"We are the city lungs": Payments for ecosystem services in the outskirts of Mexico City

Land Use Policy

Volumn 43, Issue , 2015, Pages 138-148

  Caro Borrero, Angela ^a   Corbera, Esteve ^b,c   Neitzel, Kurt Christoph ^a   Almeida Leñero, Lucia ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^b INSTITUT DE CIÈNCIA I TECNOLOGIA AMBIENTALS   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Hydrological services; Land tenure; Mexico City; Payments for ecosystem services; Rural urban; Watersheds

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; LAND TENURE; WATERSHED;

MEXICO [NORTH AMERICA];

EID: 84911867203     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.008     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Aguilar A.G., Lopez-Guerrero F. Poverty in peripheral informal settlements in Mexico City: the case of Magdalena Contreras, Federal District. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 2013, 104:359-378. 10.1111/tesg.12012.
2. Aguilar A.G., Santos C. Informal settlements' needs and environmental conservation in Mexico City: an unsolved challenge for land-use policy. Land Use Policy 2011, 28:649-662. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.11.002.
3. Alix-Garcia J.M., Shapiro E.N., Sims K.R.E. The environmental effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: Preliminary lessons for REDD. Draft Paper 2010, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economic, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
4. Alix-Garcia J.M., Shapiro E.N., Sims K.R.E. Forest conservation and slippage: evidence from Mexico's National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. Land Econ. 2012, 88(4):613-638.
5. Allen A., Dávila J.D., Hofmann P. The peri-urban water poor: citizens or consumers?. Environ. Urban. 2006, 18:333-351. 10.1177/0956247806069608.
6. Asquith N.M., Vargas M.T., Wunder S. Selling two environmental services: in kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:675-684. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.014.
7. Bolund P., Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29:293-301.
8. Costanza R., D'Arge R., De Groot R.S., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Nelly R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin R.G., Sutton P., Van den Belt M. The value of the World's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387:253-260.
9. Corbera E., Kosoy N., Martinez-Tuna M. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protect areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Global Environ. Chang. 2007, 17:365-380. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.12.005.
10. Corbera E., Brown K., Adger W.N. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev. Chang. 2007, 38(4):587-613. 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00425.
11. Corbera E., Gonzáles-Soreranis C., Brown K. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:743-761. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.008.
12. Cortina-Villar S., Plascencia-Vargas H., Vaca R., Schroth G., Zepeda Y., Soto-Pinto L., Nahed-Toral J. Resolving the conflict between ecosystem protection and land use in protected areas of the Sierra Madre de Chiapas, Mexico. Environ. Manage. 2012, 49:649-662. 10.1007/s00267-011-9799-9.
13. G.C. Daily (Ed.).Nature's Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems 1997, 392. Island Press. EUA. 10.1017/S1367943098221123. G.C. Daily (Ed.).
14. de Koning F., Aguinaga M., Bravo M., Chiu M., Lascano M., Lozada T., Suarez L. Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environ. Sci. Soc. 2011, 14:531-542.
15. Deere C., León M. Who owns the land? Gender and land-titling programmes in Latin America. J. Agrar. Change 2001, 1(3):440-467. 10.1111/1471-0366.00013.
16. Díaz-Caravantes R., Sánchez-Flores E. Water transfer effects on peri-urban land use/land cover: a case study in a semi-arid region of Mexico. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31:413-425.
17. Dobler C.E. Caracterización del clima y su relación con la distribución de la vegetación en el suroeste del D.F., México 2010, (Biology grade thesis. Science Faculty), UNAM, México.
18. DFID Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets, Guidance Sheets 1-7 1999, Department for International Development.
19. DOF (Diario Oficial de la Federación) Términos de referencia para la elaboración del programa de mejores prácticas de manejo de conformidad al acuerdo por el que se expiden las reglas de operación del programa pro-árbol de la Comisión Nacional Forestal. 16 de enero de 2008 2008.
20. DOF Reglas de operación del programa ProArbol 2010. 29 de diciembre de 2010. Diario Oficial de la Federación 2010, Available at: http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5172994&fecha=29/12/2010.
21. Engel S., Pagiola S., Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:663-674. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011.
