Abstract
Natural protected areas (NPA) are portions of the Mexican territory where the original environment has not been modified and which are protected in order to conserve, restore, and develop biodiversity. Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of 18 NPA located within the Transmexican Volcanic Belt by analyzing deforestation and land use and land cover change (LULCC) between 2002 and 2014. An index of effectiveness (EI) was obtained by adding three parameters: (1) the percentage of the transformed area (TA%), (2) the rate of change inside the NPA (LULCC-R), and (3) the difference between the rate of change inside the NPA and outside (buffer). The sum of the three standardized parameters forms the EI, where NPA were classified as effective (index value > 2), weakly effective (index value between 1 and 2), and noneffective (index value < 1). In addition, we identified the most important transitions between categories of LULCC for each NPA. Only three NPA were classified as effective: Ciénegas de Lerma (EI = 2.29), Volcán Nevado de Colima (EI = 2.08), and Iztaccíhuatl-Popocatépetl (EI = 2.06). Eleven were weakly effective, and the remaining four were noneffective. Bosencheve was the least effective (with all parameters in 0). In terms of transition probabilities in each effectiveness class, effective NPA were characterized by transition probabilities of forest cover recovery. Weakly effective NPA presented exchange probabilities between forest cover and land use. Finally, in noneffective NPA, probabilities indicated transitions from forest cover to agricultural and livestock land use. Our results show that, in general, NPA are not currently effective in containing LULCC processes in the Transmexican Volcanic Belt.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahms B, DiPrieto D, Graffis A, Hoallander A (2017) Managing biodiversity under climate change: challenges, frameworks, and tools for adaptation. Biodivers Conserv 10:2277–2293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1362-4
Bell EJ, Hinojosa RC (1977) Markov analysis of land use change: continuous time and stationary processes. Socio Econ Plan Sci 8:13e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(77)90041-6
Carabias J, De La Maza J, Cadena R (2003) Capacidades necesarias para el manejo de áreas protegidas. Nature Conservancy, Arlington
Conabio (2018) Protected areas in Mexico. http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/v_ingles/region/areasprot/proctectedMexico.html
Conanp (2016) Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (SINAP). Available at: http://www.gob.mx/conanp/acciones-y-programas/sistema-nacional-de-areas-protegidas-sinap
Conanp (2017). Listado de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas de México (LISTANP). Available at: http://sig.conanp.gob.mx/website/pagsig/listanp/
Conanp (2018). Sistema de información, monitoreo y evaluación para la conservación. Available at: https://simec.conanp.gob.mx/ind2016.php
Conanp and Conabio (2016) Mapa de Áreas Naturales Protegidas. Conanp/ Conabio, Mexico City
Diario Oficial de la Federación (1988) Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Presidencia de la Republica 28–1-88
Díaz-Gallegos JR, Mas JF (2009) La deforestación de los bosques tropicales: una revisión. Mapping 136:83–96
Ervin J (2003) Protected area assesments in perspective. Bioscience 53:819–822. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0819:PAAIP]2.0.CO;2
Figueroa F, Sánchez-Cordero V (2008) Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 17:3223–3240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9423-3
Figueroa F, Sánchez-Cordero V, Meave J, Trejo I (2010) Socioeconomic context of land use and cover chance in Mexican biosphere reserves. Environ Conserv 36:180–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892909990221
Figueroa F, Illoldi-Rangel P, Sánchez-Cordero V, Linaje M (2011) Evaluación de la efectividad de las áreas protegidas para contener procesos de cambio en el uso de suelo y la vegetación. ¿Un índice es suficiente? Rev Mex Biodivers 82:951–963
Geist H, Lambin E (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 2:143–150. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0143:PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2
Hughes RF, Kauffman JB, Jaramillo VJ (2000) Ecosystem- scale impacts of deforestation and land use in a humid tropical region of Mexico. Ecol Appl 10:515–527. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0515:ESIODA]2.0.CO;2
INEGI (2005) Conjunto de Datos Vectoriales de Uso de Suelo y Vegetación, 1:250,000, Serie III. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Aguascalientes, México
INEGI (2009) Conjunto de Datos Vectoriales de Uso de Suelo y Vegetación, 1:250,000, Serie IV. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Aguascalientes, México
INEGI (2015) Conjunto de datos vectoriales de uso de suelo y vegetación (continuo nacional), Serie V, 1:250,000. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática, Dirección General de Geografía, Aguascalientes, México
INEGI (2017) Conjunto de datos vectoriales de Uso del suelo y vegetación. Escala 1:250 000. Serie VI. Capa Unión. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática, Dirección General de Geografía, Aguascalientes, México
Koleff P, Urquiza-Haas T (2011) Planeación para la conservación de la biodiversidad terrestre en México: retos en un país megadiverso. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad–Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, México
López A (2012) Deforestación en México: un análisis preliminar. CIDE, Toluca
López-García J, Alcántara-Ayala I (2012) Land-use change and hillslope instability in the monarch butterfly biosphere reserve, Central Mexico. Land Degrad Dev 23:384–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2159
Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012251
