nu. .
1 1...._.._! Z
. ._ . $132.

 

 

...?\.:. .ol....)ynv

 

. w. ‘13:...

I X \
2.1.. 3. .
. 1:1: .4 :1. ,
. an“. , , “13:32...
. ‘ .1 :. I r

35.41:!:

. It. . I

A. :1

u 12‘:
‘ S:

. {3.2

 

t; lllllllllllllllll|l||||lllllllll||||llllll|||||||l||l|l||

31293 01563 5190

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Improving Economic Valuation Studies by Using Qualitative
Methods: Lessons from the Mangrove Wetlands of
Yuca‘ran, Mexico

presented by

M i chael Dana Kaplowitz

has been accepted towards fulfillment *
of the requirements for

P hD degree in Resource Development

 

 

 

 

Major professor

Date 8/21/97

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout iro’m your new. ' ' '
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
MAgipz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity institution
c:\civc\d‘odm.m3~p. 1

IMPROVING ECONOMIC VALUATION STUDIES BY USING QUALITATIVE
METHODS: LESSONS FROM THE MANGROVE WETLANDS
OF YUCATAN, MEXICO
By

Michael Dana Kaplowitz

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Resource Development

1997

 

The data collected in the focus groups and individual interviews was systematically
analyzed by coding transcripts following a grounded theory approach. Successive
iterations of open, axial, and selective coding efforts resulted in a database of the
transcripts, their codes, thematic variables, and response categories. The frequencies of
the variables and response categories as well as their cross-tabulations were then
examined.

The results of the analytical analysis of the qualitative data supports the
supposition that separate focus groups with members from distinct communities that rely
upon a common environmental and natural resource produce substantially similar sets of
information. However, the data does not support the supposition that information learned
in individual qualitative interviews is substantially Similar to information learned in focus
group interviews. Likewise, the data does not support the supposition that individual
interviews conducted in similar communities produce substantially similar sets of
information. The findings suggest that focus groups be used to learn about general issues,
concerns, and vocabulary of resource beneficiaries and that individual interviews be used
to validate focus group findings and learn in depth about sensitive, controversial, and

divergent resource issues.

Copyright by
Michael Dana Kaplowitz
1997

T o my family and friends for teaching me.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation was made possible because of the full cooperation and participation of
the people Of Pro gresso, Chelém, and Chuburna, Mexico. It was a pleasure meeting and
getting to know them. Their generosity of time and good Spirit made the sometimes-
difficult field research component of the dissertation, nothing Short of a labor Of love. I
thank them for teaching me about their special part of the world.

Many peOple have helped to make this dissertation and the educational experience
that it represents a reality. First and foremost, I must thank Professor Tom Edens. For his
good nature, encouragement, and useful insights and for his faith in me and his friendship,
I thank him. Professor John Hoehn, more than anyone else, has helped me to develop my
critical thinking and appreciation of good research. For his astute observations,
confidence in my professional abilities, and valuable help, I thank him. I owe a debt of
gratitude to Professor Scott Whiteford. I credit Scott’s help for my receipt of both a US.
Department of Education Title VI Foreign Language and Area Studies [FLAS] fellowship
and, later, an Inter-American Foundation [IAF] Dissertation Research Fellowship. Scott
has taught me how to do meaningful scholarly work. I would also like to acknowledge
the profound impact Professor George Axinn has made on me, personally and
professionally. Dr. Axinn not only epitomizes what it means to be a scholar-practitioner,
but he and his wife Nancy have been tireless role models, mentors, and compassionate

beings.

vi

 

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of an IAF
Dissertation Research Fellowship, an Organization of American States [OAS] Professional
Training Fellowship, and dissertation research fellowships from Michigan State
University’s [MSU] Office of International Studies and Programs [ISP] and College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources [CANR]. For their generosity and other support, I
thank IAF’S Bob Sogge and Mark Caicedo; OAS’s Yolanda Nunez; ISP’s former dean
Gill Lim; and CANR’S Rick Brandenberg.

Dr. Juan Carlos Seijo not only wrote the article that started me down the road to
the Yucatan, but he opened his office and home to my family and me. I thank Dr. Seijo,
Miguel Angel Cabrero, Cecilia, and the other fine people and researchers of CINVESTAV
for their logistical and institutional support of my work. I owe a special thanks to Dr.
Jorge Efian Avila, my closet friend and colleague in Mérida. Jorge deserves recognition
for his tireless help and support of me, my family, and this dissertation research project.
For that and for allowing me and my family to share some of our lives in Mérida and East
Lansing with him, his wife Diana, and children Rodrigo, and Andrea, I am also indebted.

MSU’S Department of Resource Development [RD] has been a wonderful and
supportive department. I credit the enthusiasm, professionalism, and vision of former
chair Frank Fear, the faculty, staff, and students for making RD an enriching and exciting
interdisciplinary home. I look forward to continuing my positive relationship with RD
under the able leadership of Cynthia Frid gen.

Thanks to the University of Michigan’s SRC Summer Institute for allowing me the

opportunity to Study qualitative research methods with Drs. David Morgan and Robert

vii

 

Weiss and to address the issues of cognition, understanding and survey design with Drs.
Bob Belli and Norbert Schwarz during the summer of 1996.

I am indebted to Cesar Garcia Lozano of INPROMER. Caesar unflappably and
tirelessly helped me surmount the many challenges of conducting qualitative field research
in rural coastal Yucatan. Together with Maria del Carmen J aimes and Martha Elena
Carbajal, Caesar helped to insure that focus group and individual interviews of only the
highest quality were conducted.

I must acknowledge the love and support I have received from my parents. They
may not have always understood what exactly I was doing or why I was doing it, but they
have always been there for me when I needed them. I love them and hope that I can
always make them proud.

Many friends and family members have provided me with the strength and
encouragement necessary for carrying out the difficult task of doctoral studies and
dissertation writing. One friend in particular has been a vital confidant and sounding board
for me. My regular conversations with Mark Phillips about dissertations, fatherhood, and
the accouterments of life eased these challenging tasks.

No one deserves more credit and thanks for this dissertation than my wife, Donna.
During the five years it has taken me to begin and finish my doctoral studies, Donna has
unfailingly supported and encouraged me. During that time she too has been busy earning
her own Ph.D., giving birth to our two children—Ariel and Andrew, and preparing the
way for the October arrival of our third baby. I thank Donna for helping me to be a better
father, fn'end, and teacher. Most of all, I thank my wife and children for being a constant

reminder to me of what is most precious in life.

viii

 

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... XII
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... XVI
LIST OF TERMS ..................................................................................................... XVII

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
Research Site ........................................................................................................ 2
Yucatan, Mexico ....................................................................................... 2
Yucalpetén Estuary ................................................................................... 3
Background & Literature Review ......................................................................... 7
Mangrove Ecosystems .............................................................................. 8
Economic Valuation ................................................................................ 10
N onmarket Methods ............................................................................... 13
Contingent Valuation .............................................................................. l6
Qualitative Survey Design ....................................................................... 20
Hypotheses ......................................................................................................... 25
Method and Analysis .......................................................................................... 26
Population and Sample ............................................................................ 26
Procedures .............................................................................................. 29
Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 31
Assumptions and Limitations .............................................................................. 34

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 36
International Development .................................................................................. 36
Bottom-Up Approach ............................................................................. 38
New Paradigm ........................................................................................ 40
Environment and Development ............................................................... 41
Mangrove Ecosystems ........................................................................................ 43
Changes in Chelém Lagoon ..................................................................... 45
Yucatan Mangrove Research ................................................................... 49
Economic Valuation ........................................................................................... 51
Economic Value of Mangroves ............................................................... 54
Total Economic Value ............................................................................ 57
Nonmarket Valuation .............................................................................. 60

ix

 

1
Actual and Contingent Valuation ............................................................. 61
Contingent Valuation Methods ........................................................................... 65
CV Study Design .................................................................................... 66
CV in Developing Countries .................................................................... 68
CV in Yucatan ........................................................................................ 72
CV Design Methods ................................................................................ 74
Qualitative Research and Survey Design ............................................................. 78
Qualitative Methods ................................................................................ 81
Focus Groups ......................................................................................... 83
Individual Interviews ............................................................................... 86
Group viS-a-vis Individual Interviews ...................................................... 89
Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................... 91
CHAPTER 3
METHOD ...................................................................................................................... 93
Design and Subjects ............................................................................................ 93
Design of Study ...................................................................................... 95
Subjects ................................................................................................ 101
Procedures ....................................................................................................... 1 12
UCRHIS Review .................................................................................. 113
Recruitment .......................................................................................... 1 13
Instrumentation ..................................................................................... l 15
Focus Groups ....................................................................................... 123
Individual Interviews ............................................................................. 126
Data Collection ................................................................................................. 127
Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 129
Coding .................................................................................................. 130
Cross-Case Analysis .............................................................................. 132
CHAPTER 4
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS ............................................................... 134
Background ...................................................................................................... 135
Qualitative Data Analysis ...................................................................... 135
Coding Procedure ................................................................................. 140
Analytical Techniques ........................................................................... 152
Framework for Data Analysis ................................................................ 156
Results ............................................................................................................. 160
How People Live .................................................................................. 162
Problems People See ............................................................................. 170
Wetland Value ...................................................................................... 176
Resource Management .......................................................................... 185
Names for Wetland ............................................................................... 195
Gender Differences ............................................................................... 198
Analysis of Results ........................................................................................... 204
Framework and Analysis ....................................................................... 204

 

Test of Hypotheses ............................................................................... 219

Economic Data ................................................................................................. 226
Qualitative Research Data ..................................................................... 227
Value of Chivita .................................................................................... 228

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 233
Summary .......................................................................................................... 233
Discussion ........................................................................................................ 234
International Development .................................................................... 235
Economic Value .................................................................................... 238
Nonmarket Valuation ............................................................................ 242
Qualitative Methods .............................................................................. 248
Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 255
Implications ...................................................................................................... 25 5
Possible Applications ........................................................................................ 257
Recommendations ............................................................................................ 258
APPENDIX A LIST OF INTERVIEWS .................................................................... 260
APPENDIX B SPSS VARIABLES, VALUES, & LABELS ...................................... 261
APPENDIX C SPSS DATA SET .............................................................................. 269
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 277

xi

 

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

LIST OF TABLES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Valuation Methods 14
Research Overview 77
Focus Groups and Interviews 20
Simple 2 x 2 Data Sets 99
Modified 2 x 2 Data Sets 99
Some Possible Tests of Data 100
Select Population Characteristics 103
Phases of Focus Groups and Interviews 111
Categories of Responses in Excel Spreadsheet 148
SPSS Selective Code Summary 151
Data Analysis Framework 160
How People Live 165
Where People Fish 165
Fish Caught 166
Wetland for Whom 166
How People Live by Locale by Focus Group 168
How People Live by Locale by Individual Interview ..................................... 168
Fish Where by Locale by Focus Groups 169
Fishing by Locale by Individual Interview 169

 

xii

 

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31.

Table 32.

Table 33.

Table 34.

Table 35.

Table 36.

Table 37.

Table 38.

Table 39.

Table 40.

Table 41.

Table 42.

What Problems Here .................................................................................... 171
Why Few Fish .............................................................................................. 172
Problems with DUMAC Project ................................................................... 172
Problems by Locale by Focus Group ............................................................ 174
Problems by Locale by Individual Interview ................................................. 174
Why Few Fish by Locale by Focus Group .................................................... 175
Why Few Fish by Locale by Individual Interview ......................................... 175
DUMAC Project by Locale by Focus Group ................................................ 177
DUMAC Project by Local by Individual Interview ....................................... 177
Wetland Goods ............................................................................................ 180
Nonmarket Goods ....................................................................................... 180
Wetland Services ......................................................................................... 1 8 1
Wetland Perceptions .................................................................................... 181
Wetland Perception by Locale by Focus Group ............................................. 183
Wetland Perception by Locale by Individual Interview ................................. 183
Wetland Services by Locale by Focus Group ................................................ 184
Wetland Services by Locale by Individual Interview ..................................... 184
Wetland Products by Locale by Focus Group ............................................... 186
Wetland Products by Locale by Individual Interview .................................... 186
How to Improve Wetland ............................................................................ 188
What Restricted ............................................................................................ 189
Why Wetland Restrictions Would Not Work ................................................ 192
Ways to Improve Wetland by Locale by Focus Group .................................. 193

xiii

 

Table 43.

Table 44.

Table 45.

Table 46.

Table 47.

Table 48.

Table 49.

Table 50.

Table 51.

Table 52.

Table 53.

Table 54.

Table 55.

Table 5 6.

Table 57.

Table 5 8.

Table 59.

Table 60.

Table 61.

Table 62.

Table 63.

Table 64.

Table 65.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Way to Improve Wetland by Locale by Individual Interview ......................... 193
Restrictions Would Not Work by Locale by Focus Group ............................ 194
Restrictions Would Not Work by Locale by Individual Interview ................. 194
Names for Mangrove Ecosystem (Chelém Lagoon) ...................................... 196
Names by Locale by Focus Group 197
Names by Locale by Individual Interview 197
Names by Gender by Chelém 200
Name by Gender by Chubuma 200
Name by Gender by Focus Group 201
Name by Gender by Individual Interview 201
Problems by Gender by Chele’m 202
Problems by Gender by Chubuma 203
Problem by Gender by Focus Group 203
Problem by Gender by Individual Interview 204
Data Comparison Key 205
How People Live Data Comparison 207
Where People Fish Data Comparison 208
Problems Data Comparison 209
Declining Fish Population Data Comparison 210
Perception of Wetland Data Comparison 712
Wetland Services Data Comparison 213
Wetland Improvement Data Comparison 214
Restriction Enforcement Efficacy Data Comparison 215

 

 

Table 66.

Table 67.

Table 68.

Table 69.

Table 70.

Table 71.

Table 72.

Table 73.

Table 74.

Table 75.

Table 76.

Names for Wetland Data Comparison .......................................................... 217
Names by Gender Data Comparison ............................................................. 218
Problems by Gender Data Comparison ......................................................... 219
Data for Hypothesis Tests ............................................................................ 221
Hypothesis 1: An: Bu; Cn = D, .................................................................... 223
Hypothesis 2: An: Cn ................................................................................. 224
Hypothesis 3: B11 = Dn ................................................................................. 225
Chivita Data ................................................................................................ 229
Focus Group v. Individual Interviews ........................................................... 252
Interview List .............................................................................................. 260
Chelém and Chuburna Data Set ................................................................... 269

XV

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Yucatan Peninsula ............................................................................................ 4
Figure 2. Chelém Lagoon ................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3. Mangrove Total Economic Value ................................................................... 61
Figure 4. Research Design ............................................................................................. 94
Figure 5. Initial Interview Guide .................................................................................. 119
Figure 6. Modified Focus Group Guide ....................................................................... 120
Figure 7. Sample Open Codes by Location .................................................................. 142
Figure 8. Sample Open Codes by Name ....................................................................... 143
Figure 9. Sample Axial Coding Scheme ....................................................................... 146
Figure 10. Sample Excel Category Worksheet ............................................................. 149
Figure 11. Research Design ......................................................................................... 158
Figure 12. Wetland Use Value Estimate ...................................................................... 230

xvi

 

 

bordo
cie’naga
CINVESTAV or

CINVESTAV-
IPN

CANR

CV or CVM
DUMAC
EPOMEX

estero
humedales
IAF
ICRAF
INEGI

ISP
manglar
mojarra
MSU
nortes
NGO
NOAA
OAS

LIST OF TERMS

dike or sea water retaining system built by DUMAC
marsh

Centro de Investigacién y Estudios Avanzados del Instituto
Politécnico Nacional, Unidad Mérida [Center for Investigation
and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute,
Mérida Campus]

MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Contingent Valuation Method
Ducks Unlimited of Mexico, America, and Canada

Pro grama de EcologI’a, Pesquerias y Oceanografi’a del Golfo
de Mexico [Ecology, Fisheries, and Oceanographic Program
of the Gulf of Mexico]

estuary

wetlands

Inter-American Foundation

International Centre for Research in Agroforestry

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geo grafi’a, e Informatica
[National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Information]

MSU Office of International Studies and Programs
mangrove

a type of fish

Michigan State University

seasonal bad weather usually November to March
non-governmentally organization

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

Organization of American States

xvii

 

llli

PEMEX
Pronatura
puerto de abrigo
rastreros

RD

n’a

rio
SEMARNAP

sondeo
UN
UNESCO

WTA
WTP

LIST OF TERMS—Continued

Mexico’s petroleum industry

Mexican environmental non-governmental agency
sheltered harbor

trawlers

MSU Department of Resource Development
estuary

river

Secretaria del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca
[Secretariat of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fish]

informal popular discussion
United Nations

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization

willingness-to-accept payment

willingness—to-pay

xviii

 

CHAPTERI

INTRODUCTION

This study examines advantages and disadvantages of using focus group and individual
qualitative interviews for designing an economic valuation survey in a developing country.
Complex environmental and natural resources, such as the Yucatan’s mangrove wetlands,
represent substantial sources of cultural, intergenerational, environmental, and economic
wealth (Aylward and Barbier 1992). The failure to properly account for the total value of
environmental and natural resources results in socially undesirable overexploitation and
degradation of complex ecosystems such as mangrove wetlands (Clark 1996). Nonmarket
valuation methods, including contingent valuation, provide means for accounting for the
economic value of environmental and natural resources.

Contingent valuation studies increasingly are being used to reveal economic values
associated with environmental and natural resources and to improve decision making in
developing countries (Hoehn and Krieger 1994; Carson et al., Bibliography, 1994;
Munasinghe 1993). However, the contingent valuation method [CV or CVM] depends
upon the use of well-designed and well-implemented survey questionnaires for generating
reliable and valid economic estimates (Mitchell and Carson 1989; NOAA 1993).
Economists as well as other researchers tend to rely upon sociologists and other social

scientists for developing and improving the generally accepted methods of survey design

 

2

and implementation. Increasingly, sociologists and other survey research practitioners use
qualitative research methods for designing and testing survey-based research (Morgan
1993; Zeller 1993; Laurie and Sullivan 1991). This research project focuses on assessing
comparative strengths and weakness of two qualitative methods—focus group and
individual depth interviews—for designing an economic valuation study of a complex

ecosystem in a developing country.

RESEARCH SITE

YUCATAN, MEXICO
Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula supports abundant biological diversity and a predominantly
Maya population (See Figure 1). Areas throughout the peninsula have been designated as
archeological and ecological parks, including several Special Biosphere Reserves
(Pronatura 1991, 1992, 1993). The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
0rganization [UNESCO] designates Special Biosphere Reserves to protect natural areas
and to accommodate local inhabitants (Clark 1996). Two such reserves—Celestlin and
R10 Lagartos—have been established in the State of Yucatan in an attempt to preserve the
char aCtfil‘istic transition zone between land and sea, and to protect endangered and diverse
species,

However, most of the peninsula’s coastal resources and inhabitants are not part of
a SyStematic state, federal, or non- governmental environmental protection or resource
management scheme. This is not unusual, for probably less than 1% of the world’s
mangrove resources have official protection status (Hamilton, Clark, and Owen Miller

1989). Like elsewhere, the Yucatan’s coastal environmental and natural resources are

 

 

3

increasingly relied upon and exploited by local populations for subsistence, by business
interests for commercial activity, by various groups for garbage dumps, and by developers

for building sites.

YUCALPETEN ESTUARY

Chelém Lagoon [Laguna de Chele’m] is one of many names for the coastal mangrove
ecosystem that Mexican geological maps label as the Yucalpetén Estuary [Estero
Yucalpete’n] (See Figure 2). The Yucalpetén Estuary ecosystem extends westerly from the
port city of Pro gresso in Yucatan, Mexico. Three year-round communities are located
along the approximately 15 kilometer stretch of coastline that borders Chelém Lagoon—
Chubuma, Chelém, and Pro gresso. Chelém and Chubuma are small fishing communities
with about 400 and 200 households respectively, while Pro gresso is a medium-sized port
city with approximately 5000 households (INEGI 1992).

Fishing dominates the local economies. Pro gresso’s economic base rests on
commercial fishing, fish processing, and other activities centered on the Gulf of Mexico
and the city’s deep water wharf (Paré and Fraga 1994). Chelém and Chuburna are on the
0033131 fringe, on one side there is the Gulf of Mexico and on the other side is the lagoon
0r wetland. Traditionally, these communities have relied upon a combination of activities
for tllfiiir subsistence and economic gain. These communities have been able to survive
long Periods (November to March) of seasonal bad weather [nortes] by developing a
multiple use and activity strategy of combining fishing in the sea and lagoons, small scale

salt eXtraction, agriculture, and tourism activities (Paré and Fraga 1994).

«38.83 838:? A BEE

 

 

   

seam use:

 

 

 

zoomed 8220 .N 2&5
33 52 “33%.

 

 

 

080.595

020an

in: 9mm amp 2:83p

         
    

1“
‘D‘I‘ ‘4

‘ ”
D ‘ 'll.‘ I D D \
‘ ‘. D O. “
O O. '0 .0
coommg 822.6 .. .t
00 OOOQIQS’OD.

«.5 2:50

.I‘.
O
“
a.

 

008.32 B a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

This study focuses on the year-round mangrove wetland resource beneficiaries of
Chelém and Chubuma. These communities share similar socioeconomic compositions and
they both have close relationships with the use and enjoyment of the coastal mangrove
ecosystem. Both these villages have a history of relying on nature resources for their
livelihood. They have also adapted to successive changes in their natural resource base
over time.

At one time, Chelém was a fishing village that looked to the Gulf of Mexico as its
primary source of living while the people of Chubuma focused on a thriving salt extraction
business that relied upon the creation of man—made saltwater ponds in the wetland. This
changed after the Mexican government dredged out a safe harbor in Chelém Lagoon in the
early 19703. The harbor was designed to protect and promote commercial fishing fleets, it
did however result in the loss of the wetland as a salt extraction site. In reaction to these
changes, Chubuma, like Chelém, increasingly turned to and relied upon fishing in the Gulf
weather permitting. Hurricane Gilbert in 1988 opened a break in the coastal fringe near
Chubuma that allowed seawater, marine life, fish fry, and larvae to circulate throughout
the lagoon. The result was a thriving estuary ecosystem and resource base that both
villages increasingly turned to for their livelihood and subsistence. The construction of a
Ducks Unlimited of Mexico, America, and Canada [DUMAC] dike project to preserve
duck habitat in the mid-19905 has once again changed the regions natural resource
conditions. The DUMAC project has cut off the circulatory flow of seawater in the
lagoon and has diminished the vitality of the lagoon as a fishing resource. The villagers of
both Chelém and Chuburna now face the dual difficulties of increasing fishing pressure in

their coastal fishery and a diminution of the viability of the lagoon fishery.

 

 

 

 

7

The villagers in Chelém and Chubuma have limited economic alternatives. They
may take time consuming and unreliable public transportation to factory jobs many
kilometers away. However, these jobs are not always available, they often are not steady,
and they only pay the minimum wage of 15 pesos per day (about $2). Furthermore,
employees must pay for their own transportation and meals. In this coastal area, there is
some seasonal tourism. The villagers in Chelém and Chubuma can and do supplement
their livelihoods by working in restaurants and servicing tourists' homes during the one to
two months of the vacation season (July and August). However, the two villages, by and
large, still rely upon their natural resources for their subsistence. Chelém Lagoon has been
an important part of the economic, cultural, and social fabric of these two villages.
Community members annually participate in religious processions by boat around the
lagoon. Villagers admire the flamingoes and endangered turtles that inhabit the mangrove
wetland. And, they increasingly rely upon the lagoon's bounty to feed their families.

By using two qualitative research methods with these two populations, differences
and similarities in the two groups’ resource values and perceptions were discernible.
Furthermore, by focusing on these two distinct populations and their shared resources
some of the qualitative methods’ relative strengths and weaknesses for use with economic

valuation studies were identified.

BACKGROUND & LITERATURE REVIEW

This section briefly introduces readers to some relevant terms as well as theoretical
foundations for the dissertation. Chapter 2 is a more thorough review of the literature and

theory that provides the background, framework, and rational for this dissertation.

 

 

 

 

MANGROVE ECOSYSTEMS

The term mangrove refers to a number of tree species capable of living in saltwater or
salty soils. Mangroves and their ecosystems are found in intertidal areas of sheltered
coastlines called lagoons and estuaries. Ecologically, mangrove wetlands maintain high
levels of biological productivity; export nutrients to outside waters; and provide habitat for
valuable plant and animal species (Clark 1996). Mangrove ecosystems are also important
to the subsistence livelihood of tropical coastal communities (Hamilton, Dixon and Owen
Miller 1989). Mangrove ecosystems provide an array of important services—prevention
of storm damage, flood and water control, support of fisheries, waste absorption,
recreation, and transport. Furthermore, they can also be directly exploited for goods such

as fish, agriculture, wildlife, wood, and fresh water (Aylward and Barbier 1992).

Chelém Lagoon
Chelém Lagoon once was a healthy, thriving mangrove ecosystem. In recent times, the
Chelém Lagoon area has experienced a number of changes. Some changes are the result
of human activities like a government project to open a sheltered harbor [puerto de
abrigo] and a Duck’s Unlimited construction project of a dike [bordo]. Other changes are
the result of Hurricane Gilbert (September 1988) and increased fishing pressure (Dr.
Eduardo Batllori San Pedro, conversation with author, Mérida, Mex, 11 July 1996).
Socioeconomic pressures in Mexico have also resulted in increasing numbers of
people migrating to Pro gresso in search of work and a way to feed their families (Paré and
Fraga 1994). The inhabitants of the Chelém Lagoon area have experienced the fallout of

the downfall of Mexico's henequen industry, governmental efforts to promote coastal

 

 

 

 

9
migration and commercial fishing, and various infrastructure projects. Most of the
families that have moved from the interior of the country to the Yucatecan coast have
settled in Pro gresso. Those families that have moved to the villages of Chelém and
Chubuma appear to have been welcomed. There seems to be an understanding and
acceptance in the communities that these people are simply seeking means to feed their
families. At the same time, middle and upper class people from Mérida and elsewhere are
buying, building, and renting beachfront houses along the Pro gresso area coastline for use
during July and August. Unfortunately, Chelém’s mangrove ecosystem does not seem
capable of accommodating and sustaining the increasing demands on it (Efian 1997;
Batllori 1996; Municipality President Raul Lada, personal conversation, Pro gresso, Mex,

July 1996).

Yucatan Mangrove Research
Researchers in Mexico have begun to study the dynamics of the Yucatan’s coastal
resources and communities (e. g., EL’Ian 1997; Yaiiez-Arancibia 1994). Some researchers
assert that the ongoing deterioration of the Yucatan’s coastal mangrove resources are a
result of: market failures for the ecosystem’s assets and services; the failure to properly
value the costs and benefits associated with mangrove resource goods and services; the
open access nature of the resource; and the high costs of information and enforcement
(Seijo et a1. 1994).

A project to systematically evaluate the peninsula’s coastal communities and
resources by Mexico’s environmental protection agency—Secretaria del Medio Ambiente,

Recursos N aturales, y Pesca [SEMARNAP]— is supposed to:

 

 

 

 

10
assess the total economic value of resources associated to the communities,
considering that nature [sic] value is divided into three categories: use value,
existence value, and ecological service value....[and use the] contingent valuation

method to determine “willingness to pay” from fishermen and other people from
the community. (Hernandez-Flores 1995, 5)

Mexican researchers increasingly recognize the need to properly estimate and account for
the economic values of the Yucatan’s coastal resources. Furthermore, they recognize the
important role that contingent valuation may play in helping to derive accurate estimates

of the value that mangrove wetlands represent.

ECONOMIC VALUATION

Mangroves and natural resources, like human—made goods and services, have economic
value because of their impact on people’s well-being. Economic values are a measure of
the tradeoff between what an individual may enjoy by foregoing a good or service and
what an individual obtains in securing the desired good or service. These economic values
can enter the community decision-making process to the extent that policymakers are able
to document or measure such human welfare contributions.

Economic valuation methods provide one framework to help answer questions
about how much mangrove wetlands should be conserved or which ecosystems should be
protected. While some people may choose to fill-in wetlands and build homes, others may
choose to preserve wetlands as wilderness areas. Such choices reflect a balancing of the
perceived usefulness of the biological resource and the perceived benefits from alternative
uses of the resource including its perceived cultural significance, or some idea of its

“right” to exist (Perrings 1995).

 

 

 

] 1
Altruistic interests, moral concerns, and philosophical beliefs may and do enter into
individuals’ decision making and therefore are part of economic valuation. By studying
actual and constructed market behavior, economic valuation of environmental and natural

resources makes explicit and quantifiable otherwise implicit and hard to measure values.

Economic Value of Mangroves

Mangrove wetlands represent complex sources of societal value. Mangrove resource
beneficiaries may derive direct consumptive benefits from fishing and wood collection;
they may derive nonconsumptive benefits from birdwatching and tourism; they may benefit
indirectly from the flow of ecological services from mangroves such as fishery support;
and they may derive nonuse benefits from the continued existence and biodiversity of the
mangrove resource (Hamilton, Dixon, and Owen Miller 1989). Natural resources such as
mangrove wetlands represent a significant portion of Mexico’s and other developing
countries’ cultural, intergenerational, environmental, and economic wealth (Munasinghe
1993).Additionally, the Yucatan’s mangrove wetlands, like those worldwide, tend to be
open access, common property resources that do not lend themselves to straightforward
traditional regulatory, management, and market-based analysis (Clark 1996).

While some of the value of mangrove ecosystems may be measured in terms of
marketed products, the “free” or nonmarket goods and services provided by mangrove
ecosystems are more difficult to measure. As a result, governmental and other decision-
making processes which do not account for all of the values associated with mangrove
resources significantly understate mangrove resources’ total value (Clark 1996; Hamilton

and Snedaker 1984). The complexity of mangrove resources and the absence of well-

 

 

 

 

 

 

12
defined and readily available markets for mangrove resource benefits necessitate the use of
nonmarket valuation methods for approximating their economic value. Some form of
nonmarket economic valuation is required to help make consistent choices between

mangrove wetland conservation, preservation, and development decisions (Barbier 1994).

Total Economic Value

Mangrove wetlands provide individuals and groups with a range of benefits and services.
Some of these benefits include: (1) extractive benefits of natural resources such as fishing
and hunting, (2) indirect benefits like fishery support, and (3) non-extractive benefits such
as birdwatching, hiking, and tourism. Accurate valuation of mangrove ecosystems
depends on adequately accounting for all the sources of social benefits of and flowing
from the resource—total economic value. Total economic value is made up of use and
nonuse values.

Use Value

Use values are defined as the values of goods and services that directly enter an economy.
That does not mean that the use values associated with a resource must necessarily be
market uses. It does mean, however, that some in situ activity takes place that benefits
individuals. Examples of some natural resource use values include: camping, hunting,
mining of resources, fishing, farming, as well as things such as breathing clean air. While
some of these activities may have markets, others do not, use values identify the benefits
from services associated with actual physical proximity to the resource.

Nonuse Values

John Krutilla (1967) in Conservation Reconsidered helped to create a taxonomy for

addressing those values associated with environmental and natural resources. Krutilla

 

 

13

pointed out the different types of value that environmental and natural resources might
have for people independent of actual use. These values include the value of knowing the
resource simply existed (existence value), the value that some people attribute to some
potential use of the resource (Option value), and the value that some people have knowing
that future generations of individuals will have the resource (bequest value). Following
Krutilla, resource economists have further refined and defined these types of values, in
general, calling them passive use or nonuse values.

The nonuse value of natural resources can be defined as the difference between a
resource’s total economic value and the resource’s present use value. Therefore, the
universe of values derived from natural resources (total economic value) may be divided

into two classes, use values and nonuse values.

NONMA RKET METHODS

Traditionally, benefit-cost analyses have been used to determine the viability and
acceptability of proposed projects and policy changes. As pointed out above, market price
methods theoretically and practically are unable to address the determination of nonuse
values and total values of ecological resources. Resource management and damage
assessment decisions that fail to account for nonuse value necessarily undervalue the
affected environmental and natural resource and promote their destruction. Nonmarket

valuation methods enable nonuse values to be incorporated into decision making.

Valuation Methods
The methods employed by economists to reveal the economic value of environmental

goods and services in general can be grouped into two categories based upon the data the

 

 

14

methods use—See Table 1. One category of methods derive economic values based on
actual market behavior of individuals and the other category of methods derive economic
values based on present behavior of individuals as manifest through their selection among
alternatives or contingencies. The policy objectives driving the economic valuation study
as well as the availability of data help determine the most appropriate methodology for the

economic valuation of the selected environmental and natural resources.

Table 1. Economic Valuation Methods

 

 

 

 

 

Actual Market Behavior Contingent Market Behavior
Explicit Values Market Prices Statements of willingness to pay
Implicit Values Production function Ranking behavior
Land and wage hedonics Referenda
Travel cost analysis Payment card

 

 

 

Nonmarket valuation methods help reveal economic values for natural resources
by observing individuals’ behavior and by directly questioning them. Hedonic methods
derive economic values for environmental and natural resources by discerning price
differentials (in well functioning markets) associated with environmental goods (bads).
Travel cost and contingent market methods use direct questioning techniques (surveys) to
collect information that reveals how much individuals pay or would be willing to pay for

an environmental good or service.

Comparison of Methods
Actual market behavior based valuation methods use data from already completed

transactions that do not necessarily indicate or predict individuals’ present or future values

 

15
of environmental and natural resources. In fact, it is safe to say that individuals’ actual
behavior and underlying values will change for all sorts of reasons in the future. For
example, a historically little used park or resource site may become much more desirable,
prized, and used in the future as alternative resource sites are lost or damaged.

Actual market behavior valuation methods rely to a great extent on models that, in
theory, connect past behavior with individuals’ preferences for environmental attributes.
Researchers decide: (1) how to specify and design economic valuation models, (2) what
data to use, (3) how to analyze the data, and (4) how to interpret the results. With actual
market behavior methods, resource beneficiaries are far removed (both temporally and
spatially) from the process of “valuing” the proposed environmental change.

Contingent market valuation methods focus on respondents’ present valuation of
current and future changes in environmental and natural resource quality and quantity.
Respondents are presented with information about alternative policy programs, given
eX13611 opinions (including costs), and then are asked to indicate their preferences, if any.
That 18, individual stakeholders determine how to weigh the information presented and
how they will be affected by the proposed policy change(s) in formulating their responses.

Decision makers, when relying on actual market behavior valuation methods, place
substantial reliance upon the analysts’ assumptions, techniques, and interpretation of the
relatiOnships between individuals’ past behavior and value of the proposed policy. In
contraSt, decision makers relying on contingent market valuation methods rely upon
indiVidual respondents to make good choices based upon the information they have. The
contil'lgent market methods require decision makers to rely upon researchers to carefully

design instruments and methods that are unbiased and capable of producing valid

 

 

 

 

16
estimates. However, contingent valuation methods, unlike actual behavior methods,
directly involve stakeholders in the process of evaluating the benefits (costs) of proposed

environmental and natural resource policy changes.

Explicit and Implicit Values

As Table 1 points out, methods for measuring the value of environmental assets can also
be categorized based on the type of value estimates they generate. Explicit valuation
measures reveal economic values directly by observing market prices paid or by asking
respondents how much they are willing to pay for the good or service in question. Implicit
valuation measures use individuals’ behavior to draw inferences about, “reveal” economic
values of a particular environmental benefit. Underlying both explicit and implicit
valuation methods are behavioral assumptions (optimizing behavior) that enable
economists to use the observations and data collected to compute measures of the
economic value. Actual market methods are limited, theoretically and methodologically,
to measuring certain use values of the resources. Contingent valuation methods are the

only methods available for inquiries into the nonuse value and total economic value of

enVlronmental and natural resources.

CONTINGENT VALUATION

The Contingent valuation method [CV or CVM] elicits economic values, estimates of
Wjflingness-to-pay [WTP] or willingness-to-accept compensation [WTA], for
envirOnmental amenities and natural resources using carefully designed and administered
surVeyS (See Mitchell and Carson 1989). A strength of CV is that respondents do not

have to conceptualize value in terms of money for CV to generate reliable economic

 

 

17
estimates of value. CV does not require direct linkages to be made with market
transactions, however its theoretical foundation is the same foundation underlying all
economic valuation methods—the analysis of individuals’ choices in light of knowledge
and information about such choices. An additional strength of contingent valuation is its
ability to accommodate a range of policy impacts, address nonuse values, and generate
results comparable to other techniques.

There are various approaches to undertaking a CV study. Each is designed to
place respondents in a position to make trade—offs between their desire for particular
quantities of the environmental and natural resource and their individual budget
constraints. One CV approach to valuing an environmental and natural resource benefit or
change in benefits (proposed policy X) is to directly ask respondents, “How much are you
Willing to pay for proposed policy X?” (these are the statements of willingness to pay).
Likewise, CV studies can ask respondents to: “Rank the following proposed policies in
the order that reflects ‘most to least valuable to you’” (these are ranking behavior
exercises). Alternatively, CV respondents may be asked, “Would you vote in favor of a

plan 10 implement policy X if it would mean a tax increase of S?” (these are referenda).
Still Other CV Studies ask respondents to select an amount they would be willing to pay
(say, in higher taxes) from choices specified on a payment card fashioned for the Study.
Regardless of the format of a CV questionnaire, it must be able to provide
respondents with: (1) information about the good/service being valued, (2) information
abOUt the consequences of alternative policies, (3) information about their individual costs,
and (4) a means for eliciting their choice (Mitchell and Carson 1989; NOAA 1993). That

is Why, proper design and implementation of CV studies are crucial.

 

 

Importance of CV Study Design
Research has shown that CV study design is critical for generating reliable and valid
economic estimates of value (NOAA 1993). However, “there is no stande approach to
the design of a contingent valuation survey” (Portney 1994). Like other types of survey
research, CV studies must adhere to generally accepted survey research methodology and
procedures. However, CV research also needs to meet additional requirements to
generate useful economic data. Mitchell and Carson, in their classic work on CV Using

Surveys to Value Public Goods, caution that:

[T]he [CV] survey must simultaneously meet the methodological imperatives of
survey research and the requirements of economic theory. To meet the
methodological imperatives requires that the scenario be understandable and
meaningful to respondents and free of incentives which might bias the results. To
meet the requirements of economic theory a survey must obtain the correct
benefit measures for the good in the context of an appropriate hypothetical
market setting. (1989, 17)

CV questionnaires share several well-defmed elements. They contain: (1) a
scenario or description of the (hypothetical or real) policy or program; (2) a mechanism
for eliciting value or choice from the respondent; and (3) questions that elicit information
on the Socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents. The socioeconomic data

Obtained during the interview process coupled with econometric analysis helps researchers
understand, evaluate, and validate the survey results (See Portney 1994; Mitchell and
Carson 1989).
By necessity, no two CV studies can be the same. A great deal of preparation,
planning, fieldwork, and development effort is needed to construct a CV instrument and

implefllentation plan that meets CV’s dual methodological requirements.

 

CV in Developing Countries

CV has been increasingly used in developing countries (Carson et al., Bibliography,

1994). While economists and others acknowledge the potential contribution of using CV
for valuing natural resources and environmental protection in developed countries, doubt
has been expressed regarding the design of effective CV studies in developing countries
(Aylward and Barbier 1992; Barbier 1994; Munasinghe 1993). Hoehn and Krieger (1994)
have demonstrated that CV can be used to reveal reliable and valid estimates of the
econon’lic value of environmental and natural resources in a developing country. Likewise,
the World Bank, USAID, and others have increasingly used CV in Africa, Latin America,
and Asia (e. g., Briscoe et al. 1990; Whittington et al. 1993).

However, a review of many of the developing country CV applications reveals
little evidence that the particular CV respondent populations: (1) understood the
resources, (2) accepted the plausibility of the policies, and (3) made economically relevant
choices when answering. That is, the instrument and design component of CV research is

hardly mentioned. In virtually all of the reported CV economic studies conducted in
developing countries there is a lack of emphasis on the difficulty of, importance of, and
Strategies taken to address proper CV instrument and study design (e. g., Whittington et al.

1993).

CV in Yucatan
MeXiCan researchers increasingly realize the importance of nonmarket valuation methods
and their relevance to the study of Yucatecan coastal resources. Seijo et al. (1995) tries to

chrporate a CV study questionnaire on the economic value of ecological services into

 

 

 

20
their study of Campeche’s mangrove ecosystem. This attempt highlights the recognition
of the importance of including nonuse values in decision making and demonstrates the
difficulty of designing and implementing CV studies in a developing country. A review of
the CV instrument, methods, and procedures used by Seijo et al. reveals the nascent state-
of—the—art of CV research in the Yucatan (Miguel Angel Cabrera, personal conversations,
Mérida, Mex., January 1996). The only pretesting and design consideration reported
regarding the Seijo study was the use of a United States questionnaire as a model and a
pilot test of the final instrument that looked for clearly erroneous responses.
Hemandez—Flores in establishing the framework for a study of the socioeconomics
of Yucatecan coastal communities, specifically recognizes the importance of determining
the “total economic value of resources associated to [sic] the communities” (1995, 5).
Hernandez-Flores (1995) calls for the use of CV to help determine the existence and
ecological service (i.e., nonuse) values of lagoon and coastal resources. Hemandez-Flores
also points out that the use of CV in Mexico is novel but very necessary. Hemandez-
Flores believes that much work remains in developing methods for designing and
implementing CV studies that can produce reliable and valid economic estimates of
6nVirOIlmental values in Mexico (Alvaro Hernandez-Flores, personal conversation,

Mérida, Mex., Jan. 1996).

QUALITATIVE SURVEY DESIGN
Some CV literature addresses questions pertaining to the efficacy of CV survey design.
There are studies on: the use of different question formats, the problem of embedding

efleCtS, and, in one case, the time respondents have to answer (e.g., Brown et al. 1996;

 

 

21
Carson and Mitchell 1993; Whittington et al. 1992). While traditional economists for the
most part depend upon data originally collected using survey questionnaires, only a
handful of economists have actually focused on survey design and implementation issues.
Resource economists directly use survey research methods but generally rely upon
sociologists, cognitive psychologists, and other social scientists to advance the generally
accepted state-of-the—art of survey research (e. g., Hutchinson, Chilton, and Davis 1995;

Schkade and Payne 1994; Schwarz 1997).

Qualitative Methods
One area that survey researchers have been increasingly focusing attention on is the use of
qualitative research methods for improving the design and implementation of survey
questionnaires. Qualitative research means different things to different people. For some
researchers, the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is a function of
the methods used for data collection (e.g., in-depth interviews, focus groups, and
PartiCipant observation). For others like Strauss and Corbin (1990), qualitative research is
any research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or
other means of quantification.
However, a satisfactory definition and understanding of qualitative research rests
on bOth the manner in which information is acquired and the nature of the information so

acquired. As Bryman points out:

A number of synonymous terms have emerged as alternative labels for the
qualitative approach. . .but they all fundamentally refer to the same thing: an
approach to the study of the social world which seeks to describe and analyze the
Culture and behavior of humans and their groups from the point of those being
Studied. (1988, 46)

in..-» «A .i.~n.->~.. .... .1: 4. No.51

 

 

 

22
Strauss and Corbin (1990) concur that the strength of qualitative research is that it
uncovers and helps researchers understand what lies behind phenomenon about which
fitfle is known and it provides novel and fresh slants on things about which a bit is already
known.
Qualitative research and methods differ from quantitative approaches because of
their fundamentally different foci and objectives. Maxwell stresses that qualitative and

quantitative research are not two different ways of doing the same thing.

Instead, they have different strengths and logics and are often best used to
address different questions and purposes. The strengths of qualitative research
derive primarily from its inductive approach, its focus on specific situations or
people, and its emphasis on words rather than numbers. (1996, 17)

The focus of qualitative research is on understanding and learning the deeper reasons
behind situations, how people feel, and why they act or fail to act. Bryman (1988)
emphasizes the importance of understanding the real strength of the qualitative research,

its Perspective.

The most fundamental characteristic of qualitative research is its express
commitment to viewing events, action, norms, values, etc. from the perspective
0f the people who are being studied....The strategy of taking the subject’s
Perspective is often expressed in terms of seeing through the eyes of the people
you are studying. (Bryman 1988, 61)

Therefore, qualitative research methods allow outsiders to acquire knowledge, vocabulary,
and insights from the perspective of the subjects. Qualitative researchers can learn how
DCOple understand, use, perceive, rely upon, and describe their environmental and natural

reSOUrces using qualitative research methods.

 

 

 

23
Survey Design
Qualitative research studies are especially well suited for use in designing and
implementing survey research projects. In fact, exploratory qualitative studies by survey

and experimental researchers have been extremely helpful in the design of their
questionnaires and the identification of variables for experimental investigation (Maxwell
1996). Fowler (1995) points out the increased attention being given to the evaluation of
survey questionnaire design from the cognitive and interactional perspectives. Fowler
believes that focus groups and other “testing should be done to find out if people can
understand the questions, if they can perform the tasks the questions require, and if
interviewers can and will read questions as worded” (1995 , 104).

Converse and Presser also stress the importance of understanding and
accommodating the cognitive and psychological demands of survey questionnaires on
respondents. They lament that “most of us are too likely to neglect [the] preliminary
phase of exploration” before drafting survey instruments (1986, 50). Converse and
Presser suggest that the crafting of a questionnaire involves intellectual preparation of all

50118. They believe that exploratory inquiry involving ‘in-depth’ interviews and ‘focused
discussion groups’ with members of the target populations can be particularly valuable
when the subjects are likely to have special perceptions, problems, and idioms that may be
relatively foreign to investigators.

FUCHS Group Discussions

FocuS groups are carefully planned discussions designed to learn about subjects’
perCeptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, nonthreating environment. They

are 00nducted by a skilled moderator and involve as few as-4 to as many as 12 informants.

 

 

24
The discussion is comfortable and often enjoyable for participants as they share their ideas
and perceptions. The sessions are usually tape-recorded to allow for more in—depth
analyses (Morgan 1996). Krueger points out that, “Focus group interviews typically have
six characteristics or features....(1) people, (2) assembled in a series of groups, (3)
possess certain characteristics, and (4) provide data (5) of a qualitative nature (6) in a
focused discussion” (1994, 16).
Individual Qualitative Interviews
An individual qualitative interview is a “guided conversation whose goal is to elicit from
the interviewee (usually referred to as the ‘informant’) rich, detailed materials that can be
used in qualitative analysis” (Lofland and Lofland 1995). There are several names for this
sort of interview: unstructured interviews, qualitative interviews, depth interviews, and in—
depth interviews. Qualitative interviews attempt to discover the informant’s experience,
perceptions, and perspectives of a particular topic or situation. Weiss (1994) points out
that the strength of qualitative interviews is that they draw on individuals’ familiarity and
cOmfort with one-on—one conversations concerning issues, ideas, and problems. While the
Style may appear conversational, the interviewer directs the respondents to the topics that
matter to the study. Weiss (1994) believes that qualitative interviews are appropriate for:
(1) developing detailed descriptions about an event or development; (2) integrating
multiple perspectives on an organization, development, or event; (3) describing process of
human enterprise; (4) developing holistic descriptions of complex entities; (5) learning
how events are interpreted; (6) grasping an understanding from the inside; and (7)

identifying variables and hypotheses for quantitative research.

,/

Potential Use

Increasingly, social scientists from various fields use qualitative research methods in
conjunction with designing positivistic quantitative methods. The candidate’s research
used two different qualitative research methods to learn how members of two communities
“see the world.” Two communities along a 12-kilometer stretch of coastal mangrove
wetlands were studied using focus groups and individual qualitative interviews. Hopefully,
the systematic use of qualitative research can help teach researchers how local resource
beneficiaries describe, perceive, and use their environmental and natural resources and

how to better design and implement economic valuation studies of environmental and

natural resources in developing countries.

HYPOTHESES

Contingent valuation of the economic value of environmental and natural resources
depends on well-designed and well-implemented survey instruments. CV survey
I‘eSpondents must understand the good or service being investigated, accept the plausibility
0f Proffered policy change, and consider economic constraints when answering the
VaIUation questions. This study set about to collect evidence for the proposition that focus
group and individual interviews reveal similar types of information pertinent to the proper
design and implementation of a contingent valuation study. It was hypothesized that focus
group interviews concerning environmental and natural resources reveal information of
SubStantially similar in scope and character to the information revealed using individual

CIllalitative interviews on the same subject. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that using

 

\
//

26
these two methods may provide a means for assessing the strength and accuracy of the

two methods used.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

The data collection portion of this research took place in phases (See Table 2). In
addition to preliminary fieldwork follow—up research, and data analysis, there were two
periods of focus group interviews and one period of individual interviews. Data were
collected using field notes, investigator debriefing, and audiotape recordings. All focus
group and individual interviews were tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed. The
transcriptions were then coded. The coded data were used for cross—case and cross—

method analyses that looked at frequency and cross—tabulation tables of selected codes.

POP ULATION AND SAMPLE

The villages of Chelém and Chubuma have approximately 400 and 200 households
reSpectively. Census data from 1990 indicates that populations for these communities are
aPDI‘OXI'nlately 2180 and 1244 with there being slightly fewer women than men (INEGI
1992). Few families have telephones, and other information, such as land title, car
regiStrations, and fishing licenses, is neither available nor appropriate for the subject
pODUIations. Likewise residents’ homes are not clearly numbered in a way that would
permit a systematic random selection process. Making matters more difficult, there are no

ace“rate street maps of this area. In short, there are no readily available and reliable lists

from which to draw random samples of the two populations.

