Content uploaded by R. Rios
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by R. Rios on Dec 10, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Mejía Montoya, J.W.;
González, S.A.; Vargas, J.J.; Rios, R.
Environmental Expectations,
Socioeconomic Demands and
Sustainability of the Zapatosa Marsh,
Colombia: Perspectives from Local
Stakeholders. Sustainability 2024,16,
10806. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su162410806
Academic Editor: Tan Yigitcanlar
Received: 6 July 2024
Revised: 30 November 2024
Accepted: 2 December 2024
Published: 10 December 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Article
Environmental Expectations, Socioeconomic Demands and
Sustainability of the Zapatosa Marsh, Colombia: Perspectives
from Local Stakeholders
Jhon Wilson Mejía Montoya 1,†, Steveen Alexander González 2, Jimmy Jolman Vargas 3and Richard Rios 4,*,†
1Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellín, Medellín 050034,
Colombia; jwmejia@unal.edu.co
2Departamento de Economía, Universidad Popular del Cesar, Seccional Aguachica, Aguachica 25010,
Colombia; salexandergonzalez@unicesar.edu.co
3Instituto de Genetica, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Bogotá, Bogotá 111321, Colombia;
jjvargasd@unal.edu.co
4Dirección Académica, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede de La Paz, La Paz 202017, Colombia
*Correspondence: rriospa@unal.edu.co
†These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: The Zapatosa Marsh Complex (ZMC) is a strategic ecosystem in Colombia, under threat
from human-driven factors such as population growth and subsistence extraction activities. Local res-
idents experience high poverty levels and low educational attainment, exacerbating conflicts between
their socio-economic needs and marsh conservation efforts. This study aimed to present a participa-
tory approach to prioritize actions for sustainable development in Chimichagua, the municipality
encompassing the largest part of the ZMC. We identified and characterized local stakeholders, en-
gaging them in a participatory action research project to determine barriers and opportunities for
economic growth and food security. The insights gathered were collaboratively used to formulate
actions that balance the sustainability of the ZMC with local economic development. Stakeholders
identified the ZMC as an opportunity for employment and raw materials, while pointing to poor
support from territorial entities as the central barrier. A prioritized action was the construction of a
concentrate feed production plant utilizing local raw materials. This work offers a methodological
contribution that could be applied to address socio-economic and environmental conflicts in other
strategic ecosystems.
Keywords: participatory action research; sustainable rural development; conflicts; socio-ecological
systems; environmental conservation; unsatisfied basic needs
1. Introduction
The Zapatosa Marsh Complex (ZMC) is an ecosystem comprised of numerous water
bodies and floodable areas, recognized for its high biodiversity and the multiple ecosystem
services that it provides to surrounding communities [
1
–
9
]. The ZMC is a strategic wetland,
designated as a RAMSAR site, and is protected by public environmental agencies (such as
the Autonomous Regional Corporations of the Cesar-CORPOCESAR) through the Basin
Management and Zoning Plan (POMCA) “Río Bajo Cesar –Ciénaga de Zapatosa”
[3,7,9–11]
.
Nevertheless, the ZMC is a degraded and threatened ecosystem, with its natural resources
overexploited due to human-driven factors such as population growth and subsistence
extraction activities [2,3,8,9,12,13].
In the settlements surrounding the wetland complex, inhabitants have free access to its
natural resources, relying on extractive economic activities that exert pressure on the ecosys-
tem and its biodiversity [
2
,
9
,
11
,
14
]. These activities include deforestation, expansion of
agricultural and livestock frontiers, and the construction of civil works, among others. High
poverty levels, limited educational attainment, and few economic alternatives—outside of
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410806 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 2 of 22
extractive practices—pose challenges to achieving food security and long-term sustainabil-
ity. This situation leads to conflicts between meeting basic needs and maintaining ecosystem
services [
2
,
8
,
14
–
16
]. Therefore, with the support of academia and organized civil society, it
is imperative for national, regional, and local authorities to develop strategies that ensure
both the sustainability of the ZMC and local economic development. Beyond conventional
approaches that rely on external expertise, these strategies should include a territorial
approach that aims to improve productive processes, foster agro-industrial development,
and strengthen social cohesion. The broader goals of these strategies should be to enhance
the competitiveness of the productive sector and to ensure food security alongside the
sustainability of the ZMC. To date, socio-environmental assessments have only highlighted
the human-driven factors that threaten the marsh, the socio-economic needs of its inhab-
itants, and the issues surrounding competing interests. Therefore, the core questions in
this study were: How can tailored actions be established to transform current practices and fos-
ter a sustainable balance between competing interests—economic development and biodiversity
conservation—within this fragile ecosystem? What actions can be integrated into municipal devel-
opment plans to provide alternatives to extractive activities, thereby supporting marsh sustainability
while aligning its environmental value with local economic development?
In ecosystems where natural resources are accessed freely and without defined prop-
erty rights, overexploitation often leads to their depletion and eventual collapse [
14
,
17
–
19
].
Responsible natural resource management has thus become vital for achieving sustainable
development and ensuring equitable inclusion of communities [
20
,
21
,
21
–
25
]. Participa-
tory Action Research (PAR) underscores the importance of engaging local communities
in co-producing strategies that empower them to address their own challenges [21,25–33].
These strategies are tailored to the geographical, socio-economic, and cultural context of
each territory.
The objective of this study was to present a participatory approach for prioritizing
actions that promote a sustainable balance between conserving the Zapatosa Marsh and
supporting the economic development of Chimichagua, the municipality that encom-
passes the largest part of the ZMC. We applied qualitative and quantitative tools from
PAR projects to identify barriers and opportunities related to food security and economic
development. Local stakeholders used these insights to formulate territory-specific actions
that foster alternatives—beyond resource extraction—to support food security, social co-
hesion, and sustainability of the Zapatosa Marsh. Rather than introducing new methods,
this study contributes by detailing the application of a participatory approach to foster
social learning on a socio-ecological conflict and explore tailored alternatives for its res-
olution. Previous studies have primarily focused on characterizing the socio-ecological
context of the Zapatosa Marsh and its communities, assessing its ecosystem services and
biodiversity, and identifying key challenges that threaten its sustainability, among other
related issues [
1
–
9
]. The methodological approach used in this study serves as a model
that could used to address socio-economic and environmental conflicts common to other
wetlands and strategic ecosystems.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Sustainable Development and Socio-Environmental Conflicts
Sustainable Rural Development (SRD) is a multidimensional approach to social change
aimed at improving the living conditions of rural populations, supported by the sustainable
management of natural resources as the core element of any strategy [
21
–
24
]. SRD addresses
the challenges of rural environments using a territorial approach. This means it tackles the
sustainability of rural areas by recognizing their unique characteristics, identifying their
specific challenges and opportunities, and understanding the complex interactions of their
sociocultural, economic, and environmental factors [21–24].
SRD promotes new development pathways through interventions tailored to each
territory’s social and ecological context. These interventions are designed holistically from
the bottom up, actively involving local actors in decision-making. This territorial approach
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 3 of 22
aims to include a deeper understanding of the territory in the design and implementation
of development strategies, making them more legitimate and effective in addressing local
needs [
21
–
24
,
34
,
35
]. SRD offers an alternative to traditional rural development approaches,
which are typically top-down, focus on economic growth and infrastructure improvement,
and rely on the expertise of external organizations or experts—often resulting in generalized
solutions that overlook the unique characteristics of each territory [23–25,36–40].
New challenges, such as climate change and population growth, have made sus-
tainable development and environmental conservation closely related study areas, espe-
cially when addressing conflicts that arise between competing interests, such as economic
development and the provision of ecosystem services [
25
,
30
,
40
–
47
]. In Brazil, for in-
stance, the growing demand for marine and coastal resources has led to conflicts be-
tween the conservation of coastal marine ecosystems and the socio-economic needs of a
small fishing community [
43
]. In this study, using a participatory assessment approach,
Martins et al.
[43]
identified the most significant conflicts to foster a social learning that
would socially legitimize future sustainable maritime spatial planning processes. Similarly,
along the U.S./Mexico border, human-driven factors like climate change and increasing
urbanization have exacerbated water resources problems in the Rio Grande basin. This
has led to conflicts—for example, among the agricultural, urban, and environmental provi-
sion sectors—over water use rights [
48
]. Hargrove and Heyman
[48]
identified key water
users and employed a participatory modeling approach to develop plausible scenarios and
interventions for sustainable water resource management.
