A case study of an integrated wildlife management strategy using a sustainable approach in a rural community of southern Mexico

Abstract

This study was carried out in Cano Cruz´s UMA (Unit for Conservation and Sustainable use of Wildlife), Campeche, Mexico, which offers sport-hunting as its main activity. Data were gathered based on a participatory rural appraisal (e.g. semi-structured interviews, direct observations, participation in regional meetings and databases). During 2009 we assessed the sustainability index of UMA hunting and for the integrated/diversified UMA scenario. Data shows that beside sport-hunting there were 12 non-conventional practices in the region, including breeding facilities for fauna to be reintroduced into UMA´s and for local use (e.g. pets), biodiversity interpretative boards, bird watching activities, handicraft exhibitions, as well as a local natural history museum that could be included in UMA´s integrated management strategies. The sustainability index was significantly higher (63.55%) when UMA activities were developed under an integrated and diverse use of wildlife resources, compared to the actual management strategy, which scored only 22.78%. Thus, we propose that local villages in southern México should adopt and apply an integrated of UMA´s activities in order to encourage local, social and economic development, as well as wildlife conservation.

Full text

E3 Journal of Environmental Research and Management Vol. 4(11). pp. 0352-0358, November, 2013
Available online http://www.e3journals.org
ISSN 2141-7466 © E3 Journals 2012
Full Length Research Paper
A case study of an integrated wildlife management
strategy using a sustainable approach in a rural
community of southern Mexico
Oscar Gustavo Retana Guiascón*, Demián Hinojosa-Garro y, Jesús Vargas Soriano
Laboratory of Wildlife Management. Center for Sustainable Development and Wildlif e Studies (CEDESU). University of
Campeche. Av. Agustín Melgar s/n Colonia Buenavista, CP. 24039, Campeche, México.
Accepted 12 November, 2013
This study was carried out in Cano Cruz´s UMA (Unit for Conservation and Sustainable use of Wildlife),
Campeche, Mexico, which offers sport-hunting as its main activity. Data were gathered based on a participatory
rural appraisal (e.g. semi-structured interviews, direct observations, participation in regional meetings and
databases). During 2009 we assessed the sustainability index of UMA hunting and for the integrated/diversified
UMA scenario. Data shows that beside sport-hunting there were 12 non-conventional practices in the region,
including breeding facilities for fauna to be reintroduced into UMA´s and for local use (e.g. pets), biodiversity
interpretative boards, bird watching activities, handicraft exhibitions, as well as a local natural history museum
that could be included in UMA´s integrated management strategies. The sustainability index was significantly
higher (63.55%) when UMA activities were developed under an integrated and diverse use of wildlife resources,
compared to the actual management strategy, which scored only 22.78%. Thus, we propose that local villages
in southern México should adopt and apply an integrated of UMA´s activities in order to encourage local, social
and economic development, as well as wildlife conservation.
Key words: wildlife management, integrated management, peasant management, human-wildlife relationships,
sustainable approach, natural resources, rural community.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays worldwide protected natural areas are
considered not only terns of biodiversity, but to also
provide a wide range of goods and services for human
communities in terms of cultural and economic activities,
especially in the case of indigenous and rural
communities (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;
Sarukhán et al., 2009).
In Mexico the need for a new integrated and diversified
management strategy for wildlife use in natural areas,
which is managed by rural communities in order to
encourage sustainable practices and to promote local
development opportunities, is clear. For this reason, as a
result in 1997 the Ministry of Environmental and Natural
Resources (SEMARNAP) launched a Conservation of
Wildlife and Productive Diversification in Rural Sector
*Corresponding authors: E-mail: retana1967@yahoo.com.mx
program (SEMARNAP 1997) to promote biodiversity
conservation as well as socioeconomic development.
This program was founded on the bases of two main
strategies: 1) Conservation and Recovery of Priority
Species and 2) Development of Units for Conservation
and Sustainable Use of Wildlife (UMAs). As a result,
areas designated for UMAs activities have been
increasing significantly, reaching the same extension that
has been designated for protected areas in the country.
In addition, UMAS have also promoted the active
participation of the rural communities, achieving gradually
a new perception as the benefits are derived from
sustainable wildlife management (INE, 2000; Retana,
2006). However, most UMAs do not have
diversified/integrated activities, and have focused only on
extractive activities like sport-hunting rather than non
extractive ones such as ecotourism and environmental
education. Thus, in the present study we evaluate and
determine the potential of an integrated management

