Introduction
Protected areas can reduce forest loss and help conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services (Wade et al. Reference Wade, Austin, Cajka, Lapidus, Everett and Galperin2020, Liu et al. Reference Liu, Ziegler, Wu, Liang, Wang and Xu2022), supporting national and international conservation strategies with the backing of governments and institutions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (Hu et al. Reference Hu, Wang, Ma, Huang, Huang and Zhou2022). Forest extent has increased by 191 million ha globally within these areas since 1990 (FAO 2020). However, these protected areas face threats, including land-use change, invasive species, social and political issues, institutional barriers, incomplete legislation, inadequate public funding, habitat loss, pollution, diseases, climate change and conflicts with human rights, development and poverty reduction (Brenner Reference Brenner2006, He & Cliquet Reference He and Cliquet2020, Hoffmann Reference Hoffmann2022). This situation is made worse by some protected areas being designed and managed based primarily on physical and biological factors (Stewart & Possingham Reference Stewart and Possingham2005). However, natural resource conservation must also consider the local human population and the socioeconomic environment (López-Barrera et al. Reference López, Velázquez and Merino2010, Oldekop Reference Oldekop, Holmes, Harris and Evans2015, Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Xiao, Cao, Zheng, Guo, Gong and Wei2020, Kegamba et al. Reference Kegamba, Sangha, Wurm and Garnett2022). Without these considerations, conservation policies may result in restrictions on using those natural resources that are essential to the livelihoods of local inhabitants. This may provoke resentment and actions against conservation, accelerating the degradation of the natural resources they were intended to conserve (Honey Reference Honey1999, Kegamba et al. Reference Kegamba, Sangha, Wurm and Garnett2022). Thus, particular attention must be given to improving public participation and awareness (He & Cliquet Reference He and Cliquet2020) and the potential conflict with poverty reduction if local people are displaced or their access to natural resources is restricted by regulations (Hoffmann Reference Hoffmann2022). This conflict underscores the need for careful planning and the consideration of social implications in conservation efforts. Conflicts between local people and protected areas are common in developing countries (Maikhuri et al. Reference Maikhuri, Nautiyal, Rao, Chandrasekhar, Gavali and Saxena2000). Thus, creating new protected areas requires thorough justification and implementation, accounting for any impacts on surrounding communities (McGinlay et al. Reference McGinlay, Jones, Malesios, Dimitrakopoulos, Begley and Berzborn2023). While past protected areas failed to recognize local rights, new approaches must actively promote people’s participation in decisions affecting them (Iannuzzi et al. Reference Iannuzzi, Santos and Mourato2020).
In Mexico, protected areas for biodiversity grew by 8.1% annually from 1990 to 2015, adding 962 000 ha annually. Forest cover increased from 3.8 to 8.8 million ha between 2000 and 2015 (FAO 2015). As in other Latin American or Sub-Saharan countries (Lockwood Reference Lockwood2010, Antoni et al. Reference Antoni, Huber-Sannwald, Reyes, van’t Hooft and Schoon2019), these protected areas were established on communal lands owned and managed collectively by local communities. This communal land tenure situation introduces additional complexity, as protected areas on these lands restrict traditional resource use and alter local governance and community participation in forest management (Elías Reference Elías2012).
In the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve (MBBR) in Mexico, the creation decree and subsequent modifications did not change the communal land ownership model (ejidos and communities). However, these decrees did limit the use of communal lands and forests and restricted traditional agricultural practices, reducing local control over the land and impacting local livelihoods (Brenner Reference Brenner2009, Honey-Rosés Reference Honey-Rosés2009, Merino-Pérez & González-Duarte Reference González-Duarte2021). Although the ejido is a solid land tenure system, deforestation can still occur in these communally owned areas due to disputes over land rights, illegal logging and decisions made by the ejidal assembly, which controls the use of forest resources (Duran et al. Reference Durán, Bray, Velázquez and Larrazábal2011, Brenner & San German Reference Brenner and San German2012, Morett-Sánchez Reference Morett-Sánchez and Cosío-Ruiz2017).