2.2. Participatory Approaches Applied to Socio-Ecological Conflicts
Biodiversity conservation is a social process that requires a collective effort from
communities, involving trade-offs to balance sustainable growth with biodiversity conser-
vation [
39
,
40
,
43
,
45
]. As a result, conflict resolution mechanisms have become essential for
addressing competing interests, such as the growing demand for agricultural products vs.
biodiversity conservation, or the increasing demand for marine resources vs. ocean ecosys-
tem conservation [
30
,
39
,
40
,
43
,
46
,
49
], while participatory approaches have been widely used
in fields such as education, social work, and healthcare, they have also emerged as alterna-
tive approaches for addressing socio-environmental conflicts by involving stakeholders in
the decision-making for planning interventions [
25
,
29
,
30
,
32
,
39
,
40
,
43
–
46
,
49
]. These partici-
patory methodologies include: Participatory Action Research (PAR), Community-Based
Participatory Research (CBPR), participatory rural appraisal, participatory mapping, partic-
ipatory modeling, and participatory assessment, among others [
25
,
30
,
35
,
42
,
43
,
45
–
48
,
50
–
61
].
Tables 1and 2present participatory approaches related to sustainable development, envi-
ronmental, and socio-ecological conflicts.
Participatory approaches share several characteristics. These methods, for instance,
integrate academic and grassroots (e.g., local or Indigenous) knowledge to support collabo-
ration among diverse stakeholders to solve complex societal challenges (transdisciplinarity).
They also prioritize local knowledge and experiences to obtain a better understanding of
the socio-ecological context. Additionally, these methods support the involvement of local
stakeholders in decision-making for tailoring interventions [
25
,
30
,
31
,
40
,
42
,
43
,
45
–
48
,
56
–
61
].
However, what sets PAR apart from other participatory approaches is its orientation toward
community action for social change. Once the issues, challenges, and opportunities are
identified, stakeholders formulate actions aimed at fostering a change or improvement
in a situation [
25
,
29
–
32
,
43
,
45
–
47
,
57
,
60
]. By either forming new alliances, writing reports,
or establishing meetings with decision-makers, PAR aims to produce actions that translate
the research goals into tangible outputs that promote the improvement of the community’s
living conditions [25,29–32].
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 4 of 22
Table 1. Participatory approaches in the literature on sustainable development, environmental and socio-ecological conflicts. Participatory action research (PAR),
Participatory Modeling (PM); Participatory Learning Action (PLA), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA); Participatory Assessment (PA); Community-Based
Participatory Research (CBPR); Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT).
Author
Problem/
Approach Sampling
Qualitative
Quantitative
Output
Conflict Method Tools Tools Product
[57]
Evaluating the relevance of PAR in rural develop-
ment projects that were focused on social transforma-
tion. The goals were to identify its strengths, weak-
nesses, opportunities, and threats of PAR within de-
velopment projects
PAR
Purposing
sampling
Semi-structured interviews, tran-
sect walk, SWOT, field diaries,
and participant observation
Research reports with tailored rec-
ommendations, intervention strategies,
and a model to replicate the method-
ology in other agricultural develop-
ment projects
[60]
Developing a socio-technical model for renewable
energy integration in rural Northwest Argentina,
promoting equality, stakeholder engagement, and en-
vironmental sustainability
PAR
Purposive
sampling
Workshops, focus groups, FODA
analysis, posters, stakeholder
mapping
A model of socio-technical adequacy
to adopt technology transfer (renew-
able technologies) in rural communi-
ties. Action-oriented recommendations
to support sustainable development in
rural areas
[35]
Assessing the sustainability of a small rural area:
exploring viable sectors and economic diversification
in long-term success/ Conflict: economic growth vs.
sustainable development
PRA/
PLA
Random
sampling
Semi-structured interviews, par-
ticipant observation, mapping,
focus group, and content analy-
sis
Surveys, sea-
sonal calen-
dar
Written report of action plan, meeting
among stakeholders (community, recy-
cling companies, and others)
[48]
Identifying and classifying water stakeholders and
engage them in addressing complex water resource
challenges in the Middle Rio Grande basin/ Conflict
of water use rights among competing sectors: the
agricultural, urban, and environmental
PM
Not state
it
Stakeholder mapping, focus
group, workshops, semi-
structured interviews
Hydrological
and econom-
ical data,
optimization
techniques
Optimization model, evaluation of
plausible scenarios and interventions
[47]
Evaluating the successes and challenges of a PAR
project that sought to preserve Traditional Plant
Knowledge (TPK) and enhance the importance of
plant species in the community
PAR
Purposive
sampling
Semi-structured interviews, fo-
cus groups, and workshops
Statistical
diversity
indexes such
us Shanin
Index and
Dominance
index
Biodiversity management strategies tai-
lored to the community, emphasizing
the conservation and sustainable use of
native plant species
[56]
Developing a local action plan to address the lack of
safe drinking water in Bushbuckridge Municipality,
a rural area in South Africa facing high levels of
poverty, and unmet basic needs
PAR
Maximum
variation
sampling
Photovoice, workshops, narra-
tive analysis, stakeholder map-
ping, Mendelow’s matrix, record
of action, Verbal Autopsy
Written report of action plan, meeting
among stakeholders (community, recy-
cling companies, and others)
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 5 of 22
Table 2. Participatory approaches in the literature on sustainable development, environmental and socio-ecological conflicts. Participatory action research (PAR);
Participatory Modeling (PM); Participatory Learning Action (PLA); Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA); Participatory Assessment (PA); Community-Based
Participatory Research (CBPR).
Author
Problem/
Approach
Sampling Qualitative Quantitative Output
Conflict Method Tools Tools Product
[61]
Examining CBPR on environmental conflicts related
to sand quarries in northern Bogotá. It focused on
understanding the social and environmental impacts
of mining activities by engaging local community
members
CBPR
Purposive
sampling,
spontaneous
involvement
In-depth interviews, Docu-
mentary analysis, workshops,
mapping, stakeholder map-
ping, and focus groups
statistical
assessments
of air and soil
quality
Writing report with policy recommen-
dations and action plans for environ-
mental management
[42]
Addressing waste management and related environ-
mental issues in a rural Indian community
CBPR
Expert-
based sam-
pling
Transect walks, mapping, fo-
cus group, workshops, semi-
structured interviews, stake-
holder mapping
Surveys
Written report of action plan, meeting
among stakeholders (community, recy-
cling companies, and others)
[43]
Developing a typology of ocean-related conflicts us-
ing a participatory assessment involving small-scale
fishing communities along São Paulo’s coastline/
Conflict: growing demand of marine resources vs.
ecosystem conservation
PA
Purposive
sampling
Mapping, workshops, and fo-
cus groups
Surveys and
statistical
descriptive
analysis
Research report and scientific paper
on the categorization of marine socio-
environmental conflicts to inform fu-
ture marine spatial planning processes
[59]
Exploring the environmental impacts of viticulture
and the obstacles to adopting sustainable practices in
the wine industry/ Conflict between traditional prac-
tices of viticulture vs. the urgent need for sustainable
approaches
PAR
Purposive
sampling
Workshops, focus group,
semi-structured interviews,
Learning by doing
field tests
Peer-reviewed article of consensus
statements and knowledge that can be
effectively applied to sustainable viti-
culture on a transnational scale
[45]
Applying a participatory approach to outline actions
that foster agricultural development while main-
taining ecological balance and biodiversity in North
African oases
PAR
Stratified
sampling
Workshops, focus group,
semi-structured interviews
Statistical de-
scriptive anal-
ysis
Strategies for biodiversity conservation
and technical recommendations appli-
cable to agricultural management in El
Hamma
Our
study
Prioritizing solutions for a socio-environmental conflict
driven by competing interests: the conservation of the
Zapatosa Marsh Complex and the community’s economic
growth and food security
PAR
Snowball sam-
pling
Transect walks, focus group,
workshops, semi-structured in-
terviews, stakeholder mapping,
Mendelow matrix
IGO matrix
Written report of action plan, meeting
among stakeholders (community, munici-
pal administration, and others)
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 6 of 22
PAR, as a transdisciplinary methodology, uses a wide variety of tools to facilitate
collaborative work between stakeholders and researchers in order to collect data, integrate
knowledge, and produce action-oriented outputs. These methods combine qualitative
and quantitative tools to achieve research and action objectives, including tools such
as storytelling, semi-structured interviews, photographic documentation, surveys, sta-
tistical analysis, or field measurements, among others [
25
,
29
–
32
,
42
,
43
,
59
]. For example,
Kumar et al.
[42]
integrated several participatory methods and tools, such as surveys, tran-
sect walks, mapping, and knowledge-exchange workshops, to understand a waste problem
in a rural community of India and coproduce actions to foster a cleaner environment.
Similarly, Peano et al.
[45]
used semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and knowledge-
exchange workshops to formulate strategies for balancing sustainable agriculture and
biodiversity conservation in the North African oases. Tables 1and 2present description of
breadth of tools used within participatory approaches, including our study.