strategy (non extractive activities) for flora and fauna
under the scheme of community UMAs in Cano Cruz
village to encourage non- conventional productive
alternatives that could allow for both wild life conservation
and local development.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Description of study area
The study was carried out in Carlos Cano Cruz village
that is located on the south-east of Campeche, Mexico
(19º 22' 17.9" N and 89º 52' 56" W). Flora consists of
evergreen seasonal forest represented by species such
as zapote (Manilkara zapota); ramón (Brosimun
alicastrum); pucté (Bucida buceras); pimienta (Pimienta
dioica); tabaquillo (Alseis yucatenensis); ya’axnik (Vitex
gaumeri), among others. The mean annual temperature
is 26.8°C and rainfall of 1100 mm (Flores and Espejel,
1994). Cano Cruz inhabitants are not native to
Campeche, they migrated in 1992 from the state of
Tlaxcala, Veracruz and Tabasco. Nowadays, there are
250 inhabitants. Soy bean, sorghum and maize
cultivation are the main economic activities, as well as
some lamb and honey production (INEGI, 2005). Cano
Cruz village owns 9,600 ha in which hunting and
cinegetic activities for self consumption take place. The
most hunted species are ocellated turkey (Maleagris
ocellata), white- tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), red
brocket deer (Mazama americana) and collared peccary
(Pecari tajacu).
Methods and Indices used in the research
Fieldwork was carried out from March 2009 to September
2010. Participative evaluation methods with semi-
structured interviews (Chambers, 1994) were applied (n=
100) in order to evaluate the local knowledge concerning
direct use of flora and fauna. At the same time an Integral
Planning method was applied (Stokes et al., 1968;
Goggins et al., 1971; Anderson and Hurley, 1987), to
determine the potential of the community to develop an
integrated management plan for their UMA.
This method consists of the analysis of : 1) the
abundance of wild fauna based on local knowledge; 2)
the actual use of wild fauna; 3) the actual use of wild
species for local use; 4) future scenarios for wild life use,
5) the relationship between the actual and future
scenarios for wildlife use and 6) diversified activities
income administration.
In order to compare the actual mono-specific activities
(sport-hunting) versus an integrated UMA management
a Sustainability Index (SI) was applied on the basis of the
study of Taylor et al. (1993); and the Evaluation of
Natural Resources Management (Masera et al., 2000).
Guiascón et al 0353
The SI allowed a comparison of the state of
sustainability that keeps the UMA with a system of only
hunting management with respect to the UMA with a
system of alternative management or integral types,
considering 15 indicators (Table 1), representing social,
economic and environmental conditions of the
community. Each indicator value was assigned between
0 and 5 points according to the degree of compliance
with regard to the optimal management system. Average
scores for each thematic area in the SI were calculated
being 100% the optimum management score.
Also two community workshops were held to determine
the alternatives of integrated management (non-
conventional productive activities) to be implemented in
the short term in the ejido Cano Cruz under scheme of
community UMA.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The use of flora and fauna
The Cano Cruz UMA is adjacent to the UMAs of Pich,
Chencoh, Las Flores, San Juan Cantemó and Santa
Genoveva which in total covers 200,000 ha of evergreen
seasonal forest with 135 species of flora with use value
(Retana et al., 2010). From those Cano Cruz inhabitants
use 81 species (60 %) that are ranked in seven
categories of use: 1) wood 2) medicinal, 3) fuel, 4)
scattering, 5) food, 6) ornamental and 7) forage (Figure
1). These values were higher than those reported by
Méndez and Montiel (2007) for the communities El
Remate and La Isla in which they use 34 and 17 flora
species, respectively. This difference may be due to the
fact in that region of the State of Campeche, in which
both these communities are located the flora is relatively
less diverse because it has coastal vegetation, coupled
with the fact that its inhabitants are mostly dedicated to
fishing or other economic activities that minimize the
interaction with vegetation, which influences a low
recognition of the local use of wildlife resources.
In terms of fauna there were 26 species reported under
four categories of use: 1) food, 2) medicinal, 3) utensil
and 4) as pets (mascot) (Figure 2). Food category
archived, 84.61 % of the total recorded species; 12
species were mammals (46.15 %), seven birds (26.92 %)
and three reptiles (11.53 %). The white- tailed deer, red
brocket deer, collared peccary, ocellated turkey, and
rattlesnakes (Crotalus tzabcan), achieved the highest
values of use.
These data agree with similar studies by Méndez and
Montiel (2007) and León and Montiel (2008), in
indigenous communities of northern Campeche which
emphasize the importance of sustainable use of these
species through the establishment of new rural UMAs. In
addition to sharing this position, we suggest that UMAS
foster the integrated model of wildlife management, in
which community participation training is essential.

