Perception of pollution of the Tlapaneco River by the riverside population
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22231/asyd.v13i1.278Keywords:
actors interested, willingness, participation, restorationAbstract
This article presents the perception of inhabitants of the communities of the Tlapaneco River basin, in the state of Guerrero, México, regarding the river water’s pollution, its effects, its origin, the expected benefits of cleaning the river, and their opinion on the role of institutions and authorities in solving the problem. It was found that the quality of the river water was generally perceived to be regular to very bad. The majority of those interviewed consider that river water is not clean and that it has bad quality for vegetable production, is not good for bathing, and has caused a decrease in aquatic fauna (fish and birds). The primary sources of contamination of the river are recognized to be the riverside communities due to wastewater discharge into the river. Those interviewed hold the viewpoint that the future cleanup of the river has benefits, particularly for their children and grandchildren, who could then enjoy a river with clean water for agricultural, domestic, and recreational use. However, they are skeptical about the role of government institutions in solving the problem.
References
Adcock, M., and T. Hall. 2003. Attitudes and perceptions of riverfront landowners and river visitors along the Great Egg Harbor Scenic and Recreational River. Park Science 22(1): 41-45.
Adams, D.C., D. Allen, T. Borisova, D.E. Boellstorff, M.D. Smolen, and R. L. Mahler. 2013. The Influence of water attitudes, perceptions, and learning preferences on water-conserving actions. Nat. Sci. Educ. 42: 114–122.
Anderson, D.R., D.J. Sweeney, y T.A. Williams. 2009. Estadística para administración y economía. 10a. Ed. Cengage Learning Editores, S. A., México, D.F. 1056 p.
Antunes, P., G. Kallis, N. Videira, y R. Santos. 2009. Participation and evaluation for sustainable river basin governance. Ecological Economic 68: 931-939.
Arellano, E., L. Camarena, C. von Glascoe, y W. Daessle. 2009. Percepción del riesgo en salud por exposición a mezclas de contaminantes: el caso de los valles agrícolas de Mexicali y San Quintín, Baja California, México. Rev. Fac. Nac. Salud Pública 27(3): 291-301.
Ãvila, M.R., J.J. Espinoza, H. González, R. Rosales, A. Pajarito, y R. Zandate. 2011. Caracterización de los productores, adopción e impacto económico del uso de la variedad de frijol Pinto Saltillo en el norte centro de México. Revista Mexicana de Agronegocios 29: 682-692.
Balkema. A.J., H.A. Preisig, R. Otterpohl, and F.J.D. Lambert. 2002. Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 4: 153-161.
Barnes, A.P., J. Willock, C. Hall, and L. Toma. 2009. Farmer
perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control
programmes in Scotland. Agricultural Water Management 96: 1715–1722.
Bayard, B., and C. Jolly. 2007. Environmental behavior structure and socioeconomic conditions of hillside farmers: A multiplegroup structural equation modeling approach. Ecological Economics 62: 433–440.
Beierle, T.C., and D.M. Konisky. 2001. What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19: 515–527.
Blackstock, K.L., and C. Richards. 2007. Evaluating stakeholder involvement in river basin planning: a Scottish case study. Water Policy 9: 493–512.
Braun, B., and A.Z.M. Shoeb. 2011. Ecological rehabilitation and public participation: general considerations and empirical evidence from a creek rehabilitation scheme near Cologne, Germany. J. Life Earth Sci. 6: 1-11.
Burger, J. 2002. Restoration, stewardship, environmental health, and policy: Understanding stakeholders’ perceptions. Environmental Management 30(5): 631–640.
Bustamante, A., S. Vargas, J.L. Jaramillo, R. Guadarrama, M.A. Casiano, T. Hernández, F.D. Martínez, C. Torres, K. Velázquez, R. Deloya, y A. Ramírez. 2010. Plan ecorregional de la Montaña y sus áreas prioritarias de conservación. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, Comisión Nacional de Ãreas Naturales Protegidas, Colegio de Postgraduados. 115 p.
Carr, G., R.B. Potter, and S. Nortcliff. 2011. Water reuse for irrigation in Jordan: Perceptions of water quality among farmers. Agricultural Water Management 98: 847–854.
Casal, J., y E. Mateu. 2003. Tipos de muestreo. Rev. Epid. Med. Prev. 1: 3-7.
Crona, B.I., P. Rönnbäck, N. Jiddawi, J. Ochiewo, S. Maghimbi, and S. Bandeira. 2009. Murky water: analyzing risk perception and stakeholder vulnerability to sewage impacts in mangroves of East Africa. Global Environmental Change 19: 227-239.
Dolisca, F., J.M. McDaniel, and L. D. Teeter. 2007. Farmer’s perceptions toward forests: A case study from Haiti. Forest Policy and economics 9: 704–712.
Eiser, J.R., T. J. Podpadec, S.D. Reicher, and S.V. Stevenage. 1998. Muddy waters and heavy metal: time and attitudes guide judgements of pollution. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 199–208.
