Conservation Letter

Tropical Conservation Science

Volume 12: 1–19
Rethinking Landscape Conservation: ! The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Linking Globalized Agriculture to sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1940082919889503
Changes to Indigenous journals.sagepub.com/home/trc

Community-Managed Landscapes

Ted J. Lawrence1 , Richard C. Stedman1, Stephen J. Morreale1,

and Sarah R. Taylor2

Abstract
Community-managed landscapes have valuable conservation potential. In particular, indigenous community management has
slowed deforestation. However, globalized agriculture is an underlying driver of changes to indigenous community-managed
landscapes. Our objective is to explain a hypothesized global-to-local causal pathway that stems from processes of globalized
agriculture and changes to indigenous community-managed landscapes. The global-to-local pathway involves a nested hier-
archy of political–economic processes, specifically land and natural resource privatization, commodification, and acquisition.
At the local landscape level, we focus on changes to land tenure, livelihoods, land use, and land cover. Changes to land tenure
involve a shift away from community and toward individual ownership and management. Concurrently, livelihoods shift away
from subsistence and toward market-oriented activities. Subsequently, land use shifts away from small-scale extensive and
toward large-scale intensive crop cultivation, away from diverse crop cultivation and toward monocropping, and away from
crop toward livestock farming. Ultimately, land cover shifts away from diverse agro-forested and toward homogeneous
deforested lands. We illustrate our approach using ejidos, a type of community-managed lands, in Yucatán, México as an
exploratory example. We use descriptive statistics to initially assess the shift in ejido land tenure, from community to
individually parcelized systems, and the shift in a principal subsistence livelihood and land use activity, from maize cultivation
to cattle rearing. We highlight that individually parceled areas within ejidos are more deforested than community-managed
areas. In all, we urge landscape conservation scientists to more fully consider not just local actions but also impacts stemming
from globalized agriculture and to advance the breadth and depth of more extensive studies and analyses.

Keywords
globalized agriculture, indigenous communities, land tenure, livelihoods, land use and land cover

Introduction & Rodr
ıguez-Sánchez, 2019). Although landscape con-

Community-managed landscapes have valuable conser- servation depends on the social, political, and economic
vation potential (Harvey et al., 2008). For example, context (Baynes, Herbohn, Smith, Fisher, & Bray, 2015),
community-managed forests across the tropics have
showed lower and less-variable annual deforestation
1
rates than protected forests (Porter-Bolland et al., Department of Natural Resources, Cornell Center for Conservation
Social Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
2012). In particular, indigenous or native peoples’ 2
Department of Anthropology, California State University, Carson, CA,
community management has slowed deforestation USA
and land degradation (Blackman, Corral, Lima, & Received 17 June 2019; Revised 16 October 2019; Accepted 17 October
Asner, 2017; Ceddia, Gunter, & Corriveau-Bourque, 2019
2015). Maya Community Forest Reserves (MCFR)
Corresponding Author:
across the Yucatán Peninsula are an example of Ted J. Lawrence, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University,
where plant diversity is sustained at a high level Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
(Levy-Tacher, Ram
ırez-Marcial, Navarrete-Gutiérrez, Email: TJL222@cornell.edu

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and dis-
tribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.
sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Tropical Conservation Science

as well as de jure, de facto, or mixed community regimes expansion and exports are considered a primary driver
(Agarwala & Ginsberg, 2017), community-managed of tropical deforestation (Chowdhury, 2010; DeFries,
landscapes often sustain biodiversity at levels compara- Rudel, Uriarte, & Hansen, 2010; Laurance et al.,
ble to old-growth forests and pristine reserves (Jose, 2014). The changes are especially noticeable in land-
2012). As a result, community-managed landscapes are scapes comprised of swidden or rotational (slash-and-
becoming a global trend (Baynes et al., 2015) and offer burn) agroforestry (see Mertz et al., 2009 for a thorough
potential management options that conservationists definition and discussion of the types of swidden agricul-
have come to acknowledge (Sistla et al., 2016; Vallejo- ture), which are often cited as biodiversity-friendly land
Ramos, Moreno-Calles, & Casas, 2016). use systems (Padoch & Pinedo-Vásquez, 2010; Schmook,
Land tenure systems are important to landscape con- van Vliet, Radel, de Jes
us Manz
on-Che, & McCandless,
servation. As informal and formal resource management 2013). However, in the last few decades, political–
institutions, land tenure systems determine the relation- economic pressures have encouraged or enforced
ships among people and their land (Barnes, 2009; changes from swidden to more intensive and permanent
Spalding, 2017) and are intricately tied to culture agriculture practices (van Vliet et al., 2012). Such pat-
(Berkes, 2012). For many indigenous societies, land terns are troubling because many of these same countries
tenure follows cultural norms and values based on harbor extensive global biodiversity and diverse indige-
land use over many generations. Hence, livelihoods are nous cultures (Ribeiro Palacios et al., 2013).
based on detailed knowledge about local ecological con- Despite their potential importance, it is rare that
ditions, plants, animals, and interconnecting ecological political–economic processes related to globalized agri-
processes that culminate in complex systems for catego- culture, such as international trade, are analyzed as a
rizing ecological characteristics and patterns (Altieri, key driving force of landscape change (Pace &
2004; Kassam, 2009). Consequently, indigenous land Gephart, 2017). In particular, the influence of globalized
and resource management can be quite sophisticated agriculture on changes to indigenous community-
and adaptive (Berkes, 2009), often involving low- managed landscapes is seldom acknowledged and is
intensity inputs with little mechanization, multiple and afforded minimal consideration in regional or interna-
intermingled use, and rotational strategies (G. M. tional conservation planning (Treweek, Brown, & Bubb,
Robinson, 2018). Traditional knowledge and practices 2006). For example, the Convention on Biological
can therefore result in extensive ecological gradients, Diversity addresses issues concerning local development
diverse patches and high-quality habitat, and ecosystems and poverty reduction (Secretariat of the Convention on
and landscapes with a wide array of species and consid- Biological Diversity, 2010). However, these and similar
erable biodiversity (Fischer, Hartel, & Kuemmerle, 2012; efforts fall short of addressing broader political–eco-
Ribeiro Palacios et al., 2013). nomic forces, such as global agricultural commodity
Despite the importance of indigenous community- markets as underlying driving forces of change to indig-
managed landscapes to conservation, globalized enous landscapes (DeFries et al., 2010; Meyfroidt et al.,
agriculture—integration of local-to-national agriculture 2014; Meyfroidt, Lambin, Erb, & Hertel, 2013; Pace &
markets into the global market economy via the reduc- Gephart, 2017). Rather, land privatization and its inte-
tion of international trade barriers and subsequent gration into the global agriculture and food economy is
expansion of trade—is an underlying driver of often seen as a key strategy toward improving food secu-
changes to them. Specifically, globalized agriculture is rity, reducing poverty, fostering growth, and promoting
influencing a shift in (a) land tenure away from natural resource management (Spalding, 2017). Indeed,
community and toward individual ownership and man- these are some of the important potential benefits of
agement and (b) livelihoods away from subsistence and such integration into global markets. Similarly, the
toward market-oriented activities. In turn, land use and International Union for the Conservation of Nature
land cover are changing away from diverse landscape emphasizes how traditional knowledge and practices
mosaics and toward homogeneous landscapes. can contribute to conservation (Secretariat of the
Moreover, the changes to indigenous community- Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014), but discus-
managed landscapes can lead to broader landscape sions about how globalized agriculture affects such
impacts and more extensive consequences for global bio- knowledge and practices are often lacking.
diversity (Jose, 2012). Globalized agriculture as a driving force of landscape
In rural agrarian-based tropical countries, the change is seldom discussed partly because systematic
changes stemming from globalized agriculture can be explanations and empirical evidence are lacking
particularly acute and widespread (Laurance, Sayer, & (Carrasco, Chan, McGrath, & Nghiem, 2017; Jepsen
Cassman, 2014), making indigenous landscapes increas- et al., 2015; Liu, Mooney, et al., 2015; Plieninger et al.,
ingly vulnerable (Harvey et al., 2008; Rudel, Defries, 2016; Spalding, 2017). Consequently, global-to-local
Asner, & Laurance, 2009). For example, agricultural causal pathways that impact landscape patterns remain
Lawrence et al. 3

