IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i1p279-d128093.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Floristic Diversity and Cultural Importance in Agroforestry Systems on Small-Scale Farmer’s Livelihoods in Central Veracruz, México

Author

Listed:
  • Sjoerd Pietersen

    (International Land & Watermangement M.s. Wageningen University & Research, 6708 Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Juan Carlos López-Acosta

    (Centro de Investigaciones Tropicales, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, 91000 Veracruz, Mexico)

  • Jorge Antonio Gomez-Díaz

    (Red Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Xalapa, 91070 Veracruz, Mexico)

  • Maite Lascurain-Rangel

    (Red Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Xalapa, 91070 Veracruz, Mexico)

Abstract

México is a cultural and biological megadiverse country with an increased anthropogenic pressure on its tropical landscapes. The study area was the ejido “Los Ídolos”, Misantla, Central Veracruz, Mexico. The main objective of this research was to identify how the woody plant diversity of agroforestry systems contributed to the cultural, economic, and subsistence security of local farmers. Five different agroforestry systems were identified: forest gardens (FG), home gardens (HG), plantation crop combination with perennial cultivates (PC), plantation crop combinations with annual cultivates (AC), and trees on pastures (TP). FG systems had the highest floristic diversity, followed by HG and TP. Interviews with farmers showed that FG, HG, and PC systems were important for maintaining cultural identity and secure subsistence needs, while PC and TP systems were important for improving the economic situation of farmers. The FG systems contained only native species, while the proportion of exotic plants differed among the other systems. Useful exotic plants were found in the HG system. This study demonstrated that agroforestry systems such as FG were not used to their full potential, despite their high diversity of useful plants. It is recommended that farmers—assisted by institutions and representatives of local product chains—conduct feasibility studies on the marketing and promotion of products derived from specific agroforestry systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Sjoerd Pietersen & Juan Carlos López-Acosta & Jorge Antonio Gomez-Díaz & Maite Lascurain-Rangel, 2018. "Floristic Diversity and Cultural Importance in Agroforestry Systems on Small-Scale Farmer’s Livelihoods in Central Veracruz, México," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:1:p:279-:d:128093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/279/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/279/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    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. Jennifer Castañeda-Navarrete, 2021. "Homegarden diversity and food security in southern Mexico," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(3), pages 669-683, June.

    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. Hendrawan, Dienda C P & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Oil Palm Smallholder Farmers' Livelihood Resilience and Decision Making in Replanting," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Simelton, Elisabeth & Viet Dam, Bac, 2014. "Farmers in NE Viet Nam rank values of ecosystems from seven land uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 133-138.
    3. Everard, Mark & Longhurst, James & Pontin, John & Stephenson, Wendy & Brooks, Joss, 2017. "Developed-developing world partnerships for sustainable development (1): An ecosystem services perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 241-252.
    4. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    5. Tania Pinto & Telmo Machado & Diana Nicolau & Nuno Gaspar Oliveira & Ana Sofia Vaz, 2024. "Accounting for nature contributions to people in corporate sustainability: The case of a waste management company in Portugal," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 2619-2628, July.
    6. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Oksana Logvinenko, 2020. "A New Look at the Natural Capital Concept: Approaches, Structure, and Evaluation Procedure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, November.
    7. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & von Haaren, Christina & Settele, Josef, 2014. "The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-32.
    8. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    9. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    10. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    11. Sun, Ranhao & Chen, Liding, 2017. "Effects of green space dynamics on urban heat islands: Mitigation and diversification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 38-46.
    12. Bojie Wang & Haiping Tang & Qin Zhang & Fengqi Cui, 2020. "Exploring Connections among Ecosystem Services Supply, Demand and Human Well-Being in a Mountain-Basin System, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    14. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    15. Salisu Barau, Aliyu & Stringer, Lindsay C., 2015. "Access to and allocation of ecosystem services in Malaysia's Pulau Kukup Ramsar Site," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 167-173.
    16. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    17. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Settele, Josef, 2016. "Value pluralism and economic valuation – defendable if well done," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 100-109.
    18. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Alexey Dushin, 2022. "Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, February.
    19. Mauerhofer, V. & Laza, I., 2018. "How do ecosystem services perform in enforceable law? Potentials and pitfalls within regional and national integration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 260-270.
    20. Brathwaite, Angelique & Pascal, Nicolas & Clua, Eric, 2021. "When are payment for ecosystems services suitable for coral reef derived coastal protection?: A review of scientific requirements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(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:1:p:279-:d:128093. 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.