 

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Samoa H2358 Mei: moeoo oNbeEq. o
See 080-0% o
0538 wince Baigoom o
wumiomemb “.600 0
See anaconda coca Reece we 88%? a mo~o>oQ o
mBOeEBE Mo 3:0on 063 oaflomeafi. o mambdfiq. 8mm m
EoBthxE evinom o ficBoEuBEEESmEQ 50338 538 o
9509.135 1333?: 3630 was 83:00 o mBoEBE :omuomiox “oneaoo o
9505—83 #26365 H8 RES @3035 o mBoFHBE angina: 055.30 a. :wfion— o mace/.53 1323?: v
m anew 258 panda new 31590 c
.momwzg waEmu Soc 3:on 258 #20333. 0 a museum 258 :wfiofl o a mango 250m m
.3233 anew 258 33.85 om £8338 £0333. o
40>»: 38288208
ow £0982 oEmmeOow 53% F 3:on mzoow cassava om. Eggnog 0 Sue 9..on 308 08:25 on :awom 0
32326 hi can atom 90% 2.68 eomofigofl 0 $5on 288 concede ”My ENE—“.30 .eocwfioo o
.mofifiom cw $33 douflsmom dosage“ no 592:th eouoozoo 0 92m 5238 eoEEaE .
39203230 52on 55 53on £0333 3353000 . £52322 38.8%: semen ow 85 30:88 eozmg .
.86 mo moumflflounfio ogoeoooomoom .Rowwofiog Boos @2th o wincem 5555 o H 3:on 390m N
53 5:82 guano o
mowoaowe Queofifigoweo: um _S:o§:o>om SE» 32 o
mogaomoeon :32 85 32 o mEEEm :oqueaZCU o
mmEmHoSHmm £0332 condom o 33> cam o
3% 50382 Had—Econ 32h; 33.35% 0 $50an5 tomxm new coach EM 0 mnemoom FEE H
3:05:80 30 2.52 o 3w

 

 

 

 

BEER/O noéomom .N 033.

 

28

As a result, it was decided to use a purposeful sampling strategy. In order to
control for differences in gender and community experiences, it was decided to recruit
participants for focus groups that would be same-sexed and from the same community.

Initially, efforts were made to also further control for socioeconomic status but this
proved too difficult. Most villagers and their homes displayed no obvious indicators of
differentiable socioeconomic status.

Research assistants canvassed randomly selected sections of the target
communities at staggered times to recruit participants. Participants were told that a
university-sponsored project was seeking their opinions and input on the area and its

natural resources. They were also told that their participation was voluntary and that
there would be complete confidentiality. Because of different cultural norms and
expectations, inducements were not offered to focus group participants as is done
elsewhere (e.g., the United States).

Overall 12 focus groups and 19 individual interviews were conducted in Chelém
and Chubuma. Table 3 shows a breakdown of the interviews by type, locale, and gender.
Altogether, 97 people were interviewed individually or in groups. Each focus group was
comprised of between 4 and 7 respondents of the same gender. Because of the qualitative
natUre of the study and the inability to collect a random sample of participants together
With their socioeconomic data, no attempt is made to generalize findings to different

p0Plllations based upon the substance of the interviews.

29

Table 3. Focus Groups and Interviews

 

Chelém Chubuma

 

Men

Women

Men

Women

 

Focus Group Interviews

4 groups

3 groups

3 groups

2 groups

 

Individual Interviews

8 interviews

2 interviews

7 interviews

2 interviews

 

Total

 

 

12 transcripts

 

5 transcripts

 

10 transcripts

 

4 transcripts

 

 

P R O C E D U R E S

As described above, the research program consisted of a series of field research
components and the systematic analysis of the qualitative data obtained from focus group
and individual interviews. An attempt was made to purposefully recruit participants who
represented a cross-section of members from the communities to facilitate learning about

the various attitudes, perceptions, and concerns regarding the mangrove ecosystem.

F0 c us Groups

The focus group interviews ranged in size from 4 to 7 participants and were conducted by

a Mexican professional focus group moderator. The doctoral candidate assisted with

CODducting the group interviews. The focus groups were held in participants’ homes,

local eating establishments, and a centrally located home that was rented for use by the
reSearchers. All participants were told of the voluntary nature of their participation as well
as the strict confidentially of their participation and their responses. Tape recording did

not begin until participants consented to the audio recording of the interviews.

FIlrthermore, participants did not receive compensation for their participation.

30
While interview scripts were developed and continuously modified, the actual
interviews and question orders did not follow a strict pattern. Every attempt was made to
inquire, in several ways, about the participants’ uses, perceptions, opinions, and
experiences vis-a-vis Chelém Lagoon and its environs. Likewise, attempts were made to
include all participants and their opinions in the discussions. The focus group interviews
lasted on average about one hour with the shortest lasting only 40 minutes and the longest
almost 2 hours. The community setting presented interesting challenges and the
researchers needed to adapt as circumstance required. At the conclusion of each focus
group, participants were thanked and given the name, address, and telephone number of a
nearby Mexican collaborator should they need or desire to contact the researchers in the

filture.

Individual Interviews

Nineteen individual qualitative interviews were conducted with community members from
Chelém and Chubuma. The individual qualitative interviews, while initially conceived of
as a lneans for validating the finding and conclusions drawn from the focus groups,
evolVed into part of an effort to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of
“”0 qualitative research methods in a developing country setting.

Respondents were recruited by canvassing randomly selected sections of the
col'l'lrnunities. Interview participants were told that the study was sponsored by a
uniVersity, that their participation was voluntary, and that their identity and responses

WOuld be kept confidential. Respondents were then asked if their interviews could be

t2lpe-recorded.

3 l

The interviews were generally 30 minutes long and not highly structured. Like the
focus group interviews, a script with several key research questions and topics was used.
However, the free flowing nature of qualitative interviewing required interviewers to
introduce discussion topiCs as they were able to. The individual interviews were
structured to encourage informants to freely volunteer information. Interviewers were
instructed to avoid asking for responses to closed-ended or leading questions. At the end
of the interview, respondents were thanked for their participation and instructed how to
contact the researchers if they had additional questions or comments.

It should be noted that none of the respondents were in both focus group and
individual interviews. This was done to control for information and other bias. While, it
would be quite interesting to compare the differences and similarities of information
revealed by respondents in individual qualitative interviews after they have participated in

focus groups, this was beyond the scope of the dissertation research.

D ATA ANALYSIS

Although data and information from many sources and of many types were collected

during the many stages of the research program, the focus group and individual

qualitative interviews are the sources of the primary data analyzed in this dissertation. The

audiOtapes of the interviews were labeled, copied, and transcribed. The transcripts were

then made into computer files for use with computer—based qualitative research programs.

The initial step in qualitative analysis is reading the interview transcripts. Then the

analyst has several options. Maxwell put them into three groups: “ memos, categorizing

Strategies (such as coding and thematic analysis), and contextualizing strategies (such as

32
narrative analysis, individual case studies, and ethnographic microanalysis)”(1996, 78).
Each of these groups have relative strengths and weaknesses. Categorization helps to
understand the particular individuals and their situations. However, Maxwell makes the
point that questions about similarities and differences across settings or individuals need

some contextualizing of the categorizing strategy

Coding

The main categorizing strategy in qualitative research is coding. However, the goal of
qualitative research is not to produce simple counts of things, but to “fracture” the data
and rearrange it into categories that facilitate the comparison of data within and between
categories (Maxwell 1996; Strauss and Corbin 1990). The first step in the coding process
was to draw on existing literature on the possible sources of mangrove wetland values and
the elements necessary for designing a CV study. This initial grounding in the literature is
one manner to initiate what Strauss and Corbin (1990) refer to as grounded theory
analysis of qualitative data.

With this background, the transcripts were loaded first into HyperRESEARCH
and subsequently into QSR NUD-IST for the coding process. While these programs
ultimately failed to allow sufficiently sophisticated quantitative analysis of the codes, they
each provided a wonderful opportunity to read, label, and formally code text for further
analysis.

Several transcripts were open coded using HyperRESEARCH. That is, virtually
every word or phrase was coded. After the unsatisfactory attempts to statistically analyze

the codes, the transcripts were loaded into and axial coded with QSR NUD~IST. Axial

33

coding uses themes and categories to group the qualitative data. Although QSR
NUD~IST seemed more capable for statistical analysis of codes, it proved too frustrating
and limited for the type of analysis desired. Although these programs were ultimately
unsuccessful in computing cross—tabulations and frequency tables, they both helped
develop the selective codes ultimately used with the data. The transcripts were eventually
re-coded by hand. These codes were recorded in a Microsoft® Excel file that was

subsequently loaded into SPSS for the required data analysis.

Cross-Case Analysis

Together with the contextualizing of narrative analysis, the categorizing activity of coding
the transcripts allows for cross-case analysis. That is, groups of respondents and their
data can be examined for similarities and differences. The data, by rearranging it into
categories can be used to understand the individuals and situations.

In this study, data were eventually grouped according to interview type (focus
group or individual interview), gender (male or female), and location (Chelém or
Chubuma). Then particularly interesting and theoretically relevant observations about the
“findings” of the focus groups and interviews were used to identify the selective codes for
analysis. The data set was layered according to the three groups to be looked at and
cross-tabulations and frequency analysis performed. In this manner, a cross-case and
cross-method analysis of the qualitative data learned using both focus groups and

individual qualitative interviews was undertaken.

34

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

As with any study, this dissertation has limits and shortcomings. Some of these defects are
a function of the assumptions, both explicit and implicit, of the researcher. Other
deficiencies stem from the methods used and their application. Qualitative research is not
an exact science, nor is it intended to be. It is however a means for learning how people
see their world. It is assumed that by developing tools that help researchers acquire a
better sense of how respondents apprehend, comprehend, and use their natural resources,
that those researchers will be able to design and implement better questionnaires.

Note, the caveats inherent in qualitative research should be repeated. Unlike
quantitative studies from which scholars may be able to generalize to distinct populations
based on statistics, qualitative research is usually limited to making claims about the
people studied. While qualitative studies are usually used to study a single setting or a
small number of sites, using theoretical or purposive rather than probability sampling, this
does not mean that qualitative studies are never generalizable beyond the settings or
informants studied (Maxwell 1996). Often, qualitative studies have face generalizability
—no obvious reason not to believe the results apply more generally. Likewise,
generalizability of qualitative studies may be based on the development of a theory that
can be extended to other cases. According to Maxwell “these characteristics can provide
credibility to generalizations from qualitative studies, but none permit the kinds of precise
extrapolation of results to defined populations that probability sampling allows” (1996,
97-98).

The difficulties of conducting household-level research investigation in rural

Yucatan, Mexico was a limitation of this study. The absence of telephones, reliable

35

transportation, and other infrastructure taken for granted in most developed country
settings did impact the study. The difficulty in recruiting for the focus groups and
individual interviews in the villages of Chelém and Chubuma resulted in the researcher's
decision to forego collecting socio-economic data from each participant. As a result, it
was assumed that the focus group and individual interview participants were more or less
representative of community members and their resource knowledge and concerns.

Because of the difiiculty of locating well-trained focus group moderators and
qualitative interviewers, it was decided to use the male focus group moderator with all of
the groups and to use participants of one gender in each focus group. Likewise, out of
necessity, the qualitative interviewers used were both female. It was assumed that the
gender of the moderator and the interviewers would not significantly impact the
information volunteered by respondents. While this assumption may be unreasonable for
sensitive matters of a personal nature, it was believed to be reasonable in light of the
public nature of resource use and knowledge information.

Economic valuation studies of developing country environmental and natural
resources will be needed in places of similar and no doubt more challenging environs. It is
hoped that the results of this study demonstrate that relatively short—term qualitative and
other environmental and natural resource research can be successfully undertaken in
developing countries. Furthermore, it is hoped that the results demonstrate that focus
groups and individual interviews can help researchers improve their economic valuation

studies.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents the theoretical foundations for the dissertation. A review of the
literature provides the background, framework, and rational for an examination into the
efficacy of using qualitative research methods for designing a nonmarket economic

valuation study of complex environmental and natural resources in a developing country.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

During the immediate post-war era, international development assistance had the stated
purpose of serving the interests of “recipient” states. Benefits that accrued to the “donor”
states were stated to be indirect, secondary, or incidental—such as “peace in the world”
and “better trade relationships” (G. Axinn 1988). The basic idea behind international
economic development efforts was to share industrialized country “know how” with less
developed nations. As George Axinn (1988) points out, there are three assumptions
implicit in this approach to international development assistance: (1) the United States
and other donor countries are “developed” and the rest of the world is “less or under
developed,” (2) the US. (and other industrialized nations) “know-how” and capital can

transform “underdeveloped” nations through the transfer of outside technology; and (3)

36

37

that technically qualified people from industrialized states can apply technologies assumed
to be scale, gender, and politically neutral in the developing countries.

By the 19603, the first assumption underlying “technical assistance” came under
attack. The experiences of scholars and practitioners at some US and other universities
taught them that they and their technology were “culture bound.” Instead of helping
others use science to discover technological solutions to their problems, the practitioners
found themselves attempting to directly transfer alien “First World” technologies into
“Third Worl ” situations. By the 19705, the second and third assumptions lost credibility
with scholars of the development process although some practitioners (especially
government agencies and multilateral donors) continue their allegiance to technology
transfer. Disappointing results increased scholars’ and enlightened practitioners’ desire to
first learn about and understand the reality of developing countries and then use that
understanding to intervene (G. Axinn 1988).

The increased awareness of the flaws in addressing socioeconomic problems in
developing countries with “First World” remedies gave rise to a literature dealing with
concepts of: dependency; center-periphery relationships; rural rich versus rural poor; and
the division between “negative academics” and “positive practitioners” (G. Axinn 1988;
Prebisch 1962; Cardoso and Faletto 1979; Chambers 1983). By the 19803, it became
clear to some that all three previous assumptions about development via technical
assistance were unwarranted. A shift towards a new paradigm for successful international

economic development began.

 

38

BOTTOM-UP APPROACH

Norman Uphoff (1987) points out that, “the challenge to students and practitioners of
development is not simply to broaden their sights” but that “prevailing linear modes of
thinking about development actually need to be altered” (665). This challenge to find a
new paradigm for development led scholars start at the beginning—define development.
Recognizing that purely economic development for some segments of societies did not
necessarily make everybody better-off, development practitioners and scholars developed
the notion that development was politically and diplomatically controlled (G. Axinn 1988;
Cardoso and Faletto 1979; Elsenhans 1991; Prebisch 1962).

Some like Paulo Friere (1970) warned about the approach being taken by
outsiders. Friere pointed out the need for outsiders to be concerned with communicating
with, learning from, and teaching the heterogeneous populations of developing countries.
Others, notably Robert Chambers (1983), lead the way for development practitioners and
scholars to begin to evaluate and understand the realities of development and redefine
issues of appropriate intervention. Recognizing that development is more than merely
change, parties effecting and affected by development efforts need to be identified and
included in the process. For defining development as change for the better requires the
identification of who is better-off and at what and whose expense (G. Axinn 1988).

While the emphasis for many development practitioners became identification of
“appropriate technology,” for others it became learning to learn from intended
beneficiaries about their societies and needs. Focusing on understanding problems like
poverty instead of (mis)applying foreign technology in developing countries resulted in

some important, but not surprising, findings. Susan George (1984) bluntly observed that

39

governments are most often concerned with enriching those who keep them in power.
Likewise, George pointed out how cultural and political biases of outsiders have interfered
with development in the developing nations.

Hernando de Soto (1991) addresses his concern for the poor, democracy, and
market economies in developing countries. De Soto points out that: “the freemarket is
not enough” and that “the poor can be the engines of growth” (xxi). Recognizing that
development “must be driven from within. . .not by outsiders” and that “development
involves change in all aspects of any system which is developing,” G. Axinn (1991) urges
the adoption of a systems approach to achieve sustainable deve10pment.

Bawden (1991), while recognizing the role of technological innovations in the
“green revolution,” points out “the increasing sense of unease about degradation of
biophysical environments, and dislocations of cultural environments” as a result of outside
technological innovation in developing countries (2362). Bawden suggests that it is time
to “let go of the old paradigm” and “embrace” systems thinking and practice. As Bawden
puts it, “the systems paradigm calls for us to rethink our views of our world (and of the
way its interrelated components are patterned) as well as our ways of going about the way
we view the world” (2371).

For development efforts to address the pervasive problems of the poor (both urban
and rural) and promote sustainable improvements, a change from the top-down approach
of technical assistance and policy analysis towards a new paradigm has become a
necessity. George (1984) suggested several goals for international organizations and
governments to become more effective in their development efforts. Underlying these

suggestions is the explicit condition. that these agents must receive and use input and

40

participation from the affected citizens and stakeholders. That is, treat local people as a

source of knowledge.

NEW PARADIGM

During the last decade or so, a new paradigm for international development assistance has
begun to solidify. If history, Thomas Kuhn (1970), and some current trends are correct, it
probably will not be long until a new, new paradigm for international development and
assistance takes hold. For now however, elements of the currently evolving paradigm are
most relevant. Among these elements is the recognized importance of the participatory
(grassroots) approach to development, social change, and research.
Underscoring the importance of participatory approaches to development, Marilyn
I—IO skins (1991) describes a “revolution” taking place in community forestry as a result of
listening and empowering local people. Robert Chambers in his successive works, has
been a visionary and champion of the bottom—up approach to development. Beginning
With Rural Development: Putting the Last First (1983), Chambers has been able to
identify the problems associated with outsiders vis-a-vis development efforts. Chambers
has repeatedly called for the use of cost—effective appraisal and research methods that are
iIlVentive, adaptable, and open to unexpected information. Most importantly, Chambers
inSiSts that researchers and development practitioners that involve local people themselves
as Partners in evaluation and implementation of efforts.
The current thinking among development scholars and practitioners embraces
SeVera] notions falling under the rubric of participatory development. It is believed that

incorporating local beneficiaries in policy formation, planning, implementation, and

41

evaluation processes, helps assure the sustainability of the project, develop a respect for

the beneficiaries, and minimize outsider insensitivity to the circumstances of poor people.
The ideas behind the participatory development approach rest upon the foundation laid by,
among others, de Soto (1991), Chambers (1983), and Friere (1970). Put simply, local
beneficiaries must be included because they know about their systems, their problems,
their capacities, and the possible solutions.

Current thinking is that for a project to be successful in the long-run, local
participants must be viewed as the clients of development practitioners’, the proposed
policy’s beneficiaries, and the experts. Stakeholders should be actively involved and

invested in the framing, design, implementation, and maintenance of development efforts.
Local participation also means that outsiders must learn to hear about, listen to, and
understand the world (systems) of local people. Outsiders must learn the language,

customs, rituals, and values of local populations in order to be effective change agents.

E N VIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

There is growing recognition in Latin America, Africa, and Asia that human systems
re(lute healthy and viable ecosystems. The compelling human needs of developing
CcDIJntries have focused attention on the importance of sustainable development. The
e’erironment must be maintained as a means for balancing “progress,” providing sources of

mCOme, and preserving species. President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia observed:

 

 

 

42

Wildlife sanctuaries, which in some cases have for generations existed side-by-
side with human populations, have not been established for prestige reasons or
indeed for the sake of affording the wildlife a better protected life than that led by
human beings. Rather, it should be understood that wildlife is part and parcel of
our cultural heritage and hence we have a duty to protect it. (Llewellyn 1990,

210)

Nepal and Weber (1995) point out the rise in the creation of reserve and other
protected areas in the developing world since the 1970s as governments have searched for
rational approaches to conservation and sustainable development. The governments of
developing countries have realized that conservation strategies must be coordinated to

accommodate the exigencies of subsistence economies. United State style national parks

( no taking of plants or animals) have not faired well in the developing world.
Since the Biosphere Reserves Action Plan of 1984, some developing countries

have attempted to integrate planning and management in order to support the roles of
p rotected areas and directly involve local residents and users (Nepal and Weber 1995).
While the strict preservation ethos of “rich” countries may not be appropriate for natural
res ource protection policy in many developing countries, developing countries have begun
to View national parks and natural resources as valuable components in larger regional
SO Cioeconomic and ecological systems. This has resulted in a simultaneous concern for
p I‘Otecting natural resources, cultures, and ways of life. Such a concern tends to promote

the creation of biosphere reserves, where , in theory, local people are consider important

2“zltors in determining a path for sustainability.

 

 

43
MANGROVE ECOSYSTEMS
The term mangrove refers to a number of tree species capable of living in saltwater or
salty soils. Mangroves and their ecosystems are found in intertidal areas of sheltered
coastlines called lagoons and estuaries. Ecologically, mangrove wetlands maintain high
levels of biological productivity; export nutrients to outside waters; and provide habitat for
valuable plant and animal species (Clark 1996). Mangrove ecosystems are important to
the subsistence livelihood of tropical coastal communities (Hamilton, Dixon and Owen
Miller 1989). Natural wetlands, including mangrove forests, provide local and national
economies with an array of important services—prevention of storm damage, flood and
water control, support of fisheries, waste absorption, recreation, and transport.
Furthermore, mangrove wetlands can be directly exploited for goods such as fish,
agriculture, wildlife, wood, and fresh water (Barbier 1994; Aylward and Barbier 1992).
Wetland ecosystems, like the mangroves of Chelém, account for about 6% of the
810 bal land area and are among the most threatened of all environmental resources (Turner
199 1 ) - The tropical wetland resources of developing countries are undergoing increasing
Change as a result of improved access to wetland zones and the pressures of population
gr 0 Wth and economic development. Overuse including overfishing and overgrazing
degrades developing country wetlands. Recent studies across the developing regions of
the World have suggested that healthy tropical wetland systems have a crucial role to play
in 1:1'1ese regions’ economic development (Barbier 1994). There is a growing awareness
that Wetlands in developing countries are more valuable economic resources when retained

In their natural or semi-natural state rather then converted or degrade (Turner 1991).

44

Conversion or degradation of such natural assets therefore often does not represent an
efficient use of such limited resources.
Researchers calculate that 80-90% of the commercial fisheries in the Gulf of
Mexico are dependent on mangrove ecosystems (Hamilton, Dixon, and Owen Miller
1989). Coastal waters and their fisheries are enriched by the export of decomposable
organic material and its decomposition. Mangrove wetlands are the primary source of the
raw, organic material that becomes the critical food base for the crustaceans, mollusks,
and fish of the coastal waters and fisheries. The coastal zone, its mangrove wetlands and
salt marshes, is the site of important physicochemical reactions between saltwater and
freshwater flows. Such a zone is an area of the “highest biological productivity” (Turner
1 99 1, 61).
To help decision makers consistently choose between wetland conservation,

Preservation and development options—or between a decision to halt, modify or continue

 

With an activity that is inflicting damage on a mangrove wetland—requires the application
Of a reasonable and appropriate economic appraisal method for evaluating the alternative
OptiO ns (Barbier 1994). It seems that the valuation of the noncommercial uses of the
Wetlalrlds by local populations is critical in determining the economic value of developing
Country tropical wetlands. The failure to account for all sources of wetland value explains
Policy decisions that result in the overexploitation or excessive degradation of tropical
Wetland systems. Barbier (1994) asserts that when properly measuring the total economic
Value Of a wetland’s ecological functions, its services and its resources often exceed the

gams of converting the area to an alternative use.

 

 

45

CHANGES IN CHELEM LAGOON
In recent times, the Chelém Lagoon area has been experiencing a number of changes.
Some of these changes have been resulted from human activity, while others have been the
result of ecological and climactic activity. According to scientists at a leading Mexican
research institution in Mérida—the Centro de Investigacién y Estudios Avanzados
[CINVESTAV]—some of the factors believed responsible for the physical changes to the
estuary have been: a governmental project to open a sheltered harbor [puerto de abrigo]
for commercial fishing vessels in Chelém lagoon; Hurricane Gilbert’s (Sept. 1988) creation
of new seawater inlets along the estuary’s coastal barrier; and the construction of dikes
[bordos] by Duck’s Unlimited of Mexico, America, and Canada [DUMAC], an
international non— governmental organization (Eduardo Batllori San Pedro, conversation
with author, Mérida, Mex., 11 July 1996).

Beginning in the 1970s, the Yucatecan coast began to receive attention as a way
fOI' Mexican economic development. The coastal resources were seen as a way to absorb
eX00383 labor from the interior of the state and as a good place for national investment
(Paré and Fraga 1994). Paré and Fraga (1994) point out five steps to this strategy: (1)

cor13tr‘uction of Yucalpetén’s safe (sheltered) harbor [puerto de abrigo], (2) development
Seafo 0d industry infrastructure, (3) construction of paved network of roadways, (4)
Corlstruction of an industrial corridor between Mérida and Progresso, and (5) the
de\’elc)pment of tourism. These projects have substantially modified the coast’s population

and ecological dynamics.

 

46

Puerto de Abrigo (sheltered harbor)
A dramatic change to the Yucalpetén estuary began to take place when the Mexican
government undertook the construction of a new roadway system for the Pro gresso
municipality as well as the construction of a sheltered harbor [puerto de abrigo] for
commercial fishing vessels in the late 19603 and early 19703 (Pare and Fraga 1994). As a
strategically placed port city for the Yucatan peninsula, Pro gresso was already an active
commercial shipping center for Mexico and the Caribbean. These and other factors
resulted in the Mexican government’s construction of a highway connecting Pro gresso
with Mérida and new sheltered harbor. As a result, it has become the main port city for
the peninsula as well as the Caribbean basin. Pro gresso also serves as a main terminal for
the transport of petroleum products used throughout the peninsula. In addition to
Shipping, commercial fishing and fish processing concerns located in the Progresso area
have grown. Furthermore, the Mexican navy currently maintains an active base using the
Sheltered harbor on Chelém Lagoon.

The harbor construction involved the dredging out of a naturally occurring
seaW ater inlet to Chelém Lagoon and the installation of commercial fishing and other
harbo r facilities. The roadway construction involved moving massive amounts of earth to
1311.111 the wetlands and provide a roadbed. Unfortunately, in neither case was the health
and Viability of the mangrove ecosystem adequately taken into account. But for two
SeaW ater culverts between the harbor and the lagoon, the construction projects made no

ano Wances for necessary seawater inundation, freshwater flooding, drainage, and plant
and animal migration needed to maintain a healthy ecosystem. As a result, the mangrove

Wetlands near Pro gresso have become stagnant, virtually lifeless, mudflats and the

 

 

47

mangrove trees, plants, and animals of the lagoon were radically changed. The salt
extraction operations that provided a lucrative income to the coastal villagers was
decimated by the increase volumes of sea water flowing unchecked into the lagoon as a
result of the new harbor. However, the populations in the areas were able to adapt by

increasingly relying on coastal fishing for conch, lobster, grouper, and octopus.

Hurricane Gilbert
Hurricane Gilbert hit this area in September 1988. In addition to the property damage
caused, Gilbert changed the physical characteristics of Chelém Lagoon. All along the
Yucatan coast, Gilbert caused new breaks in the coastal fringe. In the Yucalpetén Estuary,
Gilbert broke open seawater inlets near Chubuma. The result was the deepening of the
Lagoon and the creation of circulatory currents of seawater from the Gulf of Mexico.
Interestingly, the mangroves adapted to the new atmosphere. Most importantly, these
Changes resulted in the lagoon becoming very rich in fish and shellfish life. It seems that
the Currents brought fishfry and shellfish larvae into the lagoon where they were able to
gr 0W and establish populations. At the same time as coastal commercial fishing began to
incl‘ease, the villages of Chelem and Chubuma were able turn to the lagoon for their

3 - .
ul)Slstence and economic needs.

D UMAC Project

The most recent physical change to the lagoon has been a result of a Ducks Unlimited of
MeXiCO, America, and Canada [DUMAC] project. Motivated by a desire to preserve duck
nesting and breeding grounds, DUMAC identified the Chubuma seawater inlet (created by

Hurricane Gilbert) as threat to the viability of duck habitat. DUMAC told the local

48

population that they were going to built a dike system that would be regulated to allow for
the inflow of fishfry and shellfish larvae but also prevent too much seawater from entering
and ruining the duck habitat. With funds from the United States for wetland preservation
and from elsewhere, DUMAC built the dikes in the mid—19903.

Initially the gates that would allow for seawater passage were closed.
Unfortunately, these gates have never been opened despite vocal and organized actions on
the part of the local villagers. Some results attributed to the DUMAC project are: the
receding of the lagoon has from Chubuma and the sharp drop in the lagoons fishing
productivity. Currently, the people of Chubuma, the municipality of Progresso, and

researchers from CINVESTAV are all trying to persuade DUMAC to take down the dikes

(Eduardo Batllori San Pedro, conversation with author, Mérida, Mex., 11 July 1996).

Other Changes

Furthermore, researchers have begun to note changes associated with human activities

aJollg the coast. An increasing number of people are migrating to the coast out of

 

eX30110mic necessity. Many of these people have been leaving the defunct henequen
p 1:11-11; ations seeking to become crew members on commercial fishing boats, to find work in
fish processing plants, and to find a means to provide subsistence for their families (Paré
and Fraga 1994). Also there has been an increase in commercial trawler fleet [rastreros]
acti\’ity in the near-by waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

These ecological and human changes have directly and indirectly impacted the use,

proCliuctivity, and health of Chelém’s mangrove wetland. Increased off—shore fishing

 

presSure has made it increasingly difficult for the villagers of Chelém and Chubuma to

49

provide for their families from their traditional use of artesanal fishing (i.e., seasonal, small
boat, nearshore fishing). These villages have, when possible, begun to heavily rely upon
Chelém Lagoon as a primary source of subsistence activities. Unfortunately, the lagoon
does not seem easily capable of accommodating the recent changes and increasing
demands. Villagers and researchers alike report the decreasing levels of fish and shellfish
populations in Chelém Lagoon (e.g., Brian 1997; Batllori 1996; Municipality President
Raul Lada, personal conversation, Pro gresso, Mex., July 1996).

Another change in Chelém’s coastal land use patterns is the growth of seasonal
inhabitants. According to Paré and Fraga (1994) there are increasing numbers of people
who migrate to the coast to fish during the lucrative fishing seasons, increasing numbers of
people who move to the coast out of a year-round subsistence strategy, and finally an
increasing population of seasonal vacationers. Increasingly, middle and upper-class
families from the state capital of Mérida and elsewhere are buying, building, and renting
homes along the Chelém coastline for use during July and August. These seasonal
inhabitants, whether categorized as tourists or not, seem primarily attracted to and
interested in homes and activities oriented towards the Gulf of Mexico. That is, they build
homes, consume seafood, and throw away their garbage apparently with little knowledge
of and regard for Chelém Lagoon, the mangrove ecosystem, and the local year-round

communities.

YUCATAN MANGROVE RESEARCH
Researchers at CINVESTAV as well as other governmental and non- governmental

organizations in Mexico have begun to study the dynamics of the Yucatan’s coastal

50

resources and communities (e. g., Brian 1997; Yafiez-Arancibia 1994; Pare and Fraga
1994). Juan Carlos Seijo (1994), along with others, has been developing a dynamic
economic-ecological model for mangrove management. According to Dr. Seijo, some of
the possible explanations for the ongoing conversion and deterioration of the Yucatan’s

coastal mangrove resources are:

The current overexploitation of mangrove ecosystems could be explained by a
number of factors including: (1 the lack of market prices for ecological functions
and services of mangrove ecosystems, (2) an incomplete cost-benefit analysis of
conversion of coastal ecosystems. . ., (3) in general [sic] these are open access
resources, and (4) the existence of high information and enforcement costs.
(Seijo et a1. 1994, 2)

Paré and Fraga, in their work 1994 entitled La Costa de Yucatan: Desarrollo y
Vulnerabilidad Ambiental [The Coast of Yucatan: Development and Environmental
Vulnerability], investigate two lines of research to analyze the social impacts and uses of
the Yucatecan coastal resources. They look at the history of the region as well as the
nature and structure of the resource use conflicts of the area. Their anthropological
approach tries to develop an understanding of the relations and the dynamics of the
various stakeholders, policymakers, and others in the area. Paré and Fraga (1994)
ultimately offer a reference mark for other researchers studying this area. They leave
unanswered the question of how to meet the goal of the computable development of
tourism, fishing, urbanization and industrialization of the Yucatan’s tropical coast and its
complex ecosystems.

In its effort to protect coastal resources and promote sustainable deve10pment,
Mexico’s environmental protection agency—Secretaria del Medio Ambiente, Recursos

Naturales, y Pesca [SEMARNAP]—has begun a process to systematically evaluate the

51

peninsula’s coastal communities (Hernandez-Flores 1995). One of the stated goals of
SEMARNAP’s Socioeconomical and Environmental Diagnostic of 16 Coastal

Communities project is to:

assess the total economic value of resources associated to the communities,
considering that nature [sic] value is divided into three categories: use value,
existence value, and ecological service value. . ..We will use [the] contingent
valuation method (CV) to determine “willingness to pay” (WTP) from fishermen
and other people from the community. (Hernandez-Flores 1995, 5)

ECONOMIC VALUATION

For economists, it is axiomatic that prices of goods and services help allocate scarce
resources. Viewed as a signaling and incentive system, prices provide feedback to
producers and consumers so they can make adjustments. However, it is rare for all
beneficial and adverse impacts concerning natural resources and environmental quality to
be efficiently priced and reflected in markets (Randall 1987). Freeman, in his treatise The

Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, explains that:

because of extemalities and the common property and public characteristics of
[natural resources], market forces can be relied on neither to guide them to their
most valued uses nor to reveal prices that reflect their true social value. (1993a,
2)

Mangrove wetlands and other environmental and natural resources, like human-
made goods and services, have economic value because their impact on people’s well—
being. Philosophers since the Greeks have been concerned with the nature of economic
value. Philosophy even has portfolios of well-defined concepts for considering ethics and

values. Concerned with somewhat different phenomena, economics has refined its own,

52

specific definition of economic value. Modern economists see economic values as the
outcome of supply and demand—of what a willing buyer offers to a willing seller in
exchange for a good or service (Kaplowitz and Hoehn 1997). Economic values are
therefore a tradeoff between what an individual may enjoy by foregoing a good or service
and what an individual obtains in securing the desired good or service.

These economic values can enter the community decision-making process to the
extent that policymakers are able to document or measure such human welfare
contributions. Economics, at its core, does not question the philosophical nature of the
contribution. Furthermore, economics does not require that an environmental amenity or
a natural resource justify itself by its physical composition or economic origin. What
matters is that goods and services contribute to human welfare (Kaplowitz and others
1997). If a biodiverse wetland provides biological support for a commercial fishery, then
it enters the domain of economic valuation. On the other hand, if an isolated lake were to
become polluted and if no one benefited from the lake, directly or indirectly, before or
after the pollution, then economists would say that the lake has no economic value. There
may well be some philosophical or moral value to the lake but not economic value. This is
akin to the parable about hearing the sound of a tree falling in a woods when nobody is
there. Economic analysis depends upon some nexus between people and the particular
good or service in order to register some measure of value.

This nexus does not have to be physical or even conscious for economic value to
exist or be measured. That is, economics can measure the value to individuals of
preserving remote wilderness areas; whales they will never actually see; and biodiverse

ecosystems that may be far away. Likewise, peoples’ actions (e. g., buying homes, visiting

53

sites, contributing to organizations) can be used to reveal underlying economic values not
readily apparent for certain environmental amenities. Economics can be used to measure
the explicit or implicit tradeoffs that people make and therefore can be used to quantify
some portion of the value of environmental and natural resources.

Different individuals and societies place different values on biological resources.
While some people may choose to fill-in wetlands and build homes, others may choose to
preserve wetlands as wilderness areas. Such choices reflect a balancing of the perceived
usefulness of the biological resource and the perceived benefits from alternative uses of
the resource. The value of mangrove wetlands as well as decisions to convert or preserve
them are based upon mangrove wetland usefulness in production or consumption, its
perceived cultural significance, or some idea of its “right” to exist (Perrings 1995). The
value of mangrove wetlands can be seen through ethical, moral, philosophical, and other
conceptual frameworks. However, those frameworks do not, in and of themselves, help
answer questions about how much mangrove wetlands should be conserved or which
ecosystems should be protected first?

The economic concept of value rests on the notion that individuals are the best
judge of their own well-being. An individual’s level of welfare, it is theorized, is a
function of the quantity of market goods and flows of nonmarket (i.e., environmental)
goods and services (Freeman 1993a). The need for public policy in managing
environmental resources and the absence of market information has led resource
economists to develop methods to measure economic values of nomnarket goods and
services (Randall 1987; Freeman 1993a). By analyzing individuals’ choices between

alternative market goods (or monetary amounts) and nonmarket assets, economists derive

54

estimates of the economic value people place on the nonmarket goods and/or services
(Carson et al., DDT, 1994).

Economic valuation methods provide an objective framework to evaluate some of
the relative benefits and costs associated with alternative management decisions. The use
of economic measures of value does not preclude individuals from acting in actual or
contingent markets based upon their held values. That is, altruistic interests, moral
concerns, and philosophical beliefs may and do enter into individuals’ decision making.
Economic valuation of environmental and natural resources, through studying actual and
constructed market behavior makes explicit and quantifiable otherwise implicit and hard to

measure values.

ECONOMIC VALUE OF MANGROVES

Environmental and natural resources represent potentially valuable goods and services to
individuals, communities, and societies. Human action and inaction impacts the viability
of many environmental assets and services. As Smith (1993) points out, it is no wonder

that the increasing loss of environmental and natural resources makes those remaining

resources even more valuable.

[I]ndustria1ized societies, as well as developing economies, are transforming
regional environments on an unprecedented scale. Environmental resources are
increasingly recognized as assets providing services that are no longer readily
available. Indeed, demands to measure their values and incorporate them into
our decisions is precisely what we would expect as their scarcity increases.
(Smith 1993, 1)

Mangrove wetlands represent complex sources of societal value. Mangrove

resource beneficiaries derive direct consumptive benefits from fishing and wood collection;

55

they derive nonconsumptive benefits from birdwatching and tourism; they benefit
indirectly from the flow of ecological services from mangroves such as fishery support;
and they derive nonuse benefits from the continued existence and biodiversity of the
mangrove resource (Hamilton, Dixon, and Owen Miller 1989).

Natural resources such as mangrove wetlands represent a significant portion of
Mexico’s and other countries’ cultural, intergenerational, environmental, and economic
wealth (Munasinghe 1993). While some of the value of mangrove ecosystems may be
measured in terms of marketed products, the “free” or nonmarket goods and services
provided by mangrove ecosystems are more difficult to measure. As a result,
governmental and other decision-making processes which seldom take into account all of
the values associated with mangrove resources significantly understatement of mangrove
resource’s total value(Clark 1996; Hamilton and Snedaker 1984).

Costanza, Farber, and Maxwell (1989) believe that the economic value of wetland
ecosystems is a function of the connections between the ecosystem and people. They
assert that, “The point that must be stressed is that the economic value of ecosystems is
connected to their physical, chemical, and biological role in the overall system, whether the
public fully recognizes that role or not” (339). However, in their study of the economic
value of wetlands, Costanza, Farber, and Maxwell estimate values for the resource’s
commercial fishing, recreation, storm protection, and waste treatment benefits. They do
not as part of their analysis place values on nonuse values such as the existence and option
value of the wetlands.

Hamilton, Dixon, and Owen Miller (1989) point out the limitations of simply

measuring the value of market goods that may be derived from mangrove ecosystems:

56

Unfortunately, the directly marketed goods (or services) produced by a mangrove
ecosystem represent only a fraction of the total array of goods and services that
yield benefits to individuals and societies. As a result, mangroves are commonly
considered as low-value ecosystems. (277)

In other words, the nonmarket and nonuse values of mangrove wetlands may be
substantial. Hamilton, Dixon, and Owen-Miller (1989) go on to stress the importance of
including the value of mangrove goods and services that market mechanisms usually
ignored. Most importantly, many of these goods and services provided by complex
ecosystems in developing countries play a major subsistence role in local economies.

Another complicating factor in the economic valuation and regulation of complex
environmental and natural resources, such as mangrove ecosystems, in developing
countries is the land tenure and property right structure of such resources. The Yucatan’s
mangrove wetlands, like mangrove ecosystems worldwide, tend to be open access,
common property resources. As such, they do not lend themselves to straight-forward
traditional regulatory, management, and market-based analysis (Clark 1996).

Researchers believe that the benefits of fishery support, erosion and flood
prevention, and recreational value of mangrove wetlands may outweigh the benefits from
any other use for these areas (Hamilton, Dixon, and Owen Miller 1989). Fishery and
marine products, both within the mangroves and nearby waters, are valuable. The
importance of mangroves as supportive of fisheries and as per se fish habitats is becoming
well established in some regions of the world, including Mexico and the Caribbean
(Yafiez-Arancibia and Day 1988). However, questions still remain as to how to determine

the economic value of mangrove wetlands.

57

The complexity of mangrove resources and the absence of well-defined and readily
available markets for mangrove resource benefits necessitate the use of nonmarket
valuation methods for approximating the value of mangrove wetlands. Even assuming
that market mechanisms could be used to measure some of the consumptive uses of
mangrove resources, substantial benefits that flow outside of markets to resources
beneficiaries from mangrove ecosystems would fail to be captured at all by markets and
market prices. Therefore, some form of nonmarket economic valuation is required to help
make consistent choices between mangrove wetland conservation, preservation, and

development decisions (Barbier 1994).

TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE

The total economic value of a natural resource may be described as the sum of the
resource’s use and nonuse values. Use values (e.g., mining, recreation) are associated
with in situ use of a resource. Nonuse values (e. g., existence value, bequest value) are
independent of in situ resource use (Freeman 1993a).

Mangrove wetlands provide individuals and groups with a range of services that
include: (1) extractive benefits of natural resources such as fishing and hunting, (2)
indirect benefits like fishery support, and (3) non-extractive benefits such as birdwatching,
hiking, and tourism. While market-based uses lend themselves to traditional economic
analysis (including the problems of accounting for extemalities), nonmarket use and
nonuse values of mangrove ecosystems requires specialized economic valuation methods.
The accurate valuation of environmental and natural resources depends on adequately

accounting for all the sources of social benefits of and flowing from the resources.

58
Use Value

In general, use values are defined as the values of goods and services that directly enter an
economy. That does not mean that the use values associated with a resource must
necessarily be market uses. It does mean, however, that some in situ activity takes place
that benefits individuals. Examples of some natural resource use values include: camping,
hunting, mining of resources, fishing, farming, as well as things such as breathing clean air.
While some of these activities may have markets, others do not. Use values identify the
benefits from environmental goods and services associated with actual physical proximity

of the resource.

Nonuse Values
John Krutilla (1967) in Conservation Reconsidered helped to create a taxonomy for
addressing those values associated with environmental and natural resources other than
what have been called use values. Krutilla pointed out the different types of value that
environmental and natural resources might have for people independent of actual use.
Some of these values include the value of knowing the resource simply exists (existence
value), the value that some people attribute to some potential use of the resource (option
value), and the value that some people have knowing that future generations of individuals
will have the resource (bequest value). Following Krutilla, resource economists further
refined and defined these types of values, in general, calling them nonuse values.

Notably, the United States federal judiciary recognizes the importance of including
nonuse values, calling them passive use values, in the valuation of natural resource

damage. In Ohio v. US. Department of the Interior (880 F.2d 432 (DC. Cir. 1989)), the

59

court allowed the use of nonmarket economic valuation methods for determining the size
of the damage award. As the court pointed out: “From the bald eagle to the blue whale
and snail darter, natural resources have values that are not fully captured by the market
system” (462-63). Since then, nonmarket valuation methods have been used to help
determine the awards associated with nonuse value damages in a variety of environmental
incidents and injuries to ecosystems (e.g., Exxon Valdez oil spill (Carson et al. 1992);
DDT and PCB contamination (Carson et al. 1994); and fungicide spill in Little Salmon
River, Idaho (Loomis and Anderson 1992)).

Typically, nonuse values are those socioeconomic values not derived from either
direct or indirect uses of natural resources. Indirect use values associated with a wetlands
might include such processes as groundwater recharge, nutrient retention, flood control,
and fishery support. Nonuse wetland values might include existence value, cultural
uniqueness, and bequest value. Building upon this, the nonuse value of natural resources
can be defined as the difference between a resource’s economic value and the resource’s
present use value. Therefore, the universe of values derived from natural resources may

be divided into two classes, use values and nonuse values.

Mangrove Total Value

For the purposes of this dissertation, the total economic value of a mangrove resource
may be considered to be the sum of the mangrove wetland’s use and nonuse values. Use
values (e. g., fishing, recreation) are associated with on site resource goods and services
and nonuse values (e.g., existence value, bequest value) are independent of on-site

resource goods and services.

6O

Barbier (1994) deve10ps a general framework of cost-benefit analysis as a
methodological approach to assessing tropical wetland values. After establishing a
tropical wetland total economic value schema, illustrated in Figure 3, Barbier goes on to
discuss the use of a production function approach to valuing some nonmarketed wetland
benefits. Following Barbier (1994), the total economic value of mangrove wetlands is
composed of the use values (such as fishing, recreation, ecological functions, and perhaps,
option values) and nonuse values (such as existence, bequest, and perhaps, option values).
Barbier focuses on using a production function valuation method to determine the value of
the indirect use values of tropical wetlands. However, as Figure 3 illustrates the
contingent valuation method is widely recognized as the only method capable of helping to

determine nonuse as well as total economic values for mangrove wetlands.

NONMARKET VALUATION

As previously discussed, market price valuation methods theoretically and practically are
unable to determine nonuse values and total values of complex ecological resources.
Development, resource management, and damage assessment decisions that fail to account
for nonuse value necessarily undervalue the affected environmental and natural resource.
Traditionally, benefit-cost analyses have been used to determine the viability and
acceptability of proposed projects and policy changes. Failure to include or accurately
measure all benefits that individuals (and societies) derive from environmental amenities
and natural resources systematically underestimates their value and promotes their loss

and destruction.

61

 

 

 

 

 

MANGROVE ECONOMIC VALUE
1
I I
USE VALUES NON-USE VALUES
I l I I i I
Direct Use Indirect Use Option Existencemmm Bequest
Values Values Values Values Values
(Functional
Values)
m We
-fish -flood control
-fuelwood -storm protection
-recreation - groundwater
-tran3port recharge
-meat. etc.

 

 

 

Source: Adapted from Barbier (1994)

Figure 3. Mangrove Total Economic Value

ACTUAL AND CONTINGENT VALUATION
The methods employed by economists to reveal the economic value of environmental
goods and services in general can be grouped into two categories based upon the data the
methods use—see Table 1. One category of methods derives economic values for
nonmarket resources based on the actual (past) market behavior of individuals. The other
category of methods derives economic values based on the present (contingent) behavior
of individuals as manifest through their selection among alternatives or contingencies
(Kaplowitz and Hoehn 1997). The objectives driving the economic valuation study and
the availability of data help determine the most appropriate methodology for the economic
valuation of environmental and natural resources.

Economists and others use nonmarket valuation techniques to incorporate

environmental and natural resources’ economic values into planning and decision making.

62

Nonmarket valuation methods can help reveal economic values by either observing
individuals’ behavior or by directly questioning them. Hedonic methods derive economic
values for environmental and natural resources by discerning price differentials associated
with environmental goods (bads) in well functioning markets. Travel cost and contingent
market methods use direct questioning techniques (surveys) to collect information that
reveals how much individuals pay or would be willing to pay for an environmental good or

service.

Comparison of Actual and Contingent Methods
Actual market behavior based valuation methods use data from already completed
activities. These activities include market purchases and recreation choices. A limitation
with these approaches is that people’s past activities do not necessarily indicate or predict
present and/or future values of environmental and natural resource changes. In fact, it is
safe to say that individuals’ actual behavior regarding environmental and natural resource
will change, for all sorts of reasons, in the future. The simple reality that environmental
and natural resources are scarce may result in behavior and resource values very different
in the future then those “revealed” by current or past practices. For example, a historically
little-used park or resource site may become much more desirable, prized, and used as
alternative resource sites are lost.

Actual market behavior valuation methods rely to a great extent on econometric
models of how people’s behavior vis-a-vis environmental and natural resources “reveal”
their valuation of such resources. These models are specified by researchers and based on

theoretical assumptions and limited information. That is, economists decide on: (1) what

63

data to use, (2) how to specify and design economic valuation models, (3) how to analyze
the data, and (4) how to interpret the results so as to reach their conclusions. When using
actual market behavior methods, actual resource beneficiaries are far removed (both
temporally and spatially) from the process of “valuing” the proposed environmental
change.

Contingent market valuation methods focus on respondents’ present valuation of a
proposed change in some specified level of environmental and natural resource quality and
quantity. After informing respondents of various aspects and elements of the present
situation and the proposed change(s), contingent valuation instruments ask respondents to
select their preferred alternative. That is, individuals are given an array of information and
asked to use that information in conjunction with their beliefs, understanding, priorities,
and preferences to select the alternative that they most prefer. In this way, CV
respondents decide themselves what is important and reveal their economic values for
proposed changes in the level of environmental and natural resource benefits.

Therefore, decision makers, when relying on actual market-behavior-based
valuation methods, place substantial reliance upon analysts’ assumptions, techniques, and
interpretation of the relationships between actual past behavior, individual’s valuation of
environmental and natural resources, and the proposed policy. In contrast, contingent
behavior methods allow resource beneficiaries themselves to determine what factors are
important to themselves when making the trade-offs between different levels of
environmental amenities and economic costs. While researchers and “experts” provide
information to CV respondents on the environmental and natural resources and the

impacts of proposed policies, the respondents themselves decide how to weigh this and

64

other information when they make their choices. As a result, decision makers relying on
contingent market methods must be careful that the instruments and methods used are

unbiased and accurate.

Explicit and Implicit Values

As Table 1 illustrates, methods for measuring the value of environmental assets can also
be categorized based on the type of value estimates generated. Explicit valuation
measures are derived from preferences for goods and services that are revealed directly
through observing market prices paid or through willingness to pay questions that directly
ask respondents to assign a monetary measure to the benefit/service in question.
Alternatively, implicit valuation measures are derived from observations of what people
do. Individuals’ behavior is used to draw some inferences about or “reveal” their
economic valuation of a particular environmental service/benefit. Underlying both explicit
and implicit valuation methods are the same behavioral assumptions (optimizing behavior)
that enable economists to compute measures of the economic value. That is, economics
assumes that individuals know what makes them “better-oft” and that they make choices
that in some way they believe are beneficial.