poorly understood (Garrett, Lambin, & Naylor, 2013; a type of de jure community-managed lands.
Meyfroidt et al., 2014; Pereira, Simmons, & Walker, Specifically, we use descriptive statistics to highlight
2016; Riekkinen, Toivonen, Krigsholm, Hiironen, & the effects of parcelization on deforestation, the shift
Kolis, 2016; Taylor, Aguilar-Støen, Castellanos, in ejido land tenure, from community to individually
Moran-Taylor, & Gerkin, 2016; Yu, Anderies, Lee, & parcelized systems, and the shift in a principal subsis-
Perez, 2014). Distant political–economic driving forces tence livelihood and land use activity, from maize culti-
of landscape change have been studied for decades vation to cattle rearing.
(Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987; Bürgi, Hersperger, &
Schneeberger, 2005; Hersperger & Bürgi, 2010) using
Global-to-Local Pathways
household surveys (Hersperger, Gennaio, Verburg, &
Bürgi, 2010) or remote sensing and census data A Nested Hierarchy of Political–Economic Processes
(Castella & Verburg, 2007). However, these approaches
often focus on land use and land cover patterns Investigating globalized agriculture and its influence on
(Chowdhury, 2006), rather than examining underlying indigenous community-managed landscapes involves
processes that drive these changes (Hersperger & Bürgi, analyzing a nested hierarchy of the political–economic
2009). Moreover, rarely integrated with land use and forces at work. This nested hierarchy approach entails
land cover change analyses is agrarian change: the shift political–economic actors on a global scale, such as
in rural agrarian land tenure and livelihoods, from non- transnational corporations and international banks,
capitalist to capitalist relations due to broader scale interacting with political–economic actors on smaller
political–economic forces (Akram-Lodhi & Kay, spatial scales, such as national governments and local
2010a, 2010b). Nevertheless, the need for such synthesis businesses. In particular, this approach emphasizes (a)
is increasingly acknowledged (Borras & Franco, 2012; shifts in political–economic activity to the global scale,
Borras, Hall, Scoones, White, & Wolford, 2011; (b) shifts in the distribution of power to the global scale,
Holland et al., 2014; Lambin, Geist, & Lepers, 2003; and (c) cause-effect mechanisms whereby political–
Robbins, Chhatre, & Karanth, 2015; Robinson, 2014; economic processes at the global scale affect political–
Wittman et al., 2017). Overall, impacts to indigenous economic processes on smaller spatial scales. In all, the
community-managed landscapes that stem from global- nested hierarchy approach helps to separate and clarify
ized agriculture are likely to increase. This topic deserves the political–economic processes embedded at varying
greater attention (Pace & Gephart, 2017). spatial scales that create a top-down influence on indig-
In Lawrence, Morreale, and Stedman (2019), the enous community-managed landscapes.
authors empirically analyze global-to-local linkages The nested hierarchy approach is particularly impor-
that stem from processes of globalized agriculture and tant because agriculture markets have changed dramat-
drive changes to indigenous (Maya) community- ically over the last few decades. Prior to the 1980s,
managed landscapes across Yucatán, México. Our agriculture trade involved an increase in the distance of
objective in this article is to complement Lawrence exchange beyond national borders. Accordingly, the
et al., which emphasized spatial aspects of change, by processes scaled up an agricultural economy, from the
broadening the scope and providing a broader concep- local to the regional, to the national, to the global, in a
tual approach to guide additional research on this topic. linear way (Bridge, 2002). Although economic activity
Our conceptual approach to hypothesizing global-to- extended beyond national borders, it was regulated
local causal pathways involves a nested hierarchy of from within nations. Consequently, the world’s agricul-
three political–economic forces: land and natural ture markets were subservient to national interests,
resource privatization, commodification, and acquisi- which guided public policies that influenced nationally
tion. At the landscape level, and following Lawrence based markets (Rodrik, 2011). In this context, an indig-
et al., we focus on connections between globalized agri- enous community-managed landscape may have been
culture and shifting land tenure, livelihoods, land use, involved in agriculture production for export, but the
and land cover. With our conceptual approach, we aim cross-scale power distribution remained largely within
to contribute to more contextually and historically the nation of residence.
place-based hypotheses and explanations, better data More recently, agriculture trade has involved a nested
collection instruments, more robust models and empiri- hierarchy of political–economic forces (Borras, 2009;
cal analyses, and ultimately guide more effective conser- McMichael, 2017), in addition to increasing geographic
vation policy, planning, and action (Hersperger et al., distances between production and consumption (Defries
2010; Ostrom, 2009; Verburg et al., 2015). We also et al., 2010; Liu, Hull, et al., 2015). The influence over
include an exploratory example to illustrate our agriculture markets is now centralized in global institu-
approach. The exploratory example provides an initial tions that operate outside national boundaries (Griffin,
assessment of changes in Yucatán, México using ejidos, 2003; McMichael, 2012). As a result, national interests
4 Tropical Conservation Science

have become subservient to the global agricultural land around the world (Sonnenfeld, 2008). These pro-
market economy (McMichael, 2009), while transnational cesses and the interactions between the associated polit-
corporations, investors, and banks influence globally ical–economic forces form a global-to-local pathway
based markets (Rodrik, 2011). This is largely because that may bring about profound changes in indigenous
present-day economic globalization has fundamentally community-managed landscapes by initiating a gradual
transformed the scales over which agriculture’s politi- process of change that is more insidious than foreign
cal–economic activity historically has been organized investors merely buying up land, as is the case with
(Bridge, 2002). Accordingly, agricultural market activity land grabbing (Borras & Franco, 2012).
and its management have shifted to larger scales. The Land and natural resource privatization undermine
scale transformations create and reinforce nested hierar- indigenous community-managed landscapes, as the
chical organizational structures with a more complex market economy usually places greater importance on
web of relations, involving more actors and linkages the market value of land and its resources, than their
from the global to the local scale (Brenner, 2001). In social and cultural worth. However, in indigenous land-
this context, the power distribution has shifted to the scapes, the relationship between people and land is often
global scale, which can increasingly marginalize indige- intricately tied to its social and cultural importance
nous community-managed landscapes at the local level, (Berkes, 2012). Governments strongly influenced by eco-
further accelerating the shift. nomic globalization emphasize the market value of land
Despite the change to the agricultural economy’s and resources over its social and cultural value.
structure, globalization-based studies have continued Although transnational corporations and investors lead
to favor operational approaches that emphasize distance investments in land at the global scale (Borras, Franco,
between key actors and sites (MacKinnon, 2011). Gomez, Kay, & Spoor, 2012), national governments
Telecoupling, the socioeconomic and environmental often play a key role in land privatization that under-
interactions between two or more places over distances mine indigenous land tenure systems. For example, in
(Liu et al., 2013; Liu, Hull, et al., 2015; Liu, Mooney, 2001, Panama established the National Land
et al., 2015; Moser & Hart, 2015; Seto et al., 2012; Yu Administration Program to provide free land titles to
et al., 2014), is an example of a recently developing the rural population and then in 2010 created the
approach to investigate sustainability in a globalized National Land Administration Authority to regulate
world. For example, studies on telecoupling have and streamline all processes related to land privatization
mainly focused on linkages related to specific land (Spalding, 2017). Although indigenous territories
uses, sectors, or other natural resources, such as soybean (Comarcas) encompass 12% of Panama, in addition to
and beef production for international trade (Friis & customary lands through defacto rights of possession
Nielsen, 2017). Such a framework can contribute to (Vergara-Asenjo & Potvin, 2014), formal or legal recog-
understanding landscape change, particularly with nition does not guarantee tenure security to these com-
regard to land and natural resource supply and munities as foreigners and corporations seek investments
demand between distant locations (Munroe, in land (Smith, Holland, Michon, Ibá~ nez, & Herrera,
McSweeney, Olson, & Mansfield, 2014). However, tele- 2017). The land titling and similar programs throughout
coupling and similar approaches lack the operationaliza- Latin America seek to regulate private property and to
tion of the local in relation to larger spatial scales, facilitate a market for land, often neglecting traditional
including the global scale. indigenous land tenure systems and their associated con-
servation potential (Barnes, 2003).
Political–Economic Processes Related to Globalized Following privatization, land and resource commod-
ification for global agricultural markets can further
Agriculture weaken indigenous community-managed landscapes.
The agricultural economy’s globalization in recent years Cultural norms and values in indigenous community-
has involved unprecedented increases in land and natu- managed landscapes often involve noncapitalist rela-
ral resource privatization, commodification, and acqui- tions to land that ultimately define the potential land
sition (Clapp, 2015). These processes are linked to uses for subsistence and petty trade. However, the
political–economic forces, involving widespread state expansion of markets for land and resources can lead
reform of property rights, resource access, local-to- to a more economically efficient land system that will,
global commodity-chain corporatization, and the in turn, facilitate the increased foreign investment
global agro-industry’s financialization (Bernstein, (Spalding, 2017) and may ultimately displace the tradi-
2008). Moreover, these changes have contributed to tional land use practices. For example, prior to the
the central role the agro-industrial food system now 1980s, local state-controlled agricultural commodity
plays in the global market economy (McMichael, chains operated in many rural agrarian-based tropical
2009); namely, acquiring large tracts of agricultural countries, which covered much of the world’s
Lawrence et al. 5