Participatory methods have thus become an alternative for both planning sustain-
able development strategies and resolving socio-environmental conflicts [
25
,
32
,
39
,
40
,
46
].
Human-driven factors like climate change, growing population, and growing demand for
natural resources are rapidly intensifying biodiversity and ecosystem loss, as well as con-
flicts between socio-economic development and environmental conservation. Participatory
methodologies, supported by qualitative and quantitative tools, have enabled communities
to express their most pressing needs and participate in decision-making processes, planning
interventions tailored to the socio-ecological context.
3. Materials and Methods
Figure 1describes the methodological steps carried out in the participatory diagno-
sis [
62
]. During the preliminary phase, we defined the study objective and identified the
qualitative and quantitative tools in the participatory action research project.
Figure 1. Workflow of the method used to conduct the participatory diagnosis: (1) Study setting and
design, where the study objective, area, and tools were defined; (2) Local stakeholders were identified
and characterized using stakeholder mapping; (3) Stakeholder engagement using snowball sampling;
(4) Participatory workshops, where opportunities and barriers were identified using semi-structured
interviews, and additionally, actions were formulated and prioritized; (5) Data processioning and
analysis was performed; (6) Presentation of participatory diagnosis to community.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 7 of 22
3.1. Study Area Description
The Zapatosa Wetland Complex (ZWC), situated between the departments of Cesar
and Magdalena in Colombia’s Caribbean region, is one of the country’s most important
ecosystems. It provides habitats for intercontinental migratory birds, breeding grounds for
fish, and sustains diverse populations of birds, mammals, reptiles, and aquatic vegetation
[1–9]
.
As a strategic ecosystem, the ZWC plays a key role in climate change adaptation and
mitigation. Its ecological integrity enables it to carry out essential functions, such as
buffering local climate fluctuations, reducing temperature extremes, and purifying water,
among other ecosystem services [
7
,
8
,
11
,
14
]. However, in recent decades, this ecosystem
has faced significant impacts due to human-driven pressures, including population growth,
urban expansion, agricultural and livestock frontier advancement, and a rise in subsistence
extraction activities [2,7–9,11,14].
The ZWC falls under the jurisdiction of the municipalities of Chimichagua, Pailitas,
Tamalameque, Curumaní, and Chiriguaná in the department of Cesar, and El Banco in
the department of Magdalena [
2
,
7
,
9
]. The municipality of Chimichagua was selected as
the focal community of this study, as most of the Zapatosa wetland complex is located
within its boundaries [
2
,
7
,
12
,
13
]. The municipality of Chimichagua has seven settlements
located around the Zapatosa marsh: the county seat, Saloa, Sempegua, Candelaria, La Mata,
Zapatí, and Santo Domingo [
2
,
7
]. Furthermore, according to the National Administrative
Department of Statistics (DANE), in 2018, the municipality of Chimichagua ranked as the
third most populated in the department of Cesar, with (30
,
289) inhabitants, and the second
in unmet basic needs (28.6%). Figure 2provides a geographical description of the ZMC
and its area of influence (Zapatosa ecoregion).
Figure 2. The Zapatosa marsh complex and its area of influence. The Zapatosa Marsh Complex
is in the north of Colombia, between the departments of Cesar and Magdalena. Chimichagua is
the municipality with the largest share of the Zapatosa Marsh Complex and has the third highest
population in the department of Cesar.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 8 of 22
3.2. Stakeholder Identification Furthermore, Characterization
Key stakeholders were identified and characterized using stakeholder mapping,
a methodology employed in social network theory to describe the social relationships
established within a specific territory, and to address the interactions of a group of stake-
holders regarding a specific reality [
63
,
64
]. To identify potential stakeholders, we used
information from three databases: the town council, the Chamber of Commerce of Valledu-
par, and the Chamber of Commerce of Aguachica. In all cases, we sought economic,
sociocultural, institutional, and environmental stakeholders [
62
]. We divided the stakehold-
ers into focus groups.
Stakeholders were also classified by an official of the municipal administration using
a Mendelow’s matrix, a tool in which the stakeholders involved in a project or initiative
are plotted in quadrants based on two attributes: the level of Influence or power that
a stakeholder has over the project or initiative, and level of Interest or concern that a
stakeholder has in the project or initiative [
56
,
58
,
64
]. The scale for the interest axis was in
favor, indifferent, and against; while the scale for the influence axis was high, medium,
and low.
3.3. Stakeholder Engagement
We engaged stakeholders using snowball sampling, with an open invitation extended
to the community. This approach encouraged stakeholders to join and invite others, foster-
ing active engagement from those motivated to address the study problem and develop
solutions. The initial seeds were community leaders such as presidents of communal
action boards (JACs) and leaders of productive associations. These initial participants were
encouraged to recommend and invite other local stakeholders, broadening the scope of
participation. Snowball sampling, also known as ’chain referral sampling,’ is a technique
that relies on existing social relationships to select participants. In this method, individu-
als selected for the study recruit new participants through their network of contacts, via
referrals and recommendations [65–67].
3.4. Participatory Workshops
A participatory workshop was conducted for each focus group, following these stages:
firstly, attendees were informed about the study’s objective and scope, as well as the environ-
mental importance of the marsh complex; secondly, stakeholders identified opportunities
for achieving food security and economic development, i.e., they identified competitive
advantages of the territory for supporting its socioeconomic development [
21
,
62
,
68
,
69
].
Stakeholders were encouraged to discuss the opportunities in terms of sociopolitical,
natural, economic, and physical capitals [
68
,
69
]; thirdly, the stakeholders were asked to
identify barriers or obstacles that hamper or limit food security and economic activities;
and fourthly, stakeholders proposed and prioritized actions for the economic development
of the territory based on these insights. In each workshop, unstructured interviews were
used with guiding questions such as: “What is the importance of the marsh for the community?
What advantages, resources, or opportunities does the municipality have to achieve its economic
development? What distinctive brand or vocation does the municipality have to boost its food
security and socioeconomic development? What barriers prevent the municipality from achieving
food security and sustainable economic transformation? What actions or strategies would enable the
development of the territory?”.
The analysis of barriers was conducted using the problem tree, a planning tool used
to identify and analyze the causes and effects of a problem [
33
,
62
]. The objective was to
identify and discuss local issues with the community, understand their interconnections,
and establish causal relationships to clearly determine the central problem (the trunk of the
tree), the causes (the roots) that provoke it, and the effects (the branches of the tree) that it
has on the community and/or the Zapatosa marsh.
Actions were prioritized using an Importance and Governability (IGo) matrix, a tool
used in participatory action research to assess actions by two attributes: the level of
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 9 of 22
Importance for achieving established objectives, and level of Governability exercised by
the stakeholders involved in each action [
33
,
70
,
71
]. The actions were evaluated by each
stakeholder, who was asked to assess how important each action was for the community
and how much it depended on them to carry it out. We used the following scale for
the Importance axis: unimportant (1), slightly important (2), uncertain (3), important (4),
and very important (5). The following scale was used for the Governability axis: none (0),
weak (1), moderate (3), and strong (5) [72].
During the participatory workshops, the researchers also conducted a transect walk
across the territory with local stakeholders, aiming to capture photos and observational
notes on the social, environmental, and economic context. This walk served to verify
the barriers and opportunities identified by local stakeholders during the participatory
workshops. A transect walk is a participatory research tool used to explore the territory,
collect qualitative data, and ensure that local knowledge is incorporated into the decision-
making process [25,31,42].
3.5. Data Analysis, Presentation, Furthermore, Discussion
The field data were then compiled and analyzed. The matrices of opportunities
were consolidated into a single matrix by grouping the advantages found by common
denominators. A similar procedure was performed for the problem trees to derive a single
problem tree for the municipality. For each action, we calculated the mean and standard
deviation (std) of the assessments provided by the stakeholders, determining these values
for both Governability and Importance. For each participatory session, an IGo matrix was
derived, the axis of the quadrants were defined based on the respective medians of the
Importance and Governance levels given in the evaluations. Then, the analysis of the
results enabled the development of the participatory diagnosis into a final report, following
its validation by the community.
4. Results
4.1. Stakeholder Identification Furthermore, Characterization
Table 3provides a description of the local stakeholders identified from the databases.
The stakeholders were divided into three focus groups: the first group, consisting of
communal action boards (JAC), is referred to as the JAC Sector; the second group, consisting
of agricultural, fish farming, and fishing stakeholders, is referred to as the Productive Sector;
and the third group, consisting of other non-productive associations such as artists and
cultural entities, is referred to as the Non-Productive Sector. The communal action boards
(JAC) and the agricultural sector were the first and second largest groups of stakeholders
in the municipality, respectively.
