©1999 Blackwell Science, Inc.

HOW ARE WE MANAGING?

.

Applications of Ecosystem Health for the Sustainability of Managed Systems in Costa Rica

Bernardo J. Aguilar

Centro de Estudios sobre Desarrollo Sostenible, The School for Field Studies, Atenas, Costa Rica

ABSTRACT

A growing body of literature explores the links betweenthe social and ecological dimensions of sustainability.However, much remains to be researched, especiallyconcerning managed ecosystems. Costa Rica has ap-proximately 25% of its area under some conservation re-gime; many of these protected areas, especially in andnear urban areas, are under private ownership and man-agement. Among these is the regime of the protectedzones (PZ) that seeks to protect watershed resources.The achievement of conservation objectives in these ar-eas will not only depend on ecological conditions butalso on social and economic ones. This framework pro-vides a good field in which to explore the interrelationsbetween sustainability and ecosystem health. This studysummarizes the work I participated in the last three yearsat the Center for Sustainable Development Studies in

Costa Rica. We developed a holistic ecosystem health in-dicator (HEHI) for managed ecosystems. This indicatorwas tested several times in seven PZs in the east, south,and west sections of the central valley of Costa Rica. Theevaluation tool includes measurements of productivity,organization, and resilience of the ecosystems. Thesewere combined with social indicators and resource usepatterns from the communities surrounding the PZsstudied. The use of this indicator and the conclusions ofthis project could justify the use of an integral approachto address conservation problems in developing nations.The creation and management of these protected areasshould be the result of a combined effort between com-munity organizations and government agencies dealingwith land distribution, zoning, and public health, amongothers.

INTRODUCTION

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKAND CONTEXT

In today’s conservation efforts, growing impor-tance is being placed on the need to protect en-tire ecosystems. The sustainability of the individ-ual ecosystem elements is increasingly recognizedas a function of total ecosystem health. While ac-knowledging the interdependence of natural eco-

system components, science has tended to ne-glect the role of human systems as a part of thesustainability dilemma (Lélé & Norgaard 1996).

In the field of environmental research, a shiftaway from purely biological benchmarks is hap-pening. Traditionally, ecosystem health was seenas a combination of strictly biophysical features ofspecific “indicator” components that point to afreedom of distress syndrome. These characteris-tics are qualified as “objective” measures in viewof the scientific methods used to find them.

This notion is criticized by several (Ehrenfeld1992; Hannon 1992) because it is partial in itsperception of the whole system and it overlooksnonbiophysical connections that are necessary to

Address correspondence to the author at his current address: Bernardo J. Aguilar, Professor, Ecological Economics and En-vironmental Policy, Prescott College, 220 Grove Ave., Prescott, AZ 86301; E-mail Bag9961@yahoo.com.

Aguilar: Ecosystem Health Applications in Costa Rica

37

understand the complexity of ecosystem dynam-ics. The way in which ecosystems and social sys-tems interact and influence each other is not yetfully understood. Also, trying to define ecosystemhealth according to the traditional scientific para-digm is difficult, because such a definition relieson informed but unmeasurable human percep-tions of what is happening to the ecosystem.

Such findings caused the emergence of a sci-entific trend that tries to understand the inter-connections between social systems and ecosys-tems. These studies have explored importantconnections such as the causality between in-equalities of wealth and power in social systemsand environmental degradation (Boyce 1994).

It is now recognized that a reflexive relation-ship exists between human systems and ecosys-tems in that the health of one is dependent onthe health of the other. For instance, Rapport(1995) considers “that healthy ecosystems mustnot only be ecologically sound, but must also beeconomically viable and able to sustain humanhealthy communities. These dimensions cannotbe ignored, for there are tight linkages betweenthem and the ecological aspects. Ecosystems thatcannot support viable economic activity are oftenover-exploited by local populations to compen-sate for inadequate incomes. This situation cre-ates a vicious circle under which impoverishedpopulations further degrade the environment forshort-term advantage at the expense of long-termviability.” Further, he declares that if healthy eco-systems are to prevail over time, they must satisfymore than biophysical (ecological) criteria.

This theoretical evolution results in the needto quantify these interactions. Along these lines,Costanza (1998) recognized that the rapid deteri-oration of the world’s ecosystems has enhancedthe need for environmental monitoring and thedevelopment of operational indicators of eco-system health. In his words, “Ecosystem healthrepresents a desired endpoint of environmentalmanagement, but it requires adaptive, ongoingdefinitions and assessment.”

Thus, the development of indicators of eco-system health that incorporate a holistic ap-proach is a necessary theoretical step to under-stand the system interdependence describedabove. Several notions have evolved in this direc-tion due to the impulse of the sustainable devel-opment trend. The central problem has shiftedfrom solely preserving biodiversity and ecosystemintegrity to conservation and satisfaction of ever-growing human needs.

This process has been enriched by the realiza-tion that no one traditional discipline—whetherit is chemistry, physics, biology, economics, sociol-ogy, medicine, and so on—can deal by itself withtoday’s global problems. Therefore an interdisci-plinary approach is required (Odum 1995).Within the context of the specific problem ana-lyzed here, Rapport

et al.

(1998) reaffirm this ideawhen they state that to link ecosystem health tothe provision of ecosystem services (functions thatsatisfy human needs) and “determining how eco-system dysfunction relates to these services aremajor challenges at the interface of the health, so-cial and natural sciences.”

