IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v121y2022ics0264837722003520.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land planning and protected areas in the coastal zone of Mexico: Do spatial policies promote fragmented governance?

Author

Listed:
  • Bazant-Fabre, Ondrej
  • Bonilla-Moheno, Martha
  • Martínez, M. Luisa
  • Lithgow, Debora
  • Muñoz-Piña, Carlos

Abstract

Coastal areas host nearly 30 % of the world population and are among the most diverse and disturbed environments on Earth. In consequence, spatial policies have been implemented to manage this socio-ecological complexity from different perspectives. Protected Areas (PA) and Land Planning (LP) have been co-implemented worldwide, but they have divergent objectives: the former seeks ecosystem preservation, while the latter seeks land use development. Despite the importance PA and LP have in coastal management worldwide, we found little information on how they interact and what effects does this policyscape have on the coastal landscape. To bridge this information gap, this paper proposes a novel method to assess the interaction of overlapping PA and LP, by employing land cover and population density proxy indicators in order to determine if they are complementary or inhibitory. Using the terrestrial coast of Mexico as a case study, we found that all coastal regions exhibited overlaps between PA and LP: from the 101 instruments analyzed, 60.4 % showed overlap but they only corresponded to 5.9 % of the total Mexican terrestrial coast. The similarities between the natural cover type in PA and its overlap with LP (both ≈89 %) suggest that a complementary interaction between both instruments exists in the terrestrial coast of Mexico. Nevertheless, our results found that overlapped PA had 11 % of anthropic cover and a slightlu y higher population density (62 people/km2) than PA alone (11.5 people/km2), which suggests that LP can have deleterious effects through spillover effects due to poorly integrated buffer zones and LPs’ planning hierarchy. Therefore, evidence from our results and international research suggests that a lack of integration between both spatial policies should be further addressed, especially at local case studies within regional scopes. We discuss on how the fragmentation between these spatial policies can be further assessed using allocation and attribution frameworks, concluding on integrated recommendations to Mexican coastal authorities. Our results and conclusions can be useful to other countries with similar coastal characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Bazant-Fabre, Ondrej & Bonilla-Moheno, Martha & Martínez, M. Luisa & Lithgow, Debora & Muñoz-Piña, Carlos, 2022. "Land planning and protected areas in the coastal zone of Mexico: Do spatial policies promote fragmented governance?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:121:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722003520
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722003520
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106325?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Von Thaden, Juan José & Laborde, Javier & Guevara, Sergio & Venegas-Barrera, Crystian S., 2018. "Forest cover change in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve and its future: The contribution of the 1998 protected natural area decree," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 443-450.
    2. Martinez, M.L. & Intralawan, A. & Vazquez, G. & Perez-Maqueo, O. & Sutton, P. & Landgrave, R., 2007. "The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 254-272, August.
    3. Bruce Hooper & Geoffrey Mcdonald & Bruce Mitchell, 1999. "Facilitating Integrated Resource and Environmental Management: Australian and Canadian Perspectives," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 747-766.
    4. Ekstrom, Julia A. & Young, Oran R. & Gaines, Steve D. & Gordon, Maria & McCay, Bonnie J., 2009. "A tool to navigate overlaps in fragmented ocean governance," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 532-535, May.
    5. Gibson, Clark C. & Ostrom, Elinor & Ahn, T. K., 2000. "The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 217-239, February.
    6. Mehdi Sheikh Goodarzi & Yousef Sakieh & Shabnam Navardi, 2017. "Scenario-based urban growth allocation in a rapidly developing area: a modeling approach for sustainability analysis of an urban-coastal coupled system," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 1103-1126, June.
    7. Freitas Lima, Elizete Aparecida Checon & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2018. "Land use planning around protected areas: Case studies in four state parks in the Atlantic forest region of southeastern Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 453-458.
    8. Michael Zürn & Benjamin Faude, 2013. "Commentary: On Fragmentation, Differentiation, and Coordination," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(3), pages 119-130, August.
    9. Lai, Sabrina & Leone, Federica, 2020. "To what extent is integration pursued in compulsory planning tools concerning coastal and marine areas? Evidences from two Mediterranean protected areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Umberto Janin Rivolin, 2017. "Global crisis and the systems of spatial governance and planning: a European comparison," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 994-1012, June.
