Local Perception of Traditional and Avocado Crops as Ecosystem Services in the Mariposa Monarch Biosphere Reserve


  • Luis Alfonso Flores‑Arteaga
  • Clarita Rodríguez‑Soto
  • José Mauricio Galeana Pizaña
  • Canchola Yered Gybram Pantoja



Słowa kluczowe:

Usługi ekosystemowe, postrzeganie, awokado, uprawy tradycyjne


The concept of ecosystem services (ES) refers to the goods and services that ecosystems produce for the benefit of people, serving as generators of well‑being. Three dimensions are recognized that promote the presence of these services: the material, the relational, and the subjective. These dimensions are highly influenced by the lifeworld, which has been crucial for documenting processes of environmental degradation. In this sense, it is important for geography to determine the connections between the social
typifications of meaning and the spatiotemporal rhythms of action, contributing to the discovery of underlying structures of intentionality. One of the main challenges in the management of ES is their interdependence, as their relationships are often nonlinear, and there is a preference for the immediate provision of one service over others, resulting in trade‑offs characterized by the reduction of productive capacity in favor of another. This study analyzed, through semi‑structured surveys applied in the field, face to face, the perception that people living in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve have regarding traditional and avocado crops, the latter characterized by promoting compensations through land use change from native forests to large monoculture areas in the State of Michoacán, which is rapidly expanding in the lower zone of the RBMM. The results show that perceptions and feelings associated with these services contrast with each other, daily life activities, means of family livelihood, and proximity to the core and buffer zone are determining factors in the perception of these ES. The results of this work, based on the geography of perception, can be useful as guiding threads for the development of effective, specific, and inclusive management and conservation plans based on the feelings, knowledge, and needs of people who are recognized as actors favoring ecosystem conservation or the creation of externalities.


Arias‑Arévalo, P., Martín‑López, B., & Gómez‑Baggethun, E. (2017). Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social‑ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES‑09812‑220443

Balvanera, P. (2007). Acercamientos al estudio de los servicios ecosistémicos. 85, 8–15. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=53908502

Brower, L. P., Castilleja, G., Peralta, A., Lopez‑Garcia, J., Bojorquez‑Tapia, L., Diaz, S., Melgarejo, D., & Missrie, M. (2002). Quantitative Changes in Forest Quality in a Principal Overwintering Area of the Monarch Butterfly in Mexico, 1971–1999. Conservation Biology, 16(2), 346–359. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3061361

Capel, H. (2016). Filosofía y Ciencia en la Geografía, siglos XVI–XXI, 89, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.51371

Cerda, C., & Tironi, A. (2017). La evaluación no monetaria de los servicios ecosistémicos: Perspectivas para la gestión sostenible del territorio. Revista Luna Azul, 45(45), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.17151/luaz.2017.45.17.

Costanza, R. (2020). Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 43(September 2019), 101096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101096.

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? In Ecosystem Services (Vol. 28, pp. 1–16). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.

Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B. S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B., Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J., & Woodside, U. (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience, 62(8), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7 .

Cho, K., B. Goldstein, D. Gounaridis, J.P. Newell. 2021. Where does your guacamole come from? Detecting deforestation associated with the export of avocados from Mexico to the United States, Journal of Environmental Management, 278(1):111482,


Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín‑López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K. M. A., Baste, I. A., Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P. W., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., … Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature’s contributions to people: Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments.

In Science (Vol. 359, Issue 6373, pp. 270–272). American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826.


Evaluación de ecosistemas del milenio, 2005. Ecosistemas y bienestar humano: síntesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Faugier, J. y Sargeant, M., (1997) Sampling Hard to Reach Populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 790–797. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365–2648.1997.00371.x

Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M. A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. In Ecological Economics (Vol. 41). www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Gutiérrez‑Rangel, M., Medina‑Galicia, N. , Ocampo‑Fletes, A., Antonio‑López, I., Pedraza‑Santos, P., & Elena, M. Conocimiento tradicional del “Cuatomate” ( solanum glaucescens Zucc) en la mixteca baja poblana, México. Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo Colegio de Postgraduados. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=360533089006.


Hirokawa, K. H., & Riegel, L. E. (2020). AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES APPROACH TO CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION. Environmental Law, 50(3), 665–701. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27007693.

INEGI 2010. XIII Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. México, México. Disponible en: https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/ccpv/2020/

Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín‑López, B., Barton, D. N., Gomez‑Baggethun, E., Boeraeve, F., McGrath, F. L., Vierikko, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K. J., Pipart, N., Primmer, E., Mederly, P., Schmidt, S., Aragão, A., Baral, H., Bark, R. H., Briceno, T., Brogna, D., … Washbourn, C. L. (2016). A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosystem Services, 22, 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007.