Table 3. Description of the stakeholders identified in the municipality of Chimichagua. Economic,
sociocultural, institutional, and environmental stakeholders were found using data from three
databases: the town council, the Chamber of Commerce of Valledupar, and the Chamber of Commerce
of Aguachica.
Focal Group Stakeholder Main Activity Number of
Stakeholders
1Communal action boards
(JAC)
Community development
and local governance 93
2 Productive Sector Agricultural 8
Livestock-related 10
3 Non-Productive Sector
Cultural, artistic,
civic-oriented, or other
service-related activities
23
educational activities 1
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 10 of 22
Figure 3presents the classification conducted by the official on the identified stakehold-
ers. A total of 78.52% of the stakeholders were categorized as being in favor of participating
in productive projects and food security initiatives.
Interest
In favor
Low
Against
Indifferent
Influence
Medium
High 90
stakeholders
1
stakeholders
8
stakeholders
2
stakeholders
8
stakeholders
26
stakeholders
Figure 3. Stakeholder analysis for the municipality of Chimichagua regarding productive projects
and food security. An official of the municipal administration classified the stakeholders based on
two attributes: the level of Influence or power that a stakeholder has over the project or initiative,
and level of Interest or concern that a stakeholder has in the project or initiative.
4.2. Participatory Workshops
A total of 169 individuals participated in the participatory workshops: 76 were from
the JAC group, 53 were from the Productive Sector, and 40 were from the Non-Productive
Sector. Notably, some stakeholders were represented by several individuals, and similarly,
some individuals, because of their multiple roles in the community, participated in several
workshops (e.g., a president of a JAC could also be a member of a productive association).
Figure 4illustrates the stakeholders participating in the workshops, identifying barriers
and opportunities, and formulating actions.
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Participatory workshops in the municipality of Chimichagua. (a) Depicts stakeholders from
the Productive Sector identifying territorial barriers and opportunities for economic development
and food security. (b) Shows stakeholders from the JAC Sector formulating and prioritizing actions
to transform the territory.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 11 of 22
Figure 5provides the matrix of opportunities for the municipality of Chimichagua.
Among the opportunities identified by the stakeholders, the wetland complex stood out as
a multifaceted source of food, raw materials, and ecotourism. Similarly, the community em-
phasized the potential of the lands for agricultural diversification: crops such as cassava, oil
palm, citrus fruits, as well as dual-purpose livestock farming and fish farming. Additionally,
the manufacturing and marketing of handicrafts were identified as opportunities, along
with the large companies operating in the area that contribute to community development.
The municipality of Chimichagua’s pier and ZWC’s islands were also recognized as key
opportunities due to their ecotourism appeal. Figure 6depicts the municipality’s pier,
which was verified by researchers during the transect walks.
Natural capital
Sociopolitical capital
Economic capital
Physical capital
- The wetland complex as a source of food,
employment, and raw materials
- Fertile lands and a variety of thermal floors
for agricultural production
- Abundant water supply
- Water hyacinth as an input for the production
of handicrafts, paper, and livestock feed
- Production of citrus and other crops
- Dual-purpose livestock farming
- Poultry farming
- Fish and fishing production
- Handicraft manufacturing and
commercialization
- The municipality's pier and the ZMC's
islands, which have ecotourism appeal
- The municipality has access to the
Caribbean Highway
- The municipality profits from the
commercial activity through the
Caribbean Highway
- Support from the Community
Development Office to producers
- Training provided by the Fishing and
Livestock Training Center
- Sociopolitical and economic associations
that have convening and coordination
power
- Support from AUNAP, ALMA and
NATURA foundation, and Fondo
Emprender
- The Victims Unit of Colombia has an
office in the town
- Land restitution projects
Figure 5. Matrix of opportunities for the municipality of Chimichagua. Opportunities or competitive
advantages identified by stakeholders, which support its socioeconomic development and food
security in terms of sociopolitical, natural, economic, and physical capitals. National Authority of
Aquaculture and Fisheries (AUNAP); Zapatosa Wetland Complex (ZMC).
Figure 6. The municipality of Chimichagua’s pier was identified by stakeholders as a key opportunity
and was verified by researchers during the transect walks.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 12 of 22
Figure 7depicts the problem tree of the municipality of Chimichagua. Stakeholders
identified the lack of support from the state through its territorial entities as the central
problem in achieving food security and economic reactivation. As the roots of the central
problem, the community identified the following causes: the perceived corruption in
the management of public resources, low social investment, informality in land tenure,
deterioration of tertiary roads, lack of irrigation districts, limited agricultural technical
assistance, pollution of water sources, and lack of environmental education. Consequently,
stakeholders stated that the central problem has led to consequences or branches such as
food insecurity, low employment generation, a high proportion of people with unmet basic
needs, public order problems, and low coverage of public services.
Created by ani rofiqah
from the Noun Project
Poor support from territorial
entities
Perception of corruption
in the management
of public resources
Informality in
land tenure
Inadequate maintenance
of available
infrastructure
Lack of agricultural
technical
assistance
Lack of irrigation
districts
High cost of
agricultural inputs
Vulnerability of production
systems and infrastructure
to recurrent climate
changes
Open-air
sanitary landfills
Scarce environmental
education
Low social
investment
unmet
basic needs
Environmental
pollution
Low agricultural
productivity
High production
costs
Unemployment
and
informal labor
multidimensional
poverty
Municipality's
category (6ta)
Low coverage of
public services
Producers obtain low
returns because of
intermediaries
Lack of
associativity
Food
insecurity
Poor condition
of tertiary roads
Figure 7. Problem tree for the municipality of Chimichagua. The central problem (the trunk of the
tree) was identified by the stakeholders, as well as the causes (the roots) that provoke it, and the
effects (the branches of the tree) that it had on the community and/or the Zapatosa marsh.
Table 4and Figure 8a present the actions proposed and evaluated by the JACs. The first
action considered as immediate was the design of a strategic plan for the formalization
and strengthening of the JACs (A3). The stakeholders considered this to be an essential
action to enhance local community representation and effective governance. The second
action was to build and set up a post-harvest plant for local fruit production (A4), which
could boost the local economy by adding value to agricultural products. They considered
that the setting up of a post-harvest plant could generate employment, strengthen social
cohesion, and promote sustainable agriculture. Another immediate action was to carry out
infrastructure projects to improve tertiary roads (A5), which can facilitate the distribution of
legal products to markets and improve access to essential services, enhancing connectivity
and mobility in the region.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 13 of 22
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Governance
1
2
3
4
5
Importance
A1
A10 A13
A6
A8
A2
A4
Immediate
actions
Less urgent
actions
Unnecessary
actions
Challenges
A5
A7
A9
A11
A12 A14 A3
(a)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
A1
A6
A8
A2
A4
A5
A7
A9 A3
Governance
Importance
Immediate
actions
Less urgent
actions
Unnecessary
actions
Challenges
(b)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
1
2
3
4
5
A1
A6 A2
A4
A5 A7
A3
Governance
Importance
Immediate
actions
Unnecessary
actions
Challenges
Less urgent
actions
(c)
Figure 8. Importance and Governability (IGo) matrices for the actions proposed by stakeholders
of the Municipality of Chimichagua. These stakeholders rated each action by two attributes: the
level of Importance for achieving food security and economic reactivation, and the level of Governance
exercised by the stakeholders involved in each action. JAC: Communal Action Boards. (a) JAC;
(b) Productive Sector; (c) Non-Productive Sector.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 14 of 22
Table 4. Actions proposed by the JAC Sector of the municipality of Chimichagua. These stakeholders
rated each action by two attributes: the level of Importance for achieving food security and economic
reactivation, and the level of Governance exercised by the stakeholders involved in each action. JAC:
Communal Action Boards.
ID Action Governability
(Mean/std)
Importance
(Mean/std)
A1
Building and setting up of a fish flour pro-
duction plant
1.9/1 3.7/1.6
A2
Building and setting up of a health center
in La Mata village
0.8/0.9 3.5/1.3
A3
Design of a strategic plan for the legaliza-
tion and strengthening of the JAC
3.2/1.7 4.1/1
A4
Building and setting up of a post-harvest
plant for local fruit production (mango, cit-
rus, and corozo)
3.2/1.1 4.4/0.8
A5
Infrastructure project for the improvement
of tertiary roads
2.5 4.4
A6 Expansion of rural electrification 1.8 3.2
A7
Implement solar energy systems for irriga-
tion districts
1.5/1.2 3.2/1
A8
Formulation of a project to improve the
technological capacities of artisanal fisher-
men in the municipality
1.3 /0.9 2.6/1.3
A9
Establishment and management of a public
agricultural machinery bank
1.0/1.1 3.9/1.1
A10
Building and setting up a food hub as a
community enterprise
1.9/1.4 3.5/
A11
Cooperation agreement for professional
programs with public universities in the
department of Cesar
2.5/1.6 4.5/0.9
A12
Formulation of projects for agricultural
land resource allocation
1.2/1.7 4.0/1.2
A13
Building and setting up a dairy processing
plant
2.1/1.3 3.5/0.9
A14
Building and setting up a feed concentrate
production plant using local raw materials
2.8/1.4 4.2/0.8
Median 1.9 3.8
Similarly, Table 5and Figure 8b provide the actions proposed and evaluated by the
Non-Productive sector. These stakeholders suggested the development of strategies and
projects for the sustainable use of natural resources such as ecotourism, sports, and sociocul-
tural activities as the first urgent action. They also considered the promotion of sustainable
development and balance between environmental preservation and economic progress to
be crucial actions. The remaining actions were evaluated as challenges, or less urgent or
unnecessary actions.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 15 of 22
Table 5. Actions proposed by the Non-Productive Sector of the municipality of Chimichagua. These
stakeholders rated each action by two attributes: the level of Importance for achieving food security
and economic reactivation, and the level of Governance exercised by the stakeholders involved in
each action.