Morrone JJ (2005) Hacia una síntesis biogeográfica de México. Rev Mex Biodiv 76:207–252. https://doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2005.002.303
Morrone JJ, Escalante T, Rodríguez-Tapia G (2017) Mexican biogeographic provinces: map and shapefiles. Zootaxa 4277:277–279. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4277.2.8
Muñoz C, Alarcón G, Fernández JC (2003) Pixel patterns of deforestation in Mexico 1993–2000, INE Working Paper Series, INE-0401. INE-Semarnat, Mexico City
Peralta-Rivero C, Torrico J, Vos V (2015) Tasas de cambios de coberturas de suelo y deforestación (1986-2011) en el municipio de Riberalta, Amazonía boliviana. Ecol Boliv 50:91–114
Perevochtchikova M, Rojo-Negrete I, Martínez S, Fuentes-Mariles G (2015) Información hidroclimatológica para la evaluación de los efectos del programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos. Caso de estudio de la comunidad de San Miguel y Santo Tomás Ajusco, México. Rev Lat Rec Nat 11:37–55. https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.56437
Pielke A, Pitman A, Niyogi D, Mahmood R, McAlpine C, Hossain F, KKlein G, Nair U, Betts R, Fall S, Reichstein M, Kabat P, Noblet N (2011) Land use/land cover changes and climate: modeling analysis and observational evidence. WIREs Clim CHANGE 2:828–850. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.144
Pineda-López MR, Ruelas E, Sánchez-Velásquez L, Espinoza M, Rojo A, Vásquez-Morales SG (2017) Dynamic of land use and land cover in a Mexican National Park. Madera bosques 23:87–99. https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2017.233149
Pisanty I, Urquiza-Haas E, Vargas-Mena A (2016) Instrumentos de conservación in situ en México: logros y retos. In: Conabio (ed) Capital Natural de México, vol IV. Capacidades humanas e institucionales, Conabio, México City, pp 245–302
Plassmann K (2018) Direct and indirect land use change. In: Kaltschmitt M, Neuling U (eds) Biokerosene. Springer, Berlin, pp 375–402
Pontius RG, Shusas E, McEachern M (2004) Detecting important categorical land changes while accounting for persistence. Agric Ecosyst Environ 101:251–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.008.
Puyravaud JP (2003) Standarizing the calculation of the anual rate of deforestation. For Ecol Manag 177:593–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1127(02)00335-3
QGIS Development Team (2016) QGIS geographic information system. Open source Geospatial Foundation. Available from: http://qgis.osgeo.org
Ramírez MI, Saenz-Romero C, Rehfeldt G, Salas-Canela L (2015) Threats to the availability of overwintering habitat in the monarch butterfly biosphere reserve: land use and climate change. In: Oberhauser KS, Nail KR, Altizer S (eds) Monarchs in a changing world: biology and conservation of an iconic butterfly. Cornell University, Ithaca, pp 157–168
Sánchez-Aguilar R, Rebollar-Domínguez S (1999) Deforestación en la Península de Yucatán, los retos que enfrentar. Madera Bosques 5:3–17
Sánchez-Cordero V, Illoldi-Rangel P, Escalante T, Figueroa F, Rodríguez G, Linaje M, Fuller T, Sarkar S (2009) Deforestation and biodiversity conservation in Mexico. In: Columbus AM, Kuznetsov L (eds) Endangered species: new research. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, pp 279–297
Semarnap (1996) Programa de Medio Ambiente 1995–2000. Semarnap, Mexico City
Soares-Filho BS, Pennachin CL, Cerqueira G (2002) DINAMICA - a stochastic cellular automata model designed to simulate the landscape dynamics in an Amazonian colonization frontier. Ecol Model 154:217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00059-5
Soares-Filho BS, Rodrigues HO, Follador M (2013) A hybrid analytical-heuristic method for calibrating land-use change models. Environ Model Softw 43:80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00059-5
Stolcke A, Kajarekar J, Ferrer L (2008) Nonparametric feature normalization for SVM-based speaker verification, Proc. ICASSP, Las Vegas
Suárez MM, Téllez OV, Lira RS, Villaseñor J (2013) Una regionalización de la Faja Volcánica Transmexicana con base en su riqueza florística. Bot Sci 91:93–105
Takada T, Miyamoto A, Hasegawa SF (2010) Derivation of a yearly transition probability matrix for land-use dynamics and its applications. Landsc Ecol 25:561–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9433-x
Torres A, Luna I (2006) Análisis de trazos para establecer áreas de conservación en la Faja Volcánica Transmexicana. Interciencia 31:849–866
Torres-Rojo JM, Flores-Xolocotzi R (2016) Deforestation and land use change in Mexico. J Sustain For 12:171–192. https://doi.org/10.1300/J091v12n01_09
UNESCO (1994) The convention on wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat: report. UNESCO, Paris
UNFCCC (2001) Report of the conference of the parties on its seventh session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001. UNFCCC, Marrakesh
Vidal O, López-García J, Rendón-Salinas ED (2014) Trends in deforestation and forest degradation after a decade of monitoring in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico. Conserv Biol 28:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12138
Williams BK, Brown ED (2012) Adaptive management: the U.S. Department of the Interior applications guide. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Acknowledgments
This research was carried out through the support of the Program UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT, Project IN217717. Lynna Kiere reviewed the English writing of this manuscript. Luis José Aguirre-López designed the flowchart.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Tony Weir
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 54 kb).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aguilar-Tomasini, M.A., Escalante, T. & Farfán, M. Effectiveness of natural protected areas for preventing land use and land cover changes of the Transmexican Volcanic Belt, Mexico. Reg Environ Change 20, 84 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01660-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01660-3