Next Article in Journal
“White” Space and Organic Claims on Food Packaging: Communicating Sustainability Values and Affecting Young Adults’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions
Next Article in Special Issue
Determinants of Livelihood Diversification: The Case of Community-Based Ecotourism in Oaxaca, Mexico
Previous Article in Journal
Virtual Engineering Using Realistic Virtual Models in Brownfield Factory Layout Planning
Previous Article in Special Issue
Planning Ecotourism in Coastal Protected Areas; Projecting Temporal Management Scenarios
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fiscal Economic Instruments for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in Coastal Marine Areas of the Yucatan Peninsula

1
Unidad Multidisciplinaria de Docencia e Investigación Sisal, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Sisal 97130, Yucatán, Mexico
2
CONACYT–Facultad de Ciencias, UMDI-Sisal, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Sierra Papacal 97302, Yucatán, Mexico
3
Posgrado en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Exterior s/n Ciudad Universitaria, Ciudad de México 04510, Mexico
4
Centro Estatal de Evaluación y Control de Confianza, Secretaría de Seguridad Pública, Anillo Periférico Poniente, Km. 45 Polígono Susulá-Caucel, Merida 97128, Yucatán, Mexico
5
Manejo Integrado de la zona Costera, Instituto EPOMEX-UAC, Campus 6. Av. Héroe de Nacozari No. 480, San Francisco de Campeche, Campeche 24029, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(19), 11103; https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911103
Submission received: 27 June 2021 / Revised: 21 September 2021 / Accepted: 23 September 2021 / Published: 8 October 2021

Abstract

:
Fiscal economic instruments (FEI) are indirect regulation mechanisms that generate public revenue for the state through rights to use, charges, and concessions. In Mexico, some of these instruments can be used in the surveillance, administration, and preservation of the environment. In this paper, we analyze the changes in Federal and State growth rates of expenditure budgets in critical areas of the Yucatan Peninsula coast to describe their contribution to sustainable development during the last 12 years. We present an adaptation of the methodological guide of economic instruments for environmental management from CEPAL, with 2013 as the base year for the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflator and the use of the Protocol of Nagoya year as an international compromise signed by Mexico. The results obtained show that the expenditure budgets respond to economic, political, and short-term security attention without expectations for sustainability. However, alarming evidence of severe environmental deterioration in the coast is diminishing natural attraction, from tourism, for example, which is the main source of income in the region. The effective use of FEI by local governments may be useful to addressing environmental challenges from a decentralization process with better awareness of the importance of coastal areas for regional sustainability.

