Study area

The study area was located in six rural communities in the APRN 01 Pabellón, SF, CG y CC, portion, specifically in the municipalities of Genaro Codina and Ojocaliente, both in the states of Zacatecas (Figure 2 and Table 1); they were selected for being within or near the ANP polygon; they belong to the physiographic province of Sierra Madre Occidental, specifically the subprovince of Sierras and Valles Zacatecanos. The predominant toposhapes are plateaus with abrupt ravines, slopes, plateau surfaces, lomeríos, high valleys, mountain gaps, and high sierra peaks, with heights of 1835 to 2320 meters of altitude.

Methodological process

Community diagnoses have a certain relationship with the search for opportunities in the development and formulation of alternate proposals that promote a better standard of living than the local inhabitants. These start from understanding the needs and opportunities of the communities, where Social Participation (SP) offers enough advantages to be considered an alternate tool to seek development (^{Cardona Carlin, 2013}; ^{Brenner and de la Vega, 2014}).

Based on the responses of the first exploration, we proceeded to elaborate an interviewing instrument to be discussed with key informants, who were selected because they were opinion leaders in a group, or else because they bring together, as a result of their activity, data and a sense of the community. In this group there are municipal authorities, delegates, ejido commissioners, teachers, natural leaders and people in charge of businesses; they were asked to make comments on their opinion around various themes related to the ANP.

In total, there were 35 opinion leaders interviewed. The number was determined based on the characteristics of each locality; the size of the communities influenced the number of people interviewed (Table 1).

Later, the information was systematized, having as reference the localities, the number of people interviewed, and the fraction that the interviewees belong to; information systems were used for data processing; also, the notes taken in the field were integrated to the results with comments from some of the residents.

Sampling: interview and data collection

The study was based on the application of surveys with opinion leaders in the zone of the APRN fraction SF, CG y CC, in Zacatecas. The methodology was chosen because it is considered as an efficient and fast source of information; it is defined as the set of standardized research procedures through which data are collected and analyzed from a representative sample of a population or universe (^{Casas-Anuita et al., 2003}).

The survey was analytical-observational, with a combination of closed and multiple choice questions, or else with a range of responses. The aim sought was to obtain information about concrete facts, intentions, opinions, level of information, activities, aspirations, causes or reasons (^{Casas-Anuita et al., 2003}; ^{Sierra-Bravo, 1994}), from key informants and in relation to actions within or near the ANP.

Interviewing 35 residents who are opinion leaders in six communities was considered, during the months of January and February, 2013 (Figure 2 and Table 1). All of them, firstly, were informed of the academic intention of the study.

It could seem that 35 informants do not represent the whole population in the ANP; however, rural diagnoses are founded on the active participation of residents in the localities (^{Moreno Casasola, 2000}). The use of this method gives rise to techniques such as quick rural diagnosis (^{Galtung, 1966}) and participant rural diagnosis (^{Alberich, 2000a}; ^{Alberich, 2000b}; ^{Alberich and Espadas, 2011}), which have people as the main research axis, understood as the source of action in the communities (^{Espinoza Sánchez et al., 2010}). These techniques are widely used and are supported in their entirety on the responses of key informants to characterize communities with reliable results (^{Espinoza Sánchez et al., 2010}; ^{Halffter, 2011}; ^{Cardona, 2013}).

Direct Strategic Lines

a) Protection and Vigilance of the ANP

With regard to the vigilance and protection of the ANP, 27 informants (77 %) in the six localities addressed, say that they know of a group in charge of supervising the ANP; likewise, 21 (60 %) consider these groups for environmental vigilance necessary (Table 2).

Table 2 Opinion of residents of the APRN of SF, CG y CC in Zacatecas, with regard to vigilance. 

Another similar aspect is shown in Table 2, where there are values that denote the need for environmental vigilance groups in the ANP of SF, CG y CC; this, is in function of there being activities for extraction that must be supervised (19 informants [54 %]).

It is observed that the informants still do not define the concept of environmental crime, which is reflected in the divided opinion with regard to how forest fires are perceived; on the other hand, an openness is observed to participate with the fire brigades (30 owners [86 %]), possibly in function of the lack of understanding of the issue (Table 3).

Table 3 Problematic, organization and social participation in the APRN of SF, CG y CC, in Zacatecas. 

The aspect of vigilance was also addressed from another approach; informants were asked if they would make a denunciation when noticing a situation of clandestine tree felling. In this sense, 20 of them (57 %) mentioned they would, only 3 (9 %) would not, and 12 (34 %) say they have doubts in this sense (Table 3).