While use of actual market behavior valuation methods can produce reliable and
valid data on changes in environmental and natural resource values, they are limited,
theoretically and methodologically, to measuring certain use values of resources. Since
nonuse values are independent of resource use, valuation methods that rely upon resource

use or individuals’ actual market behavior necessarily fail to capture nonuse values.

65

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHODS
The contingent valuation method [CV or CVM] elicits economic values, estimates of
willingness-to-pay [WTP] or willingness-to-accept compensation [WTA], for
environmental amenities and natural resources using carefully designed and administered
surveys (See Mitchell and Carson 1989). Respondents do not have to conceptualize value
in terms of money for CV to generate reliable economic estimates of value. CV works by
asking individuals to explicitly or implicitly place values on environmental and natural
resources.

Contingent market behavior methods directly include the resource beneficiaries
themselves in the valuation process. Unlike the actual market behavior methods, the
contingent behavior method specifies the quality and quantity of environmental goods and
services to be valued but makes no a priori decisions on how individuals actually value
goods and services. The contingent behavior methods lets the affected individuals weigh
and value the given alternatives. This contrasts with actual market behavior methods
where researchers decide what data and what decision—making model to use in estimating
the value of a resource change.

CV presently is the only valuation method capable of shedding light on potentially
important nonuse values and as a result, the only method able to reveal total economic
values. An additional strength of contingent valuation is the method’s ability to
accommodate a range of policy impacts, address nonuse values, and generate results
comparable to other techniques. Its use of specially designed surveys enables researchers

to examine components, separately or in aggregate, of proposed policies and natural

66

resources. Furthermore, CV does not require direct linkages to be made with market
transactions. However, CV’s theoretical foundation is the same foundation underlying all
economic valuation methods—the analysis of individuals’ choices in light of knowledge

and information about such choices.

CV STUDY DESIGN

Research has shown that CV study design is critical for generating reliable and valid
economic estimates of value (NOAA 1993). However, “there is no standard approach to
the design of a contingent valuation surveyf’ (Portney 1994). Like other types of survey
research, CV studies must adhere to generally accepted survey research methodology and
procedures. Additionally, CV studies need to meet the requirements necessary to generate
useful economic data. Mitchell and Carson, in their classic Using Surveys to Value Public

Goods, caution that:

[T]he [CV] survey must simultaneously meet the methodological imperatives of
survey research and the requirements of economic theory. To meet the
methodological imperatives requires that the scenario be understandable and
meaningful to respondents and free of incentives which might bias the results. To
meet the requirements of economic theory a survey must obtain the correct
benefit measures for the good in the context of an appropriate hypothetical
market setting. (1989, 17)

CV studies share several well-defined common elements. All CV questionnaires
contain: (1) a scenario or description of the (hypothetical or real) policy or program; (2) a
mechanism for eliciting value or choice from the respondent; and (3) questions that elicit
information on the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents. The socioeconomic

data obtained during the CV interview process coupled with econometric analysis helps

 

 

67
researchers understand, evaluate, and validate the survey results (Portney 1994; Mitchell

and Carson 1989).

Many researchers have focused on different components of CV methodology to
assess the theoretical and practical strengths and weakness of the technique. However,
the efforts of the recent NOAA panel of Noble laureate economists represent a profound
and thorough analysis of the efficacy of CV. The panel’s recognition of CV’s ability to
generated useful and reliable data was based, in part, on a synthesis of the most current
thinking and research on CV (NOAA 1993). The NOAA panel reached the conclusion
that CV can generate reliable and valid economic estimates. Because of some its
reservations about CV, the panel suggested some guidelines for using CV for natural
res ource damage assessment in the United States. Paul Portney (1994), a member of the

NOAA panel, summarizes some of the panel more important guidelines:

( 1) CV should rely on personal interviews not telephone or mail surveys;
C 2) CV should elicit WTP to prevent harm when there has been no harm yet;

( 3) CV should use the referendum format (dichotomous choice). That is, ask
respondents how would they vote, yes or no, for a proposed program if it would

raise their taxes a specified amount. The panel believed that "yes and no" choices
are more realistic than open-ended maximum valuation questions;

(4) CV must use an accurate and understandable scenario that describes the
QXpected effects of the proposed program;

(5) CV studies must remind respondents of budget constraints, that their WTP
for the program would reduce the amount that respondents would have for other
things;

(6) CV studies must remind respondents of substitutes available for the good or
service in question; and

(7) Applications of CV should include follow-up questions to ensure that

respondents understood what they were asked and to learn the reasons for their
answers.

68

The foregoing theories, concepts, and guidelines provide a general framework for
undertaking good CV studies. However, by necessity, no two CV studies can be the
same. A great deal of preparation, planning, fieldwork, and development effort is needed
construct a CV instrument and implementation plan that meets CV’s dual methodological
requirements. There is no generally accept method for developing a CV instrument and

study that necessarily meets these dual methodological requirements. Therefore, this
dissertation focuses on evaluating whether the use of qualitative research methods can be
helpful in the design CV studies in developing countries that, among other things, use
accurate and understandable scenarios and describe believable effects of the proposed

pro grams.

C V IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
The ability of CV to estimate economic value of natural resources has resulted in its use
W0 rldwide in policy analysis and policy formation (Munasinghe 1994; Kopp 1993).
Carson et al. (Bibliography, 1994) reference more than 2000 CV papers and studies from
“101-e than 40 countries. CV studies have been used to address a broad range of topics——
from the Exxon Valdez oil spill damage (Carson et a1. 1992) to water and sewer service
projects in developing countries (Hoehn and Krieger 1994; Whittington et a1. 1992). It
does seem true that the use of contingent valuation often proves more intractable to use in
deA’eloping countries. However, the application of this technique in developing countries
is increasing (Aylward and Barbier 1992).
In the developing world, water and sewer service has received a good deal of

attelltion by domestic and international governments and donor agencies. Because of the

 

 

69

absence of well—functioning water and waste treatment markets in developing countries,
CV have been used to assess the value and merits of alternative schemes for delivery of
these goods and services. Such studies have to some degree enabled decision makers to
evaluate the relative merits of a range of proposed projects and pricing mechanisms. an
examination of CV studies of water and sewer services in developing countries
demonstrates the flexible and changing nature of the method. These cases and others
(e. g., Seijo et al. 1995) highlight the need for culturally sensitivity and improved CV
design methods for use in developing countries.

The importance of respondents’ understanding and scenario acceptance in CV is
undisputed (e. g., Mitchell and Carson 1989; NOAA 1993). However, examples of CV
questionnaire preparation, drafting, testing, and implementations in developing countries
demonstrate the need for improvement. Under-substantiated, self-serving claims too often
have been relied upon by practitioners’ to “validate” CV results and “demonstrate” that
CV respondents’ understood and accepted proffered CV scenarios. The absence of
“O bjective” data to validate CV design and results in developing countries is particularly
tro Ubling in light of the difficulties recognized of respondents’ understanding and
acceptance of CV scenarios. Researchers in Mexico report anecdotal evidence of high
levels of mistrust, inability to comprehend questions, and failure to apprehend CV
seerl'c‘trios in developing countries (Miguel Angel Cabrera, personal conversations, Mérida,

Mex-, Nov. 1995).

Water and sewer CV studies in the developing world help to further illustrate the

problem. Briscoe et a1. (1990) look at how family characteristics affect demand for water

Se:rVice and willingness to pay for such service in Brazil. Briscoe et a1. specifically point

 

70

fll/t the problem that individuals may not understand or correctly perceive the
charaCten'stics of the good or service described by the interviewer. Yet, Briscoe et al. rely
on vague “reports” by their interviewers that respondents “appeared to give serious and
thoughtful answers” as sufficient evidence that respondents understood and accepted the
CV scenario and payment vehicle.
Dale Whittington and his colleagues have conducted a number of water and sewer
CV studies for the World Bank and others over the years. Their work has taken place in
Haiti, Ghana, Nigeria, and elsewhere in the developing world (e. g., Whittington et al.
1 990, 1992, 1993). Whittington et al. (1992) evaluates rural households’ willingness to
Day for public taps and private connections to improved drinking water systems in Nigeria.
Whittington et al. (1992) cite “indirect evidence” of interviews and follow—up questions as
delTlOnstrative of the absence of strategic bias and of the validity of their WTP estimates.
H0 Wever, Whittington et al. (1992) do not report, systematically describe, or analyze the
natul‘e, character, or quality of the “indirect evidence.”
Whittington et al. (1993) use CV to estimate household demand for improved
Sanit ation in a Kumasi, Ghana. Although mentioning the use of different tests of the
reliability and validity of their study and the WTP bids, Whittington et al. (1993) seem to
rely Solely on an examination of valuation data form the completed CV instrument. By
iderltifying no obvious outliers (estimates of value far outside the predominate range of the
InajOrity of bids) outliers, Whittington et al. (1993) posit that “respondents gave
i1TIIDIausible or hypothetical answers, or that they acted strategically" (1544).
However, the mere absence of wide variance in respondents’ bids (i.e., absence of

outliers) does not necessarily indicate that respondents understood and accepted as

 

71

[1'2 Usible the valuation scenario or the proposed policy. It simple means that respondents

gave similar answers. Perhaps, cultural norms or values, not entirely economically

relevant forces, are responsible for the range of bids. It is equally possible that strategic
responses and unrealistic bids can result in apparently uniform bids. Conversely, the
presence of a wide range of bids, without further examination and explanation, does not
necessarily indicate unreasonable or unrealistic estimates of value. Whittington et al.
( 1 993) include an appendix with examples from their CV instruments’ opening statements
and WTP questions. Such information as well as the reproduction of the CV instrument
and scenarios allows critical readers to apprehend some of the strengths and weaknesses in
Particular studies (NOAA 1993). However, without some understanding of the cultural
differences and perceptions, an examination of the instrument remains superficial.

As CV methodology has evolved in developed countries, so too has its
applications in developing countries. This is readily apparent in Hoehn and Krieger (1995)
Study of the value of municipal water and sewer service delivery in Cairo, Egypt.

Inc: 0 rporating the recommendations of the NOAA panel and building on the work of
Cars 011 et al. (DDT, 1994), Hoehn and Krieger make extensive use of focus groups, one—
011‘ 0 he pretests, and pilot studies with debriefing questions to design CV instrument(s).
The result appears to be a CV instrument that seems to promote and verify respondents’
undérstanding, acceptance, and economic consideration of the proffered scenarios.
Additionally, Hoehn and Krieger include open—ended debriefing questions to test
reSD ondents understanding in the final CV survey instruments. Reporting much of the
SubStance of their pretests, Hoehn and Krieger demonstrate an iterative approach to CV

clueStionnaire design in a developing country. It should be noted that Hoehn and Krieger

 

72

”995) had an unusually large budget in order to conduct their sophisticated study. Not
only were they able to conduct a CV study, but they also were able to conduct other
economic valuation studies to provide an economic floor and ceiling to verify the

reasonableness of WTP estates of value. However, most valuation studies in developing
countries will have neither the time nor the resources available for a study on par with
Ho ehn and Krieger (1995). Yet, the use of an iterative design process, qualitative
research methods, and the incorporation of checks of respondents’ understanding and
acceptance appear to be promising and perhaps necessary components for future CV

studies in developing countries.

C V I N Y U c A T A N
Mexican researchers have begun to incorporate nonmarket valuation methods in their
Stu dies of Yucatecan coastal resources. Because of the absence of well-functioning
n“la-Fliets for coastal resources, Mexican researchers have started to focus on using CV.
l{eSearchers at CINVESTAV, the research institute and graduate school of Mexico’s
Ins tituto Politécnico Nacional’s [IPN], recently conducted a pilot project examining the
eco 1'10mic value of Campeche’s coastal mangrove wetlands (Seijo et a1. 1995).
To see if they might help capture some of the nonuse value of the mangrove
Wetlands, Seijo et al. administer a questionnaire including a WTP question to inhabitants
of the Isla del Carmen. This preliminary work of Seijo et a1. supports the idea that CV
Sul\Iey can be successfully undertaken in a developing country. However, Seijo et al.
rep Qrt many difficulties, including problems associated with asking poor people about

“10 netary values, a general distrust of governmental programs, and designing effective

 

 

73

thments (Juan Carlos Seijo, Jorge Euan, Miguel Cabrera, and Eduardo Perez, personal
conversations, Nov. 1995 and Jan. 1996). The challenge remains to incorporate and
validate the methodological advances typified by NOAA (1993), Hoehn and Krieger
(1 995), and Carson et a1. (1994) in CV studies in developing countries.

As mentioned, Seijo et a1. (1995) tries to incorporate a CV study questionnaire on
the economic value of ecological services into their study of Campeche’s mangrove
eeo system for PEMEX (Mexico’s petroleum industry) and EPOMEX (Gulf of Mexico
Ecology, Fisheries, and Oceanographic Program). Unfortunately, the results of this study

are unavailable for dissemination. However, this attempt by Mexican researchers to
include some measure of mangrove ecosystem’s nonmarket economic value highlights the
rec Ognition that such values are important and need to be accounted for. The authors do
acknowledge the difficulty of designing and implementing CV studies in a developing
Country. Although positive economic values were generated for some of the enumerated
ecological functions of Campeche’s mangrove ecosystems, a review of the CV instrument,
Ine3‘31‘10d5, and procedures used by Seijo et a1. reveal the nascent state of the art of CV
re’Seélrch in the Yucatan (e.g., Miguel Angel Cabrera, personal conversations, Mérida,
Mex- , Jan. 1996).
Hernandez-Flores (1995), in establishing the framework for his study of the
soeiDeconomics of Yucatecan coastal communities, specifically recognizes the importance
of determining the “total economic value of resources associated to [sic] the communities”
(5 > - Hernandez-Flores calls for the use of CV to help determine the existence and
engogical service (i.e., nonuse) values of lagoon and coastal resources. However,

I‘Iel‘nandez—Flores also points out that the use of CV in Mexico is new. He believes that

 

 

/ l
74

QIICh work still remains in developing methods for designing and implementing CV
studies that can produce reliable and valid economic estimates of environmental values in

Mexico (Alvaro Hernandez-Flores, personal conversation, Mérida, Mex., Jan. 1996).

C V DESIGN METHODS
S ome CV literature addresses questions pertaining to the efficacy of CV survey design.
Mo st of their studies examine whether a particular format or design change produces
estimates that conform with economic theory. Studies have examined the use of different
value elicitation formats (e.g., open, dichotomous), the problem of embedding effects, and
questions of scope (e.g., Brown et al. 1996; Carson and Mitchell 1993). Curiously, while
a11110 st all economists depend upon data originally collected using survey questionnaires,
only a handful of economists have actually focused any attention on survey design and
implementation issues. That is, economists generally rely upon sociologists, cognitive
p SB’Chologists, and other social scientists to advance the generally accepted state-of-the-art
of Sul‘vey research (e. g., Hutchinson, Chilton, and Davis 1995; Schkade and Payne 1994;
Schwarz 1997).
V. Kerry Smith (1993) points out that the current stage in CV research needs to
integrate the psychological and economic dimensions of framing CVM questions with

conventional practices in survey design, implementation, and analysis. As Smith puts it:

[S]tudies highlight how little we know about measuring the amounts of

environmental amenities (or services), and therefore how important qualitative

analysis of people’s perceptions of the problem can be to the framing of the

commodity in a CVM study. . ..[R]egard1ess of the underlying model of CVM

responses, understanding how people perceive environmental commodities is

essential for obtaining plausible responses to any questions asked of them. l
(Smith 1993, 16-18)

 

 

 

75

Determining the necessary and sufficient elements of reliable and valid CV studies
remains a challenge. Implementation methods range from visiting research sites with
instruments that have been constructed elsewhere to intensive (and expensive) iterative
use of on—site visits, key-person interviews, focus groups, debriefing questions, pretests,

and instrument rewrites and retests (e. g., Carson et al., DDT 1994; Hoehn and Krieger
1 995). To some extent, the process of CV problem conceptualization, questionnaire
design, pretesting, and implementation is subject to the “artistry” (and expertise) of
practitioners (Richard Carson, personal conversation, 1995; Alan Randall, personal
conversation, 1995; John Hoehn, personal conversation, 1995).

The CV literature refers, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, to focus group
interviews and pretests as methods sometimes used to help frame resource issues, define
terms, and draft CV questionnaires (e. g., Boyle et a1. 1994; Carson et al., DDT, 1994;
NOAA 1993). Focus groups are a qualitative research method that allows researchers to
lea-r13 about issues, concerns, and perceptions from a group discussion lead by a moderator
(Mol‘gan 1997; Krueger 1994). Pretesting, until recently, has been associated primarily
with statistical analysis of pilot study data. That is, CV design testing most often has
in"Oh/ed not more than a field—test of the final draft CV questionnaire and an examination
of the frequency and distribution of responses for obvious signs of difficulties (Carson et

al- , DDT, 1994).
However, “pretesting” in its broader (and perhaps more useful) connotation can
atld does refer to a wide range of research activities that can be conducted to test and
1111p rove the research design and the development of CV survey instruments. As Mitchell

and Carson (1989) specifically point out, some of the activities that should be considered

 

 

76

for inclusion in CV pretesting include: focus group interviews, tape-recorded individual
interviews, systematic debriefing of respondents, and minisurveys (Mitchell and Carson
1989). In their contribution to the debate on evidence of embedding effects in some CV
studies, Loomis, Lockwood, and DeLacy (1993) use two focus groups “to test
comprehension of terms” before they use “formal pretests” to evaluate the survey
instruments.

Some CV practitioners increasingly call for the use of focus groups. Bennett and

Carter believe that:

in designing further CVM questionnaires, it is of paramount importance that the
communication aspects of the exercise are fully assessed. The most important
vehicle for this is the focus group. The complexity of the communication aspects
of a CVM questionnaire requires the in-depth analysis afforded by focus groups.
The alternative, simple pretesting of a questionnaire, does not give the

respondent the opportunity to discuss reactions with other respondents. (1993,
91)

Bennett and Carter go on to point out that focus groups can help achieve much more than
just fine tuning of the wording of the questionnaire. They assert that focus groups can be
used to assess the ‘commodity range’ of the good or service so that an appropriate
framing strategy can be developed. That is, researchers can learn from focus groups how
best to describe, explain, and understand the impact that the questionnaire has on the
saliency of the subject matter (Bennett, J. M., and M. Carter. 1993).

There has also been an increase in the use of one-on-one interviews to pretest draft
survey questionnaires. These one—on-one interviews center on learning from respondents
about their answers to draft CV instruments. Debriefmg questions, answers to open-

ended questions and sometimes, some form of content analysis, has been used in attempts

77

to facilitate a systematic examination of various aspects of the efficacy of CV questions
and study designs .(e.g., Carson et al., DDT, 1994; Hoehn and Krieger 1995). However,
neither the use of focus groups nor one-on—one pretests have been universally accepted or
applied by CV practitioners. Few CV studies provide a uniform or objective basis for peer
review of CV study design or respondent understanding and acceptance.

The importance of systematic and adequate CV design, testing, and verification
has been long recognized (Mitchell and Carson 1989). Yet, generally accepted and
externally verifiable pretesting procedures remain to be agreed upon. Boyle et a1. (1994)
examine whether the size of the environmental good being valued biases respondents’
valuation estimates. Boyle et al. conclude that CV survey design needs "formal
investigation and should not be relegated to subjective pretesting decisions for each new
application" (Boyle 1994, 81).

Interestingly, Schkade and Payne (1994), following-up on the migratory waterfowl
CV experiment of Desvousges et al. (1992), introduce the use of a verbal protocol
procedure of “thinkalouds” to examine what respondents think about when formulating
CV responses. Schkade and Payne reveal that CV respondents, when forced to pay
attention to the questions, reflect on economically relevant trade-offs and consider the size
of the environmental change (See also Carson and Mitchell 1993). Schkade and Payne
(1994) suggest that verbal protocol procedures and other qualitative methods (including
content analysis) may play an important role in CV questionnaire design and evaluation.

Hutchinson, Chilton, and Davis (1995) believe that the adoption of focus groups
and verbal reports by CV practitioners should increase the reliability and widen the scope

of CV applications. They believe that the use of these research techniques “should result

78

in a more informed survey instrument which places respondents in a much stronger
position to construct meaningful values” (108).

Anthropologist James Spradley (1979) was able to take the intuitive process of
ethnographic research and create/describe a systematic process for capturing, analyzing,
presenting, and replicating meaningful qualitative data. Spradley crafted a sequence of
procedures and question types (e. g., " grand tour" and "mini-tour" questions) into a
specified research sequence called the ethnographic interview. Since his work, the
ethnographic interview has facilitated the systematic collection, recordation, and use of
important qualitative data. Spradley (1979) advanced anthropology by introducing his
systematic ethnographic research process. Perhaps the systematic application of
qualitative research methods can advance the efficacy of economic valuation methods of

environmental and natural resources in developing countries.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND SURVEY DESIGN

Qualitative research methods collect data other than numbers and stress the importance of
context, setting, and frames of reference (Marshall and Rossman 1989). Qualitative
research’s multiple techniques include: direct observation, semi-structured interviews of
key informants, group meetings, and diagramming. Such techniques enable researchers to
identify key socioeconomic sectors, concerns, and other useful data. Stewart and
Shamdasani (1990) point out that qualitative research methods provide data that arise in a
natural or indigenous form because they allow respondents to use their own words,

categorizations, and perceived associations.

79

Fowler (1995) explains that in recent years there has been increased attention
given to the evaluation of survey questions from the cognitive and interactional

perspectives. It seems that,

The basic idea is that before a question is asked in a full-scale survey, testing
should be done to find out if people can understand the questions, if they can
perform the tasks the questions require, and if interviewers can and will read
questions as worded. (Fowler 1995, 104)

One of the obstacles to the use of qualitative methods are researchers’ misconception or

misapprehension about qualitative research.

[O]n the one hand, focus groups seem so simple as an idea, it is hard to take
them seriously. On the other hand, it is unusual for a researcher, no matter how
seasoned in a particular area, to say that at least a few focus group discussions at
the beginning of a study were not valuable. . ..Listening to what people have to
say invariably broadens a researcher’s perspective about the realities to be studied
or how people think about them. (Fowler 1995, 105)

There are many ways qualitative research may be used to help design better survey
instruments. Qualitative research can, among other things, help (1) examine the
assumptions about the reality about which people will be asked, and (2) evaluate
assumptions about vocabulary, the way people understand terms or concepts that will be
used in the survey instruments. Researchers point out that focus groups are an
extraordinarily efficient way to obtain a great deal of information relevant to the design of
survey questions. They note how people with no previous experience with focus groups
are routinely amazed at how much they can learn about the subject they are studying and

how to ask questions (Morgan 1997, Fowler 1994). Fowler (1994) asserts that,

The level of investment is so small, compared to the effort involved in most
surveys, and the payoff so big, it is hard to explain why every survey does not
begin with some focus group discussions. (110)

80

Converse and Presser (1986) believe that the crafting of a questionnaire involves
intellectual preparation of all sorts. They recommend an exploratory inquiry that involves
can involve ‘in-depth’ interviews with members of the target population in addition to a
‘focused discussion group.’ Converse and Presser think that such exploratory inquires can
be especially of value “when a target population is likely to have special perceptions,
problems, and idioms that may be relatively foreign to the investigator” (1986, 50). They
go on to note that, “Unfortunately, most of us are too likely to neglect this preliminary
phase of exploration.”

According to Rea and Parker (1992), prior to developing a survey questionnaire, it
is necessary to gather information about the subject matter under investigation from
interested parties and key individuals. Because social science research spans so many
disciplines, Rea and Parker believe that with or without a research team of experts, the
investigators must gatherer preliminary information about the issues of importance from
interested parties and key individuals as a prelude to the development of survey questions.
Rea and Parker go on to state that, “Foremost among theses preliminary information-
gathering techniques is the focus group” (1992, 34).

Sudman, Bradbum, and Schwarz (1996) point out the necessity for researchers to
appreciate respondents’ cognitive process and way of understanding questions.
Qualitative methods can assist in the process. They believe that focus group interviews
are “an efficient first step in determining how some of the key concepts being studied are
understood and retrieved by potential respondents” (Sudman, Bradbum, and Schwarz
1996, 259). They point out how researchers listening to focus groups are often alerted to

issues that they might otherwise have missed or ignored.

81

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Qualitative research means different things to different people. For some researchers, the
distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is a function of the methods used
for data collection (e.g., in—depth interviews, focus groups, and participant observation).
For others, qualitative research does not depend on data collection methods. Rather,
qualitative research is any research that produces findings not arrived at by means of
statistical procedures or other means of quantification (Strauss and Corbin 1990).

For the purpose of this dissertation, the definition of qualitative research relies on
both the manner in which information is acquired and the nature of the information so
acquired. There are numerous names used for the variety of qualitative research methods.

However, Bryman points out that qualitative research methods:

all fundamentally refer to the same thing: an approach to the study of the social
world which seeks to describe and analyze the culture and behavior of humans
and their groups from the point of those being studied. (1988, 46)

Strauss and Corbin emphasize the strengths of qualitative research to uncover and
understand what lies behind a phenomenon, to gain novel and fresh slants on things, and to
give intricate details of phenomena that are difficult to convey with quantitative methods
(1990, 19). That is, qualitative studies are especially suited to “identifying unanticipated
phenomena and influences” (Maxwell 1996, 19).

Qualitative research and methods differ from quantitative approaches because of
their fundamentally different foci and objectives. Unlike quantitative research’s concern
with numbers, precision, and generalizability, qualitative research attempts to develop an

understanding of why people act or feel the ways they do.

82

Qualitative and quantitative methods are not simply different ways of doing the
same thing. Instead, they have different strengths and logics and are often best
used to address different questions and purposes. The strengths of qualitative
research derive primarily from its inductive approach, its focus on specific

situations or people, and its emphasis on words rather than numbers. (Maxwell
1996, 17)

Qualitative research focuses on learning the deeper reasons behind situations, how people
feel, and why they act or fail to act. Outsiders through the use of qualitative methods can
develop an understanding of how people perceive and understand the world around them.

Bryman reminds us that:

The most fundamental characteristic of qualitative research is its express
commitment to viewing events, action, norms, values, etc. from the perspective
of the peOple who are being studied. . ..The strategy of taking the subject’s
perspective is often expressed in terms of seeing through the eyes of the pe0ple
you are studying. (1988, 61)

As a result of qualitative research methods’ strength in acquiring knowledge,
vocabulary, and insights from the perspective of their subjects, it has increasingly been
used for survey research design. Qualitative studies are especially well-suited for survey
questionnaire design. The use of exploratory qualitative studies by survey and
experimental researchers has been extremely helpful in the design of their questionnaires
and the identification of variables for experimental investigation (Maxwell 1996).

Qualitative research has been used for years by social scientists in developing
countries. Perhaps the best known examples of the use of qualitative research in
developing countries are the myriad instances of anthropological studies. Ethnographic
interviews as well as participant observation are a mainstay of cross-cultural investigation
(Spradley 1979). Qualitative research methods have also been used in developing

countries to design survey questionnaires.

83

In their study of Rwandan farmer’s adoption of conservation practices, Ndiaye and
Sofranko (1994) use informal group discussions (sondeos) and a subsequent formal survey
to collect their information. N diaye and Sofranko are able “to gain insight into farmers’
problems, perceptions, and strategies through informal discussions in small group
sessions” (1994, 39). Ndiaye and Sofranko believe that what qualitative research may
lacks in terms of specificity and quantitative detail, is compensated for, by its provision of
insight into how local beneficiaries view the problems and potential solutions. They also
underscore the importance of qualitative research methods to served as a priori tests of

questions to be included in the survey instrument.

F o c U s G R 0 U P 3
Focus group interviews are “among the most widely used research tools in the social
sciences” (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990, 9). While the subject matter of focus groups
widely varies, focus groups share certain characteristics. Krueger asserts that focus
groups have six characteristics or features that relate to the ingredients of a focus group:
“(1) people, (2) assembled in a series of groups, (3) possess certain characteristics, and (4)
provide data (5) of a qualitative nature (6) in a focused discussion” (1994, 16). Although
focus group research can produce quantitative data, focus groups almost always are
conducted in order to collect primarily qualitative data. Stewart and Shamdasani see this
as a distinct advantage because “focus groups produce a very rich body of data expressed
in the respondents’ own words and context” (1990, 12).

A focus group is a carefully planned discussion that is designed to obtain the

participants’ perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, nonthreating

84

environment (Krueger 1994). Focus groups are informal discussion sessions in which a
skilled moderator leads a group of individuals in an in-depth discussion to discover their
attitudes, opinions and knowledge of particular issues (Hutchinson, Chilton, and Davis
1995). As Morgan puts it, “The hallmark of focus groups is their explicit use of group
interaction to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the
interaction found in a group” (1997, 2). While there are researchers who choose to
differentiate between different types of groups, group interviews, and focus groups, this
dissertation follows Morgan’s (1996, 1997) preference for an inclusive approach. Focus

groups are:

a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic
determined by the researcher. In essence, it is the researcher’s interest that
provides the focus, while the data themselves come from the group interaction.
(Morgan 1997, 6)

The size, structure, and conduct of focus groups have been discussed and
examined by many researchers and scholars (e.g., Morgan 1997, Krueger 1994, Stewart
and Shamdasani 1990). They typically are conducted with approximately 7 to 10 people
and led by a skilled interviewer. The participants discuss a particular topic under the
direction of a moderator who promotes interaction and assures that the discussion remains
on the topic of interest. The discussion is comfortable and often enjoyable for participants
as they share their ideas and perceptions. Group members influence each other by
responding to ideas and comments in the discussion.

Focus group “size can range from as few as 4 to as many as 12. The size is
conditioned by two factors: It must be small enough for everyone to have opportunity to

share insights and yet large enough to provide diversity of perceptions” (Krueger 1994,

85

17). Small focus groups of 4 or 5 participants may afiord more opportunity to share
ideas, but the limited size also restricts the total number of ideas generated. The smaller
focus groups—sometimes called mini—focus groups—have a distinct advantage in their
logistics. Small groups can be easily accommodated in restaurants, private homes, and
other environments where space is at a premium (Krueger 1994, 17).

Researchers point to having a good moderator as a the key to assuring that a
group discussion goes smoothly. The focus group moderator generally is well trained in
group dynamics and interview skills” (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990, 9-10). While it is a
good idea to have topic or question guide that the moderator follows, focus groups can
involve high or low-moderator involvement. Moderators begin by introducing the topic in
an honest and fairly general fashion and then, to varying degrees, follow the question/topic
guide and probe participants for their input (Morgan 1997). In general, low-moderator-
involvement groups are of interest to social science researchers.

Focus groups have been used at virtually any point of research programs.
However, they are particularly useful for exploratory research and tend to be used early in
a research project to he often followed by other types of research that provide more
quantifiable data from larger groups of respondents (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990).
When not used as self-contained qualitative data gathering methods, focus groups often
serve as a source of preliminary data in quantitative research projects (Morgan 1997).
Some of the common uses of focus groups are: obtaining general background information
about a topic of interest and learning how respondents talk about the phenomenon of

interest. Such use of focus groups “may facilitate the design of questionnaires, survey

86

instruments, or other research tools that might be employed in more quantitative research”
(Stewart and Shamdasani 1990, 15).

Focus groups, which are a qualitative research tool, have had a long history of
utilization in some disciplines, particularly psychology. Their use in economics is less
widespread. The CV literature does highlight problems of information provision and
respondent knowledge, comprehension and cognition. These must be dealt with in order
to design good CV surveys and studies. Focus group interviews in the survey design and
piloting stages of CV studies may be conducted “to inform researchers of respondents’
level of knowledge, attitudes and opinion.” (Hutchinson, Chilton, and Davis 1995, 100).

Tools from psychology and cognitive survey design (focus groups and verbal
reports) can be used to reduce complex environmental goods and services into meaningful
commodities and scenarios that respondents can value. “Focus groups are increasingly
being used in the development of CVM surveys for complex environmental goods
although guidance on their proper use is very much lacking in the CVM literature”

(Hutchinson, Chilton, and Davis 1995, 101).

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

Individual interviews (also called unstructured, exploratory, intensive, in-depth, and depth
interviews) are guided conversations whose goal is to elicit from the interviewees (also
called informants) rich, detailed materials that can be used in qualitative analysis.
Individual intensive interviews seeks to discover the informant’s experience of a particular
topic or situation and seeks to fmd out what kinds of things exist in the first place (Lofland

and Lofland 1995). Oppenheim believes the purpose of an exploratory interview is: “to

87

develop ideas and research hypotheses rather than to gather facts and statistics. It is
concerned with trying to understand how ordinary people think and feel about topics of
concern to the research” (1992, 67).

Weiss (1994) asserts there are seven reasons for conducting individual depth
interviews. According to Weiss, qualitative interviews are appropriate for: (1) developing
detailed descriptions about an event or development; (2) integrating multiple perspectives
on an organization, development, or event; (3) describing process of human enterprise; (4)
developing holistic descriptions of complex entities; (5) learning how events are
interpreted; (6) grasp understanding from the inside; and (7) identify variables and
hypotheses for quantitative research.

In-depth interviews sacrifice “uniformity of questioning to achieve fuller
development of information are properly called qualitative interviews” (Weiss 1994, 3).
Qualitative interviewing, whether called in-depth, exploratory, or something else, provides
researchers (outsiders) with access to the observations of others and can teach outsiders
about people’s interior experiences, what people perceive and how they interpret their
perceptions. Furthermore, through qualitative interviews we can learn about settings that
would otherwise be closed to us: foreign societies, exclusive organizations, and the
private lives of couples and families (Weiss 1994).

The advantages that individual interviews offer stem from the close relationship
between interviewer and informant (Morgan 1997). Some researchers assert that this
dynamic puts an added burden on informants to explain themselves to interviewers and
therefore more elaboration on responses take place with little interviewer input (Agar and

MacDonald 1995). Cognitive psychologists probably would point to the tacit assumptions

88

underlying how people converse as favoring individual interviews in getting respondents

to volunteer information. One such principle is the “cooperativeness” principle that
includes a maxim that enjoins speakers to make relevant contributions to an ongoing
conversation (Sudman, Bradbum, and Schwarz 1996). Another factor that may favor
individual interviews is when the research goal is to gain an in—depth understanding of a
person’s opinion and experiences. Instead of each participant having a small percentage of
time during which a group meets to discuss the topic, an individual in an individual
interview has the entire duration of the qualitative interview and attention of the
interviewer to reveal and share concerns, issues, and perspectives.

With exploratory interviews almost nothing is standard. According to Oppenheim,

At most the interviewers will have a ‘hidden agenda’, a handful of headings or
topics around which they will seek to direct the interview as unobtrusively as
possible. . ..The job of the depth interviewer is thus not that of data collection but
ideas collection. (1992, 67)

It is believed that using in-depth, exploratory interviews can greatly broaden and deepen
the original plan of the research, throw up new dimensions to be studied, suggest many
new ideas and hypotheses, important differences between groups of respondents. Depth
interviews can help in the formation of the research problem, in the articulation of
dimensions and hypotheses and in the details of instrument building (Oppenheim 1992).
In the qualitative interview the respondent provides information while the
interviewer is responsible for directing the respondent to the topics that matter to the
study. The findings of the qualitative interview will usually be supported by quotations
and case descriptions. However, “usually we can produce numerical data from qualitative

interview studies that have explored the same area with different respondents, although we

89

may have to engage in a time-consuming and cumbersome coding procedure” (Weiss

1994, 3-4).

GROUP VIS-A-VIS INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS
Focus groups can be linked with individual interviewing in a number of ways. They may
used in tandem, series, or independently. Either method can be used as a first step
exploratory effort to better inform the other method’s design and implementation. That is,
focus groups can be used to help determine the starting point and questions for individual
interviews and Vice versa, individual interviews can help generate focus group discussion
guides. Additionally, each one of these qualitative interview methods can be used to
supplement the application and understanding of the other. One method could be used to
help provide a basis for selecting particular populations for the other method’s application.
Lastly, focus groups can be combined with individual interviews to use one as a follow-up
to the other. That is , focus groups can be used to develop a better sense of the
interrelations of topics raised in interviews. Likewise, follow-up individual interviews can
be used to help provide depth and details on topics that were only broadly discussed in
group interviews. They may also be used to learn more about perspectives that may have
been underrepresented in the groups (Morgan 1997).

Focus groups and individual interviews are both qualitative research methods.
Focus groups rely upon group interaction in order to reveal participants’ Similarities and
differences of opinion. Individual interviews collect more in-depth information from
respondents and require an analysis of individuals’ statements to reveal similarities and

differences. The group dynamic of focus groups means that interviewers have less control

 

 

 

90

and interviewees have less time to share their particular perspective. Morgan (1997)
points out that typically groups using less structured approaches make better exploratory
research vehicles while individual interviews allow for more the development of more in-
depth understanding of people’s opinions and experiences.

The question of whether the two methods produce similar data “has been the
subject of more Speculation than systematic research” (Morgan 1997, 13). Merton et al.
(1990) proposed a research design to use both methods by interviewing half the people
from a sample with one method first and the other half with the other method first.
According to Morgan (1997), only Wight (1994) seems to have followed such a design.
VVlght (1994) examines young men and their relationships with the opposite sex.
Categorizing respondents’ remarks and claims as “macho” or “sensitive,” Wight finds that
respondents refer to the opposite sex using sensitive responses when they are individually
interviewed first. Otherwise, Wight finds that respondents use their macho vocabulary.

In reviewing her work as well as Wight’s, Kitzinger (1994a; 1994b) reaches the
conclusion that the differences detected between the results of focus groups and individual
interviews may be more a function of context than validity. That is, Kitzinger points out
that the differences do not necessarily raise questions about the validity per se of either
focus group or individual interview results. She asserts that the differences may well be
explainable based upon people’s behavior. If people actually act differently in groups from
the way they act individually, then they may demonstrate those sorts of differences in
group and individual interviews. Therefore, if one is interested in individual behavior or

perceptions then the use of data from group interviews might not be best suited for that

91

inquiry. Similarly, a research interest in group behavior or perceptions might not be well

served by data from individual interviews (Morgan 1997).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Developing countries have a limited and threatened supply of environmental and natural
resources. In order to make the best decisions about the use and disposition of their
environmental and natural resources, decision makers ought to consider the total
economic value of such resources. A large component of economic value attributed to the
environmental and natural resources of developing countries does not appear in market
prices or well-functioning markets. Furthermore, a potentially large share of
environmental and natural resource value is nonuse value. Therefore, the use of the
contingent valuation method is necessary in order to determine the total economic value of
complex environmental assets, like mangrove wetlands, in developing countries.

CV depends on the use of sophisticated survey questionnaires to generate
estimates of environmental and natural resource values. The application of CV in
developing countries has not demonstrated the important necessity that respondents
actually understood and accepted the proffered resource scenario(s) and policy change(s).
Researchers to draft better, more understandable survey questionnaires increasingly use
qualitative research. Two such methods are individual interviews and focus groups.

These methods, each with theoretical strengths and weaknesses, can provide researchers
with insights into how people understand, perceive, and interact with the world around

them.

92

Therefore, this dissertation explores the systematic use of focus group and
individual interviews as ways to learn about local beneficiaries nomenclature, perceptions,
issues, and concerns in an effort to pilot a design methodology for nonmarket economic

valuation study in a developing country.

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

This chapter presents the research design, the subjects, and the procedures used to
examine the efficacy of qualitative research methods for designing environmental and
natural resource economic valuation questionnaires in Yucatan, Mexico. The study
involved several phases of fieldwork including the multiple use of focus groups and
individual interviews. The modified 2 x 2 research design used two qualitative research
methods with male and female respondents from two villages, each dependent upon the
same ecosystem. The design allowed for intra and inter-community evaluation of the data

gathered (See Figure 4).

DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

The research study collected information from local resource beneficiaries on their
perceptions, uses, and understanding of a complex environmental and natural resource.
Such information is important for drafting and implementing reliable and well-functioning
questionnaires for the economic valuation of environmental and natural resources. For
example, in order for contingent valuation studies to generate reliable and valid economic
estimates of value, respondents must, among other things, (1) understand what it is they

are being asked to value, (2) accept the plausibility of the proposed policy change and

93

94

 

 

?

—>—

     
   

 

Chelém

l

Mangrove Ecosystem

Chubuma /

 

   
    

 

 

  

Individual
Interviews

 

 

 

 

   
    
   

 

0»

Individual ’
Interviews

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Research Design

 

95
payment scenarios, and (3) answer the value elicitation questions in an honest, non-
strategic manner (Portney 1994; N OAA 1993; Mitchell and Carson 1989). Therefore,
designers of CV questionnaires must understand how respondents perceive, understand,
and use the environmental and natural resources under examination to design effective
and valid research instruments. The dissertation compared the efficacy of two qualitative
research methods (focus groups and individual interviews) for collecting such information

in a developing country.

DESIGN OF STUDY

The research design of the dissertation evolved over a period of time. Driven by a desire
to evaluate the use of nonmarket valuation methods in developing countries, the
candidate conducted extensive pre-dissertation research as well as funding efforts. As a
result of those efforts, the Chelém Lagoon research site, financial support, and in-country
logistical support for the dissertation research were identified. In turn, the candidate was
able to develop a research design with two objectives: (1) the use of qualitative methods
in a developing country to learn about complex environmental and natural resources from
the perspective of local beneficiaries, and (2) the evaluation of the relative strengths and
weaknesses of using different qualitative research methods (focus group and individual

interviews) in a developing country.

Pre-Dissertation Research and Funding
Because of the candidate’s advanced degree in Latin American studies and Spanish-
language skills, efforts were made to identify an appropriate environmental and natural

resource management problem in a Latin America country as well as to secure funding

 

96

and logistical support for the dissertation fieldwork. A pre-dissertation research
fellowship from the Michigan State University [MSU] Office of International Studies and
Programs [ISP] and a travel grant from the MSU Institute of International Agriculture
facilitated a field visit to Yucatan, Mexico in fall 1994.

During the pre-dissertation trip, the candidate visited potential research sites and
met with researchers and scholars working on a myriad of environmental and natural
resource problems in the Yucatan Peninsula. Some of the researchers interviewed at that
time included: Dr. Marcelino Avila of the International Center for Research in
Agroforestry [ICRAF]; Dr. Rodrigo Migoya of the Mexican NGO Pronatura; Dr. Juan
Jiménez of the Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan; and Dr. Juan Carlos Seijo of
CINVESTAV. These meetings and others provided a solid basis for subsequent
dissertation funding and research proposals.

In spring 1995, both the Inter-American Foundation [IAF] and the Organization
of American States [OAS] awarded the candidate dissertation research fellowships to
investigate nonmarket economic valuation methods for coastal resources in Yucatan,
Mexico. These fellowships together with matching funds from MSU’S College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources [CANR], ISP, and Graduate School were sufficient to

underwrite the expenses associated with the dissertation fieldwork research.

Research Design
Preliminary dissertation field research on the Yucatecan coast as well as meetings with
researchers in Mérida revealed substantial concern for the management, preservation, and

health of the Yucatan’s fragile mangrove ecosystems. Staff members at Pronatura, the

97

Mexican environmental protection agency SEMARNAP, and CINVESTAV all identified
the Pro gresso area mangrove ecosystem as under threat from overuse, improper
management, and an absence of reliable ecological and economic information (Susan
Rojas, Juan Carlos Seijo, and Jorge Efian Avila, personal conversations, Mérida, Mexico,
fall 1994 and winter 1995). As a result of those meetings, Site Visits to the Yucalpetén
estuary and discussions with Ph.D. committee members, Chelém Lagoon and its
communities were selected as the research site for the dissertation.

The choice of the Chelém Lagoon area as the research site conformed with the
overall goals of the dissertation. Examination of inhabitants of the Yucalpetén estuary
would make it possible to (1) learn how local resource beneficiaries perceive, understand,
and use a complex environmental and natural resource (i.e., the mangrove wetland) that
might benefit the drafting of economic valuation questionnaires, and (2) evaluate the
efficacy of qualitative methods for accomplishing that task in a developing country (i.e.,
Yucatan, Mexico). Subsequent in-country fieldwork, collaboration with in-country
researchers, doctoral committee meetings, and a conference for IAF Ph.D. fellows and

advisors in Guatemala helped finalize the research design.

Modified 2 x 2 Design

As Figure 4 illustrates, the research design for this dissertation consists of parallel efforts
to collect data using two different qualitative methods with members of each of two
communities that border the same ecosystem. That is, a set of focus group data and a set
of individual interview data on people’s nomenclature, issues, concerns, and

understanding regarding the same mangrove ecosystem were obtained from community

98
members of Chelém and community members of Chubuma, both located on Chelém
Lagoon.

The communities of Chelém and Chubuma were selected because of their
socioeconomic similarities, their proximity to Chelém Lagoon, and their historical
dependence of that mangrove ecosystem for varying components of their livelihoods.
The focus on these two Villages was supported by the available census and other data
(INEGI 1992; Paré and Fraga 1994), expert opinions (e. g., Drs. Eduardo Batllori San
Pedro and Dr. Juan Carlos Seijo of CINVESTAV), and preliminary focus groups with
members from several other populations bordering the Chelém Lagoon (e. g., Pro gresso
and seasonal residents). (See the discussion and Table 7 below).

The two qualitative research methods, focus groups and individual interviews,
were selected because of their theoretical and practical similarities as survey design tools;
their relative ease of application; and the similarity of the data that they each produce.
Both focus groups and individual interviews use relatively unstructured approaches to
learn from respondents about their perspectives, use, and understanding of the world
around them (Morgan 1997; Weiss 1994). Furthermore, both methods allow for
interviews to be audiotape recorded and later transcribed. Finally, both methods can
potentially be used in developing countries in relatively timely and cost-effective ways, a
critically important point if either method is to be used in conjunction with efforts to
conduct economic valuation studies in developing countries.

Although presented in Table 4 in its simplest form as a 2 x 2 research design, the
actual research design allowed for additional layers of analysis. Table 5 and Table 6

illustrate some additional data sets and levels of analysis allowed for by the actual

Table 4. Simple 2 x 2 Data Sets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focus Individual Community
Groups Interviews Total
Chelém A B A+B
Chubuma C D C+D
Method Total A+C B+D
Table 5. Modified 2 x 2 Data Sets
Focus Individual Community
Groups Interviews Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Chelém AM Aw BM Bw AM+BM AM+BM
Chubuma CM Cw DM Dw CM+DM Cw+Dw
Method Total AM+CM Aw+Cw BM-t-DM Bw+D
w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

Table 6. Some Possible Tests of Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test If Then
Across Methods A = B Focus Groups = Ind. Interview
C = D Focus Groups = Ind. Interview
A+C = B+D Focus Groups = Ind. Interview
Across Communities A = C Chelém = Chubuma
B = D Chelém = Chubuma
A+B = C+D Chelém = Chubuma
Across Gender AM = Aw; Chelém Men = Chelém Women
BM = Bw
CM = Cw; Chubuma Men = Chubuma Women
DM = Dw
AM+CM=Aw+Cw; Men = Women (across communities)
Bm+DM=Bw+Dw
AM+BM=Aw+Bw; Men = Women (across methods)
Cm+DM=Cw+Dw

 

 

 

 

101

research design. A layer of analysis not captured in the simple 2 x 2 design and
specifically accounted for by the project design was an examination of possible gender
differences. It was assumed that, all else being equal, men from these communities might
have different experiences, perceptions, ideas, concerns, and understanding of the
mangrove ecosystem than women of those communities. Therefore, focus groups and
individual interviews were conducted in both communities that controlled for the gender
of the participants (See Table 5).

This research design allowed for the collection of data in a way that enabled the
possible examination of data across methods, across communities, and across gender
(See Table 6). As a result of the added layer of gender to its design , the dissertation

research design is referred to as a modified 2 x 2 design.

SUBJECTS

To conduct this study, multiple panels of focus groups and individual interviews needed
to be conducted. The goal was to select, in an unbiased manner, individuals from two
similar but distinct populations for participation in either focus groups (segregated by
gender and locale) or individual interviews. AS mentioned, site visits and consultation
with other researchers working in the Yucatan were used initially to identify the research
site. Census and other data were used to identify the two particular populations and to
confirm their similarities (e.g., Paré and Fraga 1994; INEGI 1992). Once the two
populations were selected, a purposeful sampling method was then used to select the

actual participants.

102
Populations
The coastal communities of the Yucatecan coast include villages, towns, and cities of
varying Size as well as numerous enclaves of seasonal residents. In 1992, Mexico’s
National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Information (INEGI) began to publish the
results of their 11m General Census (INEGI 1992). Much of the socioeconomic data
used to select the target populations was based on that data. Chelém Lagoon was
selected as the environmental and natural resource to be the nominal subject of the study.
Chelém and Chubuma were selected as the target populations because of their similarities
and the fact that they both border and rely upon the same ecosystem.

The Yucalpetén estuary extends westerly from Pro gresso. As the distance from
Pro gresso increases, the frequency and size of year-round communities decrease. The
first “village” west of Pro gresso is Yucalpetén. Hence, the name Yucalpetén estuary.
However, Yucalpetén, for the most part, is now a part of Progresso. It is the location of
the safe harbor, commercial fishing fleets, and an active Mexican naval station. About 7
km west of Pro gresso, is the village of Chelém. Chubuma is located about 8 km further
west from Chelém along the coastal fringe (See Figure 1).

Table 7 summarizes some of the socioeconomic characteristics of Chelém,
Chubuma, and Pro gresso. As will be demonstrated, the Villages are both relatively poor
subsistence fishing communities that have some infrastructure. Pro gresso on the other
hand, is a large port city with a growing commercial and industrial base. According to
the 1990 census data, Chelém and Chubuma had approximately 400 and 200 households

respectively, while the port city of Pro gresso has more than 5000 households.