Ecosystem health indicators have evolved ac-cordingly. For example, Karr (1981) proposed anIndex of Biotic Integrity that is widely used. It con-sists of 12 measurable biophysical attributes. Oth-ers tried to use the physical properties of ecosys-tem components. Such is the case of the PredictedIndex of Biotic Integrity (Hite & Bertrand 1989)and the Universal Soil Loss Equation (Schaeffer &Cox 1992). Gradually, purely biophysical indicesevolve into socioecologic, ecologic–economic, andsustainable communities–development indicators(Hannon 1992; Costanza 1994; Mageau

et al.

1995;Azar

et al.

1995; Willapa Alliance and Ecotrust1995; Cobb

et al.

1995; among others).The development of such indicators opens

the possibility to analyze managed ecosystemsthrough the parameters of ecosystem health. Theparticular nature of these ecosystems requires thedevelopment of indicators that are highly influ-enced by the management objectives of the eco-system in question.

For example, an agroecosystem will not havethe same level of “health”—concerning vigor, di-versity, and resilience—as a pristine ecosystem.Yet, within a context of “developed” geographicregions, restoring the original landscape mightnot be feasible. Nevertheless, conserving as manyecosystem services as possible is desirable. So, todefine a healthy agroecosystem, we will be look-ing for those features that help it to conserve asmany of those services while satisfying the objec-tive for which it was created (likely the provisionof food products). Within a regional context thissystem will represent a model to guarantee the“health” of the whole region. In this sense, agro-ecologists propose techniques such as integratedpest management (IPM), agroforestry, biomim-icry, integrated systems, and others. Here, ecosys-tem health and the sustainability of the system be-come synonyms—a healthy ecosystem will be that

38

Ecosystem Health Vol. 5 No. 1 March 1999

which can keep providing the same quantity andquality of ecosystem services to all of its inhabit-ants of present and future generations.

Freemark & Waide (1994) support this posi-tion when they recognize that managed ecosystemsare more strongly influenced by societal goals re-lated to commodity production/economics, ratherthan those concerning aesthetic/recreational use,preservation of biodiversity, or provision of ecolog-ical services. They call such systems “constrainednatural ecosystems.” Even for such systems, theyconclude, appropriate/different measures of healthmust be defined at different levels of ecological or-ganization and at different spatial scales.

The evolution of this idea and its implicationsbecome especially important for those countriesin which resource scarcity makes the balance be-tween cash crop production and ecosystem con-servation more critical, as is the case of CostaRica. This Central American country has approxi-mately 25% of its total area under protection.Also, its development pattern promoted produc-tion policies that reduced its forest cover by 65%of the total country area in the last 45 years. Thatparadox shows how critical the balance betweenresource use and conservation is in an underde-veloped country with a growing population. Thisis why Costa Rican governments, within one ofthe most recognized conservation area systems inthe world, use conservation management objec-tives that allow for multiple uses and different de-grees of protection. One interesting example isthe protected zone (PZ) regime.

These areas are among the oldest manage-ment models in the country, dating from theearly 1970s. They are created to regulate the hy-drologic regime of an area, prevent soil erosion,maintain climatic and overall environmental bal-ance (Umaña 1995). The Ministry of the Environ-ment (MINAE) has exclusive jurisdiction to moni-tor the management in these areas that are mostlyprivately owned. Out of 179,401 hectares in-cluded in PZs in 1994, 97.25% were under privateownership. The idea of creating them came fromthe need to find intermediate conservation mod-els for areas that were already under intensiveuse, yet in key upper watershed areas of the coun-try. They are mostly in areas colonized very earlyin the Costa Rican history (Umaña 1995).

This location has made these areas especiallydifficult to manage. Very old consolidated privateproperty rights, protected by the Costa RicanConstitution, conflict with the societal goals ofconservation that are also recognized. Owners are

reticent to adopt practices voluntarily that limittheir profits or their right to use the land in anyway they wish freely (for example, to turn old cof-fee farms into subdivisions on steep sloped hill-sides). Nevertheless, their unsustainable prac-tices may collide with the right that every CostaRican has to a clean and healthy environment byhurting water catchment areas. Article 45 stipu-lates: “Private Property should not be violated; noone can be disturbed on this right unless by le-gally proven public interest and not prior to a faircompensation By motives of public need, the Leg-islative Assembly, by a vote of 2/3 of its membersmay impose limitations based on social interest.”This conflict, scarcity of funds, and lack of politi-cal will have resulted in a lack of managementplans or extension work from government agen-cies in these areas. In short, they are paper parks.

Yet PZs cover 14.5% of the total area underofficial protection in Costa Rica. They are foundin life zones that other management regimes donot cover. In fact, national parks, biological re-serves, and other more stringent regimes containonly 11 of the 23 life zones represented in CostaRica (Powell

et al.

1996).One of the most important watersheds of the

country (the Grande de Tárcoles Watershed) hasa significant part of its sources protected by thisregime. It is in the most inhabited area of thecountry (1/3 of the total population), the CentralValley. The land uses found in the PZs along thiswatershed include forest, agriculture, agroindus-trial, and urban.

These characteristics make these PZs an ex-cellent case study for the development and appli-cation of an indicator of ecosystem health formanaged ecosystems. Previous research in theseareas has provided some insight as to the relationbetween biophysical ecosystem health and socialindicators (Aguilar

et al.

1995).Three years ago the Center for Sustainable

Development Studies, an international educa-tional institution in Costa Rica, started a researchproject with the objective to explore this issue. Itsfirst objective was to develop a holistic ecosystemhealth indicator (HEHI) simple to measure/un-derstand, yet comprehensive of the multidimen-sional nature of the areas and useful for makingcomparisons leading to regional policy making.These characteristics would enhance its chance ofbeing applicable with less expense by Costa Ricanenvironmental agencies. The second objective ofthe project was to show the applicability of this in-dicator to several Costa Rican PZs.