agricultural areas (McMichael, 2009). Trade in these 2014). As land and resources become more concentrated
countries also remained largely under state control, in a small number of global capital-intensive agro-
including high tariffs on imported agricultural inputs industries and foreign investors, indigenous
restrained food exports, and state subsidies supporting community-managed landscapes shrink and local mar-
subsistence agriculture. Widespread trade liberalization kets for small-scale producers are eliminated (Moore,
initiated in the 1980s and subsequent international devel- 2010). As a result, new differentials in bargaining
opment agencies’ actions, such as the World Trade power emerge that favor transnational agro-food corpo-
Organization’s Agreement on Agriculture (Blandford, rations, and global food retailers and supermarkets, such
2015), led to the state-controlled agriculture and food as Walmart (McMichael, 2012), which have been quick
systems being reorganized into a small number of trans- to establish retail outlets in developing countries with
national corporate-owned entities (McMichael, 2012). open trading systems (Biles et al., 2007). Moreover,
Government agricultural subsidies were restructured to global food retailers have emerged as the most powerful
encourage market participation or sizably reduced or actors within the agro-food system (Isakson, 2014) and
eliminated altogether, resulting in foreign investors never before have commoditized exchange and the
obtaining greater access to land and resources. power of large-scale food retailers been so great
However, the local food system’s reorganization, from (McMichael, 2009). In all, land and resource privatiza-
state to market control, can strongly influence the com- tion, commodification, and acquisition lead to broader
munity land tenure systems as local livelihoods are more shifts in food supply where widespread state reform,
tightly linked to broader markets. trade liberalization, corporatization, and financialization
Land acquisition can also have considerable social are rapidly reorganizing agro-industry and precipitating
and ecological impacts on indigenous community- a decline in the relative power of nations, and particu-
managed landscapes (Borras & Franco, 2012). In rural larly of local indigenous community-managed land-
agrarian-based tropical countries, communities are often scapes (Margulis & Porter, 2013).
displaced from their land due to land acquisitions Although political–economic processes related to
intended for agricultural and forestry production as globalized agriculture can be distant and diffuse, these
well as energy and mining (Borras, 2009). As a result, processes initiate a series of top-down changes in rural
land use and land cover are also altered. With transna- agrarian-based tropical countries. Thus, indigenous
tional corporations and investors now playing a key role community-managed landscapes become embedded
in organizing production, including the land and resour- within more complex global-to-local interactions
ces utilized for production, the acquisition by these through market and urban expansion within a region
actors of large tracts of land has increased dramatically (Wittman et al., 2017). Such global-to-local linkages
over the last decade (Clapp, 2015). Such land acquisition and interactions represent a dominant pathway, which
is a consequence of the gradual process of land privati- changes these landscapes (Robbins et al., 2015) by
zation and commodification. Therefore, land acquisition replacing or rearranging local political–economic factors
should be analyzed in the context of this process of and shifting the political–economic and environmental
change, rather than solely as foreigners buying land. relationships from the local to the global scale
Land acquisition is nothing new, but the character, (Meyfroidt et al., 2013). Figure 1 demonstrates how
scale, pace, and key drivers of the recent wave of land political–economic processes of globalized agriculture
acquisition are historically distinct and closely linked to alter how people relate to resources, to each other, and
major shifts in agricultural production (Margulis, to the broader political economy.
McKeon, & Borras, 2013). In turn, overall agricultural
exports into the global market economy rapidly Changes to Indigenous Community-Managed
increased to 60% between 2000 and 2012 (Carrasco
et al., 2017). Land acquisition thus undercuts communi-
Landscapes
ty land tenure systems as well as impacts associated with Based on the aforesaid discussion, rural agrarian-based
livelihoods, land use, and land cover. tropical countries are seeing traditional land tenure sys-
Land and natural resource privatization, commodifi- tems moving away from community-managed and
cation, and acquisition reinforce authority at broader toward individually managed privatized systems.
scales; disempower local actors; and undermine resource A shift from community to individual management
management (Adger, Brown, & Tompkins, 2006). For often involves land parceling, exclusive access, private
example, global corporations and financial actors play ownership, and ownership loss as outside investors pur-
an increasingly active role in food retailing and process- chase land and resources (Barnes, 2009; Oliveira &
ing, commodity trading, setting prices, distributing agri- Hecht, 2016). Some of these changes are privatization,
cultural risks and agricultural input’s provisioning, and displace landless and rural poor who are driven toward
agricultural lands’ ownership and control (Isakson, marginal landscapes and frontiers, or urban slums
6 Tropical Conservation Science

Figure 1. A nested hierarchy of political–economic processes of globalized agriculture. Indigenous community-managed landscapes are
embedded in a multiscale process of change where political–economic and environmental relationships shift from the local to the global,
and broader scale factors drive changes to local social–ecological systems. The changes to indigenous community-managed landscapes
involve the complex interaction of changes to traditional land tenure, livelihoods, land use, and land cover that can impact broader
landscape and biodiversity patterns.

(Hecht, 2010; Robson & Berkes, 2011). Regardless of the The shift in livelihoods, away from subsistence and
particulars, shifting land tenure regimes is a powerful toward market-oriented practices, often results in
driving force of change (B. E. Robinson, Holland, & mixed subsistence and market-oriented practices, but
Naughton-Treves, 2014). the market-oriented approaches ultimately can alto-
Accompanying shifting land tenure are changes to gether replace long-standing traditional land and natu-
livelihoods: away from subsistence and toward market- ral resource management practices. Changes to
oriented activities. For example, swidden agriculture has livelihoods generally involve declines and losses of tra-
been a dominant form of subsistence livelihood in the ditional knowledge and practices as people increasingly
tropics for centuries (Mertz et al., 2009). rely on broader regional-to-global markets (Butler
Notwithstanding regional differences, swidden agricul- et al., 2014; Sreeja, Madhusoodhanan, & Eldho,
ture tends to decrease in landscapes with access to 2015). For example, a shift away from traditional live-
local, national, and international markets that encour- lihoods can involve an increase in wage-earning and
age cattle production and cash cropping (van Vliet et al., market-oriented activities, further resulting in declining
2012). Such market integration has led to decreases in subsistence activities and, ultimately, the loss of associ-
swidden agriculture throughout South and Southeast ated knowledge (Hecht, 2010). Despite globalized agri-
Asia (Heinimann et al., 2017). Agricultural policies to culture, some level of market integration likely occurs
encourage cash crop production have also resulted in among indigenous communities, which provides liveli-
declines in swidden agriculture in East Africa and in hood opportunities and benefits, but globalized agricul-
South and Central America through credit or subsidies ture has become a key driving force of livelihood
that support market-oriented agricultural practices (van change among indigenous communities. Subsequently,
Vliet et al., 2012). migration toward urban centers can further exacerbate
Lawrence et al. 7

Figure 2. The process of change that indigenous community-managed landscapes undergo due to globalized agriculture. Traditional land
tenure, livelihoods, and land use and land cover shift along a spectrum as a society transitions from a local rural to a global urban political
economy.

livelihood change (De Janvry, Emerick, Gonzalez- available to maintain viable populations of many species
Navarro, & Sadoulet, 2015). (Fischer et al., 2012). Soil also degrades as forested areas
Following the changes to land tenure and livelihoods become sparse and agriculture intensifies. Ultimately,
are changes to land use: away from small-scale extensive the land cover transforms almost entirely into a single
and toward large-scale intensive crop cultivation, away type of land use that severely restricts landscape compo-
from diverse crop cultivation and toward monocropping, sition, configuration, and structural connectivity. In
and away from crop and toward livestock farming prac- turn, landscape functioning and diversity diminishes.
tices (Lambin & Meyfroidt, 2011). For example, over the As a result, reductions in landscape connectivity and
last several decades, agro-forested landscapes worldwide fewer patches large enough to support viable popula-
have been substantially transformed from swidden culti- tions lead to substantial declines in local biodiversity
vation to more intensive and permanent cultivation sys- (Vallejo-Ramos et al., 2016).
tems (Rudel et al., 2005; van Vliet et al., 2012; Schmook Overall, the changes to indigenous lands can produce
et al., 2013). These changes to land use are partly because broader scale landscape fragmentation and homogeniza-
land management strategies and adaptive capacities are tion. Such changes can ultimately impact, and extensive-
also constrained and altered, and resources become ly alter, global biodiversity patterns, as landscape
restricted, thus intensifying land use (Turner, 2010). In heterogeneity is often critical to broader biodiversity
turn, forest–agriculture cycles and rotational and inter- patterns (Vallejo-Ramos et al., 2016). Thus, beginning
mingled land use become more uniform and homoge- at a global level, as shown in Figure 1, we can trace a
nized (Barsimantov, Racelis, Barnes, & DiGiano, 2010). global-to-local pathway through the combined changes
Commonly, traditional land use patterns are modified in traditional livelihoods and land use accompanying
and new cultivars, new domestic animal breeds, and shifting land tenure, illustrating a top-down sequence
new technologies are adopted, bringing about further that impacts a much broader landscape (Ogden et al.,
modifications to the landscape. Associated with many 2013). Exemplified in Figure 2 is the process of change,
of these changes are higher nutrient inputs and pesticide away from indigenous community-managed landscapes
application and increased mechanization (G. M. as a local rural political economy transitions to a global
Robinson, 2018). The changes to traditional land use urban political economy.
patterns can further lead to the penetration of large-
scale commercial enterprises into indigenous landscapes,
Globalized Agriculture and Yucatán,
including industrial agriculture, forestry, and ranching.
Accompanying these changes to land use are changes México: An Exploratory Example
to land cover: away from diverse agro-forested and
toward homogeneous deforested lands. As indigenous
Globalized Agriculture and México
landscapes become fragmented, primary habitat and Many processes associated with globalized agriculture
ecosystems are reduced and isolated with fewer resources are exerting themselves through shifting land tenure in
8 Tropical Conservation Science

