Applications of Ecosystem Health for the ... - Wiley Online Library

HOW ARE WE MANAGING? .

Applications of Ecosystem Health for the Sustainability of Managed Systems in Costa Rica Bernardo J. Aguilar Centro de Estudios sobre Desarrollo Sostenible, The School for Field Studies, Atenas, Costa Rica

ABSTRACT A growing body of literature explores the links between the social and ecological dimensions of sustainability. However, much remains to be researched, especially concerning managed ecosystems. Costa Rica has approximately 25% of its area under some conservation regime; many of these protected areas, especially in and near urban areas, are under private ownership and management. Among these is the regime of the protected zones (PZ) that seeks to protect watershed resources. The achievement of conservation objectives in these areas will not only depend on ecological conditions but also on social and economic ones. This framework provides a good field in which to explore the interrelations between sustainability and ecosystem health. This study summarizes the work I participated in the last three years at the Center for Sustainable Development Studies in

Costa Rica. We developed a holistic ecosystem health indicator (HEHI) for managed ecosystems. This indicator was tested several times in seven PZs in the east, south, and west sections of the central valley of Costa Rica. The evaluation tool includes measurements of productivity, organization, and resilience of the ecosystems. These were combined with social indicators and resource use patterns from the communities surrounding the PZs studied. The use of this indicator and the conclusions of this project could justify the use of an integral approach to address conservation problems in developing nations. The creation and management of these protected areas should be the result of a combined effort between community organizations and government agencies dealing with land distribution, zoning, and public health, among others.

INTRODUCTION

system components, science has tended to neglect the role of human systems as a part of the sustainability dilemma (Lélé & Norgaard 1996). In the field of environmental research, a shift away from purely biological benchmarks is happening. Traditionally, ecosystem health was seen as a combination of strictly biophysical features of specific “indicator” components that point to a freedom of distress syndrome. These characteristics are qualified as “objective” measures in view of the scientific methods used to find them. This notion is criticized by several (Ehrenfeld 1992; Hannon 1992) because it is partial in its perception of the whole system and it overlooks nonbiophysical connections that are necessary to

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT In today’s conservation efforts, growing importance is being placed on the need to protect entire ecosystems. The sustainability of the individual ecosystem elements is increasingly recognized as a function of total ecosystem health. While acknowledging the interdependence of natural ecoAddress correspondence to the author at his current address: Bernardo J. Aguilar, Professor, Ecological Economics and Environmental Policy, Prescott College, 220 Grove Ave., Prescott, AZ 86301; E-mail [email protected].

©1999 Blackwell Science, Inc.

37

understand the complexity of ecosystem dynamics. The way in which ecosystems and social systems interact and influence each other is not yet fully understood. Also, trying to define ecosystem health according to the traditional scientific paradigm is difficult, because such a definition relies on informed but unmeasurable human perceptions of what is happening to the ecosystem. Such findings caused the emergence of a scientific trend that tries to understand the interconnections between social systems and ecosystems. These studies have explored important connections such as the causality between inequalities of wealth and power in social systems and environmental degradation (Boyce 1994). It is now recognized that a reflexive relationship exists between human systems and ecosystems in that the health of one is dependent on the health of the other. For instance, Rapport (1995) considers “that healthy ecosystems must not only be ecologically sound, but must also be economically viable and able to sustain human healthy communities. These dimensions cannot be ignored, for there are tight linkages between them and the ecological aspects. Ecosystems that cannot support viable economic activity are often over-exploited by local populations to compensate for inadequate incomes. This situation creates a vicious circle under which impoverished populations further degrade the environment for short-term advantage at the expense of long-term viability.” Further, he declares that if healthy ecosystems are to prevail over time, they must satisfy more than biophysical (ecological) criteria. This theoretical evolution results in the need to quantify these interactions. Along these lines, Costanza (1998) recognized that the rapid deterioration of the world’s ecosystems has enhanced the need for environmental monitoring and the development of operational indicators of ecosystem health. In his words, “Ecosystem health represents a desired endpoint of environmental management, but it requires adaptive, ongoing definitions and assessment.” Thus, the development of indicators of ecosystem health that incorporate a holistic approach is a necessary theoretical step to understand the system interdependence described above. Several notions have evolved in this direction due to the impulse of the sustainable development trend. The central problem has shifted from solely preserving biodiversity and ecosystem integrity to conservation and satisfaction of evergrowing human needs.

