Influence of community-based natural resource ...

Influence of community-based natural resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems Ma del Mar Delgado-Serrano, Elisa Oteros-Rozas, Isabel Ruiz-Mallén, Diana Calvo-Boyero, Cesar Enrique OrtizGuerrero, et al. Regional Environmental Change ISSN 1436-3798 Reg Environ Change DOI 10.1007/s10113-017-1223-4

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by SpringerVerlag GmbH Germany. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy Reg Environ Change DOI 10.1007/s10113-017-1223-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Influence of community-based natural resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems Ma del Mar Delgado-Serrano 1 & Elisa Oteros-Rozas 2,3 & Isabel Ruiz-Mallén 4,5 & Diana Calvo-Boyero 5 & Cesar Enrique Ortiz-Guerrero 6 & Roberto Ivan Escalante-Semerena 7 & Esteve Corbera 5

Received: 2 May 2016 / Accepted: 9 September 2017 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Abstract Different social-ecological systems around the world are managed under community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) strategies. This paper analyses how CBNRM strategies influence the resilience of socialecological systems to the disturbances they face, drawing upon the experience of three Latin American cases (two in Mexico and one in Colombia). The cases differ in their CBNRM approach and in the time these governance systems have been in place. By using a mixed-method approach, we review the socio-ecological history and describe each

Ma del Mar Delgado-Serrano and Elisa Oteros-Rozas contributed equally to this work. Editor:Marc J. Metzger. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1223-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Ma del Mar Delgado-Serrano [email protected]

1

Department of Agricultural Economics, Universidad de Córdoba, Campus de Rabanales, C5, planta 3, 14071 Córdoba, Spain

2

Social and Participatory Action Research Group, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, Spain

3

Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

4

Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

5

Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

6

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia

7

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

CBNRM characteristics. We then assess their resilience to socioeconomic and environmental disturbances through a set of indicators. We found that CBNRM strategies influence positively and negatively resilience and that internal decisions might address important threats. On the positive side, the social-ecological systems with longer tradition of CBNRM and more local buy-in of commonly agreed objectives appear to be more resilient to environmental challenges. But, internal governance factors such as power imbalances, poor income distribution, and gender inequities linked to CBNRM undermine resilience and foster out migration. Finally, communities appear to have limited capacities to cope with external disturbances such as global drivers of change or national policies that negatively affect their social-ecological resilience. Keywords Adaptation . Environmental challenges . Global change . Rural communities . Social-ecological systems

Introduction The evolution of resilience thinking is coupled to the analysis of social-ecological systems (SESs) (Holling 2003; Folke 2016). When Berkes and Folke (2000) initially introduced the concept of SESs to describe the complex systems resulting from the co-evolution, adaptation, and mutual shaping between human groups and their environments, they defined resilience as the ability of SESs to cope with and/or adapt to disturbances through adjusting their characteristics. Since then, different authors have strengthened the research links between SESs and resilience. According to Anderies et al. (2006), resilience can be used as a framework to systematic thinking about the dynamics of SESs. SESs analysis is an emerging interdisciplinary arena where resilience can act as a bridging concept to explore the dynamics of complex

Author's personal copy M. del Mar Delgado-Serrano et al.

systems with varied contexts and to provide potentially innovative theoretical and applied insights (Baggio et al. 2016). Further, resilience thinking is a useful lens to improve the understanding of SESs (Folke 2016). The resilience of a SES has been defined as its capacity to sustain human well-being in the face of change, both by buffering shocks, but also through adapting or transforming in response to change (e.g., Nelson et al. 2007; Biggs et al. 2015). Hence, SESs are regarded as resilient systems when they respond positively to disturbances, changes, and uncertainties, and take advantage of the opportunities that result of crises while maintaining their social and ecological functions (Folke et al. 2003). These crises can be induced by rapid changes or shocks, but also by favorable circumstances of which SESs can take advantage (e.g., Gunderson and Holling 2001; Folke 2006; Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera 2013). Different rural and indigenous SESs with open access and collective property of resources are managed through community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) initiatives. CBNRM can be defined as the collective use and management of natural resources by a group of people with a self-defined identity, using collectively agreed strategies and assets (Fabricius 2004). CBNRM strategies aim to reconcile natural resources conservation objectives and local development efforts (Western and Wright 1994), assuming that local communities can play an important role in environmental conservation and sustainable development (Brondizio and Tourneau 2016; Delgado-Serrano et al. 2017). Such rural communities have historically developed different livelihood strategies to deal with disturbances by creating and enforcing customary natural resources management practices and institutions based on their own culture (e.g., Ostrom 1990; Colding et al. 2003; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2012). However, CBNRM initiatives are deeply affected by socio-political and economic processes across scales that create disturbances, challenging the local institutions and their capacity to access and sustainably manage natural resources (e.g., Dauvergne and Neville 2010; Cotula 2012; Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera 2013). In practice, CBNRM has been implemented under two different approaches (Shackleton et al. 2010) and with different degrees of success (Berkes 2004; Fabricius 2004; Blaikie 2006). Some CBNRM initiatives emerged as donor-driven alternatives to top-down resource management and conservation strategies (Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2003; Armitage 2005) aiming to support long-term sustainability through broad participation of community members and resource users in decision-making (Leach et al. 1999; Zanetell and Knuth 2004). Others resulted from community members’ efforts to create new political opportunities through which to regain control over resources and social justice (Hayes 2007; RuizMallén et al. 2015a). The role of governance in resilience analysis has attracted great attention, e.g., the approaches of adaptive co-