1. Introduction

Indirect regulation mechanisms allow productive agents (businesses and families) to be involved in the governance of natural resources [1]. Among these indirect mechanisms, Economic Instruments (EI) stimulate the productive agents to change their behavior in the use of natural resources and the products that generate pollution, noise, or environmental degradation [2]. Thus, citizen, government, and productive sectors are encouraged to share the objective of implementing strategies focused on ensuring environmental sustainability and thereby ensuring national security, sovereignty, and the conservation of the natural capital (goods and environmental services) [3].
Fiscal economic instruments (FEI) for environmental protection, environmental taxes [4], or green fiscal instruments are a type of EI that relates to the use, enjoyment, and exploitation of natural resources, generating public revenue for the state, which can be partially or entirely used in the surveillance, administration, preservation, and recovery of the environment [5]. The tax implementation on environmental pressures such as energy, fragmentation of space, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental degradation resulted in actions that enable the generation of employment and developmental efficiency of environmental policy objectives [6].
Diverse studies have analyzed the design, implementation processes, and the effectiveness of these EI, mainly in developed countries [7]. For developing countries with limited experience with FEI, additional challenges related to informational demands, institutional demands, and political acceptability have been analyzed [8].
One of the key aspects to describe the success of FEI is the measurement of the use of revenue, a process that plays a leading role in providing feedback on environmental management strategies [9]. An initial approach to the process of monitoring involves identifying the areas in which the budget is invested according to the objectives of the current public policies, the areas of analysis within the expenditures, and the public budgets [10].
FEI are fundamental in Mexican regulations (e.g., General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection) and form part of the environmental taxation that can be defined as the economic-environmental policy strategy, which uses the fiscal system and levies for the purpose of environmental protection, in the governance of natural zones [11]. Additionally, their implementation is applied for sustainable development [12]. Despite the economic and ecological importance of the coastal marine areas of Mexico and their contribution to the FEI [13], the financial resources for their management are limited, and they lack a coastal policy that prevents them from proper development and mitigation of environmental degradation [14,15]. However, there are few studies that have investigated how revenues generated by FEI are used or invested in coastal marine areas according to the objectives of the current public policies, especially when there are changes in development paradigms. Mexico’s environmental policy changed with the incorporation of the Protocol of Nagoya that complements the Convention on Biological Diversity for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, which has channeled actions all around the country, including fiscal instruments to promote conservation [16,17].
This study focuses on how FEI are used for the sustainable management of the marine-coast area of the Yucatan Peninsula (YP) region. This region is of strategic importance in the National Development Plan of the country [18]. In addition, in the context of Mesoamerica, YP represents a strategic position for commercial interchange and port efficiency between central America, the Caribbean, and the south of the United States of America (USA) [19]. In addition, the region is threatened by exposure to extreme hydrometeorological events [20].
We aim to contribute to this knowledge by describing the condition, and changes in the Federal and State Expenditure Budget applied to environmental challenges in the last two six-year terms (2007–2018) in the YP. We present an analysis referring to half of this time period, corresponding to the involvement of Mexico in the Protocol of Nagoya. Thus, we hypothesize that after 2014, there will be a change in the trend of the government expenditure budget that addresses the new development paradigm. This article intends to contribute to the coastal management literature of developing countries such as Mexico, particularly within budgetary governance when there is a paradigm shift. Thus, our theoretical contribution, according to Zhou et al. [5] criteria, will be in the practical utility of budgetary governance that uses FEI to achieve sustainability objectives in coastal areas [21].
In this way, the questions that led this investigation were: do federal expenditure budgets in critical areas of coastal regional development in YP show differences in the last two six-year terms of the federal government? Do state expenditure budgets show differences between the three states of the YP in those critical areas of coastal regional development?
The second chapter of this article includes a theoretical framework and antecedents of the use of FEI; the third chapter describes the methodology used; the fourth chapter presents the results; the fifth chapter discusses our main findings; and the final chapter includes conclusions and some policy implications arising from the analysis.

2. Theoretical Framework and Antecedents

2.1. Budgetary Governance

Budgetary governance refers to the processes, laws, structures, and institutions that are in place to ensure that the budgeting system meets conditions for action for the betterment of society (effective), engenders trust among citizens and government that use available resources to archive worthwhile objectives, such as sustainability [7]. Budgetary governance analysis is complicated since it encompasses all levels of government, national and subnational, where different mandates and levels of autonomy are different among the countries, but desirably will be coordinated, coherent, and consistent between them. The theory of budgetary governance has been analyzed from a planning or evaluation perspective in more detail for developed economies with coastal zones: Australia, New Zealand, USA, England, Portugal, for example [22,23,24,25].
For most coastal countries, most of these studies emphasize the rapid change and uncertainty that coastal regions have faced under climate change effects and urban development over the past two decades, the impacts on the communities living on the coast, and how coastal management could become more adaptative, socially fair, and effectively implemented [26,27]. In this way, Chandran et al. [28] examined Wagner and Keynesian views concerning the link between real government spending and real Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

2.2. FEI Design, Implementation, and Evaluation in the World

In the environmental economics context, the concept of Economic Instruments (EI) dates from the beginning of the 20th century, proposed by the English economist Arthur C. Pigou (1877–1959) to collect taxes on generators of pollution [29]. The arguments for putting a price on pollution include encouraging polluters to reduce their pollution as much as is economically feasible and internalizing negative externalities in the pricing [3,30]. In addition, in European countries, the application of environmental fiscal instruments has been strengthened over several decades. The implementation of taxes on certain environmental pressures such as noise, fragmentation of space, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental degradation, and transport, amongst others, has resulted in a 9% increase in GDP, which in turn has resulted in actions that enable the generation of employment and developmental efficiency [29]. In Latin-American countries, the process of incorporating EI as taxes and subsidies is part of the consolidation phase, whilst payment for environmental services or the reduction of emissions due to deforestation and the destruction of forests (REDD+) in environmental governance is still in its infancy [31].
In addition, effectiveness studies for developed countries show that different assumptions challenge their design but also, that market, cultural, legal, and administrative conditions play a critical role in their implementation, sometimes above the principal intention to optimize environmental policy cost-effectiveness [32,33,34]. For developing countries, O’connor [8] identified additional challenges related to informational demands, institutional demands, and political acceptability.