103

.G\m0mom N. 38 owfinoxov 58 com mm Soon a 22:, (Ge Hoe 889 2 B 8 @8898 33 x83 DOSE c8 8:82 5 >323 83552 .

$8: «mam e5 was . £3: Ema “assign

 

 

 

 

 

32:
me some Sofie
sea? 56 EN oev 9e: §V~ as; oxewm NE SW Sum; wage—AU
A58
mo QuVC @5va
oeww Hwfi wem sew gee exam: oxofi oeem O©~ woo; owfim Sw—uao
32:
.«o oemmv Ace fl 9
each ween 3mm 05 3 cs»: . oxen sea: oeec gem owo.N~ www.mm cmwuuweum
059m— Fan
flea—em nun meta—«m woman—am chum—mm 1“qu AmEmmHAv Mom-531—
xuokom 0—953— wofiel .55 mna .5:— NA .55 av «e Z muauoxx— w—E—mmm :QEOB Gown—Ewen— 0—584

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83380320 :oufismom 803m .5 033.

 

104

Not only are the villages similar in terms of the magnitudes of their population, but
as Table 7 illustrates, the villages also appeared to be Similar in their socioeconomic
composition. Certainly, the villages seem to have much more in common with one
another than they do with Pro gresso. For example, virtually everyone along the coastal
fringe when asked about their livelihood reported fishing to be their primary source of
income. However, the type of fishing varies as do the levels of legal compliance. In some
areas, fishing refers to being a crew member on a large commercial trawler, in other areas
in means walking in the mudflats of the wetland retrieving small shellfish. According to
Pare and Fraga (1994), between 14 and 20 percent of the male population of the villages
had government issued fishing licenses while 25 percent of the male population of
Pro gresso reported having such licenses. It seems that the occupations of villagers is
more alike with one another then with the people of Pro gresso.

The level of education also underscores the similarities of the two villages. The
literacy rates reported in the villages were between 54 and 5 8 percent. This contrasted
with the literacy rate of 64 percent reported by respondents in Pro gresso. Dramatic
differences between the villages and Pro gresso seem related to earnings, living conditions,
and place of origin. In 1990, 10 percent of the population of Progresso reported having
been born elsewhere. At that time, both villages of Chelém and Chubuma reported only 1
percent of their populace having been born elsewhere. Since 1990, the worsening
economic Situation and financial crisis in Mexico have reportedly increased the rate of
coastal migration. However, there are no data available to quantify this migration. All

accounts by researchers and others suggest that migratory inflow has increased in the

105

study area along the same line as historical patterns (Paré and Fraga 1994; Dr. Batllori,
personal conversation, Mérida, Mexico, July 1996).

The residents of Pro gresso reported higher 1990 earnings than the residents of
both Chelém and Chubuma. As Table 7 illustrates, a greater percentage of the villages’
residents reported earning less than the equivalent of one federally established minimum
salary (about 2 dollars/day) than the residents of Pro gresso. Furthermore, 18 percent of
Pro gresso earned less than 2 minimum salaries while 11 percent of Pro gresso earned
between 2 to 5 minimum salaries. This contrasts with the Villages where roughly 25
percent of the population earned less than 2 minimum salaries and only 5 percent of the
population earned between 2 to 5 minimum salaries.

Finally, the 1990 census data on the types of homes and living conditions of the
communities also revealed the similarities of the two villages as well as their differences
from Pro gresso. The data showed that both villages have similar home occupancy rates as
well as sewer/septic system hook-up rates. Both Chelém and Chuburna reported, on
average, 5.81 people per home. This is higher than the average 4.45 people per home
reported for Pro gresso. Likewise, the percentage of homes in the villages of Chelém and
Chubuma reportedly connected to sewer or septic systems were 41 and 5 8 percent,
respectively. These rates were much lower than the 76 percentage of homes in Pro gresso
that reported being connected to sewer or septic systems.

As a result of an examination of the available census and other demographic data
as well as in-depth discussion with in-country researchers working on resource
management issues along the Yucatecan coastline, Chelém and Chubuma were selected as

the two populations for the dissertation study. These two villages have populations with

106

Similar types of occupations, literacy rates, economic opportunities, composition, and
living conditions. They both border and depend upon the same mangrove ecosystem and
both have been affected by changes in the use, management, and Vitality of Chelém

Lagoon.

Samples

Patton (1990) describes some 15 different types Of sampling that can be possibly used in
qualitative research. Most sampling in qualitative research is not probability sampling but
rather nonprobability sampling. In probability sampling, each member of a population has
the same chance of being chosen for the study. This allows for statistical generalizing to
the population of interest. Nonprobability sampling use subjective judgments to determine
the units of the population to include in the sample (Henry 1990). Nonprobability
sampling includes purposeful sampling or criterion-based selection. That is, strategies that
chooses particular settings, people, or events deliberately to provide information (Maxwell

1996). Henry (1990), in his discussion of probability sampling, conceded that,

nonprobability sampling is the only recourse for obtaining data in certain
situations. Limited resources, inability to identify members of the population,
and need to establish the existence of a program could justify the use of a
nonprobability sample. (24-25)

Weiss made the point that many qualitative studies do not use samples but rather
they use “panels” of knowledgeable informants. That is, researchers select respondents
because the respondents are “uniquely able to be informative because they are expert in an
area or privileged witnesses to an event” (1994, 17). Weiss asserts that qualitative
research studies do not need to be concerned too much with sampling. According to

Weiss, qualitative research enables outsiders to learn by examining the people who can

107
provide the information the study requires. The information, not the number of people,
drives qualitative research.

There are at least four different possible goals of purposeful sampling according to
Maxwell (1996): (l) achieving representativeness of setting, individuals, or activities
(conclusions represent typical member); (2) adequately capturing the heterogeneity in the
population (conclusions represent range of variation); (3) examination of extreme cases
(crucial test of theory): and (4) establish controlled comparisons (illuminate reasons for
differences).

No matter what the goal of purposeful sampling, considerable knowledge of the
setting, research relationship with participants, feasibility of data collection, and ethics
should be taken into account. Ultimately, the research question must be considered in
light of the practicality of recruiting participants. Since the intent of virtually all focus
groups is to make some conclusion about populations of interest, groups must consist of
representative members of such populations. The researcher must match the sample used
to the objectives of the research (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990).

Probability Sampling

An effort was made to explore the viability of alternative sampling methods. Probability
sampling methods usually require the use of a “list” or other mechanism to identify all the
members of the population(s). These lists are then used in conjunction with a
mathematical or statistical selection method to identify the sample population to be
studied. Random sampling, which is almost synonymous with probability sampling, is
done so that each member of the target population has an equal opportunity of being

selected to participate in the study. Examples of “lists” that have been used for probability

 

108
sampling include: telephone directories, membership rosters, maps, and even Global
Positioning System (GPS) coordinates.

Along the coastal fringe westward from Pro gresso, few families have telephones
and telephone directories are virtually non-existent. Mexican voter registration and other
such information was not available for use by researchers or the public. Other official
information, such as land title, car registrations, and fishing licenses were neither available
nor applicable for the majority of members of the target populations. As already
mentioned, virtually all men in Chelém and Chubuma report fishing as their primary source
of livelihood. However, as Table 7 notes, only about 17 percent of the men in these
villages have fishing permits issued by the Secretariat of Fishing. Even is the permit
information were available, it would not be sufficient. Neither official nor commercial
records or lists were not available for use by the candidate for sampling purposes.

Further complicating matters, there were no accurate area or street maps of this
region and there has been considerable change in the area since the last regional map.
Although references to more recent aerial photographs of the area were located at INEGI
in Mérida, they were unavailable for review until well-after the field-research was
completed. Efforts to develop a house by house system for sampling were further
frustrated by the absence of clearly marked and numbered residences and streets. It was
simply not possible to devise a sampling procedure that would permit a truly systematic
random selection process.

Purposeful Sampling
As a result of the difficulties in developing a probability sampling frame and the research

design to use qualitative research methods, a purposeful sampling strategy was designed.

109

To control for possible differences in gender and community experiences, it was decided
that participants for focus groups would be recruited so that groups would be composed
of individuals of the same gender and from the same community. Such a sampling scheme
fits within generally accepted practice of qualitative research.

Qualitative researchers usually study a single setting or a small number of
individuals or sites by using theoretical or purposive rather than probability sampling
(Maxwell 1996). Accordingly, there is no magic number of focus groups or individual
interviews that should be conducted. The number of focus groups and individual
qualitative interviews should be sufficient so that it is clear that nothing new is being learnt
in the last session (Morgan 1997; Maxwell 1996; Weiss 1994). Well—regarded qualitative
studies have used as few as 1 to as many as 12 interviews with members of one
population. However, Since the data analysis methods used in this study required a
comparison of not only the quality but quantity of respondents’ contributions, an effort
was made to collect more than sufficient information from both men and women using
both methods in both locales.

Initially, efforts were also made to further control for socioeconomic status but this
proved too difficult. Most villagers and their homes displayed no obvious indicators of
differentiable socioeconomic status. In the villages, although of course there are
individuals who are better off then some, it was hard to identify an objective manner to
identify and recruit focus groups and individual interviews of such individuals. No doubt a
longer term, more anthropological study could identify such individuals and families.

However, that sort of study was outside of the objectives of the dissertation.

 

110

The sampling strategy adopted was a purposeful one. Research assistants
canvassed randomly selected sections of the target communities at staggered times in their
efforts to recruit participants. The research assistants were instructed to recruit a certain
number of men/women from a particular village for participation with a focus group later
that day or the next. If unable to identify sufficient numbers of participants of one gender,
the research assistants could recruit members of the opposite gender for a subsequent
focus group session.

All potential participants were told that a university project was seeking their
opinions and feedback on their environmental and natural resources. They were also told
that there were no correct or incorrect responses. Furthermore, they were instructed that
their participation was voluntary but that it would be extremely helpful and appreciated.
The confidentiality of individuals’ participation was assured as well. Because of different
cultural norms and expectations, inducements were not offered to focus group participants
as is done elsewhere (e. g., the United States). It turns out that many people of the
Yucatan would be insulted by such “bribes” to have a conversation.

Overall 12 focus groups and 19 individual interviews were conducted in Chelém
and Chubuma. The focus groups consisted of between 3 to 6 people of the same gender
from the same community. Although there may arguably be some bias having a male
moderator for all of the focus groups, the segregation of focus groups by gender
attempted to create environments where women might not be inhibited from participation.
Table 3 shows a breakdown of the focus group and individual interviews by type, locale,
and gender. Altogether, 68 people were interviewed either individually or in groups.

Because of the qualitative nature of the study and the inability to collect a random sample

1 11
of participants together with their socioeconomic data, no attempt is made to generalize
findings based upon the substance of the interviews to different populations.

The initial phase of focus group interviews consisted of 5 groups in Chelém (2 of
women) and 4 groups in Chuburna (2 of women) (See Table 8). Preliminary indications
from these groups that women offered responses to the researchers’ questions topics of
conversation regarding the mangrove wetland that were substantially the same as the
responses of groups of men resulted. This resulted in a relaxation of the necessity to have
equal numbers of male and female groups and interviews. Gender was still accounted for,
but it was decided that the groups and interviews did not have to be in exact proportion
with the two populations. Table 8 breaks down the sample of focus groups and individual

interviews by phase and by gender.

Table 8. Phases of Focus Groups and Interviews

Chelém Chubuma Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female

FOCUS GROUPS
Phase
Subtotal
No. Conducted
INDIVIDUAL
No. Conducted

 

The final number of focus groups and individual interviews was arrived at because
it was felt that no new information was being learned in the later sessions. Following the

qualitative researcher’s maxim that one needs as many interviews so as nothing new is

1 12
being learnt in the last session (Morgan 1997; Maxwell 1996; Weiss 1994)., the total
number of focus group interviews were stopped at 12 (Chelém 7, Chubuma 5) and

individual interviews were stopped at 19 (Chelém 10, Chubuma 9).

Generalizability

Unlike quantitative research where researchers hope to be able to make generalizations to
much larger populations, qualitative researchers most often do not generalize beyond the
settings or informants studied. However, qualitative studies can be used to make qualified
generalizations when certain conditions exist. Firstly, qualitative studies, such as this
dissertation, can have face generalizability. That is, there is no obvious reason not to
believe the results apply more generally. Secondly, the generalizability of qualitative
studies may be based on the development of a theory that can be extended to other cases.
While the characteristics of respondents and the study can provide credibility to
generalizations from qualitative studies, none permit the kinds of precise extrapolation of

results to defined populations that probability sampling allows (Maxwell 1996).

PROCEDURES

As described above in Table 2 and elsewhere, the research program consisted of a series of
field research components and the analysis of the qualitative data obtained from focus
groups and individual interviews. Using purposeful sampling, an attempt was made to
recruit participants that represented a cross-section of members from the two communities
to facilitate learning about the attitudes, perceptions, concerns, and understanding of

resource beneficiaries regarding the shared mangrove ecosystem.

H3

UCRHIS REVIEW

In accordance with Michigan State University and federal regulations, the dissertation
research project was submitted for review by the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects [UCRIHS], an institutional review board, before data
collection began. Pursuant to those regulations, no data collection can begin until
UCRHIS approval of the proposed project has been received. The committee evaluates
proposed research projects in light of the rights and welfare of the project’s human
subjects.

Because of high rate of illiteracy in the research site, the cultural aversion to
signing official-looking documents, and the oral nature of the focus group and individual
qualitative interviews, standard written consent forms used in the United States did not
seem appropriate for the dissertation project. The UCRIHS reviewer questioned the
originally proffered language for verbally obtaining subjects’ informed consent. After
consultation with the UCRIHS reviewer, an acceptable verbal consent form was drafted.
UCRIHS approved the dissertation project as adequately protecting the rights and welfare
of its human subjects and its methods to obtain informed consent on February 2, 1996.
The doctoral candidate subsequently used the revised consent format with all respondents

(See Figure 6 for example of language used).

R E C R U I T M E N T
Following the purposeful. sampling frame discussed above, research assistants recruited
participants for focus groups and later for individual interviews. These research assistants

were university students that had previously worked for INPROMER on qualitative

1 14
research efforts in the Yucatan. During Phase I of the focus group interviews research
assistants were assigned to randomly selected areas of the target communities and
instructed to recruit a particular number of men/women of apparently higher/lower
socioeconomic status for focus groups to be held latter that day or the next. During this
phase, individuals from Pro gresso, the various seasonal populations, as well as villagers
from Chelém and Chubuma were asked to participate in focus group interviews. Because
Of the difficulty and subjectivity (and apparent irrelevance) of identifying individuals by the
high/low socioeconomic characteristic, the decision was made early in the recruitment
process to drop that criterion as a selection criterion. This decision was further reinforced
when the decision to focus on the villages of Chelém and Chubuma.

The research assistants canvassed their particular section of the community—going
door-to-door, stopping in local establishments, engaging people in parks, etc—in their
effort to recruit focus group participants. Informants were only told of the general natural
of the project, that it was for a university study, and that their opinions and input would be
greatly appreciated. Informants were instructed were and when to meet for the focus
groups. The groups often were conducted in a centrally located restaurant or a private
home rented for use by the researchers. As mentioned above, no inducements, financial or
otherwise, were provided to individuals for their participation.

The same basic recruitment method was followed for conducting the individual
qualitative interviews with the exception of interviewing individuals in public places.
Because one-on-one interviews more closely resemble intimate conversations as well as
the face-to-face experience of CV survey questionnaires, it was decided to approximate

the one-on-one environment during the individual interviews. The research assistants

115
were instructed to attempt to go door-to-door of peoples homes to recruit and conduct
individual qualitative interviews. Individuals or family members of individuals that had
participated in the study’s focus groups were precluded from being respondents in
individual interviews.

The absence of street signs, house numbers, and other mechanisms for systematic
coverage of the communities made the task of recruitment difficult. However, it should be
reported that, in general, the community members of Chelém and Chubuma were
extremely welcoming and cooperative. The research assistants, focus group moderators,
and doctoral candidate all experienced the warm and hospitality of the villagers of Chelém
and Chubuma. They, like the residents, also got to experience the frustration with poor
public transportation and telecommunication systems in the region. In the end, 68 peOple
from the two villages were recruited and interviewed (in groups or individually) during

approximately four weeks of actual interview activity.

INSTRUMENTATION

In qualitative research, the primary instrumentation of the research project is the human
observer. In the case of focus groups, this observer is the moderator. For individual
interviews, the observer is the interviewer. In order to have confidence in the data
collected, there must be confidence in the quality, consistency, and accuracy of human

observers and the mechanisms used to collect such data.

Focus Groups
For these reasons, an in-country professional focus group moderator was hired to conduct

the focus groups. After interviewing and meeting with potential focus group moderators,

116

the candidate hired Mr. Cesar Garcia Lozano of INPROMER, a Mexican market research
company, to conduct the focus group sessions. Mr. Garcia is a professional qualitative
researcher engaged in market research for a wide variety of consumer products
throughout Mexico and the world. Mr. Garcia regularly conducts focus groups for
Mexico’s largest tobacco, liquor, brewing, and soft drink concerns. And his work has
received praise from United States-based international conglomerates. His training as a
clinical psychologist and prior experience with focus groups in the Yucatan made him a
good choice as moderator.

The candidate met several times with Mr. Garcia during the preliminary stages of
the project to discuss methods and expectations as well as design the focus group guide.
Initially, the moderator and candidate conducted some practice focus groups with
individuals selected from Pro gresso. These sessions were used as training sessions where
a variety of approaches to asking questions and a variety of subject matters were explored.
Likewise, it was during this time that the preliminary discussion guide was developed for
use with subsequent focus group session.

The research practice followed was that after each focus group, the moderator, the
candidate, and the research assistants met to discuss their impressions, observations, and
points of interest. During these post session debriefing discussions, support of developing
themes, new knowledge, and possible ways to get future participants to address the
research concerns were discussed. Not only did these sessions allow for useful and timely
feedback for the moderator, they also enabled the research assistants and candidate to
experience first-hand how respondents characterized their relationship(s) with the

ecosystem and their problems and concerns. Furthermore, the debriefmg sessions

117

provided a perfect opportunity to refine the study guide and non-directive probes and
prompts of qualitative research. As a result, the focus groups and debriefing sessions
were helpful on many levels. Not only did they enable the researchers to compare their
observations, hints, and suggestions but also they were valuable mechanisms for preparing

the research assistants for the individual qualitative interview component of the project.

Individual Interviews

Research assistants trained and employed by Mr. Garcia of IN PROMER conducted the
individual interviews. Ms. Marta Elena Carbajal (Marta) and MS. Maria del Carmen

J aimes (Carmen), both university students, had worked extensively with Mr. Garcia on a
various qualitative marketing research projects throughout Mexico. They have, among
other things, conducted taste tests, packaging design studies, and market analyses for
beer, tobacco, and liquor products in the Yucatan. Ms. Carbajal and Ms. J aimes received
additional training, instruction, and supervision by both Mr. Garcia and the candidate
throughout the course of the research project.

Ms. Carbajal and Ms. J aimes not only helped recruit participants for the focus
groups but also, as mentioned above, assisted with and participated in the debriefing
following the focus group sessions. As a result, the research assistants developed an
understanding of the subject manner, the research questions, and the non-directive probes
and prompts used in the study. During the actual individual qualitative interviews, the
candidate accompanied the research assistants on a random, alternating basis. That is, the
candidate would observe an interview conducted by one research assistant, would debrief

the research assistant after the interview, and offer the research assistant suggestions and

118

comments before locating the other interviewer for observation. The candidate would
than observe, debrief, and assist the other research assistant with her next interview.

This system of in—field observation and debriefing was aimed at increasing the
degree of conformity across different interviewers. Likewise, at the end of each day, both
research assistants, the focus group moderator, and the candidate would all meet to
discuss the findings, difficulties, and questions of the day. As a result of the training,
interview observation, and daily debriefing sessions, it is believed that a high degree of

inter-interviewer consistency was maintained for the individual qualitative interviews.

Interview Guide
As mentioned, an interview guide was developed for use during the focus group
interviews and the in-depth individual interviews. The candidate initially designed the
guide in the field after extensive discussions with key informants from the coastal area and
researchers at CINVESTAV and Pronatura. Figure 5 illustrates a facsimile of an English
language version of the initial interview guide prepared by the candidate. It should be
noted that native Spanish speakers conducted all of the interviews in Spanish. The
original guide was organized thematically according to the resource economic literature on
sources of values associated with mangrove wetlands. Although referred to through out
the focus groups and individual interviews, the initial interview guide gave way to a
modified or short-form interview guide.

The practical or short-form interview guide illustrated by Figure 6 grew out of the
necessity of having some uniform questions and respondents’ hesitation to maintain

Spontaneous conversations on the research topic areas. As a result, the research

gfifimfi

119

 

 

Peoples’ Understanding of the Coastal Zone: The Present, Past, and

a)

b)

C)

(1)

Future Value of the Wetlands of Progresso
Thematic Guide

Products they may obtain from wetland:

i) fish

ii) shrimp
iii) Chivita
iv) crab

v) wood
vi) fruit
vii) salt
viii) honey
ix) others

Services they may receive (directly/indirectly) from the wetland

i) recreation

ii) water filtration

iii) flood protection

iv) bird & fish habitat

v) hatchery/fishery locations

vi) habitat for endangered and rare species

Conversion of wetland to other uses (benefits & costs)

i) Urbanization-permanent residences, vacation residences,

roadways, stores, etc.

ii) Industrialization-salt, fish, clothing, petroleum factories

iii) Nature reserves or national parks-restricted use and access

iv) Farms-agriculture or aquaculture concerns

Existence Value

i) Value for future generations to have the wetlands-characteristics
that they would like their children to see, experience, use. etc.

ii) Value to have possible use of wetland in the future-aspects of

wetland they would like to have for possible use in future.

It is desired to ascertain what people know, how they describe what they know, how they
understand the ecological and social systems, and what is important about the wetland to

Before focusing on specifics, begin by asking a general open-ended question about the
Wetland in general. At the end of the conversation, return to this question and address
the specifics learned during the session.

 

Figure 5. Initial Interview Guide

 

120

 

 

Good day/afternoon, my name is of INPROMER and we are doing a

study to learn about the opinions and thoughts of the people of this area on natural

resources and the environment. This discussion is completely voluntary and will take

about an hour or so. There is complete confidentiality. There are no right or wrong

answers. If there is a question that you do not want to answer you don’t have to answer

and we’ll go on. You can leave the interview at any time with penalty. Do you agree to
proceed?

I appreciate your helping us. Is it all right, if I audiotape record our meeting?

WWSP‘MPP’NI‘

v-ai—ip—A
NHO

How do people live in this village?

The area that is on the opposite side from the sea, what is it called?
How would you describe [that area]? What is?

Can people live from what they obtain from [that area]?

What things do people get from [that area]?

What are the principle benefits from {that area]?

Do you believe [that area] should be protected and/or conserved?
How could [that area] be made more productive?

Would you be in favor of an effort to improve [that area]?

. In what way could [the area] be improved? How could you contribute?
. Do you have confidence in a program for improving [the area]?

. Who (e. g., government agency/university/private business) would you have the most

confidence in for undertaking an improvement project?

 

Figure 6. Modified Focus Group Guide

 

121

assistants, focus group moderator, and candidate worked on a modified interview guide
for the focus groups. The modified guide identified a few specific questions that could be
used to engage the participants in a conversation in areas relevant to the research question.
Additionally, the daily debriefing sessions among the research assistants, Mr.
Garcia, and the candidate resulted in additional questions and themes that were attempted
to be explored. During focus group interviews and individual interviews, attempts were
made to ask respondents to recount their last use or a typical day’s use of the mangrove
resource. This sort of “grand-tour question” (Spradley 1979) was used to get respondents
to volunteer information that revealed their underlying values, difficulties, and realities
associated with their ecosystem. As the researchers learned more about various aspects of
the ecosystem, efforts were made to learn more, if possible, about them. For example, as
it became apparent that the safe harbor channel drastically altered the ecological balance of
the estuary, researchers probed for respondents’ understanding of relative costs and
benefits of the project, how and why the project came about, and other changes that
affected them and the ecosystem. The modified focus group guide was used for the

individual interviews.

Guide and Question Observations

The research methods were qualitative and as such no discussion guide could be strictly
followed without interfering with the natural dynamics of conversation underlying both
methods. Efforts were made to address most of the important themes with each group
and in each interview. The vagaries of individual personalities and group dynamics more

often than not necessitated straying form the discussion guides. However, such guides

122

helped interviewers and moderators continually focus the discussions onto topics of
interest for the dissertation research.

The dissertation research was grounded in economic theory regarding
environmental and natural resource valuation. Initially, the researcher developed an
extensive set of possible questions that aimed to address all of the possible use and nonuse
values respondents held for the mangrove ecosystem. For example, the literature identifies
a wide range of use values, indirect use values, and nonuse values attributable to
mangrove wetlands. Some initial focus groups were conducted in Pro gresso to help the
candidate and his research assistants determine the saliency and relevance of the various
possible use, indirect use, and nonuse questions. Based upon those preliminary focus
groups, the researchers were able to narrow the range of question topics.

The interview guides illustrated above, while important in training and instructing
the moderator and interviewers, do not reflect the actual language or order of the
questions asked of respondents. As mentioned above, an ethnographic approach to
learning about respondents' perceptions, knowledge, and concerns was adopted. Focus
groups and interviews used big tour questions such as: How do you live?, What do you
do here?, and What is this area called? The sessions also used mini-tour questions to elicit
further information on topics of interest to the researchers (those relevant to the economic
research objectives). These mini-tour questions included: Can you describe a typical day
of fishing for me?, What are the bordos you mentioned and how do they affect your
everyday life?, and When you can't fish in the sea because of the weather (or there are no

fish) what do you do? These sorts of ethno graphically based questions and the use of

123
nondirective prompts to elicit information helped to reveal information about the sources
of resource values that were most important and relevant to respondents.

Combining of an ethnographic approach to questioning with the qualitative
methods led to an evolution of the actual questions used and information learned. The
interview guide continually evolved as did the moderator and interviewers' question choice
and phrasing. While the grand tour questions of the final groups and interviews were
similar to those of earlier sessions, the mini-tour questions and follow-ups continually
changed. As information about a particular resource value, use, or problem became
apparent to the researchers, efforts were made to elicit new or different information with
the mini-tour follow-up questions. This approach to preliminary analysis for economic
valuation studies seemed particularly useful in revealing the array of resource services that
respondents seemed to value. Likewise, it enabled the researchers to reach some
preliminary conclusions about the apparent absence of respondents' concern with other

values attributable by to the mangrove wetlands.

F o C U s G R 0 U P s

The focus group interviews conducted for the dissertation research project ranged in size
from 4 to 7 participants. As discussed above, the doctoral candidate prepared a focus
group guide in collaboration with Mexican natural resource researchers. The guide was
then discussed at length with the professional focus group moderator and ultimately
modified for use with both the focus groups and individual interviews. Mr. Garcia

conducted all of the focus group interviews with the assistance of the doctoral candidate.

124

The focus groups were held in participants’ homes, local eating establishments, as
well as a centrally located home that was rented for use by the researchers. All
participants were told of the voluntary nature of their participation as well as the strict
confidentially of their participation and their responses. Informed consent was received
from participants in conformity with UCHRIS approval. Audiotape recording of the
sessions did not begin unless all of the participants consented to the audiotape recording
of the interviews. Unlike focus groups in the United States, Mexican cultural practices
precluded investigators from giving participants enticements or compensation for their
participation. It seems that people in this part of Mexico would be offended by an offer of
goods or money in exchange for “having a conversation.”

Only after both the moderator and the candidate were satisfied with the interview
guide, the training of research assistants, and the facilities for the group sessions, did the
recruitment of actual focus groups begin. The focus groups lasted between 40 minutes
and 2 hours. On average, most of the focus group sessions took a little more than an
houn

The focus groups began with the participants meeting the moderator, the
candidate, and the research assistants that recruited them at the designated interview site.
Participants were offered a cold beverage and snacks as they were asked to take a seat
around a large table. Additional beverages and snacks were available throughout the
sessions. After all the invitees had arrived or 10—15 minutes had passed from the
designated start time, Mr. Garcia made the preliminary introductions and got the focus

group session underway.

125

After explaining the goals of the project in the most general terms, Mr. Garcia,
followed the approved format and asked participants for their informed consent to be
interviewed. Next, participants were asked if it would be all right to audiotape record the
session. With those preliminaries out of the way, the moderator began to develop a
rapport with the group. Invariably, Mr. Garcia would begin by asking the participants a
broad open-ended question such as “What do you do here?” or “How do you live here?”
Although there was a focus group discussion guide, the dynamics of each group often
prevented certain areas from receiving equal treatment. The moderator maintained an
engaged but impartial role as he tried to encourage all of the participants to contribute to
the discussion and address the points of research interest. At various times, Mr. Garcia
successfully used his being from another part of Mexico as an excuse for asking
participants to explain their feelings, uses, understanding, and problems concerning
Chelém Lagoon.

Because of the research interest in possibly using CV in conjunction with the
valuation of the mangrove wetland of Chelém Lagoon, Mr. Garcia occasionally would ask
participants a hypothetical questions about some possible changes, change agents, uses, or
status of Chelém lagoon. Some of these hypotheticals involved a private change agent
(e. g., a fish processing concern), some involved governmental change agents (e. g., the
Mexican navy or the national government), and some involved universities (e.g., UADY
or CINVESTAV). These were all attempts to test the plausibility of using hypotheticals
with the target populations.

As mentioned, interview guides for the focus groups were developed and

continuously modified. However, the actual interviews and question orders did not follow

126

a strict pattern. Every attempt was made to inquire, in several ways, about the
participants’ uses, perceptions, opinions, and experiences vis-a-vis the Chelém Lagoon and
its environs. Likewise, attempts were made to include all participants and their opinions in
the discussions. The community setting did present some interesting challenges and the
researchers needed to adapt as circumstance required. For example, participants’ family
members sometimes interrupted sessions and events in the area sometimes caused a
participant to excuse themselves.

At the conclusion of each focus group, participants were thanked and given the
name, address, and telephone number of a nearby Mexican collaborator should they need
or desire to contact the researchers in the future. Often, participants asked if they could
be of further help and even offered on a number of occasions to take the researchers out in

boats to see the expansive mangrove ecosystem.

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

Nineteen individual qualitative interviews were conducted with community members from
Chelém and Chubuma. Initially at the dissertation proposal stage, the use of individual
qualitative interviews was considered as a means for validating the finding and conclusions
drawn from the focus groups. However, as the research design developed, so too did the
role of using individual interviews in. the dissertation. Not only, were individual interviews
used to test the findings of focus groups but also their use was also an effort to compare
and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the two qualitative research methods in a

develOping country setting.

127

As discussed above, respondents were recruited by canvassing randomly selected
sections of the communities. Individuals were canvassed primarily by going door to door.
When individuals were recruited from public places, they were asked if there was a quite
place that they could be interviewed. Efforts were made to place the respondents in the
individual interviews in circumstances that approximated the circumstances of a face—to-
face survey. Interview participants were told that the study was sponsored by a university,
that their participation was voluntary, and that their identity and responses would be kept
confidential. Respondents were also asked if their interviews could be audiotape
recorded.

The qualitative interviews were generally 30 minutes long and not highly
structured. Like the focus group interviews, a script with several key research
questions/topics was used for the individual interviews. However, the free flowing nature
of qualitative interviewing required interviewers to introduce the discussion topics as they
were able. The interviewers of the individual interviews attempted to encourage
informants to freely volunteer information as opposed to asking for responses to closed—
ended questions. At the end of the interview, respondents were thanked for their
participation and were instructed how to contact the researchers if they had additional

questions or comments.

DATA COLLECTION

Regardless of the type of study being conducted, attention should be paid to how the data
are collected, independent of the form that they might take (Rudestrom and Newton

1992). Data recording has two elements—fidelity and structure. Fidelity is the accuracy

128

of the data collected as compared to the original phenomenon being recorded, while
structure refers to the constraints of the data collection method used. For example, a
written survey is a highly structured form of data collection that may have more or less
fidelity depending on whether it was administered face-to-face, by mail, or via the
telephone. Some typical choices for qualitative research data collection include the use of
diaries, field notes, videotape recording, and audiotape recording.

The candidate did use field notes, debriefing notes, and notes from meeting with
experts and decision makers in the region to help design the study, interpret some
responses, and develop a better understanding of the ecosystem of Chelém Lagoon and
the people dependent upon it. However, the primary data of the focus groups and
individual interviews were audiotape recorded. The candidate chose to use audiotape
recordings of all interviews because of recordings’ high fidelity and little structure. That
is, responses would be accurately captured and respondents would not be constrained by
written forms or awkward pauses in conversations as their comments were written down.
This practice conforms with the recommendations of Morgan (1997), Weiss (1994), and
other qualitative researchers.

The use of audiotape recordings was particularly helpful because it allowed for the
typing of accurate transcripts for subsequent use in data analysis (Strauss and Corbin
1990; Krippendorff 1980). The candidate to protect against data loss first duplicated the
audiotapes. Then the original tapes were transcribed (in the original Spanish) following a
format that allowed for differentiation between utterances by respondents and those by the
moderator (interviewer). The transcriptions were then converted into a text-based

computer file format so that they could be read by a variety of computer software

129

pro grams. The text-based computer files of the transcripts were then reviewed for
accuracy by a research assistant as well as by the candidate. These verified transcripts of

the focus groups and individual interviews became the data used in subsequent data

analyses.

DATA ANALYSIS

Although data and information from many sources and of a variety of types were collected
during the many stages of the research program, the transcripts of the focus groups and
individual qualitative interviews formed the primary data source analyzed in this
dissertation. The audiotape recordings and corresponding transcripts of the interviews
were labeled to indicate their date, location, type of interview, as well as the gender and
number of respondents. As mentioned, the tapes were then duplicated and transcribed
into computer files for use, with a variety of computer software programs.

The initial step in qualitative analysis is reading the interview transcripts. Then the
analyst has several options. Maxwell put those options into three groups: “memos,
categorizing strategies (such as coding and thematic analysis), and contextualizing
strategies (such as narrative analysis, individual case studies, and ethnographic
microanalysis)”(l996, 78). Each of these groups have relative strengths and weaknesses.
The usefulness of categorization is that it helps outsiders to understand the particular
individuals and their situations under investigation. However, Maxwell makes the point
that questions about similarities and differences across settings or individuals needs some

contextualizing of the categorizing strategy in order to place things in proper perspective.

130

The general data analysis plan involved several steps. They included: reading the
transcripts to get a “feel” for themes, issues, and concerns; performing open and then axial
coding on a subset of transcripts; using the axial codes and the themes revealed by them to
develop a thematic coding system; coding every transcript using a uniform coding system;
and analyzing the frequencies and cross-tabulations of the various themes (codes) within

and between sets of transcripts.

C o D I N G

A main categorizing strategy in qualitative research is coding or doing some form of
content analysis. However, the goal of qualitative research is not to produce simply
counts of things, but to “fracture” the data and rearrange it into categories that facilitate
the comparison of data within and between categories (Maxwell 1996; Strauss 1987).
Krippendorff (1980) who wrote the preeminent work on content analysis emphasized the
importance of content analysis to be used to reveal symbolic phenomena. As Krippendorff
(1980) pointed out, content analysis: (1) is fundamentally empirical in orientation,
exploratory, concerned with real phenomena, and predictive in intent; (2) transcends
conventional notions of content as an object of concern and is linked to conceptions of
symbolic phenomena; and (3) is developing a methodology of its own that enables
researchers to plan, communicate, and to critically evaluate a research design. Therefore,
the dissertation used a systematic scheme to code the data and analyze it in order to
understand the phenomena of import to the local beneficiaries as well as to potential

designers of valuation studies.

131

The first step in the analysis of the data collected using focus group and individual
interviews was to read the transcripts. Then the task was to begin the coding process.
The process of developing a coding scheme drew on existing literature on the possible
sources of mangrove wetland values and the elements necessary for designing a CV study.
This initial grounding in the literature is one manner to initiate what Strauss and Corbin
(1990) refer to as grounded theory analysis of qualitative data. That is, a subset of data
(an interview or two) was selected for open coding-each word or so was coded using an
unstructured, scheme that roughly fit into the theoretical framework of economic
valuation on nonmarket resources. To do this, the transcripts were loaded first into
HyperRESEARCH.

HyperRESEARCH is a qualitative computer software package that enables
researchers to use unlimited numbers of unstructured coding schemes with textual data.
This helped by allowing the coding and recoding of units of text as the research
progressed. As a result, certain themes among the codes became apparent. However, the
inability of the software to facilitate comparisons for groups of codes as well as the
software’s inability to generate counts, frequencies and cross-tabulations analyses was
frustrating. This led the candidate to try a different qualitative research software package
that is well-regarded by qualitative researchers-QSR NUD-IST.

QSR NUD-IST allowed for the importation of the transcripts as source material
for analysis. Unlike HyperRESEARCH, QSR NUD-IST did not allow unstructured
coding schemes. As a result, the previous coding scheme associate with the transcripts
had to be re-conceptualized to fit the inverted tree scheme of coding categories used by

QSR NUDIST. While this programs ultimately failed to allow the candidate to conduct

132

sufficiently sophisticated numerical analysis of the codes, it did provide a wonderful
opportunity to read, label, and formally develop a coding scheme for the transcripts.

Although these programs were ultimately unsuccessful in allowing for the
computation of the desired cross-tabulations and frequency tables, they both helped
develop the system of codes ultimately used with the data. Finally, the transcripts were
each coded by hand using a uniform coding scheme. The codes and their frequencies were
recorded for each transcript in a Microsoft® Excel workbook. When coding of all of the
transcripts was complete, the Excel workbook file was converted and subsequently

loaded into SPSS for the required multiple response data analysis.

CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS

Together with the contextualizing of narrative analysis, the categorizing activity of coding
the transcripts allows for cross-case analysis. That is, groups of respondents and their
data can be examined for similarities and differences. The data, by rearranging it into
categories, can be used to understand the individuals and situations. In this study, data
were eventually grouped according to interview type (focus group or individual
interview), gender (male or female), and location (Chelém or Chubuma).

Particularly interesting and theoretically relevant observations about the “findings”
of the focus groups and interviews as represented by the presence and relative frequency
of particular codes were used to begin the statistical analysis of the data. The data set
produced by the transcription and coding of the focus group and individual interviews
allowed for examination on many layers. In particular, data were examined based on the

nature of the interview (focus group/individual), locale of respondents

133

(Chelém/Chubuma), and gender (male/female). Significant similarities and differences
between and across these layers were sought out in the analysis. In particular, cross-
tabulations and frequency analysis were performed. In this manner, it was hoped to
undertake a cross-case analysis of the qualitative data learned using both focus groups and

individual qualitative interviews in the two communities of Chelém and Chubuma.

CHAPTER 4

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

This chapter presents an analysis as well as the findings of the data collected from focus
groups and individual qualitative interviews in the villages of Chelém and Chubuma.
During the field research component of the dissertation, more than 40 individual
interviews and focus groups were conducted in and around the area of Chelém Lagoon
(See Appendix A). When transcribed, the focus groups and individual interviews
produced over 500 pages of data. While much has been written about how and why to
conduct qualitative research, little has been written about what to do with the data after
the research has been conducted (Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub 1996).

As previously discussed, the limitations of the fieldwork and data collection did not
enable the researchers to obtain age, gender, income, education, occupation, and other
socio-economic data on each individual respondent. This information would have been
extremely useful in developing a better understanding of the communities and in
interpreting the various results of this study. However, the absence of this information
does not diminish the value of the information learned.

This dissertation uses a purposeful research design together with an analytical
procedure that combines qualitative research’s “grounded theory” approach and some

basic analytical techniques. Using open and then axial coding, a set of selective codes for

134

135
the data was developed. This selective coding scheme was applied to all of the qualitative
data collected from the villages. The coded transcripts were used to construct a database
that allowed for the systematic analysis of the frequencies and cross-tabulations of code
categories and responses by transcript, across methods, across communities, and across

genders.

BACKGROUND

QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

According to Yin (1989), “data analysis consists of examining, categorizing, tabulating, or
otherwise recombining the evidence, to address the initial propositions of a study.” The
initial objectives and hypotheses of a study dictate the form or forms of data analysis.
Qualitative research, by its nature, dictates different approaches to data analysis than
quantitative methods. The dissertation and its focus on evaluating the efficacy of
alternative qualitative methods required the development of an analytical procedure that

built on standard qualitative data analysis and allowed for cross-method examination.

Grounded Theory

Strauss and Corbin (1990) developed and articulated one leading approach to qualitative
data analysis—grounded theory. Their approach systematically and iteratively examines
qualitative data to reveal the themes and relationships between those themes apparent in
the data. In other words, the analysis of qualitative data is process of several types of

coding activities. Strauss and Corbin describe a process that works with the data and

136

applies different types of codes or label to different units of data—words, phrases,
paragraphs.

Strauss and Corbin suggest that by analyzing qualitative data researchers are able
to reveal grounded theories—that is, relationships between and information about
phenomena under investigation. An iterative process, they instruct, reveals such
understanding. The process involves three types of coding practices: (1) open coding, (2)
axial coding, and (3) selective coding. According to Strauss and Corbin, such a method of
analysis allows researchers to break down qualitative data, to conceptualize, and to put the
data back together in new ways. They believe that through the use of memos, and other
methods of documenting decisions, qualitative analysts can support conclusions reached
about the meaning of the data. While Strauss and Corbin seem to generally disapprove of
the use of mathematics and statistics for qualitative data analysis, other qualitative
researchers explicitly recognize the usefulness of such analytical methods with qualitative

data (e.g., Krippendorff 1980; Lederman 1990).

Analytical Methods

Still widely acknowledged as the leader in the field of content analysis, Krippendorff
(1980) developed an intricate method of coding and counting qualitative data sources.

For example, Krippendorff and others have used transcripts of media broadcasts as data
sources for testing various hypotheses by analyzing word frequencies and the relationships
between word occurrences. Krippendorff, in his treatise Content Analysis (1980), laid out
a data recording process, analytical techniques, and the inferential constructs necessary to

undertake content analytical research. This method may be applied to a variety of

137
qualitative data sources. More than 15 years later, Content Analysis is still in print and
researchers are still using Krippendorff’s methods.

Lederman (1990) suggested a convenient framework for classifying the types of
analytical methods that can be used with qualitative data. According to Lederman, several
different and not necessarily mutually exclusive analytical methods may be used for
qualitative data analysis. These analytical approaches to qualitative data analysis were
grouped by Lederman into four categories: (1) coding data into predetermined categories
(2) developing categories based on data and then coding data, (3) using the data as a basis
for summary statements that capture the main ideas, and (4) interpreting the data through
intensive analytic techniques.

Lederman’s first category—coding into predetermined categories—resembles the
use of qualitative data as a surrogate for survey or other highly structured research with a
priori notions of individuals’ range of responses. The classifications and range of possible
response categories are constructed prior to reviewing the actual data. Lederman’s
second category of analysis—developing categories based on the data—roughly
approximates the approach advocated by Strauss and Corbin (1990). That is, the data is
looked to, examined, and categorized based upon what is learned from the data itself. The
third type of analysis categorized by Lederman (1990)—extracting summary statements—
is probably the most widely used approach to qualitative data analysis. The general use
and acceptance of extractive statements as qualitative data analysis probably reflects the
ease with which this sort of “analysis” can be accomplished. However, this approach is
certainly susceptible to claims of inherent subjectivity and researcher bias. The use of

“typical” statements, while instructive and often persuasive, does not, in and of itself, offer

138

objective bases for evaluating the representativeness of such statements. Lederman’s
fourth category—intensive analytic techniques—include traditional forms of content
analysis and other methods of using mathematical and statistical tools to analyze

qualitative data.

Analysis Objectives \4

Krueger (1994) has pointed out some key elements that should underlie any analysis of
qualitative data regardless of analytical methods selected. Krueger asserted that the
strength of qualitative data analysis is that the analytical framework allows for the
examination of underlying phenomena. According to Krueger (1994), analysis of
qualitative data should allow researchers to: (1) find the big ideas, (2) consider the choice
and meaning of words, (3) consider the context(s) of qualitative data collection , and (4)
consider the consistency of responses.

Big Ideas

Krueger (1994) and other qualitative researchers (e.g., Weiss 1994) believe that big ideas
or themes emerge (become apparent) as researchers examine and work with multiple data
sources and identify convergence of ideas and issues among several groups and/or
participants. That is, by continuously reviewing and studying the information obtained
from the various participants, certain overall themes, issues, and concerns should become
apparent to the outside observer. These themes may or may not be specifically recognized
by the participants and they may or may not be specifically addressed by every group or

participant. However, qualitative data analysis allows and even requires researchers to

139
extract and derive the major ideas and themes of respondents stemming from the topic(s)
of discussion.
Words and Meaning
As Krueger (1994) noted, the examination of qualitative research findings also allows
researchers to consider the words and language that participants choose to discuss and to
address the various issues and themes. That is, qualitative researchers should be able to
focus on the language, meaning, and manner respondents use to communicate. The
research focus may be aimed at both everyday language use as well as language use as it
relates to a specific topic or subject of interest to researchers. Researchers can also use
qualitative data analysis to reveal the underlying meanings of the words and language used
by respondents.
Context and Consistency
Likewise, Krueger (1994) pointed out the ability and need for qualitative data analysis to
determine and account for the extent to which the participants’ comments were influenced
by the context in which they were made. That is, qualitative data analysis can and should
examine and be sensitive to the type of interview, the composition of the group (if any),
and other factors that might influence the quality and character of the data. Furthermore,
qualitative data analysis should, according to Krueger (1994), examine and account for the
consistency of responses (or lack thereof) throughout and across interviews. That is, the
analysis of qualitative data needs to account for the extent to which responses appear to
vary across interviews, methods, and locations. Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub (1996)
stressed the importance for qualitative data analysis to determine the extent of consistency

of responses across interviews.

140

As a result of the foregoing, the data analysis undertaken in this dissertation
attempted to meet several goals. The qualitative data was analyzed so that the researcher
could develop an understanding of the “big ideas”; appreciate the words and meanings of
respondents; and evaluate the context effects and consistency of responses (Krueger
1994). The dissertation used a coding procedure that drew on the grounded theory
approach of Strauss and Corbin (1990) and analyzed the codes using statistical methods
recognized by Krippendorff (1980) and others. This approach enabled the researcher to

assess the efficacy of using the two qualitative methods in a developing country.

CODING PROCEDURE V.

As already mentioned, the qualitative data (focus groups and individual interviews) were
transcribed for coding and further analysis. The coding procedure used two different
types of qualitative computer programs (HyperRESEARCH and QSR NUDoIST). Then
the candidate developed a spreadsheet of the open and axial codes in Microsoft® Excel.
Finally, a database of selective codes and information about each transcript was compiled
using SPSS. This coding procedure roughly followed the coding scheme prescribed by
Strauss and Corbin (1990). That is, it moved from coding virtually every wondro’fjsome of

the transcripts (open coding) to the development of coding schemes that captured

categories and themes (axial and selective coding).

Open Coding

At first, a subset of transcripts was randomly selected for open coding. Almost every

word of four transcripts was coded without any structure. The theoretical and practical . ‘A "

design considerations of CV studies did provide a theoretical framework for coding.

141
However, no fixed, prearranged codes were used. Respondents’ words, ideas, issues, and
contributions were coded using terms that accurately described them or that placed them
in a like group of similar utterances. To do this, the software program HyperRESEARCH
waumd

HyperRESEARCH allows transcripts to be flexibly coded once they are imported
into the program. To import files, they must be converted from their word processing and
other formats into text only files. Using text macro programs, the text files were
reformatted so that uppercase and lowercase letters reflected interviewer and respondent
utterances, respectively. These text only versions of the transcripts were then loaded into
HyperRESEARCH. The HyperRESEARCH software allows words, sentences,
paragraphs, and even entire transcripts to be coded using an ever expanding list of codes.
The codes may be applied to units of text identified only by their position relative to other
text units in the file. This system allowed multiple codes to be applied to text units of
varying and overlapping size. Furthermore, it allowed the researcher to focus on and label
the words and meanings of the respondents without being constrained by a coding
structure or hierarchical format.