0354 E3. J. Environ. Res. Manage.
Table 1: Weighting of indicators for the assessment of sustainability of UMA-Cano Cruz. (Key: H-UMA= sport-hunting UMA; I-UMA=
integrated management system).
Evaluation
area Criterion Indicators
H
-
UMA
(Reference
System)
%
I
-
UMA
(Alternative
System)
%
Optimum
management
System
%
Environmental
Comprehensive
utilization of species
and habitat
conservation.
A-1. Number of
species thought
and with potential
comprehensive
utilization
3
23
7
54
13
100
A-2 Number of
regulated extractive
activities
1
25
2
50
4
100
Holistic approach to
the planning of use
of natural resources
A-3. Number of
natural elements
incorporated into
the UMA
1
33.3
3
100
3
100
Environmental
Education
A-4. Development
of educational
projects and
research
1
20
2
40
5
100
A-5. Disclosed
information 1 25 2 50 4 100
Social
Empl oym ent
generation
S-1. Number of
local people
benefited 33 53.2 51 77.4 62 100
S-2. Temporality
(months of the year
in which it works) 1 8.3 6 50 12 100
Training community
S-3. Trained
personnel to carry
out activities
related to the UMA
1
2
48
77.4
62
100
Holistic approach to
the planning of use
of natural resources
S-4. Number of
socio-cultural
elements
incorporated into
the UMA
1
25
3
75
4
100
S-5. Valuation of
local knowledge 1 20 4 80 5 100
Local participation
S-6. Number of
local people
involved in the
management and
decision-making
33
53.2
45
72.6
62
100
S-7. Gender equity:
number of women
and men
participating
7
11.3
40
64.5
62
100
Economic
Diversification of
productive activities
E-1. Number of
productive
alternatives
1
8.3
5
42
12
100
E-2. Production of
goods and services
(number of goods
and services
offered by the
UMA)
1
9.1
5
45.4
11
100
E-3. People type
the target goods
and services
1
25
3
75
4
100

Guiascón et al 0355
Figure 1: Number of species floristic with use value in the forest area of the Cano Cruz UMA.
Figure 2: Number of species of fauna with use value in the forest area of the Cano Cruz UMA

