Socioecological Evaluation of the Complexity of Wildlife Management Systems: A Case Study of Mexican Socioecosystems

The sustainable use of wildlife and rural socioeconomic development have been crucial factors in, and subjects of public policy in many countries. This paper describes the case of a public policy in Mexico aimed at conserving biodiversity through sustainable use and management and thereby contributing to rural socioeconomic development. UMAs (Units of Management for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wildlife) are the central instrument of this public policy. Although these socioecosystems are complex systems that work as integral and adaptive socioecological systems to administer wildlife populations and their habitats, they are usually not considered this way. We propose the evaluation of UMAs in the State of Veracruz, Mexico, as complex systems, using the Socioecosystemic Dynamics Index (SDI), which is composed of the following: (1) the partial ecological index, which includes the ecological dimension, and (2) the partial management index, which includes the social, economic, cultural and management dimensions. The evaluation of nine free-living UMAs showed three main scenarios for the development of adaptive management strategies, showing how the mechanisms of regulation, such as the diversity of critical wildlife species (i.e., mesocarnivores) and the proportions of natural ecosystems, as well as disturbance factors, such as landscape matrix, urbanization, and human population density, influence significantly the auto-organization processes and the antifragility of free-living modality UMAs. The SDI can be a relevant and comprehensive methodological tool for evaluating public policy instruments for the adaptive management of wildlife and socioeconomic development in the context of complex socioecosystems. Its estimations allow for the identification of trajectories within system dynamics and leverage points in each socioecosystemic scenario; in this case, it showed the influence of social actors; management interventions and management plans and objectives; economic performance; and the cultural background of each socio-ecosystem as socio-management key attributes giving direction to the socioecosystems’ dynamics.