2.3. State of the FEI in Mexico and in the Marine-Coastal Areas

In Mexico, it was not until 2008 that revenue was evaluated using indicators for measuring performance through a short, medium, and long-term targeted impact and monitoring process [35]. Particularly, isolated studies of the FEI have been found to be related to the measurement of performance, relevance, and consistency for environmental management mainly associated with soil, water, and air pollution [36,37]. Several authors have reviewed the environmental taxes in the country, and recent studies have addressed negotiable climate change levies, permits, and environmental taxes on carbon [11,38,39,40].
In general, the reports indicate that Mexico possesses a very low level of environmental tax collection, making up only 1.3% of national GDP. For example, in South Africa, 2.69% was collected in 2019, according to data from the OECD [7]. In Mexico, a lack in the performance of taxes was identified, arising from environmental damage, for the protection of human health and the ecosystem. This reality is represented by a low Environmental Performance Index (EPI) with a value of 55.03, which is much less than other countries such as Chile and the USA with EPIs of 69.93 and 67.52, respectively [40].
In Mexico, the Exclusive Economic Zone, which includes coastal and marine areas (3,149,920 km2) [27], constitutes almost 60% of the national territory and generates many economic, social, and ecological benefits: (a) almost half of the population of the country that inhabits coastal areas [41,42,43]; (b) nearly 43% of Mexico’s protected areas preserve its valuable natural resources and cultural services [44,45,46]; (c) and its multiple ecosystem services [45]. In addition, marine-coastal vegetation has great economic potential due to its support and regulation services that allow entrance to national and global carbon markets [17,47,48], (d) the diversity of the oceanographic processes on both coastlines of the country, which may provide an alternative energy source to that generated by the extraction of hydrocarbons [49], (e) contributes approximately 43% to the national Gross Domestic Product (GBP) [50]; (f) generates employment in fisheries, port areas, and tourism services. Despite this, the knowledge of what and how the FEI is implemented currently appears to focus on the profits generated by Federal Land Maritime Zone (ZOFEMAT) concessions [14], which only consists of a narrow coastal strip approximately 20 m wide of the 11,220 km of coastline. Hence, the collection of FEI for the use and exploitation of natural resources of the marine-coastal zones could be clearly underrepresented in the national finances while not being entirely clear about how they are used for preservation.
However, the strategic importance of these areas is not always accompanied by management conditions that ensure their sustainability, which implies a degradation and loss of coastal ecosystems, a loss in the well-being of the local people associated with them, and an impact on coastal economic development [16,17]. This scenario would imply a greater impact on the countries that have a relatively more percentage of the population settled in coastal areas and is highly dependent economies of the coastal-marine areas, such as the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean [48,51]. As noted by de Alencar et al. [52], sustainability requires the interdependence of environmental, social, cultural, economic, political, and governance domains in a comprehensive vision at multiple scales. Fundamentally, it is necessary to identify the limits of economic growth for three reasons: to define a carrying capacity and mitigate the greatest source of stress in natural systems, to implement equitable economic models that generate sustainable well-being, and thus that the income derived from the development of infrastructure by urbanization and industry (e.g., tourism, ports) contribute to mitigating the socio-environmental impacts that they generate [49,51,52,53].
For marine-coastal areas, despite 20.6% of the ZOFEMAT (2292.74 km2) being concessional, it is uncertain how much of the budget expenses and also how the money is used [14]. An alternative for the financial sustainability of the coastal area could be a social assistance program called Temporary Employment Program (TEP), which could be implemented for the purpose of environmental recovery of the coastal communities following the occurrence of natural disasters [54]. This kind of alternative work can help to finance a sustainable economy to restore coastal systems, healing bodies of water, and conserve charismatic marine species, as well as building resilience capabilities of local governance to climate change [53]. Since both funds are of federal origin, they are inferred from the common home exchange. However, among various applicable taxes, duties, tariffs, and subsidies, none are established for collection purposes only since they must be complemented by other tax provisions.
According to documents from the Centre for Public Finance studies [55], in the states of the YP region, the greatest economic boost is derived from secondary and tertiary activities associated with hydrocarbon extraction and tourism, such as manufacture, mining, construction, financial and commercial services, which coincide with services relevant to other states of the Gulf of Mexico.