This process has been enriched by the realization that no one traditional discipline—whether it is chemistry, physics, biology, economics, sociology, medicine, and so on—can deal by itself with today’s global problems. Therefore an interdisciplinary approach is required (Odum 1995). Within the context of the specific problem analyzed here, Rapport et al. (1998) reaffirm this idea when they state that to link ecosystem health to the provision of ecosystem services (functions that satisfy human needs) and “determining how ecosystem dysfunction relates to these services are major challenges at the interface of the health, social and natural sciences.” Ecosystem health indicators have evolved accordingly. For example, Karr (1981) proposed an Index of Biotic Integrity that is widely used. It consists of 12 measurable biophysical attributes. Others tried to use the physical properties of ecosystem components. Such is the case of the Predicted Index of Biotic Integrity (Hite & Bertrand 1989) and the Universal Soil Loss Equation (Schaeffer & Cox 1992). Gradually, purely biophysical indices evolve into socioecologic, ecologic–economic, and sustainable communities–development indicators (Hannon 1992; Costanza 1994; Mageau et al. 1995; Azar et al. 1995; Willapa Alliance and Ecotrust 1995; Cobb et al. 1995; among others). The development of such indicators opens the possibility to analyze managed ecosystems through the parameters of ecosystem health. The particular nature of these ecosystems requires the development of indicators that are highly influenced by the management objectives of the ecosystem in question. For example, an agroecosystem will not have the same level of “health”—concerning vigor, diversity, and resilience—as a pristine ecosystem. Yet, within a context of “developed” geographic regions, restoring the original landscape might not be feasible. Nevertheless, conserving as many ecosystem services as possible is desirable. So, to define a healthy agroecosystem, we will be looking for those features that help it to conserve as many of those services while satisfying the objective for which it was created (likely the provision of food products). Within a regional context this system will represent a model to guarantee the “health” of the whole region. In this sense, agroecologists propose techniques such as integrated pest management (IPM), agroforestry, biomimicry, integrated systems, and others. Here, ecosystem health and the sustainability of the system become synonyms—a healthy ecosystem will be that

Aguilar: Ecosystem Health Applications in Costa Rica

38

which can keep providing the same quantity and quality of ecosystem services to all of its inhabitants of present and future generations. Freemark & Waide (1994) support this position when they recognize that managed ecosystems are more strongly influenced by societal goals related to commodity production/economics, rather than those concerning aesthetic/recreational use, preservation of biodiversity, or provision of ecological services. They call such systems “constrained natural ecosystems.” Even for such systems, they conclude, appropriate/different measures of health must be defined at different levels of ecological organization and at different spatial scales. The evolution of this idea and its implications become especially important for those countries in which resource scarcity makes the balance between cash crop production and ecosystem conservation more critical, as is the case of Costa Rica. This Central American country has approximately 25% of its total area under protection. Also, its development pattern promoted production policies that reduced its forest cover by 65% of the total country area in the last 45 years. That paradox shows how critical the balance between resource use and conservation is in an underdeveloped country with a growing population. This is why Costa Rican governments, within one of the most recognized conservation area systems in the world, use conservation management objectives that allow for multiple uses and different degrees of protection. One interesting example is the protected zone (PZ) regime. These areas are among the oldest management models in the country, dating from the early 1970s. They are created to regulate the hydrologic regime of an area, prevent soil erosion, maintain climatic and overall environmental balance (Umaña 1995). The Ministry of the Environment (MINAE) has exclusive jurisdiction to monitor the management in these areas that are mostly privately owned. Out of 179,401 hectares included in PZs in 1994, 97.25% were under private ownership. The idea of creating them came from the need to find intermediate conservation models for areas that were already under intensive use, yet in key upper watershed areas of the country. They are mostly in areas colonized very early in the Costa Rican history (Umaña 1995). This location has made these areas especially difficult to manage. Very old consolidated private property rights, protected by the Costa Rican Constitution, conflict with the societal goals of conservation that are also recognized. Owners are Ecosystem Health

reticent to adopt practices voluntarily that limit their profits or their right to use the land in any way they wish freely (for example, to turn old coffee farms into subdivisions on steep sloped hillsides). Nevertheless, their unsustainable practices may collide with the right that every Costa Rican has to a clean and healthy environment by hurting water catchment areas. Article 45 stipulates: “Private Property should not be violated; no one can be disturbed on this right unless by legally proven public interest and not prior to a fair compensation By motives of public need, the Legislative Assembly, by a vote of 2/3 of its members may impose limitations based on social interest.” This conflict, scarcity of funds, and lack of political will have resulted in a lack of management plans or extension work from government agencies in these areas. In short, they are paper parks. Yet PZs cover 14.5% of the total area under official protection in Costa Rica. They are found in life zones that other management regimes do not cover. In fact, national parks, biological reserves, and other more stringent regimes contain only 11 of the 23 life zones represented in Costa Rica (Powell et al. 1996). One of the most important watersheds of the country (the Grande de Tárcoles Watershed) has a significant part of its sources protected by this regime. It is in the most inhabited area of the country (1/3 of the total population), the Central Valley. The land uses found in the PZs along this watershed include forest, agriculture, agroindustrial, and urban. These characteristics make these PZs an excellent case study for the development and application of an indicator of ecosystem health for managed ecosystems. Previous research in these areas has provided some insight as to the relation between biophysical ecosystem health and social indicators (Aguilar et al. 1995). Three years ago the Center for Sustainable Development Studies, an international educational institution in Costa Rica, started a research project with the objective to explore this issue. Its first objective was to develop a holistic ecosystem health indicator (HEHI) simple to measure/understand, yet comprehensive of the multidimensional nature of the areas and useful for making comparisons leading to regional policy making. These characteristics would enhance its chance of being applicable with less expense by Costa Rican environmental agencies. The second objective of the project was to show the applicability of this indicator to several Costa Rican PZs. Vol. 5

No. 1

March 1999

39

This paper seeks to summarize both the design and results of the application of the HEHI in Costa Rica. This summary, and a technical report prepared and soon to be handed to the Ministry of the Environment of Costa Rica (Bradley-Wright et al. 1998a), hope to give government agencies a better basis for management decisions in these areas. Through this summary, this work may illustrate a useful example where a holistic notion of ecosystem health is applicable to specific conservation problems in developing nations.