0356 E3. J. Environ. Res. Manage.
UMAs Integrated management alternatives
Based on the integrated management analysis rural
appraisal chose 12 alternatives activities that can be
established in Cano Cruz UMA beside cinegetic and self-
consuming hunting. From these, eight were related to the
use of natural elements whereas the four remaining were
related to cultural elements. We proposed the
establishment of two circuits of integral management; the
first one includes 11 alternatives, from which six activities
involved natural elements such as: hiking, fauna breeding
facilities, interpretative boards, bird watching, wildlife
photography and cycling. From the cultural elements:
accommodation in local chalet, visits to mayan vestiges
(“Cuyos”), a local community restaurant, a natural history
museum and art and crafts exhibitions.
The second circuit includes a series of permanent and
ephemeral ponds (seven consecutive ponds) that are
located next to an old road that connect several villages.
These water bodies constitute sites with special interest for
resident and migratory birds, allowing wildlife observation
and landscape photography as well as wildlife tracking.
Likewise, these paths are next to a zone of “cuyos” and
some interpretive boards end up in a cave for observation of
bats. In agreement with Gonzalez et al. (2003) and Méndez
and Montiel (2007), the non conventional economic activities
encourage wild life conservation and use as well as the
development of the rural communities. Redford and
Robinson (1997) and Villareal (2006) determined that wildlife
observation and natural landscaping has become recently a
more common practice in Latin America, providing
significant financial incomes to the rural communities, which
in fact is part of the conservation strategy. In addition,
integrated management of wildlife has not only promoted
diversification of the community economy, but also has
encouraged habitat and species conservation.
These results support the idea of previous works by Bocco
et al. (2000) which established successful sustainable uses
of natural resources in San Juan Parangaricutiro village in
the state of Michoacán, México. In particular, they
emphasize activities such as reproduction in semi-captivity
of the white- tailed deer to commercialize their meat at a
local level and to repopulate areas for sport-hunting as well
as for ecotourism activities. In addition there have been
other projects in which the singing quail (Dendrortyx
macroura) was bred, as well as sustainable forestry
activities. Thus, we consider that integrated wild life
management practices (also known as multiple-use strategy
for local natural resources, Toledo et al. 2008), as well as
some other natural and cultural resources, most be included
in rural UMAs management which in turn will increase
sustainability conditions.
Sustainability index of Cano Cruz UMA: Hunting
management vs Integrated management
Results showed that under hunting management (H-
UMA) Cano Cruz UMA scores were < 26 % in three main
areas: environmental = 25.26; social = 24.71 and
economic = 14.13 %, while sustainable index (SI) was
22.78 % (Table 1). This means that this UMA is
generating socioeconomic benefits and income to the
community. Nevertheless, they are temporary and less
profitable compared to the integrated UMA (I-UMA) which
registered scores of up to 63.55 % of SI which shows the
potential of sustainable integrated management for this
UMA (Figure 3).
These results agree with those reported by García et
al. (2008), which evaluate six UMAs located in the state
of Campeche and showed that they tend to increase
economic sustainability through diversification of
productive activities as well as environmentally when
diversified management strategies and programs
promote habitat and species conservation. Thus, in order
to increase the state of sustainability of Cano Cruz UMA
in a short term (five to eight years), community
participation to identify locally the multiplicity of benefits
that can be generated if sustainable diversified practices
are applied must be emphasized instead of monospecific
activities like sport hunting.
For instance, Bocco et al. (2000) reported that in the
Nuevo San Juan community, the integrated management
of resources has not only increased local sustainability,
but has also created over 900 permanent jobs, the
creation of a transportation company, local stores,
agricultural and ecotourism programs, etc. It has also
promoted gender equality by empowering women in
agro-ecological solid waste management and
environmental education. As a result this community was
awarded in 1997 with the Green Certificate by the Forest
Stewardship Council.
CONCLUSIONS
Through the proposal of comprehensive management of
community territory of Cano Cruz, helps to enrich the
local compression on the importance of sustainably using
wildlife under the system of UMA. But in a fundamental
way to socialize the significance of conserving their
natural heritage.
While sport hunting in the UMA Cano Cruz has
promoted protection of habitat and regulated the use of
certain species, we recommend an integrated
management of natural and cultural resources under the
scheme of communal UMAS as it shows that this system
of management tends to a greater state of sustainability.
Accordingly, we propose that integrated UMA is the
model to be implemented at community level in
Campeche State, this in accordance with its
environmental and cultural characteristics, since this
scheme of management and sustainable management of
natural heritage offers a range of productive opportunities
that promote and strengthen local capacity development
and the long term conservation of wildlife.

Guiascón et al 0357
Figure 3. Sustainable analysis for Cano Cruz UMA: In its mode as sport-hunting UMA (H-UMA) versus integrated management
system (I-UMA). Figure describes a significant increment of sustainability base on diversified management and holistic approach.
Axes were standardized in percentage with the highest score value of 100%. Environmental indicators: A1 to A5; Social indicators: S1
to S7; Economic indicator: E1 to E3.
ACNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are thankful to CONACYT (FOMIX-CAMPECHE 2007)
which sponsored the present project CAMP-2007-C01-
72355. We also thank people from Cano Cruz community for
their enthusiastic participation and all students from
Laboratoy of W ildlife Management (CEDESU, UAC). In
particular we thank Dr. Linda Russell and Dr. Chris Mason,
for their valuable comments and suggestions on this
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Anderson K, YF Hurley (1987). Planificación de Programas para la
Gestión de la Vida Silvestre. Pp 479-495. In: Rodríguez T R (ed),
Manual de Técnicas de Gestión de Vida Silvestre. The W ildlife
Society, Inc. USA.
Bocco G, A Velásquez, YA Torres (2000). Ciencia, Comunidades
Indígenas y Manejo de Recursos Naturales. un Caso de
Investigación Participativa en México, Interciencia 25 (2): 64-70.
Chambers R (1994). The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural
Apprasial, World Development 22 (7): 953-969.