2.4. FEI Generated in Marine-Coastal Areas

A study by the Federal Law of Rights [13] identified seven categories related to the rights to the use, charges, and concessions with respect to natural areas and resources of the coastal and marine zones of the country (Table 1). As established by the law, the collected amounts from the instruments will be directed to the Ministry of the Environment and Natural resources (SEMARNAT) and its decentralized bodies (National Commission of Water and National Commission of Protected Areas) or to the federal entities and their municipalities when they have entered into collaboration agreements with the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit. The quantity collected can be destined for surveillance, maintenance, preservation, or improvement of zones, species, or buildings in the coastal area.
The transparency of the fiscal budget derived from the use, exploitation, and enjoyment of the coastal-marine areas of the country represents a challenge for the planning and application of national public policy instruments [11,56]. This is not only for the reasons given above regarding their contribution to the national GDP, their socio-economical relevance, and their ecological value but also because in the coastal states of the country, the population has experienced an irregular growth of 39% in the last 20 years [14] and because there exists a significant industrial, touristic, urban and port growth with elevated demand for water and energy [14,56]. These are all situations that generate environmental, economic, social, and institutional tension in the coastal-marine areas [57,58,59,60,61].
The NPMCM document defines the use and protection of the coastal and oceanic zones of the country as crucial for national development. In addition, it includes a strategic goal of improving the local, regional and national economy by encouraging environmentally responsible productive activities [56]. Nevertheless, the NPMCM does not propose any specific strategy or line of action that involves the use of FEI to internalize the environmental costs of such activities. This reality does not correspond to the intention of national taxation, which, according to Ríos-Granados [60], it must correspond to the deterioration of the environment produced by the activity. Moreover, the author indicates that this environmental tax attempts to make anyone who uses or consumes environmental goods pay the real cost of the depletion of such goods. Other authors have argued that fiscal reform is required to contribute financially to coastal areas for the purposes of conservation and restoration of their natural resources [61]. Thereby, contributing to ecological and economic self-management [62] and, thus, to local governance.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design

This study used the institutional expenditure evaluation methodology (EGI for Spanish acronym). The methodology is based on an ex-post evaluation alternative that centers the attention on the budget and on the strategic products or results of budget decisions according to institutional goals. This method has been part of the Ex-post Evaluation System of Budgets Directorate (DIPRES, for its acronym in Spanish) of the Ministry of Finance of the Government of Chile to ensure an effective allocation and use of public resources within the framework of the fiscal policy [63]. For this study, this methodology was conducted following the implementation of budgets in a time period prior to and following an international compromise signed by Mexico (2014 as the reference year for the Protocol of Nagoya in Mexico) when the budget was audited according to the audit process described by [64]. For this analysis, quantitative data were used according to the 3 steps of the “methodological guide of economic instruments for environmental management” of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean [65]: (1) compilation of the annual expenditure budget; (2) the analysis of the annual expenditure budget for each program of the Branches; (3) transformation of the data with a deflator for comparison objectives.

3.2. Study Area

The marine-coast of the YP region represents 12% of the total area of the country and 30% of the total Mexican coast [66]. Its extension of 39,612.15 km2 corresponds to the emerging continental shelf of the States of Campeche, Quintana Roo, and Yucatan [66] (Figure 1), which forms part of the great marine ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Its highly permeable limestone karst soil formed from fine and medium sand with shell deposits does not allow water runoff at the surface level and facilitates its infiltration into the mantle. Along the coastline, there are sand dune formations originating from the deposition of sand grains by the action of the wind and from calcareous deposits, of biological origin, as a product of the disintegration of the coral reefs and mollusks’ shells [67]. An outcrop on the continental slope, an anticyclonic gyre, a cyclonic current of the continental shelf of the peninsula, and a thermic front in the region allows the presence of an abundance of species of tropical oceanic phytoplankton and zooplankton that have maintained a high level of production in the marine zone, sustaining diverse commercial fisheries [68,69,70].
The YP region is increasingly exposed to natural threats resulting from climate change and the warming of the ocean [20]. These include hurricanes, intense tropical storms, and fires that cause variable damage each year due to wind, rainfall, and excessive burning of grasslands that challenge the adaptive capacity of the social, productive, and environmental sectors of the region [71]. Its coastal ecosystems are the final destination of underground drainage basins charges with agrochemicals, fertilizers, waste from pig and poultry farms, and increasing water discarded from domestic and industrial use [72,73,74]. In addition to this, there were other problems that were similar or shared within the 3States of the Peninsula, such as rapid urbanization, destruction of wetlands (including salt marshes, sandy beaches, coral reefs, and mangroves) [75]. Erosion is present in most sandy beaches in the Peninsula, especially in Sabancuy, Campeche; Cancun, Quintana Roo; and in Progreso, Yucatan; extreme weather events cause flood risk and damage in the coastal zones of the YP [76]. Other problems were salinization and pollution of aquifers, siltation, and hindrance navigation, increasing muddiness of waters, and decreased biological productivity [77].