México’s ejidos, which are a type of community land- resource privatization, and market deregulation
holding that the federal government created during the (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005). Following this shift in
early 1900s through Article 27 of México’s constitution. the mid-1980s, México’s government began to withdraw
The creation of ejidos was intended to support small- from its role in the country’s agricultural sector and, in
scale subsistence agriculture and to redress long- 1986, entered into the General Agreement on Tariffs and
standing land and natural resource inequality (Barnes, Trade (Carte, McWatters, Daley, & Torres, 2010).
2009; Perramond, 2008). Following the logic described Around the same time, federal agrarian policies and
earlier, we initially assess changes to México with a focus laws that supported ejidos were altered in favor of more
on its ejido land tenure system as an exploratory exam- globally integrated market-oriented approaches to agri-
ple of the influence of globalized agriculture on indige- culture (McAfee & Shapiro, 2010).
nous community-managed landscapes. We use Multiple changes to México’s constitution were initi-
descriptive statistics to illustrate (a) the influence of glob- ated in 1992, specifically Article 27, which originally
alized agriculture on changes to indigenous (Maya) ejido established the ejido system. These changes allowed
landscapes in the State of Yucatán, through land tenure ejido lands to be sold as private property (Perramond,
shifting from community to individual management; (b) 2008). In addition, the creation of new ejido landholdings
the associated change in traditional livelihoods away ended; land parceling and legal certification began
from subsistence agriculture; and (c) how these changes through PROCEDE (Programa de Certificaci
on de
impact forest cover and ultimately landscape patterns Derechos Ejidales y Titulaci
on de Solares); restrictions
and biodiversity. on ejido lands being rented, sold, bought, or leased
In México, approximately 30,000 ejidos comprise were eliminated; and a series of policies were initiated to
52% of all land and 80% of forestlands and involve pave the way toward land privatization and the eventual
over 60 indigenous groups as land stewards (Instituto displacement of the ejido system (Loewe & Taylor, 2008;
Nacional de Estad
ıstica y Geograf
ıa de México, 2016). Smith et al., 2009). In 1994, México joined the North
In all, thousands of México’s indigenous communities American Free Trade Agreement, furthering private
possess legally recognized land rights in the form of investment in México and integrating its markets into
ejidos (Smith, Herlihy, Kelly, & Viera, 2009). Such land- the global economy. The changes were further supported
holdings are considered social property, intended to be in 1995 through the World Trade Organization’s estab-
managed at the community level (Barnes, 2009). Because lishment and its Agreement on Agriculture (Blandford,
of their ubiquity, ejidos drive local political–economic 2014), which provided a framework for long-term agri-
and environmental relationships and power distribution culture trade reform and domestic policies, leading to the
(Perramond, 2008). Thus, the ejido system influences the state-controlled agriculture and food systems’ reorgani-
rural sector’s social–ecological complexity and contrib- zation into a small number of transnational corporate-
utes to the conservation of cultural and natural heri- owned entities (McMichael, 2012). Accordingly, México
tages. Although Mexico’s unique land history removed high tariffs and ended import restrictions, there-
distinguishes it from other countries that comprise by allowing increased trade and investment in agriculture
community-managed landscapes, we believe that in and forestry. Therefore, land privatization, along
many ways Ejidos are a prime example of community- with repeal of government subsidies, encouraged interna-
managed landscapes that support biodiversity, inter- tional private investment in large-scale commercial agri-
twined with subsistence-based livelihoods and long- culture, rather than state investments in small-scale
standing indigenous cultural beliefs and land use practi- subsistence agriculture that can be traced down to the
ces (Ellis, Kainer, et al., 2015). As such, the ejido system local level (Carte et al., 2010). As a result, shifting culti-
has played a critical role in defining indigenous peoples’ vation practices have been decreasing and switching to
relationships with each other and their land and natural other types of land use, such as permanent agriculture
resources. All told, ejidos have influenced and shaped (Heinimann et al., 2017).
México’s social, economic, and ecological landscape Overall, the changes to México’s political economy
for much of the 20th century (Loewe & Taylor, 2008). were based in global political–economic forces that
During the 1980s and 1990s, the World Bank and sought to restructure México’s national economy, redis-
International Monetary Fund influenced México’s polit- tribute power, and open the door to foreign ownership
ical–economic system to shift from a government-led and of assets. For example, shares in México’s food retailing
locally focused economy toward a free market and glob- by global supermarkets rose from approximately 5% to
alized economy. Specifically, policies known as structural 10% in 1990 to 50% to 60% by the early 2000s
adjustments were initiated (McMichael, 2017). These pol- (McMichael, 2017). Much of these chronicled changes
icies sought to reduce the state’s role in the economy, due to an expanded global influence in México have
reduce its expenditures on social services, including agri- also manifested and are evident in ejidos across the
cultural subsidies, and expand trade liberalization, State of Yucatán.
Lawrence et al. 9

Figure 3. Ejidos across the State of Yucatán. Parceled ejido areas are shown as black polygons; community-managed or common use ejido
areas are shown as gray polygons. The remaining white areas represent land outside of ejidos, which include private- and government-
owned land. The ejido polygons and data on parceled and common use areas were obtained from México’s Registro Agrario Nacional,
March 2017.

Changes to Ejido Land Tenure in Yucatán

70%
Approximately 700 ejido lands, primarily under the
60%
stewardship of indigenous (Maya) communities,
Percent of all Ejido

50%
Land in the State

occupy over 2.5 million hectares of the State of

40%
Yucatán or nearly 60% of all land in the state
(Registro Agrario Nacional, 2017). As such, ejidos 30%

have great potential to contribute to landscape conser- 20%

vation on a broad spatial extent (Ellis, Romero 10%

Montero, & Hernández G
omez, 2017). Consequently, 0%

Below 20% 20% to 80% Above 80%
shifting land tenure has affected both the ejido system’s
Amount of Parcelizaon
social–ecological complexity and the overall landscape
composition. Currently, about two thirds of the state’s
ejidos remain mostly community-managed, while the Figure 4. The distribution and degree of parcelization with ejido
remainder have shifted toward parcelization and lands across the State of Yucatán. Sixty-four percent of all ejidos
contain from 0% to 20% parceled land, 31% contain 20% to 80%
individual-based land management/ownership
parceled land, and 5% of ejidos are more than 80% parcelized.
(Figure 3). The progression toward privatization has Ejido parcelization data were obtained from México’s Registro
been gradual. In some ejidos that are in the process of Agrario Nacional, March 2017.
parcelization and where there is a shift toward individual
management, some tracts of land may be retained for remain mostly at the community level. At the other
common use. In such cases, land use management deci- extreme, 5% of all ejidos contain 80% or more parceled
sions for common use areas remain at the community land, and management decisions are mostly individual,
level. Even when ejidos are fully parcelized and distrib- with a lesser degree of community governance
uted among individuals, the community’s ejido assembly (Figure 4). The shifts in tenure arrangements within
retains some governing responsibilities. In Yucatán, Yucatán have all occurred in recent years and are part
64% of all ejidos are completely common use, or contain of a larger complex of social and environmental changes
less than 20% parceled land, and land use decisions within the region.
10 Tropical Conservation Science

Changes to Traditional Maya Livelihoods in Yucatán

Percent Change in Crop Land Cover

60%

Accompanying the shifts in México’s ejido land tenure 40%

are changes to livelihoods in México that are, at least 20%

partly, due to new corporate commodity chains. Prior 0%

to the mid-1980s, México’s food production was subsi- -20%

dized and a state-led governance structure (parastatals) -40%

managed the food commodity chains that were regional- -60%

-80%
ized within national borders (Galvan-Miyoshi, Walker,
-100%
& Warf, 2015). At this time, only a few regional super- Below 20% 20% to 80% Above 80%
markets existed in México; these accounted for less than Percent of Ejido Land Parceled
20% of all food sales, while small-scale grocers and
municipal markets serviced most of the population
Figure 5. Change in agricultural cropland cover across all Yucatán
(Biles et al., 2007). Overall, México’s food production ejidos between 1991 and 2007. During that period, the total
system was largely locally based, while the federal gov- amount of cropland increased 25% in ejidos containing from 0% to
ernment exercised control over land distribution, prices, 20% parceled land, and 11% in ejidos containing from 20% to 80%
agricultural extension services, and food supply patterns. parceled land. In contrast, for ejido land that was more than 80%
Such policies supported the ejido land tenure system parcelized, cropland decreased by more than 82%. Data obtained
across México. Following important changes to federal from México’s Instituto Nacional de Estad
ıstica y Geograf
ıa, ejidal
census, 2007.
agrarian laws between 1986 and 1994, price controls were
abandoned and the parastatal system was eliminated
(Galvan-Miyoshi et al., 2015). As a result, the commodity (Figure 5). The decrease in traditional crop growing
chain governance shifted from parastatals and small activities is at least partly due to a reconfiguration of
retailers to large foreign transnational corporations, maize and cattle commodity chains for distant markets
bringing about rapid expansion in large-scale and (Appendini, 2014; Ellis, Gomez, & Romero-Montero,
capital-intensive production systems (Biles et al., 2007). 2017; Galvan-Miyoshi et al., 2015). The observed
Currently across the State of Yucatán, the milpa, a changes to livelihoods and land use reflect a common
traditional Maya swidden system that has existed for pattern among farmers of swidden agriculture across
millennia and that involves rotational cutting of forest, the globe when access to local, national, and internation-
burning, and planting maize mixed with squash and al markets that encourage cattle production and cash
beans, exemplifies the diverse subsistence and livelihood cropping increases (van Vliet et al., 2012). For example,
practices (Schmook et al., 2013). As land tenure shifts in 1991, only 64 of the roughly 700 ejidos in the state had
toward individual management, Maya livelihoods are cattle rearing as a principal livelihood activity, whereas
transitioning away from subsistence agroforestry and in 2007, there was nearly a ninefold increase, with 567
agricultural ecosystems that primarily involve growing ejidos engaged in cattle rearing as a principal livelihood
maize and are moving toward market-oriented farming activity (Instituto Nacional de Estad
ıstica y Geograf
ıa
production of new crops and livestock (Lawrence et al., de México, 1994, 2007; Lawrence et al., 2019). Parcelized
2019). Such a livelihood transition is counter to the ejido lands are primarily clustered in Yucatán’s cattle
Maya people’s indigenous traditional knowledge regard- producing region around the City of Tizim
ın and the
ing the use, management, and conservation of their lands metropolitan region surrounding the City of Merida,
that have been passed down across generations for mil- the state’s main export hub. A similar smaller cluster
lennia (Puc-Alcocer, Arce-Ibarra, Cortina-Villar, & of parcelized ejido lands is in Yucatán’s southern fruit
Estrada-Lugo, 2019). Nevertheless, government pro- producing region, primarily around the Town of Peto
grams, such as PROCAMPO (Program of Direct (Figure 6). Undoubtedly, variations in biophysical fac-
Payments to the Countryside) and Alianza para el tors across Yucatán such as soil types and growing con-
Campo (Alliance for the Countryside), have encouraged ditions likely influence the observed spatial clustering of
the shift toward market-oriented agriculture and pasture cattle production in the north and fruit production in the
land use, particularly in ejidos (Daniels, Painter, & southern region of the state. In addition, Yucatán has an
Southworth, 2008). extensive territory of undulating topography and shal-
Since the change to Article 27, traditional crop grow- low karstic soils (Bautista, D
ıaz-Garrido, Castillo-
ing activities have largely decreased in highly parcelized González, & Zinck, 2005; Bautista, Palacio-Aponte,
ejidos across the State of Yucatán as many ejido farmers Quintana, & Zinck, 2011) that limit the expansion of
have turned their milpas into maize monocrops some commercial interests, such as mechanized commer-
(Schmook et al., 2013), while traditional farming has cial agriculture (Ellis, Kainer, et al., 2015). Natural land
increased in ejidos with little to moderate parcelization cover also varies according to regions of the state.
Lawrence et al. 11

Figure 6. Parcelized ejido lands. Parcelization is primarily clustered in Yucatán’s cattle producing region around the City of Tizim
ın and
metropolitan region around the City of Merida, the state’s main export hub. A smaller cluster of parcelized ejido lands is in Yucatán’s
southern fruit producing region, primarily around the Town of Peto. Ejido parcelization data were obtained from México’s Registro Agrario
Nacional, March 2017.