METHODOLOGY The system interactions implied in the PZ management regime are configured by ecological, social, and economic factors. These interactions (as seen in Figure 1) include the use and impact that the local residents and owners make of resources found within the political borders of the PZ. These components are naturally influenced by the social conformation of the communities in the area within and surrounding the PZ. Yet, as some land is normally owned by absentee owners, they will exercise a separate interaction with the resource base of the PZs. Further, local application of relevant environmental regulations will be in charge of the local representatives of MINAE and the Municipal Government of the county.

The landscape within the PZ is a combination of preserved and managed areas. Costa Rican regulations establish the obligation for private owners to preserve forested areas around rivers, streams, and other water bodies. Specific horizontal distances are required according to slope and location. In a PZ, the enforcement of this regulation should be more strict. Also, the land uses within PZs should be supportive of the management objectives. The desirable situation would be that the owners of property within the zone follow this model. This would require appropriate zoning and extension services from the agencies in charge. This combination would create an array of land uses that would go up the slope from the river/stream beds and springs. It would start as a forested buffer area and would be followed by diverse sustainable land uses (Figure 2). The system of the PZ will include components inside and outside the political boundaries of the protected area that will affect its health. Therefore, an effective method of assessing the health of these areas should take into account their multidimensional nature. The HEHI was designed emphasizing the interrelatedness of ecological and social factors, applying an interdisciplinary perspective to PZ management problems. Further, this indicator was defined according to the specific management objectives of the areas involved. In this sense, the indicator components try to take into account not only the connections

FIGURE 1. General model of a PZ system. Aguilar: Ecosystem Health Applications in Costa Rica

40

FIGURE 2. Basic diagram of the optimal protection desired with the riparian zone regulations in Costa Rican PZs. A minimal forested area that varies between at least 50, 15, or 10 horizontal meters, depending on slope and location, should border every river bed. Up the slope from this area, the land use practices should encourage soil and water protection.

between social and natural aspects but the specific characteristics of each area. Nevertheless, we also seek to facilitate a comparative analysis between the PZs in a common biological region. In this sense, the components of the indicator maintained a sufficient degree of generality.

weight of 40%, while social and interactive data was each weighted at 30%. A higher weight for the ecological category is due to the higher correlation to the objectives of the PZ that this category has. Also, ecological indicators can take longer to manifest into changes in ecosystem health. The specific indicator descriptions for each category follow. This section relies on the excellent summary made by Bradley-Wright et al. (1998b).

STRUCTURE OF THE HOLISTIC ECOSYSTEM HEALTH INDICATOR The HEHI was divided into three primary categories: ecological, social, and interactive, with the interactive category representing the interactions between human and ecological communities. Within each of the three categories, specific indicators of ecosystem, social, or interactive health were chosen. A numerical system was used to standardize the scores of the indicators, by which the higher scores meant a “healthier” ecosystem. Each primary indicator category was worth one thousand points. The indicators within each category were assigned part of the total one thousand points. The raw scores of each indicator were transformed according to the maximum and minimum defined for each. Point breakdowns were assigned to these raw scores according to the existing literature and the professional expertise of the scientists involved. The final score is a weighted average. The ecological indicators received a higher Ecosystem Health

ECOLOGICAL COMPONENT. The ecological com-

ponent focuses on biophysical measurements of ecosystem health. Specifically, we were looking for characteristics of organization, vigor, and resilience (Costanza 1992). These concepts were used with the main objectives of these zones to define the “desirable” features of biophysical health. These broad notions were narrowed into nine basic groups of ecological indicators: water quality, soil quality, riparian zone regulation compliance, biomass, land use, primary productivity, regeneration, biodiversity, and erosion. These nine categories of indicators were then ranked and assigned points as high, middle, and low indicators of ecosystem health according to the notion used here. The interested reader is referred to Bradley-Wright et al. (1998a,b) for a complete breakdown of the indicators and tests used within each category. Vol. 5