management (Dietz et al. 2003; Folke et al. 2005), adaptive governance (Olsson et al. 2006), and reflexive governance (Voss and Bauknecht 2006) emphasize how combinations of stakeholder involvement, trial-and-error-based policy experiments, and context-specific and network-based incremental policy making impact resilience and long-term sustainability in managing SESs (Duit et al. 2010). Evidence also suggests that indigenous knowledge and customary practices for conservation and livelihoods can reduce vulnerability to external threats while enhancing resilience (Kellert et al. 2000; Berkes 2004; Anderies et al. 2006). Further, the literature on resilience-based or adaptive management in CBNRM initiatives analyses knowledge construction and social learning, trust building, and social networks dynamics as multipleactors processes and from a multiple and interacting scales approach (Carpenter et al. 2001; Olsson et al. 2004; Anderies et al. 2006). Adaptive strategies and trade-offs (e.g., Carpenter et al. 2009; Berkes 2010; Folke 2016) and self-organization aspects of CBNRM enhancing or undermining resilience have been also empirically documented (Fleischman et al. 2010) and reviewed (Cox et al. 2010) through the lenses of the Ostrom’s (1990) framework. We aim to contribute to this body of literature by analyzing how CBNRM strategies influence the resilience of SESs to the socioeconomic and environmental disturbances they face, drawing upon the experience of three Latin American SESs in which rural communities manage their forests through different CBNRM arrangements. Specifically, we aim to: (1) describe how the socio-ecological histories shape each SES and its CBNRM; (2) characterize the CBNRM arrangements for forest management, with a focus on how internal and external disturbances influence CBNRM; and (3) qualitatively assess the resilience of each SES and the role of the CBNRM initiative in enhancing or undermining resilience to these disturbances. Understanding the context and the history, as well as the larger institutional dynamics that shape the governance systems, is critical to examine the resilience of the SESs and the extent to which CBNRM initiatives are able to deal with change (e.g., Kinzig et al. 2013).

Methods The case studies of Alto y Medio Dagua (AMDA) in Colombia, and Once de Mayo (OM) and Santiago Comaltepec (SC) in Mexico were part of two European research projects (COMET-LA and COMBIOSERVE) aiming to identify CBNRM sustainable practices in Latin America. These communities are located in areas of high ecological value where forests are managed under CBNRM initiatives. However, they differ in their governance systems and in the challenges they face. Table 1 describes the main features of each case.

Author's personal copy Influence of Community-Based Natural Resource Management strategies in the resilience of Social-Ecological... Table 1

Description of the case studies Community Council of Alto y Medio Dagua (Colombia) (AMDA)

Once de Mayo (Mexico) (OM)

Santiago Comaltepec (Mexico) (SC)

Location

Chocó biogeographic region ➔ Pacific coast ➔Buenaventura

South-eastern Mexico➔ State of Campeche ➔ Calakmul’s region

Population

1502 afro-Colombian inhabitants spread across six villages (Zaragoza, Km 40, Bendiciones, Triana, El Salto, and La Delfina) 12,335 ha

350 inhabitants of five ethnicities and mestizos in one village

Mesoamerican biocultural region➔ State of Oaxaca ➔ Sierra Norte de Oaxaca 1115 Chinantec inhabitants in a central nucleus (Santiago), and two agencies (La Esperanza and Soyolapam) 18,366 ha Logging, subsistence agriculture, livestock, sawmill, and ecotourism Lack of employment opportunities fostering migration High level of poverty

Area

Main Agriculture, artisanal gold mining, livelihoods logging, and fishing Lack of formal jobs High level of poverty and marginalization Tropical forest with high biodiversity Brief and abundant water resources description of the SES Closely connected to Buenaventura and Cali by a highway crossing the territory Armed conflict, paramilitarism, and illegal activities (mining, logging) Aerial spraying of glyphosate to eliminate coca crops affects health and ecosystems Incipient ecotourism initiatives Traditional ecological knowledge and ancestral habits that privilege conservation over exploitation References AMDA–CVC 2007 Ortíz-Guerrero et al. 2015

4117 ha Subsistence and commercial agriculture, husbandry activities, livestock rearing, wage labor, beekeeping, and cultivating vegetables Government subsidies for conservation High level of poverty and marginalization Tropical forest, biodiversity hotspot Local livelihoods are negatively affected by: uncertainty about chili prices, conservation regulations restrictions over the access and use of forest resources, and the limited capacity of surface’s soil to retain water Payment for Ecosystem Services, PES (water catchment) Conservation revenues are partially invested in livestock rising to compensate for declining and unpredictable chili prices INE 1999 INEGI 2010 Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015a

Data was gathered over a 3-year period, following a mixedmethod approach (Broderstad and Eythorsson 2014). As shown in Table 2, fieldwork in these three case studies Table 2

Temperate forests, mesophyll vegetation, and evergreen tropical forests Strong conservation values: highly diverse rainforest reserve (FSC certified) Payment for ecosystem services (water catchment) Benefits of forest exploitation and PES invested in collective goods and services without individual income delivery Incipient ecotourism initiatives

Escalante et al. 2015 INEGI 2010

comprised interviews (N = 49) and workshops (N = 28), complemented by transects (N = 5, in AMDA), and participant observation (Escalante et al. 2015; Ortíz-Guerrero et al. 2015;

Summary of data collection methods and samples in the three case studies

Interviews (N) Surveys (N) Workshops (N) Transects (N) Participant observation Participants Participant selection methods

Timing Data collectors

AMDA

OM

SC

18 – 5 5 Yes 22 participants on average Stakeholder mapping using as criteria knowledge about forest’s management and biodiversity, local inhabitants, and leadership February–June, 2014

12 39 3 – Yes 5 on average

19 – 5 – Yes 7 on average

Interviews with local stakeholders in CBNRM. Household surveys randomly selected. Two open workshops to interested community members and one specifically addressed to indigenous women Nov–Dec 2012 Sep 2013, Apr2014

Stakeholder mapping using as criteria knowledge about forest’s management, local inhabitants, and leadership

Third author supported by a local civil society organization

Researchers

Researchers supported by local co-researchers

May–June, 2013 May–June 2014

Author's personal copy M. del Mar Delgado-Serrano et al.

Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015b). Researchers spent between 3 and 4 months working with the communities and the research was conducted in Spanish, the local language. Interviews, workshops, and field notes were used to generate the local socioenvironmental narratives, and to characterize each SESs and the embedded CBNRM initiatives. Participants included local leaders and authorities, commoners, researchers, and public employees (e.g., representatives of government agencies playing a role in the area). A gender- and age-sensitive approach was applied in the selection of workshop participants and interviewees to balance men and women, and elders and youngsters, when possible. To explore how CBNRM strategies influence the resilience of the SESs, we followed three steps. First, we generated a timeline to convey the socio-ecological history of each SES (Electronic Supplementary Material 1), particularly focusing on CBNRM’s constitution and evolution, in the disturbances previously and currently faced and in the adaptive strategies used to cope with these challenges. Second, we explored the biophysical, social, economic, and institutional dimensions of each CBNRM by using a set of variables. We gathered and selected variables that had been previously used in seminal CBNRM research (i.e., Ostrom 1990, 1999; Josserand 2001; Agrawal and Chatre 2006; Basurto et al. 2013) and that fitted to our case studies’ context. Finally, we assessed the SESs resilience through a set of indicators related to six dimensions: ecosystems, biodiversity, knowledge, learning and innovation, governance and equity, infrastructures, health and education, and livelihoods, following the framework proposed by Bergamini et al. (2013). The values of the variables and the scores of the indicators were assigned following an established coding system, so even if they were qualitative in nature, they could be used for comparative purposes across our three communities (see Electronic Supplementary Material 2 for details). Indicators were scored from 1 to 5 and their evolution trend characterized as positive (+), negative (−), or neutral (0); a double sign meaning a strong trend (see Electronic Supplementary Material 3). Following MacQueen et al. (1998), two or more researchers coded each case to ensure replicability (Ratajczyk et al. 2016) and in general there were no big differences in the coding. In each case study, researchers conducted a content analysis of interview transcripts and observation notes by using these pre-defined categories for the sake of systematization. Outcomes were comparatively analyzed and we reflect on the influence of the CBNRM in the resilience of the SESs.

Local socio-ecological histories and their influence in CBNRM evolution The three SESs have developed different CBNRM systems that evolved influenced by different social-ecological

disturbances. For instance, deforestation and illegal resource extraction played a relevant impact in AMDA and SC, whereas internal conflicts and rainfall variability were highlighted in OM (Electronic Supplementary Material 1). Such disturbances together with the institutional settings in which these SESs are embedded resulted in different adaptive strategies. CBNRM are described according to their biophysical, social, economic, and institutional factors (Table 3). The institutional building process in the Colombian CBNRM AMDA’s territory became first inhabited in the early sixteenth century with the arrival of afro-descendent slaves evaded from sugar cane plantations in Valle del Cauca. The first settlers made their livelihoods from fishing, hunting, and food gathering in the forests. The most important environmental disturbance for decades was the concession by the Colombian government, in 1959, of 60,200 ha for timber exploitation to a paper mill, what led to deforestation. The company’s activities lasted until 1993 and attracted foreign labor force, creating few jobs for locals. That same year, the country’s Law 70/ 1993 granted afro-descendent communities the collective property of the state lands where they had traditionally lived, in return to sustainable management. Lands could be collectively entitled to officially recognized Community Councils (the Decree 1745/1995 formalized the guidelines to create community councils of afro-descendent communities). In 1998, the Decree 1320/1998 regulated the so-called public consultation process, giving the Community Councils the bargaining power to negotiate the conditions for executing external projects or state interventions in their territory. The AMDA Community Council was officially established in 2005 and 383 families were granted 4832 ha of land. Another 5071 ha were added in 2010. This year, this Council also exerted for the first time the right to negotiate the conditions for the broadening of the Buenaventura-Cali road that crosses AMDA territory, what contributed to empower and strengthen local capacities. Part of the received compensation was invested in reforestation projects and environmental research. AMDA’s young institutional building process has been influenced by socio-political and economic disturbances occurring across scales, including (1) the increased action of illegal armed groups linked to drug trafficking since 2006 and to mining fostered by the gold prices peak in 2009–2010; (2) national policies that reinforce conservation (e.g., the Biodiversity National Policy launched in 1996 and the National Biodiversity Policy for Management and Ecosystem Services launched in 2012); and (3) the geostrategic position of the territory that has attracted megaprojects and provided empowerment and financial opportunities, but also struggles with external actors.

Author's personal copy Influence of Community-Based Natural Resource Management strategies in the resilience of Social-Ecological... Table 3 Characterization of the different CBNRM systems according to the proposed variables. The letters correspond to the former literature works where the factors have been reported: (A) Josserand 2001; (B) Agrawal and Chatre 2006; (C) Ostrom 1999; (D) Ostrom 1990; (E) Basurto et al. 2013. The description of the scores is presented in Electronic Supplementary Material 2. Descriptive variables of the CBNRM

AMDA

OM

SC

Type of resource

Forest

Forest

Forest

Resource size (E) Resource manageability (A)

12,335 ha Medium

1558,74 ha; Little

18,636 ha Large

Resource quality/quantity predictability (E)

Large quantity and quality

Overall conservation state of the resource (B)

Good

Large quantity but medium quality Slightly deteriorated

Large quantity and quality Excellent

Biophysical factors

Definition of resource’s boundaries (D)

Clear

Partially diffuse

Clear

Type of pressure over the resource (B) Drivers of change

Extraction, degradation Direct + indirect

Control Indirect

Control Direct + indirect

1502 inhabitants (300 households approximately)

530 commoners

Large

Social factors Number of resource users (E)

Clear leadership within the community (A) (E)

Large

350 inhabitants (78 households), only 55 hold land tenure rights Medium

Leadership responsiveness and accountability (A) Community cohesiveness (A) (C) Legitimacy, trust, and reciprocity (C) (E)

Large Large Large

Medium Low Medium

Large Large Large

Medium

Medium

Medium

Full access and participation

Full for commoners; inequity for the rest Inequity Little Medium Little

Breadth of participation (A) Social (in)equity Gender (in)equity (B) Capacity building and training (A)

Equity Medium-Large

Inequity in access and participation Equity Medium

Networks and partnerships Innovation (A)

Large Medium

Large Little

Medium-large

Medium

Medium

Large Medium Medium

Little Little Large

Large Medium Medium

Shared knowledge about the resource (A) (E) Cultural dependence on the resource (E) Autonomy from external authorities (C) Capacity to negotiate with external actors (A) Economic factors Perceived benefit/cost of CBNRM (A) Benefit distribution among stakeholders (A) (B) Infrastructure and technology (A) External financial resources (A) Substitution for public investments (A) Access to markets (A) (B) Entrepreneurship (A) Resource dependence for livelihoods (B) (C) (E) Institutional factors Legal framework for CBNRM (A) Role played by collective-choice rules History of communal property rights (E)

Type of property rights over the resource History of CBNRM

More benefits

More benefits

Equal

Large Sufficient

Medium Insufficient

None Sufficient

Medium None Local/international (++) Medium Large

Large and available None Partly local/global (++) None Medium

Low Largely Local/international (+) Little Medium

Fully recognized Very important Officially entitled 10 years

Fully recognized Relevant 33 years internally and 20 years officially

Community-based Long history but recognized since 2008

Community-based Since 2008 to nowadays

Fully recognized Very important Over 500 years internally and more than 50 years officially Community-based Long history but recognized in 1953

Author's personal copy M. del Mar Delgado-Serrano et al. Table 3 (continued) Descriptive variables of the CBNRM

AMDA

OM

SC

Security of tenure (A) Conflicts (A)

Large Medium

Large Medium

Large So far, little

Conflict-resolution mechanisms (external and internal) (A) (D) Competition over resources (A) (B)

External: partially effective. Internal: mostly effective Medium

External: partially effective. Internal: ineffective None

Mostly effective

Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions (D) Monitoring mechanisms (B) (D) (E)

Partial

Partial

Partial

Absent

Present but ineffective

Present and effective

Enforcement mechanisms (B) (D) (E)

Absent

Present but ineffective

Present and effective

Rule compliance

Internal: large External: little

Internal: medium External: large

Large

AMDA’s Council currently faces important challenges such as outmigration, coordination difficulties with different public and private organizations in the region, illegal extraction of natural resources by external actors but also by locals (e.g., the strong family ties among community members complicate rules compliance, controlling, and sanctioning), and low accountability in public and private organizations. A CBNRM subject to land conflicts in Mexico In contrast with AMDA, CBNRM in OM has been highly dependent on funding from external institutions even though it emerged without any official support. In 1991, 3 years before OM was formally recognized as an ejido—i.e., communal land tenure rights—by the Mexican government, the collective management of forest resources started with the community decision of setting aside, as a forest reserve, an impracticable area for agriculture of 2012 ha in order to guarantee fuel wood and timber availability for community members. The federal government had by then already initiated actions to deter deforestation in the region by establishing the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve in 1989 and by providing reforestation subsidies to OM and other nearby communities. Many subsidies were oriented to forest activities that only benefited ejidatarios or landowners. Other initiatives encouraged communal work, such as an agroforestry plot cultivated by women and a government conservation program called Environmental Management Unit for Wildlife Conservation, but failed due to participants’ lack of commitment and willingness to work collectively. Deforestation within and around the village was thus not reduced and even increased due to the opening of new agricultural fields along the main road. Periodical hurricanes and extreme droughts also badly affected forested and cultivated areas and hence local livelihoods (Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015b). Such critical situation fed existing land conflicts between community members with and without land-rights. Although ejidatarios decided to expand the urban area to provide an urban plot to each landless household,

None

livelihood conditions of landless people were undermined by new internal rules limiting their access and use of forest resources. New government conservation programs benefiting ejidatarios in detriment of the more marginalized community members without land-rights fuelled such existing conflicts. The community joined in 2008 a 5-year payment for ecosystem services (PES) program for hydrological services and set aside 1436.74 ha of forests for which only ejidatarios get paid. The community’s involvement in the Environmental Compensation program with another 122 ha in 2012 resulted in new benefits for ejidatarios, thus aggravating the marginalization of landless households, whose population has been increasing. Moreover, in 2012 and 2013, floods ruined the harvest of maize and chili, increasing the dependence of households on government subsidies including conservation rewards. OM faces some challenges such as the fact that innovation capacity and individual entrepreneurship is today totally or partially supported by conservation subsidies exclusively targeted at land-right holders. Such inequities have generated internal conflicts, undermined the community cohesiveness, and weakened local leadership, trust, and legitimacy. The vulnerability to weather hazards is also a threat in the area. A long-lasting Mexican CBNRM The CBNRM in SC is the most ancient of the three studied, as lands were collectively managed before the Spanish colony. In 1659, indigenous dwellers established in this area requested the status of town, which was granted in 1735. Until the midtwentieth century, the community lived off crops and forest’s resources. In 1953, the Agrarian Law granted established families with community property rights over 18,366 ha of forest land. In 1961, the government gave a concession to FAPATUX, a paper company, to exploit the Sierra of Oaxaca’s forests, including Comaltepec’s. This resulted in the loss of 68% of the forest value (Chapela and Lara 1993) and strong impacts on ecosystems. FAPATUX prohibited traditional forest clearing and other practices, impeding agriculture

Author's personal copy Influence of Community-Based Natural Resource Management strategies in the resilience of Social-Ecological...

production and forcing inhabitants to work for the paper mill. In 1977, a massive migration towards the USA began. Since 1980, different communities in the region gathered to stop the government renovation of FAPATUX concession. After 2 years of hard struggles, they succeeded in regaining the rights to use their forests. Since then, reforestation started, commoners authorized only limited timber extraction, and the communal management of natural resources was strengthened. In 1985, four neighboring communities joined to create UZACHI, a technical unit to support forest management. As a result, in 1993, they developed and got approved by the government the first 10-year Management and Land Use Plan. In 1997, the Rain Forest Alliance certified UZACHI’s forest management system as Smart Wood, i.e. sustainable according to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards. In the second Management and Land Use Plan (2003–2013) approved, the community decided to extract three–four times less timber than the forest-carrying capacity. At this time, the tropical forest showed signs of deterioration due to the introduction of livestock and the opening of paddocks, but the mesophyll, pine, and oak woods were well preserved. In 2004, SC received the first PES for hydrological services. Since the same year, the community is developing ecotourism as a source of income. In the last 2 years, the communal paper mill has widened its production capacity, processing timber bought to neighbor communities. SC’s CBNRM initiative is highly respected and has derived in an environmentally sustainable forest management; however, it faces several social and economic challenges: (1) the benefits from activities are communally invested without any individual or household remuneration undermining livelihood options, (2) the inhabitants of non-central villages complain about unfair access to forest resources’ benefits and weak influence in the General Assembly due to their small number of representatives, and (3) the institutional arrangements represent very strict constraints to innovation and individual entrepreneurship, what triggers migration.

The influence of CBNRM in resilience Overall, the SESs managed under the studied CBNRM initiatives perform similarly well in the different resilience scores (Table 4). The most clear examples of this kind are the ecologically sustainable use of natural resources, the diversity of the local food systems, and the innovation in land management for improved resilience and sustainability. The three SESs also include practices of documentation and exchange of local knowledge between peers, and particularly women, even though there was lack of transmission of traditional knowledge to the youngsters; the support of CBNRM by regional institutions; the existence of reinforcement, participation, and deliberation mechanisms at the local level; and the diversity

of sources of income. However, the three cases also present differences in certain aspects, such as the rate of recovery from extreme social-ecological and climate change-related stresses and shocks or the local access to and use of resources being lower in OM. By contrast, SC has the highest scores in the maintenance, documentation, and conservation of biodiversity in the community, and the strength of the local economy. We argue that there are three key factors shaping SESs resilience: (1) the local heterogeneity of landscapes and the diversity of people’s livelihoods, (2) the shortages of knowledge exchange and inclusive participation in CBNRM governance, and (3) the need to get CBNRM externally recognized and supported across scales. Diversity of landscapes and livelihoods The score of the indicators related to ecosystems and biodiversity suggest that the three SESs are quite resilient. In all of them, the CBNRM is based on natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. Heterogeneous landscapes composed of different land-use types and ecosystems (e.g., forest patches, cultivated fields, and orchards) exist in the three cases. As in other management models such as government-led protected areas, in the studied community-based managed SES landscape, heterogeneity contributes to resilience through the availability of different ecological niches highly interconnected and the conservation of biodiversity (Fischer et al. 2006; Gomez-Baggethun et al. 2009). However, they differ in the rate of recovery from extreme ecological disturbances. In OM, droughts and floods’ damages are challenging sustainability because forest soils are thin and poor. Soil and weather conditions in SC and AMDA allow easier recovering from hazards, but the fragility of soils’ structure and the abundant rainfall contribute to AMDA’s vulnerability to landslides. Across the three communities, biodiversity is largely preserved through the conservation and use of local landraces even if traditional management does not promote food diversification. The availability and use of locally produced food vary across households in the three cases, and specifically in OM it is increasingly cultivated in home-gardens. Among the four elements proposed by Folke et al. (2003) for building resilience in SESs, nurturing diversity (as in food diversity) is a key to renewal and creating opportunity for self-organization. Landscape heterogeneity is also linked to the diversity of income sources, larger in SC and AMDA and more reduced in OM, but increasing in the three cases. CBNRM strategies ensure the persistence of subsistence agriculture and forest uses (e.g., community-managed logging in SC), which is critical for resilience, as these activities contribute to food security (Adger 2000). However, in SC, outmigration might threaten the maintenance of the local agricultural landscape and the collective management, hence compromising food security and sustainable natural resource management.

Author's personal copy M. del Mar Delgado-Serrano et al. Table 4 Indicators of socialecological resilience (modified from Bergamini et al. 2013). See Electronic Material 3 for the description of the scores.

Indicator

AMDA

A. Ecosystems (A1) Heterogeneity and multifunctionality of the landscape

OM

SC

5 (−)

4 (o)

5 (o)

(A2) Areas protected for their ecological and cultural importance

4 (+)

4 (o)

5 (o)

(A3) Ecological links between landscape components for sustainable production (A4) Rate of recovery from extreme social-ecological and climate change-related stresses and shocks (A5) Ecologically sustainable use of natural resources

4 (++)

3 (++)

5 (−)

4 (−)

2 (−)

4 (+)

4 (+)

2 (+)

4 (+)

4 (+)

5 (−)

5 (++)

2 (+)

2 (+)

2 (++)

3 (+)

4 (+)

3 (+)

3 (+)

3 (+)

2 (o)

4 (−)

4 (−)

4 (−)

4 (−) 3 (++)

2 (−) 3 (+)

3 (o) 4 (+)

4 (−) 4 (++)

2 (−−) 4 (+)

5 (o) 2 (+)

B. Biodiversity (B1) Maintenance, documentation, and conservation of biodiversity in the community (B2) Diversity of local food system C. Knowledge, learning, and innovation (C1) Innovation in land management for improved resilience and sustainability (C2) Knowledge access and exchange (C3) Transmission of traditional knowledge from elders, parents, and peers to the young people in a community (C4) Cultural traditions related to biodiversity (C5) Practices of documentation and exchange of local knowledge (C6) Use of local terminology or indigenous languages (C7) Women’s knowledge D. Governance and equity (D1) Support of CBNRM by international public policies

4 (+)

4 (+/−)

3 (+)

(D2) Support of CBNRM by national public policies (D3) Support of CBNRM by regional institutions (D4) Local resource governance: access

4 (+) 2 (++) 4 (+)

4 (+/−) 2 (o) 2 (−−)

2 (++) 1 (++) 5 (+)

(D5) Local resource governance: use

4 (+)

2 (−−)

5 (+)

(D6) Local resource governance: reinforcement (D7) Participation and deliberation mechanisms (D8) Conflict resolution (D9) Autonomy in relation to land and resource management (D10) Gender

3 (+) 4 (++) 4 (+) 5 (+) 4 (++)

2 (o) 4 (+) 3 (o) 4 (o) 4 (+)

4 (++) 5 (o) 5 (o) 5 (o) 2 (o)

4 (+) 4 (+) 4 (−) 4 (+)

3 (++) 3 (+) 3 (−) 3 (−)

3 (+) 3 (+) 4 (+) 4 (−)

3 (+) 4 (+)

2 (−) 3 (+)

4 (++) 4 (+)

E. Infrastructures, health, and education (E1) Infrastructures (E2) Health care (E3) Health risk (E4) Formal education F. Livelihoods (F1) Local economy (F2) Diversity of sources of income

The higher the score, the best performance. Trends shown in brackets. Score values and trends described in Online Resource 3

These local economies are only partially self-sufficient (self-organized) and external sources of income play an important role. For instance, remittances (in SC) and conservation and other incentives linked to CBNRM (in OM and AMDA) are relevant sources of cash for local inhabitants. These strategies can be interpreted as diversified sources of income increasing resilience (Schmook et al. 2013), but also

as a source of vulnerability due to people’s increased dependence on external funding sources, as well as unequal distribution of benefits as it has been documented in communitybased forest management (Almeida-Leñero et al. 2017). In this sense, the new local markets being established (e.g., SC wood provisioning in neighbor communities or small businesses close to the road in AMDA) can be identified as part

Author's personal copy Influence of Community-Based Natural Resource Management strategies in the resilience of Social-Ecological...

of a welfare improvement strategy while exemplifying how community members are receptive to changes. However, they do it to a limited extent due to the few opportunities available. Whether such feature might be maladaptation in the long-term is still unclear in OM, where an adaptation to climate variability and extreme events has been the adoption of more inputintensive practices. Such market-oriented strategy may decrease the use of local varieties and increase the dependence on external inputs, hence eroding food security (Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015b) and resilience.

low levels of schooling, reduced mobility and poverty. In OM, it was also noted that even if the need to diversify income sources is releasing spaces for women empowerment, currently implemented conservation programs are not contributing to this process because forest management and conservation activities (i.e., reforestation) are typically executed by men. Additionally, the CBNRM does not create spaces and opportunities for youngsters in any of the cases, fostering outmigration that decreases both resilience and CBNRM sustainability, due to the lack of labor to sustainably manage the territory.

Knowledge exchange and inclusive participation Local governance over natural resources The role of traditional ecological knowledge in building resilience to disturbance can be especially critical for communities whose livelihoods are directly dependent from natural resources (Gomez-Baggethun et al. 2009). Some weaknesses are evident concerning knowledge access, transmission, and exchange across the three SESs, suggesting that none of the CBNRM concentrate efforts in knowledge systems. The use and exchange of local and traditional knowledge on natural resource management is limited and occur occasionally or rarely (e.g., in OM, when people exchange seeds, they also give information about seeds’ characteristics and management). Only some adults and elders put this knowledge into practice and, hence, inter-generational knowledge transmission and recording are decreasing. This might indicate a loss of resilience in the system due to the lack of information, practices, and institutions to be drawn upon when a community confronts novel changes (Berkes et al. 2003; Berkes and Folke 2000). Similarly to the evidence from biodiversity reserves (Stollkleemann et al. 2006) and community-based managed forest areas (Agarwal 2009), the difficulty to exchange knowledge is enlarged by an unequal participation in CBNRM decisionmaking, particularly for youngsters (e.g., in SC), women (e.g., in SC and OM), and landless dwellers (in OM). For example, in OM and the non-central villages of SC, even those who are officially entitled to participate do not always attend the assemblies frequently because they think that their opinions are not heard or due to transport difficulties in SC. Women participation in decision-making is critical for adaptation (Nellemann et al. 2011), but the recognition of their role, however, is frequently limited in public spheres. In OM, women do not participate in CBNRM decision-making to the same extent as men (there are less women among land-right holders and they tend to participate less in the assemblies) and in SC, women’s roles are largely relegated to the domestic sphere (Delgado-Serrano et al. 2015). Conversely, in AMDA, women’s knowledge, experience and skills are mostly recognized, respected and used in collective decision-making, and in the productive and household spheres. However, their participation is often constrained by other factors, such as

The differences in conservation effectiveness across the studied SESs (being SC forests the best preserved and OM forests the most challenged) might be due to their governance regimes and socioeconomic disturbances (Cox et al. 2010). Property rights and collective-choice rules play a key role in successful CBNRM functioning (Corbera et al. 2007). Both are more equally distributed in AMDA and SC than in OM, strengthening internal cohesion and resilience. In SC, the CBNRM decisions led to ecological sustainability, but they are too rigid in terms of participation and inclusiveness, which decreases resilience to socioeconomic disturbances. OM has the lowest performance regarding sustainable resource use, which can be explained by its weak governance system. Internal conflicts and lack of social cohesiveness, population growth, and the expansion of the agricultural frontier contribute to weaken the CBNRM regime, which finds it difficult to legitimately establish and enforce sustainable resource access and use rules. All these factors combined challenge forest control and management and affect resilience negatively. Monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms to ensure compliance of conservation rules are highly effective in SC, but not yet fully developed in AMDA and not much effective in OM. In AMDA, there are no coercive mechanisms for sanctioning the violation of rules, probably because of (1) the early stages of the CBNRM and the need of time to implement different procedures, especially the most controversial; (2) the common cultural background of the population (that does not exist in OM), which in turn facilitates the use of corrective mechanisms to solve conflicts (like in SC); and (3) the absence of well-established internal control mechanisms. In both, AMDA and SC, conflict-resolution mechanisms are based on deliberation and have proved to be effective to correct errors and biases (Berkes 2007). In SC, the most mature of the three systems studied, conflict-resolution mechanisms have existed for centuries, and rules are obeyed by both community members and external actors. In AMDA, the internal conflict-resolution mechanisms, although informal, are mostly effective. However, they do not work with external actors. In OM, these mechanisms, especially when involving

Author's personal copy M. del Mar Delgado-Serrano et al.

land-right holders and not-holders, do not work effectively. This entails a challenge for resilience, since unequal power distribution and weak governance system might reinforce existing inequalities (Corbera et al. 2007; Nelson et al. 2007). Institutional cooperation and collaboration across scales is key to promoting adaptive and resilience-based governance systems (Cosens et al. 2014). The autonomy of the communities for CBNRM, as well as the rights to access and use natural resources, needs to be recognized and strengthened by external actors such as the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve in OM and the illegal armed groups in AMDA. In the three cases, CBNRM institutions are fully recognized and respected by the Mexican and Colombian governments. This is coherent with what Cudney-Bueno and Basurto (2009) reported elsewhere, i.e., that, even if cooperative management of common pool resources might emerge at a local scale, cross-scale linkages to formal rules and institutions at regional and national scales are needed or locally managed resources might fall prey to outsiders. Similarly, successful forest conservation outcomes of community-based conservation areas are linked to supportive conservation policies and institutions (PorterBolland et al. 2012). However, the upper-level organizations do not normally consider the priorities established by local communities in their natural resource management plans. In SC and AMDA, the right to exploit natural resources is associated with sustainable management plans, periodically checked by government environmental authorities. In SC in particular, the perception is that the Mexican government could change the legal framework regulating the collective property rights of indigenous communities by opening the option to private property on these land and resources, hence threatening the CBNRM, as has already happened in other ejidos (Haenn 2006). Moreover, in the three SESs, international public policies are only timidly supporting CBNRM initiatives, like in the case of the FSC certification granted to SC community forests. Open and frequent lines of communication, collaboration, and action between both formal and informal institutions at multiple scales, as well as bridging networks, might contribute to enhance SES’s adaptive capacity (Garmestani and Benson 2013; Cosens et al. 2014) and indicate a wider resilience. Finally, in the face of increasing socioeconomic pressures and climate variability, external economic incentives might be indispensable to support CBNRM in the long term. Community members have or have had access to several government programs and trainings, particularly related to PES (in OM and SC), fire prevention and control (in OM and SC), and forest management and leadership (in AMDA). However, in OM, the CBNRM has become totally dependent on these programs and PES monetary payments received by landowners’ families have also resulted in their main incentive for protecting the forest, which might undermine resilience in the short-term (Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015a). In contrast, in

SC and AMDA, government funding programs only partially supports CBNRM. These incomes positively affect resilience, as they are linked to sustainable environmental management and contribute to the area’s diversified livelihoods, but also might increase vulnerability if they disappear.