0358 E3. J. Environ. Res. Manage.
Flores S, EI Espejel (1994). Tipos de vegetación de la Península de
Yucatán. Etnoflora Yucatanense. Fascículo 3, U niversidad Autónoma
de Yucatán, México.
García MG, G Escalon, H Van der Wal (2008). Multicriteria evaluation of
wildlife managem ent units in Campeche, Mexico. Journal of Wildlife
Management 72(5): 1194-1202.
Goggins P, K Christie, K Anderson, K Warner, C Lombard, O
Fenderson, F Kircheis (1971). Planning for Maine Fish, Wildlife, and
Marine Resources. Maine Dept. Inland Fish. and Wildl. Maine Dept.
Sea and Shore Fish., Augusta, USA.
González MR, R Montes, YJ Santos (2003). Caracterización de las
Unidades para la Conservación, Manejo y Aprovechamient o
Sustentable de Fauna Silvestre en Yucatán, México. Tropical and
Subtropical Agroecosystems 2: 13 – 21.
INE (2000). Estrategia N acional para la Vida Sil vestre. Logros y Retos
para el Desarrollo Sustentable 1995-2000. Instituto Nacional de
Ecología-Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y
Pesca. México, D. F.
INEGI (2005). II Conteo de población y vivienda 2005. Datos por
localidad.
León P, YS Montiel (2008). W ild Meat Use and Traditional Hunting
Practices in a Rural Mayan Community of the Yucatan Peninsula,
Mexico. Human Ecology 36: 249–257.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ec osystems And Human
Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute,
Washington, D. C.
Masera O, M Astier, YS López (2000). Sustentabilidad y Manejo de
Recursos Naturales. Marco de evaluación MESMIS. Mundi- Prensa-
Grupo Interdisciplinario de T ecnología Rural Apropiada, A. C.
México, D. F.
Méndez CF, YS Montiel (2007). Diagnóstico preliminar de la Fauna y
Flora Silvestre utilizada por la población Maya de dos comunidades
costeras de Campeche, México. Universidad y Ciencia 23 (2):127-
139.
Redford K, YJ Robinson (1997). Usos Comerciales y de Subsisten cia
de la Vida Silvestre en América Latina. Pp 23-42. In: Robinson, J y K,
Redford (Comps.). Uso y Conservación de la Vida Silvestre
Neotropical. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México.
Retana O (2006). Fauna Silvestre de México. Aspectos Históricos de su
Gestión y Conservación. Fondo de Cultura Económica-Universidad
Autónoma de Campeche. México.
Retana O, C Ballesteros, J Vargas, R Noriega, M Aguilar, G Niño, Y
Vidaña, E Victoria, YR Góngora (2010). Uso de la Vida Silvestre y
Alternativas de Manejo Integral en Comunidades Rurales del Norte
de Campeche. Universidad Autónoma de Campeche. Centro de
Estudios de Desarrollo Sustentable y Aprovechamiento d e la Vida
Silvestre (CEDESU). Informe final Fomix-2007. Proyecto CAMP-
2007-C01- 71355. Campeche, México.
Sarukhán J, P Koleff, J Carabias, J Soberón, R Dirzo, J Llorent e, G
Halffter, G González, I March, A Mohar, A Anta, YJ de la Maza
(2009). Capital natural de México. Síntesis: conocimiento actual,
evaluación y perspectivas de sustentabilidad. Comisión Nacional
para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México.
SEMARNAP (1997). Programa de C onservación de la Vida S ilvestr e y
Diversificación Productiva en el Sector Rural. Secretaria de Medio
Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca .México.
Stokes JD, J Delisle, YJ McCormick (1968). Fish and Wildlife Resource
Planning Guide. California Dept. Fish and Game.USA.
Taylor D, C Abidin, S Nasir, M Ghazali, E Chiew (1993). Creating a
farmer sustainability index: A Malaysian case study. Americ an
Journal of Alternative Agriculture 8 (4): 175-184.
Toledo V, N Barrera, E García, YP Alarcón (2008). Uso Múltiple y
Biodiversidad entre los Mayas Yucatecos. México. Interciencia 33(5):
345-362.
Villareal S (2006). Primer Seminario de Unidades de Manejo para la
Conservación de la Vida Silvestre en el Sureste de México. Simbiosis,
SA de CV. Quintana Roo, México.