    11. Ostrom,Elinor, 2015. "Governing the Commons," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107569782, October.
    12. White, Howard, 2006. "Impact evaluation: the experience of the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank," MPRA Paper 1111, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Haoran Ge & Changbiao Zhong & Hanwen Zhang & Dameng Hu, 2022. "The Effect of Environmental Regulation on Marine Economic Transformation under the Decentralized System: Evidence from Coastal Provinces in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-24, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert Costanza & Shuang Liu, 2014. "Ecosystem Services and Environmental Governance: Comparing China and the U.S," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 160-170, January.
    2. Grillitsch, Markus & Asheim, Björn & Fünfschilling, Lea & Kelmenson, Sophie & Lowe, Nichola & Lundquist, Karl Johan & Mahmoud, Yahia & Martynovich, Mikhail & Mattson, Pauline & Miörner, Johan & Nilsso, 2023. "Rescaling: An Analytical Lense to Study Economic and Industrial Shifts," Papers in Innovation Studies 2023/11, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    3. Hugh Waddington & Philip Davies & Jyotsna Puri, 2015. "Improving lives through better evidence," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 267-274, September.
    4. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    5. Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor & Walid Hamma & Huu Duy Nguyen & Giovanni Randazzo & Anselme Muzirafuti & Mari-Isabella Stan & Van Truong Tran & Roxana Aştefănoaiei & Quang-Thanh Bui & Dragoş-Florian Vintilă, 2020. "Degradation of Coastlines under the Pressure of Urbanization and Tourism: Evidence on the Change of Land Systems from Europe, Asia and Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-43, August.
    6. Fuß, Julia & Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian & Saravia, Andrés & Zürn, Michael, 2021. "Managing regime complexity: Introducing the interface conflicts 1.0 dataset," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2021-101, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. Jan Hoffmann & Naima Saeed & Sigbjørn Sødal, 2020. "Liner shipping bilateral connectivity and its impact on South Africa’s bilateral trade flows," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 22(3), pages 473-499, September.
    8. Malone, Thomas C. & DiGiacomo, Paul M. & Gonçalves, Emanuel & Knap, Anthony H. & Talaue-McManus, Liana & de Mora, Stephen, 2014. "A global ocean observing system framework for sustainable development," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 262-272.
    9. Yoder, Landon & Roy Chowdhury, Rinku, 2018. "Tracing social capital: How stakeholder group interactions shape agricultural water quality restoration in the Florida Everglades," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 354-361.
    10. Lant Pritchett & Salimah Samji & Jeffrey S. Hammer, 2012. "It's All about MeE: Using Structured Experiential Learning ('e') to Crawl the Design Space," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2012-104, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Doll, Christopher N.H. & Muller, Jan-Peter & Morley, Jeremy G., 2006. "Mapping regional economic activity from night-time light satellite imagery," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 75-92, April.
    12. Hashem Dadashpoor & Hossein Panahi, 2021. "Exploring an integrated spatially model for land-use scenarios simulation in a metropolitan region," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 13628-13649, September.
    13. Taylor M. Oshan & Levi J. Wolf & Mehak Sachdeva & Sarah Bardin & A. Stewart Fotheringham, 2022. "A scoping review on the multiplicity of scale in spatial analysis," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 293-324, July.
    14. Abby ShalekBriski & B. Wade Brorsen & Jon T. Biermacher, 2021. "Institutional Solutions for the Economic Problem of Feral Hogs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 970-984, September.
    15. Pattarin Sanguankaew & Vichita Vathanophas Ractham, 2019. "Bibliometric Review of Research on Knowledge Management and Sustainability, 1994–2018," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Promberger, Markus, 2017. "Resilience among vulnerable households in Europe : Questions, concept, findings and implications," IAB-Discussion Paper 201712, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    17. Alys Solly & Erblin Berisha & Giancarlo Cotella & Umberto Janin Rivolin, 2020. "How Sustainable Are Land Use Tools? A Europe-Wide Typological Investigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, February.
    18. Franceschetti, Giorgio & Da Re, Riccardo & Secco, Laura, 2012. "Misurare la buona governance dei territori rurali: un possibile set di indicatori," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124105, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    19. Vincent R. Nyirenda & Bimo A. Nkhata & Oscar Tembo & Susan Siamundele, 2018. "Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    20. Duxbury, Jane & Dickinson, Sarah, 2007. "Principles for sustainable governance of the coastal zone: In the context of coastal disasters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 319-330, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:121:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722003520. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.