Możliwości mapowania partycypacyjnego w zakresie postrzeganych granic społeczności w centralnych Andach Ekwadorskich

• Authors: María F. López-Sandoval , Joel Salazar , Diego Gonzáles
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

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.

PL

W artykule przedstawiono, w jaki sposób mapowanie partycypacyjne może przyczynić się do zrozumienia lokalnych znaczeń w zakresie ograniczeń społeczności i postrzegania bezpieczeństwa posiadania wśród rolno-pasterskich społeczności Andów, które uczestniczą w programie płatności z tytułu świadczeń na rzecz ekosystemu (PES). Literatura przedmiotu wskazuje, że zwiększenie bezpieczeństwa posiadania może być dodatkowym elementem uczestnictwa w takich programach. Autorzy skupili się na programie ochrony „Socio Páramo” w celu przeanalizowania, w jaki sposób włączenie gruntów do tego programu wpłynęło na kwestię postrzegania limitów oraz bezpieczeństwa wśród lokalnych społeczności. Zostały zrealizowane dwa studia przypadków na wysoko położonych pastwiskach (páramo) w Ekwadorze. Najpierw użyto map szkicowych, aby dowiedzieć się, w jaki sposób obszar wpisany w program zmodyfi kował struktury przestrzenne terytorium społeczności i jaki typ ograniczeń znajduje się w danej strukturze. Następnie przeprowadzono spacery narracyjne. Badanie ujawniło, że: a) tytuł własności gruntów uzyskany w ramach wdrażania programu jest postrzegany jako warunek wstępny uczestnictwa w programie; b) kwestia wiedzy na temat ograniczeń społeczności páramo jest głównym problemem w przypadku osób starszych, którzy uważają taką wiedzę za kluczowy aspekt, jeśli chodzi o utrzymanie spójności danej społeczności. Wnioskujemy, że mapowanie partycypacyjne jest skutecznym narzędziem służącym wyjaśnianiu obaw dotyczących ograniczeń, zasad i kontroli użytkowania gruntów oraz trwałości życia wspólnotowego, czyli elementów, które należy uwzględnić przy wdrażaniu PES.

Keywords

EN

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

PL

mapowanie partycypacyjne; płatności z tytułu świadczeń na rzecz ekosystemu; postrzegane granice społeczności; Andy; Ekwador

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
• Journal: Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio B – Geographia, Geologia, Mineralogia et Petrographia
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 74

Dates

published

2019

online

2019-09-10

Contributors

author

María F. López-Sandoval

author

Joel Salazar

author

Diego Gonzáles

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

Identifiers

DOI

10.17951/b.2019.74.0.59-77