IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i12p4415-d185602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of the Wildlife Management Units Policy on the Conservation of Species and Ecosystems of Southeastern Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Carolina Álvarez-Peredo

    (Red de Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Carretera Antigua a Coatepec 351, El Haya, Xalapa 91070, Veracruz, Mexico)

  • Armando Contreras-Hernández

    (Red de Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Carretera Antigua a Coatepec 351, El Haya, Xalapa 91070, Veracruz, Mexico)

  • Sonia Gallina-Tessaro

    (Red de Biología y Conservación de Vertebrados, Instituto de Ecología A. C., Carretera Antigua a Coatepec 351, El Haya, Xalapa 91070, Veracruz, México)

  • Mariana Pineda-Vázquez

    (Departamento de Conservación de la Biodiversidad, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Unidad San Cristóbal. Carret. Panamericana y Periférico sur s/n, Barrio de María Auxiliadora, San Cristóbal de las Casas 29290, Chiapas, Mexico)

  • Alejandro Ortega-Argueta

    (Departamento de Conservación de la Biodiversidad, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Unidad San Cristóbal. Carret. Panamericana y Periférico sur s/n, Barrio de María Auxiliadora, San Cristóbal de las Casas 29290, Chiapas, Mexico)

  • Carlos Tejeda-Cruz

    (Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas, Carretera Terán—Emiliano Zapata Km. 8, Tuxtla Gutiérrez 29050, Chiapas, Mexico)

  • Rosario Landgrave

    (Red de Ecología Funcional, Instituto de Ecología A. C., Carretera Antigua a Coatepec 351, El Haya, Xalapa 91070, Veracruz, México)

Abstract

Wildlife in Latin America is subject to enormous pressures and, as in most countries, has been negatively impacted in Mexico. In 1997, the Mexican government implemented a policy of conservation and sustainable use of wildlife units (called UMAs, by their Spanish acronym) that comprises intensive and free-living management. Since then, no national or regional assessments have been conducted to estimate impacts and benefits even with 5529 registered UMAs now covering almost 20% of the national territory. The objective of this study was to characterize the SUMA (UMAs System) in a regional context in three states of southeastern Mexico. The impact of UMAs was studied in depth through a selection of representative case studies: three species of mangrove ( Avicennia germinans , Laguncularia racemosa and Rhizophora mangle ), ponytail palm ( Beaucarnea recurvata ), red cedar ( Cedrela odorata ) and white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), and a connectivity analysis, in order to evaluate the contribution of the UMAs to the conservation of species and ecosystems. The number of active UMAs at regional scale was 834, managing 273 species; 7.1% of the UMAs manage nationally-prioritized species, while 8.3% and 94.3% manage endemic and native species, respectively. Conservation of ecosystems has been successfully achieved through the UMAs that manage mangrove and white-tailed deer. We propose to promote the establishment of free-living UMAs that would contribute to increase the conservation areas. Finally, we highlight the relevance of regional-scale spatial analysis as an important tool for improving environmental policy and conservation strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolina Álvarez-Peredo & Armando Contreras-Hernández & Sonia Gallina-Tessaro & Mariana Pineda-Vázquez & Alejandro Ortega-Argueta & Carlos Tejeda-Cruz & Rosario Landgrave, 2018. "Impact of the Wildlife Management Units Policy on the Conservation of Species and Ecosystems of Southeastern Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-25, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4415-:d:185602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4415/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4415/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ortega-Argueta, Alejandro & González-Zamora, Arturo & Contreras-Hernández, Armando, 2016. "A framework and indicators for evaluating policies for conservation and development: The case of wildlife management units in Mexico," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 91-100.
    2. Paul J. Ferraro & R. David Simpson, 2002. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 339-353.
    3. McGinlay, James & Parsons, David J. & Morris, Joe & Hubatova, Marie & Graves, Anil & Bradbury, Richard B. & Bullock, James M., 2017. "Do charismatic species groups generate more cultural ecosystem service benefits?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 15-24.
    4. Bob Giddings & Bill Hopwood & Geoff O'Brien, 2002. "Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 187-196.
    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. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    2. Seema Jayachandran, 2013. "Liquidity Constraints and Deforestation: The Limitations of Payments for Ecosystem Services," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 309-313, May.
    3. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.
    4. Endl, Andreas & Tost, Michael & Hitch, Michael & Moser, Peter & Feiel, Susanne, 2021. "Europe's mining innovation trends and their contribution to the sustainable development goals: Blind spots and strong points," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    6. Ana Paula Coelho Clauberg & Renato de Mello & Flávio José Simioni & Simone Sehnem, 2021. "System for assessing the sustainability conditions of small hydro plants by fuzzy logic," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 300-317, March.
    7. Fitri Nurfatriani & Ramawati & Galih Kartika Sari & Heru Komarudin, 2019. "Optimization of Crude Palm Oil Fund to Support Smallholder Oil Palm Replanting in Reducing Deforestation in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-16, September.
    8. Nelson Jorge Ribeiro Duarte & Francisco José Lopes de Sousa Diniz, 2011. "The Role Of Firms And Entrepreneurship On Local Development," Romanian Journal of Regional Science, Romanian Regional Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 54-69, JUNE.
    9. Pick-Soon Ling & Ming K. Lim & Ming-Lang Tseng, 2020. "Assessing Sustainable Foreign Direct Investment Performance in Malaysia: A Comparison on Policy Makers and Investor Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-38, October.
    10. Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2010. "Performance payments: A new strategy to conserve large carnivores in the tropics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 405-412, December.
    11. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    12. Bahadur Ali Soomro & Ikhtiar Ali Ghumro & Naimatullah Shah, 2020. "Green entrepreneurship inclination among the younger generation: An avenue towards a green economy," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 585-594, July.
    13. Di Vaio, Assunta & Varriale, Luisa & Alvino, Federico, 2018. "Key performance indicators for developing environmentally sustainable and energy efficient ports: Evidence from Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 229-240.
    14. Biedma Ferrer, José María & López Fernández, Macarena & Romero Fernández, Pedro M., 2017. "The collective labour agreement as a key tool for driving corporate social responsibility: banking sector analysis," Cuadernos de Gestión, Universidad del País Vasco - Instituto de Economía Aplicada a la Empresa (IEAE).
    15. Kitti, Mitri & Heikkilä, Jaakko & Huhtala, Anni, 2009. "‘Fair’ policies for the coffee trade – protecting people or biodiversity?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(6), pages 739-758, December.
    16. Jan Anton van Zanten & Rob van Tulder, 2020. "Beyond COVID-19: Applying “SDG logics” for resilient transformations," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 451-464, December.
    17. Bjoern Hagen & Cara Nassar & David Pijawka, 2017. "The Social Dimension of Sustainable Neighborhood Design: Comparing Two Neighborhoods in Freiburg, Germany," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(4), pages 64-80.
    18. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    19. Bi Goli Jean Jacques Iritie, 2015. "Economic Growth and Biodiversity: An Overview Conservation Policies in Africa," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(2), pages 196-196, February.
    20. Jose Cuesta & Lucia Madrigal & Natalia Pecorari, 2024. "Social sustainability, poverty and income: An empirical exploration," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 1789-1816, April.

    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:12:p:4415-:d:185602. 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.