ID Action Governability
(Mean/std)
Importance
(Mean/std)
A1
Building and setting up a fish farming and
fishing hub
1.2/1 4.0/0
A2
Building and setting up a solid waste recy-
cling plant
1.2/1 4.8/0.4
A3
Improving education coverage in partner-
ship with high educational and technical
institutions of the department of Cesar
3.0/0.0 4.2/0.8
A4
Development of a database of ecotourism
projects that seek the conservation of natu-
ral resources
2/1.1 4.2/0.8
A5
Building and setting up a food hub to pro-
mote local products
1.7/1 4.8/0.4
A6 Improvement of tertiary roads 1.5/1.2 4.5/0.5
A7
Support of local startups in commercial-
ization and strategic marketing through
technical training, marketing, and institu-
tional aids
1.3/0.8 4.3/0.5
A8
Development of strategies and projects for
the sustainable use of natural resources
such as ecotourism, sports, and sociocul-
tural activities
3.3/0.8 4.3/0.5
A9
Optimization and improvement of basic
sanitation coverage
1.7/1 4.2/0.8
Median 1.7 4.3
Table 6and Figure 8c provide the actions proposed and evaluated by the Productive
sector. These stakeholders considered producing feed concentrate using local raw materials
(A2) as an immediate action, seeking to boost food self-sufficiency and environmental
sustainability while stimulating value chains. Their assessment revealed two challenges:
improvement of tertiary roads (A1) and allocation of land for small-scale producers (A6).
These stakeholders justified these actions as they provide enhancements in connectivity
and market access, overcoming the logistical challenges faced by the agricultural sector,
and they promote economic growth, while fostering equity and democratizing opportuni-
ties for progress.
Table 6. Actions proposed by the Productive Sector of the municipality of Chimichagua. These
stakeholders rated each action by two attributes: the level of Importance for achieving food security
and economic reactivation, and the level of Governance exercised by the stakeholders involved in
each action.
ID Action Governability
(Mean/std)
Importance
(Mean/std)
A1
Infrastructure project for the improvement
and intervention of tertiary roads
1.9/1.1 4.4/0.8
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 16 of 22
Table 6. Cont.
ID Action Governability
(Mean/std)
Importance
(Mean/std)
A2
Production of feed concentrate using local
raw materials
3.0/0 4.4/0.8
A3 Building of irrigation districts 1.6/1 3.4/1.3
A4
Forming a cooperative of agricultural, live-
stock and fishing
3.6/1.5 3.0/1
A5
Formulating and executing an ecological
restoration program for the Serranía del
Perijá wetland complex
2.1 /1.6 3.4/1.7
A6 Land allocation for small producers 1.9/1.1 4.6/0.5
A7
Training program for agricultural, live-
stock, fishing, and artisanal sectors
2.7/0.8 3.6/1.0
Median 2.1 3.6
5. Discussion
This study presented a systematic participatory approach aimed at formulating practi-
cal solutions that promote the conservation of the ZMC while supporting the economic
growth of the municipality of Chimichagua. This approach facilitated the active involve-
ment of local stakeholders in identifying barriers and opportunities for food security and
development. The resulting insights served as a foundation for collaboratively formu-
lating actions that address the community’s real challenges and needs. The community
prioritized actions that promote economic alternatives, transforming current practices and
strengthening social cohesion while integrating the environmental value of the Zapatosa
Marsh with local economic development. Moving beyond traditional rural development
approaches, we believe these actions offer a valuable reference for planning municipal
or regional development strategies and productive projects tailored to the territory. This
approach helps ensure that development efforts align with the community’s needs and
future aspirations.
The territorial approach enabled us to identify the most pressing needs and opportuni-
ties of the territory and to find solutions endorsed by the community itself. Previous studies
have identified the same barriers and opportunities, indicating minimal transformation of
the territory over the years [
2
,
11
,
16
,
72
]. The 2020–2023 development plan for Chimichagua,
for instance, identified social, economic, and environmental issues such as poor or insuffi-
cient educational and healthcare infrastructure, road conditions, lack of irrigation districts,
and food insecurity, among other issues [
16
]. It also established fishing and agricultural
production, and livestock farming as opportunities. It also emphasized the territory’s rich
cultural and natural heritage, including cultural and handicraft associations, abundant
water resources, biodiversity provided by the marsh complex, and its tourism potential.
In the realm of natural capital, the community identified the marsh complex and its
ecosystem services as pivotal for diversifying and revitalizing the economy through green
productive activities, including ecotourism. However, for ecotourism to function as a viable
economic alternative, it necessitates conservation efforts for the marsh ecosystem and social
investments in areas such as tertiary roads, socio-cultural and sports facilities, and hotel
capacity [
11
]. It is worth noting that sports and culture can also serve as alternatives to
promote sustainable tourism centered around the Zapatosa marsh. This is due to the
municipality’s pier and rich cultural heritage, including musical, dance, folklore, and hand-
icraft associations [
11
,
16
,
72
]. Therefore, it is crucial for territorial entities, in collaboration
with local stakeholders, to develop a sustainable tourism policy grounded in three pillars:
ecology, sports, and culture. This approach aims to create diverse economic activities that
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 17 of 22
reduce dependence on subsistence extractive activities. These new alternatives can help
preserve the environmental balance of the marsh, which might otherwise be threatened by
the escalating demand for resources due to population growth.
The infrastructure deficit has been one of the persistent problems of the municipality,
resulting in social and economic impacts on its residents, particularly in areas such as
education, recreation, connectivity, and health [
12
,
16
,
72
]. These issues highlight the need
for increased social investment that residents have persistently advocated for. In the
education sector, for instance, this deficit contributed to a decline in the education coverage
rate in 2018 and 2019 [
16
]. Previous studies have documented the existence of a vicious cycle
between multidimensional poverty and low educational levels in the territorial entities
surrounding the Zapatosa marsh, something which limits development opportunities and
socioeconomic advancement [
2
,
11
,
12
]. We therefore believe the territorial entity should
invest in human capital as a primary driver to enhance competitiveness and productivity.
Additionally, adopting a strategy or policy focused on social investment and education is
crucial as a cornerstone for the development and transformation of the territory.
Additionally, the deficit in road infrastructure, particularly in tertiary roads, hinders
the efficient commercialization of agricultural and aquaculture products, thereby affecting
the productivity and competitiveness of the region. Previous studies have underscored the
crucial role of tertiary roads as a catalyst for development in rural Colombia, facilitating
improved integration of local and regional logistics networks involving producers, trans-
porters, collection centers, and end consumers [73,74]. Smooth tertiary roads facilitate the
mobility of people, goods, and services, which are fundamental aspects for the competitive-
ness of microenterprises by reducing their delivery costs when receiving inputs and/or
distributing products [
73
,
74
]. Consequently, this infrastructure deficit has hindered the
territory’s competitiveness, thereby limiting alternatives for its inhabitants’ livelihoods.
This situation may have led to unemployment, informal labor, dependence on extractive
activities, and subsequent environmental pressure on the Zapatosa Marsh Complex (all
identified as branches of the problem tree).
Regarding food security, agricultural production in the territory can be boosted by
enhancing land productivity or engaging in value-added activities, such as processing and
marketing agricultural products. This increase in production can meet internal needs and
generate surpluses for commercialization, thereby improving the municipality’s competi-
tive position. Productive projects can be formulated and implemented based on initiatives
or actions prioritized by stakeholders (e.g., production of feed concentrate). These projects
would incorporate a territorial approach and be highly relevant for the development of
the department of Cesar, the Zapatosa ecoregion, and the municipality of Chimichagua.
We believe that the findings of this study establish a starting point for transforming the
territory. However, such transformation goes beyond the technical aspects; it requires
raising awareness within the communities, establishing and implementing well-known
mechanisms for citizen participation in the territory, and genuine political will from terri-
torial entities and their institutions, supported by resources and public policies sustained
over time.
