Blanco-García A, López-Barrera F, Castro-López V, Aguirre R (2021) Merged phytosociological and geographical approach for multiple scale vegetation mapping as a baseline for public environmental policy in Mexico. Applied Vegetation Science 24:e12595. [CrossRef]
  46. Walker BH, Anderies JM, Kinzig AP, Ryan P (2006) Exploring resilience in social-ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development: Introduction to the special issue. Ecology and Society 11.
  47. Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:67–73. [CrossRef]
  48. Wollenberg E, Anderson J, Edmunds D (2001) Pluralism and the less powerful: Accommodating multiple interests in local forest management. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 1:199–222. [CrossRef]
  49. Yannelli FA, Bazzichetto M, Conradi T, Pattison Z, Andrade BO, Anibaba QA, Bonari G, Chelli S, Ćuk M, Damasceno G, Fantinato E, Geange SR, Guuroh RT, Holle MJM, Küzmič F, Lembrechts JJ, Mosyaftiani A, Šikuljak T, Teixeira J, Tordoni E, Pérez-Valladares CX, Sperandii MG (2022) Fifteen emerging challenges and opportunities for vegetation science: A horizon scan by early career researchers. Journal of Vegetation Science 33:e13119. [CrossRef]
Preprints 84171 g002
Figure 2. Conversion data among land cover classes. Tropical dry forests have increased by about 10% on their surface over 15 years within the Zicuirán-Infiernillo Biosphere Reserve and its buffer zone. Most of the increase occurred due to cultural land use, whereas changes in temperate dry forests have been negligible.
Figure 2. Conversion data among land cover classes. Tropical dry forests have increased by about 10% on their surface over 15 years within the Zicuirán-Infiernillo Biosphere Reserve and its buffer zone. Most of the increase occurred due to cultural land use, whereas changes in temperate dry forests have been negligible.
Preprints 84171 g002
Preprints 84171 g003
Figure 3. Spatially explicit conversion processes occurred in the entire region and within the Zicuirán-Infiernillo Biosphere Reserve. The green areas depict polygons where recovery from cultural land uses turned into tropical dry forests, in contrast to red polygons labeled as Disturbance, where the opposite land cover change occurred.
Figure 3. Spatially explicit conversion processes occurred in the entire region and within the Zicuirán-Infiernillo Biosphere Reserve. The green areas depict polygons where recovery from cultural land uses turned into tropical dry forests, in contrast to red polygons labeled as Disturbance, where the opposite land cover change occurred.
Preprints 84171 g003
Preprints 84171 g004
Figure 4. Land use transition matrix (T1=2005, T2= 2021). Annual rates of change depict yearly transformation trends from one class to another. Conversion between forest types is relatively stable compared to the recovery speed observed in converting cultural land use types into tropical dry forests. Values below one percent were regarded as negligible.
Figure 4. Land use transition matrix (T1=2005, T2= 2021). Annual rates of change depict yearly transformation trends from one class to another. Conversion between forest types is relatively stable compared to the recovery speed observed in converting cultural land use types into tropical dry forests. Values below one percent were regarded as negligible.
Preprints 84171 g004
Table 1. Eighteen areas were determined through a consensus of 95% agreement between the three social sectors participating in consultations and workshops. The Protected Areas column denotes those that have been legally set aside and encompass, to a full or partial extent, the objectives of this academic exercise.
Table 1. Eighteen areas were determined through a consensus of 95% agreement between the three social sectors participating in consultations and workshops. The Protected Areas column denotes those that have been legally set aside and encompass, to a full or partial extent, the objectives of this academic exercise.
Michoacan Established protected areas by 2014
Number on map Areas Surface (Km2) % Surface (Km2) %
1 Cuitzeo-Copandaro 421.52 0.71 2.54 0.02
2 Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve 562.79 0.95 562.79 5.37
3 Tiquicheo-Tzitzio-Madero 546.14 0.93 0.00 0.00
4 Morelia-Tzitzio 540.64 0.92 66.59 0.64
5 Madero-Tacambaro 317.19 0.54 0.77 0.01
6 Opopeo 244.18 0.41 0.00 0.00
7 Pico de Tancítaro 1,193.98 2.02 222.22 2.12
8 Parque Nacional Lago de Camecuaro 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00
9 Los Reyes 206.49 0.35 0.00 0.00
10 Parque Juárez de Jiquilpa 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00
11 Coalcoman 1,110.34 1.88 0.00 0.00
12 Chinicuila-Coahuayana 1,615.54 2.74 33.94 0.32
13 Aguililla-Coalcoman-Tumbiscatio 649.26 1.10 0.00 0.00
14 Playa Mexiquillo 31.35 0.05 31.35 0.00
15 Arteaga 241.73 0.41 0.00 0.00
16 La Huacana-Churumuco-Artega 2,418.77 4.10 0.00 0.00
17 Huetamo-Turitzio 298.40 0.51 0.00 0.00
18 Chorros del Varal (Los Reyes) 0.73 0.00 0.73 0.01
Total 10,399.24 17.63 921.13 8.79
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated