Potentials of Participatory Mapping to Approach Perceived Community Limits in the Central Andes of Ecuador

María F. López-Sandoval, Joel Salazar, Diego Gonzáles

Abstract


This paper presents how participatory mapping can contribute to the understanding of the local meanings of community limits and perceptions about tenure security in agro-pastoral communities of the Andes, which participate in the payments for environmental services (PES) program. Literature about PES sustains that increasing tenure security might be an additional element of participating in such programs. We focused on the “Socio Páramo” conservation program to analyze how the inclusion of land in this program has infl uenced perception on limits and tenure security for the local communities. With two case studies in the high grasslands (páramo) of Ecuador, we fi rst used sketch maps to elicit how the area inscribed in the PES program has modifi ed the spatial structures of the community territory and what type of limits are found in this territory. Then, we conducted narrative walking to track GPS points with descriptions of land uses, perceived communitarian limits and narratives about meaning or concerns with regard to limits for the community and the relation between the legalized area inscribed in the PES program and tenure security. Maps were produced through GIS support and narratives were analyzed through thematic coding. The study reveals that: a) legal tenure obtained in frame of PES implementation is perceived as a pre-condition to participate in the program and has infl uenced positively or negatively land tenure security for the entire community; b) knowledge about community limits of páramo is the main concern for elder members, who regard this knowledge as the key element to maintain community cohesion. We conclude that participatory mapping is a powerful tool to elucidate concerns about limits, rules and control over land use and persistence of communitarian life, elements that should be considered when implementing PES.


Keywords


participatory mapping; payments for ecosystem services; perceived community limits; the Andes; Ecuador

Full Text:

PDF

References


Barry D., Meinzen-Dick R. 2008: The invisible map: Community tenure rights, [in:] 12th Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10535/1788 (access: 18.12.2018).

Bremer L.L., Farley K.A., Lopez-Carr D. 2014: What factors in fl uence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s Socio Páramo program. Land Use Policy, 36, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.002

Buytaert W.R., Celleri R., De Bievre B., Cisneros F., Wyseure G., Deckers J., Hofstede R. 2006: Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean páramos. Earth-Science Reviews, 79(1–2), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2006.06.002

Chambers R. 2006: Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x

Chapin M., Lamb Z., Threlkeld B. 2005: Mapping indigenous lands. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120429

Chimner R.A., Karberg, J.M. 2008: Long-term carbon accumulation in two tropical mountain peatlands, Andes Mountains, Ecuador. Mires & Peat, 3. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20103014300

Cochrane L., Cobett J., Keller P. 2014: Impact of community-based and participatory mapping. Institute for Studies and Innovation in Community-University Engagement. University of Victoria. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4522.5360

De Koening F., Aguiñaga M., Bravo M., Chiu M., Lascano M., Lozada T., Suarez L. 2011: Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(5), 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007

Evans J., Jones P. 2011: The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place. Applied Geography, 31(2), 849–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.09.005

Farley K.A., Anderson W.G., Bremer L.L., Harden C.P. 2011: Compensation for ecosystem services: An evaluation of efforts to achieve conservation and development in Ecuadorian páramo grasslands. Environmental Conservation, 38(4), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291100049X

Flick U. 2009: An Introduction to Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Hayes T., Murtinho F., Wolff H. 2017: The impact of payments for environmental services on communal lands: an analysis of the factors driving household land-use behavior in Ecuador. World Development, 93, 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.003

IIED, International Institute for Environment and Development. 2006: PLA 54: Mapping for change: practice, technologies and communication. Online: https://www.iied.org/pla-54-mappingfor-change-practice-technologies-communication (access: 20.12.2018).

Ingold T., Lee J. 2008: Ways of Walking: Ethnography and Practice on Foot. London: Ashgate.

Korovkin T. 2001: Reinventing the communal tradition: Indigenous peoples, civil society, and democratization in Andean Ecuador. Latin American Research Review, 36(3), 37–77.

López-Sandoval M.F. 2004: Agricultural and settlement frontiers in the tropical Andes: The Páramo Belt of Northern Ecuador, 1960–1990. Regensburger Geographische Schriften, 37, 386–390.

https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025[0386:AASFIT]2.0.CO;2

Luteyn J.L. 1992: Páramos: Why study them?, [in:] H. Balslev, J.L. Luteyn (eds.), Páramo: An Andean Ecosystem under Human In fl uence. London: Academic Press, 1–15.

Ma X., Heerink N., Feng S., Shi X. 2015: Farmland tenure in China: Comparing legal, actual and perceived security. Land Use Policy, 42, 293–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.020

Pagiola S., Arcenas A., Platais G. 2005: Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development, 33(2), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011

Palomo I., Martín-López B., Potschin M., Haines-Young R., Montes, C. 2013: National parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service fl ows. Ecosystem Services, 4, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001

PND, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2017–2021. Toda una Vida. 2017: Secretaría Nacional de Planifi cación y Desarrollo – Senplades 2017. Quito – Ecuador. Online: http://www.plani fi cacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2017/10/PNBV-26-OCT-FINAL_0K.compressed1.

pdf (access: 20.12.2018).

Rambaldi G., Kyem P.A., McCall M., Weiner D. 2006: Participatory spatial information management and communication in developing countries. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00162.x

Reyes-García V., Orta-Martínez M., Gueze M., Luz A.C., Paneque-Gálvez J., Macía M.J., Pino J., TAPS Bolivian Study Team. 2012: Does participatory mapping increase conflicts? A randomized evaluation in the Bolivian Amazon. Applied Geography, 34, 650–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.04.007

Sheller M., Urry J. 2006: The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38, 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268

Sierra R., Cerón C., Palacios W., Valencia R. 1999: El Mapa de Vegetación del Ecuador Continental, [in:] R.Sierra (ed.), Propuesta Preliminar de un Sistema de Clasi fi cación de Vegetación para el Ecuador Continental. Proyecto INEFAN/GEF y EcoCiencia, Quito, 120–139.

Sjaastad E., Bromley D.W. 2000: The prejudices of property rights: On individualism, specificity, and security in property regimes. Development Policy Review, 18(4), 365–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-7679.00117

Van Gelder, J.L. 2010: What tenure security? The case for a tripartite view. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.06.008

Wunder S. 2005: Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper, 42. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). http://hdl.handle.net/10919/66932

Wunder S. 2015: Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 117, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/b.2019.74.0.59-77
Date of publication: 2019-09-10 07:56:41
Date of submission: 2019-03-04 22:49:09


Statistics


Total abstract view - 1293
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 440

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.