Aguilar: Ecosystem Health Applications in Costa Rica

39

This paper seeks to summarize both the de-sign and results of the application of the HEHI inCosta Rica. This summary, and a technical reportprepared and soon to be handed to the Ministryof the Environment of Costa Rica (Bradley-Wright

et al.

1998a), hope to give government agencies abetter basis for management decisions in these ar-eas. Through this summary, this work may illus-trate a useful example where a holistic notion ofecosystem health is applicable to specific conser-vation problems in developing nations.

METHODOLOGY

The system interactions implied in the PZ man-agement regime are configured by ecological, so-cial, and economic factors. These interactions (asseen in Figure 1) include the use and impact thatthe local residents and owners make of resourcesfound within the political borders of the PZ.These components are naturally influenced bythe social conformation of the communities inthe area within and surrounding the PZ. Yet, assome land is normally owned by absentee owners,they will exercise a separate interaction with theresource base of the PZs. Further, local applica-tion of relevant environmental regulations will bein charge of the local representatives of MINAEand the Municipal Government of the county.

The landscape within the PZ is a combinationof preserved and managed areas. Costa Ricanregulations establish the obligation for privateowners to preserve forested areas around rivers,streams, and other water bodies. Specific horizon-tal distances are required according to slope andlocation. In a PZ, the enforcement of this regula-tion should be more strict. Also, the land useswithin PZs should be supportive of the manage-ment objectives. The desirable situation would bethat the owners of property within the zone followthis model. This would require appropriate zon-ing and extension services from the agencies incharge. This combination would create an arrayof land uses that would go up the slope from theriver/stream beds and springs. It would start as aforested buffer area and would be followed by di-verse sustainable land uses (Figure 2).

The system of the PZ will include compo-nents inside and outside the political boundariesof the protected area that will affect its health.Therefore, an effective method of assessing thehealth of these areas should take into accounttheir multidimensional nature. The HEHI was de-signed emphasizing the interrelatedness of eco-logical and social factors, applying an interdisci-plinary perspective to PZ management problems.Further, this indicator was defined according tothe specific management objectives of the areasinvolved. In this sense, the indicator componentstry to take into account not only the connections

FIGURE 1. General model of a PZ system.

40

Ecosystem Health Vol. 5 No. 1 March 1999

between social and natural aspects but the spe-cific characteristics of each area. Nevertheless, wealso seek to facilitate a comparative analysis be-tween the PZs in a common biological region. Inthis sense, the components of the indicator main-tained a sufficient degree of generality.

STRUCTURE OF THE HOLISTIC ECOSYSTEM HEALTH INDICATOR

The HEHI was divided into three primary catego-ries: ecological, social, and interactive, with the in-teractive category representing the interactions be-tween human and ecological communities. Withineach of the three categories, specific indicators ofecosystem, social, or interactive health were chosen.

A numerical system was used to standardizethe scores of the indicators, by which the higherscores meant a “healthier” ecosystem. Each pri-mary indicator category was worth one thousandpoints. The indicators within each category wereassigned part of the total one thousand points.The raw scores of each indicator were trans-formed according to the maximum and minimumdefined for each. Point breakdowns were assignedto these raw scores according to the existing litera-ture and the professional expertise of the scien-tists involved. The final score is a weighted aver-age. The ecological indicators received a higher

weight of 40%, while social and interactive datawas each weighted at 30%. A higher weight for theecological category is due to the higher correla-tion to the objectives of the PZ that this categoryhas. Also, ecological indicators can take longer tomanifest into changes in ecosystem health.

The specific indicator descriptions for eachcategory follow. This section relies on the excellentsummary made by Bradley-Wright

et al.

(1998b).

ECOLOGICAL COMPONENT.

The ecological com-ponent focuses on biophysical measurements ofecosystem health. Specifically, we were looking forcharacteristics of organization, vigor, and resil-ience (Costanza 1992). These concepts were usedwith the main objectives of these zones to definethe “desirable” features of biophysical health.

These broad notions were narrowed intonine basic groups of ecological indicators: waterquality, soil quality, riparian zone regulation com-pliance, biomass, land use, primary productivity,regeneration, biodiversity, and erosion. Thesenine categories of indicators were then rankedand assigned points as high, middle, and low indi-cators of ecosystem health according to the no-tion used here. The interested reader is referredto Bradley-Wright

et al.

(1998a,b) for a completebreakdown of the indicators and tests used withineach category.

FIGURE 2. Basic diagram of the optimal protection desired with the riparian zone regulations in Costa Rican PZs. A mini-mal forested area that varies between at least 50, 15, or 10 horizontal meters, depending on slope and location, should border every river bed. Up the slope from this area, the land use practices should encourage soil and water protection.

Aguilar: Ecosystem Health Applications in Costa Rica

41

SOCIAL INDICATORS.

A wide range of socioeco-nomic information is necessary in determiningthe overall health of the area because acute socialand economic factors can be the fundamentalcause of resource exploitation (Winograd 1995).Specifically, here the fundamental assumption isthat community characteristics reflect the state ofthe economy and the condition of local resourceswithin the watershed (Wilapa Alliance and Eco-trust 1995). For example, marginal communitiesoften put greater pressure on natural resourcesthrough intensive land use (Rapport 1995), a situ-ation that would be important to understand forgood PZ management.

Therefore, the social indicators were chosen todescribe comprehensively the social and economicconditions of the communities that can influencethe PZ both within its boundaries and surroundingthem. Six categories were chosen: income, demo-graphics, access to services, job stability, genderroles, and community strength. These categorieswere also ranked and assigned points as high, mid-dle, and low indicators of ecosystem health. Thepoint values reflect the strength and accuracy ofthe specific indicator in evaluating the socialhealth of the community (see Bradley-Wright

et al.