22. Fernández-Eguiarte A., Vasquéz-Márquez A., Uribe-Cruz F., Bustillos-Herrera J., Aguilar-Velazco H., Juárez Pérez M., Apolina B., Ramírez del Razo I., Lopéz-Sánchez R., Islas-Rodríguez M., Vera-Figueroa J.J. Ecoturismo y desarrollo económico en la delegación la Magdalena Contreras, Distrito Federal. Gac. Ecol. 2004, 70:67-76.
23. Figueroa F., Sánchez-Cordero V. Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17:3223-3240. 10.1007/s10531-008-9423-3.
24. Gómez-Baggethun E., de Groot R., Lomas P.L., Montes C. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payments schemes. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1209-1218. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007.
25. Gómez-Baggethun E., Corbera E., Reyes-García V. Traditional ecological knowledge and global environmental change: research findings and policy implications. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18(4):72. 10.5751/ES-06288-180472.
26. Grolleau G., McCann L.M.J. Designing watershed programs to pay farmers for water quality services: case studies of Munich and New York City. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 76:87-94. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.006.
27. Gutman P. Ecosystem services: foundations for a new rural-urban compact. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62:383-387. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.027.
28. Haregeweyn N., Fikadu G., Rsunekawa A., Tsubo M., Tsegaye Meshesha D. The dynamics of urban expansion and its impacts on land use/land cover change and small-scale farmers living near the urban fringe: a case study of Bahir Darm Ethiopia. Lands. Urban Plan. 2012, 106:149-157.
29. INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía) Resultados preliminares del censo de población y vivienda 2010 2011, (accessed 26.10.11). http://www.censo2010.org.mx/.
30. Inostroza L., Baur R., Csaplovics E. Urban sprawl and fragmentation in Latin America: a dynamic quantification and characterization of spatial patterns. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 115(30):87-97.
31. Jujnovsky J., Almeida-Leñero L., Bojorge-García M., Monges Y.L., Cantoral-Uriza E., Mazari-Hiriart M. Hidrologic ecosystem services: water quality and quantity in the Magdalena river, México city. Hidrobiológica 2010, 20:117-213.
32. Kroll F., Müller F., Haase D., Fohrer N. Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:521-535. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.008.
33. Kosoy N., Corbera E. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1228-1236. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002.
34. Martínezrivera S.E., Monroy-Ortiz R. La expansión urbana sobre el campo mexicano. La otra cara de la crísis agrícola. Revis. Estud. Agrar. 2009, 29.
35. McAfee K., Shapiro E.N. Payment for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, social movements and the state. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2010, 100(3):579-599. 10.1080/00045601003794833.
36. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) Ecosystems and Human Well-being 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
37. Miranda-Zambrano G. El conocimiento tradicional y la propuesta de educación y cultura ambiental en la gestión integral ecoturística del parque San Nicolás Totolapan, Ciudad de México 2008, (PhD thesis), Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.
38. Miteva D., Pattanayak S.K., Ferraro P.J. Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn't?. Oxford Rev. Econ. Pol. 2012, 28(1):69-92. 10.1093/oxrep/grs009.
39. Muñoz-Piña C.A., Guevara A., Torres J.M., Braña J. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forest: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:725-736.
40. Muradian R. Payments for ecosystem services as incentives for collective action. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26(10):1155-1169.
41. Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N., May P.H. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1202-1208. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006.
42. Mutersbaugh T. Migration, common property, and communal labor: cultural politics and agency in a Mexican village. Polit. Geogr. 2002, 21:473-494. 10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00081-6.
43. Mwangi E., Meinzen-Dick R., Sun Y. Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16(1):17. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art17/.
44. Navarrete J.-L., Ramírez M.I., Pérez-Salicrup D.R. Logging within protected areas: spatial evaluation of the monarch butterfly biosphere reserve, Mexico. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2011, 262:646-654. 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.033.