The decrees establishing the monarch butterfly overwintering and reproduction areas significantly transformed the region’s socioeconomic and forestry dynamics. The 1980 decree designated these areas as a reserve and wildlife refuge but did not specify the area to be protected or activities to be restricted (DOF 1980). The 1986 decree declared protected areas for butterfly migration, overwintering and reproduction, covering 16 110 ha in Estado de México and Michoacán. The core zone enforced a complete and indefinite ban on logging and exploiting flora and fauna, while the buffer zone enforced only temporary restrictions (DOF 1986). The third decree of 2000 expanded the protected area to 56 269.05 ha, designating it as a Biosphere Reserve. The core zone permitted only preservation, research and environmental education, prohibiting the exploitation of forests and other flora and fauna. The buffer zone allowed logging and harvesting with authorization from the environmental agency (DOF 2000).
Between 1971 and 1999, before the area was designated as a Biosphere Reserve, the forest experienced severe fragmentation and degradation (Brower et al. Reference Brower, Castilleja, Peralta, López-García, Bojórquez-Tapia and Díaz2002). This was particularly pronounced when some agrarian communities cleared their forests upon learning of the second decree (WWF 2004). A field visit in 1987 revealed illegal logging of the fir trees favoured by the butterflies; in defiance of the decree, the communities responded by stating, ‘When they come, they will find nothing left.’ In response to the third decree, illegal logging intensified (López-García et al. Reference López-García, Navarro-Cerrillo and Manzo-Delgado2022), with communities burning and logging their lands within the common property or even sabotaging their neighbours’ lands in protest against the restrictions (Carbale et al. Reference Carbale, Chapela and Madrid1997). This pre-emptive behaviour has also been observed in northern Mexico (Blackman et al. Reference Blackman, Pfaff and Robalino2015) and other countries such as Madagascar (Llopis et al. Reference Llopis, Harimalala, Bär, Heinimann, Rabemananjara and Zaehringer2019), Argentina (Nolte et al. Reference Nolte, Gobbi, le Polain de Waroux, Piquer-Rodríguez, Butsic and Lambin2018) and Brazil (Brown et al. Reference Brown, Brown and Brown2016). In this context, ‘pre-emptive behaviour’ describes an intensification of resource extraction activities undertaken in anticipation of the enforcement of stricter land-use regulations (Nolte et al. Reference Nolte, Gobbi, le Polain de Waroux, Piquer-Rodríguez, Butsic and Lambin2018, Llopis et al. Reference Llopis, Harimalala, Bär, Heinimann, Rabemananjara and Zaehringer2019).
The 2000 proposal had included part of the Francisco Serrato ejido in the new core zone; however, after negotiations, the entire ejido was left in the buffer zone. In response, the ejido logged almost all of its land between 2001 and 2003 (WWF 2004). By 2012, 1254 ha of the core zone had been deforested, 925 ha had been degraded and 122 ha had been affected by climatic events (Vidal et al. Reference Vidal, López-García and Rendón-Salinas2013). After 2012, logging was minimal, but in November 2015, 10 ha of well-preserved forest were cleared (Brower et al. Reference Brower, Slayback, Jaramillo-López, Ramirez, Oberhauser, Williams and Fink2016). Between 1994 and 2017, 10.5% of the core zone was degraded and 10% was deforested, while in the buffer zone 8.2% was degraded and 5.1% was deforested (López-García et al. Reference López-García, Navarro-Cerrillo and Manzo-Delgado2022).
The limitations and prohibition of productive activities generated changes in forest-cover density, including the accumulation of leaves, branches, grasses and dry trunks, which became potential fuel for forest fires (Tucker Reference Tucker2004). Fire prevention and suppression programmes have been implemented since the Reserve was created (CONANP 2001), and a fire management plan has also been created (Pérez-Salicrub et al. Reference Pérez-Salicrup, Martínez-Torres, Del Río and Garduño-Mendoza2017).
Along with the MBBR, a conservation fund was established in 2000 in Mexico through payments for environmental services (PES) to incentivize forest protection (Honey-Rosés Reference Honey-Rosés, LeQuesne and McNally2005, Missrie & Nelson Reference Missrie and Nelson2005). Participation in the PES programme increased over time, with 78.5% of the core zone enrolled between 2000 and 2006, rising to 89% by 2009 and to 96.5% by 2018. Currently, 91.3% of the area receives PES, while 5.2% is government-owned and so is not included (MBF 2021). In addition, the National Forestry Commission and Protectora de Bosques implemented hydrological PES programmes in the region in 2004 and 2007, respectively (Alix-Garcia et al. Reference Alix-Garcia, de Janvry, Sadoulet and Torres2009, Probosque 2024), significantly contributing to forest recovery. Enrolment in the PES programme has been a success, possibly because it has been reported that it strengthens cooperation and collective action within and between communities, and communities consider the payments to be fair despite the programme having only a small positive impact on poverty reduction (Nieratka et al. Reference Nieratka, Bray and Mozumder2015).