This study presented some limitations. Firstly, our sample may have been constrained
by the size of Chimichagua municipality, geographical barriers, and specific socio-economic
conditions within the territory. These factors may have hindered the mobility and partici-
pation of stakeholders in the participatory sessions, limiting the generality of the findings.
For instance, residents of rural districts such as Sempegua or Saloa often face logistical and
economic limitations in accessing the town itself because of infrastructure deficiencies and
geographical barriers like the Zapatosa marsh itself. Additionally, budgetary constraints
restricted access to other localities and stakeholders within the municipality. As a result,
certain districts within the municipality may have had minimal or no representation in the
participatory sessions, limiting the study’s findings from fully capturing the local dynamics
and the social realities of the municipality.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 18 of 22
We also recognize that snowball sampling may have introduced some bias to our
sample due to limitations like a lack of randomness and potential clustering. To mitigate
these issues, we first identified and characterized all key stakeholders in the territory by
consulting three databases. We then reached out directly to these stakeholders and invited
them to participate, using them as initial seeds to further engage other individuals and
stakeholders. Given the study’s objective of formulating solutions for the socio-ecological
conflict of the Zapatosa marsh, we sought stakeholders who were knowledgeable about
the conflict and motivated to analyze and formulate transformative actions. Alternative
sampling techniques might not have aligned with the study’s objectives, see
Tables 1and 2
.
Random sampling, for instance, could have led to participants who were unavailable,
uninterested, or unfamiliar with the territory’s critical needs and opportunities. Similarly,
purposive sampling would have been less suitable, as it required an understanding of the
local context that we lacked at the start of the study.
In addition, we conducted the participatory workshops at different times with each
focus group. Some individuals participated in multiple workshops because of their multiple
roles in the community (e.g., an individual could be a member of an agricultural association
and a JAC president). However, in each session, barriers and opportunities were analyzed
from the perspective of the respective sector. Another limitation of the study was the
absence of a participatory session involving all focus groups to discuss and consolidate
all findings (barriers, opportunities, and actions). Instead, we conducted a validation
and feedback session with the community to share the findings and encourage further
discussions for the final report of the baseline diagnosis.
Lastly, this study adopted a qualitative focus, emphasizing the voices of local stake-
holders concerning their most pressing needs, concerns, and perspectives on the socio-
ecological conflict affecting the wetland, as well as their vision for location-specific solutions,
while prior studies have highlighted the socio-ecological context, environmental value,
and degradation of the Zapatosa wetland [
1
–
9
], future research should consider integrating
quantitative data from secondary sources, statistical tools (e.g., principal component analy-
sis or descriptive analysis), and expert assessments. Analyzing these secondary sources
will facilitate a comprehensive diagnosis of the municipality of Chimichagua and provide
decision-makers with a clearer understanding of its current social, economic, and environ-
mental conditions. This, in turn, will enable them to make informed decisions that promote
the sustainable development of the Zapatosa ecoregion.
6. Conclusions
This study applied a participatory approach with stakeholders from the municipality
of Chimichagua to address solutions for the socio-ecological conflict arising from com-
peting interests—namely, the conservation of the Zapatosa Marsh Complex alongside the
community’s economic growth and food security. Local stakeholders engaged in a col-
laborative process to identify barriers and opportunities within the territory, highlighting
their most pressing needs and pathways to support livelihoods and foster regional growth.
For instance, the Zapatosa Marsh Complex was recognized as a valuable source of food,
raw materials, and water, as well as an appealing ecotourism destination, particularly
when combined with the municipality’s pier. These stakeholders also identified barriers,
including limited local support, perceived corruption, infrastructure deficits, and a lack of
technical assistance.
Based on these insights, stakeholders prioritized actions aimed at developing agro-
industrial and ecotourism projects, explicitly calling for economic alternatives beyond
resource extraction as a strategy for conserving the Zapatosa Marsh ecosystem. We view
this study as a foundation for developing municipal and regional policies and intervention
projects in the short, medium, and long term, with the goal of fostering socio-economic
and environmental harmony in Chimichagua and the Zapatosa Wetland Complex. This
participatory approach could be replicated across all municipalities within the Zapatosa
ecoregion to propose locally and regionally tailored economic alternatives, based on each
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 19 of 22
municipality’s unique barriers and opportunities, while aligning the marsh’s ecological
value with sustainable economic development. Additionally, this approach could serve as
a model for addressing socio-environmental conflicts in other strategic ecosystems.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.W.M.M. and J.J.V.; methodology, J.W.M.M., S.A.G.
and J.J.V.; software, R.R.; validation, J.W.M.M., S.A.G. and R.R.; formal analysis, J.W.M.M., S.A.G.
and R.R.; investigation, J.W.M.M., R.R., S.A.G. and J.J.V.; resources, R.R. and J.J.V.; data curation,
J.W.M.M., S.A.G. and R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.G. and R.R.; writing—review
and editing, J.W.M.M., S.A.G. and R.R.; visualization, S.A.G. and R.R.; supervision, J.W.M.M., J.J.V.
and R.R.; project administration, J.J.V. and R.R.; funding acquisition, J.J.V. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Sistema General de Regalías (SGR) de Colombia, under project-
ID: BPIN 2020000100730. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessar-
ily represent the SGR.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The list of stakeholders underlying this article cannot be shared publicly
due to privacy restrictions. To the extent allowed by the Law of Personal Data Protection, the data
from this manuscript will be shared upon written request to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations were used in this manuscript:
ZMC Zapatosa marsh complex
CORPOCESAR Autonomous Regional Corporations of the Department of Cesar
CORPAMAG Autonomous Regional Corporations of the Department of Magdalena
POMCA Basin Management and Zoning Plan
DANE National Administrative Department of Statistics
PAR Participation Action Research
SRD Sustainable Rural Development
CBPR Community-Based Participatory Research
PM Participatory Modeling
PLA Participatory Learning Action
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PA Participatory Assessment
References
1.
Rivera Díaz, O.; Avella, A.; García, J.D.; Castro, R.S.Y.; Rangel-Ch, O.J. Las plantas con flores del complejo cenagoso Zapatosa. In
Colombia Diversidad Biótica XIII: Complejo Cenagoso Zapatosa y Ciénagas del Sur del Cesar. Biodiversidad, Conservación y Manejo, 1st ed.;
Rangel-Ch, O.J., Ed.; Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2013; pp. 203–242.
2. Viloria de la Hoz, J.R. Economía extractiva y pobreza en la ciénaga de Zapatosa. Rev. Del Banco RepÚblica 2008,81, 23–64.
3.
Rangel-Ch, O.J. Hidrología: Caudales y niveles de la ciénaga de la Zapatosa, Departamento del Cesar. In Colombia Diversidad
Biótica XIII. Complejo Cenagoso Zapatosa y Ciénagas del Sur del Cesar. Biodiversidad, Conservación y Manejo, 1st ed.; Rangel-Ch, O.J.,
Ed.; Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2013; pp. 381–391.
4.
Ardila, M.; Ardila, I. Aves de las ciénagas del Departamento del Cesar. In Colombia Diversidad Biótica XIII. Complejo Cenagoso
Zapatosa y Ciénagas del Sur del Cesar. Biodiversidad, Conservación y Manejo, 1st ed.; Rangel-Ch, O.J., Ed.; Instituto de Ciencias
Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2013; pp. 559–598.
5.
Galvis, G.; Lopez, Y.; Gutierrez, M.A. Peces del complejo cenagoso de Zapatosa, Mata de Palma y la Pachita. In Colombia Diversidad
Biótica XIII. Complejo cenagoso Zapatosa y Ciénagas del Sur del Cesar. Biodiversidad, Conservación y Manejo, 1st ed.; Rangel-Ch, O.J.,
Ed.; Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2013; pp. 525–557.
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 20 of 22
6.
Rangel-Ch, O.J.; Arellano-P, H.; Garay, H. Zonificación y plan de manejo ambiental del complejo cenagoso de Zapatosa. In
Colombia Diversidad Biótica XIII. Complejo Cenagoso Zapatosa y Ciénagas del Sur del Cesar. Biodiversidad, Conservación y Manejo, 1st ed.;
Rangel-Ch, O.J., Ed.; Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2013; pp. 673–707.
7.
CORPOCESAR; CORPAMAG. Documento Síntesis para la Declaratoria del Complejo Cenagoso de la Zapatosa como Área Protegida;
Technical Report, Convenio Interadministrativo N 205 de 2017; Corporación Autonoma Regional del Magdalena and Universidad
del Magdalena: Magdalena, Colombia; Corporación Autonoma Regional del Cesar: Cesar, Colombia, 2017.