When the initial open coding of the sub-sample of transcripts was finished, there
were numerous and sometimes repetitive codes. More importantly however, certain
themes, ideas, issues, and word usage had become apparent to the candidate and in the
codes themselves. The open codes developed using HyperRESEARCH could be listed
either in order of their appearance in the text or in alphabetical order (See Figure 7 and
Figure 8). Review of the codes created during the open coding with HyperRESEARCH

permitted the beginning of the reorganization of data using codes/categories. Such

142

 

 

CHELEM - Sort by Ref. - Febla

 

CaseNarne CodeName CodeLocat: ion Code‘rype

Feb1a MEN char 1 to 17871 of page 1 of FEBENGIAIXT TEXT
CHELEM char 210 17871 of page 1 of FEBENGIAJXT TEXT
FEBRUARY char 2 to 17871 of page 1 of FEBENGIATXT TEXT
QUESTION Way of Life char 8410 113 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
FISHING Way of Ufe char 122 to 167 of page 1 of FEBENGIATXT TEXT
QUESTION Fishing Import char 174 to 498 of page 1 of FEBENGIAIXT TEXT
FISHING Small Boats char 207 to 308 of page 1 of F E8ENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Very Important char 207 to 308 of page 1 of FEBENGIAJXT TEXT
FISHING Coastal char 208 to 308 of page 1 of FEBENGtA.TXT TEXT
QUESTION Fishing Effort char 315 to 330 of page 1 of F EBENGIAIXT TEXT
FISHING Coastal 1to2hrs char 337 to 448 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Coastal most dot char 401 to $60 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
QUESTION Fishing Partici char 455 to 562 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
COMMERCE Middlemen char $65 to 962 of page 1 of F EBENG1 A.TXT TEXT
COMMERECE Sell Catch char 569 to 2072 of page 1 of F E8ENG1A.TXT TEXT
COMMERCE Mlddlemen I char 570 to 617 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
COMMERCE Direct Sales char 1041 to 1822 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
LACK OF MEANS Direct S char 1043 to 1228 of page 1 of F EBENGIATXT TEXT
QUESTION Sell Catch Dir char 1043 to 1823 of page 1 of FEBENGIAIXT TEXT
COMMERCE Direct Sales char 1130 to 1184 of page 1 of FEBENGIAJXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga char 1913 to 2040 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Subsistence char 1913 to 2132 of page 1 of F EBENGIAIXT TEXT
FISHING Coastal altematlv char 1914 to 2040 of page 1 of F EBENGIAIXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga nets char 1914 to 2072 of page 1 of F EBENGtAJ'XT TEXT
CIENAGA Last Resort char 1914 to 2132 of page 1 of FEBENGIAJXT TEXT
SURVIVAL bc Cienaga char 1938 to 2040 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
QUESTION What is Ciena char 2191 to 2209 of page 1 of FEBENGIATXT TEXT
CIENAGA Sea Water circu char 2192 to 2861 of page 1 of FEBENGIAJ'XT TEXT
CIENAGA Crab char 2216 to 2270 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT ‘
PUERTO Crab Fishing char 2216 to 2472 of page 1 of F EBENGIAJXT TEXT
CIENAGA Creek char 2217 to 2270 of page 1 of F EBENGIAJXT TEXT
CIENAGA Crab char 221710 2272 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
PUERTO Sea Water enter char 2350 to 3183 of page 1 of F EBENGIAIXT TEXT
CIENAGA Sea Water circu char 2479 to 2862 of page 1 of FEBENGI A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga nets char 2819 to 2984 of page 1 of F EBENGIAIXT TEXT
PUERTO Fishing nets char 281910 2984 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga mullet char 2866 to 3183 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga seabass char 2867 to 3183 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Way of Life char 2867 to 3183 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Catch char 2984 to 3183 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga chivita char 2984 to 3183 of page 1 of F E8ENG1A.TXT TEXT
QUESTION Cienaga Usef char 3190 to 3624 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Useful char 3191 to 3526 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT " 't'.’
CIENAGA Use seasonal char 3255 to 3690 of page 1 of FEBENGI A.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Overfishing char 3323 to 3624 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Depletion no cont char 3323 to 3772 of page 1 of F EB ENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Use all year char 4018 to 4463 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Use seasonal char 4018 to 4463 of page 1 of F EBENGIAIXT TEXT
CIENAGA Useful char 4018 to 4463 of page 1 of F EBENGIAJXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga no altern char 411510 4463 of page I of FEBENGULTXT TEXT
LACK OF MEANS So Chivl char 4195 to 4330‘ of page I of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga import: char 4510 to 4764 of page 1 bf FEBENGIAIXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga chivita char 4643 to 4671 of page 1 of F EBENGtAJ’XT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga mullet char 4672 to 4766 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga nets char 467210 5371 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
QUESTION Mullet Use char 4771 to 4804 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
MULLET Use bait char 4813 to $371 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
MULLET Use eatting char 4974 to 5123 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
LACK OF MEANS So Chivi char 5586 to 5753 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Colection last res char $631 to 5753 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Chivita no equip char 5631 to 5753 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga chivita char 5676 to 5753 of page 1 of F EBENG1 A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga nets char $676 to 5753 of page I of F EBENGIAJXT TEXT
CIENAGA Useful char $676 to 6087 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
LACK OF MEANS So Chivi char 5677 to 5753 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Depletion char 5760 to 5932 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Useful char $760 to 6017 of page 1 ol FEBENGIAIXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga chivita char 5761 to 5932 of page 1 of F ESENGlA.TXT TEXT

 

Figure 7. Sample Open Codes by Location

 

143

 

 

CHELEM - Sort by Name - Febla

 

CaseName CodeName CodeLocat ion Code'rype
Feb1a BELIEVE Co not Gov char 13289 to 13526 of page 1 of FEBENGIATXT TEXT
BELIEVE Co not Gov char 1375610 14184 of page 1 of FEBENGIATXT TEXT
CHELEM char 2 to 17871 of page 1 of F EBENGtA.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Catch 0 char 11155 to 11503 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Catch char 298410 3183 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Catch char 8593 to 9199 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Colection last res char 5631 to 5753 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Depletion no cont char 332310 3772 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Depletion char 5760 to 5932 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Meat Removal char 8665 to 9201 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
CHIVITA Meat Removal char 8800 to 9330 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.1'XT TEXT
CHIVITA Overfishing char 3323 to 3624 of page 1 of FEB ENG1 A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Boat Shelter char 6181 to 6364 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Cleaned char 16836 to 17382 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Crab char 10506 to 11148 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Crab char 2216 to 2270 of page 1 of FEBENGIAJ'XT TEXT
CIENAGA Crab char 2217 to 2272 of page 1 of FEBENGIAIXT TEXT
CIENAGA Creek char 2217 to 2270 of page 1 of FEBENGIAIXT TEXT
CIENAGA Dried Out 4 horn char 12090 to 12404 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Firewood char 9080 to 9602 of page 1 of FEBENGlA.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Fish Ponds pole char 14420 to 14936 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Fish Ponds pole char 17500 to 17859 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Important sustai char 11510to 11711 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Important sustai char 16836 to 17382 of page 1 of F E3ENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Important sustai char 5939 to 6015 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Improve contrib I char 1738910 17860 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Improve contrib I char 17500 to 17859 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Last Resort char 191410 2132 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Salt char 9609 to 10272 of page 1 of FEBENGiA.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Sea Water circu char 2192 to 2861 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Sea Water circu char 2479 In 2862 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Shallow char 6401 to 6624 of page 1 of F EBENGIAIXT TEXT
CIENAGA Subsistence char 11510 to 11711 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Subsistence char 1913 to 2132 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Tortoise char 7811 to 7897 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Tourism fishing char 14317 to 14413 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Tourism flaming char 13118 to 13282 of page 1 of F E3ENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Tourism pcten p char 13289 to 13528 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Tourism polentl char 12322 to 12482 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Tourism potentl char 17500 to 17859 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Tourism talk char 12672 to 12887 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Use all year char 4018 to 4463 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Use seasonal char 3255 to 3690 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Use seasonal char 401810 4463 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Useful char 3191 to 3526 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Useful char 401810 4463 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Useful char 5676 to 6087 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Useful char 5760 to 6017 of page 1 of F EBENGtA.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Useful char 5975 to 6015 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
CIENAGA Useful char 6182 to 6364 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
COMMERCE Direct Sales char 1041 to 1822 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
COMMERCE Direct Sales char 1130 to 1184 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
COMMERCE Middlemen I char 570 to 617 or page 1 of FEBENGIAIXT TEXT
COMMERCE Middlemen char 565 to 962 of page 1 of FEBENGtA.TXT TEXT
COMMERECE Sell Catch . char 569 to 2072 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
CRAB Octupus Bait char 6745 to 6978 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FEBRUARY char 210 17871 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Chivita no equip char 5631 to 5753 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga Chivita char 11155 to 11505 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga chivita char 2984 to 3183 of page 1 of FEBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga chivila char 4643 to 4671 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga Chivita char 5676 to 5753 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga chivita char 5761 to 5932 of page 1 of FEBENGIA.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga chivita char 8236 to 9198 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga Chivita char 880010 9200 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga crab char 17500 to 17859 of page 1 of F EBENG1A.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga crab char 674410 7144 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT
FISHING Cienaga importa char 4510 to 4764 of page 1 of F EBENGIA.TXT TEXT

 

Figure 8. Sample Open Codes by Name

 

144
reorganization, the key to axial coding, began to reflect the conditions, context,
action/interactional strategies and consequences revealed by the transcripts and open
codes. However, the volume of transcripts that needed to be axial coded and
systematically analyzed using analytical methods made subsequent use of
HyperRESEARCH inappropriate. While a researcher-designed hierarchy of axial codes
could be used in HyperRESEARCH, inputting and applying such a scheme to more than
30 transcripts proved troublesome. Furthermore, the inability of HyperRESEARCH to
perform analytical analyses among and between the more than 30 transcripts (cases) led
the researcher to use a different qualitative software package for the axial coding of the

transcripts.

Axial Coding
The next step in the coding of the transcripts after open coding had be accomplished was
the development and use of axial codes for all the transcripts. In axial coding, the
analytical focus is on putting codes together in ways that make connections between
categories. To accomplish this a coding paradigm is developed and utilized that involves
accounting for conditions, context, action, strategies, and consequences (Strauss and
Corbin 1990). In axial coding subcategories or properties of phenomena or conditions are
grouped accordingly. That is, codes are linked together to help the researcher with theme
analysis and concept development.

To develop a set of axial codes, the candidate used the qualitative research
software package QSR NUDIST. This program offered the promise of greater analytical

tools than HyperRESEARCH as well as a well-structured coding framework. The focus

145

group and individual interview transcripts were loaded as text files into NUD-IST. The
complete list of all of the open codes used (See Figure 8) were grouped and organized by
the candidate in ways that made sense according to both the economic and qualitative
research the literature. These codes were then entered into NUD~IST’s hierarchical
coding array. Figure 9 illustrates how myriad open codes were organized by themes and
categories using the inverted-tree structure of NUD~IST. After all of the codes developed
for use in the initial open coding efforts were incorporated into the axial coding scheme,
several additional transcripts were selected for axial coding. The axial coding of these
additional transcripts revealed the need for some new codes that were placed in the
appropriate place in the coding structure.

Following the advice of Maxwell (1996), the candidate began to test the planned
data analysis methods well before finishing all of the coding. While able to retrieve
instances in selected transcripts when a particular code or codes were used, NUD-IST
unfortunately did not facilitate the type of in-depth analytical analysis desired for the
dissertation. This discovery, while frustrating, did not negate the usefulness of NUD-IST
in developing an axial coding scheme. After coding a few more transcripts to ensure that
the coding scheme was complete, the candidate moved on to applying selective codes to

all of the transcripts and building a database using Microsoft® Excel.

Selective Coding
The candidate developed a selective coding scheme that systematically related axial codes
and categories and that fit the literature after he was satisfied with the axial coding

scheme. “This final integration is not much different than axial coding. It is just done at a

146

 

 

Q.S.R. NUD.IST Power version,

Licensee: Department of Sociology.

revision 3.0.4d GUI.

PROJECT: CHELEM, User Michael Kaplowitz, 4:12 pm, Nov 14, 1996.

(1}
(1
(l
(l
(l
(1
(1
(l
(1
(l
(1
(1
(1
(1

(1

(100
(100

(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100
(100

w
v
V

NIHF‘P'HI‘FJF‘HIJFJFAH
V

h3h4hlhehekehek‘F‘k‘k‘h‘k‘h‘h‘h‘k‘h‘b‘

v

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2

w

w

v

IResource
[Resource/Lagoon
lResource/Lagoon/Direct
lResource/Lagoon/Direct
lResource/Lagoon/Direct
lResource/Lagoon/Direct
IResource/Lagoon/Direct
IResource/Lagoon/Direct
/Resource/Lagoon/Direct
lResource/Lagoon/Direct
Inesource/Lagoon/Direct
/Resource/Lagoon/Direct
IResource/Lagoon/Direct
IResource/Lagoon/Direct
/Resource/Lagoon/Direct
/Resource/Lagoon/Direct
IResource/Lagoon/Direct
IResource/Lagoon/Direct
IResource/Lagoon/Direct
IResource/Lagoon/Direct

Use

Use/Consumptive
Use/Consumptive/Fishing
Use/Consumptive/Fishing/Chivita
Use/Consumptive/Fishing/Shrimp
UseICOnsumptive/Fishing/Sea Bass
Use/Consumptive/Pishing/Crab
use/Consumptive/Fishing/Mullet
Use/Consumptive/Wood
Use/Consumptive/Livestock
Use/Consumptive/forestry
Use/Consumptive/agriculture
Use/Consumptive/hunting
Use/Nonconsumptive
UselNonconsumptive/recreation
Use/Nonconsumptive/tourism
Use/Nonconsumptive/research
Use/Nonconsumptive/navigation

/Resource/Lagoon/Indirect Use
/Resource/Lagoon/Indirect Use/flood control
/Resource/Lagoon/Indirect Use/storm protection

/Resource/Lagoon/Nonuse

'lResource/Lagoon/Indirect Use/external support

/Resource/Lagoon/Nonuse/existence
/Resource/Lagoon/Nonuse/bequest

/Resource/Gulf
/Issues

/Issues/Jobs
/Issues/Alternatives
/Issues/Agent
[Question

IData

IData/Subjects
/Data/Subjects/Gender

/Data/Subjects/Gender/Eemale
/Data/Subjects/Gender/Male

IData/Subjects/Age

IData/Subjects/Age/18-26
/Data/Subjects/Age/26-36

IData/Subjects/Job

/Deta/Shbjects/Job/Fisher
/Data/Subjects/Job/Fisher/Open Sea
/Data/Subjects/Job/Fisher/Open Sea/Octopus
IData/Subjects/Job/Fisher/Open Sea/Fish
/Data/Subjects/Job/Pisher/Open Sea/Other
/Data/Subjects/Job/Fisher/Lagoon
/Data/Subjects/Job/Fisher/Lagoon/Chivita
IData/Subjects/Job/Fisher/Lagoon/Crab
IData/Subjects/Job/Fisher/Lagoon/Sea Bass
/Data/Subjects/Job/Fisher/Lagoon/Mul1et
/Data/Subjects/Job/Painter
IData/Subjects/Job/Mason
/Data/Subjects/Job/Factoryworker

/Data/Subjects/Locale

/Data/Subjects/Locale/Chelem
/Data/Subjects/Locale/Chuburna
/Data/Subjects/Locale/Progresso
/Data/Subjects/Locale/Season
IData/Subjects/Intrvw-Type
/Data/Subjects/Intrvw-Type/Group
IData/Subjects/Intrvw-Type/Individual

/Data/Economic
/Data/Economic/Fishing

/Daca/Economic/Fishing/Lagoon
/Data/Economic/Fishing/Open Sea

/Data/Economic/Factory

 

Figure 9. Sample Axial Coding Scheme

 

147
higher more abstract level of analysis” (Strauss and Corbin 1990, 117). The axial codes
developed using N UD-IST were used as to construct a final set of “selective” codes.
Because qualitative theory building was not the primary objective of the analysis and
because information relative to economic valuation of natural resources was one of the
research’s objectives, the final coding scheme focused on resource beneficiaries’ use,
value, understanding, control, and scenario acceptance regarding the mangrove wetlands.
Excel Spreadsheet
The mechanics of going from open codes and axial codes to selective codes involved a
several step process. First all of the transcripts were coded using the open and axial codes
generated from analysis of the selected samples. In those instances that the coding scheme
was deficient, new codes or categories were inserted. Once a transcript was coded, the
results of this process were entered into a Microsoft® Excel workbook. Each
code/category was given its own worksheet and the particulars of each transcript (e. g.,
interview type, number of respondents, locale, etc.) and a record of each instance of the
presence of a particular code was recorded to classify responses in the Excel spreadsheet.
Table 9 lists the 87 codes or responses categories used in the Excel file. Figure 5
illustrates an example of how the range of respondents’ comments were captured and
codified using the axial classifications and the Excel file.

In total, the Excel file helped to track and organize the wide range of responses for
roughly 90 categories of responses for more than 40 interviews. Each coding category
recorded the range of comments for that code as well as the frequency for that type of
comment for all the transcripts. After the open and axial codes, the range of responses,

their frequencies, and other particulars were recorded in the Excel spreadsheet; further

Table 9. Categories of Responses in Excel Spreadsheet

 

 

Locale of Interview

Type of Interview

Sex of Participant(s)

Age of Participant(s)

Home Town of Participants
Number of Participants
Length of Interview

How people live here
Fishing types

Do many fish

What else do people do
What fish do they catch
When do they fish where
Fewer fish now

Sea v. Wetland for fishing, etc.
Compare locales

Problems people face

If no fish, what then

Best fish

Cienaga names

Cienaga characteristics
Cienaga increase fish
Cienaga fish and stuff
Cienaga what else important
Cienaga other species
Cienaga & seafish

Cienaga future

Cienaga if no Chivita
Cienaga fishing

Cienaga conserve or convert for other things
Cienaga benefits who
Cienaga area productive
Cienaga salt extraction
Cienaga wood extraction
Cienaga how viewed
Cienaga beautiful

Cienaga non economic value
Cienaga flood control
Cienaga who controls it
Cienaga who lives there
Cienaga 1St impression
Cienaga conserve or fill for homes
Cienaga benefits if healthy
Cienaga changes b/c Gilbert

 

Cienaga changes b/c Puerto de Abrigo
Cienaga changes b/c DUMAC dikes
Chivita

Typical day

Chivita how one makes a living
Chivita who makes their living
Tourists attracted to Cienaga

Flamin goes

Tourists here

Tourism scenario

Flamingo scenario

Vacationers why come here
Vacationers go to Cienaga
Vacationers know Cienaga
Vacationers changes over time
Hypothetical invest in tourism
Hypothetical if no Cienaga
Hypothetical fill in Cienaga
Hypothetical develop Cienaga
Hypothetical support for fish farm
Hypothetical factory and clean Cienaga
Hypothetical NGO clean

Hypothetical factory and fill Cienaga
Hypothetical 2 companies 1 clean Cienaga
Hypothetical 2 companies jobs v. clean
Hypothetical N GO clean but contribute
Hypothetical 2 companies clean v. homes
Hypothetical close Cienaga
Hypothetical jobs v. access
Hypothetical close Cienaga who gets hurt
How make change

Believe plans for change

Who would you believe

Where would you meet

Who controls roads

Who controls garbage

What about other areas

Restrictions on Cienaga work
Restrictions on certain species
Restrictions how work

Restrictions on octopus

Restrictions on octopus work
Interesting Notes

Economic Data & Numbers

 

 

149

 

 

 

Figure 10. Sample Excel Category Worksheet

 

150

reduction and selective coding of the transcripts was undertaken using SPSS. The Excel
file of axial codes provided a means for not only recording interesting findings, economic
data, and comments of particular interest, it also allowed for the quantification of a wide
range of responses This database formed the basis for the final, selective coding scheme
and helped support the data analysis later performed. By grouping the codes into
theoretically consistent categories and by allowing multiple responses for each code
(variable), the roughly 90 categories used in the Excel spreadsheet were able to be
transformed into 36 codes (variables) in a SPSS database.

SPSS Database

The Excel database, representing the open and axial codes derived from the qualitative
data, was subsequently used to derive the selective codes to be analyzed. To do this, the
approximately 90 codes (some having as many as 20 response alternatives) were studied,
rearranged, and regrouped into about 30 theoretically and contextually appropriate
categories and response alternatives. Table 10 below summarizes the codes and
respective meanings that were derived and selected. Appendix B lists the actual codes
(variables) and response alternatives used in the SPSS data file. Appendix C is a copy of
the final SPSS database used in the analyses which follows.

The process of code reduction, consolidation, and selection was time-consuming
and difficult. Transcripts were re-examined to check the validity of the original codes and
the accuracy of the selective coding scheme. While the ability to directly check the textual
context of coded text was lost with the switch from the qualitative software packages of
HyperRESEARCH and NUDsIST to Excel and SPSS, a distinct advantage in statistical

analysis was gained. The use of transcript identification numbers with the Excel and SPSS

151

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10. SPSS Selective Code Summary
Code Meanigq

cclass Who uses Cienaga
Chivita Chivita as resource
chwork Chivita hard work
cname1-4 What do they call wetland
cpercep1-3 How they see wetland
cprod1-6 What products/stuff from wetland
cserv1-2 What services from wetland
ctraits1-4 What traits of wetland
duissue1-2 What issues w/ DUMAC
dumac Mention DUMAC
fewfish1-3 Why few fish
fish1-6 What fish do people catch
fishloc1-3 Where do people fish
flam Flamingoes here

_gender Gender of respondents
helptour Would tourism help
howlive1-4 How do people live here
id Transcript id number
improve1-3 How could people improve wetland
length Length of transcript
locale Locale of interview
nonmkt1-3 Nonmarket benefits of wetland
partic Number (Loanicipants
problem1-4 Resource Problems
puerto Reference to safe harbor
puerlob1-2 Benefits associate w/ harbor
puertoh1-2 Harms associated w/ harbor
recreate Recreation in wetlands
restoct1-2 How do restrictions on Octopus work
restric Are there restrictions
restwork Wetland restrictions could work
rwha11-3 r What is restricted
whynot1-3 Why don’t restrictions work
safenet Wetland a safety net
toursm What about tourism
type2 Focus group or individual interview

 

 

 

152
databases however did provide a reliable method to identify the desired cases and extracts
therefrom to illustrate a particular point or characteristic.

As Appendix B illustrates, each code had a range of alternative response
categories. Some codes had either yes or no responses, while others had In the cases
when more than one response category was present in a transcript, the additional response
categories were recorded in sequentially numbered duplicate codes. For example, some
interviews discussed as many as six different types of fish caught for subsistence or
economic gain. Therefore, six fish codes numbered one to six, each with the full array of
fish responses, were defined for use in the SPSS database.

This format of allowing and accounting for “multiple responses” under a single
code (variable) permitted the full range of responses to be considered in the analysis. It
help to avoid artificially or subjectively limiting the analysis of the data. Likewise,
including data on each interview’s location (Chelém or Chubuma), respondent gender, and
type (focus group or individual) allowed for systematic examination of the context effects
and consistency of responses across gender, interview type, and locale. The SPSS
database, while capturing the range and essence of the qualitative data with its selective
coding scheme, facilitated the statistical analysis among and between various subsets of 31

transcripts totaling more than 500 pages.

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
Lederman (1990)provides a highly useful classification of the range of analytical
approaches for analyzing qualitative data. The dissertation specifically incorporates two

of those methods into its data analysis. First, following the Strauss and Corbin (1990)

153

grounded theory approach, a set of selective codes were developed and applied to the data
and a database was created. Second, the data was interpreted through intensive analytic
techniques focused on the database derived in the previous step. This intensive analytic
analysis relied to a great extent on frequency and cross-tabulation analysis.

Krippendorff (1980) describes analytical techniques as ways to further analysis,
exploration, and discovery of patterns and relationships. According to Krippendorff,
analytical techniques: help to summarize data and represent them so that they can be
better comprehended; allow the discovery of patterns and relationships in the data as well
as the testing of hypotheses; and enable the comparison of data obtained from different
methods. The two primary analytical techniques discussed by Krippendorff are

frequencies and cross-tabulations.

Multiple Response Variables
One of the inherent problems of using statistical analysis with coded qualitative data is that
the codes and categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. That is, there may well be
more than one response to a “question” or more than one issue, idea, or concern raised by
respondents when discussing a particular theme. As a result, the coding of qualitative
data, if true to the nature of the data itself, does not usually allow for organization of the
responses into only one discrete category per code. However, it is possible to capture
qualitative data and codes as categorical variables called multiple response variables.
Multiple response items may be thought of as “questions” (using the survey
research terminology) or themes (codes) that accommodate more than one response.

Because variables in SPSS (and any database) can have only one value per case, a strategy

154

must be used that allows for representing multiple choices. That is, a number of variables
must be defined in such a way that a number of values for each case can be treated as one
multiple response variable.

For the dissertation, it was decided to define themes, ideas, and other items
identified through the coding process as having more than one response per case as
response multiple variables. To do this several database variables were defined for each
theme (e. g., HowLivel, HowLiveZ, etc.) and each of these variables were defined to have
the same range of possible categories of responses (e. g., l=fishing, 2=masonry, 3=factory,
etc.). This allowed the coded data to be entered into the SPSS database and did not
require further data reduction or loss. The multiple category approach allowed for all of
the related database variables (e.g., HowLivel, HowLiveZ, etc.) to be grouped together as
one multiple response variable (e.g., $HOWLIVE) that represented the original qualitative
code or theme. These multiple response variables could then be analyzed using SPSS.
Such an approach accommodated the sometimes wide-range of responses discovered
during the focus groups and interviews without limiting the number of responses that
could be attributed to a single case or a particular theme.

Because standard statistical tests should not be performed with variables that
violate the necessary assumptions underlying such tests, multiple response variables are
not tested using standard statistical tests such as chi-squared analysis. However, multiple
response variables can be systematically studied by examining various counts and
percentages. In other words, the frequencies and cross-tabulations of the multiple
response and other variables can be used in the analysis of the underlying phenomena.

Such types of analyses are displayed in tabular form (Rodeghier 1996). Therefore, the

155
analytical analysis of the selective codes and their possible response categories generated
through the iterative coding process was undertaken by using multiple response

frequencies and multiple response cross-tabulations.

Frequencies

The most common form of representing data, frequencies, serve primarily the summarizing
function of data analysis. That is, the numbers of incidents found in the sample are
recorded and available for comparison and analysis (Krippendorff 1980). Frequencies by
themselves do not necessarily mean much. However, interpreted against several
standards, analysis of frequencies can be instructive. Krippendorff (1980) categorized the
several standards researchers usually have in mind when looking at frequencies as the
standard of uniform distributions, the standard of stable distribution, and the standard of
unbiased representation.

When a variable’s frequency is found to be either larger or smaller than the average
of other variables, attention is warranted because frequencies are assumed to be uniform,
on average, among different variables. Likewise, frequencies are ideally stable over time.
Therefore, changes in frequencies that correspond to differences that can be identified in
treatments (e. g., time, context, etc.) give rise to further consideration because of the
presumption that frequencies are stable. Finally, comparisons of frequencies of samples
that are larger or smaller than expected from the population in its entirety must be

evaluated by explicit justifiable comparisons.

156

Cross-Tabulations
“Many researchers consider cross-tabulations the core of data analysis because so
much. . .data is nominal or ordinal. Cross-tabulations display the joint distribution of two
or more categorical variables” (Rodeghier 1996). Cross-tabulations count the number of
times various combinations of values of variables occur. Control variables can be used to
allow for cross-tabulation analysis of three or more variables at once (Norusis n.d.).

Cross-tabulation of the frequencies of co-occurrences of the values of one variable
and the values of another represent data in termsiof the relations between variables
(Krippendorff 1980). Cross-tabulations allow for the investigation of the relationships
between two or more variables. In his discussion of the use of cross-tabulations in content
analysis, Krippendorff ( 1980) pointed to the value of using cross-tabulations to not only
explore the relationships of variables within a data set but also to validate the results.
Likewise, he suggested validating the data of one data collection method (content

analysis) with data collected using other data collection methods.

FRAMEWORK FOR DATA ANALYSIS

The selections of analytical tools should not be confused with, nor mistaken for, the
objectives of the research project. The framework for analysis should relate to and reflect
the objectives of the research effort. As discussed above, Krueger (1994) spelled-out four
general objectives for doing qualitative data analysis: (1) finding the big ideas, (2)
consideration of the choice and meaning of words, (3) appreciation of context effects, and
(4) evaluation of the consistency of responses. With those objectives in mind, a

framework for analysis was developed to examine the efficacy of the two qualitative

157

methods of learning how local beneficiaries perceive, use, and understand their shared
mangrove ecosystem.

Recall the research design discussed in Chapter 3 illustrated as Figure 4 and
reprinted below as Figure 11. The design used two different methods (focus groups and
individual interviews) with two similar but distinct populations (Chelém and Chubuma)
dependent upon the same ecosystem, to learn about resource use, understanding, and
issues. This design, in addition to permitting an examination of the major ideas, concerns,
and understandings of local beneficiaries, provided the opportunity to also consider the
context and consistency of the qualitative data uncovered during the analytical data
analysis. The frequency of responses could be examined and compared across methods,
across locales, and across gender. This enabled the evaluation of possible context effects
and provided a measure of the consistency and representativeness of the various
responses.

Furthermore, by following Krueger’s qualitative data analysis objectives, the
candidate could identify the selective codes and their corresponding issues and themes that
represented big issue and word meaning items of interest. Further examination of such
codes facilitated the development of a better understanding of the reality of the local
beneficiaries and provided a basis for comparing the relative strengths and weaknesses of
the two qualitative methods. Analytically evaluating selected codes helped identify some
of the similarities and differences regarding resource use and perception in the two
villages. This understanding was supported by further analysis that accounted for the

context (interview type) and consistency (across methods and villages) of responses.

158

 

 

O»

    
  
 
   

 

 

 

 

  
    

 

 

 

Chelém
@vidual
‘ Interviews '

 

   
    
   

Mangrove Ecosystem

t
Chubuma /
\.

 

 

 

   

 

 

 
   

Individual
Interviews

 

 

 

 

Figure 11. Research Design

 

159

The research design allowed for the examination of a variety of research hypotheses. This

dissertation addresses a subset of the possible research questions. It is hypothesized that:

(1) Focus groups yield similar information about environmental and natural
resources to the information revealed from respondents using individual
interviews within the same community.

(Referring to Figure 11, that A = B and C = D);

(2) Similar communities reveal similar information about common
environmental and natural resources when focus groups are used.
(Referring to Figure 11, that A = C); and

(3) Similar communities reveal similar information about common

environmental and natural resources when individual interviews are used.
(Referring to Figure 11, that B = D).

The research design fit quite nicely with the qualitative data analysis framework
suggested by Krueger (1994). That is, the selective codes and themes revealed by the
focus group and individual interview data were used to both test the methodological
hypotheses as well as meet the qualitative research objectives enumerated by Krueger
(1994). Table 11 outlines the general framework used in the dissertation to meet the two-
fold requirements of qualitative research analysis and the analytical analysis necessary to
test the dissertation’s research questions.

The framework used allowed for the candidate to explore the big ideas and word
choices of respondents and also permitted consistency checks and evaluation of context
effects that tested both the substantive and methodological hypotheses. This was done by
comparing all of a code’s categories for consistent response rates with the corresponding
response rates by locale and by method. In other words, the distribution of responses in

focus groups in Chelém for the $HOWLIVE code (e. g., 1A,,) were compared to the

160

Table 11. Data Analysis Framework

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big Idea Word Choice
How Live Problems Wetland Resource Wetland

Chelém focus groups

individual

interviews
Chubuma focus groups

individual 1D,, 2Dn 3D,, 4Dn 5Dn

interviews

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: 11 = each category Option for each code

responses in individual interviews in Chelém (e.g., 1B,,) and with the responses for the
$HOWLIVE variable in focus groups in Chubuma (e. g., 1CD). Similar comparisons were
made with the individual interview data.

Comparisons of the data collected from the two communities using the two
qualitative research methods allowed the researcher to both gain insight and understanding
of local beneficiaries’ view of mangrove ecosystem and test the efficacy of two qualitative

research methods in a developing country.

RESULTS

The focus group and individual interviews revealed much about how local beneficiaries
use, perceive, understand, and refer to their mangrove ecosystem. Certain themes were
readily apparent after only a few focus group sessions; these included concern with the

decrease in fishing productivity, a general distrust of the national government and its

161

projects, and a reliance, past and present, on the wetland ecosystem for survival. Other
themes only became apparent to the researchers after conducting individual interviews.
One in particular, local frustration with a Ducks Unlimited of Mexico, America, and
Canada [DUMAC] project, only was brought up during the individual interviews in
Chubuma.

During the focus groups and individual interviews, the candidate and his research
assistants tried to note the words being used and the dynamics of the focus groups. It was
apparent that the respondents had many different names for the ecosystem and its
component parts. It was not uncommon for the same respondent to refer to the same
species of fish by a Maya name, a common Spanish name, and a local Spanish name.
Because the mangrove wetland itself was the subject of the study, attention was paid to
the words people used to describe and call the wetland ecosystem. The more frequent
names used for this area were wetland (ciénaga), estuary (rr’a), river (rio), and pond(s)
(charcos).

Another general observation that was made at the time of conducting the focus
groups and individual interviews concerned peoples’ occupations. It seemed that virtually
every male person referred to himself as a fisherman, relying on coastal or deep-sea
fishing. However, further discussion often revealed that these same fishermen did not
consider collecting chivita (a small shellfish) to be fishing but that they and their families
spent a majority of their time collecting chivita in the wetland. With these observations
and others, the candidate began the coding process described above as soon as the
transcripts were finished and reviewed. The open, axial, and selective codes and their

combinations were then entered into an SPSS database for analysis.

162

The results of the data analysis are, by necessity, limited to a subset of all possible
combinations of variables and hypotheses. It is fair to say that more than 500 pages of
transcripts can be coded in a variety of ways and that the instant effort is but one means
for trying to understand the significance of what was learned. Furthermore, it represents
only one of many possible ways to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of using
qualitative research methods in a developing country. To provide structure to the
analysis, big issues or word meanings as described above are used as research foci. Doing
so allowed for a systematic comparison of relative frequencies and cross-tabulation data of
information learned from the two communities. This, in turn, allowed for some evaluative
judgments as to the significance of apparent similarities and differences between what was
learned in the two communities and the efficacy of the two research methods.

Selected “big ideas and themes”-—how people live, problems people see, wetland
value, and resource management—and “word meaning and use”—names for wetland—
together with a look at gender differences are examined below. Each topic begins with a
general discussion of the theme based on aggregate frequencies across communities,
methods, and gender. Then the discussion moves to the cross-tabulation examination of
the results broken down by interview type (focus group or individual) and locale (Chelém

or Chubuma). Later the results will be analyzed in light of the research hypotheses.

HOW PEOPLE LIVE
The code (variable) $HOWLIVE was designed to capture the range of respondents’
comments, characterizations, and ideas about how people in their area make a living.

Originally, there were more than 15 open codes that in some way related to this theme.

163

The process of axial and selective coding allowed the creation of four categories that
could accurately capture the range of responses—fishing, masonry/painting, work in
Mérida/factories, and vacation seasonwork. Another code, $FISHLOC, was developed
to capture respondents’ comments on where they actually go fishing.

Two other variables are looked at under this theme—$FISH and $FORWHO.
These variables tried to document comments on the types of fish caught by the resource
beneficiaries and references to who uses the wetland. The idea that respondents see the
wetland as a social safety net seems to have been well documented. However, one idea
that seemed to pervade in all the qualitative research sessions that evaded coding was the
sense that these communities have repeatedly learned how to survive in ever-changing

natural resource and man-made circumstances.

Frequencies
Inspection of the frequencies associated with $HOWLIVE, reported in Table 12, reveals
that 100 percent of the focus groups and individual interviews identified fishing as the
primary occupation. Less than half of the groups and interviews mentioned masonry or
painting as an income source, with vacation season work mentioned by respondents in
fewer than 40 percent of the transcripts. Factory work or commuting to Mérida was
discussed in fewer than 20 percent of the interviews and only accounted for 10 percent of
all responses.

Further analysis of the theme of how people live took place by noting where
respondents reported doing their fishing. Table 13 lists the frequencies of the locations

reported by respondents that they and their families fish. Respondents more or less

164
equally, and by a large majority, indicated that their fishing activities took place in the
wetland and along the coast. Only 3 focus groups or interviews (12 percent) mentioned
deep—sea fishing

The equal reliance on lagoon and coastal fishing is supported by analysis of the
types of fish reported caught by the respondents. As Table 14 illustrates, the species
reported caught most often, in 64 percent of cases, is the chivita, a small crustacean that is
collected from the muddy bottom of Chelém Lagoon. The next most frequently caught
species that was reported (61 percent of cases) was grouper, a sea dwelling fish. The
other species receiving large percentages of responses followed the pattern of being split
between lagoon and coastal species. Crab, shrimp, mojarra are caught in the lagoon while
octopus, conch, and mullet are caught in coastal fishing.

In coding the transcripts, it was observed that on a number of occasions
respondents discussed the wetland ecosystem, specifically the lagoon, as source of living
for women and the poor. It was further observed that there were frequent references to
the wetland providing subsistence to the communities. As a result, the code $FORWHO
was developed and used with all of the transcripts. Table 15 reports the frequencies of the
occurrences the mention of the wetland as a social safety net and a place for women and
the poor to earn a living. Interestingly, almost every transcript that mentioned the users of
the wetland characterized the resource as providing some of a social safety net. In

roughly half of the cases, women were singled out as the primary resource beneficiaries.

165

Table 12. How People Live

 

Pct of Pct of

Category label Count Responses Cases
Fishing 31 49.2 100.0
Masonry/Painting 14 22.2 45.2
Seasonal Work 12 19.0 38.7
G0 to Mérida/Factories 6 9.5 19.4

Total responses 63 100.0 203.2
0 missing cases; 31 valid cases

 

 

 

Table 13. Where People Fish

 

 

Pct of Pct of

Category label Count Responses Cases
coastal fishing 20 47.6 80.0
ciénaga fishing 19 45.2 76.0
deep—sea fishing 3 7.1 12.0

Total responses 42 100.0 168.0

6 missing cases; 25 valid cases

 

 

166

Table 14. Fish Caught

 

 

Pct of Pct of

 

 

 

Category label Count Responses Cases
Chivita 17 17 5 70.8
Octopus 14 14 4 58.3
Grouper 14 14.4 58.3
Crab 11 11.3 45.8
Shrimp 9 9.3 37.5
Mullet 6 6.2 25.0
Mojarra 6 6.2 25.0
Conch 4 4.1 16.7
Sea Bass 4 4.1 16.7
Rubia 4 4.1 16.7
Lobster 3 3.1 12.5
Corvina 3 3.1 12.5
Parguitos l 1.0 4.2
Squid 1 1.0 4.2
Total responses 97 100 0 404.2
7 missing cases; 24 valid cases
Table 15. Wetland for Whom
Pct of Pct of
Category label Count Responses Cases
safety net 25 67.6 92.6
women 11 29.7 40.7
the poor 1 2.7 3.7
Total responses 37 100.0 137.0

4 missing cases;

27 valid cases

 

 

 

167

Cross-Tabulations

Cross-tabulations allowed the further analysis of the various subgroups of research
interest. Doing so facilitated the comparison of data obtained by different methods, within
and between communities. To investigate whether the information on how peOple live in
the research site learned during focus group (individual) interviews in Chelém and
Chubuma, cross—tabulation analyses were performed.

First the variable $HOWLIVE, representing “How Pe0ple Live Here,” was
examined by the locale (Chelém or Chubuma) of the interview and this data separated out
by the data collection method (focus group or individual interview). The results of this
cross-tabulation are reproduced in Table 16 and Table 17 . While everybody mentions
fishing as the way of life in the area, note how the distributions of responses differ. It
seems that individuals more frequently mentioned reliance on seasonal work in individual
interviews than during focus groups.

A similar analysis was performed for the code $FISHLOC, which represented the
locations where respondents mentioned they went to fish. The results of these cross-
tabulations are reproduced in Table 18 and Table 19. Unlike the results of the
$HOWLIVE cross-tabulations, the $FISHLOC cross—tabulations results appear to be
substantially similar across methods, communities, and they are in line with the aggregate
results reported in Table 13. People appear to equally rely upon coastal and wetland

fishing for their livelihood.

168

Table 16. How PeopleLive by Locale by Focus Group

 

SHOWLIVE
Count I Fishing Masonry/ Go to Seasonal
Row pct I Painting Mérida/ Work
I Factory
I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I
LOCALE ———————— + -------- + ———————— + -------- + ———————— +
l I 7 I 5 I 2 I 2 I
Chelém I 100 0 I 71 4 I 28 6 I 28.6 I
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + -------- +
2 I 5 I 2 I 2 I 0 I
Chuburna I 100.0 I 40.0 I 40.0 I 0 I
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
Column 12 7 4 2
Total 100.0 58.3 33.3 16.7

Percents and totals based on cases

 

Row
Total

58.3

41.7

12
100.0

 

Table 17. How People Live by Locale by Individual Interview

 

 

$HOWLIVE
Count I Fishing Masonry/ Go to Seasonal
Row pct I Painting Mérida/ Work
I Factory
I l I 2 I 3 I 4 I
LOCALE -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- +
1 I 10 I 7 I 2 I 7 I
Chelém I 100 0 I 70.0 I 20.0 I 70 O I
+ ———————— + -------- + ———————— + ———————— +
2 I 9 I O I 0 I 3 I
Chuburna I 100.0 I .0 I .0 I 33.3 I
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
Column 19 7 2 10
Total 100.0 36.8 10.5 52.6

Percents and totals based on respondents

31 valid cases; 0 missing cases

Row
Total

10

52.6

9
47.4

19
100.0

 

 

 

169

Table 18. Fish Where by Locale by Focus Groups

 

 

$FISHLOC
Count I coastal deep-sea ciénaga
Row pct I fishing fishing Row
I Total
I 11 I 12 I 13 I
LOCALE -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- +
1 I 5 I l I 5 I 6
Chelém I 83 3 I 16 7 I 83 3 I 54 5
+ -------- + -------- + ———————— +
2 I 4 I 0 I 4 I 5
Chuburna I 80.0 I .0 I 80 O I 45 5
+ ———————— + ———————— + -------- +
Column 9 1 9 11
Total 81.8 9.1 81.8 100.0

Percents and totals based on cases

 

Table 19. Fishing by Locale by Individual Interview

 

 

$FISHLOC
Count I coastal deep—sea ciénaga
Row pct I fishing fishing Row
I Total
I 11 I 12 I 13 I
LOCALE -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- +
1 I 5 I 2 I 6 I 7
Chelém I 71 4 I 28 6 I 85 7 I 50 0
+ -------- + -------- + -------- +
2 I 6 I 0 I 4 I 7
Chuburna I 85.7 I .0 I 57 l I 50 0
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
Column 11 2 10 14
Total 78.6 14.3 71.4 100.0

Percents and totals based on respondents

25 valid cases; 6 missing cases

 

 

 

170
PROBLEMS PEOPLE SEE
During the discussions with the in-country experts about the problems being faced by the
inhabitants of the Yucatecan coast near Pro gresso, the theme of population migration
repeatedly came up. Many of the “experts” believe that the problems of the coastal area
are a function of people moving to the coast from inland in search of a way to support
themselves and their families. Interestingly, during the focus groups and individual
interviews this theme came up. However, while people coming to the area to live is
mentioned as one of the problems in the area, the more generic too many fishers is the
reason given for there being so few fish to catch. Such a reason does not necessarily
correspond with too much in-migration because the absence of regulations and the

increase in commercial trawling fleet fishing were also major topics of discussion.

Frequencies
The code $PROBLEM was designed to capture the nature of the problems identified by
respondents. The six general groups of problems raised by respondents during their
interview sessions were the decrease in coastal and fishing stocks, the increase in coastal
migration, the construction of a DUMAC dike, unemployment, and the destruction of the
local salt-extraction industry. As Table 20 illustrates, virtually all of the respondents
(between 70-84 percent) talked about how bad the fishing had gotten in the both the sea
and the lagoon. The next most frequent references were to people moving to the coast
and to the DUMAC dike (33 and 29percent respectively).

Table 21 records the frequencies associated with respondents’ ideas on why there

are so few fish today. The code $FEWFISH tried to capture respondents’ ideas on why

171
there are fewer fish today. Although not necessarily mutually exclusive, the responses
were grouped using six categories. The most frequent reason given was that there are too
many fishers (70 percent of cases). However, respondents also mentioned the absence of
regulations (40 percent of cases), the increase in the trawling fleet activity offshore (35
percent of cases), and the DUMAC project’s negative impacts on the wetland’s viability as
a fishery (30 percent of cases).

Because the DUMAC project was only mentioned once in all of the focus groups
and only really discussed by respondents in individual interviews, an effort was made to
identify some of the problems associated with the project in the transcripts. The variable
$DUISSUE was developed for coding purposes. As Table 22 shows, while only 8 cases
mentioned the DUMAC problem, the vast majority of those respondents blame the project
for drying up the wetland (75 percent) and killing the fish in the wetland (75 percent).

The other response, though only mentioned once, probably explains the stark economic
reality of the project. Namely, only very few local people who are able to be hunting
guides for the occasional duck hunter may see any gain from a project that is perceived by

the majority of local peOple as hurting their well-being.

Table 20. What Problems Here

 

Pct of Pct of

Category label Count Responses Cases
Coastal fishing down 20 34.5 83.3
Lagoon fishing down 17 29.3 70.8
people coming here to live 8 13.8 33.3
DUMAC project 7 12 1 29.2
Unemployment 4 6.9 16.7
No more salt 2 3.4 8.3

Total responses 58 100.0 241.7

7 missing cases; 24 valid cases

 

 

 

172

 

 

 

 

 

Table 21. Why Few Fish
Pot of Pct of
Category label Count Responses Cases
too many fishers 14 33.3 70.0
no regulations 8 19.0 40.0
trawling fleets 7 16.7 35.0
DUMAC project 6 14.3 30.0
weather 4 9.5 20.0
pollution 3 7.1 15.0
Total responses 42 100 0 210.0
11 missing cases; 20 valid cases
Table 22. Problems with DUMAC Project
Pct of Pct of
Category label Count Responses Cases
drying up wetland 6 46.2 75.0
killing fish in ciénaga 6 46.2 75.0
only few guides gain w Ducks 1 7.7 12.5
Total responses 13 100.0 162.5

23 missing cases; 8 valid cases

 

 

 

173

Cross-Tabulations

The cross-tabulations of the “problem” codes allowed for an examination of possible
differences associated with interview method or location. First, the variable $PROBLEM
was examined. Table 23 and Table 24 breakdown the responses addressing the problems
people see in the Chelém area by category, locale, and interview type. In general the
responses are fairly consistent across communities and methods with the following
exceptions. The loss of salt extraction was only raised in Chubuma (a center of the now
defunct practice) and the DUMAC project being a problem was only mentioned in
individual interviews.

Table 25 and Table 26 report the cross-tabulation of the $FEWFISH variable by
locale and interview type. It appears that the focus groups yielded different information
with those respondents in Chelém focusing on the number of fishers competing for the
diminishing resources. Two out of the three focus groups discussed the increase in
trawling fleet activity and the number of people moving to the coast. These topics were
not raised in the Chubuma focus groups. The other interesting result of the cross-
tabulation of $FEWFISH is the discovery that categories not mentioned during the focus
groups were raised in both Chelém and Chubuma. For example, the DUMAC project,
trawling fleets, too many fishers, and the absence of regulations were raised in individual
interviews in Chubuma for the first time. Likewise, the absence of regulations was raised
by 63 percent of the individual interviews while it had not been mentioned in the focus

groups.

174

Table 23. Problems by Locale by Focus Group

 

 

 

 

 

SPROBLEM
Count I Coastal Unemploy No more Lagoon people
Row pct I fishing ment salt fishing coming Row
I down down here Total
I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I
LOCALE ———————— + ———————— + -------- + -------- + -------- + ———————— +
1 I 2 I 2 I 0 I 3 I 2 I 4
Chelém I 50.0 I 50 0 I 0 I 75 0 I 50 0 I 66.7
+ -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- +
2 I 1 I 2 I 1 I 2 I 1 I 2
Chuburna I 50.0 I 100 0 I 50.0 I 100 0 I 50 0 I 33.3
+ ———————— + -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- +
Column 3 4 1 5 3 6
Total 50.0 66 7 16 7 83.3 50 0 100 0
Percents and totals based on cases
Table 24. Problems by Locale by Individual Interview
SPROBLEM
Count I Coastal No more Lagoon people DUMAC
Row pct I fishing salt fishing coming project Row
I down down here Total
I 21 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I
LOCALE -------- + ———————— + -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- +
1 I 10 I 0 I 5 I 4 I 1 I 10
Chelém I 100 0 I 0 I 50.0 I 40 0 I 10.0 I 55.6
+ -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- + ———————— +
2 I 7 I 1 I 7 I 1 I 6 I 8
Chuburna I 87.5 I 12.5 I 87.5 I 12.5 I 75.0 I 44.4
+ -------- + -------- + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
Column 17 1 12 5 7 18
Total 94.4 5.6 66.7 27.8 38.9 100.0
Percents and totals based on respondents
24 valid cases; 7 missing cases

 

 

 

175

Table 25 . Why Few Fish by Locale by Focus Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

$FEWFISH
Count I weather pollution trawling too many
Row pct I fleets fishers Row
I Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I
LOCALE ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + -------- + ———————— +
l I 0 I O I 2 I 2 I 3
Chelém I 0 I 0 I 66 7 I 66 7 I 60.0
+ -------- + ———————— + -------- + ———————— +
2 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 2
Chuburné I 50.0 I 50.0 I .0 I .0 I 40.0
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + -------- +
Column 1 1 2 2 5
Total 20.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 100 O
Percents and totals based on respondents
Table 26. Why Few Fish by Locale by Individual Interview
$FEWFISH
Count I weather polluted trawling too many DUMAC no Row
Row pct I fleets fishers project regula Total
I tions
I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I
LOCALE ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ------- + ------ + ————— +
1 I 2 I l I l I 8 I 0 I 5 I 8
Chelém I 25 0 I 12 5 I 12 5 I 100 0 I 0 I 62 5 I 53.3
+ -------- + ———————— + -------- + -------- + ------- + —————— +
2 I l I l I 4 I 4 I 6 I 3 I 7
Chuburna I 14.3 I 14.3 I 57.1 I 57.1 I 85.7 I 42.9 I 46.7
+ -------- + ———————— + -------- + -------- + ------- + ------ +
Column 3 2 5 12 6 8 15
Total 20.0 13.3 33.3 80.0 40.0 53.3 100.0

Percents and totals based on cases

20 valid cases, 11 missing

 

 

176

The DUMAC “problem” was further analyzed using cross-tabulations.
$DUISSUE was examined by locale and by interview type as shown in Table 27 and Table
28. As those tables illustrate, the DUMAC issue, while known to some members of the
Chelém, community, is an issue that almost every individual interviewed in Chubuma
discussed and blamed for destroying the wetland and its fishery. It is also interesting to
note that when the DUMAC issue was raised in the Chubuma focus group, it was raised in
such a way that veiled the problem. As Table 27 indicates, the comments made in the
group about the DUMAC project referred to the small number of people who might
benefit from being hunting guides if the project worked according to plans. There was
some mention that it was not working according to plans but no one voiced objections in

the group like those raised in the individual interviews.