No. 1

March 1999

41

SOCIAL INDICATORS. A wide range of socioeco-

nomic information is necessary in determining the overall health of the area because acute social and economic factors can be the fundamental cause of resource exploitation (Winograd 1995). Specifically, here the fundamental assumption is that community characteristics reflect the state of the economy and the condition of local resources within the watershed (Wilapa Alliance and Ecotrust 1995). For example, marginal communities often put greater pressure on natural resources through intensive land use (Rapport 1995), a situation that would be important to understand for good PZ management. Therefore, the social indicators were chosen to describe comprehensively the social and economic conditions of the communities that can influence the PZ both within its boundaries and surrounding them. Six categories were chosen: income, demographics, access to services, job stability, gender roles, and community strength. These categories were also ranked and assigned points as high, middle, and low indicators of ecosystem health. The point values reflect the strength and accuracy of the specific indicator in evaluating the social health of the community (see Bradley-Wright et al. 1998a,b for specific information). INTERACTIVE INDICATORS. The interactive category tries to account for the interface of the ecological and social indicators. Interactive indicators quantify the primary connections between the people and the land. The relationship between land uses and the degree to which the land is concentrated in a region affect the community

structure and agricultural practices. It follows that these indicators are needed to depict a community’s relationship with the land. Thus, understanding this relationship to conserve natural resources within a PZ characterized by private land ownership is necessary. The interactive category also measures the effectiveness of regulatory agencies in carrying out management objectives of the PZ. Further, we account for community involvement in management decisions and awareness of policies that affect them. The interactive indicator groups are land use and distribution, watershed protection, land degradation, citizen involvement, implementation of legislation, and environmental awareness. They were also ranked and assigned points as high, middle, and low indicators of ecosystem health. Again, the complete breakdown of tests and indicators can be found in the work of Bradley-Wright et al. (1998a,b). Figure 3 summarizes the complete structure of the indicator.

SITE SELECTION AND DATA SOURCES The HEHI was applied in seven PZs in the Central Valley of Costa Rica: El Chayote, Cerros de Escazú, Cerro Atenas, El Rodeo, Rio Tiribí, La Carpintera, and Rio Grande. They are all located within the Río Grande de Tárcoles Watershed. Two of them are found in the eastern section, two in the south, one in the north, and two in the center of the watershed (Figure 4). To collect ecological data, field tests were done in several plots. These plots were estab-

FIGURE 3. Primary structure of the holistic ecosystem health indicator. Source: Bradley-Wright, et al. 1998a. Aguilar: Ecosystem Health Applications in Costa Rica

42

lished in the most representative land uses in the PZ. Field data were also collected from the most important rivers and streams originating in and/ or flowing through the PZ. Full land-use maps were drawn for the PZs based on 1:10,000 meter topographical maps, field surveys, and, when available, historical data from aerial photographs or older land use maps. The social and interactive data was collected from communities immediately surrounding the PZ or within the boundaries, depending on the case. The communities were chosen based on their proximity to the PZ, accessibility, size, and relative economic importance. For each community, a sample of households proportional to the size of its population was chosen. The sample was surveyed through questionnaires and interviews. Statistical data were also used to quantify some social and interactive indicators. Sources included national and local government agencies of the communities and counties included in the sample. The data set was completed through informal interviews with government officers. The specific tests and techniques used for the data collection can be found in Bradley-Wright et al. (1998b). The data was collected since May 1995. The approximate time for the collection and analysis for each PZ was 2–3 months. Some PZs were surveyed more than once to try improved tests and data collection methods. Table 1 summarizes the

timing of the surveys and the number of communities involved for each PZ. Many constraints made collection of all indicator data impossible. Thus, the maximum points were sometimes less than one thousand. A “weak” version (which we called WHI) of the indicator was used for comparison purposes. We standardized the data for each category in percentages of total possible points. This allowed a comparison of broad categories. Yet, for accurate conclusions, government agencies would need to look at the specific results for each zone separately. Other specific methodologic constraints arose from our aim to keep the methodology simple and affordable for regulators and managers. These included not using more sophisticated techniques for some tests (for example, a GIS system for more accurate mapping purposes). A full description of those limitations is found in the respective report for each PZ.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This paper reports only the results of the WHI. The specifics of a detailed presentation of results for each PZ go beyond the scope of this paper and would make its size unmanageable. The results of the WHI are summarized in Figure 5. The first three sets of columns present the individual

FIGURE 4. Position of PZs within the Grande de Tárcoles Watershed. Ecosystem Health

Vol. 5

No. 1

March 1999

43

TABLE 1 Time line of the applications of the HEHI-WHI indicator; every period included some methodological modifications*

Protected Zone

Cerro Atenas Río Grande El Rodeo Cerros de Escazú Río Tiribí La Carpintera El Chayote Number of communities surveyed

Sept.–Dec. Feb.–May Jun.–Aug. Feb.–May Jun.–Aug. Sept.–Dec. Feb.–May Sept.–Dec. 1995 1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998

X X

X X X X

X X X X X

4

6

15

7

20

9

5

6

*Original design is described in Carlson et al. (1995).