1998a,b for specific information).

INTERACTIVE INDICATORS.

The interactive cate-gory tries to account for the interface of the eco-logical and social indicators. Interactive indica-tors quantify the primary connections betweenthe people and the land. The relationship be-tween land uses and the degree to which the landis concentrated in a region affect the community

structure and agricultural practices. It follows thatthese indicators are needed to depict a commu-nity’s relationship with the land. Thus, under-standing this relationship to conserve natural re-sources within a PZ characterized by private landownership is necessary. The interactive categoryalso measures the effectiveness of regulatoryagencies in carrying out management objectivesof the PZ. Further, we account for community in-volvement in management decisions and aware-ness of policies that affect them.

The interactive indicator groups are land useand distribution, watershed protection, land deg-radation, citizen involvement, implementation oflegislation, and environmental awareness. Theywere also ranked and assigned points as high,middle, and low indicators of ecosystem health.Again, the complete breakdown of tests and indi-cators can be found in the work of Bradley-Wright

et al.

(1998a,b). Figure 3 summarizes the com-plete structure of the indicator.

SITE SELECTION AND DATA SOURCES

The HEHI was applied in seven PZs in the CentralValley of Costa Rica: El Chayote, Cerros de Es-cazú, Cerro Atenas, El Rodeo, Rio Tiribí, La Car-pintera, and Rio Grande. They are all locatedwithin the Río Grande de Tárcoles Watershed.Two of them are found in the eastern section, twoin the south, one in the north, and two in the cen-ter of the watershed (Figure 4).

To collect ecological data, field tests weredone in several plots. These plots were estab-

FIGURE 3. Primary structure of the holistic ecosystem health indicator. Source: Bradley-Wright, et al. 1998a.

42

Ecosystem Health Vol. 5 No. 1 March 1999

lished in the most representative land uses in thePZ. Field data were also collected from the mostimportant rivers and streams originating in and/or flowing through the PZ. Full land-use mapswere drawn for the PZs based on 1:10,000 metertopographical maps, field surveys, and, whenavailable, historical data from aerial photographsor older land use maps.

The social and interactive data was collectedfrom communities immediately surrounding thePZ or within the boundaries, depending on thecase. The communities were chosen based ontheir proximity to the PZ, accessibility, size, andrelative economic importance. For each commu-nity, a sample of households proportional to thesize of its population was chosen. The sample wassurveyed through questionnaires and interviews.

Statistical data were also used to quantify somesocial and interactive indicators. Sources includednational and local government agencies of thecommunities and counties included in the sample.The data set was completed through informal in-terviews with government officers. The specifictests and techniques used for the data collectioncan be found in Bradley-Wright

et al.

(1998b).The data was collected since May 1995. The

approximate time for the collection and analysisfor each PZ was 2–3 months. Some PZs were sur-veyed more than once to try improved tests anddata collection methods. Table 1 summarizes the

timing of the surveys and the number of commu-nities involved for each PZ.

Many constraints made collection of all indi-cator data impossible. Thus, the maximum pointswere sometimes less than one thousand. A “weak”version (which we called WHI) of the indicatorwas used for comparison purposes. We standard-ized the data for each category in percentages oftotal possible points. This allowed a comparisonof broad categories. Yet, for accurate conclusions,government agencies would need to look at thespecific results for each zone separately.

Other specific methodologic constraints arosefrom our aim to keep the methodology simple andaffordable for regulators and managers. These in-cluded not using more sophisticated techniquesfor some tests (for example, a GIS system for moreaccurate mapping purposes). A full description ofthose limitations is found in the respective reportfor each PZ.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This paper reports only the results of the WHI.The specifics of a detailed presentation of resultsfor each PZ go beyond the scope of this paperand would make its size unmanageable. The re-sults of the WHI are summarized in Figure 5. Thefirst three sets of columns present the individual

FIGURE 4. Position of PZs within the Grande de Tárcoles Watershed.

Aguilar: Ecosystem Health Applications in Costa Rica

43

categories. A fourth one consolidates the totalweighted average for the WHI. For those PZs thatwent through several applications, only the resultsof the last one are reported.

El Chayote ranked first with 56.40% of the pos-sible points, followed by El Rodeo with 53.10%.La Carpintera with 46.64% and Río Tiribí with45.49% had the lowest scores.

The scores reflect the interaction of the dif-ferent indicator components. Even if the ecologi-cal component received a higher weight, the indi-cator showed more than the trend shown by anysingle component. It is true that El Chayote andEl Rodeo rank the highest in ecological scores(59.20% and 60.82%). Yet, the final ranking be-tween them is determined by the substantial differ-ence in the interactive scores, where El Chayotehas an advantage of almost 9% of the percentageof possible points. Another important example isLa Carpintera that ranked third in the ecologicalscores with 54.79%. Yet, concerning total points itranked next to last. An opposite situation is shownby Río Grande and Río Tiribí that rank high in so-cial scores yet show such a comparatively low per-formance in interactive and ecological terms thatthey rank among the last.

These examples suggest that the WHI doescapture a complex reality. This reality, as said be-fore, depicts the sustainability and ecosystemhealth of the PZs. The results of correlation testsbetween the main components of the HEHI that

Carlson (1997) performed appear to confirm thisstatement.

General trends can be extracted from thiscomparison of the general reality of the Grandede Tárcoles Watershed. Social scores are the high-est of all the three categories of indicators rang-ing from 56.03% to 61.47%. This reflects the gen-eral high level of social stability in Costa Rica,especially in the Central Valley. In terms of the In-dex of Human Development of the United Na-tions, Costa Rica has been scoring among the top40 of 173 worldwide. Further, the level of socialspending, as a percentage of the GNP in the1980s and 1990s, is above 14%, even if this levelshows some decrease compared with previous de-cades (Ministerio de Planificación Nacional yPolítica Económica 1995).