3.3. Data Collection

Qualitative information was obtained through secondary sources. The information about the Federation expenditure budget was downloaded from the Federation’s Official Gazette portal, and for Campeche, Quintana Roo, and Yucatan, the pages for the state government (Supplementary materials, Table S1. The expenditure budget categories analyzed were for: fisheries, aquaculture, port infrastructure, transportation and communication infrastructure, and tourism (Table 2). These categories and the budgeting branch for the prevention of natural disasters derived from the effects of climate change were considered critical for YP coastal regional development [20,78]. The analyzed period included the fiscal years from 2007 to 2018, which covers the last 2 6-year terms of the federal government, the last 2 for Yucatan (2007–2018), the last 3 for Quintana Roo (2005–2022), and Campeche (2003–2021).
It is necessary to clarify that although the federal budget includes energy and tourism sectors, these were not included in our analysis since the contribution to coastal municipalities was not entirely clear and was mostly focused on inland municipalities. Particularly, the Ramo 13 budget, which corresponds to the specific enhancement of seas and coasts at the federal level, was not included in the analysis since it was only in existence since 2007; and the fund destined for ZOFEMAT was not included due to a lack of information for this category by state throughout the analyzed period. Finally, the analysis includes the description of changes for the Disaster fund budget, assuming that its use was mostly associated with extreme hydrometeorological events that hit the coasts, for the reasons given above.

3.4. Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

The data of the expenditure budgets were deflated using GDP deflator 2013. In order to analyze the changes in the Federal and State expenditure budgets in the critical areas of regional coastal development of the federal government in Mexico, the budget growth rates were calculated throughout the last 2 6-year terms, and the results were plotted by sector and by state. Subsequently, a bibliographic analysis was performed to describe the rising or falling peaks in the observed changes.
With the purpose of describing that after 2014, there will be a change in the trend of government expenditure budget addressing the new development paradigm following Mexico’s involvement in the Protocol of Nagoya, we performed 2 statistical comparisons: (a) an analysis of variance (ANOVA) in order to identify the differences between the means of the budgets among the 3 states for the critical areas; (b) Student and Wilcoxon test for comparing government expenditure budgets from 2007 to 2012 and from 2013 to 2018 according to normally distributed data. First, the normality of the data was determined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. For normally distributed data, the student’s test was performed for a sample and for those data that were not normally distributed, the Wilcoxon test was performed for 1 sample. In order to know if the average budget decreased or increased from one period to another, the means of both periods were compared for these 3 states (Supplementary material, Tables S2–S4). Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 software.

4. Results

4.1. Federal Expenditure Budgets in the YP (2007–2018)

Analyzed in detail, there was evidence that showed that federal expenditure budgets only changed drastically when special events occurred. In the environment and natural resource sector, there was a growth rate increase of 1276% that concurred with the 13a Conference of the Parties on Biodiversity (COP) in Cancun, Quintana Roo in 2016. During that conference, more than 196 countries met to discuss various conservation issues related to natural resources [79]. Thus, the Mexican government increased public spending on personnel, infrastructure, promotion, and security. In the fishery sector in 2014 and 2015, the Direct Fisheries Support Program (PROPESCA) was implemented. Finally, in the FONDEN, the rate of growth from 2009 to 2010 was 6199%, which coincides with the most chaotic year in terms of natural disasters (rains, mudslides, earthquakes, and floods) that affected the country [80] (Figure S1).