WETLAND VALUE

Since the genesis of the dissertation was a desire to improve economic valuation
methods for nonmarket resources in developing countries, the candidate tried to pay
particular attention to respondents’ comments that evidenced use and nonuse values
associated with the mangrove ecosystem. The focus group moderator and the individual
interviewers were instructed to try and get the respondents to discuss how they viewed
and used the mangrove ecosystem. They were also instructed to use non—directive
prompts to elicit as much information as possible without leading the respondents in a
particular direction.

Most respondents expressed a great deal of reliance on the mangrove wetland for

their subsistence. While characterizing themselves as fishing communities that live off of

177

Table 27. DUMAC Project by Locale by Focus Group

 

$DUISSUE
Count I only
Row pct I few Row
I guides Total
I gain
I 4 I
LOCALE ———————— + -------- +
2 I 1 I 1
Chuburna I 100.0 I 100.0
+ ———————— +
Column 1 1
Total 100.0 100.0

Percents and totals based on respondents

 

 

 

Table 28. DUMAC Project by Local by Individual Interview

 

$DUISSUE
Count I drying killing
Row pct I up fish in Row
I wetland wetland Total
I 0 I 1 I
LOCALE -------- + ———————— + ———————— +
l I l I 0 I l
Chelém I 100.0 I 0 I 14 3
+ -------- + ———————— +
2 I 5 I 6 I 6
Chuburna I 83.3 I 100.0 I 85 7
+ ———————— + -------- +
Column 6 6 7
Total 85.7 85.7 100.0

Percents and totals based on cases

8 valid cases; 23 missing cases

 

 

 

178

the fruits of the sea, the villagers of Chelém and Chubuma revealed an almost year-round
reliance on the fish and shellfish of Chelém Lagoon. The current economic crisis in
Mexico and the absence of feasible alternatives made it difficult for the moderator and
interviewers to explore nonuse values that local people may or may not have for the
resource. It seemed that there was an overwhelming and understandable preoccupation of
most respondents with the deteriorating ability of the mangrove ecosystem to support
them and their families.

As a result of the iterative coding process, a variety of codes were developed for
capturing responses under the theme of wetland value. $CPROD attempted to capture
references to goods respondents extracted from the wetland. $NONMKT attempted to
record instances that nonmarket goods were discussed. $CSERV was designed to keep
track of utterances that were concerned with wetland services. While $CVIEW was used
to record respondents’ overview of the wetland in hopes of identifying evidence of nonuse

or a domination of use values in respondents’ discussions.

Frequencies

It was clear from the first interview that the big product of the wetland for the local
resource beneficiaries was a small shellfish called chivita. As Table 29 illustrates 93
percent of the cases described chivita as a mangrove wetland resource. The next most
frequently mentioned wetland good was crab. Crab is valued for its use as bait for
octopus fishing. Throughout the year, people collect crabmeat to use and sell during
octopus season. The other species mentioned mainly mullet, shrimp, bass, and mojarra,

are much more sporadic.

179

Although flamingoes, by all accounts, only inhabit this locale for several months
every couple years or so, local resource beneficiaries talked about the importance of the
mangrove wetland as flamingo habitat. Discussions about flamingoes and their beauty
were often hard to move away from. As Table 30 shows, 71 percent of the nonmarket
goods mentioned by respondents were flamingoes. For most inhabitants of this region,
ducks are not a source of food or livelihood. Therefore, talk about ducks in the
nonmarket sense and seabirds were the next most frequently mentioned nonmarket goods
that came through the interviews. The remainder of the nonmarket goods to receive
mentions included endangered turtles, lizards, and parrots that inhabit the area.

Market and nonmarket wetland services, in the traditional economic sense, were not
addressed by every interview. However, almost 90 percent of respondents discussed the
role of the mangrove wetland as providing a social safety net. A place where a family
could turn to feed themselves when the weather for fishing in the sea was bad or there
were no fish to be caught off-shore. As a result, $CSERV was designed to measure such
responses. Table 31 shows the overwhelming view expressed by respondents that the
wetland provides a social safety net. It also shows that some respondents seem to value
the storm protection afforded to their boats and others by having the mangrove lagoon in
which to anchor their boats.

Finally, Table 32 documents the perceptions that the respondents expressed
concerning the nature of the wetland. As would be expected with more than 88 percent of
respondents articulating a view that the wetland is a social safety net, 80 percent of
respondents spoke of the wetland as a source of their livelihood. Almost half of the

respondents characterized the resource as being beautiful—some evidence of nonuse or

180

Table 29. Wetland Goods

 

 

Pct of Pct of

Category label Count Responses Cases
Chivita 26 29.5 92.9
Crab 15 17.0 53.6
Mullet 10 11.4 35.7
Shrimp 9 10.2 32.1
Bass 7 8.0 25.0
Salt but no more 6 6.8 21.4
Mojarra 3 3.4 10.7
wood 3 3.4 10.7
Corvina 3 3.4 10.7
crawfish 2 2.3 7.1
nothing 2 2.3 7.1
ducks 2 2.3 7.1

Total responses 88 100.0 314.3
3 missing cases; 28 valid cases

 

Table 30. N onmarket Goods

 

 

Pct of Pct of

Category label Count Responses Cases
Flamingoes 15 41.7 71.4
Ducks 7 19.4 33.3
Herons, gulls, & others 7 19.4 33.3
Turtles 3 8.3 14.3
Lizards 2 5.6 9.5
Parrots & others 2 5.6 9.5

Total responses 36 100 0 171.4

10 missing cases; 21 valid cases

 

 

 

181

Table 31. Wetland Services

 

 

Pct of Pct of

 

 

 

Category label Count Responses Cases
social safety net 24 77.4 88.9
nothing bc DUMAC 4 12.9 14.8
storm protection (boats) 3 9.7 11.1
Total responses 31 100 0 114.8

4 missing cases; 27 valid cases

Table 32. Wetland Perceptions

Pct of Pct of
Category label Count Responses Cases
Source of Livelihood 24 32.9 80.0
Beautiful 14 19.2 46.7
Threatened 13 17.8 43.3
Connected to Sea 11 15.1 36.7
System of Plants/Animals 11 15.1 36.7
Total responses 73 100.0 243 3

1 missing cases; 30 valid cases

 

 

 

182

nonconsumptive use value. The other categories of this variable that were mentioned—
threatened, connected to sea, and a system of plants and animals—illustrate a recognition

of some of the changing characteristics of the resource.

Cross-Tabulations

When the wetland value variables were examined based on locale and interview type
differences, an interesting pattern seemed to be revealed. It seems that, in general, for
these variables, the information learned in the groups was more similar between
communities than the information learned through the individual interviews. That is,
groups of people from one village addressed in more or less the same frequency the same
sets of information.

In examining the frequency of responses for people’s view of the wetland
($CVIEW) by locale and by interview method, Table 33 and Table 34 illustrate the
similarities of the focus group information sets and the differences in the individual
interview information sets between the two communities. That is, almost all of the same
categories of ideas were addressed by methods (with the exception of wetland beauty), but
their frequencies were noticeably different. This pattern is apparent in the other wetland
value variables.

Table 35 and Table 36 examine the wetland service variable ($CSERV) by locale
and interview method. The big differences that were revealed by such analysis were not
apparent when looking at the most frequently reported wetland service of providing a
social safety net—a response mentioned in nearly all of the cases. However differences

that may be associated with geographic location were revealed. Chelém is near the puerto

183

Table 33. Wetland Perception by Locale by Focus Group

 

 

SCVIEW
Count I Connect System Threat’d Beauti- Source
Row pct I to Sea of Plant ful of Liv’g Row
I & Animls Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I 5 I 6 I
LOCALE ———————— + ———————— + -------- + -------- + ———————— + ———————— +
1 I 5 I 5 I 1 I 7 I 6 I 7
Chelém I 71 4 I 71 4 I 14 3 I 100 O I 85 7 I 58 3
+ -------- + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 5 I 4 I 5
Chuburna I 40.0 I 40.0 I 40.0 I 100 0 I 80 0 I 41 7
+ ———————— + ———————— + -------- + ———————— + ———————— +
Column 7 7 3 12 10 12
Total 58.3 58.3 25.0 100.0 83.3 100.0

Percents and totals based on respondents

 

Table 34. Wetland Perception by Locale by Individual Interview

 

 

$CVIEW
Count I Connect System Threat'd Beauti— Source
Row pct I to Sea of Plants ful of Liv’g Row
I & Animls Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I 5 I 6 I
LOCALE -------- + ———————— + -------- + -------- + ———————— + ———————— +
1 I 3 I 1 I 4 I 2 I 8 I 9
Chelém I 33.3 I 11 l I 44 4 I 22 2 I 88 9 I 50 0
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
2 I 1 I 3 I 6 I 0 I 6 I 9
Chuburna I 11.1 I 33.3 I 66.7 I .0 I 66 7 I 50 0
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + -------- + ———————— +
Column 4 4 10 2 14 18
Total 22.2 22.2 55.6 11.1 77.8 100.0

Percents and totals based on respondents

30 valid cases; 1 missing cases

 

 

 

184

Table 35 . Wetland Services by Locale by Focus Group

 

 

$CSERV
Count I social storm
Row pct I safety protection Row
I net Total
I 3 I 4 I
LOCALE ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
1 I 6 I 2 I 6
Chelém I 100 0 I 33.3 I 60.0
+ ———————— + ———————— +
2 I 4 I 0 I 4
Chuburna I 100.0 I 0 I 40.0
+ ———————— + ———————— +
Column 10 2 10
Total 100.0 20.0 100.0

 

 

Table 36. Wetland Services by Locale by Individual Interview

 

 

$CSERV
Count I Social storm nothing
Row pct I safety protection be
It DUMAC
I 3 I 4 I 5 I
LOCALE -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- +
1 I 9 I l I 0 I
Chelém I 100 O I 11.1 I 0 I
+ -------- + -------- + -------- +
2 I 5 I 0 I 4 I
Chuburna I 62.5 I .0 I 50.0 I
+ ———————— + ———————— + -------- +
Column 14 1 4
Total 82.4 5.9 23.5

Percents and totals based on respondents

27 valid cases; 4 missing cases

Row
Total

 

 

185
de abrigo, safe harbor, leading from the sea to the wetland, Chubuma is further west. The
lagoon is also much deeper in parts near Chelém than it is near Chubuma. In fact, since
that construction of the DUMAC dike near Chubuma, there is no longer a direct passage
way for seawater or boats from the sea to the lagoon. Furthermore, the general
perspective in Chubuma as expressed above, is that the DUMAC project is drying up the
wetland. These differences are apparent in the data reported in Table 35 and Table 36.
Only people from Chelém mention storm protection as a service of the wetland and only
residents from Chubuma mention DUMAC’s destruction of the wetland as a useful
resource.

A similar analysis of the wetland goods identified by respondents ($CPROD) did
not reveal such readily apparent disparities. However, Table 37 and Table 38 do reveal
more similarities among the information learned in the focus groups in the two villages
than the information learned in the individual interviews. It is also evident when focusing

,7 6‘

on the “salt no more, nothing,” and “wood” categories in the individual interviews that
individual interviews in Chubuma revealed different sentiments about the goods of the

wetlands from those interviews in Chelém.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

In exploring possible resource management approaches in use and acceptable to
respondents, the candidate tried to have the respondents address avenues they viewed as
helpful for wetland management in their area. One theme that came up was the possible

use of restrictions (i.e., catch limits, seasons, and permits). This area of Mexico does have

186

 

mommo mchmHE m Immune OHHm> mN
mommo no Ummmn mHouou can mucwonwm
0.00H m.m m.NH m.Hm m.wH O.mN m.Hm m.>w m.m w.wH Hmuoa
OH H N m m H m OH H m QESHOU
+ rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr +
O om H O H O mN H m.NH H m.NH H O mN H m.bm H O mh H m.NH H m.NH H WGHSQSSU
w H O H N H H H H H N H m H m H H H H H N
+ rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + iiiiiiii + rrrrrrr I+ rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr +
O om H m NH H O. H O om H O mN H O.mN H O.mN H 0.00H H O. H O.mN H EOHonv
m H H H O H v H N H N H N H w H O H N H H
+ rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + iiiiiiii + llllllll + rrrrrrrr + iiiiiiii + rrrrrrrr + rrrrr quuoq
H mH H OH H m H b H m H m H m H N H H H
HMOOB H
30m mHoE H ppm 30%
U003 OQHQOOC Qmuu mcH>Hou mmmm mom OOHHSS muH>H£O on uHem mfiHnflm H ucsou

 

 

 

sates assess E 8384 E 30805 e883 .wm same

 

 

WQWMU CO memg WHmUOU UQM wUQwUme

0.00H O OH O.mH m.mw O OH O.mN >.Hv O.mN 0.00H O.Hv 0.0m Hmuoe
NH N N OH N m m m NH m m QESHOO
+ IIIIIIII + IIIIIIII + IIIIIIII + rrrrrrrr + IIIIIIII + IIIIIIII + IIIIIIII + IIIIIIII + rrrrrrrr + llllllll +
O.Hv H O ON H O ON H O OO H O ON H 0.0v H O om H 0.0N H O OOH H 0.0H H 0.0v H wcusndso
m H H H H H v H H H N H m H H H m H N H N H N
+ rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + iiiiiiii + iiiiiiii + rrrrrrrr + iiiiiiii +
m mm H m «H H m «H H O mm H m.vH H m.vH H m.mN H m.wN H O OOH H m.Nv H H.Om H SOHOSU
b H H H H H m H H H H H N H N H O H m H v H H
+ rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + llllllll + iiiiiiii + llllllll + ffffffff + llllllll + rrrrrrrr + rrrrrrrr + iiiiiiii + rrrrrrrr mqmuoq
H mH H HH H m H m H m H m H v H m H N H H H
HOuOB H
30m whoa H pom 30m
@003 wxosp amuu Smezmno mmmm mom umHHsz muumnoz OOH>H£U on OHMw mEHuflm H unsou

 

@580 msoom 3 £304 3 3268a @9585 Hm oBaH

 

187
a functioning use restriction on coastal fishing for octopus. The octopus season, by all
accounts, is strictly enforced by the authorities and observed by local fishers.

Everyone knows that octopus season begins in August and runs through early
December. In fact, this lucrative fish is responsible for one of the problems previously
identified by local beneficiaries—coastal migration. It seems that people from all over
Mexico, many with no experience fishing or knowledge of how to swim, flock to the coast
during octopus season to vie for a share of the catch. Unfortunately, there are virtually no
other controls on the fishing effort, commercial or subsistence. Although a license for
fishing on a commercial boat is required, many never even apply for such a license. The
current state of affairs regarding fishery management has some Mexican marine ecologists
concerned about the future of the coastal fishery. However, the season restrictions appear
to be observed. Therefore, it was theorized that perhaps some type of use restrictions on
the wetland might be acceptable to local beneficiaries for managing and maintaining the
mangrove lagoon.

The other reoccurring problem raised by individuals in Chubuma was the DUMAC
project. When the candidate had the opportunity to discuss this situation with Mr. Raul
Lada, the president of Pro gresso municipality (roughly the county seat for Chubuma), he
acknowledged that some discussions were ongoing concerning DUMAC. However, he
referred me to his environmental attache and noted that “experts” had been involved in the
design and building of the project. The environmental attache, later that day, meet with
the candidate and admitted that in theory the DUMAC dike system was a good idea. He
explained that the dike should be operated in such a way as to control the amount of water

entering and leaving the wetland. However, according to this minister, the project was

188

never completed and the ecological equilibrium of the wetland was destroyed. The
minister explained how efforts were underway to ask DUMAC to repair the damage or

allow the State to take control of the project.

Frequencies

In coding the data, the variable $IMPROVE was developed to capture instances when
respondents offered, described, and discussed various mechanisms for managing and
improving their situation vis-a-vis the health of the mangrove wetland. The nature of their

suggestions is tabulated in Table 39.

Table 39. How to Improve Wetland

 

Pct of Pct of
Category label Count Responses Cases
aquaculture (shrimp/crab/fish ponds) 12 4O 0 54.5
use restrictions 6 20.0 27.3
Remove DUMAC 4 13.3 18.2
nothing will help 4 13.3 18.2
expert help/instruction 3 10.0 13.6
tourism 1 3.3 4.5
Total responses 30 100.0 136.4

9 missing cases; 22 valid cases

 

 

 

Respondents overall voiced interest in the development of fish farms or other type
of aquaculture as a way to improve their well being (55 percent of cases). In roughly one-
third of the sessions respondents discussed the possibility of some sort of use restrictions
to help maintain or improve the fishing in the mangrove lagoon. Interestingly, when
improvement of the wetlands was discussed, several respondents (all in Chubuma) once

again pointed-out their objections to and frustrations with the DUMAC project. In fact,

189

the candidate was told of a threat being made by the community to DUMAC via the
President of the municipath that they remove the dike or it would be “blown-up.” Others
expressed a sense of helplessness in identifying any mechanisms that might improve the
health and well being of the mangrove ecosystem.

Since use restrictions are a classic change agent used in resource valuation
scenario as well as policy studies, additional attention was paid to respondents’
discussions regarding fishing restrictions. As Table 40 illustrates, everyone is aware of the
octopus restrictions with substantially fewer respondents mentioning some of the other
existing use restrictions. The general consensus among respondents was that the only

restriction that actually worked was the seasonal restriction on octopus. This is attributed

Table 40. What Restricted

 

Pct of Pct of
Category label Count Responses Cases
octopus 13 48.1 61.9
conch 7 25.9 33.3
shrimp (in wetland) 5 18.5 23.8
turtles 2 7.4 9.5
Total responses 27 100.0 128.6

10 missing cases; 21 valid cases

 

 

 

to the stiff penalties (heavy fines and confiscation of property) and occasional
enforcement. Most respondents knew a story of someone who had been caught catching

or selling octopus out of season and receiving very heavy punishment.

190

However, when the discussions were steered toward the possibility of use
restrictions being beneficial in the Lagoon, respondents uniformly voiced doubt about any
such restrictions being enacted, much less being enforced. Some respondents pointed to
the lack of enforcement of all the other prohibitions including the prohibition from fishing
on or near the bridge (conduit) between the safe harbor and the lagoon. The candidate
can attest to the fact that virtually around the clock people were fishing from the bridge
and standing in the water with nets trapping all the fish and shellfish coming in or out of
the lagoon through the only freely flowing passageway. This occurred despite warnings to
the contrary posted all around the area. Other respondents pointed to the special
relationship that local villagers had with the mangrove wetland. Some even mentioned the
annual procession that some people took with an icon of Saint Mary from the local church
around the lagoon in a colorfully adorned boat.

Table 41 records the responses for the $RWHYNOT variable. This variable tried
to capture responses that addressed why respondents thought that use restrictions in the
mangrove lagoon would not work. After going through the iterative coding process, two
categories of responses were arrived at—characterizations of the lagoon and access to it
being essential for survival or disbelief that even if such rules could be enacted, they could
not and would not be enforceable. The pervasive sentiment in the communities was that
their survival depended upon free access to the wetlands and that no government could or

would restrict their use of the wetlands.

191
Cross-Tabulations
The cross-tabulation analysis of the wetland management variables, in general, did not

reveal marked differences. The exception was that the Chubuma interviews did not

192

Table 41. Why Wetland Restrictions Would Not Work

 

Pct of Pct of
Category label Count Responses Cases
subsistence/survival/no alternatives 16 66.7 76.2
lack of enforcement 8 33.3 38.1
Total responses 24 100 0 114.3

10 missing cases; 21 valid cases

 

 

 

mention the possibility of use restrictions for improving resource management and they did
emphasize the importance of removing the DUMAC project as a means for improving the
mangrove wetland. Table 42and Table 43 show that in group interviews, members of both
communities seem to favor the introduction of some form of aquaculture. However, these
conversations always seemed to coincide with a discussion of how the communities are
poor, that they need expert help, and that this help must come from outside the community
and rely upon funds from the “government” or elsewhere.

The cross—tabulation analysis of the $RWHYNOT variable produced fairly uniform
results across locales and across methods. As Table 44 and Table 45 illustrate below, in
the focus group sessions more than 70 percent of the participants from Chelém and
Chubuma identified both the importance of the wetland to the communities and the
absence of enforcement as reasons restrictions would not work. In the individual
interviews, respondents from both communities (more than 75 percent of the time)
focused on the importance of the wetland for people’s survival as the reason for wetland
restriction not to work or be implemented. The lack of enforcement was mentioned in

fewer than 25 percent of the cases.

193

Table 42. Ways to Improve Wetland by Locale by Focus Group

 

 

 

 

 

SIMPROVE
Count I aqua- tourism expert use nothing
Row pct I culture help restr’n will Row
I help Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 6 I
LOCALE ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + -------- + ———————— +
1 I 3 I 0 I l I 1 I 1 I 5
Chelém I 60.0 I .0 I 20.0 I 20.0 I 20.0 I 50.0
+ ———————— + ———————— + -------- + -------- + -------- +
2 I 5 I l I 1 I 1 I 1 I 5
Chuburna I 100.0 I 20.0 I 20.0 I 20.0 I 20.0 I 50.0
+ -------- + ———————— + ———————— + -------- + -------- +
Column 8 1 2 2 2 10
Total 80.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
Percents and totals based on respondents
Table 43. Way to Improve Wetland by Locale by Individual Interview
SIMPROVE
Count I aqua— expert use Remove nothing
Row pct I culture help Restr’n DUMAC will Row
I help Total
I 1 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I
LOCALE ———————— + -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- +
1 I 3 I 1 I 4 I 0 I 1 I 7
Chelém I 42.9 I 14.3 I 57.1 I .0 I 14.3 I 58.3
+ -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- +
2 I l I 0 I 0 I 4 I 1 I 5
Chuburna I 20.0 I .0 I .0 I 80.0 I 20.0 I 41.7
+ -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- + ———————— +
Column 4 1 4 4 2 12
Total 33.3 8.3 33.3 33.3 16.7 100.0
Percents and totals based on respondents

22 valid cases; 9 miss

ing cases

 

 

 

194

Table 44. Restrictions Would Not Work by Locale by Focus Group

 

$RWHYNOT
Count I subsis— lack of
Row pct I tence/ enforce— Row
I survival ment Total
I l I 3 I
LOCALE ———————— + ———————— + -------- +
1 I 3 I 3 I 4
Chelém I 75.0 I 75 O I 57 1
+ ———————— + -------- +
2 I 2 I 2 I 3
Chuburna I 66.7 I 66 7 I 42 9
+ ———————— + ———————— +
Column 5 5 7
Total 71.4 71 4 100.0

 

 

 

Table 45. Restrictions Would Not Work by Locale by Individual Interview

 

Count I subsis— lack of
Row pct I tence/ enforc’t Row
I survival Total
I 1 I 3 I
LOCALE -------- + -------- + -------- +
1 I 6 I 2 I 8
Chelém I 75 0 I 25 0 I 57 1
+ ———————— + ———————— +
2 I 5 I 1 I 6
Chuburna I 83.3 I 16 7 I 42 9
+ -------- + -------- +
Column 11 3 14
Total 78.6 21.4 100 0
Percents and totals based on respondents
21 valid cases; 10 missing cases

 

 

 

195

NAMES FOR WETLAND

As discussed above, not only is it one of the objectives of qualitative research to uncover
the words people use and their meanings but it is elementary survey design methodology
to use words and language that respondents and researchers both understand to mean the
same thing. Therefore, the different names used in the Chelém Lagoon area to refer to the
mangrove ecosystem seemed like an ideal theme for analysis. Not only would the research
be able to help identify which words would be appropriate in subsequent studies, but
respondents’ word choice could be used in evaluating the efficacy of the two qualitative
research methods.

The Yucatecan coastal area, like most of the peninsula, has a predominately Maya
population. This influence and other cultural differences associated with the region made
the candidate cognizant of the possibility of cultural barriers to effective communication.
One of the reasons the research site was selected included the high degree of Spanish
language speakers in the area. This enabled the candidate to directly converse with and
listen to respondents. However, the prevalence of regional and local idiomatic expressions
was a constant reminder that different words mean different things to different people.
Because the mangrove wetland is important to the communities of Chelém and Chubuma,
the coding procedure tracked the names used to refer to it. The variable $CNAME was
defined to measure the frequencies of the different references. Overall, four different
categories for wetland names were used: ciénaga (wetland), rio (river), rr’a (estuary), and
charcos (ponds). In English (and on some Mexican maps), the word lagoon (laguna)

seems appropriate for the area. However, local people do not use that term very much.

196

Frequencies

As Table 46 illustrates, the vast majority of respondents refer to the mangrove ecosystem
of Chelém Lagoon as ciénaga (wetland). More than half of the cases also used ria
(estuary) and rio (river) to refer to the mangrove ecosystem. Other names, such as

charcos (ponds), were used in less than 20 percent of the cases.

Table 46. Names for Mangrove Ecosystem (Chelém Lagoon)

 

Pot of Pct of
Category label Count Responses Cases
ciénaga (wetland) 27 38.6 87.1
ria (estuary) 20 28.6 64.5
rio (river) 18 25.7 58.1
charcos (ponds), etc. 5 7.1 16.1
Total responses 70 100.0 225.8

0 missing cases; 31 valid cases

 

 

 

Cross-Tabulations
To better understand whether there were differences in name usage dependent on locale
and to examine whether the data collection methods were a factor, cross-tabulation
analysis of the $CNAME variable were performed. As Table 47 and Table 48 show, there
do seem to be differences in the two communities’ word use as it relates to the mangrove
ecosystem.

It seems that based on the focus group information (Table 47), the peOple of
Chelém equally use the names ciénaga, rio, and rr’a to refer to the mangrove wetlands

while the people of Chubuma prefer either ciénaga or rr’a. However, the individual:

197

Table 47. Names by Locale by Focus Group

 

 

 

 

 

$CNAME
Count I ciénaga rio ria charcos
Row pct I(wetland) (river) (estuary) (ponds) Row
I Total
I l I 2 I 3 I 4 I
LOCALE -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- +
l I 5 I 5 I 5 I l I 7
Chelém I 71 4 I 71 4 I 71 4 I 14 3 I 58 3
+ ———————— + -------- + ———————— + ———————— +
2 I 5 I 2 I 5 I 2 I 5
Chuburna I 100.0 I 40.0 I 100 0 I 40 O I 41 7
+ ———————— + ———————— + -------- + ———————— +
Column 10 7 10 3 12
Total 83.3 58.3 83.3 25.0 100.0
Table 48. Names by Locale by Individual Interview
$CNAME
Count I Ciénaga rio ria charcos
Row pct I(wetland) (river) (estuary) (ponds) Row
I) Total
I l I 2 I 3 I 4 I
LOCALE ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
1 I 8 5 I 8 I l I 10
Chelém I 80.0 I 50.0 I 80.0 I 10.0 I 52.6
+ ———————— + ———————— + -------- + -------- +
2 I 9 I 6 I 2 I l I 9
Chuburné I 100.0 I 66 7 I 22 2 I ll 1 I 47 4
+ ———————— + -------- + -------- + ———————— +
Column 17 ll 10 2 19
Total 89.5 57.9 52.6 10.5 100.0

Percents and totals based on respondents

31 valid cases; 0 missing cases

 

 

 

 

198
interview data (Table 48) differs. There seems to be a preference in Chelém for the terms
ciénaga and ria. While in Chubuma, the individual data seems to favor the use of ciénaga

and rio.

GENDER DIFFERENCES

As previously discussed the research design to account for possible differences in the
perspectives and realities of men and women in the study area. This was accomplished by
composing the focus groups of people from the same village of the same gender and by
individually interviewing men and women. The study’s preliminary fmdings and the
debriefing sessions with the focus group moderator and research assistants led to a
consensus that the women’s groups were yielding information substantially similar to that
found in the male groups. Therefore, in light of the overall difficulty of recruiting
participants of the study, the decision was made to relax the strict necessity of equal
numbers of male and female groups and interviews.

In any event, systematic analysis of the focus group and individual interview data
based on possible gender differences was undertaken. The limitations of cross-tabulation
analysis of multiple response data only allow for a code (variable) to be examined in the
context of no more than two other variables. Two codes ($CNAME and $PROBLEM)
were selected for further examination regarding possible gender differences. This analysis
is not meant to be dispositive of the presence or lack thereof of substantial gender
differences. However, it is meant to demonstrate that some differences may (may not) be
present and that this sort of layered analysis of data may be helpful in identifying some of

those differences.

199
Names for Wetland by Gender
To look for possible gender differences in the words people use in the Chelém Lagoon
area, a cross-tabulation analysis of $CNAME by gender and locale was undertaken. The
results of this analysis are illustrated below as Table 49and Table 50. When the data are
looked at this way, it seems as though the men and women of Chelém differ in their choice
of names for the mangrove more than the men and women of Chubuma That is, men in
Chelém in two cases referred to the wetland as ponds (charcos) while the women there did
not use that term. The data in Table 50 suggests that the men and women of Chubuma
use the same terms for the wetland in roughly the same amounts.

The data was then looked at by cross tabulating the $CNAME variable by gender
and by interview method. In this way, it was hoped to detect differences that were
correlated with the interview techniques used. The results of this analysis are reported
below in Table 51 and Table 52. These results, while based on very small samples, seem
more in line with the idea that the interview technique did not particularly favor or
encourage more responses from men or from women. The range and frequencies of
responses regarding the names used for the mangrove wetland are substantially similar
when that $CNAME variable is examined by gender for each of the two qualitative

research methods.

Problems by Gender
Another attempt to detect differences between how men and women of the research area

perceive of the mangrove ecosystem was undertaken with the cross-tabulation analysis of

200

Table 49. Names by Gender by Chelém

 

 

 

 

 

$CNAME
Count I ciénaga rio ria charcos
Row pct I(wetland) (river) (estuary) (ponds) Row
I Total
I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I
GENDER ———————— + -------- + -------- + ———————— + -------- +
0 I 4 I 5 I 3 I 0 I 5
female I 80 0 I 100 0 I 60 0 I O I 29.4
+ ———————— + -------- + -------- + -------- +
1 I 9 I 5 I 10 I 2 I 12
male I 75.0 I 41.7 I 83.3 I 16.7 I 70.6
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + -------- +
Column 13 10 13 2 17
Total 76.5 58.8 76.5 11.8 100.0
Table 50. Name by Gender by Chubuma
$CNAME
Count I ciénaga rio ria charcos
Row pct I(wetland) (river) (estuary) (ponds) Row
I Total
I l I 2 I 3 I 4 I
GENDER -------- + ———————— + ———————— + -------- + ———————— +
0 I 4 I 2 I 3 I 2 I 4
female I 100 0 I 50 0 I 75 0 I 50.0 I 28.6
+ -------- + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
1 I 10 I 6 I 4 I 1 I 10
male I 100.0 I 60.0 I 40.0 I 10.0 I 71.4
+ ———————— + -------- + -------- + -------- +
Column 14 8 7 3 14
Total 100.0 57.1 50.0 21.4 100.0

Percents and totals based on respondents

31 valid cases; 0 missing cases

 

 

 

201

Table 51. Name by Gender by Focus Group

 

 

 

 

 

$CNAME
Count I ciénaga rio ria charcos
Row pct I(wetland) (river) (estuary) (ponds) Row
I Total
I l I 2 I 3 I 4 I
GENDER ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + -------- + -------- +
0 I 5 I 5 I 4 I 1 I 5
female I 100 0 I 100 O I 80 O I 20 0 I 41.7
+ -------- + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
1 I 5 I 2 I 6 I 2 I 7
male I 71.4 I 28.6 I 85.7 I 28.6 I 58.3
+ -------- + ———————— + ———————— + -------- +
Column 10 7 10 3 12
Total 83.3 58.3 83.3 25.0 100.0
Table 5 2. Name by Gender by Individual Interview
$CNAME
Count I ciénaga rio ria charcos
Row pct I(wetland) (river) (estuary) (ponds) Row
I Total
I l I 2 I 3 I 4 I
GENDER -------- + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + -------- +
0 I 3 I 2 I 2 I l I 4
female I 75 0 I 50 0 I 50 0 I 25 0 I 21.1
+ -------- + ———————— + -------- + -------- +
1 I 14 I 9 I 8 I 1 I 15
male I 93.3 I 60.0 I 53.3 I 6.7 I 78.9
+ ———————— + -------- + ———————— + ———————— +
Column 17 11 10 2 19
Total 89.5 57.9 52.6 10.5 100.0

Percents and totals based on respondents

31 valid cases; 0 missing cases

 

 

 

202
the $PROBLEM variable. It was thought that perhaps, men and women differ in their
view of what problems were of concern in the mangrove ecosystem.

Table 53 and Table 54 examine the problems raised by participants based on
gender and locale. The small sample size makes it difficult to reach many conclusions.
However, it does seem that there were some differences based on gender. Women of
Chelém seem to be more concerned about the level of unemployment then the men of
Chelém. While in Chubuma, the men had a larger list of problems facing the wetland
ecosystem and communities then the problems raised by the women there. The women in
Chubuma only mentioned three problem areas.

Table 55 and Table 56 look at the frequencies of the problems discussed by gender
and interview type. Here the pattern seems to be that the focus groups of men and women
each addressed the same categories in roughly the same frequencies. While, the individual
interviews showed more diversity of responses for male then female responses, it can be
said the responses for men and women from Chelém and Chubuma were substantially

similar within each method of qualitative data collection.

Table 53. Problems by Gender by Chelém

 

$PROBLEM
Count I Coastal Unemploy Lagoon people DUMAC
Row pct I fishing ment fishing coming project Row
I down down here Total
I 21 I 22 I 24 I 2 5 I 2 6 I
GENDER ———————— + ———————— + -------- + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
0 I 3 I 2 I 2 I 1 I 0 I 4
female I 75.0 I 50.0 I 50.0 I 25.0 I 0 I 28 6
+ -------- + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
1 I 9 I 0 I 6 I 5 I 1 I 10
male I 90.0 I .0 I 60.0 I 50.0 I 10 0 I 71.4
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
Column 12 2 8 6 1 14
Total 85.7 14.3 57.1 42.9 7.1 100.0

 

 

 

203

Table 54. Problems by Gender by Chubuma

 

 

 

 

 

$PROBLEM
Count I Coastal Unemploy No more Lagoon people DUMAC
Row pct I fishing ment salt fishing coming project Row
I down down here Total
I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I
GENDER ———+ ———————— + -------- + -------- + -------- + -------- + ———————— +
0 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 1 I 2
female I 100 0 I .0 I .0 I 50.0 I .0 I 50.0 I 20.0
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + -------- + -------- +
1 I 6 I 2 I 2 I 8 I 2 I 5 I 8
male I 75.0 I 25.0 I 25.0 I 100 0 I 25.0 I 62.5 I 80.0
+ ———————— + -------- + -------- + ———————— + -------- + -------- +
Column 8 2 2 9 2 6 10
Total 80.0 20.0 20.0 90.0 20.0 60.0 100.0
24 valid cases; 7 missing cases
Table 55. Problem by Gender by Focus Group
$PROBLEM
Count I Coastal Unemploy No more Lagoon people
Row pct I fishing ment salt fishing coming Row
I down down here Total
I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I
GENDER -------- + -------- + -------- + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
O I 1 I 2 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 2
female I 50.0 I 100 0 I .0 I 50.0 I 50.0 I 33.3
+ -------- + -------- + -------- + ———————— + ———————— +
1 I 2 I 2 I 1 I 4 I 2 I 4
male I 50.0 I 50.0 I 25.0 I 100 0 I 50.0 I 66.7
+ -------- + ———————— + -------- + -------- + -------- +
Column 3 4 l 5 3 6
Total 50.0 66.7 16.7 83.3 50.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

204

Table 56. Problem by Gender by Individual Interview

 

$PROBLEM
Count I Coastal No more Lagoon people DUMAC
Row pct I fishing salt fishing coming project Row
I down down here Total
I 21 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I
GENDER ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
0 I 4 I 0 I 2 I O I l I 4
female I 100.0 I .0 I 50.0 I .0 I 25 0 I 22 2
+ ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— + ———————— +
l I 13 I l I 10 I 5 I 6 I 14
male I 92.9 I 7.1 I 71.4 I 35.7 I 42 9 I 77.8
+ ———————— + -------- + -------- + ———————— + -------- +
Column 17 1 12 5 7 18
Total 94.4 5.6 66.7 27.8 38.9 100 0

Percents and totals based on respondents

 

24 valid cases; 7 missing cases

 

 

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The foregoing results provide an analytical basis to understand what the data from the
Chelém Lagoon focus groups and individual interviews say. Furthermore, the results
allow the testing of the research hypotheses. A system of data reduction and comparison
as well as some uniform decision-making rules were used to accomplish the dual
objectives of the study—learn from local people about the mangrove wetland and test the

efficacy of two different qualitative research methods.

FRAMEWORK AND ANALYSIS

Because of the number of cases, variables, and response categories, some systematic
method was needed to translate the results discussed above into a research frame that
allowed analysis of the research questions. Recall that the data analysis framework

discussed above and illustrated in Table 11 required a disaggregation of the data and a

205

comparison of the results, by theme, across methods and across communities. To
accomplish this task, the results above for the primary variables of each theme were
complied in the Table 58 through Table 68.

In order to make evaluation and analysis of the results possible, as well as to allow
a test of the several hypotheses, tables were constructed that summarized and highlighted
the results for each principle variable. These tables were designed to allow for easy visual
comparisons of the results by locale, interview method, and range of response categories.
Because the number of valid cases varied for each variable, it was decided to report
response frequencies both as the percentage and actual number of responding cases. In
order to differentiate the results and allow for evaluation, the presentation of the results
were subject to a number of possible treatments. As Table 57 illustrates, focus group
results are differentiated from individual interview results by being Shaded gray; categories
that received response rates of 50 percent or more are bolded and boxed; and categories

that were not raised by any cases are left blank.

Table 57. Data Comparison Key

 

 

50% or more of cases BOLD %
raised response category
Less than 50% of cases normal %

raised response category

 

No cases raised the
response category

 

 

Focus Groups: Chelém

 

Chubuma

 

 

Individual Interviews Chelém B

 

Chubuma D

 

 

 

 

206

The decision to categorize response rates into three categories (250%, <50%, and
no response) was based on the understanding that well-regarded qualitative researchers
and research often use relatively few interviews to derive their data and findings—Krueger
(1994) recommends the use of three focus groups as a rule of thumb; Weiss (1994)
recognizes the validity of some qualitative studies with only one respondent; and Morgan
(1997) believes that between three and five groups are usually adequate. A guiding
principle of qualitative research is to stop interviewing at the point of “saturation”—“the
point at which additional data collection no longer generates new understanding” (Morgan
1997, 56). Therefore, significant differences in the responses among the interviews are all
that can reasonably used for comparison. Whether an item was discussed at all during an
interview is significantly different from interviews that make no mention of that idea.
Likewise, if an item is mentioned in a majority of interviews (i.e., 250%), it probably can
be differentiated from those items mentioned in other interviews but to a lesser extent (i.e.,
<50%). The goal here was not to decide which items were necessarily more important but
rather to differentiate the level and breadth of information learned using the two methods.

Nine variables representing the five themes under investigation were selected for
the analysis just described. These variables and their summarized results are described
below. After the results and findings of the data comparisons are presented, the data is

then used in the following section to test the dissertations’ research hypotheses.

How People Live
As Table 58 illustrates, the overwhelming response about how people live in the Chelém

Lagoon area was fishing. However, Table 58 does highlight some interesting differences

207

between the methods and the communities. In Chelém, for example, it seems that both
methods result in the same range of responses with similar frequency. However, in
Chubuma, aside from the fishing responses, the focus groups addressed a wider range of
responses than the individual interviews. Interestingly, the focus groups in Chubuma did

not refer to seasonal work while the individual interviews did discuss such seasonal work.

Table 5 8. How People Live Data Comparison

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fishing Masonry Go to Seasonal
Mérida Work
% # % # % # % #
Chelém
Chubuma
D 100% 9 33% 3
Aggregate 100% 31 45% 14 19% 6 39% 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31 valid cases, 0 missing cases

The second variable examined under the theme of how people live in the Chelém
Lagoon area was the information that people provided about where they fish. Table 59
compares the data obtained for this variable. It is no surprise that respondents address
coastal fishing and lagoon fishing almost the same. This is true in focus groups and
individual interviews in both communities. What does stand out are the references to
deep-sea (commercial) fishing in both focus group and individual interviews in Chelém and

the complete absence of any mention of deep-sea fishing in the interviews in Chubuma.

208

Table 59. Where People Fish Data Comparison

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coastal Deep-Sea Lagoon
Fishing Fishing Fishing
% # % # % #
Chelém
Chubuma
Aggregate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 valid cases, 6 missing eases

Typical Comments

Fishing. . ..Some women take buses to Pro gresso and Mérida to work in the
factories. . ..They work in factories to support their families. . ..There are no
sources of work here except fishing and masonry work. . ..Some people collect
chivita. (ID# 16)

We fish in sea for octopus. . ..When the season is over or there is bad weather or
there are no fish, we fish in wetland. . ..Now, most of the time, we fish for chivita
in the wetland. (ID# 17)

Mostly fishing, when the weather is bad we fish in the wetland. . ..Some people
can get part-time work delivering soda, working in restaurants, or clearing land.
(ID# 20)

Fishing. . ..There used to be salt but that is no more. . ..The fishing is very hard
now, people go out for days and do not even make enough to cover their
costs. . ..Sometirnes we can collect chivita but DUMAC closed the passage way
on us and now there are few chivita. (ID# 31)

209

Problems People See

To address the information learned using the two methods about the problems peOple see
affecting themselves and the mangrove ecosystem, further investigation and comparison of
the results for the $PROBLEM and $FEWFISH variables were undertaken. Table 60
illustrates the comparison of response rates for the various categories of problems cited by
respondents. The range of problems mentioned in both communities in the focus groups
and in the individual interviews was the same within methods. That is, focus groups
(individual interviews) addressed the same three (four) issues with the same frequency in
both Chelém and Chubuma. The differences made clear in Table 60 are that individual

interviews revealed more information (about a controversial project) than did focus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

groups.
Table 60. Problems Data Comparison
Coastal Fish Lagoon Fish People DUMAC
Chelém
B 100% 10 50% 5 40% 4 10% 1
Chubuma
Aggregate 83% 20 71 % 17 33 8 29 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 valid cases, 7 missing case

Further analysis of the “problems here” theme was undertaken looking at

respondents’ beliefs and ideas about why there are fewer fish to catch. Table 61 illustrates

210
how when it came to respondents offering suggestions as to the reason or reasons behind
the fall-off in fishing productivity, the different communities had different ideas and that
the different methods also were associated with different responses. It seems that the
focus groups elicited many fewer reasons for fishing productivity and that these reasons
were discussed by a majority of the groups from that community. On the other hand,
individual interviews addressed Wider ranges of reasons for fishing declines. For example,
the absence of fishing regulations was not addressed as a possible reason for poor fishing
in the focus groups of either community. Yet, regulations were discussed in almost half of

the interviews in Chubuma and over two-thirds of the interviews in Chelém.

Table 61. Declining Fish Population Data Comparison

 

Weather Pollution Trawlers Too Many DUMAC No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fishers Project Reg’s
Chelém
B 25% 2 "'iséz.."””1 13%. 1 100%18 63% 5
Chubuma
14% 1 14% 1 57% 4 57% 4 86% 6 43% 3
Aggregate 20% 4 15% 3 35% 7 70% 14 30% 6 40% 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 valid cases, 11 missing cases

Typical Comments

Now, you can't make a profit more than 2-3 months from fishing, that's why we
do carpentry, mason work, etc.. . ..The same problem is also happening in the
estuary, it used to be that you could take all the crab, chivita you wanted. N ow
only the small ones are around. (ID# 18)

211

En Rio Lagartos [a distant coastal biosphere reserve] they have plenty of fish and
lobsters, they don’t even collect their chivita. . ..Here is close and easy for people,
not like there which is hidden. . ..They have conservation, here everything can be
taken. . ..Unlike Rio Lagartos, there is much demand and competition here. (ID#
23)

We have problems with experts. . ..the DUMAC project, they said, would
maintain the flow of water and fish, but they closed the flow of water and fish off.
Now there are no fish, no chivita, no wetland. . ..we need to open the DUMAC
dike so we can live, live from the wetland. We must undo What DUMAC has
done. (ID#29)

DUMAC built a flood- gate (dike) and told the village that it would function well,
but no, it doesn't work. . ..Because of DUMAC, the wetland’s water is too low,
too hot, and the mud is too hot. All the chivita and crab are killed. (ID# 34)

Too many people are coming from other villages to live and survive here. . ..Too
many people go fishing and take even the small fish, and grouper during their
breeding season, they kill females and sell the eggs instead of letting them
reproduce. . ..Now there are too many boats. . .there used to be 50-70 boats here,
now there are times when there are 1000-1200. (ID# .36)

Overexploitation, too many people are catching fish at night and during the day,
they exploit these animals at night, in the afternoon, and in the morning, the
animal are beginning to pay the price, like the story says, all rivers run

dry. . ..People have closed of the only way water can pass into the wetland under
the bridges. They put many nets there and the fish cannot pass in and out. . ..The
overexploitation, they take every fish! (ID# 39)

Wetland Value

It was clear from practically the first interview that the inhabitants of Chelém and
Chuburna value the mangrove wetland. To examine the data for indications of differences
that could be attributable to the locales or methodologies, the results of the $CVIEW and
$CSERV variables were tabulated. Table 62 shows that with the exception of referring to
the wetland’s beautify, the focus groups and individual interviews addressed the same
range of topics. Interestingly, the individual interviews in Chubuma, while identifying the

wetland as an income source, differed from the focus groups there. It seems that all of the

212
groups in Chubuma addressed the beauty of the wetland while the individuals emphasized
the threatened nature of the wetland and did not mention the ecosystem’s natural beauty

at all.

Table 62. Perception of Wetland Data Comparison

Connect Ecosystem Threatened Beautiful Source
to sea of living

Chelém

C huburna

Aggregate

 

The other wetland value variable examined with the data comparison table was the
variable capturing responses referring to services provide by the wetland. It was apparent
from previous analysis of this variable that respondents uniformly characterized the
wetland as providing a social safety net for the villagers. Table 63 illustrates that
regardless of data collection method or locale, the overwhelming view of the wetland is as
a source of support and sustenance for local inhabitants. The dominance of the DUMAC

project for the inhabitants of Chubuma was once again made apparent in Table 63.

213

Table 63. Wetland Services Data Comparison

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Safety Net Storm None b/c
Protection DUMAC
% # % ‘ # % #
Chelém
Chubuma
Aggregate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27 valid cases, 4 missing cases

Typical Comments:

While husbands try to work elsewhere, the women sustain their families with
chivita from the wetland. (ID# 18)

The men go out to sea to fish sometimes for 15 days. And if they don’t give or
have money because they have many children, the women are obligated to go
collect chivita to sell and survive until the men return and give them money. (ID#
10)

The fish are down, the chivita are way down. Because too many people are
going in and the area is not getting any rest. . ..The wetland is our resource, we
must protect it our community and place for people to make a living. (ID# 32)

When there was bad weather, we would live from the wetland. . ..Fish would
enter when there was high tide but now there is no water, it is not

sufficient. . ..Before the DUMAC dike, we dedicated ourselves to collecting
chivita, before there was free flow of water. . .the sea and the estuary were
connected. . ..When we did not have fish in the sea, we went to the river and
fished. . ..DUMAC’S dike has affected us gravely. (ID# 34)

Chivita are the source of livelihood for the village, if they are taken away or
disappear, how are people going to live. They are the only thing that sustains
some people and families. (ID# 37)

Resource Management

214

The variables $IMPROVE and $RWHYNOT was examined using the data comparison

tables to see if information learned from the participants concerning resource management

revealed similarities and differences based on locale or data collection methods. Table 64

illustrates the substantial similarities between the results learned from the individual

interviews and focus group interviews in Chelém. However, the range of information

Table 64. Wetland Improvement Data Comparison

 

 

 

 

Chelém

Aquaculture Tourism Expert Restrict Nothing Remove
help Use c/b done DUMAC
% # % % % # % %

 

 

 

Chubuma

 

 

Aggregate

 

57%

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

55% 12

 

5%

 

 

14%

 

 

27%

 

 

 

 

   

 

22 valid cases, 9 missing eases

uncovered in Chuburna about possible ways to improve the wetland was very different as

between the focus groups and individual interviews. For example, aquaculture received

more responses in focus groups both in Chelém and Chubuma. Yet individual interviews

in Chubuma once again seemed to focus on the DUMAC issue and not mention

alternatives to improving the wetland.

 

215

The examination of the data on why respondents did not think that use restrictions
would work to protect and manage the mangrove ecosystem is illustrated below in Table
65. Regardless of method or locale, the overwhelming sentiment expressed by the
participants from both Chelém and Chubuma was that restrictions would not and could
not be put in place because the wetland provided a much needed way of life, a source of
subsistence, and the key to their survival; despite the fact that 20 percent of the focus
groups and over 50 percent of the individuals interviewed in Chelém discussed using

restrictions as a way to improve the wetland. Another interesting point illustrated by

Table 65. Restriction Enforcement Efficacy Data Comparison

 

Survival/ N o
Subsistence/ Enforcement
Way of Life of Rules

 

 

 

 

 

Chelém

 

Ch ubuma

 

 

Aggregate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 valid cases, 10 missing cases

Table 65 is that focus groups more often articulated the sentiment that rules and

regulations of the wetland would not and could not be enforced. This response rate

216
differed by almost a factor of three from the response rate of individual interviewees

voicing doubt about the enforcement of such rules.