Interactive scores were the lowest in all thePZs. This points to a failure to carry out the man-agement objectives of these areas. Citizen involve-ment and environmental awareness scores are thedeciding factors in these trends.

The process of creation and the institutionalmanagement of these practices can explain thissituation. Their creation was done through execu-tive decrees with very little participation of thecommunities around and within them (Umaña1995). Often, interviewees residing within theborders of these PZs did not even know of theirexistence. Further, the vigilance, extension ser-vices, and general management of the areas have

TABLE 1

Time line of the applications of the HEHI-WHI indicator; every period included some methodological modifications*

Protected ZoneSept.–Dec.

1995Feb.–May

1996Jun.–Aug.

1996Feb.–May

1997Jun.–Aug.

1997Sept.–Dec.

1997Feb.–May

1998Sept.–Dec.

1998

Cerro Atenas X XRío Grande X XEl Rodeo X XCerros de Escazú X XRío Tiribí XLa Carpintera XEl Chayote XNumber of communities

surveyed 4 6 15 7 20 9 5 6

*Original design is described in Carlson

et al.

(1995).

44

Ecosystem Health Vol. 5 No. 1 March 1999

been the responsibility of agencies that lack theresources and the technical personnel to do it inan efficient way (Aguilar

et al.

1995; Aguilar

et al.

1996). Two important portions of the interactive

component were extracted and summarized fromthe original reports in Table 2.

Low levels in land degradation indicators arealso common. Green revolution intensive tech-

FIGURE 5. A comparison of the seven PZs sampled in the Grande de Tárcoles Watershed. Data consolidated from Ament et al. (1997), Astaras et al. (1997), Averett et al. (1997), Azzopardi et al. (1997), Banard et al. (1996), Batista et al. (1997), Beard et al. (1996), Bradley-Wright et al. (1998a), Brundage et al. (1996), Burns et al. (1998), Carl et al. (1996), Carlson et al. (1995), Chen et al. (1996), Clements et al. (1997), Cohen et al. (1996), Cox et al. (1997), Fleishman et al. (1997), and Linderman et al. (1996).

TABLE 2

Indicators of management effectiveness in seven protected zones of the Central Valley of Costa Rica

Protected ZonePercent Compliance with

Riparian Zone RegulationsNumber of Communities

SurveyedPercentage of Points of

Environmental Awareness*

El Chayote 32.3 7 51.1El Rodeo 71.1 6 45.3Cerro Atenas 42.5 9 30.6Cerros de Escazú 34.6 20 29.8Río Grande 57.8 5 18.2La Carpintera 26.4 9 00.0Río Tiribí 36.0 6 28.8

*Includes level of knowledge of the protected zone close to the community.

Aguilar: Ecosystem Health Applications in Costa Rica

45

nologies are common in coffee and annuals plan-tations within the areas studied. Further, substan-tial percentages of the PZs are still dedicated topoorly managed pasture for cattle. This affectsland use scores. Added to this is a general trendof high levels of land concentration (Gini coeffi-cients above .6) in all PZs but Cerro Atenas(Ament

et al.

1997; Astaras

et al.

1997; Averett

et al.

1997; Bradley-Wright

et al.

1998a; Brundage

et al.

1996; Burns

et al.

1998; Clements

et al.

1997; Lin-dermann

et al.

1996; Tull 1995).In all but two cases, the highest-ranking PZs,

the ecological scores lie between the social andinteractive ones. This again suggests that themain pressure over ecological resources in thesePZs could be coming from the interactive factors.Yet it is interesting that the two highest-rankingPZs are also comparatively among the three low-est social scores (only La Carpintera scores lowerwith 56.03%). One is tempted to think that this isan indicator of lower levels of development corre-lating to higher preservation of biotic resources.However, this simplistic conclusion can be im-proved by looking briefly at the specific realitiesof the PZs.

El Chayote and El Rodeo PZs are found in ar-eas that remain more rural. El Chayote has astrong community organization that has takencharge of the management of the PZ. Informa-tion signs and well-marked borders are visible inthis area of 847 hectares. This would explain thehigh level of environmental awareness found inthe area. The population in and around the PZ ismostly made up of small and medium-sized farm-ers (Clements

et al.

1997). This characteristichelps understand the relatively lower social scoreof this PZ.

El Rodeo also has some farming population,yet the social picture in this PZ is a bit more com-plex. Within the borders of the PZ lies part of theQuitirrisí Indian Reservation. This is a marginalcommunity. Also, a substantial amount of thepopulation lives in Ciudad Colón, which is mostlypopulated by salaried workers that commute tothe city of San José. Overall, the county of Mora,where these communities are found, has an un-employment level around 8% that is above the na-tional average (around 6%).

El Rodeo has two interesting factors in its his-tory that has helped its preservation. The north-west section of the 2222 hectare PZ was mostlyone large property owned by a local conservation-ist (Cruz Rojas Bennett) since the early 20th cen-tury. He managed to preserve the existing forest

in the area. In the early 1980s, before he died, Mr.Rojas Bennett donated most of his forest to theUnited Nation’s University for Peace. Even if thisland was extracted from the PZ, the University hasmanaged it in connection with the rest of thezone. The preserved land also offers the attrac-tion of wildlife at less than 30 km from the capitalSan José. This attracts ecotourists. Horsebackriding and biking are offered in the trails throughthe forest. This explains why the PZ has 71.15% offorest and the highest of all the scores in riparianzone compliance (Table 2), trends that are con-sistent with its second highest interactive andhighest ecological score.

