IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3496-d172821.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Complex Systems, Agroecological Matrices, and Management of Forest Resources: An Example of an Application in Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos H. Ávila-Bello

    (Facultad de Ingeniería en Sistemas de Producción Agropecuaria, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz 96000, Mexico)

  • Ángel Héctor Hernández-Romero

    (Facultad de Ingeniería en Sistemas de Producción Agropecuaria, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz 96000, Mexico)

  • Martín Alfonso Mendoza-Briseño

    (Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Veracruz, Veracruz 91700, Mexico)

  • Dinora Vázquez-Luna

    (Facultad de Ingeniería en Sistemas de Producción Agropecuaria, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz 96000, Mexico)

Abstract

Today humanity faces several complex problems, two of which are global warming and the loss of biological diversity. An agroecological matrix approach, conceives the territory as patches of natural and cultivated vegetation, interconnected to maintain watershed integrity. Many ethnic groups maintain a high biological heterogeneity as in the case of the agrological matrix. This study analyzed features and trends in a specific agroecological matrix, integrating local and scientific knowledge with environmental and social information, as a complex system. For the last 15 years we studied agroecological spaces used by the Ntaj’uy (Zoque-Popoluca) people in Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. Participatory methods were used to understand social interactions and land management decisions. Ecology field methods allowed us to assess soil loss, litter production, water quality, and vegetation structure. Soil erosion, vegetation fragmentation and social marginalization are the most important problems in the region; the tropical sub-evergreen forest has decreased by about 60%, the deciduous forest is down by 80%, and cultivated pastures have increased over 400%. Coffee and milpa agroecosystems could be improved, through product diversification, along with interconnectivity among vegetation patches, to prevent environmental degradation, and improve conditions to reach food sovereignty and income diversification, in a context of Ntaj’uy self-determination in their territories.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos H. Ávila-Bello & Ángel Héctor Hernández-Romero & Martín Alfonso Mendoza-Briseño & Dinora Vázquez-Luna, 2018. "Complex Systems, Agroecological Matrices, and Management of Forest Resources: An Example of an Application in Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3496-:d:172821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3496/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3496/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duraiappah, Anantha K., 1998. "Poverty and environmental degradation: A review and analysis of the nexus," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 2169-2179, December.
    2. Dasgupta, Susmita & Deichmann, Uwe & Meisner, Craig & Wheeler, David, 2005. "Where is the Poverty-Environment Nexus? Evidence from Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 617-638, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Miyamoto, Motoe, 2020. "Poverty reduction saves forests sustainably: Lessons for deforestation policies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    2. Miguel Sanchez-Martinez & Philip Davis, 2014. "A review of the economic theories of poverty," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 435, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    3. Robert Innes & George Frisvold, 2009. "The Economics of Endangered Species," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 485-512, September.
    4. Zdeněk Opršal & Jaromír Harmáček, 2019. "Is Foreign Aid Responsive to Environmental Needs and Performance of Developing Countries? Case Study of the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Smajgl, Alex & Bohensky, Erin, 2012. "When households stop logging — Evidence for household adaptation from East Kalimantan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 58-65.
    6. Shibalal Meher, 2023. "Does poverty cause forest degradation? Evidence from a poor state in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1684-1699, February.
    7. Bandyopadhyay, Sushenjit & Shyamsundar, Priya & Baccini, Alessandro, 2006. "Forests, biomass use, and poverty in Malawi," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4068, The World Bank.
    8. Benito-Ostolaza, Juan M. & Ezcurra, Roberto & Osés-Eraso, Nuria, 2020. "Do wealth levels affect the contribution to negative externalities?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    9. Peprah Prince & Abalo Emmanuel Mawuli & Amoako Jones & Nyonyo Julius & Duah Williams Agyemang & Adomako Isaac, 2017. "“The Reality from the Myth”: The poor as main agents of forest degradation: Lessons from Ashanti Region, Ghana," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 5(3), pages 1-11, September.
    10. Tytti Pasanen & Hanna Lakkala & Riikka Yliluoma & Visa Tuominen & Sari Jusi & Jyrki Luukkanen & Jari Kaivo‐oja, 2017. "Poverty–Environment Nexus in the Lao PDR: Analysis of Household Survey Data," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 35(3), pages 349-371, May.
    11. Faße, Anja & Grote, Ulrike, 2013. "The economic relevance of sustainable agroforestry practices — An empirical analysis from Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 86-96.
    12. Khan, Shaheen Rafi & Khan, Shahrukh Rafi, 2009. "Assessing poverty-deforestation links: Evidence from Swat, Pakistan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2607-2618, August.
    13. World Bank, 2007. "Malawi - Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment : Investing in Our Future," World Bank Publications - Reports 7909, The World Bank Group.
    14. Adaman, Fikret & Gökşen, Fatoş & Zenginobuz, Unal, 2003. "Political economy of citizens’ participation in environmental improvement: The case of Istanbul," MPRA Paper 375, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. World Bank, 2006. "Republic of Colombia," World Bank Publications - Reports 33924, The World Bank Group.
    16. Buys, Piet & Chomitz, Ken & Dasgupta, Susmita & Deichmann, Uwe & Larsen, Bjorn & Meisner, Craig & Nygard, Jostein & Pandey, Kiran & Pinnoi, Nat & Wheeler, David, 2006. "The economics of decentralized poverty-environment programs: An application for Lao PDR," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 811-824, October.
    17. Sunderlin, William D. & Dewi, Sonya & Puntodewo, Atie & Müller, Daniel & Angelsen, Arild & Epprecht, Michael, 2008. "Why forests are important for global poverty alleviation: A spatial explanation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(2).
    18. Miyamoto, Motoe & Mohd Parid, Mamat & Noor Aini, Zakaria & Michinaka, Tetsuya, 2014. "Proximate and underlying causes of forest cover change in Peninsular Malaysia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 18-25.
    19. Himayatullah Khan & Ehsan Inamullah & Khadija Shams, 2009. "Population, environment and poverty in Pakistan: linkages and empirical evidence," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 375-392, April.
    20. Dinh, Hoang Huu & Wesseler, Justus, 2024. "Decentralization Of Vietnam'S forestlands: The policy process and impact," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3496-:d:172821. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.