IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p4200-d785204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nature’s Contributions to People in Vulnerability Studies When Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Coastal Landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Areli Nájera González

    (Centro Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de Guadalajara, Puerto Vallarta 48280, Mexico)

  • Fátima Maciel Carrillo González

    (Centro Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de Guadalajara, Puerto Vallarta 48280, Mexico)

  • Oyolsi Nájera González

    (Cuerpo Académico Recursos Naturales, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, Tepic 63000, Mexico)

  • Rosa María Chávez-Dagostino

    (Centro Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de Guadalajara, Puerto Vallarta 48280, Mexico)

  • Susana Marceleño Flores

    (Cuerpo Académico Recursos Naturales, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, Tepic 63000, Mexico)

  • Eréndira Canales-Gómez

    (Laboratorio de Ecología, Paisaje y Sociedad, Centro Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de Guadalajara, Puerto Vallarta 48280, Mexico)

  • Jorge Téllez López

    (Laboratorio de Ecología, Paisaje y Sociedad, Centro Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de Guadalajara, Puerto Vallarta 48280, Mexico)

Abstract

The geographic landscape is a recurrent unit of analysis in vulnerability studies. Single descriptions are often used to show the elements exposed in these landscapes. However, the concept requires specifying the components of the landscape and its functioning as a unit. Thus, the purpose of this research was to use the analysis of Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) to describe the global contribution of landscape elements to human activities, prioritizing the units in which the effects of climate change may imply greater impacts on the human population. For this, we analyzed six categories of nature’s contributions applied to the landscape units in a fragment of the Mexican Pacific coast. The units with mangrove cover had the highest nature contributions. It is expected that the application of this approach in the exposure component of vulnerability studies will allow a better understanding of the non-return relationship and the search for adaptive nature-based solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Areli Nájera González & Fátima Maciel Carrillo González & Oyolsi Nájera González & Rosa María Chávez-Dagostino & Susana Marceleño Flores & Eréndira Canales-Gómez & Jorge Téllez López, 2022. "Nature’s Contributions to People in Vulnerability Studies When Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Coastal Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4200-:d:785204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4200/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4200/
    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.
    2. Fahim N. Tonmoy & Abbas El‐Zein & Jochen Hinkel, 2014. "Assessment of vulnerability to climate change using indicators: a meta‐analysis of the literature," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(6), pages 775-792, November.
    3. Yuh-Shan Ho & Sharif A. Mukul, 2021. "Publication Performance and Trends in Mangrove Forests: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    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. Giovanni Matteo & Pierfrancesco Nardi & Stefano Grego & Caterina Guidi, 2018. "Bibliometric analysis of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment research," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 508-516, December.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Settele, Josef, 2016. "Value pluralism and economic valuation – defendable if well done," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 100-109.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4200-:d:785204. 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.