Typical Comments:

During the shrimp period, the navy tries to stop fishing for shrimp [prohibited in
Lagoon and near shore]. . ..When the word is out that there are shrimp everybody
goes fishing for them, and sell a kilo or two that they get. (ID# 16)

We could use fish-ponds or nurseries. . ..individuals could have their own
shrimp/crab farms. . ..But we couldn’t agree, their is too much politics

involved. . ..people would support and encourage aquaculture, but we would need
permission from many different government agencies, and we would need money.
(ID# 17 )

The community would not accept any restrictions. . ..Maybe, if it was the law,
people may be angry but they would obey, like octopus. . ..but there is so much
corruption like the shrimp regulation. Even though there is a law against it, we
still fish for shrimp, we have to. . ..Chivita could be regulated by closing a part of
the wetland and guarding it. . ..a season would only work if there were guards,
and they are subject to corruption. . ..The village doesn’t have anything to eat,
people search all day for 2 kg of chivita to make up to 20 pesos. If restricted one
would have to find a way to eat meat, pork, every second day. Now, no one can
do that. (ID#18)

I am 72 years old and I sleep little. My work is to think of why the coast is dying
out. . ..People are working hard, with hunger, with cold, and they collect 2 kg of
chivita. . .If fishing in the river is prohibited, people will take to robbery. What
will happen will be that the government will have to put us all under guard, the
police and military would be the winners. (ID# 23)

Some people have already tried to undertake an aquaculture project. They
closed of an area and placed live "shrimp larvae" in there only to have some other
people take the shrimp. (ID# 27)

Problem, because so many depend on collecting chivita, there isn't a season.
When their are bad times (weather, etc.) in the sea, everybody focuses on fishing
in the river. (ID# 33)

Thinking about prohibitions on chivita, there are many people that are dedicated
only to that one activity all year. If there is a prohibition on chivita, how are
these people going to live, can you imagine how those people that depend
entirely on chivita are going to live? (ID# 39)

217
Names for Wetland
Because word use and meaning are important to good survey research design and
qualitative research, the name people in the Chelém Lagoon area use to refer to the
mangrove ecosystem were examined. Table 66 lists the four categories of names used by
respondents and their corresponding frequencies by locale and interview method. It is
obvious that the vast majority of respondents used the term ciénaga (wetland) to refer to
Chelém Lagoon and the mangrove ecosystem. The other three names reveal differences
that may be a function of geographic differences. In Chelém, both individual interviews
and focus groups produced similarly response rates for the four names. However, it does
seem that in individual interviews the term rio was used slightly less frequently. Yet in
Chubuma, the responses rates for the term rio and ria are opposite for focus groups and
individual interviews. Both methods reveal the use of another term (charcos) but neither

method nor locale seems to use that term with considerable frequency.

Table 66. Names for Wetland Data Comparison

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cienaga Rio Ria Charcos
(wetland) (river) (estuary) (ponds)
% # % # % # % #

Chelém

Chubuma

Aggregate 87% 22 68% 18 65% I20 16% 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31 valid cases, 0 missing cases

Gender Differences

As discussed earlier, within the dissertation efforts are made to address possible gender

differences. These efforts include conducting focus groups made-up of only women as

218

well as making efforts to qualitatively interview women in both communities.

Table 67 and Table 68 depict the summary data for the $CNAME and $PROBLEM
variables by gender and locale. Note the shading in these tables does not correspond with
the interview type used to learn the underlying data. Responses made by women are

shaded gray While those made by men are not. In this way, the comparison of data learned

from men and women may be made more easily.

Table 67. Names by Gender Data Comparison

 

Chelém

Cienaga
(wetland)

Rio
(river)

Ria Charcos
(estuary) (ponds)

 

 

 

 

 

Chubuma

   
  

". .......
............

 

 

Aggregate

 

 

    

 

 

  
 

............................ .'

31 valid cases, 0 missing cases

Table 67 reveals substantial similarities in the names that the men and women of

the area use. It is worth mentioning that the women in the two communities seem to have

 

        
     

Ill-I
l

...................................................

# % #

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . .-
. 31'1"“? '''''
...........................................

 

 

 

 

 

219
more similarities in name usage then do the men. For the men of Chelém, the second most
recorded wetland name was rr’a while the men of Chubuma seemed to prefer the term rio.
Examining the data summaries associated with the cross-tabulation of
$PROBLEM by gender and locale did not reveal unexpected insights. Men and women,
regardless of interview type (focus or individual) identified that indeed there were some
differences between women’s and men’s responses. It seems that men mentioned more

problems that were negatively affecting the ecosystem then those discussed by women.

Table 68. Problems by Gender Data Comparison

Coastal Unemply’t No More Lagoon People DUMAC
Fishing Salt Fishing Coming to Project

% % % % # %

Chelém

10%

Chubuma

Aggregate

 

C1868, C8868

TEST OF HYPOTHESES
In order to test the hypotheses that: (1) focus groups produce the same data as individual
qualitative interviews, (2) that focus groups from two similar communities will produce

similar data, and (3) that individual interviews will produce similar information from two

220

similar communities, the results of the data comparisons were summarized and tabulated
by theme, variable, and hypothesis. Some decision-making rules were invoked in order to
make this analysis possible. Because the qualitative research methods are supposed to
help researchers learn about the realities of the observed rather than the observer, the
decision was made to measure the substantial similarities and differences in the information
learned using the two methods.

Table 69 was developed to reduce the data to a form that could be used to test the
various hypotheses. As previously discussed, the basic unit of analysis was the category of
responses for each particular variable under investigation. Each category of response
captured and catalogued the characteristics of participants’ contributions to the various
discussions of the research foci. The absence of information was recorded as another way
to measure the relative strength of the two methods to reveal or encourage respondents to
reveal such information.

For example, if the focus group interviews revealed a category of information
relating to a particular theme or variable its “magnitude” was noted. If the two methods’
categories were of the same magnitude (i.e., both 250% or <50% but positive), then such
a match was deemed to be a positive indication of the similarity of information learned by
the use of both of the methods. That is, when A1: B1, a “yes” was recorded. In cases
when similar categories of responses were raised by both methods but they were of

different magnitudes (e.g., one was >50% and the other <50%) or one method did
not reveal any information for that particular category they were classified as negative
indications of the two methods’ similarity of information acquisition. That is, when A1;t

B1, a “no” was recorded.

Resource
Man g’ t

Words &

Variable
How Live

Where Fish
Problems

Why Few Fish
Wetland Value
Wetland
Service
Improve Ideas

Restrict’n Work

Name

Totals by Variable

per village

Overall

Locale
Chelém
Chubuma
Chelém
Chubuma
Chelém
Chubuma
Chelém
Chubuma
Chelém
Chubuma
Chelém
Chubuma
Chelém
Chubuma
Chelém
Chubuma

Chelém
Chubuma

Chelém
Chubuma

221

Focus Groups
= Ind. Int. ?
No

Table 69. Data for Hypothesis Tests

FG in CLM =

FG in CBA?

Yes No
An=Cn An¢Cn

Int in CIM =
Int in CBA?

Yes
Bn=Dn

N o
Bn¢Dn

 

222

When it came time to aggregate and evaluate the total number of positive and
negative matches, some decision had to be made about the instances when there were
equal numbers of positive and negative response category totals. These ties were
separately recorded, so as to accurately measure the methods information acquisition
power. However, such ties were not treated as evidence that the two methods revealed
the same information. It would be more prudent to treat them as the opposite, examples
of the two methods not necessarily revealing the same information. Therefore, the ties
Should be treated as not supporting the hypotheses that the two methods and their

application in similar communities help to reveal the same information.

Focus Groups = Individual Interviews
One of the research hypotheses was that focus group interviews would yield the same or
similar information about people’s understanding , use, and beliefs about shared natural
resources as qualitative individual interviews. Using the research framework for analysis
developed for the dissertation, this hypotheses would be supported if the information
learned about a theme was similar under the two methods. To determine that, Table 69
counted the coincidences of the frequencies of each particular response category for each
variable. Doing so, allowed the testing of whether the information set learned with focus
groups in a community (e.g., Al and C“) were the same as the information set learned
using individual qualitative interviews (e. g., B, and D).

As Table 70 illustrates, the information learned in each community using the focus
groups could not be considered to be substantially the same as the information learned in

that community using individual qualitative interviews. There were only two instances

223

that clearly supported the hypothesis, three rejections of the hypothesis, and 4 ties or
ambiguous cases. Because the objective of undertaking qualitative research, or any
research for that matter, is to learn information otherwise unknown to outsiders,
ambiguous results (i.e., ties) should probably be viewed as not supportive of the
hypothesis. In any event, the first research hypotheses, was not supported by the

evidence.

Table 70. Hypothesis 1: An: Bn; C“: Dn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEME VARIABLE YES N O TIE

LIFE How live 1
HERE where Fish 1

PROBLEMS problems 1
HERE few fish 1

WETLAND wetland value 1
VALUE wetland service 1
RESOURCE improve 1
MANAGEMENT Restrict NO 1
WORDS Name 1

 

 

 

 

 

Focus Groups in Different Villages

The second research hypothesis was that the information learned about a shared natural
resource from focus groups conducted with people in one community would be
substantially similar to the information learned in focus groups with people from a similar

community also sharing that particular resource. To place this in terms of the research

224

framework, focus group information sets from Chelém l (e. g., An) were theorized to be
substantially similar to the information sets from Chubuma (e. g., Bn). To help determine
whether or not the data learned in the focus groups conducted as part of the dissertation
either supported or did not support this hypothesis, the data was summarized about in
Table 69. This data is used below in Table 71 to test the second research hypothesis of

the dissertation.

Table 71. Hypothesis 2: An = C,1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEME VARIABLE YES N O TIE

LIFE How live 1
HERE where Fish 1

PROBLEMS problems 1

HERE few fish 1
WETLAND wetland value 1

VALUE wetland service 1

RESOURCE improve 1

MANAGEMENT Restrict NG 1

WORDS Name 1
DOES A, = C,? 6 1 2

 

 

 

The data seems to support the hypothesis that focus groups conducted in similarly
situated communities can produce substantially similar information sets. There were six
instances where the information sets learned in focus groups in Chelém were substantially
similar to the information learned in focus groups in Chubuma. There was only one

outright rejection of the hypothesis and two ambiguous ties. Regardless of whether or not

225

the ties were treated as rejections of the hypothesis, the data supports the dissertation’s
second research hypothesis. It seems that focus groups conducted in different
communities that share a common resource and socioeconomic characteristics will

produce substantially similar sets of information about the shared resource.

Individual Interviews in Different Villages

The third research hypothesis of the dissertation was that individual qualitative interviews
produced substantially the same information when conducted in two communities that
shared the same natural resource. That is, it was hypothesized that the information sets
acquired from conducting individual qualitative interviews in Chelém would be
substantially similar to the information learned from individual qualitative interviews in

Chubuma.

Table 72. Hypothesis 3: B1] = Dn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEME VARIABLE YES N O TIE

LIFE How live 1

HERE where Fish 1

PROBLEMS problems 1

HERE few fish 1
WETLAND wetland value 1

VALUE wetland service 1
RESOURCE improve 1
MANAGEMENT Restrict N G 1
WORDS Name 1

DOES Bu = DD? 4 2 3

 

 

 

226

Following the method already discussed above, Table 72 was developed to
facilitate testing the third hypothesis. While the results of this test at first seem to support
the hypothesis, a closer look reveals less positive interpretations. It is true that in four
variables, the individual interviews in Chelém produced substantially similar information as
the information learned with such interviews in Chubuma. However, a majority of the
information that was revealed using individual qualitative interviews did not support the
hypothesis; that is, there were two instances of outright rejections of the hypothesis and
three instances in which the results have to be considered inconclusive, at best. In light of
these findings, it would be imprudent to conclude that the hypothesis that individual
qualitative interviews in one community yield substantially the same information as

individual qualitative interviews in a similarly situated community.

ECONOMIC DATA

Throughout the field research component of the dissertation evidence of economically
relevant sources of value associated with the mangrove ecosystem was readily apparent in
speaking with the people of the Chelém Lagoon area. As the foregoing analysis of the
qualitative data reveals, people of Chelém and Chubuma articulated some use and nonuse
values they associate with the ecosystem. Equally clear were peoples’ apprehension about
the health of their fisheries and their economic circumstances. This was evidenced by the
predominance of responses identifying the increasing difficulties in both coastal and lagoon
fishing. Also, the many comments expressing the role of the wetland as a social safety net
and a source of livelihood for the coastal inhabitants underscore the importance of the

wetland in the local subsistence economy. In an attempt to develop some measure of what

227
the economic value of the mangrove wetland might be, a focused analysis of the transcript

data was performed.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DATA

Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub (1996) have pointed to research studies that support the
notion that focus groups and qualitative interviews can produce data that is consistent
with survey research data. They assert that focus groups can be used to collect data that
are as reliable and valid as data collected using traditional survey questionnaires.

One example of the comparability of data from qualitative research methods and
quantitative research methods is the 1978 shopping study of Reynolds and Johnson.
Reynolds and Johnson (1978) conducted an item by item analysis of food shopping and
preparation in an effort to test and compare the accuracy and reliability of focus group
data. They compared the findings of a quantitative survey of people about their grocery
store purchases and food preparation with their findings from a series of focus groups on
the same topics. They found that there was a 97% correspondence in findings of the
surveys and the findings of the focus groups. Reynolds and Johnson did find one major
difference between the two sets of findings, the responses on baking products.
Interestingly, based on later sales figures, the purchases of baking items was more
accurately revealed (predicted) by the focus group data than by the survey answers.

The candidate, in an effort to derive some, albeit partial, measure of the economic
value of the wetland, coded the data so that responses and comments that might be useful
in such an analysis could be recorded, retrieved, and used. After reviewing all of the

transcripts and the coded data therein, it became apparent that the primary use of the

228

mangrove resource was the collection of chivita. Furthermore, it was also apparent from
the data that many respondents had volunteered catch rates and prices associated with the
collection of chivita. As a result, it was decided to collect, analysis, and use this data to
develop a partial estimate of the economic value of the mangrove resource to the

communities of Chelém and Chubuma.

VALUE OF CHIVITA

Chivita were the most mentioned and discussed product associated with the Chelém
Lagoon. More than any other product, respondents from Chelém and Chubuma talked
about the importance of chivita to them and their communities. When groups or
individuals mentioned the collection of chivita, the focus group moderator and individual
interviewers tried in a nondirective manner to encourage participants to discuss how they
went about collecting the shellfish, how much they usually collected in a typical day (i.e.,
quantity), and how much they received for their catch (i.e., price). This data, as
mentioned, was subsequently coded for later retrieval and use.

Table 73 illustrates a summary of some of the “economic” data revealed by
respondents during focus groups and individual interviews. Fourteen sessions specifically
discussed the current state of chivita fishing and expected catch rates. Many of these
discussions were framed in terms of comparisons of the current difficulties to the much
better catches in recent history. However, only those estimates that reflected current

chivita collection experience were used.

229

Table 73. Chivita Data

 

Variable 11 low high mean

 

 

Chivita 14 .5 4 1.8
(KG/day)

Price 8 5 10 7.9
(Pesos/KG)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AS Table 73 illustrates, the range reported of chivita collected per working day
ranged from a few 0.5 kilo grams to as many as 4 kilograms. Many respondents spoke
about being able to easily collect more than 10 kilograms during good times. While
discussions of the current market price for chivita revealed a seasonality to chivita prices,
many respondents gave a range of chivita prices that reflected the then relatively average
price being paid for chivita.

It Should be remembered that the potentially lucrative octopus season runs from
mid-Au gust through late-November. That is approximately 4 months. While chivita and
other lagoon species are continued to be collected during Octopus season, most men focus
on octopus fishing, if they can. This is not true for the women of the area who report
collecting chivita to sustain their families while their husbands, if they are married, go to
fish in the sea. In any event, it is fair to assume that the lagoon is heavily relied upon for
about 8 months of the year. While chivita are not they only species harvested from the
lagoon, it may be assumed that they represent a significant portion of the lagoon’s direct
consumptive use value. Chivita were not only were mentioned more than other species,
but their collection does not require any special Skills or equipment. Additionally, parents

can bring their children along with them to help with the chivita collection.

230

Of course, the productivity of chivita collection has cycles. However, no one,
including the scientists at CINVESTAV studying chivita has a good idea of chivita
breeding activity, productive zones, or other life cycle data. Therefore, for now, it will be
assumed that the current levels of chivita collection will remain at their current rates. This
assumption may lead to an estimate of value that will have to be adjusted as fishing
productivity data changes. For now, it will be assumed that people in the region may

continue to collect the same amount of chivita per day for the near-future.

 

CHIVITA COLLECTION SEASON (no chivita collected during octopus season)

8 month chivita season
x a working days/month
192 collecting days

x 1_.8 kg chivita/day
346 kg/season

x 7_.9_ pesos/kg

2,733 pesos/household per chivita season

or

:1: $ 390* per household per chivita season

CHIVITA COLLECTION YEAR-ROUND
[12 months @ 24 collection days]

4,095 pesos/household per year
or
:1: $ 585* per household per year

AGGREGATE ANNUAL VALUE T0 CHELEM & CHUBURNA

[i600 households]

Excluding Octopus Season Year-Round Collection
1,639,800 pesos per year 2,457,000 pesos per year
or or

:t: $ 234,257 * per year i $ 351,000* per year

* Exchange rate of 7 pesos per dollar

 

 

 

Figure 12. Wetland Use Value Estimate

231

With the data learned with the qualitative research methods , illustrated in Table
73, and the foregoing assumptions, a rough estimate of the value of a major use value of
Chelém Lagoon was estimated. The average daily chivita catch reported in focus groups
and individual interviews was 1.8 kilograms and the average price paid per kilogram was
7.9 pesos. The qualitative data supports the assumption that family members work on
average 6 days collecting chivita. Therefore, as Figure 12 illustrates, this data can be used
to estimate an aggregate and household mangrove use value.

According to the rough estimate, the communities of Chelém and Chubuma derive
benefits use benefits from the Chelém Lagoon of approximately $230,000 to $350,000
dollars annually. It may be more instructive to look at the per household estimates. It is
estimated that a family, relying on the lagoon for chivita collection year-round, can earn
more than $580 dollars per year and that a family can earn $390 dollars per year from
chivita if they devote 4 months to octopus fishing.

The findings are significant, especially when compared to the Mexican minimum
wage of $2 dollars (14 pesos) per day paid at factories in Progresso and Mérida. Working
6 day a week, every week of the year, a factory worker would earn about $576. People in
the area report being able to earn, on average, much more than that collecting chivita.
Some reasons cited for this: (1) to take a job in a factory, one must deal with an
unreliable, time-consuming, and costly system of public transportation; (2) employees can
not work as much as they want or as much as the factories demand of them; (3) factory
workers have to pay for meals and other necessities associated with going to work in the

factories. As it was stated during one focus group interview,

232

Between collection chivita and factory work, chivita is harder. The benefit of
chivita work is that much of it can be done at home. You don’t have to pay for
transportation and the food you eat. (ID #16)

Therefore, the use of qualitative research methods can do more than help outsiders
learn important data about how and Why local research beneficiaries use, understand, refer
to, and value environmental and natural resources. Focus groups and individual
qualitative interviews can reveal some baseline economic data that can be used by itself or

in conjunction with other policy making and economic valuation efforts.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

The dissertation examined some of the advantages and disadvantages of using focus group
and individual qualitative interviews for designing economic valuation studies. Economic
valuation studies, including contingent valuation studies, are increasingly being used in
developing countries to assist decision makers with policies that impact environmental and
natural resources. Contingent valuation survey questionnaires, like other survey research
instruments, require well-crafted and well—implemented questionnaires to generate reliable
and valid data. The dissertation evaluated two qualitative research methods—focus
groups and individual interviews—that are increasingly used by sociologists and other

survey practitioners for designing and testing survey-based research.

SUMMARY

To evaluate the relative efficacy of two different qualitative methods for helping outsiders
learn how local resource beneficiaries use, think about, value, and refer to their
environmental and natural resources, a modified 2 x 2 research design was developed.
Separate focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with members from the
villages of Chelém and Chubuma. Both of these communities are located along the same
24 kilometer stretch of coast of the littoral basin called Chelém Lagoon. Chelém Lagoon

is a mangrove wetland that, among other things, supports both coastal and lagoon fishing.

233

234

The data collected in the focus groups and individual interviews was then
systematically analyzed. Using transcripts of the focus groups and individual interviews, a
coding procedure following the ground theory approach of Strauss and Corbin (1990) was
applied to the data. Successive iterations of open, axial, and selective coding efforts using
qualitative software programs HyperRESEARCH and QSR NUD°IST produced a
database of the transcripts, thematic variables, and response categories. The frequencies
of the variables and response categories as well as their cross-tabulations were then
examined by defining and subsequently analyzing multiple response variables for selective
codes in SPSS for Windows®.

The results of the systematic analysis of the focus group and individual interview
data supported the supposition that separate focus groups with members from distinct
communities that rely upon a common environmental and natural resource produce
substantially similar sets of information. However, the data failed to support the
supposition that information learned using individual qualitative interviews in a community
is substantially Similar to the information learned in the same community using individual
qualitative interviews. Furthermore, the evidence collected did not support the
supposition that the information learned used separate series of individual interviews in

two similar communities produce substantially similar sets of information.

DISCUSSION

The theoretical and practical foundations of the dissertation touch on the literature of

international development; coastal zone management and the importance of mangrove

235

wetlands; nonmarket economic valuation; and qualitative research methods. The results of

the dissertation are discussed in light of each of these areas.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Despite the growing literature on the importance of taking a bottom-up approach to
development and international assistance, the assumption that US. and other
industrialized nations’ “know-how” can transform “underdeveloped” nations persists in
governmental agencies and multilateral donors (G. Axinn 1988). Unfortunately, the
DUMAC project near Chubuma, its failure to achieve its stated goal of restoring duck
habitat, and its destruction of the wetland ecosystem demonstrate some harmful
consequences of using a “top-down” approach to development.

As the respondents put it,

We have problems with experts coming in here. . ..the DUMAC project, they said,
would maintain the flow of water and fish, but they closed the flow of water and
fish off. Now there are no fish, no chivita, no wetland. . ..we need to open the
DUMAC dike so we can live, live from the wetland. We must undo What
DUMAC has done. (ID# 29)

[DUMAC] got money from the United States. . ..The biologists in Mérida came
here and. . ..DUMAC built a flood- gate (dike) and told the village that it would
function well, but no, it doesn't work. . ..Because of DUMAC, the wetland’s

water is too low, too hot, and the mud is too hot. All the chivita and crab are
killed. (ID# 34)

The data collected by the dissertation research demonstrated several important
points about including local beneficiaries in development planning, decision making, and
evaluation. While the two villages appeared to have the same socioeconomic composition

and relationship vis-a-vis reliance on the wetland, Chuburna’s proximity to the DUMAC

236

project seems to account for its more profound tendency to raise the DUMAC issue with
the candidate and his researcher assistants.

This is supported by the evidence that not one of the focus groups and only one
individual interview from Chelém mentioned the DUMAC project (See Table 60). People
in Chubuma seemed careful to avoid criticizing the DUMAC project during focus groups
with fellow villagers. In fact, the only mention of the DUMAC project during a focus
group in Chubuma was to point of that only a few community members would benefit
from increased duck hunting. However, also in Chubuma,: 75 percent of the individual
interviews mentioned the DUMAC project as a significant problem facing the community;
86 percent of the individual interviews identified the DUMAC project as the reason for the
declining fish population; and 80 percent of the individuals interviewed suggested
removing the DUMAC project as the way to improve the wetland (See Table 60, Table
61, and Table 64).

The villagers of Chubuma also expressed their frustration with the bureaucracies
of the local, regional, and national governments and their failure to address and rectify the
communities’ problems, especially the DUMAC dike. Regional officials expressed their
frustration to the candidate. According to them, DUMAC presented a project that made
sense but built a project that either was never completed properly or that simply did not
work. A Mexican researcher who provided some hydrological help for designing the
DUMAC project spoke of the role such a dike could play in ensuring the future viability of
the lagoon both as a fishery and duck habitat. He went on to express his extreme
frustration at DUMAC’S failure to complete the project and their refusal to even return his

telephone calls.

237

Unfortunately for the people of the Chelém Lagoon area , it seems that the failure
of DUMAC to use a bottom-up participatory approach to design, implement, and maintain
their project has contributed to the destruction of parts of a much valued wetland
resource. Future development assistance effOrts in the Chelém Lagoon may find a

populace that has learned to be suspicious and distrustful. As one respondent put it,

The government is always asking, talking, and never doing anything. . ..We have
problems with biologists, the Dumac project. They said they would maintain
flow of water and fish, but they closed it off. N ow there are no fish. . ..Well the
truth is that we will believe nobody, neither the government, nor anybody, now
the people are uncontrollable, they do not have the capacity to believe because
everyone says things and does not do them. (ID# 29)

While the local beneficiaries recognize the need to take steps to protect their
environmental and natural resources, their recent experiences seem to have decreased their
ability to believe that they or anybody can affect positive social change.

The qualitative research helped to reveal the history of development projects and
the communities' frustration with and reaction to such projects. For example, the
communities reported successive government sponsored projects that failed, in the eyes of
community members, to adequately account for impacts on the villages. The construction
of the puerto de abrigo near Chelém, the increase in government-sanctioned trawler
activity off-shore, and the promotion of coastal migration as a response to the collapse of
Mexico's henequen industry are viewed as examples of the lack of power and
consideration of local beneficiaries.

The use of qualitative research methods by outsiders to focus on understanding the
problems of this region before the next project or undertaking may help prevent the

cultural and political biases from further interference with the area’s sustainable and

238

appropriate deve10pment. Taking such steps would go a long way towards making
explicit the suggestion of George (1984) for governments and international organizations
to become more effective in their development efforts by receiving and using the input and

participation from the affected citizens and stakeholders.

ECONOMIC VALUE

Hamilton, Dixon, and Owen Miller (1989) report the importance of mangrove ecosystems
to the subsistence livelihoods of tropical coastal communities. Barbier (1994) and Turner
(1991) report that recent studies of healthy tropical wetland systems report that they may
play a crucial role in regional economic development. Furthermore, such wetland systems
may be more valuable when retained in their natural or semi-natural state than converted
or degraded.

Barbier (1994) and others have developed hierarchies that describe the
theoretically possible sources of economic value associated with healthy mangrove
ecosystems (See Figure 3). These values, they claim, include use and nonuse values. The
data and findings of this dissertation appear to support such claims. Using focus groups
and individual qualitative interviews, the candidate learned about some of the use and
nonuse values that local beneficiaries derive from Chelém Lagoon.

Almost 80 percent of the focus groups and individual interviews referred to local
reliance on the mangrove wetland for fishing (See Table 59). Furthermore, 80 percent of
the cases reported the wetland to be a source of living for the communities (See Table 62).
The species of “fish” most often mentioned in the cases was chivita, a lagoon species of

shellfish. More than 70 percent of the cases mentioned collecting or fishing for chivita

239

(See Table 14). Therefore, it is fair to say that the collection of chivita represents a
significant consumptive use value associated with Chelém Lagoon.

According to estimates based on data collected during the focus groups and
individual interviews, each household in these communities is able to earn between $400
and $600 per year by collecting chivita. Therefore, this one use value associated with the
mangrove wetland is quite significant, especially when viewed in light of the $2 per day
minimum wage in Mexico. Also, the collection of chivita does not preclude households in
the Chelém Lagoon area from taking advantage of other economic opportunities in the
area (e. g., coastal fishing for octopus and grouper and seasonal employment during tourist
season).

As one respondent stated:

The benefit of chivita work is that much of it can be done at home. You don’t
have to pay for transportation and the food you eat. (ID #16)

There was some evidence of other types of direct use values associated with the
wetlands by local beneficiaries. Some of these things include trapping crab for use as bait
during octopus season and fishing for lagoon dwelling fish such as shrimp, mullet, and
mojarra. Likewise, some respondents mentioned collecting firewood. However, data and
information on fishing effort, catch rates, and market prices for other lagoon species was
not readily apparent from the focus groups and interviews. It would be fair to say that,
but for crab, respondents viewed these other species as secondary to chivita for providing
food and a living.

One source of indirect use value was raised in three focus groups (See Table 63).

Two of these groups were in Chelém. It seems that the wetland was viewed as able to

240
provide Storm protection for the fishing boats during severe weather. This benefit seems

however to only applicable to the members of Chelém. As one respondent put it,

Unlike in Chubuma, here the wetland is deep enough to allow for boats. During
storms we can bring out boats into the lagoon for protection. (ID# 32)

Although theoretically possible to attribute coastal fishery support (e. g., nutrients,
breeding grounds, etc.) to wetland biological functions, no respondents mentioned such a
connection. However, virtually every case mentioned that the wetland provided a function
as a social safety net. Such a role many be thought of as a direct use value but it may also
be viewed as an option value. That is, people in these communities may value the
continued availability of the mangrove wetland for possible use at some needed time in the
future (See Table 63).

While it is widely recognized by resource economists and others that
environmental and natural resources may have significant nonuse value for people and
societies, such values can be difficult to discuss and quantify. Typically, nonuse values
may be thought of as existence values and bequest values. That is, the value to people of
simply knowing that the environmental and natural resource exists and the value to people
to know that future generations will have the resource. While economists and others
recognize a wide range of possible nonuse values associated with mangrove wetlands, the
qualitative research did not reveal much evidence of such values. This does not mean that
such values do not exist. However, it does raise substantial questions as to how to reveal
such values, how to measure them, and how to best determine the economic value of the

mangrove I'CSOUI‘CC.

241

One general class of nonuse value that was apparent from the qualitative research
was an appreciation for the scenic beauty of the mangroves by respondents. Respondents
did comment on how much they liked the wetland, how beautiful they thought the wetland
ways, and how they liked having nonmarket species (e.g., flamingoes, heron, crocodiles,
etc.) living in the mangrove ecosystem. Flamingoes were mentioned in 71 percent of the
cases; herons and other seabirds mentioned in a third of the cases; and the overall beauty
of the wetland was discussed in all of the focus groups (See Table 30 and Table 62).

As some of the cases put it:

The wetland is pretty. . ..We sometimes picnic there but it is not that common
anymore. . ..When we have a visitor we take them for a boat ride to see it. (ID#
9)

The flamingoes always come and go. . ..They are very pretty and the people here
like to see them during the month or two they are here. (ID# 11)

For the Virgin, we go there for a trip around wetland bringing the Virgin Mary's
statue in a boat for her holiday. The fiesta is a tradition, many people
participate. . .people enjoy the procession for the virgin in the wetland. (ID# 16)

Such comments seem to evidence that some of the villagers of Chelém and
Chubuma associate and are able to articulate some nonuse and nonmarket values with the
mangrove ecosystem. That however does not necessarily mean that one can accurately
measure such nonmarket and nonuse values. Furthermore, the inability or failure of
respondents to volunteer and discuss sources of nonuse value associated with mangrove
wetlands may help researchers identify the appropriate valuation method(s) and signal

them to take additional care in developing such instruments.

242
NONMARKET VALUATION
Nonmarket economic valuation methods are used to estimate the economic value
associated with goods and services that are not traded in well-functioning markets. The
failure to incorporate the total value of many environmental and natural resources into
decision making too often leads to the socially undesired loss or degradation of valuable
resources. The use of nonmarket valuation techniques, especially in developing countries,
may help policymakers choose better resource management and deve10pment programs.
However, nonmarket valuation methods are not necessarily easy to apply and each method
has particular strengths and weaknesses. Some, like hedonics, require the use of market
data for shadow goods and services to derive economic estimates. Other methods like the
travel cost method and contingent valuation require the use of specially designed survey
questionnaires. And only one technique—contingent valuation—can be used to determine

nonuse and therefore total economic values.

Evidence of Value

The evidence collected by this dissertation supports the idea that local beneficiaries of a
complex ecosystem (i.e., mangrove ecosystem) implicitly and explicitly recognize some

their use and nonuse values attributable to the ecosystem. People refer to the mangrove

wetland as:

a place with moral and spiritual value (ID# 3);
providing for the village...a way of life. . ..The life we all do (ID# 18); and,

a place for people to make a living. . ..A way for people to feed themselves
although the fish are down, the chivita are way down because so many people
depend on collecting chivita (ID# 33).

243
Respondents also spoke about the extractive resources from the ciénaga (e. g., chivita ) in
terms of fishing effort, productivity, and market price for their catch. Other use values,
such as recreation and storm protection were mentioned in some cases.

The data shows that more than three-quarters of the respondents discussing where
they fished identified the mangrove wetland (See Table 59); 80 percent of the cases
viewed the wetland as a source of living (See Table 62); 90 percent of comments on
wetland services characterized the wetland as providing a social safety net (See Table 63);
and all of the focus groups discussed the beauty of the mangrove ecosystem (See Table
62).

However, it is clear that the difficult economic times in Mexico and the difficulties
being faced by the people of these two villages seem to dominate the respondents’
thoughts and comments. The use values of the wetland, specifically the collection of
chivita, seems to be the predominant concern and association with the wetland of the local
beneficiaries. While there may be evidence of the existence of nonuse values associated
with the mangrove wetland, local resource beneficiaries seem understandably preoccupied

with extracting a living from the mangrove ecosystem.

Selecting Valuation Method

The use of qualitative methods may help researchers select the valuation method that can
best reveal economic values associated with environmental and natural resources.
Furthermore, qualitative research methods may also be used to better understand the range
and character of the services provided by environmental and natural resources to local

beneficiaries. In the instant case, it seems apparent that the inhabitants of Chelém and

244
Chubuma while speaking of fishing as their main economic activity rely to a great extent
on the collection of chivita from the wetland for subsistence. This "one" discovery, in
context to the entirety of the qualitative data, not only helps identify the appropriateness
of valuation methods but also provides valuable insights on how to best proceed in
undertaking the valuation study.

While the literature refers to a panoply of resource values attributable to mangrove
wetlands, respondents in the two communities overwhelmingly emphasized their reliance
on chivita collection. Individuals who fished in the Gulf of Mexico individually or as part
of a crew on a commercial fishing vessel, individuals who fished exclusively in the lagoon,
and individuals who did not fish for a living all characterized themselves as fishers. Even
for individuals who subsequently reported earning their livelihood as factory workers,
masons, and restaurant employees, when asked about what they do, the people of these
villages reported fishing. The qualitative research, in this case, would caution researchers
to clearly address questions of economic activities and clearly describe the particular
services to be valued. In other words, researchers would know to disaggregate types of
fishing activities as well as specifically describe the resource service(s) under investigation.

Likewise, such qualitative data might also help researchers decide upon the most
appropriate valuation method to use. This may result from an understanding of
respondents' circumstances, the difficulties of obtaining certain types of data, or the
environmental and natural resource services valued. If respondents did not seem
concerned with nonuse values, and only use values associated with the environmental and
natural resource under investigation seemed important, researchers could reasonably a

valuation method without regard to its ability to reveal nonuse values. Furthermore, if

245
there little evidence that respondents associated substantial nonuse values with a particular
resource, it would be reasonable to assume that the economic values revealed by a CV
study of that resource's economic value Should approximate the use values associated with

that resource.

C V Method

The absence of well-operating markets for many of the goods and services provided by the
mangrove ecosystem combined with the expert and local recognition of significant nonuse
values associated with the wetland point towards the usefulness of CV to estimate the
total economic of the wetland for decision making. However, in order to produce reliable
and valid estimates CV survey instruments must use: (1) resource scenarios that are
understood and acceptable by respondents, (2) policy change scenarios that are believable
to respondents, and (3) value elicitation questions that have respondents realistically
consider their budget constraints when answering. Unfortunately, the data collected in the
Chelém Lagoon area does not support the probability that such a CV instrument could be
drafted and used with these respondents.

For sirnplicity sake, the three elements needed for a good CV instrument can be
treated together. While they all require different design elements, the survey instrument
must present scientifically accurate representations of present and future scenarios.
Additionally, all of the CV design elements require respondents to understand, believe,
and accept them. The focus groups and individual interviews conducted for the
dissertation revealed a high level of distrust of the local, regional, and national

government, a high level of frustration with the multinational donor DUMAC, and a

246

dominance of a subsistence state of mind. It seems unlikely that respondents would
believe and accept a CV instruments’ description of present and proposed policy changes.

Furthermore, respondents do not see themselves as capable of earning enough
money to feed their families. Traditionally, CV researchers use some sort of use
restrictions as part of the proposed policy change scenario and the payment vehicle. The
people of Chelém and Chubuma expressed substantial resistance to the plausibility of and
acceptance of such use restrictions (See Table 65). This substantially diminishes the
already difficult task of designing CV payment scenarios that would be understandable,
acceptable, and used by respondents.

Some of the comments from the focus groups and individual interviews illustrate
the difficulty of designing a CV instrument to address the total economic value of the

Chelém Lagoon:

The government is more concerned with the wharf [Pro gresso] than anything
else. . ..Every time there is a change in government, everything changes. . ..If the
government comes in and gets involved we’ll lose everything. (ID# 15)

I don’t believe the government because they never do anything. . ..The
government is always asking, talking, and never doing anything. . ..politicians
promise you and when they win they forget. (ID# 16)

The community would not accept any restrictions. . ..Maybe, if it was the law,
people may be angry but they would obey, like octopus. ...but there is so much
corruption like the shrimp regulation. Even though there is a law against it, we
still fish for shrimp, we have to. . ..Chivita could be regulated by closing a part of
the wetland and guarding it. . ..a season would only work if there were guards,
and they are subject to corruption. . ..The village doesn't have anything to eat,
people search all day for 2 kg of chivita to make up to 20 pesos. If restricted one
would have to find a way to eat meat, pork, every second day. Now, no one can
do that. (ID#18)

247

I am 72 years old and I sleep little. My work is to think of why the coast is dying
out. . ..People are working hard, with hunger, with cold, and they collect 2 kg of
chivita. . .If fishing in the river is prohibited, people will take to robbery. What
will happen will be that the government will have to put us all under guard, the

police and military would be the winners. (ID# 23)

I don’t think the people would have any trust or confidence in a private company
like PEMEX [Mexican petroleum company]. . ..Both the government and the
private enterprises are doubtful at best. . ..Thinking about prohibitions on chivita,
there are many people that are dedicated only to that one activity all year. If
there is a prohibition on chivita, how are these people going to live, can you
imagine how those people that depend entirely on chivita are going to live? (ID#
39)

Other Economic Estimates
The difficulty of constructing a plausible, acceptable, and well-understood CV valuation
scenarios may, in this case, dictate the use of some other mechanisms for determining
some of the economic values of the mangrove wetland. Such estimates of value must
however be considered as minimum, partial. and floor estimates of the economic value of
the mangrove ecosystem. As discussed in Chapter 4, the data revealed by the focus
groups and individual interviews support the existence of and perhaps significance of a
variety of nonmarket and nonuse values. Yet, the relative importance to local beneficiaries
may be overshadowed by the difficulties they face in meeting their subsistence needs.
The data collected using the focus groups and individual interviews also allowed
for the estimation of one substantial use value of Chelém Lagoon. As previously
illustrated in Figure 12, a conservation estimate of the annual use value of chivita
collection for a family who collects chivita is $585. This is more than a factory worker
earns in a year working six days a week for 52 weeks in Mérida. While other use values

may ultimately be estimated using data collected directly from resource beneficiaries, the

248
sum of all such estimates, while maybe the best available data, must still be considered a
floor estimate of some of the use values (necessarily less than the total value) of the

ecosystem to the villages of Chelém and Chubuma.

QUALITATIVE METHODS

The idea behind using qualitative research for survey research design is that before a
survey questionnaire is implemented, testing should be done to find out if people can
understand the questions and if they can perform the tasks the questions require. In
survey research that focuses on complex subject matter such as ecosystems, and that asks
respondents to consider their budget constraints and make choices (e. g., CV studies),
preliminary qualitative has proven to be valuable. In the cross-cultural application of such
complex instruments, additional efforts must be made to appreciate respondents’ cognitive
process and way of understanding questions (Sudman, Bradbum, and Schwarz 1996).
Qualitative research methods, with their “commitment to viewing events, actions, norms,
values, etc. from the perspective of the people who are being studied” (Bryman 1988, 61),
can provide researchers with a useful means for designing better survey research studies.

As Fowler (1994) asserts,

The level of investment is so small, compared to the effort involved in most
surveys, and the payoff so big, it is hard to explain why every survey does not
begin with some focus group discussions. (110)

Yet, even though focus groups and individual qualitative interviews can be especially
valuable “when a target population is likely to have special perceptions, problems, and
idioms that may be relatively foreign to the investigator. . . .Most of us are too likely to

neglect this preliminary phase of exploration” (Converse and Presser 1986).

249
Focus Groups
Focus groups are supposed to be efficient ways to obtain a great deal of information
relevant to the design of surveys (Morgan 1997). Furthermore, they are supposed to be
helpful in identifying “respondents’ level of knowledge, attitudes, and opinions”
(Hutchinson, Chilton, and Davis 1995, 100). The key to focus groups are their use of
“group interaction to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the

interaction found in a group” (Morgan 1997, 2).

Individual Interviews

The purpose of individual qualitative interviews is to “develop ideas and research
hypotheses rather facts and statistics” (Oppenheim 1992, 67). Weiss (1994) points out
that qualitative interviews can teach outsiders about settings otherwise closed to them.
The advantages that individual interviews offer, according to Morgan (1997), stem from

the close relationship such interviews establish between interviewer and informant.

Caveats and Comments

The focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with members of two
relatively small populations. Unlike focus group research with participants drawn from a
large population, the focus group participants in the instant case knew each other. The
impact of this fact on the information revealed during the focus groups is not clear. While
the lack of anonymity and the possible presence of social pressure may have hindered the
free flow of ideas and concerns, the interpersonal comfort and familiarity of group

members may have promoted the free flow of ideas and concerns.

250

Similarly, while the focus groups were made up of all men or all women, the
professional moderator was male and the individual interviewers were female. The
possible bias of using a male moderator with female focus groups and female interviewers
with male individual interviewees is not addressed. It was assumed that the non-sensitive
natural of the subject matter as well as the consistent use of the moderator and
interviewers would not result in unacceptable and biased information.

Finally, the absence of socio-economic data on the individuals that participated in
the focus groups and individual interviews is a limitation on the depth and breadth of
possible analysis of the data collected. As discussed earlier in the dissertation, it was
difficult to get people from the communities to participate and the use of an introductory
or exit demographic survey appeared to deter people from participating. A strategic
choice was made to maximize the number and quality of focus group sessions and
individual interviews given the budgetary and time constraints of the candidate. In any
event, it does not appear that the goals of the dissertation were not adversely effected by

the absence of this demographic data.

Group vis-a-vis Individual Interviews

Focus groups rely on group interactions to reveal participants similarities and differences
of opinion. Individual interviews collect more in-depth information and requires the
analyst to make comparison with other interviews to determine similarities and differences.
There have few studies examining whether the two methods produce similar data, this
question “has been more the subject of speculation than systematic research” (Morgan

1997, 13). Kitzinger (1994a, 1994b) asserts that differences detected between the two

251

methods is not necessarily evidence of the absence of validity of one or both results.
Kitzinger believes that differences may be attributed to context, that people act and
response differently in a group than individually.

The results of the focus groups conducted in Chelém and Chubuma were often
broader than the information in the individual interviews. Respondents seemed to offer
more information about the ways they live (See Table 58); suggest more services provided
by the wetland (See Table 63); and discuss more ways to improve the wetland (See Table
64) than the individual respondents seemed to raise in the individual qualitative interviews.
On the other hand, the individual qualitative interviews appeared to have'raised details
and concerns that were avoided in the focus group interviews. That is, individuals seemed
to be more comfortable discussing a wider range of reasons for the decline in the fishing
populations (See Table 61); identifying the range of problems in the area (See Table 60);
and being critical of the government and multilateral projects (e.g., DUMAC) (See Table
60, Table 61, Table 63, and Table 64) than they did in the focus groups.

To examine the data obtained, in yet another way for methodological strengths and
weakness, the results from Table 5 8 to Table 66 were reanalyzed. The goal was to detect
patterns, if any, in the type of information revealed by the two qualitative methods. The
literature posits that focus group data is broader relative to individual qualitative interview
data and that individual qualitative interviews reveal more detailed information. These
suppositions lead to the construction of the following assumptions: (1) if focus groups
yield broader information than individual interviews, then we should see more response
categories offered in focus group data sets than individual data sets; and (2) if individual

interviews yield more detailed information than focus groups, then individual interview

252
data sets should contain response categories not addressed by focus groups. Table 74

presents the results of this admittedly rough analysis.

Table 74. Focus Group v. Individual Interviews

Variable Locale Focus Groups Ind. Interviews Possible
More Info. Than More Details Than Reason
Ind. Interviews Focus

Fact Based
more in Chelém

Vague Topic
Indv. d/t process

Single issue ( DUMAC)
Indv. focused on this
Problems
Causes of Problems
Few Fish sex-222:: ' 's: . . Indv. offer more
Chubuma ideas/reasons

Where Fish

Chubuma
Restrictions 9377553???" ’ ” 3:212:23?ii;:.s"*?975“a? ' «3213243137 Factual Info
not controversial

Name fulfil - 1 :. '33”’:i""""""
Chubuma

 

The results of this analysis while certainly not unanimous do give rise to some
interesting possible explanations of the differences in using the two qualitative research
methods. It seems that focus group data sets were, in general, not much larger than
individual interview data sets when the subjects discussed were uncontroversial and factual
in nature. Nor does it seem that individual data sets reflect information outside the scope

of focus group in those instances when the discussions centered on relatively

253

uncontroversial matters of fact applicable to the region as a whole. Table 74 categorizes
these variables (i.e., Where Fish, Restrictions, and Name) as Factual Info.

In some cases, focus groups did raise for discussion more information than did
individual interviews. However, some individual interviews did indeed raise topics and
ideas that were not discussed in the focus groups. Such instances where individual
interviews were as broad as focus groups and the individual interviews raise topics that
were not mentioned in the focus groups, are group with the label Causes of Problems in
Table 74. It seems that the individuals were able to offer more possible reasons and ideas
behind the areas’ problems, in general and specifically as they related to the decline in
fishing productivity during the individual interviews.

The variable improvement for the village of Chelém resembles the factual
information type variables. That is, the groups and individual interviews yielded
substantially similar data. However, as Table 74 summarizes the data from Chubuma for
the improvement variable, it does not resemble the factual information variables. That is,
focus groups ere broader sources of information and individual interview raise points not
mentioned in focus groups. This can be attributed to the on going controversy of the
DUMAC project. The negative impact of this project are being felt most immediately by
Chubuma. People feel uncomfortable complaining about their neighbors or the few (and
perhaps powerful) community members who may profit from the project. However, in a
one-on-one qualitative interview, individuals focus a great deal on the controversy.

For this variable, the focus groups did present a Wider range of information than
did individual interviews. Likewise, the individual interviews in Chubuma discussed things

that were either avoided, missed, or otherwise absent from the focus group discussions in

254

Chubuma. A review of the transcripts confirms that this is not necessarily a result of focus
groups promoting broader topics of discussion. Rather, it seems to be a function of
individuals being willing and even consumed in some cases with making the point that they
were unhappy with the project and blamed it for many of their problems. It seems that
social norms may be responsible for people’s repression being publicly critical of a project
that some community members supported. However, in individual interviews, community
members seemed to focus more on that particular project than other things.

The results of the analysis of Table 74 of the How Live show marked differences
between the relationship of focus group and individual interview information sets between
the two communities. This is probably more a function of an underlying factual basis than
anything else. Chelém is much closer to Pro gresso and Mérida than Chubuma. Therefore,
the residents of Chelém have relatively fewer obstacles to work outside of the community.
Furthermore, the number of seasonal residences in much higher in and around Chelém
than those near Chubuma. As a result, there are more opportunities for seasonal
employment, too. These differences probably explain the difference in the data.

The final category of variables with regard to the results of the focus group and
individual interviews, in general support the idea that focus groups reveal broader sets of
information than individual interviews. However, these variables do not seem to support
the notion that individual interviews offer up more detailed sets of information. These
results may be explained by the vague nature of the topics represented by the variables.
Perhaps, groups of people, like Morgan (1997) suggests can process using group
interaction to reveal a broader range of ideas when discussing such vague concepts as the

perceptions and the services of the mangrove wetland. Maybe the absence of detailed

255

information on these topics in the individual interviews can be seen as supportive of the
notion that focus groups and the interaction between participants can be useful for
participants to grapple with, understand, and offer input on vague or difficult to grasp

topics.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems that the research hypotheses supported and those not supported by the data
indicate, in general, that focus groups and individual interviews conducted in a developing
country yield important but different data. In general, the data supports the conclusion
that focus groups in separate but similar communities help researchers to learn
substantially similar information sets (e.g., A=C). However, the evidence does not
support the notion that the two qualitative research methods, focus groups and individual
interviews, reveal substantially similar data sets (e.g., A¢B). Further investigation of this
apparent inequality, in light of the literature, seems to be explained by some the contexts
of the methods. The different effects of group dynamics, the sensitivity of the subject
matter, and the social realities faced by the individuals impact the breadth and the depth of

information revealed by focus groups and individual interviews (See Table 74).

IMPLICATIONS

Based on the findings and analysis of the data in this study, several implications for
practice seem reasonable. Since both focus groups and individual qualitative interviews
enabled outsiders to learn and better understand the realities, perceptions, and problems of

local beneficiaries of a complex environmental and natural resource, some use of

256

qualitative research in designing and implementing natural resource valuation studies
seems warranted. In doing so, researchers can develop studies and instruments that can
more effectively reflect the current of the environmental and natural resource under
investigation; choose the most appropriate valuation methods given the nature of the
problem and the respondents; and design and present policy change scenarios that are
more likely to be understood and accepted by respondents.