On the other side of the spectrum, LaCarpintera and Río Tiribí have specific character-istics that can help understand their rankingwithin the WHI picture. La Carpintera, even if re-taining more than 52% of its land in forest/sec-ondary growth, showed extremely low scores in ri-parian zone compliance. The area also presentsrelative low levels of income. Further, land useand distribution, land degradation, citizen involve-ment, and environmental awareness all scored35% or less of the possible points. This PZ retainsforested lands mostly due to the ownership of onespecific large coffee producer. Around this largefarm a very contrasting reality is the rule. The restof the area is part of the expansion of the city ofSan José to the southeast. It is an area full of lowerclass housing. In fact, a large portion of the landwas settled through squatter colonies. Thus, theview of small, torn-down houses on steep slopes orright next to the rivers and with inadequate sew-age treatment is common. Further, the MunicipalGovernment of San José has the Río Azul solidwaste dump, which receives trash from a substan-tial portion of the metropolitan area, within theborders of this PZ. The combination of these fac-tors is captured by the WHI (Banard

et al.

1996;Chen

et al.

1996; Lindermann

et al.

1996).Río Tiribí is a 650 hectare PZ in the eastern

border of the Grande de Tárcoles Watershed.This area presented very low interactive scoreseven if it still has more than 50% of its land for-ested. Most of the forested area here is also in thehands of one owner, the Costa Rican nationalelectric company ICE. They have a set of smallgenerators along the Tiribí River, that allows for-est preservation. Nevertheless, around the forest,very intensive agricultural practices happen, espe-cially dairy cattle and potato production. Also,since ICE is there, MINAE does not see a need toget strongly involved in the management of the PZ.

46

Ecosystem Health Vol. 5 No. 1 March 1999

The result is that people living or farming withinthe PZ do not know of its existence (Beard

et al.

1996; Brundage

et al.

1996; Cohen

et al.

1996).To summarize, these results show that the in-

dicator captures the general trends determinedby global and regional effects. It is also sensitiveenough to capture the site specific peculiarities ofeach PZ. Within each zone, it provides a morecomprehensive picture of all the factors that de-termine the state of ecosystem health. Even if theindicator does not depict causalities it can helpmanagers focus their resources on the weakest as-pects of ecosystem health. This, of course, re-quires the acceptance of the preanalytic visionpresented in the introduction of this paper.

For instance, areas such as the La CarpinteraPZ might benefit from higher social spending inthe qualitative improvement of living conditions.Obviously, the biophysical indicators of ecosystemhealth are suffering from the adverse social con-ditions; inappropriate sewage systems, unsustain-able urban development, and a municipal dumpspeak for themselves. Perhaps social workerscould do more for the environment here thanecologists.

From a regional perspective, it is interestingthat the comparison allows the agencies in chargeto see the location of the areas with lower levels ofhealth. In the specific watershed analyzed this wasevident in the upper parts, east of the city of SanJosé.

Both these findings are important for policydesign. Agencies in charge can focus their re-sources with a holistic bioregional perspective onthe aspects and regions that need more attention.

More work is needed to develop methods thatallow for the collection of the data included inthe indicator in a shorter period of time. Also,continued application will lead to improvementsin the structure of the HEHI so that more reliablecomparisons for each PZ will be made in the fu-ture. The methodology is mature enough to beadopted by the agencies in charge, however, con-tinuous revision and evolution are desirable inany theoretical tool of this kind.

In summarizing the advantages of the HEHIindicator, the first feature to highlight is its tailor-ing to the management objectives of the PZ man-agement model. It is multidisciplinary, compre-hensive, and quantifies the types of interactionspresent in PZs. Applying it is also quick and easy,and the methodology requires little training andfew personnel. Thus, it is likely to be cost-effectivefor any agency that uses it.

Further, the structure of the indicator en-ables comparisons between different PZs. Apply-ing the indicator through time to monitor thehealth of the areas is also possible. However, theevolution of the methodology did not allow forthis in the work presented here. These two char-acteristics are instrumental to a notion of ecosys-tem health that extends to whole biological re-gions and beyond a limited time.

The HEHI and its components allow an effi-cient allocation of resources to where they willhave the greatest positive impact. It provides thepossibility to understand what aspects or specificregions need more attention. Thus, it provides anexample of how a holistic notion of ecosystemhealth is applicable to specific conservation prob-lems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I owe deep gratitude to Mathew Moore and Tho-mas J. Semanchin, without whose drive and helpthis project would not be a reality. I would also liketo acknowledge the help of my colleagues at theCenter for Sustainable Development Studies inCosta Rica, especially Lisa Bradshaw, José L. Díaz,and Jorge Barrantes.

REFERENCES

Aguilar, B.J., Moore, M., Carlson, E., Maier, M., Peine,M.A., Taylor, B., Young, D., Carl, D., DuBarry, M.,Look, S., Micklethwait, D., Smith, M. (1996)Health determinant factors in privately ownedmanaged ecosystems: Contributions to the develop-ment of socio-ecological indicators for protectedareas in Costa Rica. Abstract published In:

EcologicalSummit 96.

ISEM, IEES, ISEH, ISEE, Elsevier Sci-ence BV, SAS-Institute Denmark, and InternationalLake Environment Committee (org.), pp. 38.2. TheRoyal Danish School of Pharmacy, Copenhagen.

Aguilar, B.J., Tull, J., Troya, Y., Hochauser, J., Díaz, J.L.(1995) Interactions between socioeconomic indi-cators and ecosystem health in privately ownedprotected zones in Costa Rica: Can sustainableconservation of natural resources be achievedwithout equity? Abstract published in

Second Inter-national Workshop of the ISEE Russian Chapter “Socio-Ecological-Economic Systems: from Information and Sim-ulation to Practical Solutions.”

