IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i3p858-d312447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Practical Index to Estimate Mangrove Conservation Status: The Forests from La Paz Bay, Mexico as a Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanni Ávila-Flores

    (Academic Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Autonomous University of Baja California Sur, Baja California Sur 23037, Mexico)

  • Judith Juárez-Mancilla

    (Academic Department of Economics, Autonomous University of Baja California Sur, Baja California Sur 23037, Mexico)

  • Gustavo Hinojosa-Arango

    (CIIDIR Oaxaca, National Polytechnic Institute, Santa Cruz 95060, Mexico)

  • Plácido Cruz-Chávez

    (Academic Department of Economics, Autonomous University of Baja California Sur, Baja California Sur 23037, Mexico)

  • Juan Manuel López-Vivas

    (Academic Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Autonomous University of Baja California Sur, Baja California Sur 23037, Mexico)

  • Oscar Arizpe-Covarrubias

    (Academic Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Autonomous University of Baja California Sur, Baja California Sur 23037, Mexico)

Abstract

Mangrove cover has declined significantly in recent years in tropical and subtropical areas around the world. Under this scenario, it is necessary to elaborate and implement tools that allow us to make estimations on their conservation status and improve their protection and support decision-making. This study developed an index using qualitative and quantitative data. The criterions used in the index were: (1) Remnant Vegetation Index, (2) Delphi Method Survey, and (3) Rapid Assessment Questionnaire. In turn, the weights of the criterions were defined using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Once the values of each criterion were obtained, the index was applied to 17 mangrove communities located in La Paz Bay, Mexico. Finally, according to their score, they were classified based on the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. The results show that five communities were ranked in the category Minor Concern, eight in Little Threatened, one in Vulnerable, one in Endangered, and two were classified as Deficiency of Data. These results are slightly different from other studies in the region and validate this index as a proper method. Therefore, it could be applied to other sites, especially in areas with little information and/or scarce monetary resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni Ávila-Flores & Judith Juárez-Mancilla & Gustavo Hinojosa-Arango & Plácido Cruz-Chávez & Juan Manuel López-Vivas & Oscar Arizpe-Covarrubias, 2020. "A Practical Index to Estimate Mangrove Conservation Status: The Forests from La Paz Bay, Mexico as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:3:p:858-:d:312447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/858/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/858/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    2. Jarosław Wątróbski & Ewa Ziemba & Artur Karczmarczyk & Jarosław Jankowski, 2018. "An Index to Measure the Sustainable Information Society: The Polish Households Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-30, September.
    3. Carsten Hjortsø & Stig Christensen & Peter Tarp, 2005. "Rapid stakeholder and conflict assessment for natural resource management using cognitive mapping: The case of Damdoi Forest Enterprise, Vietnam," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 22(2), pages 149-167, June.
    4. Alonso Roldán, Virginia & Galván, David E. & Lopes, Priscila F.M. & López, Jaime & Sanderson Bellamy, Angelina & Gallego, Federico & Cinti, Ana & Rius, Pía & Schröter, Barbara & Aguado, Mateo & M, 2019. "Are we seeing the whole picture in land-sea systems? Opportunities and challenges for operationalizing the ES concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Muhammad Riaz & Wojciech Sałabun & Hafiz Muhammad Athar Farid & Nawazish Ali & Jarosław Wątróbski, 2020. "A Robust q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Information Aggregation Using Einstein Operations with Application to Sustainable Energy Planning Decision Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-39, May.
    2. Agnieszka Konys, 2019. "Towards Sustainable Entrepreneurship Holistic Construct," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-33, November.
    3. Fabio Blanco-Mesa & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & José M. Merigó, 2018. "Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 441-472, December.
    4. Elias G. Carayannis & Luca Dezi & Gianluca Gregori & Ernesto Calo, 2022. "Smart Environments and Techno-centric and Human-Centric Innovations for Industry and Society 5.0: A Quintuple Helix Innovation System View Towards Smart, Sustainable, and Inclusive Solutions," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(2), pages 926-955, June.
    5. José Manuel Cabello & Francisco Ruiz & Blanca Pérez-Gladish, 2021. "An Alternative Aggregation Process for Composite Indexes: An Application to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 153(2), pages 443-467, January.
    6. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    7. Agnieszka Konys, 2019. "Green Supplier Selection Criteria: From a Literature Review to a Comprehensive Knowledge Base," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-41, August.
    8. Gohari, Adel & Ahmad, Anuar Bin & Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard & Gohari, Ali & Hasan, Razi & Sholagberu, Abdulkadir Taofeeq, 2022. "Significance of intermodal freight modal choice criteria: MCDM-based decision support models and SP-based modal shift policies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 46-60.
    9. Cinzia Colapinto & Raja Jayaraman & Fouad Ben Abdelaziz & Davide La Torre, 2020. "Environmental sustainability and multifaceted development: multi-criteria decision models with applications," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 405-432, October.
    10. Martínez, Ricardo & Sánchez-Soriano, Joaquín & Llorca, Natividad, 2022. "Assessments in public procurement procedures," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    11. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    12. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara, 2022. "Collective action across boundaries: Collaborative network initiatives as boundary organizations to improve ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    13. Patryk Morawiec & Anna Sołtysik-Piorunkiewicz, 2022. "Cloud Computing, Big Data, and Blockchain Technology Adoption in ERP Implementation Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    15. Robert Chiles, 2013. "If they come, we will build it: in vitro meat and the discursive struggle over future agrofood expectations," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(4), pages 511-523, December.
    16. Nigel Adams & Adriano Augusto & Michael Davern & Marcello La Rosa, 2023. "Five guidelines to improve context-aware process selection: an Australian banking perspective," Papers 2304.05033, arXiv.org.
    17. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    18. Matheus Pereira Libório & Oseias da Silva Martinuci & Alexei Manso Correa Machado & Renata de Mello Lyrio & Patrícia Bernardes, 2022. "Time–Space Analysis of Multidimensional Phenomena: A Composite Indicator of Social Exclusion Through k-Means," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 159(2), pages 569-591, January.
    19. Aleksandra Bączkiewicz & Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Andrii Shekhovtsov & Mykhailo Yelmikheiev & Volodymyr Kozlov & Wojciech Sałabun, 2021. "Comparative Analysis of Solar Panels with Determination of Local Significance Levels of Criteria Using the MCDM Methods Resistant to the Rank Reversal Phenomenon," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-21, September.
    20. Lyon, Andrew & Hunter-Jones, Philippa & Warnaby, Gary, 2017. "Are we any closer to sustainable development? Listening to active stakeholder discourses of tourism development in the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve, South Africa," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 234-247.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:3:p:858-:d:312447. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.