categories. A fourth one consolidates the total weighted average for the WHI. For those PZs that went through several applications, only the results of the last one are reported. El Chayote ranked first with 56.40% of the possible points, followed by El Rodeo with 53.10%. La Carpintera with 46.64% and Río Tiribí with 45.49% had the lowest scores. The scores reflect the interaction of the different indicator components. Even if the ecological component received a higher weight, the indicator showed more than the trend shown by any single component. It is true that El Chayote and El Rodeo rank the highest in ecological scores (59.20% and 60.82%). Yet, the final ranking between them is determined by the substantial difference in the interactive scores, where El Chayote has an advantage of almost 9% of the percentage of possible points. Another important example is La Carpintera that ranked third in the ecological scores with 54.79%. Yet, concerning total points it ranked next to last. An opposite situation is shown by Río Grande and Río Tiribí that rank high in social scores yet show such a comparatively low performance in interactive and ecological terms that they rank among the last. These examples suggest that the WHI does capture a complex reality. This reality, as said before, depicts the sustainability and ecosystem health of the PZs. The results of correlation tests between the main components of the HEHI that

Carlson (1997) performed appear to confirm this statement. General trends can be extracted from this comparison of the general reality of the Grande de Tárcoles Watershed. Social scores are the highest of all the three categories of indicators ranging from 56.03% to 61.47%. This reflects the general high level of social stability in Costa Rica, especially in the Central Valley. In terms of the Index of Human Development of the United Nations, Costa Rica has been scoring among the top 40 of 173 worldwide. Further, the level of social spending, as a percentage of the GNP in the 1980s and 1990s, is above 14%, even if this level shows some decrease compared with previous decades (Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica 1995). Interactive scores were the lowest in all the PZs. This points to a failure to carry out the management objectives of these areas. Citizen involvement and environmental awareness scores are the deciding factors in these trends. The process of creation and the institutional management of these practices can explain this situation. Their creation was done through executive decrees with very little participation of the communities around and within them (Umaña 1995). Often, interviewees residing within the borders of these PZs did not even know of their existence. Further, the vigilance, extension services, and general management of the areas have


44

FIGURE 5. A comparison of the seven PZs sampled in the Grande de Tárcoles Watershed. Data consolidated from Ament et al. (1997), Astaras et al. (1997), Averett et al. (1997), Azzopardi et al. (1997), Banard et al. (1996), Batista et al. (1997), Beard et al. (1996), Bradley-Wright et al. (1998a), Brundage et al. (1996), Burns et al. (1998), Carl et al. (1996), Carlson et al. (1995), Chen et al. (1996), Clements et al. (1997), Cohen et al. (1996), Cox et al. (1997), Fleishman et al. (1997), and Linderman et al. (1996).

been the responsibility of agencies that lack the resources and the technical personnel to do it in an efficient way (Aguilar et al. 1995; Aguilar et al. 1996). Two important portions of the interactive

component were extracted and summarized from the original reports in Table 2. Low levels in land degradation indicators are also common. Green revolution intensive tech-

TABLE 2 Indicators of management effectiveness in seven protected zones of the Central Valley of Costa Rica

Protected Zone

El Chayote El Rodeo Cerro Atenas Cerros de Escazú Río Grande La Carpintera Río Tiribí

Percent Compliance with Riparian Zone Regulations

Number of Communities Surveyed

Percentage of Points of Environmental Awareness*

32.3 71.1 42.5 34.6 57.8 26.4 36.0

7 6 9 20 5 9 6

51.1 45.3 30.6 29.8 18.2 00.0 28.8

*Includes level of knowledge of the protected zone close to the community.

Ecosystem Health

Vol. 5

No. 1

March 1999

45

nologies are common in coffee and annuals plantations within the areas studied. Further, substantial percentages of the PZs are still dedicated to poorly managed pasture for cattle. This affects land use scores. Added to this is a general trend of high levels of land concentration (Gini coefficients above .6) in all PZs but Cerro Atenas (Ament et al. 1997; Astaras et al. 1997; Averett et al. 1997; Bradley-Wright et al. 1998a; Brundage et al. 1996; Burns et al. 1998; Clements et al. 1997; Lindermann et al. 1996; Tull 1995). In all but two cases, the highest-ranking PZs, the ecological scores lie between the social and interactive ones. This again suggests that the main pressure over ecological resources in these PZs could be coming from the interactive factors. Yet it is interesting that the two highest-ranking PZs are also comparatively among the three lowest social scores (only La Carpintera scores lower with 56.03%). One is tempted to think that this is an indicator of lower levels of development correlating to higher preservation of biotic resources. However, this simplistic conclusion can be improved by looking briefly at the specific realities of the PZs. El Chayote and El Rodeo PZs are found in areas that remain more rural. El Chayote has a strong community organization that has taken charge of the management of the PZ. Information signs and well-marked borders are visible in this area of 847 hectares. This would explain the high level of environmental awareness found in the area. The population in and around the PZ is mostly made up of small and medium-sized farmers (Clements et al. 1997). This characteristic helps understand the relatively lower social score of this PZ. El Rodeo also has some farming population, yet the social picture in this PZ is a bit more complex. Within the borders of the PZ lies part of the Quitirrisí Indian Reservation. This is a marginal community. Also, a substantial amount of the population lives in Ciudad Colón, which is mostly populated by salaried workers that commute to the city of San José. Overall, the county of Mora, where these communities are found, has an unemployment level around 8% that is above the national average (around 6%). El Rodeo has two interesting factors in its history that has helped its preservation. The northwest section of the 2222 hectare PZ was mostly one large property owned by a local conservationist (Cruz Rojas Bennett) since the early 20th century. He managed to preserve the existing forest