Another relevant point regarding environmental vigilance, is seen in 30 (86 %) of the informants, who mention that the community itself should be responsible for the care and vigilance of the APRN. Likewise, 15 (43 %) allot the responsibility of preventing forest fires to the community itself. They also give some responsibility to the municipal public officers for environmental prevention and vigilance, and do not consider the state and federal government instances as responsible for vigilance (Table 4).

Table 4 Actors responsible for the care and vigilance of the APRN of SF, CG y CC, in Zacatecas. 

AM: Municipal authorities; AE: State authorities; AF: Federal authorities; C: Community; O: Others.

As additional data for this section, two situations are mentioned: on the one hand, the misinformation regarding aspects of environmental vigilance and protection of the APRN of SF, CG y CC in Zacatecas; and, on the other, the full willingness of the communities to collaborate in aspects of environmental vigilance.

b) Management

The lack of a PCyM has given rise to the management and exploitation of the APRN of SF, CG y CC to be carried out in a disorganized and disassociated way; even with this, some actions for exploitation have been operated with partial approaches of sustainability, referring to the production of carbon and wood for fencing posts (CONANP, 2015).

Additionally to this section, it is known that there are activities of unregulated exploitation in the ANP, such as the extraction and sale of rock materials, in addition to certain types of unregulated tourism (Table 5).

Table 5 Relationship of some activities inside the APRN of SF, CG y CC, in Zacatecas. 

c) Restoration

The aspect that refers to restoration is essential for good conservation practices; information is presented in this sense, where the total of residents of the APRN of SF, CG y CC, maintain an attitude of open collaboration towards activities of this type. Of the key informants, 23 (66 %) know about sites that need this type of actions; likewise, 14 (40 %) locate water beds that require cleaning and restoration because of pollutants (Table 6).

Table 6 Considerations with regard to the restoration of the ecosystem of SF, CG y CC, in Zacatecas. 

Indirect Strategic Lines

a) Knowledge of the ANP

The key informants mention that knowledge about the ANP in general is deficient, since their responses show that out of the total key informants, 12 (34 %) said they understood the concept of ANP. This is complemented with 20 (57 %) informants who mention not knowing the fact that they reside in an area defined for the protection of natural resources. In this sense, 26 (74 %) informants declared that from their appreciation and experience, the SF, CG y CC site is not adequate for conservation actions (Table 7).

Table 7 Aspects addressed in relation to the way in which the concept of APRN of SF, CG y CC, in Zacatecas, is visualized by its residents. 

With regard to the advantages of residing in an ANP, the opinions are divided; 17 (49 %) say they know them, while 16 (46 %) do not perceive any benefit. A significant piece of data in the responses is that all of them (35 people) share the interest they have in participating in actions for conservation and management of the ANP (Table 7).

b) Environmental education (Culture)

In the environmental education subprogram, 21 (60 %) informants say they understand the concept, 33 (94 %) describe environmental education as important, and 21 (60 %) have not received courses or training related to it. All of the informants mention having an attitude of openness towards activities of environmental education, because they consider them important (Table 8).

Table 8 Aspects addressed in the interview with regard to environmental education in the APRN of SF, CG y CC, in Zacatecas. 

c) Management

The elements of management considered are all of those actions and policies that have to do directly with the ecosystems, their biodiversity, and all the communities settled within or quite near the protected areas. This is how the participation and correlation of federal, state and municipal institutions with ineffective actions is perceived, which allows catching sight of aspects that damage the ANP of SF, CG y CC, in Zacatecas.

The lack of a PCyM, and therefore cross-cutting government actions, where the development axis is focused on the ecosystem of the APRN of SF, CG y CC, is interrupted by the lack of coordination between the three orders of government, which falls into a lack of interest and concrete willingness among the social, economic and environmental spheres.

The transversal actions of coordination of priorities will bring benefits in the medium and long term, particularly if risks to the ecosystem are mitigated. Without a doubt the social and economic certitude of the ANP will be favored.

It was detected that in the regulation of works and activities there are faults in terms of authorizations, and constructions have been built that evidently place the ANP at risk. It is clear that part of the problem is that there are financial supports from sectors of the government in its three levels, which affect negatively and evidence an inter-institutional lack of coordination.

The lack of a signaling system in the ANP is a risk factor, since when ignoring the limits and characteristics of the site, activities that are incompatible with conservation can be carried out. Based on the observations and what was mentioned before, there are signs of insufficient activity related to mechanisms of social participation.