It seems that, based on the data in this dissertation, focus groups do offer an
efficient way to obtain a great deal of information relevant to the design of survey
questions and policymaking (See Morgan 1997). This was reflected in both the results
tabulated in both Table 69 and Table 74. Furthermore, the substantial similarity between
the information revealed in the Chelém focus groups with that revealed in the Chubuma
focus groups supports the idea that the information revealed in focus groups about
environmental and natural resources may be substantially similar across similarly situated
communities (See Table 71). Likewise, it has been shown with the Chelém and Chubuma
data that individual interviews in general reveal different information from focus groups
(See Table 69) and more details and information on problems and their causes than focus
groups (See Table 74).

Therefore, a preliminary qualitative research study of local resource beneficiaries
that relies primarily on several focus groups from similarly situated communities and that
uses targeted individual qualitative interviews to examine for further details and socially
sensitive issues seems an appropriate strategy for efficiently obtaining a great deal of data
for use in designing better studies of the economic value of environmental and natural

resources.

257

POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS

There are several possible applications of the dissertation methods and findings. The
results can be used to help researchers identify which sorts of questions are best suited for
their preliminary work using focus groups or individual interviews. That is, researchers
interested in particular phenomena can use information such as that contained in Table 74
on the methods' relative strengths and weaknesses to guide them towards the use of either
or both methods in their preliminary investigations. Furthermore, such information can
help researchers decide upon what types of questions to ask in focus groups and in
individual interviews.

Another application of the dissertation results and methods can be as a valuation
method selection tool. That is, undertaking preliminary qualitative research, such as that
performed in the dissertation, can identify the range of services relevant for the economic
valuation exercise. This information can then be used to determine the most appropriate
method for undertaking the subsequent valuation exercise. If for example, the preliminary
research reveals high levels of recreational use of the resource and few other values are
revealed by the qualitative research, perhaps an application of the travel cost valuation
method would be most appropriate. Likewise, if the target population evidences nonuse
values or difficult to measure nonmarket values regarding the subject resource, then
perhaps use of the contingent valuation method would be desirable.

Finally, the dissertation and its findings support the use of qualitative methods with
ethnographic type questions to reveal the range and importance of services of an
environmental and natural resource to resource beneficiaries. Such information is critical

in drafting valuation studies that clearly identify and describe the " goods" (resource

258

services) to be valued by respondents. This ability of qualitative research to help
researchers identify, understand, and ultimately address the actual resource services valued

by respondents can help researchers design better economic valuation studies.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This study of the relative strengths and weaknesses of using focus groups and individual
interviews to help design economic valuation studies in a developing country was one
attempt to measure, systematically and objectively, the efficacy of the two methods. As
result of these efforts, several suggestions for improving future such studies have become
apparent. One such recommendation would be the use of specially trained “coders” to
read (listen to) the transcripts , develop a coding scheme that could be tested for
reliability, and apply the codes to the transcripts in a uniform and verifiable manner. The
use of such a rigorous and “objective” coding scheme would allow for more detailed
analysis of the frequencies and relationships of codes within and between transcripts.
Such coding procedures are increasingly being used in cognitive survey research.
However, its costs both in time and money were prohibitive for the dissertation.

Another recommendation for future evaluation of the efficacy of qualitative
research methods for designing and implementing environmental and natural resource
survey questionnaires would be a follow-up study that designed and implemented a
questionnaire using the qualitative data learned from the various methods. Perhaps
different instruments could be developed based on the information learned using one
method or the other to test for any significant differences. Perhaps efforts could be made

during the qualitative research to collect quantitative data that could be used to confirm

259
the results of the survey questionnaire (e. g., a collection and use of data similar to the
chivita data in the dissertation).

Finally, future analyses of the use of qualitative research methods for the design of
environmental and natural resource surveys in a developing country would benefit from
the iterative use of the various methods with adequate time for the detailed analysis of the
data between phases of the methods application. Such a process would allow researchers
to better learn and understand the information being shared. Furthermore, researchers
could use this information to refine the focus groups and individual interviews as well as

track and monitor the qualitative research method’s learning process.

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

LIST OF INTERVIEWS

Table 75. Interview List

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ID# Location Date Type Gender
1 Progresso 02/07/96 group Women
2 Pro gresso 02/07/96 group Women
3 Progresso 02/ 07 / 96 group Men
4 Progresso 02/08/96 @up Men
5 Progresso 02/08/96 group Men
6 Chelém 02/ 09/ 96 group Men
7 Chelém 02/09/ 96 ioup Women
8 Ch elem 02/09/ 96 Aroup Men
9 Ch elem 02/09/ 96 group Women

10 Chubuma 02/ 10/ 96 group Women
1 1 Chubuma 02/ 10/ 96 group Women
12 Chelém 02/10/96 group Men
13 Ch uburna 02/ 1 0/ 96 group Men
14 Ch uburna 02/10/96 group Men
15 Progresso 02/11/96 group Men
16 Ch elém 07/05/96 group Women
17 Chubuma 07 / 06/ 96 group Men
18 Chelém 07/07/96 group Men
19 Seasonal 07/07/ 96 individual Women
20 Chelém 07/08/96 individual Men
21 Chelém 07/08/96 individual Men
22 Seasonal 07/ 08/ 96 individual Women
23 Ch elem 07/08/ 96 individual Men
24 Ch elem 07/ 08/96 individual Women
25 Ch uburna 07/08/ 96 individual Men
26 Ch uburna 07/08/ 96 individual Women
27 Ch ubuma 07/09/96 individual Men
28 Chubuma 07/09/96 individual Men
29 Ch ubuma 07/09/ 96 individual Men
30 Chubuma 07/09/96 individual Men
31 Chubuma 07/09/96 individual Men
32 Ch elem 07/09/ 96 individual Men
33 Chelém 07/09/96 individual Men
34 Ch ubuma 07/ 09/96 individual Men
35 Ch uburna 07/10/96 individual Women
36 Chelém 07/1 1/96 individual Men
37 Chelém 07/1 1/96 individual Women
38 Chelém 07/ 1 1/96 individual Men
39 Chelém 07/ 1 1/96 individual Men
40 Seasonal 07/ 08/96 individual Women
41 Seasonal 07 / 08/96 individual Women

 

260

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

SPSS VARIABLES, VALUES, & LABELS

ID ID #
Value = integer
LOCALE Locale
Value Label
Chelém
Chubuma

Progresso
Seasonal

#UJNH

TYPE2 group or individual

Value Label

1 group
2 individual
PARTIC umber of participants

Value = integer

LENGTH interview length (text units)

Value = integer

GENDER

gender of respondents
Value Label

0 female
1 male

HOWLIVEI HowLivel

Value Label

Fishing
Masonry/Painting

Go to Mérida/Factories
Seasonal Work
Vacation Here

M-PUJNH

HOWLIVE2 How Live Here 2
Value Label

1 Fishing

 

261

Masonry/Painting

Go to Mérida/Factories
Seasonal Work
Vacation Here

MAWN

HOWLIVE3 How Live Here 3

Value Label

Fishing
Masonry/Painting

Go to Mérida/Factories
Seasonal Work
Vacation Here

M-fiWNH

HOWLIVE4 HOW Live Here 4

Value Label

Fishing
Masonry/Paintin g

Go to Mérida/Factories
Seasonal Work
Vacation Here

Ul-DhWNI-J

FISHLOCI Fishing Location 1

Value Label

11 coastal fishing
l2 deep-sea fishing
13 ciénaga

FISHLOC2 Fishing Location 2
Value Label

11 coastal fishing
12 deep-sea fishing
13 ciénaga

FISHLOC3 Fishing Location 3
Value Label
11 coastal fishing

12 deep-sea fishing
l3 coinage

 

262

APPENDIX B

PROBLEMI Problems Here 1 2 water circul.

PROBLEM2

PROBLEM3

PROBLEM4

PUERTOB

Value Label

21 Coastal fishing down

22 Unemployment

23 N o more salt

24 Cienaga fishing down
25 people come here to live
26 DUMAC

Problems Here 2
Value Label

21 Coastal fishing down

22 Unemployment

23 No more salt

24 Cienaga fishing down
25 people come here to live
26 DUMAC

Problems Here 3
Value Label

21 Coastal fishing down

22 Unemployment

23 N o more salt

2A Cienaga fishing down
25 people come here to live
26 DUMAC

Problems Here 4
Value Label

21 Coastal fishing down

22 Unemployment

23 N o more salt

24 Cienaga fishing down
25 people come here to live
26 DUMAC

PUERTO Puerto

Value Label

1 Beneficial

2 Harmful

3 Both Beneficial & Harmful
puerto benefits

Value Label

1 protects boats

 

3 increase c's fish

PUERTOB2 puerto benefits 2

Value Label

1 protects boats
2 water circul.
3 increase c's fish

PUERTOB puerto harms

Value Label

1 lost salt biz
2 lost ducks
3 pollution

PUERTOB2 puerto harms
Value Label

1 lost salt biz
2 lost ducks
3 pollution

DUMAC DUMAC Project
Value Label

0 good
1 bad

DUISSUE] DUMAC issue 1

Value Label

drying up wetland
killing fish in ciénaga
ducks not back

failed to keep promise
only few guides gain

AWNl-‘O

DUISSUE2 DUMAC issue 2

Value Label

drying up wetland
killing fish in ciénaga
ducks not back

failed to keep promise
only few guides gain

#UJNt-‘O

FEWFISHl

FEWFISH2

FEWFISH3

FISHl

Reason for few fish 1
Value Label

weather
pollution
trawling fleets
too many fishers
DUMAC project
no regulations

DNK

womari-i

Reason for few fish 2
Value Label

weather
pollution
trawling fleets
too many fishers
DUMAC project
no regulations
DN K

\OOxUIAUJNH

Reason for few fish 3
Value Label

weather
pollution
trawling fleets
too many fishers
DUMAC project
no regulations
DNK

\OQLh-HUJNH

Fish Type 1
Value Label

41 Chivita
42 Crab

43 Octopus
44 Grouper
45 Shrimp
46 Squid

47 Conch
48 Lobster
49 Mullet
50 Sea Bass
51 Corvina
52 Parguitos
53 Rubia
54 Moj arra
55 Shark

263

APPENDIX B

FISHZ

FISH3

FISH4

 

Fish Type 2
Value Label

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

Chivita
Crab
Octopus
Grouper
Shrimp
Squid
Conch
Lobster
Mullet
Sea Bass
Corvina
Parguitos
Rubia
Moj arra
Shark

Fish Type 3
Value Label

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

Chivita
Crab
Octopus
Grouper
Shrimp
Squid
Conch
Lobster
Mullet
Sea Bass
Corvina
Parguitos
Rubia
Moj arra
Shark

Fish Type 4
Value Label

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
4s
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

Chivita
Crab
Octopus
Grouper
Shrimp
Squid
Conch
Lobster
Mullet
Sea Bass
Corvina
Parguitos
Rubia
Moj arra
Shark

 

 

 

264

APPENDIX B

F ISHS Fish Type 5 5 fresh water springs
6 very salty
Value Label 7 flora & fauna
41 Chivita CTRAITSZ Ciénaga Physical Aspects 2
42 Crab
43 Octopus Value Label
44 Grouper
45 Shrimp 1 large
46 Squid 2 shallow
47 Conch 3 connected to sea
48 Lobster 4 muddy
49 Mullet 5 fresh water springs
50 Sea Bass 6 very salty
51 Corvina 7 flora & fauna
52 Parguitos
53 Rubia CTRAITS3 Ciénaga Physical Aspects 3
54 Moj arra
55 Shark Value Label
FISH6 Fish Type 6 1 large
2 shallow
Value Label 3 connected to sea
4 muddy
41 Chivita 5 fresh water springs
42 Crab 6 very salty
43 Octopus 7 flora & fauna
44 Grouper
45 Shrimp CTRAITS4 Cienaga Physical Aspects 4
46 Squid
47 Conch Value Label
48 Lobster
49 Mullet 1 large
50 Sea Bass 2 shallow
51 Corvina 3 connected to sea
52 Parguitos 4 muddy
53 Rubia 5 fresh water springs
54 Moj arra 6 very salty
55 Shark 7 flora & fauna
CCLASS Ciénaga use by whom CPERCEPI ciénaga perceptions 1
Value Label Value Label
1 the poor 1 polluted
2 women 2 swampy
3 everyone 3 threatened
. 5 beautiful
CTRAITSI Ciénaga Physical Aspects 1 6 income source
7 way of life
Value Label 8 place to build
9 no interest/value
1 large 10 existence value
2 shallow
3 connected to sea
4 muddy

 

 

 

CPERCEP2 ciénaga perceptions 2
Value Label
1 polluted
2 swampy
3 threatened
5 beautiful
6 income source
7 way of life
8 place to build
9 no interest
10 existence
CPERCEP3 ciénaga perceptions 3
Value Label
1 polluted
2 swampy
3 threatened
5 beautiful
6 income source
7 way of life
8 place to build
9 no interest
10 existence
CNAMEl Cienaga Names
Value Label
1 ciénaga (wetland)
2 rio (river)
3 ria (estuary)
4 charcos (ponds), etc.
CNAME2 Cienaga Names 2
Value Label
1 ciénaga (wetland)
2 rio (river)
3 ria (estuary)
4 charcos (ponds), etc.
CNAME3 Ciénaga Names 3
Value Label
1 ciénaga (wetland)
2 rio (river)
3 ria (estuary)
4 charcos (ponds), etc.

265

APPENDIX B

 

CNAME4 Ciénaga Names 4
Value Label
1 ciénaga (wetland)
2 rio (river)
3 ria (estuary)
4 charcos (ponds), etc.
IMPROVEI Improve Cienaga 1
Value Label
1 aquaculture
(shrimp/crab/fish ponds)
2 tourism
3 expert help/instruction
4 use restrictions
5 Remove DUMAC
6 nothing will help
INIPROVEZ Improve Ciénaga 1
Value Label
1 aquaculture
(shrimp/crab/fish ponds)
2 tourism
3 expert help/instruction
4 use restrictions
5 Remove DUMAC
6 nothing will help
INIPROVE3 Improve Ciénaga 1
Value Label
1 aquaculture
(shrimp/crab/fish ponds)
2 tourism
3 expert help/instruction
4 use restrictions
5 Remove DUMAC
6 nothing will help

CPRODI

Ciénaga Products 1

Value Label

\OOOQONM-PWNt—A

CPROD2

Shrimp
salt no more
Chivita
Moj arra
Mullet

Sea Bass
Corvina
crawfish
Crab
nothing
ducks
flamingoes

wood

Ciénaga Products 2

Value Label

Socoqoxma-wtoH

HHp—A
LANH

PROD3

Value

”scooxsoxmbww...

HHH
LDNv-a

Shrimp
Salt no more
Chivita
Moj arra
Mullet

Sea Bass
Corvina
crawfish
Crab
nothing
ducks
Flamingoes
wood

Cienaga Products 3
Label

Shrimp
Salt no more
Chivita
Moj arra
Mullet

Sea Bass
Corvina
crawfish
Crab
nothing
ducks
flamingoes
wood

266

APPENDIX B

CPROD4

\OOOQGUt-bwtop—t

CPRODS

\OOOQO‘sLh-PWNI—d

10
1 1
l2
1 3
CPROD6

Exoooqoxm-Aono...

r—tr—tp—I
OJNH

 

Cienaga Products 4

Value Label

Shrimp

Salt no more
Chivita
Moj arra
Mullet

Sea Bass
Corvina
crawfish
Crab
nothing
Ducks
Flamingoes
wood

Cienaga Products 5

Value Label

Shrimp
Salt no more
Chivita
Moj arra
Mullet
Sea Bass
Corvina
crawfish
Crab
nothing
ducks
Flamingoes
wood
Cienaga Products 6

Value Label

Shrimp

Salt no more
Chivita
Moj arra
Mullet

Sea Bass
Corvina
crawfish
Crab
nothing
Ducks
Flamingoes
wood

CSERVI Ciénaga Opportunities 1
Value Label
1 flamingoes
2 construction sites
3 subsistence food
4 storm protection (boats)
5 nothing bc DUMAC
9 nothing
CSERV2 Ciénaga Opportunities 2
Value Label
1 flamingoes
2 construction sites
3 subsistence food
4 storm protection (boats)
9 nothing
CNONMKTI nonmarket species 1
Value Label
1 Flamingoes
2 Ducks
3 Parrots & others
4 Herons, gulls, & others
5 Turtles
6 Lizards
7 Crocodiles
NONMKT2 nonmarket species 2
Value Label
1 Flamingoes
2 Ducks
3 Parrots & others
4 Herons, gulls, & others
5 Turtles
6 Lizards
7 Crocodiles
NONMKT3 nonmarket species 3
Value Label
1 Flamingoes
2 DUCkS/
3 Parrots & others
4 Herons, gulls, & others
5 Turtles
6 Lizards
7 Crocodiles

267

 

APPENDIX B

FLAM Flamingos here
Value Label
1 Never
2 Sometimes
3 Always
TOURSM tourism now
Value label
0 no

I sometimes
HELPTOUR What help tourism
Value Label
nothing
flamingoes

capital investment
other

WNHO

SAFENET Cienaga as safteynet
Value Label
1 Yes
RECREATE recreate (incl. Virgin's Day)

Value Label

no
1 yes

CHIVITA Chivita as resource
Value Label
1 Yes
CHWORK

chivita work hard

Value Label

1 yes
RESTRIC Are there use restrictions?
Value Label
no
1 yes

268

APPENDIX B

RWHAT What is restricted?
Value Label
1 octopus
2 conch
3 shrimp -
4 fishing in ciénaga @ bridge
5 turtles
6 flamingoes
7 fishing in sea
RWHAT2 What is restricted?
Value Label
1 octopus
2 conch
3 shrimp
4 fishing in ciénaga @ bridge
5 turtles
6 flamingoes
7 fishing in sea
RWHAT3 What is restricted?
Value Label
1 octopus
2 conch
3 shrimp
4 fishing in ciénaga @ bridge
5 turtles
6 flamingoes
7 fishing in sea
RESTWORK Do/Would restrictions (non
octopus) work?
Value Label
0 no
1 yes
2 maybe
RWHYNOT Why restrictions not work
Value Label

1 subsistence/survival necessitates
2 lack alternatives
3 lack of enforcement

 

RWHYNOT2 Why don't restrictions work
Value Label

1 subsistence/survival necessitates
2 lack alternatives
3 lack of enforcement

RWHYNOT3 Why don't restrictions work

Value Label
1 subsistence/survival necessitates

2 lack alternatives
3 lack of enforcement

RESTOCT Why octOpus restrictions
work?
Value Label

1 enforcement
2 stiff penalties
3 makes sense (ecology)

RESTOCT2 Why octopus restrictions
work?
Value Label

1 enforcement
2 stiff penalties
3 makes sense (ecology)

 

APPENDIX C

SPSS DATA SET

Table 76. Chelém and Chubuma Data Set

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

id locate type2 panic length gender m1 howlive2 howlive3 W4

1 6 Chelem group 4 358 male Fishing

2 7 Chelem group 3 507 female PM We
. :1 a Chelem group 4 . 555 male Fishhg MasonrylPa

4 9 Chelem group 4 806 ternale Fishhg MasonrylPa Seasonalw

5 12 Chelem group 4 319 male Flslmg .

6 1s Cheiem group a 1416 (etude Fishhg MasauyIPa . GotoMerid
7 1a Chelem group 6 122:) male mag Masorl'ylPa sumw comm
8 10 Chubuma group 3 394 lemale Flshhg .
' 9 11 Chubuma group '3 509 ram Fisung

1o 13 ehubm group 3 244 male Fishing

11 14 cm group 4 706 male Fishing Wa ' Goto Merld
12 17 Chubuma group 6 769 male Fishhg MasonrylPa . Go to Merld
13 20 Chelern hdeual 1 175 male Fishing Masonry/Pa Seasonalw

14 21 Chelem hdlvidual 1 161 male Fishing Masonry/Pa Seasonalw

15 23 Cheiem W 1 213 male Flshhg Masonry/Pa Seasonaiw

16 24 Cheiem hdivldual 1 201 lemale Fishing MasoruylPa Seasondw

17 32 Chelém individual 1 465 male Fiahhg Masonry/Pa

1a 33 Chelern individual 1 345 male Faring MasonrylPa SeasonalW

1s 36 Chelem banana 1 516 male ramp Seasonaiw Gocherid
20 37 Chelem hdivldual 1 194 16111an Fishing

21 38 Chelem individual 1 371 male Fishing 60 lo Merid
22 39 Chelem hdividual 2 507 male Flshhg Masonry/Pa Seasonalw

23 25 Chubuma individual 2 542 male Fishhg Seasonalw

24 26 Chubuma individual 1 573 lemale Fishing Seasonal W

25 27 Chubuma individual 1 398 male Fishing

26 25 Chubuma individual 1 585 male Fishing

27 29 Chubuma hdividual 1 634 male Fishing .
28 3O Chubuma individual 1 141 male Fishing

29 31 Chubuma individual 1 413 male Fishing

30 34 Chubuma individual 1 335 male Fishing

31 35 Chubuma individual 1 164 lemale Fishing . SeasonalW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

269

 

 

270

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 76—Continued
flslioct l'lsl'lloc2 lishloc3 problem problem2 ptobiem3 problem4 puerto watch
1 coastal lishi . . Beneficial waterclrcu. »
2 cienaga deep-sea tls . Unemploym Beneficial water ckcul.
3 coastal l’lshl cienaga Beneficial water circa.
4 . . . ' .
5 coastal l’lshl clenaga Cienaga tls people com Both Benell
6 coastal l‘lshi cienaga Cienaga lis Coastal l’lshl people corn Unemployrn Harmlul
7 coastal tlshi cienaga Cienaga lis Coastal lishi . . Both Benell
8 coastal liahi cienaga Both Beneli water Chou.
9 coastal l'lshi cienaga . Z Beneficial
10 cienaga . Beneficial .
11 coastal rrahl . Cienaga re people corn Unemploym Both Benet! protects boa
12 coastdl'lshi Cienaga Cienagalis Coastallishl Nomoresal .Unen'lpioym BothBenefl .
13 denaga Coastal lishi ,
14 coastal tlshi cienaga deep-sea lis Coastal tlshl people corn .
15 cienaga Coastal lishl people corn Both Benell .
16 coastal lishl clenaga Cienaga lis Coastal llshl . Beneficial water circa.
17 . Cienaga lis Coastal l’lshi
18 coastal tlshi Cienaga l'ls Coastal lishl Both Beneli -
19 Coastal lishl people corn Benellcial
20 coastal tlshi cienaga deep-sea lis Coastal lishl .
21 Cienaga lis Coastal 11in people com
22 coastal liahi clenaga Cienaga tls Coastal llshl l-larInlul .
23 coastal lishl Cienaga lis Coastal flsl'i DUMAC Both Berton water do“.
24 Cienaga lis Coastal l'lshi Harmlu
25 coastal llshi Cienaga lis Coastal tlshi people com DUMAC Hannlu
26 coastal. lishi Both Bonell
27 Cienaga lis DUMAC Beneficial water circa.
28 coastal lishi cienaga Cienaga {15 Coastal lishl Both Beneli
29 cienaga Cienaga lis Coastal fishi No more sat Both Beneli
3O coastal lishi cienaga Cienaga lis Coastal lishi DUMAC
31 coastal lishi cienaga Coastal lishi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

271

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 76—Continued

puertobz puertoh puertoh2 dumac duissmi m2 levil'lsh1 tewtishz , tewllsh3
1 . ,
2 protectsboa . . .
a protectsboa
4 i . . .
5 hereasec's lostsalbiz . loomanylis .
6 lostsailbiz trawtllriglie toomanylis
7 hcreasec's lodsalhiz . trawlinglle . .
8 increasec's iostsalhiz . .
9 iiicreasec‘s . . . .
10 protectsboa lostsaltbiz bad onlytewgll .
11 hereasec‘s iostsalhiz . . weather
12 hereasec's iostsalblz . . m
13 toomanylis .
14 . toomanylls weatl'ler
15. increased: lostducks . noreguatio toolnanytls weather
16 increased: noreguatio toomanylis
17 .
1a protectshoa loataalbiz lostduclca horegualio loomahyiia .
19 protectaboa iraWiglle tcoinanylla noregulatlo
20 . .
21 . . toolnanyns
22 pollution bad dryingupw pollution toolnanylls noregulatlo
23 iicreasec's lostsalbiz had dryingupw illngllshin DUMACpro weather noregdatio
24 lostsaltbiz . .
25 lostsalbiz bad dryingupw idlingl’ishin DUMACpro toomanylls
26 1051818131:
27 bad dryingupw killingl'lshin OUMACpro polutlon .noregulatio
28 increase c's lost salt biz trawtling lie too many lie
29 increase c's lost salt biz lost ducks bad drying upw killing tlshin trawiling lie too many lis
30 bad drying upw killing lish in DUMAC pro trawtling lie no regulatio
31 bad killing fish in DUMAC pro too many lis trawlling lie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

272

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 76—Coniinued
fishl l'lsh2 l'lsh3 flsh4 fishS cclass eta!“ draw
1 . . . oonnededl lion 6 taun
2 Crab Mullet Shrinp Chivita Octopus muddy ' shallow
3 cm Octopus Grouper Sea Bass ' . llora a taun ' .
4 'Chivita Conch Shrimp women liora 8. tan may
5 ‘ Chivia Shrimp . liora 8. taun connectedt
6 Chivita Shrimp Crab Octopus Grower when connectedt verysaity
7 Grouper Rubia Mojarra Shrimp Crab ' women comeded t .
8 Chivita Shrimp Crab Millet Corvina women muddy .
9 Chivita . Crab Octopus Shrinp women tlora 8. later tresh wler
10 . . . . . women comeded t .
11 Octopus Grouper Rubia Mojarra m connectedt muddy
12 Chivita Millet Mojarra Shrimp . llora 8 taut tresh water
13 Chivita Octopus Crab outmoded! flora 81 taun
14 . 7
1s . . women . .
16 Chivita Crab Mojarra Mullet Sea Bass the poor J
17 Grouper Conch Lobder . shallow rnudc',
18 Grolrper Mojarra Rubia Pargu'nos Octopus . .
19 Octopus Grouper Lobster Chivita Conch women .
2O Grouper Chivita Shrimp Crab women . .—
21 Octopus Grouper Lobster Chivita Crab large shalow
22 Grouper Corvina Mullet Sea Bass connected t .
23 My
24
25 Grouper Rubia Crab .
26 Octopus Grouper . Mullet Chivita women muddy liora 8r taun
27 Grouper Squid
28 Grouper Octopus Chivita Crab
29 .
3O Chivita Octopus Corvina Sea Bass shallow liora 8- taun
31 Mojarra Chivita Conch shallow muddy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

273

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 76—Continued
ctrais3 ctraRsA cpercept cpercepz cpercep3 cnarnel cnatnez cname3 cname4

1 heautilul . ria (echrary) rio (river) charcos (pd

2 connectedt lncorne sour heartilu . clenaga (we rio (river)

3 lncomesour heauiru . cienaga(we

4 lncorne sour beautiru . clenaga (we do (estuary) rlo (river)

5 beautittl . ria (estmry)

a lion 4. taun threatened heamlru . . clenaga (we ria (estuary) rio (river)

7 income sour beautilul existence clenaga (we ria (estuary) rio (river)

a , incornesour piaceiobul lie-um cienaga(we rla(estuary) rlo(rlver)

9 hoomem beautitll . cleriagflwe runaway) rio(r'iver) charcoslpo
10 _ beautitll . clenaga (we ria (estuary) charcos (po
11 very ealy beautitul threatened poluled clenaga (we ria (estuary)

12 shallow beaitittl thatched . Cienaga (we ria (estuary)
13 i hearaiu . clenaga (we ria (estuuy)
14 income sour threatened beautihl clenaga (we ria (estuary) rio (river)
15 . clenaga (we ria (estuary)
W «arrived
17 threatened income sour . clenaga (we 1 7
18 threatened clenaga (we ria (estuary) rio (river) '
19 . lia (estuary)
20 . clenaga (we rla (estuary) rio (river)
21 connectedt veryselty . cienaga(we ria(estuary) charcosrpo
22 Wed . demo: (we lie (shitty) do (river)
23 . clenaga (we do (river)
24 . clenaga (we
25 . clenaga (we rio (river)
28 . clenaga (we do (river)
27 . clenaga (we
28 clenaga (we rlo (river)
29 clenaga (we do (river)
30 large connected 1 income sour threatened . clenaga (we ria (estuary) rio (river)
31 liora 8r taun threatened . clenaga (we rla (estuary) charcos (po

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

274

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 76—Continued
W1 W WM3 CW1 991942 613063 1W044 M W

1 .equacuure Mullet Sea Bass Chivia Salt no mor Crab wood.

2 We Shrimp Chute Crab .

3 aquaculture Chivita Crab Millet Sal no mor

4 Crab Chivita Shrinp Salt no mor Mojarra

5 Chivita crawfish Crab Shrimp

6 nothing will Chivita Crab ' llarningoee . .

7 use restrictl expert heiprl Chivita Shrinp Mojarra Ducks .

8 equacrltl'e Chivita Si'n‘np Crib. crawfish Millet Ducks

9 equacuhn tourism nouiingwil Chivita Crab ' SeaBasa Salnomor
10 aquaculture salt no more Chivia Mojarra .
11 aquacdun Shrimp Chivita Crab Mullet Sea Bass wood
12 aqllacrrltln use restricti eiqoert help/i Chivita Crab Mulet . .
13 i . use restrictl expert helprl Shrimp Crab Chivita . .
14 We Shrimp Chivita Crab .
15 Chivita sea Bass Corvina - '
18 aquacuhue use restrictl Chivia Flamingoes . .
17 Corvina Sea Bass Mullet Chivita -
18 nothing will Chivita wood . .
19 aqrrawlture Chivita Mulet Crab . . Flamingoes
20 .
21 . use restrictl Chivita Crab .
22 use rcstricti . .
23 Remove DU Chivita Mullet .
24 nothing will , Chivita Crab shrimp Flamingoes
25 Remove DU nothing
26 Chivita Flamingoes
27 Remove no nothing Chivita
28
29 salt no more Chivita Mullet Sea Bass
30 aquaculture Remove 0U Mullet Sea Bass Corvina
31 Chivita

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

275

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 76—Conrinued
cserv1 csenrz cnonmktl nonmkt2 norankt3 llarn toursm helptour aalenet
1 storm prote Lizards Herons. gul Turtles no capital hives Yes
2 subsistence sometimes capital inves Yes
3 Herons. gull Ducks Sometimes sometimes llamlngoee ' Yes
4 Always sometimes nothhg Yes
5 Herons. gun Sometimes sometimes llamlngoea
6 subsistence storm prote Turtles aorrleumes llar'iilngoes Yes '
7 subsistence .. , i no Yes
8 subsistence Herons. gull . no nou'lhg Yes
9 . Sometimes sometimes llarnhgoes Yes
10 Herons. gul Lizards Parrots 8 or Always no llarningoes
11 atheism ' . sometimes Wig Yes
12 subsistence Ducks . ho cepial hives Yes
13 subsistence Ducks . no
14 sometimes nothing Yes
15 subsistence - . .
16 Herons. gul Ducks Sometimes sanetlmee tlamlngoee ' Yes
17 Flamingoes Ducks . . Yes
18 Sometimes . Yes
19 sometimes nothing Yes
20 subsistence Flamingoes Yes
21 storm prote subsistence . . . Yes
22 Flamingoes
23 llamingoes Yes
24 subsistence Herons. gull no nothing Yes
25 nothing be Yes
28 Ducks
27 nothing he Panels 8 ct Never
28 Yes
29 . I Never sometimes nothing Yes
30 nothing be subsistence Ducks F iamingoes . I Yes
31 nothing bc Turtles . |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

276

APPENDIX C

Table 76—Continued

 

lackalemat

 

maybe subsistence

no lackolentor

no lackolenlor
no lackolentor

nosubsistence
nosubsistence

maybe subsistence

no subsistence

l'iO subsistence

no subsistence

 

octopus

conch

 

MaterhaBrestworkrwhynot

turtles

shrimoctopus

turtles

 

tlshlnglnci

shrimpoctopus

octopus

conch

 

restric

yes

yes tlshk'lgkise
yes lishinghse

yes

yes

 

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

recreate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

11

 

 

12
13
14
15
18
17
18
19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21

 

 

 

24

 

 

 

27

 

 

28

 

 

31

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agar, M. H., and J. MacDonald. 1995. Focus groups and ethnography. Human
Organization 54:78-86.

Axinn, G. H. 1988. International technical interventions in agricultural and rural
development: Some basic trends, Issues, and questions. Agriculture and Human Values
Minter/Spring).

Axinn, G. H. 1991. Sustainable development reconsidered. Development-Joumal of SID
1:120-123.

Axinn, N. W. 1988. Gender related issues in international development assistance for
agriculture and rural life. Agriculture and Human Values (Winter-Spring).

Aylward, B., and E. B. Barbier. 1992. Valuing environmental functions in developing
countries. Biodiversity and Conservation 1:34-50.

Barbier, E. B. 1994. Valuing environmental functions: Tropical wetlands. Land
Economics 702155-73.

Batllori San Pedro, E. 1996. Manejo integral de recursos naturales de subsistencia en la
ciénaga de Chubuma Puerto. Project Report. Secretaria de Ecologia del Gobierno del
Estado de Yucatan. Mérida, Mex.: Centro de Investigacion y Estudios Avanzados.

Bawden, R. J. 1991. Systems thinking and practice in agriculture. Journal of Dairy
Science 74:2362-2373.

Bennett, J. M., and M. Carter. 1993. Prospects for contingent valuation: Lessons from
the South-East Forests. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 37:79-93.

Black, J. K. 1991. Development in Theory and Practice: Bridging the Gap. Boulder:
Westview Press.

Boyle, K. J., W. H. Desvousges, F. R. Johnson, R. Dunford, and S. P. Hudson. 1994. An
investigation of part-whole biases in contingent valuation studies. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 27:64-83.

277

278

Briscoe, J ., P. Furtadode Castro, C. Griffin, J. North, and 0. Olsen. 1990. Towards
equitable and sustainable rural water supplies: A contingent valuation study in Brazil. The
World Bank Economic Review 4(2): 115-134.

Brown, S. 1990. Foreign Aid in Practice. New York: New York University Press.

Brown, T. C., P. A. Champ, R. C. Bishop, and D. W. McCollum. 1996. Which response
format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics 72:152-166.

Bryman, A 1988. Quantity and Quality in Social Research. Contemporary Social
Research, vol. 18. London: Unwin Hyman.

Cardoso, F. H., and E. Faletto. 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin America.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Carson, R. T., and R. C. Mitchell. 1993. The issue of SCOpe in contingent valuation
studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75: 1263-1267.

Carson, R T., J. Wright, N. Carson, A Alberini, and N. Flores. 1994. A Bibliography of
Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers. La J olla, Calif: Natural Resource Damage
Assessment, Inc.

Carson, R. T ., R. C. Mitchell, W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, S. Presser, and P. A. Ruud.
1992. A contingent valuation study of lost passive use values resulting from the Exxon
Valdez oil spill. Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska. La J olla, Calif:
Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc.

Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, J. A Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P.
A Ruud, V. K Smith. 1994. Prospective interim lost use value due to DDT and PCB
contamination in the southern California Bight. Report to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. La J olla, Calif: Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc.

Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman
Group.

Clark, J. 1991. Magic or muddle. In Democratizing Development: The Role of
Voluntary Organizations. West Hartford, Conn: Kumarian Press.

Clark, J. R. 1996. Coastal Zone Management Handbook. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.

Converse, J. M., and S. Presser. 1986. Survey Questions: Handcrafting the
Standardized Questionnaire. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 63.
Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.

Costanza, R., S. C. Farber, and J. Maxwell. 1989. Valuation and management of wetland
ecosystems. Ecological Economics 1:335-361.

279

de Soto, H. 1991. The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in The Third World. New
York: Harper Row..

Desvousges, W. H., F. R. Johnson, R. W. Dunford, KJ. Boyle, S. P. Hudson, and K. N.
Wilson. 1992. Measuring nonuse damages using contingent valuation: An experimental
evaluation of accuracy. Report to the Exxon Corporation, Research Triangle Institute
Monograph 92-1.

Duffield, J. W., and D. A Patterson. 1991. Field testing existence values: An instream
flow trust fund for Montana rivers. Presented at the American Economics Association
Annual Meeting, New Orleans, La., January 4.

Elsenhaus, H. 1991. Development and Underdevelopment: The History, Economics and
Politics of North—South Relations. New Delhi and Newbury Park, Calif: Sage
Publications.

EPOMEX/World Wildlife Fund. 1994. Taller de trabajo de expertos en el campo de la
valoracién economica de los ecosistemas de manglar. Documentos de Trabajo. Ciudad
del Carmen, Campecehe, Mexico. April 5-8.

Euan, J. 1997. Manejo de la zona costera humedales dc manglar: Usos, conocimientos, y
actitudes. Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, forthcoming.

EXCEL. Ver. 7.0. Microsoft Corporation. Redmond, Wash.

Faust, B., and J. Sinton. 1990. Let’s dynamite the salt factory: Communication,
coalitions, and sustainable use among users of a biosphere reserve. In Ecotourism and
Resource Conservation. J. A Kusler, ed. [Berne, N.Y.]. Selected papers. 15t & 2nd
International Symposia on Ecotourism. [Mérida, Mexico: 1989 & Miami, Fla.: 1990].

Fielding, N. G., and R. M. Lee, eds. 1991. Using Computers in Qualitative Research.
Rev. ed. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.

Fischoff, B., and L. Furby. 1988. Measuring values: A conceptual framework for
interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1:147-184.

Fowler, F. J ., Jr. 1995. Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Applied
Social Research Methods Series, vol. 38. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Freeman, A M. 1993a. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

. 1993b. Nonuse values in natural resource damage assessment. In Valuing
Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment. R. J. Kopp
and V. K Smith, eds. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

 

280
Friere, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.

George, S. 1984. Overcoming hunger: Strengthen the weak, weaken the string. In Ill
Fares the Land: Essays on Food, Hunger, and Power. Washington, DC: Institute of
Policy Studies.

Gregory, R., S. Lichtenstein, and P. Slovic. 1993. Valuing environmental resources: A
constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7:177-197.

Guba, E., and Y. Lincoln. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
Handbook of Qualitative Research. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, eds. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage Publications.

Hamilton, L., and S. Snedaker. 1984. Handbook for Mangrove Area Management.
Hawaii: East/W est Center.

Hamilton, L., J. Dixon, and G. Owen Miller. 1989. Mangroves Forests: An undervalued
resource of the land and sea. In Ocean Yearbook 8. E. Mann Borgese, N. Ginsburg, and
J. R. Morgan, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hancock, G. 1989. Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the
International Aid Business. New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press.

Hanemann, W. M. 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation.
Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 19-43.

Hernandez-Flores, A. 1995. Diagnostico socio-economico y ambiental de las
comunidades pesqueras de Yucatan. Project Report. Mexico: Secretaria del Medio
Ambiente, Recursos N aturales, y Pesca; Instituto Nacional de la Pesca; and Direccion de
Investigacién en Procesos para el Desarrollo Sustentable.

Henry, G. T. 1990. Practical Sampling. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol.
21. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.

Hoehn, J. P. 1987. Contingent valuation in fisheries management: The design of
satisfactory contingent valuation formats. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
116:412-419.

Hoehn, J. P., and A. Randall. 1987. A satisfactory benefit-cost indicator from contingent
valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14:226-247.

Hoehn, J. P., and A. Randall. 1989. Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test.
American Economic Review 79:544-551.

Hoehn, J. P., and D. J. Krieger. 1994. Cairo water and wastewater economic assessment
project: Phase II progress report. Report for Environmental Policy and Training Project

281

(EPAT), Midwest University Consortium for International Activities (MUCIA), and
Institute for International Agriculture. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University.

Hoehn, J. P., and J. B. Loomis. 1993. Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple
environmental programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25:56-
75 .

Hoskins, M. W. There to hear: What’s next in the revolution? The Rural Sociologist
Fall: 46-49.

Hutchinson, W. G., S. M. Chilton, and J. Davis. 1995. Measuring non-use value of
environmental goods using the contingent valuation method: Problems of information and
cognition and the application of cognitive questionnaire design methods. Journal of
Agricultural Economics 46 :97- l 12.

HyperRESEARCH. ResearchWare, Inc. Randolph, Mass.

Infosino, W. J. 1986. Forecasting new products sales from likelihood of purchase ratings.
Marketing Science 5:372-384.

Instituto N acional de Estadr’stica, Geo grafi’a e Informatica (INEGI). 1992. Yucatan-
Resultados Definitivos: Datos por AGEB Urbana. XI Censo General de Poblacion
Vivienad, 1990. Aguascalientes, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geo grafia e
Informatica

Johnston, R. M. 1979. Development or dependency: The transfer of agricultural
technology to developing nations. Occasional Paper N o. 4. Development Studies and
Research Centre. University of Khartoum.

Kanninen, B. J. 1995. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 28:114-125.

Kaplowitz, M., and others. 1997. Economic valuation methods. In Non-Economic and
Economic Value of Biodiversity: Applications for Ecosystem Management. J. Joy and A.
Randall, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Forthcoming.

Kaplowitz, M. and J. P. Hoehn. 1997. Economic valuation of environmental and natural
resources. In Ecology, Law, and Economics. N. Mercuro, ed. Lantham, Md.:
University Press of America. Forthcoming.

Kitzinger, J. 1994a. The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction
between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness 16:103-121.

. 1994b. Focus groups: Method or madness. In M. Boulton, ed. Challenge and
Innovation: Methodological Advances in Social Research on HIV/AIDS. New York:
Taylor and Francis.

 

282

Kopp, R. J. 1993a. Environmental economics: Not dead but thriving. Resources (Spring)
1 1 1:7-12.

Kopp, R. J. 1993b. Implementing natural resource damage assessments. In Valuing
Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment. R. J. Kopp
and V. K. Smith, eds. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Kopp, R. J ., and V. K Smith, eds. 1993. Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics Of
Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
CommText Series, vol. 5. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.

Krueger, R. A 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 2d ed.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2d ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Lederman, LC. 1990. Accessing educational effectiveness: The focus group interview
as a technique for data collection. Communication Education 38: 117-127.

Llewellyn, L. 1990. Tropical deforestation and the treat to biodiversity: New directions
in social assessment. In Methods For Social Analysis In Developing Countries. K.
Finsterbusch, J. Ingersoll, and L. Llewellyn, eds. Boulder: Westview Press

Lofland, J., and L. H. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative
Observation and Analysis. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Loomis, J ., and P. Anderson. 1992. Idaho v. Southern Refrigerated. In Ward and
Duffield, eds. Natural Resource Damages: Law and Economics. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Loomis, J ., and M. Lockwood, and T. DeLacy. 1993. Some empirical evidence on
embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 24:45-55.

Mabry, E. A, and R. E. Barnes. 1980. The Dynamics of Small Group Communication.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Maltby, E. 1986. Waterlogged Wealth: Why Waste the World’s Wet Places? London:
Earthscan Publications (Washington, DC: International Institute for Environment and
Development)

Marshall, C., and G. B. Rossman. 1989. Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury
Park, Calif: Sage.

..H‘

 

 

 

283

Maxwell, J. A. 1996. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Applied
Social Research Methods Series, vol. 41. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

McConnell, K 1993. Indirect methods for assessing damages. In Valuing Natural
Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment. R. J. Kopp and V. K
Smith, eds. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Merton, R. K, M. Fiske, and P. L. Kendall. 1990. The Focused Interview. 2d ed. New
York: Free Press.

Mexicano-Cintora, G., S. Salas, and M. A Cabrera. 1994. La pesquerr’a artesanal de
sardinia en Celestr’m, Yucatan. Jaina 5(2): 10-11.

Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The
Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Morgan, D. L. 1996. Focus groups. In J. Hagan and K S. Cook, eds. Annual Review of
Sociology, vol. 22. Palo Alto, Calif: Annual Review..

Morgan, D. L. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2d ed. Qualitative
Research Methods Series, vol. 16. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Munasinghe, M. 1993. Environmental issues and economic decisions in developing
countries. World Development 21: 1729-1748.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1993. Natural resource
damage assessments under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Proposed Rules. Federal
Register 58:4601-4614 (15 January 1993).

Ndiaye, S. M., and A. J. Sofranko. 1994. Farmer’s perceptions of resource problems and
adoption of conservation practices in a densely populated area. Agriculture Ecosystems
and Environment 48:35 -47.

Neill, H. R. 1995. The context for substitutes in CVM studies: Some empirical
observations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29:393-397.

Neill, H. R., R. G. Cummings, P. T. Ganderton, G. W. Harrison, and T. McGuckin. 1994.
Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics 70: 145-54

Nepal, S. K., and K E. Weber.‘ 1995. Managing resources and resolving conflicts:
National parks and local people. International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology 2:11-25.

Norusis, M. J. n.d. SPSS 6.] Guide to Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.

 

284

Oppenheim, A. N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing, and Attitude
Measurement. New ed. New York: Pinter Publishers.

Paré, L., and J. Fraga. 1994. La Costa de Yucatan: Desarrollo y Vulnerabilidad
Ambiental. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Instituto de
Investigaciones Sociales.

Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2d ed. Newbury
Park, Calif: Sage Publications.

Portney, P. R. 1994. The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care
Journal of Economic Perspectives 8:3-17.

Prebisch, R. 1962. The economic development of Latin America and its principle
problems. Economic Bulletin for Latin America 7(February): 1-22.

Pronatura - Peninsula de Yucatan. [1994]. Celesttin: Reserve facts. Mérida, Mexico.

Pronatura - Peninsula de Yucatan. Kambiil: Biodiversidad. 1 (Winter 1991), 3 (Winter
1992), and 4 (Spring 1994).

QSR NUD-IST. Revision 3. Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd. Sage
Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Rea, L. M., and R. A Parker. 1992. Designing and Conducting Survey Research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Reynolds, F. D., and D. K. Johnson. 1978. Validity of focus-group findings. Advertising
Research 18:21-24.

Rodeghier, M. 1996. Surveys with Confidence. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Rudestrom, K. E., and R. R. Newton. 1992. Surviving Your Dissertation A
Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.

Schkade, D. A, and J. W. Payne. 1994. How people respond to contingent valuation
questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental
regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:88-109.

Schulze, W. D. 1993. Use of direct methods for valuing natural resource damages. In
Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment. R. J.
Kopp and V. K Smith, eds. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Schwarz, N. 1997. Cognition, communication, and survey measurement: Some
implications for contingent valuation surveys. In Determining the Value of Non-Marketed
Goods. Kopp, R. J ., W. Pommerehne, and N. Schwarz, eds. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff,
forthcoming.

285

Seijo, J. C., A Yafiez-Arancibia, A. L. Lara-Dominguez, and G. Villalobos-Zapata. 1994.
A simple dynamic economic-ecological model for mangrove ecosystem management.
Cinvestav del IPN, Mérida and EPOMEX, Universidad Autonoma de Campeche.
Duplicated.

Seijo, J. C., and A. Yafiez-Arancibia. 1991. Funciones ecologicas y valores economicos.
Jaina 2:12-13.

Seijo, J. C., M. A Cabrera, J. Brian, and E. P. Perez. 1995. Valuacion economica de los
servicios ecologicos del ecosistema de manglar de Isla del Carmen, Campeche. A project
report. Mérida, Mex: CINVESTAV-IPN.

Sinden, J. A 1988. Empirical tests of hypothetical biases in consumers’ surplus surveys.
Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 32:98-112.

Singleton, R. A, B. C. Straits, and M. M. Straits. 1993. Approaches to Social Science.
2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, V. K 1993. Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: An interpretive
appraisal. Land Economics 69: 1-26.

Smith, V. K, and W. H. Desvousges. 1987. An empirical analysis of the economic value
of risk changes. Journal of Political Economy 95:89-114.

Spradley, J. P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace
J ovanovich College Publishers.

SPSS for Windows. Ver. 7.5. SPSS Inc. Chicago, 111.

Stewart, D. W., and P. N. Shamdasani. 1990. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice.
Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 20. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage
Publications.

Strauss, A, and J. Corbin. 1990. Basic of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.

Sudman, S., N. B. Bradbum, and N. Schwarz. 1996. Thinking About Answers: The
Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Turner, K. 1991. Economics and wetland management. Ambio 20:59-63.

Uphoff, N. 1987. Review of Rural Development: Putting the Last First, By R.
Chambers. Economic Development And Cultural Change 35:665-670.

Varian, H. 1992. Microeconomic Analysis. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

286

Vaughn, 8., J. S. Schumm, and J. Sinagub. 1996. Focus Group Interviews in Education
and Psychology. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Vernon, R. 1988. The Promise of privatization: A Challenge for American Foreign
Policy. New York: Council of Foreign Relations.

Weiss, R. S. 1994. Learning From Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative
Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press

Whittington, D., J. Briscoe, X. Mu, and W. Barron. 1990. Estimating the willingness to
pay for water services in developing countries: A case study of the use of contingent
valuation surveys in southern Haiti. Economic Development and Cultural Change

38:293-311.

Whittington, D., D. T. Lauria, A. M. Wright, K Choc, J. A. Hughes, and V. Swarna.
1993. Household demand for improved sanitation services in Kumasi, Ghana: A
contingent valuation study. Water Resources Research 29: 1539-1560

Whittington, D., V. K Smith, A Okorafor, A Okore, J. L. Liu, and A McPhail. 1992.
Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country
application. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22:205-225.

Wight, D. 1994. Boys’ thoughts and talk about sex in a working class locality of
Glasgow. Sociological Review 42:702-737.

Yafiez-Arancibia, A, ed. 1994. Recurso Faut’sticos de Litoral de la Peninsula de
Yucatan. EPOMEX Serie Cientifica 2. Campeche, Mexico: Universidad Auténoma de
Campeche.

Yafiez-Arancibia, A, and J. W. Day, Jr. 1988. Ecologia de los Ecosistemas Costeros en
el Sur del Golfo de Mexico. Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico: Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico.

Yin, R. K 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research
Method Series, vol. 5. Rev. ed. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications

 

illilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll\llllllll