For example, the northeast region exhibits more grass- the Countryside) have been associated with increased
lands that are more amenable to cattle production, com- levels of deforestation in México (Ellis, Romero
pared with the rest of the state. Moreover, the shallow Montero, & Hernández G
omez, 2015), including the
karstic soils across the state are better suited for the ejido landscapes of Yucatán. These government pro-
expansion of cattle production rather than attempting grams are intended to increase agriculture investment,
to scale up mechanized commercial agriculture. increase productivity and intensification in ejidos, and
Notwithstanding the different physical environmental facilitate the integration of México’s agricultural sector
factors, with reductions in government subsidies sup- into the global market economy (Schmook & Vance,
porting traditional subsistence agriculture, along with 2009). In addition, the government of México has simul-
the expansion of corporate commodity chains across taneously reduced the support for community forest
the state, the Maya people in the state increasingly par- management and has shifted the forest management
ticipate in market-oriented activities, such as chili or pas- and production back toward industry. This shift was
ture cultivation, rather than traditional subsistence codified in the 1992 Forest Law (Ellis, Kainer, et al.,
activities such as those involved in milpa livelihoods 2015). As a result of these and México’s efforts to
(Schmook et al., 2013). embrace and encourage global economic forces,
Yucatán ejidos are being increasingly integrated into
Ejido Forest Cover in Yucatán the global agriculture market economy in ways reflected
Following ejido land parcelization and changes to live- in Figure 1.
lihoods, there has been a decrease in traditional land In the State of Yucatán, shifts in land tenure and
uses involving small-scale crop cultivation, grasslands, changes to traditional Maya livelihoods and land uses
and multiple tracts of forests and other varying succes- have been strongly associated with diminishing forest
sional habitats. Across México, both forest resources cover. For example, parcelized ejido lands in the
and available arable land are becoming increasingly lim- Yucatán peninsula have more land in use and higher
ited as large-scale supermarkets and commercial agricul- deforestation rates than common-use ejido lands
ture and forestry industries penetrate into different (DiGiano, Ellis, & Keys, 2013). Moreover, Lawrence
regions (De Janvry et al., 2015). Government programs et al. (2019) showed that common-use ejido lands
further exacerbate this problem. For example, across the State of Yucatán comprise more densely for-
PROCAMPO (Program of Direct Payments to the ested lands than parcelized ejidos lands, and that the
Countryside) and Alianza para el Campo (Alliance for difference in forest cover can be attributed to market-
12 Tropical Conservation Science

Figure 7. Amount of forest cover relative to the percentage of ejido land that is parceled or common use (i.e., community-managed) in
the year 2000 and 2010 for the State of Yucatán. In the year 2000, within parceled land, more than 24% of the area had no forest cover,
whereas only 6% of common use areas had no forest cover. In addition, only 37% of parceled areas have 80% or more forest cover,
whereas 60% of common use areas have 80% or more of forest cover. In the year 2010, the amount of parceled land devoid of forest cover
increased to 34%, and land with 80% or more forest cover decreased by 10%. Dense forest cover also decreased by 10% in common use
areas, but the amount of land with no forest cover only increased by 5%. Forest cover data were obtained from Global Forest Change Data
(Hansen et al., 2013).

oriented agricultural production on parcelized ejido lands and agricultural commodity production are clus-
lands. In a complementary fashion, other types of tered (Figure 8).
community-managed areas across the state also contrib- With international trade barriers now mostly
ute to forest conservation. For example, MCFR or removed, large agro-businesses continue to penetrate
Fundo legal allow selective regulated use of trees, but and influence parcelized ejido lands, contributing to
clearing to establish agricultural plots or pastures is pro- regional changes in land use and forest conversion. As
hibited (Levy-Tacher et al., 2019). As a result, the agro-businesses have displaced traditional subsistence
MCFR tend to practice sustainable forestry. Clearly, farming, agriculture in Yucatán has become more
multiple factors can influence the forest loss; however, market-oriented, land cover even more fragmented, and
commodity markets for cash crops and livelihoods is a patches of land that previously harbored high biodiversi-
driving force of landscape change, and specifically of ty levels have become more isolated, degraded, or dimin-
deforestation (Defries et al., 2010) ished. Such observed patterns of forest loss and landscape
We utilized satellite imagery to calculate the forest fragmentation are likely to increase with further penetra-
cover—from the Global Land Analysis & Discovery tion of broader regional and global agricultural commod-
(2010) and Hansen et al.’s (2013) data set—for the ity chains that incentivize shifts toward different and
State of Yucatán in the year 2000, 7 years after the con- more homogenous crops, switches from farming to
cattle rearing, and changes in land use practices toward
stitutional reforms that initiated ejido parcelization, and
less sustainable forestry. In all, due to many forces and
again in 2010, shortly following the conclusion of the
processes that originate from the outside world and
first stage of parcelization through Programa de
beyond the influence of local control, ejido land cover,
Certificaci

on de Derechos Ejidales y Titulaci
on de
Maya livelihoods, land use practices, and land tenure
Solares (Figure 7). By the year 2000, 24% of parceled
systems in Yucatán are shifting away from traditional
areas were devoid of forest cover, while within common-
norms in many of the ways outlined in Figure 2.
use (i.e., community-managed) areas, only 6% of
the land was devoid of forest. On the other end of
the forest cover continuum, more than 60% of the Rethinking Landscape Conservation
common-use land contained 80% to 100% forest In considering academic and policy recommendations,
cover, compared with only 37% of parceled areas with we have noticed that conservation efforts in Yucatán
such high proportions of forest cover. By 2010, the com- have mostly focused on local manifestations of broader
plete absence of forest cover in parceled areas increased political–economic factors, rather than distant driving
to 34%, while dense forest cover decreased to 27%. forces of changing landscapes. For example, the
Deforested ejido lands are primarily located in the México Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
northern region of the state where parcelized ejido Forest Degradation (REDD) þ Alliance and the
Lawrence et al. 13

Figure 8. Deforested areas and tree cover within Yucatán’s more than 700 ejidos in the year 2010. Darker to lighter colored areas
represent a gradient from deforested areas (darker) to forested areas (lighter) within ejido lands. Forest cover outside of ejido polygons is
not shown here. White areas within ejidos represent dense forest cover. Forest cover data were obtained from Global Forest Change
Data (Hansen et al., 2013).

Tropical Research Center of Veracruz University recent- 2010), was recently identified by the federal government
ly conducted an exhaustive literature review on determi- as a high priority region to address landscape change
nants of deforestation and land degradation across the (Comisi
on Nacional Forestal de México, 2016).
Yucatán peninsula (Ellis, Romero Montero, et al., Therefore, increased efforts to better understand the
2015). The review concluded that few studies have ana- structure and scale of political–economic and environ-
lyzed the underlying causes of change, including eco- mental relationships are needed. Such efforts should
nomic factors such as market growth, investment and include more extensive and collaborative studies and
demands, or institutional factors such as government analyses of global-to-local processes of change, along
policies. Rather, attention has focused on local small- with causal pathways resulting in changes to livelihoods,
scale agricultural practices, which are often indicted as landscapes, and biodiversity patterns. Long-term stud-
having the greatest overall impact on environmental ies, such as the Global Land Project (Verburg et al.,
change, but which, we argue are more symptom than 2015) and the Land-Cover and Land-Use Change in
cause. The report from the study also suggests that the the Southern Yucatán Peninsular Region project
Méxican government considers traditional subsistence (Turner et al., 2016), as well as other more recent efforts,
agroforestry as ecologically destructive. This is in con- such as Lawrence et al. (2019), have contributed greatly
trast with many studies elsewhere that emphasize the to understanding how distant political–economic driving
impact of government-initiated agricultural development forces impact local landscapes. But, much work remains,
projects, which tend to foster increased modern agricul- particularly with respect to drivers of land tenure change
tural inputs, pasture development for livestock, and and how, through this important mechanism, globalized
commercial logging operations that are the major agriculture impacts indigenous community-managed
causes of destruction of large tracts of forests across landscapes.
the Yucatán (Chowdhury, 2010). Analyses moving forward should focus on broader
Conservation focused on local manifestations, rather scale political–economic forces underlying globalized
than distant driving forces of changing landscapes across agriculture. Our contribution places emphasis on glob-
Yucatán is a problem because the peninsula, a global alized agriculture as a driving force of change to indig-
biodiversity hotspot (Vázquez-Dom
ınguez & Arita, enous community-managed landscapes, through the
14 Tropical Conservation Science