ISEE Russian Chapter,Russian Academy of Sciences, University ofPereslavl-Zalessky, Russian Ministry of Environ-mental Protection and Natural Resources, Tiburg

Aguilar: Ecosystem Health Applications in Costa Rica

47

University-European Center for Nature Conserva-tion, ZEW-Center for European Economic Re-search (org.), pp. 2. Pereslavl-Zalessky, Russia.

Ament, P., Berardi, E., Dowal, M., Goranson, C., Hersh,K., Mastriano, M., Parr, K., Provost, M., Merrin, T.(1997)

Interactive Component of the Weak Holistic Indi-cator for the Cerros de Escazú Protected Zone.

Unpub-lished report, Center for Sustainable DevelopmentStudies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Astaras, C., Coleman, K., Grossman, X., Kenney, H.,Lucy, M., Yoder, A. (1997)

The Application of theWeak Holistic Indicator as a Measure of EcosystemHealth for the Cerro Atenas Protected Zone.

Unpub-lished report, Center for Sustainable DevelopmentStudies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Averett, J., Cohen, A., Luca, A., McBride, P., McManus,C., Seshagiri, N., Silverman, A., Solmer, J., Walla,S. (1997)

Interactive Component of the Weak HolisticIndicator for the Cerros de Escazú Protected Zone.

Un-published report, Center for Sustainable Develop-ment Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Azar, C., Holmberg, J., Lindgren, K. (1995)

Socio-ecologi-cal Indicators for Sustainability.

Chalmers Universityof Technology. Goteborg University-Institute ofPhysical Resource Theory, Goteborg, Sweeden, In-stitute report, 1995, 01.

Azzopardi, S., Dragisic, C., Holm, T., McBride, K., Lau-raence, K., Singh, S., Stoduto, N., Walder, A.(1997)

Continued Studies of the Social Health of theSurrounding Communities of Cerros de Escazú.

Unpub-lished report, Center for Sustainable DevelopmentStudies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Banard, D., Dedhia, D., Herman, M., Keyes, M., Liu, J.,Pazdera, K., Snider, A., Terveer, L., White, E.,Yates, K. (1996) An Evaluation of the EcologicalHealth of La Carpintera Protected Zone. Unpub-lished report, Center for Sustainable DevelopmentStudies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Batista, Y., Goldberg, B., Holland, A., Lawson, S., Mur-ray, K., Nader, I.I., G.Sharp, A., Shebitz, D. (1997)Evaluation of the Ecological Health of the Cerrosde Escazú Protected Zone. Unpublished report,Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS,Atenas, Costa Rica.

Beard, D., Irons, C., Jeske, R., Kola, L., Masters, T.,Moore, J., Noorani, S., Twining, C. (1996)

Survey ofSocio-Economic Conditions of Communities SurroundingRio Tiribi as an Indicator of Sustainability.

Unpub-lished report, Center for Sustainable DevelopmentStudies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Boyce, J.K. (1994) Inequality as a cause of environmen-tal degradation.

Ecological Economics

11

, 169–178.Bradley-Wright, F., Douthwaite, K., Guido, Z., Moore,

K., Regan, K., Schwager, T. (1998a)

The Holistic In-dicator for Ecosystem Health: A Tool for the EffectiveManagement of Costa Rica’s Protected Zones.

Unpub-lished Technical Report. Center for SustainableDevelopment Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Bradley-Wright, F., Douthwaite, K., Guido, Z., Moore,

K., Regan, K., Schwager, T. (1998b)

Reapplication ofthe Weak Holistic Indicator to the El Rodeo ProtectedZone.

Unpublished Report. Center for SustainableDevelopment Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Brundage, R., Bullock, S., Cook, C., Gilbreath, C., Go-ins, D., Jensen, K., Makri, A., Milder, B., Selby, T.,Vacca, F. (1996)

Interactive Study of the EcosystemHealth for the Rio Tiribi Protected Zone: A Compilationof Land Use, Riparian Compliance and EnvironmentalAwareness.

Unpublished report, Center for Sustain-able Development Studies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Burns, A., Cronin, J., Donaldson-Fletcher, K., Groce, R.,Knox, J., Wilber, J. (1998)

Weak Holistic Indicator: AReassessment of the Rio Grande Protected Zone.

Unpub-lished report, Center for Sustainable DevelopmentStudies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Carl, D., DuBary, M., Look, S., Mickeltwait, D., Smith,M. (1996)

Factors That Determine Ecosystem Health:Case Studies in the Southwest Section of the Central Val-ley in Costa Rica.

Unpublished report, Center forSustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas,Costa Rica.

Carlson, E. (1997)

The Integrated Index of EcosystemHealth: Development and Application to Six ProtectedZones in Costa Rica.

Unpublished thesis, StanfordUniversity, California.

Carlson, E., Maier, M., Peinne, M.A., Taylor, B., Young,D. (1995)

The Creation and Application of a HolisticIndicator of Ecosystem Health in the Cerro Atenas andRio Grande Protected Zones.

Unpublished report,Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS,Atenas, Costa Rica.

Chen, E., Drimusz, S., Jackson, D., McCall, J., Mehta, S.,Shook, H. (1996)

Cerros de La Carpintera ProtectedZone: A Social Study of Ecosystem Health.

Unpublishedreport, Center for Sustainable Development Stud-ies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Clements, A., Culley, J., Daniels, D., Durrant, C., Miller,T., Rosenblum, B., Taverna, K., Weil, B. (1997)

TheApplication of the Weak Holistic Indicator as a Measureof Ecosystem Health for El Chayote Protected Zone in theCentral Valley of Costa Rica.