8.
Javeriana, P.U. Evaluación de Servicios Ecosistémicos en Humedales en Colombia: Una Propuesta de Insumos Espaciales Para su Delimitación;
Technical Report; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogota, Colombia, 2015.
9.
Castaño Barreto, A.C.; Jaramillo-Cruz, C.A.; Molina Benavides, R.A.; Atzori, A.S. Scenarios of Sustainable Fishing in the Zapatosa
Marsh (Colombia) Simulated with a System Dynamics Model. Sustainability 2020,12, 3458. [CrossRef]
10. RAMSAR. The List of Wetlands of International Importance; Technical Report; The Convention on Wetlands: Ramsar, Iran, 2023.
11.
Consorcio Guatapurí Cesar. Formulación del POMCA del Río Bajo Cesar-Ciénaga Zapatosa; Technical Report, CONTRATO DE
CONSULTORÍA NO. 19-6-0145-0-2015; CORPOCESAR—Fondo Adaptación: Bogota, Colombia, 2017.
12.
Sánchez, D.; Pérez, D.; Ortiz, P.; Mercado, O.; Moreno, A.; Batista, M. Caracterización Biológica y Ecológica de las Comunidades
de Plantas Acuáticas, Plantas Terrestres y Macroinvertebrados, y Caracterización físico-Química de Aguas de la Ventana de Estudio de la
Ciénaga de Zapatosa; Technical report, Fundación Omacha e Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von
Humboldt; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2015.
13.
Ávila, S.; Estupiñan, M. Evaluación de la calidad microbiológica del agua de la Ciénaga de Zapatosa. In Colombia Diversidad
Biótica XIII. Complejo Cenagoso Zapatosa y Ciénagas del Sur del Cesar. Biodiversidad, Conservación y Manejo, 1st ed.; Rangel-Ch, O.J.,
Ed.; Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2013; pp. 453–463.
14.
Luna Acosta, A.; Ortiz, C.; Corrales, E.; Sarmiento López, A.; Nieto, O.; Restrepo, S. Caracterización socioecológica de las tres
ventanas piloto de humedales Ciénaga de Zapatosa, Ciénaga de La Virgen, Paz de Ariporo-Hato Corozal; Technical Report; Instituto de
Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2015.
15.
Pérez, M. Plan de Desarrollo 2016–2020: Gobierno al Servicio de Todos; Technical Report; Alcaldia de Chimichagua: Chimichagua,
Colombia, 2016.
16.
Moreno Borrero, C. Plan de desarrollo 2020–2023: Chimichagua Productiva; Technical Report; Alcaldia de Chimichagua: Chimichagua,
Colombia, 2020.
17. Hardin, G. La tragedia de los comunes. POLIS Rev. Latinoam. 2005,4, 0.
18.
Ostrom, E. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 2009,325, 419–422. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
19.
Ostrom, E. Chapter 24 Common-pool resources and institutions: Toward a revised theory. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; Volume 2, pp. 1315–1339. [CrossRef]
20.
Baptiste, B.; Pinedo-Vasquez, M.; Gutierrez-Velez, V.H.; Andrade, G.I.; Vieira, P.; Estupiñán-Suárez, L.M.; Londoño, M.C.;
Laurance, W.; Lee, T.M. Greening peace in Colombia. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017,1, 0102. [CrossRef]
21.
Sepúlveda, S. Gestión del Desarrollo Sostenible en Territorios Rurales: Métodos para la Planificación, 1st ed.; Instituto Interamericano de
Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA): San José, Costa Rica, 2008.
22.
Schejtman, A.; Berdegué, J.A. Desarrollo Territorial Rural; Technical Report 1, Debates y Temas Rurales; RIMISP-Centro
Latinoamericano Para el Desarrollo Rural: Santiago, Chile, 2004.
23.
Hopwood, B.; Mellor, M.; O’Brien, G. Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustain. Dev. 2005,13, 38–52.
[CrossRef]
24.
Elliott, J. An Introduction to Sustainable Development, 4th ed.; Routledge Perspectives on Development; Taylor and Francis:
Abingdon, UK, 2012.
25.
Keahey, J. Sustainable Development and Participatory Action Research: A Systematic Review. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 2021,
34, 291–306. [CrossRef]
26.
Coeugnet, P.; Labatut, J.; Duval, J.; Vourc’h, G. Including citizens through co-design in a participatory research project to explore
innovative agro-food systems: The case of future dairy livestock systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023,7, 1098295. [CrossRef]
27.
Chevalier, J.M.; Buckles, D.J. Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London,
UK, 2019. [CrossRef]
28. Brydon-Miller, M.; Greenwood, D.; Maguire, P. Why Action Research? Action Res. 2003,1, 9–28. [CrossRef]
29.
Cornish, F.; Breton, N.; Moreno-Tabarez, U.; Delgado, J.; Rua, M.; de Graft Aikins, A.; Hodgetts, D. Participatory action research.
Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 2023,3, 34. [CrossRef]
30.
Fahy, F. Participatory Action Research in Environmental and Ecological Studies. In International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Wright, J.D., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 535–539. [CrossRef]
31.
Kindon, S.; Pain, R.; Kesby, M. Participatory Action Research. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 1st ed.; Kitchin, R.,
Thrift, N., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 90–95. [CrossRef]
32.
Cvitanovic, C.; Howden, M.; Colvin, R.M.; Norström, A.; Meadow, A.M.; Addison, P.F.E. Maximising the benefits of participatory
climate adaptation research by understanding and managing the associated challenges and risks. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019,
94, 20–31. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 21 of 22
33.
Montemayor, M.; Gándara, G. La Participación Ciudadana Como Factor Clave Para el Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible: Hacia la Gobernanza
en la Delegación del Huajuco; Number 88 in Prospectiva en América Latina: Aprendizajes a partir de la práctica, Seminarios y
Conferencias; CEPAL, Naciones Unidas: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2018.
34.
Hebinck, P.; Smith, L.; Aliber, M. Beyond technocracy: The role of the state in rural development in the Eastern Cape, South
Africa. Land Use Policy 2023,126, 106527. [CrossRef]
35.
´
Curci´c, N.; Mirkovi´c Svitlica, A.; Brankov, J.; Bjeljac, Z.; Pavlovi´c, S.; Jandzikovi´c, B. The Role of Rural Tourism in Strengthening
the Sustainability of Rural Areas: The Case of Zlakusa Village. Sustainability 2021,13, 6747. [CrossRef]
36. Diao, X.; Hazell, P.; Thurlow, J. The Role of Agriculture in African Development. World Dev. 2010,38, 1375–1383. [CrossRef]
37.
Rigg, J. Land, farming, livelihoods, and poverty: Rethinking the links in the Rural South. World Dev. 2006,34, 180–202. [CrossRef]
38.
Thompson, J.; Scoones, I. Challenging the populist perspective: Rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research, and extension
practice. Agric. Human Values 1994,11, 58–76. [CrossRef]
39.
Stosch, K.C.; Quilliam, R.S.; Bunnefeld, N.; Oliver, D.M. Managing Multiple Catchment Demands for Sustainable Water Use and
Ecosystem Service Provision. Water 2017,9, 677. [CrossRef]
40.
Lécuyer, L.; Alard, D.; Calla, S.; Coolsaet, B.; Fickel, T.; Heinsoo, K.; Henle, K.; Herzon, I.; Hodgson, I.; Quvetier, F.; et al. Chapter
One-Conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe: Looking to the future by learning from the past. In
Advances in Ecological Research; Bohan, D.A., Dumbrell, A.J., Vanbergen, A.J., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021;
Volume 65, pp. 3–56. [CrossRef]
41. Asha, C.; RetinaI, C.; Suson, P.; Bijoy, S. Ecosystem analysis of the degrading Vembanad wetland ecosystem, the largest Ramsar
site on the South West Coast of India—Measures for its sustainable management. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2016,8, 408–421. [CrossRef]
42.
Kumar, S.; Schenck, C.; Oberlies, D.; Bhaiya, A. A Participatory Research Workshop in Northern India—A Transnational
Collaboration. Sustainability 2023,15, 16808. [CrossRef]
43.
Martins, I.M.; Prado, D.S.; Gonçalves, L.R.; Jacobi, P.R.; Kefalas, H.C.; Oliveira-Monteiro, N.R.; Scachetti, R.E.; Taddei, R.; Vianna,
L.P.; Vivacqua, M.; et al. Ocean conflicts for whom and why? Participatory conflict assessment in the southeast coast of Brazil.
Marit. Stud. 2023,22, 40. [CrossRef]
44.
Van der Wal, M.; De Kraker, J.; Offermans, A.; Kroeze, C.; Kirschner, P.A.; van Ittersum, M. Measuring Social Learning in
Participatory Approaches to Natural Resource Management. Environ. Policy Gov. 2014,24, 1–15. [CrossRef]
45.
