IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v20y2018i2d10.1007_s10668-016-9905-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scenarios and story lines: drivers of land use change in southern Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie Kolb

    (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)

  • Leopoldo Galicia

    (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)

Abstract

The study presents three scenarios of land use and cover change (LUCC), the most important factor for environmental degradation in southern Mexico. We developed story lines and quantitative projections for regional scenarios based on historic LUCC processes, environmental policies, socioeconomic drivers, stakeholder consultations and official planning documents to gain a better understanding of drivers of LUCC, and quantitative scenarios were modeled with DINAMICA-EGO. Regionally specific interactions between social and natural systems are recognized, and detrimental policies and policy options for landscape conservation and management for sustainability are acknowledged in a base line, variant and alternative scenario. Incongruent policies and ineffective ground implementation of conservation actions were identified as the critical underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation that could lead to a severe reduction in natural forests, while the local socioeconomic situation stays precarious. The baseline scenario parts from an analysis of historic LUCC processes and shows the consequences of LUCC tendencies: 73% of temperate forests and 50% of tropical forests would get deforested until 2030. In the variant scenario, these tendencies are adjusted to planning goals extracted from official documents and recent changes in public policies. The alternative scenario further addresses policy options for fostering conservation and sustainable development, but because of the time lag of implementation, still 59% of temperate forests and 36% of tropical forest would get lost until 2030. Nevertheless, this represents a reduction of 13% of forest loss and 11% less pastureland due to the proposed measures of conservation, and sustainable management, including strategies for reforming agricultural systems, agricultural and forestry policies and trade, land tenure and livelihood risk management.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie Kolb & Leopoldo Galicia, 2018. "Scenarios and story lines: drivers of land use change in southern Mexico," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 681-702, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:20:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-016-9905-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-016-9905-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-016-9905-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-016-9905-5?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. E. B. Barbier & J. C. Burgess, 2001. "The Economics of Tropical Deforestation," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 413-433, July.
    2. Peter Klepeis & Colin Vance, 2003. "Neoliberal Policy and Deforestation in Southeastern Mexico: An Assessment of the PROCAMPO Program," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 79(3), pages 221-240, July.
    3. Schmook, Birgit & Vance, Colin, 2009. "Agricultural Policy, Market Barriers, and Deforestation: The Case of Mexico's Southern Yucatn," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1015-1025, May.
    4. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    5. Janvry, Alain de & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 2001. "Income Strategies Among Rural Households in Mexico: The Role of Off-farm Activities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 467-480, March.
    6. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:413-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Ferguson, Bruce G. & Diemont, Stewart A.W. & Alfaro-Arguello, Rigoberto & Martin, Jay F. & Nahed-Toral, José & Álvarez-Solís, David & Pinto-Ruíz, René, 2013. "Sustainability of holistic and conventional cattle ranching in the seasonally dry tropics of Chiapas, Mexico," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 38-48.
    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. Ren, Yang & Li, Zehong & Li, Jingnan & Dashtseren, A. & Li, Yu & Altanbagana, M., 2022. "Comparative analysis of driving forces of land use/cover change in the upper, middle and lower reaches of the Selenga River Basin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    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. Elisabeth Hettig & Jann Lay & Kacana Sipangule, 2016. "Drivers of Households’ Land-Use Decisions: A Critical Review of Micro-Level Studies in Tropical Regions," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-32, October.
    2. Chamberlin, Jordan & Jayne, T.S., 2013. "Unpacking the Meaning of ‘Market Access’: Evidence from Rural Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 245-264.
    3. Silvina Vilas-Ghiso & Diana Liverman, 2007. "Scale, technique and composition effects in the Mexican agricultural sector: the influence of NAFTA and the institutional environment," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 137-169, June.
    4. Carolina Berget & Gerard Verschoor & Eduardo García-Frapolli & Edith Mondragón-Vázquez & Frans Bongers, 2021. "Landscapes on the Move: Land-Use Change History in a Mexican Agroforest Frontier," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
    5. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Birdyshaw, Edward & Ellis, Christopher, 2007. "Privatizing an open-access resource and environmental degradation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 469-477, March.
    7. Maja Micevska & Dil Bahadur Rahut, 2008. "Rural Nonfarm Employment and Incomes in the Himalayas," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 163-193, October.
    8. Zeeshan & Geetilaxmi Mohapatra & Arun Kumar Giri, 2022. "How Farm Household Spends Their Non-farm Incomes in Rural India? Evidence from Longitudinal Data," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(4), pages 1967-1996, August.
    9. Hanley, Nick & Tinch, Dugald & Angelopoulos, Konstantinos & Davies, Althea & Barbier, Edward B. & Watson, Fiona, 2009. "What drives long-run biodiversity change? New insights from combining economics, palaeoecology and environmental history," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 5-20, January.
    10. Sébastien Marchand, 2011. "Technical Efficiency, Farm Size and Tropical Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazonian Forest," Working Papers halshs-00552981, HAL.
    11. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    13. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    14. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    15. Copeland, Brian R., 2005. "Policy Endogeneity and the Effects of Trade on the Environment," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    18. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    19. Ajanaku, B.A. & Collins, A.R., 2021. "Economic growth and deforestation in African countries: Is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis applicable?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    20. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.

    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:spr:endesu:v:20:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-016-9905-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.