Conclusions Our research showed that the analyzed SESs permanently face different external and internal disturbances and that CBNRM strategies affect positively and negatively resilience. Aspects like non-externally driven CBNRM and longer tradition in CBNRM strategies support a better performance in several resilience indicators, particularly in those linked to the health of ecosystems and the maintenance of biodiversity. Further, CBNRM decisions and adaptive strategies have favored landscape heterogeneity and resulted in sound ecological management, livelihood diversity, and diversified sources of incomes that acted as resilience enhancers. Additionally, CBNRM has facilitated the attraction of funding and development opportunities. However, other internal aspects linked to the CBNRM governance and decision-making processes, such as inequity in access to resources and incomes, gender, and age inequity, poor knowledge management systems or aversion to risk and changes, negatively affect resilience, fostering migration and weakening the long-term sustainability of the SES. These factors are also commonly found in other management schemes such as biosphere reserves, but the main difference is that CBNRM strategies can contribute to address these potential adverse effects modifying their operational rules. We also found that the SESs remain highly sensitive to the disturbances created by global drivers of change (e.g., market prices, climate change, and availability of funding sources for conservation) and national dynamics (e.g., armed conflicts, legal changes, conservation schemes, and difficulties to recognize the CBNRM decisions across scales). All these aspects negatively impact resilience, but CBNRM strategies do not have the means to address them. They only could be confronted by collaborative cross-scale decisions and actions. Acknowledgements This research was funded by the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission in the frame of the projects BCommunity-based management of environmental challenges in Latin America- FP7-ENV2011-282845 COMET-LA^ and BAssessing the effectiveness of community-based management strategies for biocultural diversity conservation- FP7-ENV-2011-282899 COMBIOSERVE^. EC acknowledges the financial support of the UAB-Banco de Santander Talent Retention Programme and EOR acknowledges the Andalusia Talent Hub postdoctoral program. We also acknowledge the collaboration of the people in the Community Council Alto y Medio Dagua (Colombia), Santiago Comaltepec (Mexico), and Once de Mayo (Mexico) in the research. IRM acknowledges the financial support of the Spanish government’s Research Agency through a BRamón y Cajal^ research fellowship (RYC-2015-17676).

Author's personal copy Influence of Community-Based Natural Resource Management strategies in the resilience of Social-Ecological...

References Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related. Prog Hum Geogr 24(3):347–364. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465 Agarwal B (2009) Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecol Econ 68(11):2785–2799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.025 Agrawal A, Chatre A (2006) Explaining success on the commons: community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev 34(1): 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.013 Almeida-Leñero L, Revollo-Fernández D, Caro-Borrero A, Ruiz-Mallén I, Corbera E, Mazari-Hiriart M, Figueroa F (2017) Not the same for everyone: community views of Mexico’s payment for environmental services programmes. Environ Conserv:1–11. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0376892916000564 AMDA-CVC (Consejo Comunitario de la Comunidad Negra de la Parte Alta y Media de la Cuenca del Rio Dagua and Corporación Autónoma Regional del Valle) (2007) Formulación del Plan de Administración y Manejo de los Recursos Naturales en el territorio colectivo del Consejo Comunitario Mayor de la Cuenca Alta y Media del Río Dagua. Buenaventura, Valle del Cauca, Colombia Anderies JM, Walker BH, Kinzig AP (2006) Fifteen weddings and a funeral: case studies and resilience-based management. Ecol Soc 11(1):21 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/ iss1/art21/ Armitage D (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manag 35(6):703–715. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00267-004-0076-z Baggio JA, Brown K, Hellebrandt D (2016) Boundary object or bridging concept? A citation network analysis of resilience. Ecol Soc 20(2):2 https://doi.org/10.5751/es-07484-200202 Basurto X, Celcich S, Ostrom E (2013) The social–ecological system framework as a knowledge classificatory system for benthic smallscale fisheries. Glob Environ Chang 23:1366–1380. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.001 Bergamini N, Blasiak R, Eyzaguirre P, Ichikawa K, Mijatovic D, Nakao F, Subramanian S (2013) Indicators of resilience in socio-ecological production landscapes (SEPLs). UNU-IAS Policy Report. United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, Yokohama Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x Berkes F (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(39):15188–15193. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0702098104 Berkes F (2010) Devolution of environment and resources governance: trends and future. Environ Conserv 37(04):489–500. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S037689291000072X Berkes F, Folke C (eds) (2000) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) (2003) Navigating social- ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Biggs R, Schlüter M, Schoon ML (eds) (2015) Principles for building resilience: sustaining ecosystem services in socialecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10. 1017/cbo9781316014240 Blaikie P (2006) Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Dev 34(11): 1942–1957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.023 Broderstad EG, Eythorsson E (2014) Resilient communities ? Collapse and recovery of a social-ecological system in Arctic Norway. Ecol Soc 19(3):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06533-190301 Brondizio ES, Tourneau FML (2016) Environmental governance for all. Science 352(6291):1272–1273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5122

Campbell L, Vainio-Mattila A (2003) Participatory development and community-based conservation: opportunities missed for lessons learned? Hum Ecol 31(3):417–437. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1025071822388 Carpenter SR, Walker BH, Anderies JM, Abel N (2001) From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9 Carpenter SR, Folke C, Scheffer M, Westley F (2009) Resilience: accounting for the noncomputable. Ecol Soc 14(1):13 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art13/ Chapela FJ, Lara Y (1993) Impacto de la política forestal sobre el valor de los bosques: El caso de la Sierra Norte de Oaxaca, México. Estudios Rurales y Asesoría Campesina-World Wildlife Fund, Oaxaca Colding J, Elmqvist T, Olsson P (2003) Living with disturbance: building resilience in social-ecological systems. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 163–186 Corbera E, Brown K, Adger WN (2007) The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev Chang 38(4):587–613. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00425.x Cosens B, Gunderson L, Allen C, Benson M (2014) Identifying legal, ecological and governance obstacles, and opportunities for adapting to climate change. Sustainability 6(4):2338–2356. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su6042338 Cotula L (2012) The international political economy of the global land rush: a critical appraisal of trends, scale, geography and drivers. J Peasant Stud 39(3–4):649–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150. 2012.674940 Cox M, Arnold G, Villamayor-Tomás S (2010) A review of design principles for community-based natural resource. Ecol Soc 15(4):38 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art38/ Cudney-Bueno R, Basurto X (2009) Lack of cross-scale linkages reduces robustness of community-based fisheries management. PLoS One 4(7):e6253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006253 Dauvergne P, Neville KJ (2010) Forests, food, and fuel in the tropics: the uneven social and ecological consequences of the emerging political economy of biofuels. J Peasant Stud 37(4):631–660. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03066150.2010.512451 Delgado-Serrano MM, Escalante R, Basurto S (2015) Is the communitybased management of natural resources inherently linked to resilience? An analysis of Santiago Comaltepec community (Mexico). J Depopul Rural Dev Stud 18:91–114. https://doi.org/10.4422/ager.2015.07 Delgado-Serrano MM, Mistry J, Matzdorf B, Leclerc G (2017) Community-based management of environmental challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean. Ecol Soc 22(1):4. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-08924-210449 Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302(5652):1907–1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1091015 Duit A, Galaz V, Eckerberg K, Ebbesson J (2010) Governance, complexity, and resilience. Glob Environ Chang 20(3):363–368. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.006 Escalante R, Cruz A, Basurto S (2015) Community-based sustainable management and governance models in forest systems. [online] URL: http://comet-la.eu/index.php/en/publications.html Fabricius C (2004) The fundamentals of community-based natural resource management. In: Fabricius C, Koch E (eds) Rights, resources and rural development. Community-based natural resource management in Southern Africa. Earthscan, London, pp 3–43 Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD (2006) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Front Ecol 4(2):80–86. https://doi.org/10. 1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0080:BEFART]2.0.CO;2 Fleischman FD, Boenning K, Garcia-Lopez GA, Mincey S, SchmittHarsh M, Daedlow K, Lopez M, Basurto X, Fischer B, Ostrom E