in the area. In the early 1980s, before he died, Mr. Rojas Bennett donated most of his forest to the United Nation’s University for Peace. Even if this land was extracted from the PZ, the University has managed it in connection with the rest of the zone. The preserved land also offers the attraction of wildlife at less than 30 km from the capital San José. This attracts ecotourists. Horseback riding and biking are offered in the trails through the forest. This explains why the PZ has 71.15% of forest and the highest of all the scores in riparian zone compliance (Table 2), trends that are consistent with its second highest interactive and highest ecological score. On the other side of the spectrum, La Carpintera and Río Tiribí have specific characteristics that can help understand their ranking within the WHI picture. La Carpintera, even if retaining more than 52% of its land in forest/secondary growth, showed extremely low scores in riparian zone compliance. The area also presents relative low levels of income. Further, land use and distribution, land degradation, citizen involvement, and environmental awareness all scored 35% or less of the possible points. This PZ retains forested lands mostly due to the ownership of one specific large coffee producer. Around this large farm a very contrasting reality is the rule. The rest of the area is part of the expansion of the city of San José to the southeast. It is an area full of lower class housing. In fact, a large portion of the land was settled through squatter colonies. Thus, the view of small, torn-down houses on steep slopes or right next to the rivers and with inadequate sewage treatment is common. Further, the Municipal Government of San José has the Río Azul solid waste dump, which receives trash from a substantial portion of the metropolitan area, within the borders of this PZ. The combination of these factors is captured by the WHI (Banard et al. 1996; Chen et al. 1996; Lindermann et al. 1996). Río Tiribí is a 650 hectare PZ in the eastern border of the Grande de Tárcoles Watershed. This area presented very low interactive scores even if it still has more than 50% of its land forested. Most of the forested area here is also in the hands of one owner, the Costa Rican national electric company ICE. They have a set of small generators along the Tiribí River, that allows forest preservation. Nevertheless, around the forest, very intensive agricultural practices happen, especially dairy cattle and potato production. Also, since ICE is there, MINAE does not see a need to get strongly involved in the management of the PZ.


46

The result is that people living or farming within the PZ do not know of its existence (Beard et al. 1996; Brundage et al. 1996; Cohen et al. 1996). To summarize, these results show that the indicator captures the general trends determined by global and regional effects. It is also sensitive enough to capture the site specific peculiarities of each PZ. Within each zone, it provides a more comprehensive picture of all the factors that determine the state of ecosystem health. Even if the indicator does not depict causalities it can help managers focus their resources on the weakest aspects of ecosystem health. This, of course, requires the acceptance of the preanalytic vision presented in the introduction of this paper. For instance, areas such as the La Carpintera PZ might benefit from higher social spending in the qualitative improvement of living conditions. Obviously, the biophysical indicators of ecosystem health are suffering from the adverse social conditions; inappropriate sewage systems, unsustainable urban development, and a municipal dump speak for themselves. Perhaps social workers could do more for the environment here than ecologists. From a regional perspective, it is interesting that the comparison allows the agencies in charge to see the location of the areas with lower levels of health. In the specific watershed analyzed this was evident in the upper parts, east of the city of San José. Both these findings are important for policy design. Agencies in charge can focus their resources with a holistic bioregional perspective on the aspects and regions that need more attention. More work is needed to develop methods that allow for the collection of the data included in the indicator in a shorter period of time. Also, continued application will lead to improvements in the structure of the HEHI so that more reliable comparisons for each PZ will be made in the future. The methodology is mature enough to be adopted by the agencies in charge, however, continuous revision and evolution are desirable in any theoretical tool of this kind. In summarizing the advantages of the HEHI indicator, the first feature to highlight is its tailoring to the management objectives of the PZ management model. It is multidisciplinary, comprehensive, and quantifies the types of interactions present in PZs. Applying it is also quick and easy, and the methodology requires little training and few personnel. Thus, it is likely to be cost-effective for any agency that uses it. Ecosystem Health

Further, the structure of the indicator enables comparisons between different PZs. Applying the indicator through time to monitor the health of the areas is also possible. However, the evolution of the methodology did not allow for this in the work presented here. These two characteristics are instrumental to a notion of ecosystem health that extends to whole biological regions and beyond a limited time. The HEHI and its components allow an efficient allocation of resources to where they will have the greatest positive impact. It provides the possibility to understand what aspects or specific regions need more attention. Thus, it provides an example of how a holistic notion of ecosystem health is applicable to specific conservation problems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe deep gratitude to Mathew Moore and Thomas J. Semanchin, without whose drive and help this project would not be a reality. I would also like to acknowledge the help of my colleagues at the Center for Sustainable Development Studies in Costa Rica, especially Lisa Bradshaw, José L. Díaz, and Jorge Barrantes.