This study aims to determine how well the MBBR functions as a conservation mechanism to prevent land-use change and degradation of forest cover in the context of communal lands and a lack of public consultation and involvement. We conducted a multi-temporal analysis using aerial photographs, orthophotographs and satellite imagery to assess forest-cover changes over 50 years, starting 5 years before the protected area was first decreed. The analysis considers possible interrelationships between community actions and conservation outcomes.
Materials and methods
Study area
The La Hacienda watershed is in the central portion of the MBBR, spanning the border between Estado de México and Michoacán. It covers an area of 1818.64 ha, with 33% located in the core zone and 67% in the buffer zone (Fig. 1). This mountainous region has an altitude ranging from 2740 to 3640 m. Communal land tenure comprises seven ejidos and two Indigenous communities, with four ejidos occupying 95% of the watershed (El Rosario, La Mesa, Francisco Serrato and El Paso). The ejido El Rosario covers 53.4% of the watershed, with 5.4% in the core zone and 48% in the buffer zone. The regional economy is based on agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and tourism. The watershed’s headwaters include the ejidos Francisco Serrato (12%) to the south and La Mesa (23%), located within the Reserve’s core zone to the west.
Figure 1. Location of La Hacienda watershed within the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve.
Image preprocessing
Panchromatic aerial photographs from 1971 and 1984, orthophotographs from 1994, SPOT satellite images from 2004 and 2015 and Google Earth imagery (Google Earth ©) from 2021 were used. All of these materials were from January to March. Orthomosaics were constructed from the 1971 and 1984 aerial photographs, with spatial resolutions of 1.7 and 1.6 m/pixel and mean square errors of 2.5 and 2.8 m, respectively. A digital elevation model with 20-m contour lines and 1994 digital orthophotographs with 2-m spatial resolution were used as supplementary data for image georeferencing. The SPOT images were radiometrically and geometrically corrected, and the multispectral image was combined with the panchromatic image to improve spatial resolution. The spatial resolutions of these materials ranged from 1.5 to 2.5 m (scale 1:5000), which enabled an adequate comparative analysis with a minimum mappable area of 625 m2 (5 × 5 mm) for deforested and non-forest areas (Salichtchev Reference Salichtchev1979) and more than 5000 m2 for forests (FRA 2000).
Image interpretation
Five levels of forest-cover density (separation of the treetops) were identified through image interpretation: areas with <10% were classified as deforested (<50 trees/ha; FAO 2010), those between 11% and 25% were classified as open forest (50–200 trees/ha), those between 26% and 50% were classified as semi-open (200–350 trees/ha), those between 51% and 75% were classified as semi-closed (350–500 trees/ha) and those >75% were classified as closed (in general, forests in a good state of conservation, with >500 trees/ha on average; López-García Reference López-García2011). Cropland and pasture were considered non-forest (López-García Reference López-García2011, López-García et al. Reference López-García, Prado-Molina, Manzo-Delgado and Peralta-Higuera2016).
A map of the 1971 forest-cover density and vegetation types was generated by photointerpretation (scale of 1:5000) from elements such as the texture, tone, shade of the trees and shape using panchromatic aerial photographs, where the stereoscopic model of conifers has different characteristics (pines have a light grey tone and a semi-rounded shape; firs has a dark tone and a conical shape; oaks have a dark tone, rounded crowns and low height). The combination of these shapes and tones allowed us to identify the vegetation associations and their density; the above cover density criteria were used (López-García Reference López-García2009, Reference López-García2011).
Once the 1971 map was complete, it was overlaid onto the 1984 orthophotograph to modify only the changed polygons through photointerpretation. The resulting 1984 coverage density map was used similarly to determine the coverage density in 1994. The 1994 coverage was overlaid onto the 2004 SPOT image, and, by visual interpretation, the polygons that changed were modified successively for 2015 and 2021. This method reduces digitization errors by not modifying polygons that do not change over time (FAO 1996). Field trips and vegetation sampling complemented the 2015 interpretation. All images were georeferenced to the UTM coordinate system with a WGS84 reference datum.