Juárez, M. (2014). Fundamentos teóricos y contexto espacial de la Geografía ambiental de México. En Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Geografía ambiental de México (pp.15–30). Instituto de Geografía UNAM.

Lemus, J., Urquía, J., (2018). La geografía de la percepción: una metodología de análisis para el desarrollo del turismo en la comunidad de Chirimena, Estado Miranda. Venezuela. Terra Nueva Etapa, num.56, vol. XXXIV. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.


Mora, F., Balvanera, P., García‑Frapolli, E., Castillo, A., Trilleras, J. M., Cohen‑Salgado, D., & Salmerón, O. (2016). Trade‑offs between ecosystem services and alternative pathways toward sustainability in a tropical dry forest region. Ecology and Society,

(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES‑08691‑210445

Martínez, E., Esparza, G., (2020) Teorías de sistemas complejos: marco epistémico para abordar la complejidad socioambiental, Intersticios Sociales, num 21, https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/ins/n21/2007‑4964‑ins‑21‑373.pdf .

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social‑ecological systems. In Science (Vol. 325, Issue 5939, pp. 419–422). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Palomo, I., Felipe‑Lucia, M. R., Bennett, E. M., Martín‑López, B., & Pascual, U. (2016). Disentangling the Pathways and Effects of Ecosystem Service Co‑Production. In Advances in Ecological Research (1st ed., Vol. 54). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.

org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.003 .

Quétier, F., Tapella, E., Conti, G., Cáceres, D., & Díaz, S. (2007). Servicios ecosistémicos y actores sociales. Aspectos conceptuales y metodológicos para un estudio interdisciplinario. Gaceta Ecológica, (84–85), 17–26.

Ramírez, K. D. I., & Ibarra, A. M. A. (2015). Local perception of the ecological services and well‑being of the Maya Zone’s rainforest from Quintana Roo, Mexico. Investigaciones Geograficas, 86, 67–81.https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.36593

Ramírez, M., y Zubieta, R., (2005). Análisis regional y comparación metodológica del cambio en la cubierta forestal en la Reserva de la Biosfera Mariposa Monarca. Reporte Técnico preparado para el Fondo para la Conservación de la Mariposa Monarca. México D.F. septiembre 2005.

Raudsepp‑Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. M. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(11), 5242–5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107.

Rincón Ruíz Alexander, Duque Echeverry Mauricio Alejandro, Piñeros Quiceno Ana Milena, Tapia Caicedo Carlos, David Andrews Andrés, Arias Arévalo Paola, & Zuluga Guerra Paula Andrea. (2014). Valoración integral de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos: Aspectos conceptuales y metodológicos.

Rincón‑Ruiz, A., Arias‑Arévalo, P., & Clavijo Romero, M. (2021). Hacia una valoración incluyente y plural de la biodiversidad y los Servicios Ecosistémicos. Visiones, avances y retos en América Latina. http://fce.unal.edu.co/ebook/vipbe/index.html

Rodríguez, J. P., Beard, T. D., Bennett, E. M., Cumming, G. S., Cork, S. J., Agard, J., Dobson, A. P., & Peterson, G. D. (2006). Trade‑offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES‑01667‑110128

Santos, M. A. (1993). Los espacios de la globalización. Anales de Geografía de la Universidad Complutense, (13), 69–77. Ediciones complutenses https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/AGUC/article/view/AGUC9393110069A

Sánchez, M. A. C., & Romero, A. V. (2019). Social value mapping within the ecosystem services framework. Investigacion Bibliotecologica, 33(79), 177–204. https://doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2019.79.58008 .

Santiago, Marco Andrés López. (2019). La valoración de los servicios ecosistémicos desde la cosmovisión indígena totonaca. Madera y bosques, 25(3), e2531752. Epub 15 de mayo de 2020.https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2019.2531752

Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SIAP). 2020. Avance de siembras y cosechas, México. Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. http://infosiap.siap.gob.mx:8080/agricola‑siap‑gobmx/ResumenDelegacion.do»http://infosiap.siap.gob.mx:8080/agricola‑siap‑gobmx/ResumenDelegacion.do

Salas‑Canela, L., (2013). Causas directas del cambio en las cubiertas del suelo en la Región Mariposa Monarca: un análisis multiescalar [ Tesis de Maestría, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México] https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/361196