REFERENCES Aguilar, B.J., Moore, M., Carlson, E., Maier, M., Peine, M.A., Taylor, B., Young, D., Carl, D., DuBarry, M., Look, S., Micklethwait, D., Smith, M. (1996) Health determinant factors in privately owned managed ecosystems: Contributions to the development of socio-ecological indicators for protected areas in Costa Rica. Abstract published In: Ecological Summit 96. ISEM, IEES, ISEH, ISEE, Elsevier Science BV, SAS-Institute Denmark, and International Lake Environment Committee (org.), pp. 38.2. The Royal Danish School of Pharmacy, Copenhagen. Aguilar, B.J., Tull, J., Troya, Y., Hochauser, J., Díaz, J.L. (1995) Interactions between socioeconomic indicators and ecosystem health in privately owned protected zones in Costa Rica: Can sustainable conservation of natural resources be achieved without equity? Abstract published in Second International Workshop of the ISEE Russian Chapter “SocioEcological-Economic Systems: from Information and Simulation to Practical Solutions.” ISEE Russian Chapter, Russian Academy of Sciences, University of Pereslavl-Zalessky, Russian Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, Tiburg Vol. 5

No. 1

March 1999

47

University-European Center for Nature Conservation, ZEW-Center for European Economic Research (org.), pp. 2. Pereslavl-Zalessky, Russia. Ament, P., Berardi, E., Dowal, M., Goranson, C., Hersh, K., Mastriano, M., Parr, K., Provost, M., Merrin, T. (1997) Interactive Component of the Weak Holistic Indicator for the Cerros de Escazú Protected Zone. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Astaras, C., Coleman, K., Grossman, X., Kenney, H., Lucy, M., Yoder, A. (1997) The Application of the Weak Holistic Indicator as a Measure of Ecosystem Health for the Cerro Atenas Protected Zone. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Averett, J., Cohen, A., Luca, A., McBride, P., McManus, C., Seshagiri, N., Silverman, A., Solmer, J., Walla, S. (1997) Interactive Component of the Weak Holistic Indicator for the Cerros de Escazú Protected Zone. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Azar, C., Holmberg, J., Lindgren, K. (1995) Socio-ecological Indicators for Sustainability. Chalmers University of Technology. Goteborg University-Institute of Physical Resource Theory, Goteborg, Sweeden, Institute report, 1995, 01. Azzopardi, S., Dragisic, C., Holm, T., McBride, K., Lauraence, K., Singh, S., Stoduto, N., Walder, A. (1997) Continued Studies of the Social Health of the Surrounding Communities of Cerros de Escazú. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Banard, D., Dedhia, D., Herman, M., Keyes, M., Liu, J., Pazdera, K., Snider, A., Terveer, L., White, E., Yates, K. (1996) An Evaluation of the Ecological Health of La Carpintera Protected Zone. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Batista, Y., Goldberg, B., Holland, A., Lawson, S., Murray, K., Nader, I.I., G.Sharp, A., Shebitz, D. (1997) Evaluation of the Ecological Health of the Cerros de Escazú Protected Zone. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Beard, D., Irons, C., Jeske, R., Kola, L., Masters, T., Moore, J., Noorani, S., Twining, C. (1996) Survey of Socio-Economic Conditions of Communities Surrounding Rio Tiribi as an Indicator of Sustainability. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Boyce, J.K. (1994) Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecological Economics 11, 169–178. Bradley-Wright, F., Douthwaite, K., Guido, Z., Moore, K., Regan, K., Schwager, T. (1998a) The Holistic Indicator for Ecosystem Health: A Tool for the Effective Management of Costa Rica’s Protected Zones. Unpublished Technical Report. Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Bradley-Wright, F., Douthwaite, K., Guido, Z., Moore,

K., Regan, K., Schwager, T. (1998b) Reapplication of the Weak Holistic Indicator to the El Rodeo Protected Zone. Unpublished Report. Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Brundage, R., Bullock, S., Cook, C., Gilbreath, C., Goins, D., Jensen, K., Makri, A., Milder, B., Selby, T., Vacca, F. (1996) Interactive Study of the Ecosystem Health for the Rio Tiribi Protected Zone: A Compilation of Land Use, Riparian Compliance and Environmental Awareness. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Burns, A., Cronin, J., Donaldson-Fletcher, K., Groce, R., Knox, J., Wilber, J. (1998) Weak Holistic Indicator: A Reassessment of the Rio Grande Protected Zone. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Carl, D., DuBary, M., Look, S., Mickeltwait, D., Smith, M. (1996) Factors That Determine Ecosystem Health: Case Studies in the Southwest Section of the Central Valley in Costa Rica. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Carlson, E. (1997) The Integrated Index of Ecosystem Health: Development and Application to Six Protected Zones in Costa Rica. Unpublished thesis, Stanford University, California. Carlson, E., Maier, M., Peinne, M.A., Taylor, B., Young, D. (1995) The Creation and Application of a Holistic Indicator of Ecosystem Health in the Cerro Atenas and Rio Grande Protected Zones. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Chen, E., Drimusz, S., Jackson, D., McCall, J., Mehta, S., Shook, H. (1996) Cerros de La Carpintera Protected Zone: A Social Study of Ecosystem Health. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Clements, A., Culley, J., Daniels, D., Durrant, C., Miller, T., Rosenblum, B., Taverna, K., Weil, B. (1997) The Application of the Weak Holistic Indicator as a Measure of Ecosystem Health for El Chayote Protected Zone in the Central Valley of Costa Rica. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Cobb, C., Halstead, T., Rowe, J. (1995) The Geniune Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology. Redefining Progress, San Francisco, California. Cohen, J., Deal, S., Donovan, K., Finer, M., Gaddis, B., Peterson, D., Sylvester, S., Terrana, C., Torraca, M. (1996) An Evaluation of the Biological Health of the Tiribi Protected Zone. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Costanza, R. (1992) Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G., Haskell, B.J (eds) Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 239–256. Costanza, R. (1994) Ecological and economics system