Accuracy assessment
For 1971, 1984 and 1994, no other data sources of similar spatial resolution were available to conduct a verification. However, the maps of these years were produced by an expert photo interpreter to ensure the accuracy of the analysis. The 2004, 2015 and 2021 maps were verified by a stratified random sampling using Planet images from close dates, and the accuracy was determined using the Kappa index. Additionally, for 2015, the vegetation types and density of forest cover were verified through field trips between November 2015 and March 2016. Six circular samples of 1000 m2 were established in previously marked sites in homogeneous areas that differed in their density of forest cover Appendix S1 & Fig. S1). In each sample, the density of forest cover and the vegetation type were determined, height and diameter at breast height were measured and dendrochronological samples were taken from five to seven trees to determine the age of the trees (Appendix S1 & Fig. S2). These data were georeferenced using a global positioning system (GPS) to validate the supervised classification of the SPOT image and obtain the overall accuracy. According to the Kappa index, the polygons derived from the 2004 SPOT imagery had an accuracy level of 0.84. In 2015, the accuracy increased to 0.88, while the 2021 Google Earth-based maps achieved a Kappa index of 0.85. The variability in omission and commission errors was primarily due to differences in texture and shading between the SPOT and Google Earth data, which affected the assignment of cover density. The validation of the 2015 vegetation types resulted in an overall accuracy of 0.86.
Analysis of change processes
Change matrices were generated to distinguish the change processes. The matrix cells above the diagonal show the disturbance processes, forest degradation, deforestation and land-use change to agriculture; the cells below the diagonal show the recovery processes, densification, reforestation and afforestation. Forest disturbance processes are forest degradation, which is the decrease in tree density (change of cover from closed to semi-closed, from closed to semi-open, from closed to open, from semi-closed to semi-open, from semi-closed to open or from semi-open to open), and densification means the opposite. Deforestation is the reduction of the density of forest cover to <10% (the change of closed, semi-closed, semi-open or open cover to deforested), and reforestation means the opposite. Land-use change to agriculture is the transition from forest (closed, semi-closed, semi-open or open) to agricultural land, and afforestation means the opposite.
Participatory fieldwork
The experience accumulated over more than two decades working in this region allowed us to get closer to the communities and ejidos in order to learn their views on the importance of conserving the forest and aquifer recharge to develop productive activities such as trout farming (López et al. 2014, Manzo et al. Reference López-García, Manzo-Delgado and Alcántara-Ayala2014). Living alongside these communities also provided insights into the conflicts and disputes generated by the selective support from government programmes. In 2010, we conducted semi-structured interviews (Appendix S1) with local stakeholders (ejido and community representatives, local people, non-governmental organizations and government agencies) to gather qualitative information on forest-change processes. In particular, in May 2010, we conducted participatory fieldwork and interviews with 18 inhabitants of the El Rosario ejido to verify the impacts of the heavy rains and mudslides of February 2010, which had destroyed more than half of the local trout farms (Mr José Felix Moreno Argueta, personal communication 2010). Interviewees also shared information on the Procampo and CONAFOR programmes that supported the afforestation of agricultural land and reforestation of deforested areas in the region.
Results
Changes in forest cover
Between 1971 and 2021, the La Hacienda watershed constantly shifted between forest density categories. Some areas were deforested, while others became forested. The net loss in the closed density area was only 24 ha (of 843.9 ha), representing a loss of 2.8% at 0.48 ha/year; 21.7% of the area increased its cover density, and 23.7% decreased its cover density (Table 1). Meanwhile, the deforested area increased by 110.7 ha (2.2 ha/year, equivalent to 13.1% of the total), while 25 ha were converted to forest from agriculture. The forest- cover category that changed the most was the semi-closed forest, which reduced from 104 to 68 ha in these 50 years, equivalent to a 35% net loss at 0.7 ha/year, where 59.8% changed to closed density and 36.8% to the other types of densities, including semi-open and open (3.3%), deforested (26.2%) and non-forested (7.3%) areas. Semi-open forest decreased very slightly (Table 1). Despite these changes, after 50 years, closed density remained the most prominent area type, followed by non-forest, deforested and the other types of densities.
Table 1. Changes in the areas of the forest density categories between 1971 and 2021. On the diagonal are areas that did not change; above the diagonal are disturbances, and below the diagonal are recoveries. Bold numbers highlight the most significant changes.