Peano, C.; Caron, S.; Mahfoudhi, M.; Zammel, K.; Zaidi, H.; Sottile, F. A Participatory Agrobiodiversity Conservation Approach in
the Oases: Community Actions for the Promotion of Sustainable Development in Fragile Areas. Diversity 2021,13, 253. [CrossRef]
46.
Perz, S.G.; Arteaga, M.; Baudoin Farah, A.; Brown, I.F.; Mendoza, E.R.H.; de Paula, Y.A.P.; Perales Yabar, L.M.; Pimentel, A.d.S.;
Ribeiro, S.C.; Rioja-Ballivián, G.; et al. Participatory Action Research for Conservation and Development: Experiences from the
Amazon. Sustainability 2022,14, 233. [CrossRef]
47.
Hernández Maqueda, R.; Paste, S.; Chango, M.d.C.; Serrano, B.F.; del Moral, F. Designing Biodiversity Management Strategies at
the Community Level: Approaches Based on Participatory Action Research. Hum. Ecol. 2022,50, 665–679. [CrossRef]
48.
Hargrove, W.L.; Heyman, J.M. A Comprehensive Process for Stakeholder Identification and Engagement in Addressing Wicked
Water Resources Problems. Land 2020,9, 119. [CrossRef]
49.
Gavin, M.C.; McCarter, J.; Berkes, F.; Mead, A.T.P.; Sterling, E.J.; Tang, R.; Turner, N.J. Effective Biodiversity Conservation
Requires Dynamic, Pluralistic, Partnership-Based Approaches. Sustainability 2018,10, 1846. [CrossRef]
50.
Cybèle, C.; Kato-Huerta, J.; Montero-Hidalgo, M.; Burkhard, B.; Grimoire, R.; Sica, F.; Sieber, I.M. Using co-creation to build
knowledge on cultural ecosystem services – A tiered approach for enhanced regional economic development of Réunion Island.
Ecosystem Services 2024,68, 101638. [CrossRef]
51.
Dhyani, S.; Shukla, J.; Kadaverugu, R.; Dasgupta, R.; Panda, M.; Kundu, S.K.; Santhanam, H.; Pujari, P.R.; Kumar, P.; Hashimoto, S.
Participatory Stakeholder Assessment for Drivers of Mangrove Loss to Prioritize Evidence-Based Conservation and Restoration
in Bhitarkanika and Mahanadi Delta, India. Sustainability 2023,15, 963. [CrossRef]
52.
Goebel, K.; Camargo-Borges, C.; Eelderink, M. Exploring participatory action research as a driver for sustainable tourism. Int. J.
Tour. Res. 2020,22, 425–437. [CrossRef]
53.
Sisto, R.; Fernández, L.; Yazdani, M.; Estepa, L.; Torkayesh, A. Strategic planning of rural areas: Integrating participatory
backcasting and multiple criteria decision analysis tools. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 2022,82, 101248. [CrossRef]
54.
Ghosal, S.; Majumdar, A.; Ruj, C. Reconnecting humans with nature: A nature-based participatory approach for the enhancement
of biodiversity knowledge in urban area of West Bengal, India. GeoJournal 2023,88, 4537–4554. [CrossRef]
55.
Ruiz-Mondragón, E.d.J.; Romero-Figueroa, G.; Paredes-Montesinos, R.; Tapia-Cabazos, L.A.; Méndez-Rosas, L.A.; Venegas-
Barrera, C.S.; Arrellano-García, M.E.; Guerrero-Cárdenas, I.; Lozano-Cavazos, E.A. Community-Based Workshops to Involve
Rural Communities in Wildlife Management Case Study: Bighorn Sheep in Baja California, Mexico. Animals 2023,13, 3171.
[CrossRef]
56.
Hove, J.; Mabetha, D.; Merwe, M.v.d.; Twine, R.; Kahn, K.; Witter, S.; D’Ambruoso, L. Participatory action research to address lack
of safe water, a community-nominated health priority in rural South Africa. PLoS ONE 2023,18, e0288524. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57.
Ayantunde, A.A.; Ebro, A.; Berhanu, T.; Moges, D.; van der Lee, J. Action Research in Agricultural Development Projects: Case
Study of a Dairy Project in Ethiopia. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 2024. [CrossRef]
58.
Mascarenhas, A.; Ramos, T.B.; Haase, D.; Santos, R. Participatory selection of ecosystem services for spatial planning: Insights
from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016,18, 87–99. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 10806 22 of 22
59.
Masson, J.E.; Soustre-Gacougnolle, I.; Perrin, M.; Schmitt, C.; Henaux, M.; Jaugey, C.; Teillet, E.; Lollier, M.; Lallemand, J.F.;
Schermesser, F. Transdisciplinary participatory-action-research from questions to actionable knowledge for sustainable viticulture
development. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2021,8, 1–9. [CrossRef]
60.
Belmonte, S.; Escalante, K.N.; Franco, J. Shaping changes through participatory processes: Local development and renewable
energy in rural habitats. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015,45, 278–289. [CrossRef]
61.
Hernández Guzmán, A.; Hern´ndez Guzmán, D.; Milanés, C.B.; Ramírez, O.; Herrera Tapias, B.; Montero, O.P.; Gutiérrez Reyes,
A.; Zielinski, S. Community-Based Participatory Research on Urban Environmental Conflicts: Sand Quarries in Northern Bogotá.
Land 2024,13, 1460. [CrossRef]
62.
Sandoval, C.; Silva Lira, I. Metodología para la Elaboración de Estrategias de Desarrollo Local; Number 76 in Serie Manuales; CEPAL,
ILPES, Naciones Unidas: Santiago, Chile, 2012.
63.
Falivene, G.; Artusi, A.J.; Arrejoria, G.; Curró, C.V. Prospectiva y Desarrollo Local: El caso del Municipio de Santa Anita, Departamento
Uruguay, Provincia de Entre Ríos, Argentina; Number 88 in Prospectiva en América Latina: Aprendizajes a partir de la práctica,
Seminarios y Conferencias; CEPAL, Naciones Unidas: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2018.
64.
Tapella, E. El Mapeo de Actores Claves. Documento de Trabajo del Proyecto Efectos de la Biodiversidad Funcional Sobre Procesos
Ecosistémicos, Servicios Ecosistémicos y Sustentabilidad en las Américas: Un abordaje interdisciplinario; Technical Report; Universidad
Nacional de Córdoba, Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI): Córdoba, Argentina, 2007.
65.
Baltar, F.; Brunet, I. Social research 2.0: Virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Res. 2012,22, 57–74.
[CrossRef]
66. Goodman, L.A. Snowball Sampling. Ann. Math. Stat. 1961,32, 148–170. [CrossRef]
67. Otzen, T.; Manterola, C. Técnicas de Muestreo sobre una Población a Estudio. Int. J. Morphol. 2017,35, 227–232. [CrossRef]
68.
Gallardo, R.; Garrido, D.; Haro, T.d.; Pedraza, V.; Ramos, E.; Ramos, F.; Sánchez, P. Desarrollo territorial rural: Metodologá y aplicación
para el Estudio de Casos; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Gobierno de España: Madrid, Spain, 2011.
69.
Ramos, A. Desarrollo Rural Sostenible con Enfoque Territorial: Politicas y Estrategias Para Urugual, 1st ed.; Seminario Nacional;
Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA): Montevideo, Uruguay, 2003.
70.
Lugo, M.V. Uso del análisis estructural para caracterizar variables de calidad educativa en institución de primaria y secundaria
venezolana. Educación 2020,29, 170–190. [CrossRef]
71.
Mantilla, H.O.; Restrepo, I.M.; Restrepo, L.A.M. Future scenarios for the brand name phytosanitary agrochemical industry in the
floriculture of Bogotá. Rev. Fac. Nac. Agron. Medellín 2015,68, 7743–7753. [CrossRef]
72.
DNP. Planeación para el Desarrollo Integral en las Entidades Territoriales: El Plan de Desarrollo 2012–2015; Volume 4 In Guías
para la Gestión púBlica Territorial; Departamento Nacional Planeación (DNP), Convenio Fondo de Población de las Naciones
Unidas—UNFPA—Universidad Externado de Colombia, Fundación Nueva Cultura: Bogotá, Colombia, 2007.
73. Narvaez, L. Vías terciarias: Motor del desarrollo económico rural. Rev. Ing. 2017,1, 80–87. [CrossRef]
74.
Pening Gaviria, J.P. Inversión de Recursos Públicos en Infraestructura de Vías Terciarias; Volume 4 in Planeación y Desarrollo;
Departamento Nacional Planeación (DNP): Bogotá, Colombia, 2023.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