48

Lélé, S. & Norgaard, R. (1996) Sustainability and the scientist’s burden. Conservation Biology 10, 354–365. Lindermann, E., Kadakia, M., Dunbar, S., Howe, K., Slavin, S., Kinsella, W., Dellor, E. (1996) Interactive Component of the Weak Holistic Indicator for the La Carpintera Protected Zone: Evaluating Interactions Between Human and Ecological Components. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Mageau, M., Costanza, R., Ulanowicz, R. (1995) The development and initial testing of a quantitative assessment of ecosystem health. Ecosystem Health 1, 201–213. Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica (1995) Costa Rica: Tendencias Sociodemográficas, Económicas y Ambientales 1980–94. MIDEPLAN, San José, Costa Rica. Odum, E. (1995) Profile analysis and some thoughts on the development of the interface area of environmental health. Ecosystem Health 1, 41–45. Powell, G.V.N., Bjork, M., Rodríguez, S., Barborak, J. (1996) Life zones at risk. Gap analysis in Costa Rica. Wild Earth 1995/96, 46–51. Rapport, D.J. (1995) Ecosystem health: Exploring the territory. Ecosystem Health 1, 5–13. Rapport, D.J., Costanza, R., McMichael, A.J. (1998) Assessing ecosystem health. Tree 13, 397–401. Schaeffer, D.J. & Cox, D. (1992) Establishing ecosystem threshold criteria. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G., Haskell, B.J (eds). Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 157–169. Tull, J. (1995) Ecosystem Health as a Paradigm for Analyzing the Link Between Biophysical and Socioeconomic Factors that Impact Protected Zones in Costa Rica. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Umaña, L.M. (1995) La Normativa Conservacionista de las Zonas Ribereñas en Costa Rica: Evaluación de su Eficacia. Unpublished thesis, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica. Willapa Alliance and Ecotrust (1995) Willapa Indicators for a Sustainable Community. The Willapa Alliance, South Bend, Washington. Winograd, M. (1995) Indicadores Ambientales para América Latina y el Caribe: Hacia la Sustenabilidad en el Uso de Tierras. IICA, San José, Costa Rica.

health and social decision making. Abstract published in 1st International Symposium on Ecosystem Health and Medicine: Integrating Science, Policy and Management. International Society for Ecosystem Health and Medicine, University of Guelph (org), Ottawa, Ontario, p. 24. Costanza, R. (1998) What is ecosystem health? Abstract published in Beyond Growth: Policies and Institutions for Sustainbility. Fifth Biennial Meeting of the ISEE. ISEE, Programa de Desarrollo Sustenable, Centro de Análisis de Políticas Públicas Universidad de Chile (orgs), Nov. 15–19, 1998, Diego Portales Convention Center, Santiago, Chile, p. 49. Cox, S., Kohli, A., Lavinthal, A., Maraboyina, S., Reyes, M., Smith, L., Tutschka, C., Walters, W. (1997) Evaluation of the Ecological Health of the Cerros de Escazu Protected Zone. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Ehrenfeld, D. (1992) Ecosystem health and ecological theories. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G., Haskell, B.J (eds). Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 135–143. Fleishman, F., Lau, C., Shafer, C., Spina, M., Turek, L., Wilcox, S. (1997) Health of Nine Communities Adjacent to Cerros de Escazú. Unpublished report, Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica. Freemark, K. & Waide, J. (1994) Assessing the health of managed ecosystems—Conceptual overview. Abstract published in 1st International Symposium on Ecosystem Health and Medicine: Integrating Science, Policy and Management. International Society for Ecosystem Health and Medicine, University of Guelph (org), Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 35–36. Hannon, B. (1992) Measures of economic and ecological health. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G., Haskell, B.J (eds). Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 207–222. Hite, R.L., & Bertrand, B.A. (1989) Biological Stream Characterization (BSC): A Biological Assessment of Illinois Stream Quality. EPA, Division of Water Pollution Control, Springfield, Illinois, IEPA/WPC/89–275. Karr, J. (1981) Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6, 21–27.

Ecosystem Health

Vol. 5

No. 1

March 1999