All categories had negative net annual rates of change of less than 1 ha, except for the deforested category, which increased by more than 2 ha/year (Table 2). Closed cover decreased in 1984–1994, before becoming more drastic in 1994–2004, with an overall net annual rate of –0.49 ha/year. The semi-closed category decreased overall, but not during the second period, registering an overall net annual rate of –0.73 ha/year. The deforested category increased in 1984–1994 and 1994–2004, with a net change rate of 2.30 ha/year. The non-forested category increased in the second period, after which it began to decrease, registering 28.7 ha less than the initial year, achieving a net change rate of –0.57 ha/year (Table 2).
Table 2. Estimated land-cover area for the La Hacienda watershed and land-cover changes by period. Bold numbers highlight the most significant changes.
Change processes
Over the 50 years assessed, the net change between recovery and disturbance processes was a 3% decline, with a quarter of the changes attributable to deforestation. Deforestation was the dominant disturbance factor between 1971 and 2021, followed by forest degradation. The most significant recovery process was forest densification. The final outcome showed deforestation exceeding reforestation by 6%, with 46.4% of the watershed undergoing some change. Before the monarch butterfly’s overwintering areas were identified, from 1971 to 1984, forest densification exceeded degradation by 8.9%, reforestation exceeded deforestation by 6.1% and agricultural land use increased slightly by 2.1% (Figs 2 & 3 & Table 3). Between 1984 and 1994, disturbance processes exceeded recovery by 8.6%, mainly due to logging throughout almost the entire Francisco Serrato ejido. Forest degradation was the dominant disturbance type, followed by agricultural land-use change and deforestation, mostly because the Francisco Serrato ejido did not participate in the PES programme. From 1994 to 2004, the watershed experienced significant land-use changes (34.7%), 29.4% of which were disturbances and 5.3% represented recovery. This period saw the greatest deforestation (18%) and the most significant decrease in forest-cover density (10.4%). There was a high rate of change in the closed forest cover, primarily towards deforestation. Deforestation outpaced reforestation by 15.4%, and forest degradation outweighed densification by 9.1%. Forest recovery was negligible compared to forest disturbance. Between 2004 and 2015, forest recovery dominated forest disturbance. Densification exceeded degradation by 11.5%, and recovery outweighed disturbance by 18.9%. In the 2015–2021 interval, recovery – although less intense – continued to predominate over disturbance. From 1971 to 2021, deforestation only exceeded reforestation by 6.1%. The balance between forest densification and forest degradation was positive (1.6%), as was the balance between land-use change to agriculture and afforestation (1.4%; Figs 2 & 3 & Table 3).
Figure 2. Processes of change in La Hacienda watershed.
Figure 3. Sequence of forest cover in La Hacienda watershed from 1971 to 2021.
Table 3. Percentage contributions of various change processes by period.
Changes in vegetation
From 1971 to 2015, the temperate forests in the watershed experienced significant changes. In 1971, temperate forests covered 1087.8 ha, dominated by pure fir forests associated with pine and oak (96.9%) and pine forests (3.1%; Appendix S1 & Table S1). Over the subsequent 44 years, the conifer forest decreased to 952.4 ha, and the fir forest and its associations decreased to 56.7%, while the fir–pine association increased by 65% (to 95.5 ha). During this time, pine forests increased by 83% (163.5 ha), and new associations of pine forests with fir and oak (29.9%) and small forests of alder and cedar developed (1%; Appendix S1 & Table S1). Logging activities affected the forests from 1984 to 1994; 210 ha were cut, 49.0% corresponding to forest degradation, 26.4% to deforestation and 24.6% to conversion to agriculture. The period 1994–2004 saw even more extensive disturbances, with 457 ha affected, of which 36.6% was forest degradation, 60.3% was deforestation and 3.1% was conversion to agriculture. These changes in the pure fir stands reduced the possibility of monarch butterfly overwintering.
The ejidos El Rosario and Francisco Serrato were the most disturbed in the 1984–1994 and 1994–2004 periods. In El Rosario, 306.9 ha were disturbed in the first period and 164 ha were disturbed in the second period. In the Francisco Serrato ejido, 6.7 ha were disturbed in the first period and 206.2 ha were disturbed in the second period. The largest deforested area within the watershed corresponded to the ejido Francisco Serrato, with a fir forest loss of 177 ha (12.1%). Between 1971 and 1984, 80 ha were recovered, and between 1984 and 2004, 206 ha of fir forest were disturbed (184 ha deforested and 22 ha degraded), leaving most of the property deforested between 2001 and 2003. In the subsequent period of 2004–2015, 47 ha were recovered. Over the 50-year period, 163 ha were disturbed, 15 ha recovered and the deforested and agricultural lands were reduced (Appendix S1 & Table S1).