Author's personal copy M. del Mar Delgado-Serrano et al. (2010) Disturbance, response, and persistence in self-organized forested communities: analysis of robustness and resilience in five communities in southern Indiana. Ecol Soc 15(4):9 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art9/ Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social– ecological systems. Glob Environ Chang 16(3):253–267. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 Folke C (2016) Resilience (republished). Ecol Soc 21(4):44. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444 Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F (2003) Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 352–387 Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 Garmestani AS, Benson MH (2013) A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological. Ecol Soc 18(1):9. https://doi.org/ 10.5751/ES-05180-180109 Gomez-Baggethun E, Olsson P, Montes C (2009) Learning with crises: building resilience to secure ecosystem services in Mediterranean resource management systems. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics Gómez-Baggethun E, Reyes-García V, Olsson P, Montes C (2012) Traditional ecological knowledge and community resilience to environmental extremes: a case study in Doñana, SW Spain. Glob Environ Chang 22(3):640–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2012.02.005 Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) (2001) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington DC Haenn N (2006) The changing and enduring ejido: a state and regional examination of Mexico’s land tenure counter-reforms. Land Use Policy 23:136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.07.002 Hayes TM (2007) Does tenure matter? A comparative analysis of agricultural expansion in the Mosquitia forest corridor. Hum Ecol 35: 733–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007-9117-6 Holling C (2003) The back-loop to sustainability. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge INE (1999) Programa de Manejo de la Reserva de la Biosfera de Calakmul. Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE), Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAT), Mexico INEGI (2010) Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, Campeche Josserand HP (2001) Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in Africa—a review. ARD-RAISE Consortium, Arlington Kellert SR, Mehta JN, Ebbin SA, Lichtenfield LL (2000) Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Soc Nat Resour 13(8):705–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419200750035575 Kinzig AP, Ehrlich PR, Alston LJ, Arrow K, Barrett S, Buchman TG, Daily GC, Levin B, Levin S, Oppenheimer M (2013) Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. Bioscience 63(3):164–175. https:// doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.3.5 Leach M, Mearns R, Scoones I (1999) Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Dev 27(2):225–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0305-750X(98)00141-7 MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Kay K, Milstein B (1998) Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Field Methods 10(2): 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X980100020301 Nellemann C, Verma R, Hislop L (eds) (2011) Women at the frontline of climate change: gender risks and hopes. A Rapid Response

Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRIDArendal, Arendal Nelson DR, Adger WN, Brown K (2007) Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32(1):395. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32. 051807.090348 Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T (2004) Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecol Soc 9(4):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-00683-090402 Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11(1): 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-01595-110118 Ortíz-Guerrero C, Farah MA, Ramos P, Maya D, Ocampo N, Avendaño B, Pinzon L (2015) Community based sustainable management and governance models in water and biodiversity systems. [online] URL: www.comet-la-eu/index.php/en/publications.html Ostrom (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Ostrom (1999) Self-governance and forest resources. CIFOR Occasional Paper No 20 Porter-Bolland L, Ellis EA, Guariguata MR, Ruiz-Mallén I, NegreteYankelevich S, Reyes-García V (2012) Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For Ecol Manag 268:6–17. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034 Ratajczyk E, Brady U, Baggio JA, Barnett AJ, Perez-Ibarra I, Rollins N, Janssen MA (2016) Challenges and opportunities in coding the commons: problems, procedures, and potential solutions in large-N comparative case studies. Int J Commons 10(2):440. 10.18352/ijc.652 Ruiz-Mallén I, Corbera E (2013) Community-based conservation and traditional ecological knowledge : implications for socialecological resilience. Ecol Soc 18(4):12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ ES-05867-180412 Ruiz-Mallén I, Corbera E, Calvo-Boyero D, Reyes-García V, Brown K (2015a) How do biosphere reserves influence local vulnerability and adaptation? Evidence from Latin America. Glob Environ Chang 33: 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.05.002 Ruiz-Mallén I, Schunko C, Reyes-Garcia V, Corbera E, Ross M (2015b) Meanings, drivers and motivations for community-based conservation in Latin America. Ecology and Society 20(3):33. https://doi.org/ 10.5751/ES-07733-200333 Schmook B, van Vliet N, Radel C, de Jesús M-CM, McCandless S (2013) Persistence of swidden cultivation in the face of globalization: a case study from communities in Calakmul, Mexico. Hum Ecol 41(1):93– 107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9557-5 Shackleton CM, Willis TJ, Brown K, Polunin NVC (2010) Reflecting on the next generation of models for community-based natural resources management. Environ Conserv 37(01):1–4. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/s0376892910000366 Stoll-Kleemann S, Bender S, Berghöfer A, Bertzky M, Fritz-Vietta N, Schliep R, Thierfelder B (2006) Linking governance and management perspectives with conservation success in protected areas and biosphere reserves. Perspect Biodivers Gov Manag 1:40. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1477200004001495 Voss JP, Bauknecht D (eds) (2006) Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Western D, Wright RM (eds) (1994) Natural connections: perspectives in community based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC Zanetell BA, Knuth BA (2004) Participation rhetoric or communitybased management reality? Influences on willingness to participate in a Venezuelan freshwater fishery. World Dev 32:793–807. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.01.002