45. Neitzel K.C. Payments for environmental services - reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (PES-REDD) in Mexico: a strategy to guarantee the permanence of forest carbon stocks? 2013, (PhD thesis), Posgrado en Economía, economía de los recursos naturales y desarrollo sustentable, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México.
46. Neitzel K.C., Caro-Borrero A.P., Revollo-Fernández D., Aguilar-Ibarra A., Ramos A., Almeida-Leñero L. Paying for environmental services: determining recognized participation under common property in a peri-urban context. Forest Policy Econ. 2014, 38:46-55. 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.002.
47. Niemelä J., Saarela S.R., Söderman T., Kopperoinen L., Yli-Pelkonen V., Väre S., Kotze D.J. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19:3225-3243. 10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8.
48. Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:712-724.
49. Pagiola S., Arcenas A., Platais G. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev. 2005, 33:237-253. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011.
50. Pagiola S., Platais G. Market-based mechanisms for conservation and development: the simple logic of payments for environmental services. Environmental Matters - Annual Review, July 2001-June 2002 (FY 2002) 2002, World Bank's Environment Department, Washington, DC.
51. Pascual U., Muradian R., Rodríguez L.C., Duraiappah A. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1237-1244. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.004.
52. Pattayanka S.K., Wunder S., Ferraro P.J. Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2010, 4:254-274.
53. Perevochtchikova M., Vázquez Beltrán A. The federal program of payment for hydrological environmental services as an alternative instrument for integrated water resources management in Mexico City. Open Geogr. J. 2012, 5:35-46.
54. Persha L., Andersson K. Elite capture risk and mitigation in decentralized forest governance regimes. Global Environ. Chang. 2014, 24:265-276.
55. Pirard R. Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: a lexicon. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 19(20):59-68.
56. Racevskis L.A., Lupi F. Comparing urban and rural perceptions of and familiarity with the management of forest ecosystems. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2006, 19:479-495. 10.1080/08941920600663862.
57. Rico García-Amado L., Ruíz-Pérez M., Reyes-Escutia F., Barrasca-García S., Contreras-Mejía E. Efficiency of payments for environmental services: equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphera Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:2361-2368. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.016.
58. Rocheleau D., Edmunds D. Women, men and trees: gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Dev. 1997, 25(8):1351-1371.
59. Santos C., Guarneros L. La expansión metropolitana en las áreas naturales protegidas y el suelo de conservación. Un análisis a partir de imágenes de satélite. en Aguilar, A.G. (coordinador), Las grandes aglomeraciones metropolitanas y su periferia regional. Experiencias en Latinoamérica y España. Editorial Miguel Ángel Porrúa. SEDESOL, CONAPO, INEGI 2006.
60. Schteingart M., Salazar C.E. Expansión urbana, sociedad y ambiente. El caso de la Ciudad de México 2005, México Distrito Federal, El Colegio de México. 1st ed.
61. SEDATU (Secretaria de Desarrollo Agrario Territorial y Urbano) Boletin No. 66 Dirección General de Comunicación Social mayo 13. México D.F. 2012.
62. SMADF (Secretaria del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal). 2011. http://www.sma.df.gob.mx.2011.07.11/.
63. SEMARNAT (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) Servicios ambientales y cambio climático. Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, México DF 2010.
64. SEMARNAT, GDF, CORENA, DEOE Programa General de Ordenamiento Ecológico del Distrito Federal 2000-2003. México DF 2000.
65. Vidal O., López-García J., Rendón-Salinas E. Trends in deforestation and forest degradation after a decade of monitoring in the monarch butterfly biosphere reserve in Mexico. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 10.1111/cobi.12138.
66. Wunder S. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts, CIFOR Occasional Paper, #42, 24 2005.
67. Wunder S. Necessary Conditions for Ecosystem Service Payments. Conference paper for economics and conservation in the tropics: A strategic dialogue January 31-921 February 1, 2008 2008, Center for International Forestry Research.
68. Wunder S., Albán M. Decentralized payments for environmental services: the case of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:685-698. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.004.
69. Wunder S., Engel S., Pagiola S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 6:834-852. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.010.
70. Wunder S. When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6(4):230-237. 10.1111/conl.12034.