important mechanism of shifting land tenure and the Conclusion

concurrent transformation of livelihoods and land use
Globalized agriculture is one of the greatest challenges
and land cover. We hope that such an expanded focus
confronting landscape conservation today. In the midst
can serve as a foundation and aid the important task of
of this new globalized era, indigenous community-
landscape planning and conservation.
managed landscapes also face new and greater chal-
Promoting community sovereignty over land can
lenges. In México, the shift in ejido land tenure toward
empower and strengthen communities to adapt and be
formal land parceling, individual management, and ulti-
resilient to distant political–economic driving forces. The
mately private property threatens the vast conservation
degree to which indigenous peoples and peasants are
able to exert effective control over their livelihoods and potential across the country’s extensive ejido system.
landscapes is a significant consideration for landscape More broadly, similar indigenous community-managed
conservation (Sarkar & Montoya, 2011); their resource landscapes throughout the tropics are also vulnerable to
and property rights are increasingly relevant to land- shifting land tenure. Such impacts can be compounding
scape conservation (Blackman et al., 2017). across a broader landscape and can culminate in wide-
Community-managed landscapes are common across spread biodiversity loss with global consequences.
the globe (Baynes et al., 2015) and comprise about Already, high rates of land conversion represent a
one- third of the world’s forests (FAO, 2016). In some great threat to global biodiversity (Fischer,
regions of the tropics, as much as 90% of the forests are Lindenmayer, & Manning, 2006). In addition, over
community-managed and collectively owned (Alexiades, half a billion people in developing countries currently
Peters, Laird, Binnqüist, & Castillo, 2013), including the depend on community-managed forests (Baynes et al.,
neotropics, where communities control and manage vast 2015), and access to land is one of the most contested
forest areas (Cronkleton, Bray, & Medina, 2011). issues facing indigenous groups worldwide.
However, expropriation of and encroachment on indig- Conservation efforts will be better served if we under-
enous communities’ lands, leading to unsustainable stand and engage the entire process of change that indig-
resource extraction and conversion of forest to agricul- enous community-managed landscapes experience due
tural use, have led to greater formalization and enforce- to globalized agriculture. Indigenous community-
ment of these communities’ rights in many developing managed landscapes alone cannot conserve biodiversity,
countries, particularly in the tropics (BenYishay, but they can serve as effective conduits for biodiversity
Heuser, Runfola, & Trichler, 2017). conservation (Robson & Berkes, 2011). Moreover, mul-
Since the 1990s, numerous policy-oriented institu- tiple factors influence the conservation potential of these
tions, such as United Nations Educational, Scientific landscapes. However, political–economic processes of
and Cultural Organization, Convention on Biological globalized agriculture can be a major impediment to
Diversity, World Wildlife Fund, and International long-term diversity and healthy functioning of these
Union for the Conservation of Nature, all have commis- landscapes.
sioned studies and published articles on links between Conservationists should develop new and additional
conservation and indigenous landscapes (Berkes, 2009). ways for indigenous community-managed landscapes to
Yet, little is known about how indigenous community- increase resilience and adapt to the influence of global-
managed landscapes, along with associated livelihoods ized agriculture. An important endeavor would be to
and land uses, may be leveraged to enhance landscape help revive and maintain traditional livelihood and
conservation and inform policy (Sarkar & Montoya, land use practices that may have been lost through
2011). One possible institution that may be used to facil- market integration. As social and ecological changes
itate conservation within indigenous community- accelerate, increased attention should be given to the
managed landscapes is the Indigenous Peoples’ and need for a more far-reaching vision of landscape conser-
Community Conserved Areas, an organization promot- vation. For conservation to alleviate the massive and
ed by International Union for Conservation of Nature. compounding effects of changes to indigenous
To further such a task, increased efforts are needed for community-managed landscapes now underway, we
intergenerational community landscape planning and must rethink landscape conservation. We urge landscape
institutional development over the long term that can conservation scientists to more fully consider (a) impacts
build greater capacity for adaptive governance. stemming from globalized agriculture and dominant
Regardless of the institutional processes, it will be par- global-to-local pathways that extend through
ticularly important to retain traditional land tenure sys- community-managed landscapes and (b) advancing the
tems and to build capacity within indigenous breadth and depth of more extensive studies and analy-
community-managed landscapes to adapt to distant ses. Such efforts can set the stage for social and cultural
political–economic driving forces of change. adaptations in the face of change, can improve decision-
Lawrence et al. 15

making and planning in landscape conservation more Baynes, J., Herbohn, J., Smith, C., Fisher, R., & Bray, D.
broadly, and can better protect biodiversity at all levels. (2015). Key factors which influence the success of commu-
nity forestry in developing countries. Global Environmental
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Change, 35, 226–238.
BenYishay, A., Heuser, S., Runfola, D., & Trichler, R. (2017).
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with Indigenous land rights and deforestation: Evidence from the
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Environmental Economics and
article. Management, 86, 29–47.
Berkes, F. (2009). Community conserved areas: Policy issues in
Funding historic and contemporary context. Conservation Letters, 2,
20–25.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowl-
authorship, and/or publication of this article. edge and resource management (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
ORCID iD Bernstein, H. (2008). Agrarian questions from transition to
Ted J. Lawrence https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2115-2500 globalisation. In H. Akram Lodhi & C. Kay (Eds.),
Peasants and globalisation: Political economy, rural transfor-
mation and the agrarian question (pp. 239–261). London,
References
England: Routledge.
Adger, W. N., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2006). The Biles, J. J., Brehm, K., Enrico, A., Kiendl, C., Morgan, E.,
political economy of cross scale networks in resource co- Teachout, A., & Vasquez, K. (2007). Globalization of
management. Ecology and Society, 10, 9–23. food retailing and transformation of supply networks:
Agarwala, M., & Ginsberg, J. R. (2017). Untangling outcomes Consequences for small-scale agricultural producers in
of de jure and de facto community-based management of Southeastern Mexico. Journal of Latin American
natural resources. Conservation Biology, 31, 1232–1246. Geography, 6, 55–75.
Akram-Lodhi, A. H., & Kay, C. (2010a). Surveying the agrar- Blackman, A., Corral, L., Lima, E. S., & Asner, G. P. (2017).
ian question (part 1): Unearthing foundations, exploring Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the
diversity. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37, 177–202. Peruvian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy
Akram-Lodhi, A. H., & Kay, C. (2010b). Surveying the agrar- of Sciences, 114, 4123–4128.
ian question (part 2): Current debates and beyond. The Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and soci-
Journal of Peasant Studies, 37, 255–284. ety. New York, NY: Routledge.
Alexiades, M. N., Peters, C. M., Laird, S. A., Binnqüist, C. L., Blandford, D. (2014). The World Trade Organization agree-
& Castillo, P. N. (2013). The missing skill set in community ment on agriculture and world food security. Penn State
management of tropical forests. Conservation Biology, 27, Journal of Law & International Affairs, 3, 156–167.
635–637. Borras, S. M Jr. (2009). Agrarian change and peasant studies:
Altieri, M. A. (2004). Linking ecologists and traditional farm- Changes, continuities and challenges—An introduction.
ers in the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36, 5–31.
Ecology and the Environment, 2, 35–42. Borras, S. M., Jr., & Franco, J. C. (2012). Global land grab-
Appendini, K. (2014). Reconstructing the maize market in bing and trajectories of agrarian change: A preliminary
rural Mexico. Journal of Agrarian Change, 14(1), 1–25. analysis. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12, 34–59.
Barnes, G. (2003). Lessons learned: An evaluation of land Borras, S. M., Jr., Franco, J. C., Gomez, S., Kay, C., & Spoor, M.
administration initiatives in Latin America over the past (2012). Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean?
two decades. Land Use Policy, 20, 367–374. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39, 845–872.
Barnes, G. (2009). The evolution and resilience of community- Borras, S. M., Jr., Hall, R., Scoones, I., White, B., & Wolford,
based land tenure in rural Mexico. Land Use Policy, 26, W. (2011). Towards a better understanding of global land
393–400. grabbing: An editorial introduction. The Journal of Peasant
Barsimantov, J., Racelis, A., Barnes, G., & DiGiano, M. Studies, 38, 209–216.
(2010). Tenure, tourism and timber in Quintana Roo, Brenner, N. (2001). The limits to scale? Methodological reflec-
Mexico: Land tenure changes in forest ejidos after agrarian tions on scalar structuration. Progress in Human
reforms. International Journal of the Commons, 4, 293–318. Geography, 25, 591–614.
Bautista, F., D
ıaz-Garrido, S., Castillo-González, M., & Bridge, G. (2002). Grounding globalization: The prospects
Zinck, J. A. (2005). Spatial heterogeneity of the soil cover and perils of linking economic processes of globalization
in the Yucatán Karst: Comparison of Mayan, WRB, and to environmental outcomes. Economic Geography, 78,
numerical classifications. Eurasian Soil Science, 38, 361–386.
S81–S88. Bürgi, M., Hersperger, A. M., & Schneeberger, N. (2005).
Bautista, F., Palacio-Aponte, G., Quintana, P., & Zinck, J. A. Driving forces of landscape change current and new direc-
(2011). Spatial distribution and development of soils in tions. Landscape Ecology, 19, 857–868.
tropical karst areas from the Peninsula of Yucatan, Butler, J. R. A., Suadnya, W., Puspadi, K., Sutaryono, Y.,
Mexico. Geomorphology, 135, 308–321. Wise, R. M., Skewes, T. D., . . . Ash, A. (2014). Framing
16 Tropical Conservation Science

