Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Common Property and Conservation: The Potential for Effective Communal Forest Management Within a National Park in Mexico

  • Published:
Human Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Common property regimes may contribute to environmental conservationand offer a complementary institutional model to state-run protected areas. The potential conservation value of common property management is of particular significance in Mexico, where a large majority of forests are held communally. Systems of common property management often exist in a context of close institutional overlap with state institutions. This project assessed the function of a common property regime nested within Lagunas de Montebello National Park (PNLM) in Chiapas, Mexico. We documented forest status and analyzed common property forest management institutions following severe fires that threatened forest conservation. Forests managed by the common property regime are less intact than federal forests, yet still moderately conserved, and many attributes necessary for common property management are functional, despite the recent fire crisis. Yet external authorities contest common property management by local institutions, resulting in limited joint management by the national park and the community. Formalization and expansion of de facto cooperation between the federal and community institutions may enhance forest conservation within PNLM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acheson, J. M. (1975). The lobster fiefs: Economic and ecological effects of territoriality in the Maine lobster industry. Human Ecology 3: 183–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. (1994). Rules, rule making, and rule breaking: Examining the fit between rule systems and resource use. In Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., and Walker, J. (eds.), Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 267–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcorn, J. B. (1996). Forest use and ownership: Patterns, issues, and recommendations. In Schelhas, J., and Greenburg, R. (eds.), Forest Patches in Tropical Landscapes, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 233–257.

  • Alcorn, J. B., and Toledo, V. M. (1998). Resilient resource management in Mexico’s forest ecosystems: The contribution of property rights. In Berkes, F., and Folke, C. (eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 216–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascher, W. (1999). The logic of community resource management in Latin America. In Hatch, L. U., and Swisher, M. E. (eds.), Managed Ecosystems: The Mesoamerican Experience, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (1987). Common-property resource management and Cree Indian fisheries in subarctic Canada. In McCay, B., and Acheson, J. M. (eds.), The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 66–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (1989). Cooperation from the perspective of human ecology. In Berkes, F. (ed.), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development, Belhaven, London, pp. 70–88.

  • Berkes, F., and Farvar, M. T. (1989). Introduction and overview. In Berkes, F. (ed.), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development, Belhaven, London, pp. 1–17.

  • Brandon, K., Redford, K. H., and Sanderson, S. E. (1998). Introduction. In Brandon, K., Redford, K., and Sanderson, S. (eds.), Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and Protected Areas, Island/The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC, pp. 1–23.

  • Bray, D. B. (1996). Of land tenure, forests, and water: The impact of the reforms to Article 27 on the Mexican environment. In Randall, L. (ed.), Reforming Mexico’s Agrarian Reform, Sharpe, New York, pp. 215–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. W., and Cernea, M. M. (1989). The Management of Common Property Natural Resources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies. World Bank Discussion Paper no. 57, Washington, DC.

  • Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E., and da Fonseca, G. A. B. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291: 125–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M. C. (1954). Floral elements of the pine-oak-liquidambar forest of Montebello, Chiapas, Mexico. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 81(5): 387–399.

  • Burger, J., and Gochfeld, M. (1998). The tragedy of the commons 30 years later. Environment 40(10): 4–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., and Bishop, R. C. (1975). “Common property” as a concept in natural resource policy. Natural Resources Journal 15: 713–727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, G. A. (1994). Reforms of Mexico’s agrarian code: Impacts on the peasantry. Research in Economic Anthropology 15: 105–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius, W. A., and Myrhe, D. (eds.) (1998). Reforming the Ejido Sector, Center for U.S.-Mexican studies at the University of Southern California, San Diego.

  • Cox, S. J. B. (1985). No tragedy on the commons. Environmental Ethics 7: 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz Burguete, J. L. (1989). Tziscao: Religión y Sociedad en el Sureste de México, Cuadernos de la Casa Chata 162, CIESAS, México, D.F., pp. 35–122.

  • Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. M. (1990). The tragedy of the commons: Twenty-two years later. Human Ecology 18(1): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C., and Berkes, F. (1995). Mechanisms that link property rights to ecological systems. In Hanna, S., and Munasinghe, M. (eds.), Property Rights and the Environment, Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 121–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortmann, L., and Bruce, J. W. (eds.) (1988). Whose Trees? Proprietary Dimensions of Forestry, Westview, Boulder, CO.

  • Gibbs, C. J. N., and Bromley, D. W. (1989). Institutional arrangements for management of rural resources: Common-property regimes. In Berkes, F. (ed.), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development, Belhaven, London, pp. 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Pompa, A. (1987). On Maya silviculture. Mexican Studies 3(1): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Pompa, A., and Kaus, A. (1990). Traditional management of tropical forests in Mexico. In Anderson, A. B. (ed.), Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps Toward Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rain Forest, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, H. S. (1954). The economic theory of a common property resource: The fishery. Journal of Political Economy 62: 124–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, S., Folke, C., and Maler, K. (1995). Property rights and environmental resources. In Hanna, S., and Munasinghe, M. (eds.), Property Rights and the Environment, Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, C. R., Berardi, G., Carroll, M. S., Fairfax, S., Fortmann, L., Geisler, C., Johnson, T. G., Kusel, J., Lee, R. G., Macinko, S., Peluso, N. L., Schulman, M. D., and West, P. C. (1993). Theories in the study of natural resource-dependent communities and persistent rural poverty in the United States. In Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty (ed.), Persistent Poverty in Rural America, Westview, Boulder, CO, pp. 136–172.

  • Klooster, D. (2000). Institutional choice, community, and struggle: A case study of forest co-management in Mexico. World Development 28(1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. A., and van Schaik, C. P. (1997). Preservation paradigms and tropical rain forests. In Kramer, R. A., van Schaik, C. P., and Johnson, J. (eds.), Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, F. E. (2001). The common property regime of the Huaorani Indians of Ecuador: Implications and challenges to conservation. Human Ecology 29(4): 425–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCay, B. (1996). Common and private concerns. In Hanna, S. S., Folke, C., and Mäler, K. (eds.), Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 111–126.

  • McCay, B., and Acheson, J. M. (eds.) (1987). The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKean, M. A. (1992). Management of traditional common lands (Iriachi) in Japan. In Bromley, D. (ed.), Making the Commons Work: Theory and Practice, ICS, San Francisco, pp. 63–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKean, M. A. (2000). Common property: What is it, what is it good for, and what makes it work? In Gibson, C. C., McKean, M. A., and Ostrom, E. (eds.), People and Forests: Communities, Institutions and Governance, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 27–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKean, M. A., and Ostrom, E. (1995). Common property regimes in the forest: Just a relic from the past? Unasylva 180(46): 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, P. Z. (2000). Análisis de la Vegetación y Fauna Asociada en Bosques Templados del Parque Nacional Lagunas de Montebello, Chiapas, Licensiado Thesis (Rangel Salazar, J. L., advisor), Department of Biology, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

  • Morrow, C. E., and Hull, R. W. (1996). Donor-initiated common pool resource institutions: The case of the Yanesha Forestry Cooperative. World Development 24(10): 1641–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard, R. (1994). Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Co-evolutionary Revisioning of the Future, Routledge, London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakerson, R. (1986). A Model for the Analysis of Common Property Problems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1992). The Rudiments of a theory of the origins, survival, and performance of common-property institutions. In Bromley, D. W. (ed.), Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy, ICS, San Francisco, pp. 293–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1999). Self-Governance and Forest Resources, Occasional Paper No. 20, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

  • Ostrom, E. (2001). Reformulating the commons. In Burger, J., Ostrom, E., Norgaard, R. B., Policansky, D., and Goldstein, B. D. (eds.), Protecting the Commons: A Framework for Resource Management in the Americas, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 17–41.

  • Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., and Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science 284: 278–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peluso, N. L., Humphrey, C. R., and Fortmann, L. P. (1994). The rock, the beach, and the tidal pool: People and poverty in natural resource-dependent areas. Society and Natural Resources 7: 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez-Marcial, N. (2000). Diagnóstico del Estado de Conservación de la Vegetación del Parque Nacional Lagos de Montebello, Chiapas, Mexico, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Chiapas, Mexico.

  • Randall, L. (ed.) (1996). Reforming Mexico’s Agrarian Reform, Sharpe, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redford, K. H. (1992). The empty forest. Bioscience 42: 412–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, M. (1997). Common property resource institutions and forest management in Latin America. Development and Change 28: 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. C. (1993). The limits to caring: Sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7: 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H. J., and Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge, C. F. (1986). Common property and collective action in economic development. World Development 14(5): 623–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, O. C. (1999). Results of Mexico’s 1998 forest fire campaign. In FAO Meeting on Public Policies Affecting Forest Fires, Forestry Paper 138, Rome, October 28–30, 1998.

  • Sarukhán, J., and Larson, J. (2001). When the commons become less tragic: Land tenure, social organization, and fair trade in Mexico. In Burger, J., Ostrom, E., Norgaard, R. B., Policansky, D., and Goldstein, B. D. (eds.), Protecting the Commons: A Framework for Resource Management in the Americas, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 45–69.

  • Sayer, J. A. (1995). Managing for biodiversity in humid tropical forests. Commonwealth Forestry Review 74(4): 282–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartzman, S., Moreira, A., and Nepstad, D. (2000). Rethinking tropical forest conservation: Perils in parks. Conservation Biology 14(5): 1351–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, G. G. (1991). Common Property Economics: A General Theory and Land Use Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, S. Y. (1992). Institutions and Collective Action: Self-Governance in Irrigation, ICS Press, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terborgh, J. (1999). Requiem for Nature, Island/Shearwater Books, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terborgh, J. (2000). The fate of tropical forests: A matter of stewardship. Conservation Biology 14: 1358–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toledo, V. (1996). The ecological consequences of the 1992 agrarian law of Mexico. In Randall, L. (ed.), Reforming Mexico’s Agrarian Reform, Sharpe, New York, pp. 247–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visconti, C. L. (2000). Uso del Territorio en Tziscao, Chiapas: Dinámica y Percepción Social, Masters Thesis, Aguirre, F. L., advisor, Department of Natural Resources and Rural Development, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur.

  • Vitousek, P. M., Rooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., and Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277: 494–499.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, M., and Brandon, K. (1992). People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management With Local Communities, The World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Western, D., and Wright, R. M. (1994). The background to community-based conservation. In Western, D., and Wright, R. M. (eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 1–12.

  • Wexler, M. B., and Bray, D. B. (1996). Reforming forests: From community forests to corporate forestry in Mexico. In Randall, L. (ed.), Reforming Mexico’s Agrarian Reform, Sharpe, New York, pp. 235–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilshusen, P. R., Brechin, S. R., Fortwangler, C. L., and West, P. C. (2002). Reinventing a square wheel: Critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15: 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P. N., and Thompson, G. D. (1993). Common property and uncertainty: Compensating coalitions by Mexico’s pastoral ejidatarios. Economic Development and Cultural Change 41(2): 299–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. (1995). Conserved to death: Are tropical forests being overprotected from people? Land Use Policy 12(2): 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2002). Institutional interplay: The environmental consequences of cross-scale interactions. In Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S., and Weber E. U. (eds.), The Drama of the Commons, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Conservation Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota, 115 Green Hall, 1530 Cleveland Avenue N, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55108-6112

    Kris A. Johnson

  2. Department of Forest Resources and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota

    Kristen C. Nelson

Authors
  1. Kris A. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristen C. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kris A. Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, K.A., Nelson, K.C. Common Property and Conservation: The Potential for Effective Communal Forest Management Within a National Park in Mexico. Hum Ecol 32, 703–733 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-004-6833-z

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-004-6833-z

Search

Navigation