298
4. There is a virtually no difference between the aridification of communal lands
and non-communal lands in Mexico (the negative change and trend in Tables
16.1 and 16.2). Non-communal lands have seen a slightly larger drop in the aridity index (i.e., they are getting drier) than communal lands. That difference
should be taken with caution for several reasons. First, because it is a very small
difference, and second, because communal lands were compared to all noncommunal lands, without differentiating between them. Federal lands could
behave very differently than private lands, for example. The trend values in both
cases is negative and the same.
5. If the difference were meaningful, it would suggests that communal lands are
drying less and less rapidly than non-communal lands. The interpretation of this
statement is tricky because it could be the result of two processes that are not
mutually exclusive: a) the allocation of common lands in the large land redistribution processes in Mexico could have disproportionally placed arid lands under
non-common land tenure regimes; or b) communal land practices and the institutions that govern them could have created the conditions that prevented or
reduced the levels of aridification in them. At this point, we are not in position to
make either claims. We especially warn against drawing causal conclusions with
regard to the favorability of environmental governance practices of communal
lands and institutions.
Future research will address many of the questions that arouse from this early
analysis of the data. We would like to look at how the different trajectories of aridity
metrics of Latin American countries observed in this chapter match each country’s
environmental policy, including natural resource management, climate change, and
natural disaster policies. Ideally we would attempt to establish potential links
between policies and aridity trends and further analyze emerging patterns observed
in this chapter. We also would like to disaggregate the analysis into more property
regimes (including private, state and federal owned), as well as to include examples
of countries other than Mexico. Finally, we would like to further develop our methodological framework to include statistical hypothesis testing to evaluate potential
links between land property regimes and aridification. In doing so, we think that it
would be important to account and control for environmental differences (e.g., land
cover types) within each reagion in order to produce a more robust analysis.
Appendix
Data Source References
1. Clasificación de Koppen modificada por Enriqueta García, para adaptarlo a las
condiciones de la República Mexicana
2. http://www.igeograf.unam.mx/sigg/utilidades/docs/pdfs/publicaciones/geo_
siglo21/serie_lib/modific_al_sis.pdf
E. Nickl et al.
4. There is a virtually no difference between the aridification of communal lands
and non-communal lands in Mexico (the negative change and trend in Tables
16.1 and 16.2). Non-communal lands have seen a slightly larger drop in the aridity index (i.e., they are getting drier) than communal lands. That difference
should be taken with caution for several reasons. First, because it is a very small
difference, and second, because communal lands were compared to all noncommunal lands, without differentiating between them. Federal lands could
behave very differently than private lands, for example. The trend values in both
cases is negative and the same.
5. If the difference were meaningful, it would suggests that communal lands are
drying less and less rapidly than non-communal lands. The interpretation of this
statement is tricky because it could be the result of two processes that are not
mutually exclusive: a) the allocation of common lands in the large land redistribution processes in Mexico could have disproportionally placed arid lands under
non-common land tenure regimes; or b) communal land practices and the institutions that govern them could have created the conditions that prevented or
reduced the levels of aridification in them. At this point, we are not in position to
make either claims. We especially warn against drawing causal conclusions with
regard to the favorability of environmental governance practices of communal
lands and institutions.
Future research will address many of the questions that arouse from this early
analysis of the data. We would like to look at how the different trajectories of aridity
metrics of Latin American countries observed in this chapter match each country’s
environmental policy, including natural resource management, climate change, and
natural disaster policies. Ideally we would attempt to establish potential links
between policies and aridity trends and further analyze emerging patterns observed
in this chapter. We also would like to disaggregate the analysis into more property
regimes (including private, state and federal owned), as well as to include examples
of countries other than Mexico. Finally, we would like to further develop our methodological framework to include statistical hypothesis testing to evaluate potential
links between land property regimes and aridification. In doing so, we think that it
would be important to account and control for environmental differences (e.g., land
cover types) within each reagion in order to produce a more robust analysis.
Appendix
Data Source References
1. Clasificación de Koppen modificada por Enriqueta García, para adaptarlo a las
condiciones de la República Mexicana
2. http://www.igeograf.unam.mx/sigg/utilidades/docs/pdfs/publicaciones/geo_
siglo21/serie_lib/modific_al_sis.pdf
E. Nickl et al.