the application of adaptation pathways for rural livelihoods Ellis, E. A., Kainer, K., Sierra-Huelsz, J., Negreros-Castillo,
and global change in eastern Indonesian islands. Global P., Rodriguez-Ward, D., & DiGiano, M. (2015). Endurance
Environmental Change, 28, 368–382. and adaptation of community forest management in
Carrasco, L. R., Chan, J., McGrath, F., & Nghiem, L. (2017). Quintana Roo, Mexico. Forests, 6, 4295–4327.
Biodiversity conservation in a telecoupled world. Ecology Ellis, E. A., Romero Montero, A., & Hernández G
omez, I. U.
and Society, 22, 24–33. (2015). Evaluaci
on y mapeo de los determinantes de
Carte, L., McWatters, M., Daley, E., & Torres, R. (2010). deforestaci
on en la Pen
ınsula Yucatán [Evaluation and map-
Experiencing agricultural failure: Internal migration, tour- ping of the determinants of deforestation in the Yucatan
ism and local perceptions of regional change in the Peninsula]. Distrito Federal, México: Agencia de los
Yucatan. Geoforum, 41, 700–710. Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional
Castella, J. C., & Verburg, P. H. (2007). Combination of (USAID), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Alianza
process-oriented and pattern-oriented models of land-use México REDDþ.
change in a mountain area of Vietnam. Ecological Ellis, E. A., Romero Montero, J. A., & Hernández G
omez,
Modelling, 202, 410–420. I. U. (2017). Deforestation processes in the state of
Ceddia, M. G., Gunter, U., & Corriveau-Bourque, A. (2015). Quintana Roo, Mexico: The role of land use and commu-
Land tenure and agricultural expansion in Latin nity forestry. Tropical Conservation Science, 10,
America: The role of indigenous peoples’ and local communi- 1940082917697259.
ties’ forest rights. Global Environmental Change, 35, 316–322. FAO. 2016. State of the World’s Forests 2016. Forests and
Chowdhury, R. R. (2006). Driving forces of tropical defores- agriculture: land-use challenges and opportunities. Rome.
tation: The role of remote sensing and spatial models. Fischer, J., Hartel, T., & Kuemmerle, T. (2012). Conservation
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 27, 82–101. policy in traditional farming landscapes. Conservation
Chowdhury, R. R. (2010). Differentiation and concordance in Letters, 5, 167–175.
smallholder land use strategies in southern Mexico’s conser- Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D. B., & Manning, A. D. (2006).
vation frontier. Proceedings of the National Academy of Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: Ten guid-
Sciences, 107, 5780–5785. ing principles for commodity production landscapes.
Clapp, J. (2015). Distant agricultural landscapes. Sustainability Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, 80–86.
Science, 10, 305–316. Friis, C., & Nielsen, J. Ø. (2017). On the system. Boundary
Comisi
on Nacional Forestal de México [National Forestry choices, implications, and solutions in telecoupling land
Commission of Mexico]. (2016). Retrieved from www.gob. use change research. Sustainability, 9, 974–294.
mx/conafor Galvan-Miyoshi, Y., Walker, R., & Warf, B. (2015). Land
Cronkleton, P., Bray, D. B., & Medina, G. (2011). Community change regimes and the evolution of the maize-cattle com-
forest management and the emergence of multi-scale gover- plex in neoliberal Mexico. Land, 4, 754–777.
nance institutions: Lessons for REDDþ development from Garrett, R. D., Lambin, E. F., & Naylor, R. L. (2013). The
Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests, 2, 451–473. new economic geography of land use change: Supply chain
Daniels, A. E., Painter, K., & Southworth, J. (2008). Milpa configurations and land use in the Brazilian Amazon. Land
imprint on the tropical dry forest landscape in Yucatan, Use Policy, 34, 265–275.
Mexico: Remote sensing & field measurement of edge veg- Global Land Analysis & Discovery. (2010). Global 2010 tree
etation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 123, cover (30 m). Retrieved from https://glad.umd.edu/dataset/
293–304. global-2010-tree-cover-30-m
DeFries, R. S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M., & Hansen, M. (2010). Griffin, K. (2003). Economic globalization and institutions of
Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agri- global governance. Development and Change, 34, 789–808.
cultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience, Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M.,
3, 178–183. Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., . . . Kommareddy, A.
De Janvry, A., Emerick, K., Gonzalez-Navarro, M., & (2013). High resolution global maps of 21st-century forest
Sadoulet, E. (2015). Delinking land rights from land use: cover change. Science, 342, 850–853.
Certification and migration in Mexico. The American Harvey, C. A., Komar, O., Chazdon, R., Ferguson, B. G.,
Economic Review, 105, 3125–3149. Finegan, B., Griffith, D. M., . . . Wishnie, M. (2008).
DiGiano, M., Ellis, E., & Keys, E. (2013). Changing land- Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conser-
scapes for forest commons: Linking land tenure with vation in the Mesoamerican hotspot. Conservation Biology,
forest cover change following Mexico’s 1992 agrarian coun- 22, 8–15.
ter reforms. Human Ecology, 41, 707–723. Hecht, S. (2010). The new rurality: Globalization, peasants
Edelman, M., & Haugerud, A. (2005). The anthropology of and the paradoxes of landscapes. Land Use Policy, 27,
development and globalization from classical political econo- 161–169.
my to contemporary neoliberalism. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Heinimann, A., Mertz, O., Frolking, S., Egelund Christensen,
Ellis, E. A., Gomez, U. H., & Romero-Montero, J. A. (2017). A., Hurni, K., Sedano, F., . . . Poulter, B. (2017). A global
Los procesos y causas del cambio en la cobertura forestal de view of shifting cultivation: Recent, current, and future
la Pen
ınsula Yucatán, México [The processes and causes of extent. PLoS One, 12, e0184479.
the change in the forest cover of the Yucatan Peninsula, Hersperger, A. M., & Bürgi, M. (2009). Going beyond land-
Mexico]. Revista Ecosistemas, 26, 101–111. scape change description: Quantifying the importance of
Lawrence et al. 17

driving forces of landscape change in a Central Europe case Liu, J., Hull, V., Batistella, M., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Fu,
study. Land Use Policy, 26, 640–648. F., . . . Zhu, C. (2013). Framing sustainability in a tele-
Hersperger, A. M., & Bürgi, M. (2010). How do policies shape coupled world. Ecology and Society, 18, 26–45.
landscapes? Landscape change and its political driving Liu, J., Hull, V., Luo, J., Yang, W., Liu, W., Vi~ na, A., . . .
forces in the Limmat Valley, Switzerland 1930–2000. Zhang, H. (2015). Multiple telecouplings and their complex
Landscape Research, 35, 259–279. interrelationships. Ecology and Society, 20, 44–61.
Hersperger, A. M., Gennaio, M. P., Verburg, P. H., & Bürgi, Liu, J., Mooney, H., Hull, V., Davis, S. J., Gaskell, J., Hertel,
M. (2010). Linking land change with driving forces and T., . . . Li, S. (2015). Systems integration for global sustain-
actors: Four conceptual models. Ecology and Society, ability. Science, 347, 1258832.
15(4), 1–17. Loewe, R., & Taylor, S. (2008). Neoliberal modernization
Holland, M. B., De Koning, F., Morales, M., Naughton- at the Mexican periphery: Gender, generation and the
Treves, L., Robinson, B. E., & Suárez, L. (2014). construction of a new, flexible workforce. Urban
Complex tenure and deforestation: Implications for conser- Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World
vation incentives in the Ecuadorian Amazon. World Economic Development, 37, 357–392.
Development, 55, 21–36. MacKinnon, D. (2011). Reconstructing scale: Towards a new
Instituto Nacional de Estad
ıstica y Geograf
ıa de México scalar politics. Progress in Human Geography, 35, 21–36.
[National Institute of Statistics and Geography of Margulis, M. E., McKeon, N., & Borras, S. M., Jr. (2013).
Mexico]. (1994). Yucatan: Resultados Definitivos VII Land grabbing and global governance: Critical perspectives.
Censo Ejidal [Yucatan: Definitive Results VII Ejido Globalizations, 10(1), 1–23.
Census]. Retrieved from www.inegi.org.mx Margulis, M. E., & Porter, T. (2013). Governing the global
Instituto Nacional de Estad
ıstica y Geograf
ıa de México. land grab: Multipolarity, ideas, and complexity in transna-
(2007). La Agricultura en Yucatán: Censo Agropecuario tional governance. Globalizations, 10, 65–86.
[Agriculture in Yucatan: Agricultural Census] 2007. McAfee, K., & Shapiro, E. N. (2010). Payments for ecosystem
Retrieved from www.inegi.org.mx services in Mexico: Nature, neoliberalism, social move-
Instituto Nacional de Estad
ıstica y Geograf
ıa de México ments, and the state. Annals of the Association of
[National Institute of Statistics and Geography of American Geographers, 100, 579–599.
Mexico]. (2016). Retrieved from www.inegi.org.mx McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime genealogy. The Journal of
Isakson, S. R. (2014). Food and finance: The financial trans- Peasant Studies, 36, 139–169.
formation of agro-food supply chains. Journal of Peasant McMichael, P. (2012). The land grab and corporate food
Studies, 41, 749–775. regime restructuring. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39,
Jepsen, M. R., Kuemmerle, T., Müller, D., Erb, K., Verburg, 681–701.
P. H., Haberl, H., . . . Reenberg, A. (2015). Transitions in McMichael, P. (2017). Development and social change: A global
European land management regimes between 1800 and perspective (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
2010. Land Use Policy, 49, 53–64. Mertz, O., Padoch, C., Fox, J., Cramb, R. A., Leisz, S. J., Lam,
Jose, S. (2012). Agroforestry for conserving and enhancing N. T., & Vien, T. D. (2009). Swidden change in Southeast
biodiversity. Agroforestry Systems, 85(1), 1–8. Asia: Understanding causes and consequences. Human
Kassam, K. A. (2009). Viewing change through the prism of Ecology, 37, 259–264.
indigenous human ecology: Findings from the Afghan and Meyfroidt, P., Carlson, K. M., Fagan, M. E., Gutiérrez-Vélez,
Tajik Pamirs. Human Ecology, 37, 677–690. V. H., Macedo, M. N., Curran, L. M., . . . Robiglio, V.
Lambin, E. F., Geist, H. J., & Lepers, E. (2003). Dynamics of (2014). Multiple pathways of commodity crop expansion
land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annual in tropical forest landscapes. Environmental Research
Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 205–241. Letters, 9, 074012.
Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change, Meyfroidt, P., Lambin, E. F., Erb, K. H., & Hertel, T. W.
economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. (2013). Globalization of land use: Distant drivers of land
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the change and geographic displacement of land use. Current
United States of America, 108, 3465–3472. Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 438–444.
Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J., & Cassman, K. G. (2014). Moore, J. W. (2010). The end of the road? Agricultural revo-
Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. lutions in the capitalist world-ecology, 1450–2010. Journal
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 107–116. of Agrarian Change, 10, 389–413.
Lawrence, T. J., Morreale, S. J., & Stedman, R. C. (2019). Moser, S. C., & Hart, J. A. F. (2015). The long arm of climate
Distant political-economic forces and global-to-local path- change: Societal teleconnections and the future of climate
way to impacts on forests of Ejido landscapes across change impacts studies. Climatic Change, 129, 13–26.
Yucatán, México. Land Degradation & Development, 30, Munroe, D. K., McSweeney, K., Olson, J. L., & Mansfield, B.
2021–2032. (2014). Using economic geography to reinvigorate land-
Levy-Tacher, S. I., Ram
ırez-Marcial, N., Navarrete-Gutiérrez, change science. Geoforum, 52, 12–21.
D. A., & Rodr
ıguez-Sánchez, P. V. (2019). Are Mayan com- Ogden, L., Heynen, N., Oslender, U., West, P., Kassam, K. A.,
munity forest reserves effective in fulfilling people’s needs & Robbins, P. (2013). Global assemblages, resilience, and
and preserving tree species? Journal of Environmental earth stewardship in the anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology
Management, 245, 16–27. and the Environment, 11, 341–347.
18 Tropical Conservation Science