Discussion
Almost half of the La Hacienda watershed within the MBBR experienced significant changes in forest cover between 1971 and 2021, including 24.7% forest recovery and 21.7% disturbances such as deforestation and forest degradation. Crucially, 43.3% of the essential fir forest, which is critical for the monarch butterfly’s habitat, was lost. The MBBR design’s failure to account for the communities’ locations or opinions can partially explain these results. For example, El Rosario ejido has the largest and most permanent monarch butterfly hibernation area in the Reserve, attracting tourists. By contrast, the Francisco Serrato and La Mesa ejidos, whose forests are in the watershed’s uplands, did not benefit from such tourism, and consequently these communities cut down their forests after 2000 (Homero Gómez, personal communication 2005).
Four ejidatarios from Francisco Serrato agreed that, during the first proposal to expand the MBBR in 1999, they were invited to participate in the core zone because they had well-conserved fir forests. However, for reasons unknown to them, the entire area of the Francisco Serrato ejido was excluded from the core zone and included in the buffer zone. In response, they said they had logged almost all of their ejido forest between 2000 and 2004.
The analysis over five periods allowed us to identify the forest loss and recovery processes. The final balance shows that the closed forest cover has remained almost unchanged, with a net loss of 24 ha over 50 years. In 1973, a forest ban was declared in Michoacán (Merino-Pérez & Hernández Reference Merino-Pérez and Hernández-Apolinar2004); nonetheless, forest cuts and the expansion of the agricultural frontier occurred (Ibarra Reference Ibarra2011). After the ban ended, the period from 1971 to 1984 saw recovery processes outpace disturbance occurring after the first protected area decree of 1980 and before the second PA decree of 1986.
Contrary to expectations, between 1984 and 1994, degradation exceeded recovery. The second decree in 1986 contributed to this forest degradation. This pre-emptive behaviour, whereby landowners clear their forests to avoid potential restrictions, has also been observed in protected areas in African and Latin American countries (Andam et al. Reference Andam, Ferraro, Pfaff and Robalino2008, Brown et al. Reference Brown, Brown and Brown2016, Nolte et al. Reference Nolte, Gobbi, le Polain de Waroux, Piquer-Rodríguez, Butsic and Lambin2018, Llopis et al. Reference Llopis, Harimalala, Bär, Heinimann, Rabemananjara and Zaehringer2019). Additionally, the lack of consultation with local communities regarding the logging ban in the core zone and harvesting restrictions in the Reserve’s buffer zone prompted retaliatory forest degradation by the El Rosario community within this watershed (WWF 2004). The situation was further exacerbated by the closure of major local industries – a flower production industry, a gold mine and wood-processing plants – which were primary sources of employment in the region (Merino-Pérez Reference Merino-Pérez1999).
When the protected area was expanded and designated as a Biosphere Reserve in 2000, this further restricted the economic activities of the local ejido and community inhabitants, generating more conflicts due to the transformation of communally regulated resources (Merino-Pérez & Hernández Reference Merino-Pérez and Hernández-Apolinar2004, Brenner Reference Brenner2009, Honey-Roses Reference Honey-Rosés2009). This contributed to a doubling of the forest disturbance already being caused by extreme weather, large-scale illegal logging by organized criminal groups and small-scale illegal logging by individuals from the local communities (Vidal et al. Reference Vidal, López-García and Rendón-Salinas2013, Flores Martínez et al. Reference Flores-Martínez, Martínez-Pacheco, Rendón-Salinas, Rickards, Sarkar and Sánchez-Cordero2019). Additionally, authorized logging in the study area from 1993 to 2006 (Navarrete et al. Reference Navarrete, Ramírez and Pérez-Salicrup2011) may have decreased forest-cover density.
Forest fires have facilitated regeneration in some MBBR regions (Honey-Rosés et al. Reference Honey-Rosés, Maurer, Ramírez and Corbera2018). In 2012, low-severity and superficial forest fires covering less than 3 ha in the south-western portion of the La Hacienda watershed did not influence the decrease in forest density. Nevertheless, they did influence regeneration (Cantú Reference Cantú2013).