Unpublished report,Center for Sustainable Development Studies, SFS,Atenas, Costa Rica.

Cobb, C., Halstead, T., Rowe, J. (1995)

The GeniuneProgress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology.

Redefining Progress, San Francisco, California.Cohen, J., Deal, S., Donovan, K., Finer, M., Gaddis, B.,

Peterson, D., Sylvester, S., Terrana, C., Torraca, M.(1996)

An Evaluation of the Biological Health of theTiribi Protected Zone.

Unpublished report, Centerfor Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas,Costa Rica.

Costanza, R. (1992) Toward an operational definitionof ecosystem health. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G.,Haskell, B.J (eds)

Ecosystem Health: New Goals for En-vironmental Management.

Island Press, Washington,D.C., pp. 239–256.

Costanza, R. (1994) Ecological and economics system

48

Ecosystem Health Vol. 5 No. 1 March 1999

health and social decision making. Abstract pub-lished in

1st International Symposium on EcosystemHealth and Medicine: Integrating Science, Policy andManagement.

International Society for EcosystemHealth and Medicine, University of Guelph (org),Ottawa, Ontario, p. 24.

Costanza, R. (1998) What is ecosystem health? Abstractpublished in

Beyond Growth: Policies and Institutionsfor Sustainbility. Fifth Biennial Meeting of the ISEE.

ISEE, Programa de Desarrollo Sustenable, Centrode Análisis de Políticas Públicas Universidad deChile (orgs), Nov. 15–19, 1998, Diego PortalesConvention Center, Santiago, Chile, p. 49.

Cox, S., Kohli, A., Lavinthal, A., Maraboyina, S., Reyes,M., Smith, L., Tutschka, C., Walters, W. (1997)Evaluation of the Ecological Health of the Cerros de Es-cazu Protected Zone. Unpublished report, Center forSustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas,Costa Rica.

Ehrenfeld, D. (1992) Ecosystem health and ecologicaltheories. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G., Haskell,B.J (eds). Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environ-mental Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C.,pp. 135–143.

Fleishman, F., Lau, C., Shafer, C., Spina, M., Turek, L.,Wilcox, S. (1997) Health of Nine Communities Adja-cent to Cerros de Escazú. Unpublished report, Centerfor Sustainable Development Studies, SFS, Atenas,Costa Rica.

Freemark, K. & Waide, J. (1994) Assessing the health ofmanaged ecosystems—Conceptual overview. Ab-stract published in 1st International Symposium onEcosystem Health and Medicine: Integrating Science,Policy and Management. International Society forEcosystem Health and Medicine, University ofGuelph (org), Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 35–36.

Hannon, B. (1992) Measures of economic and ecologi-cal health. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G., Haskell,B.J (eds). Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environ-mental Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C.,pp. 207–222.

Hite, R.L., & Bertrand, B.A. (1989) Biological Stream Char-acterization (BSC): A Biological Assessment of IllinoisStream Quality. EPA, Division of Water PollutionControl, Springfield, Illinois, IEPA/WPC/89–275.

Karr, J. (1981) Assessment of biotic integrity using fishcommunities. Fisheries 6, 21–27.

Lélé, S. & Norgaard, R. (1996) Sustainability and thescientist’s burden. Conservation Biology 10, 354–365.

Lindermann, E., Kadakia, M., Dunbar, S., Howe, K.,Slavin, S., Kinsella, W., Dellor, E. (1996) InteractiveComponent of the Weak Holistic Indicator for the LaCarpintera Protected Zone: Evaluating Interactions Be-tween Human and Ecological Components. Unpub-lished report, Center for Sustainable DevelopmentStudies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Mageau, M., Costanza, R., Ulanowicz, R. (1995) Thedevelopment and initial testing of a quantitative as-sessment of ecosystem health. Ecosystem Health 1,201–213.

Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica(1995) Costa Rica: Tendencias Sociodemográficas,Económicas y Ambientales 1980–94. MIDEPLAN, SanJosé, Costa Rica.

Odum, E. (1995) Profile analysis and some thoughts onthe development of the interface area of environ-mental health. Ecosystem Health 1, 41–45.

Powell, G.V.N., Bjork, M., Rodríguez, S., Barborak, J.(1996) Life zones at risk. Gap analysis in CostaRica. Wild Earth 1995/96, 46–51.

Rapport, D.J. (1995) Ecosystem health: Exploring theterritory. Ecosystem Health 1, 5–13.

Rapport, D.J., Costanza, R., McMichael, A.J. (1998) As-sessing ecosystem health. Tree 13, 397–401.

Schaeffer, D.J. & Cox, D. (1992) Establishing ecosystemthreshold criteria. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G.,Haskell, B.J (eds). Ecosystem Health: New Goals forEnvironmental Management. Island Press, Washing-ton, D.C., pp. 157–169.

Tull, J. (1995) Ecosystem Health as a Paradigm for Analyz-ing the Link Between Biophysical and Socioeconomic Fac-tors that Impact Protected Zones in Costa Rica. Unpub-lished report, Center for Sustainable DevelopmentStudies, SFS, Atenas, Costa Rica.

Umaña, L.M. (1995) La Normativa Conservacionista de lasZonas Ribereñas en Costa Rica: Evaluación de su Efica-cia. Unpublished thesis, University of Costa Rica,San José, Costa Rica.

Willapa Alliance and Ecotrust (1995) Willapa Indicatorsfor a Sustainable Community. The Willapa Alliance,South Bend, Washington.

Winograd, M. (1995) Indicadores Ambientales paraAmérica Latina y el Caribe: Hacia la Sustenabilidad enel Uso de Tierras. IICA, San José, Costa Rica.