Feijoó, C., and F. Momo. 1991. Socio-economic levels and environmental perception in a small town in Argentina. Environmentalist 11(3): 163-170.
Fleisher, J.M., and D. Kay. 2006. Risk perception bias, self-reporting of illness, and the validity of reported results in an
epidemiologic study of recreational water associated illnesses. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52: 264–268.
Hanna, K.S. 1999. Integrated resource management in the Fraser River estuary: Stakeholder’s perceptions of the state of the river and program influence. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(2): 490-498.
Hartley, T.W. 2006. Public perception and participation in wáter reuse. Desalination 187: 115–126.
Hendrickx, L., and S. Nicolaij. 2004. Temporal discounting and environmental risks: The role of ethical and loss-related concerns. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 409–422.
Holahan, C.J. 2002. Psicología ambiental, un enfoque general. Editorial Limusa. 467 p.
Hu, S., and A. Keeley. 2014. Science in action: Aesthetic considerations for stream restoration. US EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/F-14/300. 6 p.
Ittelson, W.H. 1978. Environmental perception and urban experience. Environment and Behavior 10(2): 193–2013.
Jiggins, J., E. van Slobbe, and N. Röling. 2007. The organization of social learning in response to perceptions of crisis in the water sector of the Netherlands. Environmental Science & Policy 10: 526-536.
Jorgensen, B.S., G.J. Syme, and B. E. Nancarrow. 2006. The role of uncertainty in the relationship between fairness evaluations and willingness to pay. Ecological Economics 56: 104–124.
Larson, K.L., D.D. White, P. Gober, S. Harlan, and A. Wutich. 2009. Divergent perspectives on water resource sustainability in a public–policy–science context. Environmental Science & Policy 12: 1012-1023.
Mora, D., C.F. Portuguez, y G. Brenes. 2002. Evaluación de la contaminación fecal de la cuenca del río Tempisque 1997 -2000. Revista Costarricense de Salud Pública 11(20): 5-17.
Namakforoosh, M.N. 2010. Metodología de la investigación.
México. Editorial Limusa. 525 p.
Nare, L., D. Love, and Z. Hoko. 2006. Involvement of stakeholders in the water quality monitoring and surveillance system: The case of Mzingwane Catchment, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 31: 707–712.
Pearson, A.L., A. Rzotkiewics, and A. Zwickle. 2015. Using remote, spatial techniques to select a random household simple in a dispersed, semi-nomadic pastoral community: utility for a longitudinal health and demographic surveillance system. International Journal Health Geographic 14. Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015.
Pedregal, B., Q. Brugué, L. del Moral, A. Ballester, J. Espluga, G. Ferrer, N. Hernández-Mora, A. La Calle, F. la Roca, and M.
Parés. 2011. Deliberative democracy and water policy: public participation in water resources planning in Spain. Proceedings of the XIV Seminar on Geography of Water - Cagliari, Italy, June 26th - July 7th 2011.
Petts, J. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: Waste management case-studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(2): 207-226.
Renn, O. 2006. Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy 23: 34–43.
Rodríguez, A.G. 1998. El agua y la salud pública en la Extremadura del Antiguo Régimen a través de las Ordenanzas Municipales. I Congresos Ibérico sobre gestión y planificación de aguas. El agua a debate desde la Universidad. Por una nueva cultura del agua. Zaragoza, 14-18 de septiembre de 1998. pp: 1 - 9.
Sing, G., and B.D. Clark. 2012. Creating a frame: A spatial approach to random sampling of immigrant households in Inner City Johannesburg. Journal of Refugee Studies 26(1): 126-144.
Spash, C.L., K. Urama, R. Burton, W. Kenyon, P. Shannon, and G. Hill. 2006. Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics 68: 955-964.
Tunstaff, S.M., E.C. Penning-Rowsell, S.M. Tapsell, and S.D.
Eden. 2000. River restoration: Public attitudes and expectations. Water and Environment Journal 14(5): 363–370.
Videira, N., P. Antunes, R. Santos, and G. Lobo. 2006. Public and stakeholder participation in European water policy: a critical review of project evaluation processes. Eur. Env. 16: 19–31.
Warner, J.F. 2006. More sustainable participation? Multi-Stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management. International Journal of Water Resources Development 22(1):15-35.
Wostl, C.P. 2007. The implications of complexity for integrated resources management. Environmental Modeling & Software 22: 561-569.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Ãngel Bustamante-González, Gerardo Galindo-De Jesús, José L. Jaramillo-Villanueva, Samuel Vargas-López
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal accept the following conditions:
- The authors retain the copyright and transfer to the magazine the right of the first publication, with the work registered with the Creative Commons attribution license, which allows third parties to use what is published as long as they mention the authorship of the work and the first publication in this magazine.
- Authors may make other independent and additional contractual arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (e.g., including it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book) as long as they clearly indicate that the work It was first published in this magazine.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to publish their work on the Internet (for example on institutional or personal pages) before and during the review and publication process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and greater and faster dissemination of the work. published (see The Effect of Open Access).