After logging in this watershed, extensive reforestation with fir, pine and cedar was instigated in 1994. However, only the pine trees had high survival rates, unlike the fir trees, which required more humidity and were less successful in their development (Amado Fernandez, director of MBBR, personal communication 2023). The dense, though short, pines should soon allow this area to be classified as a forest. Before protection, the main activities in this region were logging, resin extraction and cattle ranching, which were restricted by the protected area decrees. Consequently, the local population felt impacted by this protection process, and they responded by cutting and burning the forests, and organized groups also cleared the forests (WWF 2004). This is significant because 81% of the watershed is above 2900 m, being characterized by the fir forests that are essential for monarch butterfly migration. This fir forest community was the most affected, mainly due to illegal logging. However, global warming may have also contributed to the loss of fir trees, leading pine trees to expand into these previously fir tree-dominated areas (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Xiao-Ming, Hua-Zhong, Shan, Jian and Hai-Fengin press).
Despite initial anger from local communities regarding the lack of consultation, which led them to cut down these forests, the overall trend has been more towards recovery than degradation. Factors like REDD+, PES, community actions, natural regeneration after fires (Skutsch et al. Reference Skutsch, Borrego, Morales-Barquero, Paneque-Gálvez, Salinas-Melgoza and Ramirez2015) and abandoned farmland have contributed to this (Špirić et al. Reference Špirić, Salinas-Melgoza, Merlo-Reyes and Ramírez2023), in combination with government programmes such as Procampo, which supported the reforestation of idle or abandoned lands.
We show how the performance of protected areas can be affected if management programmes do not contemplate their socioeconomic context. However, poor performance must also be analysed with the understanding that, in some countries, newly decreed protected areas lack the financial, human and technical resources necessary for their effective management (Blackman et al. Reference Blackman, Pfaff and Robalino2015). Deforestation in the 1990s could have been avoided through the inclusion of more local consultation and earlier alternatives such as PES. Evidence of conservation and human benefits helps justify place-based conservation (Elías Reference Elías2012, Robinson et al. Reference Robinson, Masuda, Kelly, Holland, Bedford and Childress2018). Public participation is needed to align protected area planning with local knowledge, livelihoods, needs and values by establishing flexible objectives in order to avoid the occurrence of conflicts between people and conservation (Maikhuri et al. Reference Maikhuri, Nautiyal, Rao, Chandrasekhar, Gavali and Saxena2000, Becker Reference Becker2002, He & Cliquet Reference He and Cliquet2020).
We highlight the need for conservation efforts to address environmental and socioeconomic factors. On-site conservation alone is insufficient, as it can restrict local access to resources without offering viable alternatives. Instead, conservation policies should incorporate community needs and engage with local populations, thereby increasing the chances of successful forest recovery and long-term sustainability. This has broader implications for global conservation strategies, particularly in areas with complex land tenure systems and facing significant socioeconomic challenges.
Conclusion
The multi-temporal analysis from 1971 to 2021 of the La Hacienda watershed in the MBBR showed that nearly half of its area underwent land-use change during this period, despite its protected status. Examining different periods revealed the dynamics of forest loss and recovery relative to protection measures. Before the first decree in 1971–1984, closed forest cover increased, with recovery processes dominating over disturbances. However, in the periods 1984–1994 and 1994–2004, when the second and third monarch protection decrees were implemented, disturbances were more prevalent than recovery. This is attributable at least in part to pre-emptive tree-cutting in response to the anticipated restrictions. In the 2004–2021 period, with the introduction of PES, reforestation, surveillance and community engagement through productive activities and tourism, a rise in closed forest cover and a dominance of recovery processes were observed. Surprisingly, the overall closed forest cover remained nearly unchanged over these 50 years. Notably, the area of high-density fir forest, although reduced by almost half, remained the most prominent. Protected area planning must consider land tenure and involve local communities in decision-making, as doing so would help reduce forest degradation and land-use change and integrate conservation with community needs to a much greater extent.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892925000128.
Acknowledgements
The Estación Receptora México, Nueva Generación provided the SPOT 6 images, and INEGI supplied the orthophotographs. The authors thank Marco Antonio López for his help with database management.
Financial support
DGAPA supported this research through the PAPIIT IN304123 ‘Análisis de las causas que determinan los procesos de cambio en áreas protegidas del eje neovolcánico, México’.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Ethical standards
Not applicable.
Open access