Oliveira, G., & Hecht, S. (2016). Sacred groves, sacrifice zones Towards a global understanding of land use change.
and soy production: Globalization, intensification and neo- Global Environmental Change, 15, 23–31.
nature in South America. The Journal of Peasant Studies, Rudel, T. K., Defries, R., Asner, G. P., & Laurance, W. F.
43, 251–285. (2009). Changing drivers of deforestation and new oppor-
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustain- tunities for conservation. Conservation Biology, 23,
ability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422. 1396–1405.
Pace, M. L., & Gephart, J. A. (2017). Trade: A driver of pre- Sarkar, S., & Montoya, M. (2011). Beyond parks and reserves:
sent and future ecosystems. Ecosystems, 20, 44–53. The ethics and politics of conservation with a case study
Padoch, C., & Pinedo-Vásquez, M. (2010). Saving slash-and- from Peru. Biological Conservation, 144, 979–988.
burn to save biodiversity. Biotropica, 42, 550–552. Schmook, B., & Vance, C. (2009). Agricultural policy, market
Pereira, R., Simmons, C. S., & Walker, R. (2016). barriers, and deforestation: The case of Mexico’s southern
Smallholders, agrarian reform, and globalization in the Yucatán. World Development, 37, 1015–1025.
Brazilian Amazon: Cattle versus the environment. Land, Schmook, B., van Vliet, N., Radel, C., de Jes
us Manz
on-Che,
5, 24–39. M., & McCandless, S. (2013). Persistence of swidden culti-
Perramond, E. P. (2008). The rise, fall, and reconfiguration of vation in the face of globalization: A case study from com-
the Mexican ejido. Geographical Review, 98, 356–371. munities in Calakmul, Mexico. Human Ecology, 41, 93–107.
Plieninger, T., Draux, H., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C., Bürgi, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2010).
M., Kizos, T., . . . Verburg, P. H. (2016). The driving forces The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi
of landscape change in Europe: A systematic review of the biodiversity targets (COP-10 Decision X/2). Retrieved from
evidence. Land Use Policy, 57, 204–214. www.cbd.int/cop10/doc/
Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E. A., Guariguata, M. R., Ruiz-Mallén, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2014).
I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S., & Reyes-Garc
ıa, V. (2012). Contribution of indigenous peoples’ and local community con-
Community-managed forests and forest protected areas: An served territories and areas to the strategic plan for biodiversity
assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the 2011–2020 (Aichi targets) (No. UNEP/CBD/COP/12/INF/
tropics. Forest Ecology and Management, 268, 6–17. 21). Retrieved from www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting¼cop-12
Puc-Alcocer, M., Arce-Ibarra, A. M., Cortina-Villar, S., & Seto, K. C., Reenberg, A., Boone, C. G., Fragkias, M., Haase,
Estrada-Lugo, E. I. J. (2019). Rainforest conservation in D., Langanke, T., . . . Simon, D. (2012). Urban land telecon-
Mexico’s lowland Maya area: Integrating local meanings nections and sustainability. Proceedings of the National
of conservation and land-use dynamics. Forest Ecology Academy of Sciences, 109, 7687–7692.
and Management, 448, 300–311. Sistla, S. A., Roddy, A. B., Williams, N. E., Kramer, D. B.,
Registro Agrario Nacional [National Agrarian Registry]. Stevens, K., & Allison, S. D. (2016). Agroforestry practices
(2017). Retrieved from www.gob.mx/ran promote biodiversity and natural resource diversity in
Ribeiro Palacios, M., Huber-Sannwald, E., Barrios, L. G., de Atlantic Nicaragua. PLoS One, 11, e0162529.
Paz, F. P., Hernández, J. C., & Mendoza, M. D. G. G. Smith, D. A., Herlihy, P. H., Kelly, J. H., & Viera, A. R.
(2013). Landscape diversity in a rural territory: Emerging (2009). The certification and privatization of indigenous
land use mosaics coupled to livelihood diversification. Land lands in Mexico. Journal of Latin American Geography, 8,
Use Policy, 30, 814–824. 175–207.
Riekkinen, K., Toivonen, S., Krigsholm, P., Hiironen, J., & Smith, D. A., Holland, M. B., Michon, A., Ibá~ nez, A., &
Kolis, K. (2016). Future themes in the operational environ- Herrera, F. (2017). The hidden layer of indigenous land
ment of the Finnish cadastral system. Land Use Policy, 57, tenure: Informal forest ownership and its implications for
702–708. forest use and conservation in Panama’s largest collective
Robbins, P., Chhatre, A., & Karanth, K. (2015). Political ecol- territory. International Forestry Review, 19, 478–494.
ogy of commodity agroforests and tropical biodiversity. Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2008). Globalisation and environmental
Conservation Letters, 8, 77–85. governance: Is another world possible? Global
Robinson, B. E., Holland, M. B., & Naughton-Treves, L. Environmental Change, 18, 341–342.
(2014). Does secure land tenure save forests? A meta- Spalding, A. K. (2017). Exploring the evolution of land tenure
analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical and land use change in Panama: Linking land policy with
deforestation. Global Environmental Change, 29, 281–293. development outcomes. Land Use Policy, 61, 543–552.
Robinson, G. M. (2018). Globalization of agriculture. Annual Sreeja, K. G., Madhusoodhanan, C. G., & Eldho, T. I. (2015).
Review of Resource Economics, 10, 133–160. Transforming river basins: Post livelihood transition agri-
Robson, J. P., & Berkes, F. (2011). Exploring some of the cultural landscapes and implications for natural resource
myths of land use change: Can rural to urban migration governance. Journal of Environmental Management, 159,
drive declines in biodiversity? Global Environmental 254–263.
Change, 21, 844–854. Taylor, M. J., Aguilar-Støen, M., Castellanos, E., Moran-
Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and Taylor, M. J., & Gerkin, K. (2016). International migration,
the future of the world economy. New York, NY: W.W. land use change and the environment in Ixcán, Guatemala.
Norton & Company. Land Use Policy, 54, 290–301.
Rudel, T. K., Coomes, O. T., Moran, E., Achard, F., Angelsen, Treweek, J. R., Brown, C., & Bubb, P. (2006). Assessing bio-
A., Xu, J., & Lambin, E. (2005). Forest transitions: diversity impacts of trade: A review of challenges in the
Lawrence et al. 19

agriculture sector. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vázquez-Dom
ınguez, E., & Arita, H. T. (2010). The Yucatan
24, 299–309. peninsula: biogeographical history 65 million years in the
Turner, B. L., II. (2010). Sustainability and forest transitions in making. Ecography, 33, 212–219.
the southern Yucatan: The land architecture approach. Verburg, P. H., Crossman, N., Ellis, E. C., Heinimann, A.,
Land Use Policy, 27, 170–179. Hostert, P., Mertz, O., . . . Zhen, L. (2015). Land system sci-
Turner, B. L., II., Geoghegan, J., Lawrence, D., Radel, C., ence and sustainable development of the earth system: A
Schmook, B., Vance, C., . . . Ogenva-Himmelberger, Y. global land project perspective. Anthropocene, 12, 29–41.
(2016). Land system science and the social environmental Vergara-Asenjo, G., & Potvin, C. (2014). Forest protection and
system: The case of Southern Yucatán Peninsular Region tenure status: The key role of indigenous peoples and pro-
(SYPR) project. Current Opinion in Environmental tected areas in Panama. Global Environmental Change, 28,
Sustainability, 19, 18–29. 205–215.
Vallejo-Ramos, M., Moreno-Calles, A. I., & Casas, A. (2016). Wittman, H., Chappell, M. J., Abson, D. J., Bezner Kerr, R.,
TEK and biodiversity management in agroforestry systems Blesh, J., Hanspach, J., . . . Fischer, J. (2017). A social–eco-
of different socio-ecological contexts of the Tehuacán logical perspective on harmonizing food security and biodi-
Valley. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 12, 31–46. versity conservation. Regional Environmental Change, 17,
van Vliet, N., Mertz, O., Heinimann, A., Langanke, T., 1291–1301.
Pascual, U., Schmook, B., . . . Ziegler, A. D. (2012). Yu, D. J., Anderies, J. M., Lee, D., & Perez, I. (2014).
Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultiva- Transformation of resource management institutions
tion in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: A global assess- under globalization: The case of songgye community forests
ment. Global Environmental Change, 22, 418–429. in South Korea. Ecology and Society, 19, 2–17.