4.2. State Expenditure Budgets in the YP (2007–2018)

Statistical descriptives of central tendency (media, median, standard deviation, and outlier values) of state expenditure budgets are shown in Figure 2. These values were presented for state and for critical areas of coastal regional development (programs). Quintana Roo is the state with the greatest variation among its budget in the analyzed period, while highway and port infrastructure programs also showed the greatest variations. On the other hand, tourism and FONDEN showed evident outliers, which extreme values correspond to Tourism in Quintana Roo state, that was modified for visualization purposes, but its real value was 32,954 million MX pesos.
In Table 3, ANOVA results are shown. At a 95% confidence level, there was not a significant difference in the means of aquaculture, fishing and hunting, highway and port infrastructure, tourism, and FONDEN program budgets among the three states. In this way, the null hypothesis of equality of means was accepted for all critical areas of coastal regional development.
In the comparison of the means of the highway and port infrastructure program category of Quintana Roo, a statistical significance was observed, with a p-value of 0.000 (p ˂ 0.05) (Table 4). Likewise, a significant difference in the comparison of means of the highway and port infrastructure program of Yucatan was observed, corresponding to a p-value of 0.001 (p ˂ 0.05). Finally, in the comparison of means of the tourism program of Campeche, a significant difference corresponding to a p-value of 0.032 (p ˂ 0.05) was observed.
Only in the categories of tourism in Quintana Roo and Yucatan, was the difference between the means of both periods statistically significant (p-value < 0.05) (Table 4). Finally, in the comparison of the means of the tourism Category of Yucatan, a significant difference was observed corresponding to a p-value of 0.046 (p < 0.05).

5. Discussion

Our findings contribute empirically based knowledge to practical questions that challenge coastal needs in budgetary governance, which include environmental protection and sustainable development in agreement with critical areas of coastal regional development and some international compromises.

5.1. Changes in the Spending of the Federal Budget on Critical Areas of Coastal Regional Development

Regarding our first research question, do federal expenditure budgets in critical areas of coastal regional development in YP show differences in the last two six-year terms of the federal government? We found that budgets used during the past 20 years are aligned with medium-term strategic priorities of the government related to tourism development, as it was defined 70 years ago with the impulse of the Riviera Maya, particularly for Quintana Roo and Yucatan. Additionally, our results indicate that although aquaculture and fisheries are still important sources of income and well-being for coastal communities in the region, government budgets for this sector are decreasing, without capital investment plans for infrastructure needs and sectoral or social priorities. The same trend was observed for the highway and port infrastructure program of Quintana Roo and Yucatan. This last trend is in contrast with the information provided in the Numeralia of the Mexican coast [81], which identified that the coastal transportation infrastructure represents 63% of the national road infrastructure. However, it does not necessarily include the roads of the coastal municipalities or the roads that connect the coasts with the rest of the territory.
Regarding the Federal budget for the Environment and Natural Resources category which, except for the year 2016, the trend in the data did not exhibit marked fluctuations that could be identified as warning that the budget does not correspond to the environmental degradation exhibited by the coastal resources of the region. For example, the coastal water and the environmental quality distributed to 10 coastal cities of the region, show severely deteriorating environmental conditions due to industrial development, water discharge, habitat, port, tourism, and recreation, which has been documented since the 90s [82]. Many of the activities include those with FEI listed in Table 2. This is particularly alarming if tourism is the main source of income in the region and 78% of the business operates in spaces of federal, state, or reserved conservation (municipal or private) whose main attractions depend on the maintenance of their natural conditions [83]. There are other reasons for alarm within the environmental sector, one is the lack of biological [70] and economic [84] characterization of the natural areas of the region that had made the implementation of the FEI in the management of marine-coast resources slow, partial, and unstable [85]. This has permitted the loss of the natural conditions and processes and, with that, the loss of ecosystem services, which result in more recovery costs in the medium and long term [86]. Possibly as a reflection on the population growth that has led marine-coastal areas to change the use of land for tourism and real estate purposes. The economic spillover generated encourages public policies to continue with practices and uses where the mechanisms of fiscal, financial, and market regulation do not compensate for the environmental impact [49,87,88].
According to the data from SEMARNAT from 2006, the number of inspection and verification visits of the use and exploitation of the ZOFEMAT have decreased and could result in the modification of Annex 1 of the Administrative Collaboration Agreement in Federal Tax Matters [89]. This trend has made us believe that to reserve funds for surveillance, maintenance, and preservation or improvement of natural areas, species, or real estate in the coastal area is not a priority, even when it is indicated in the Law of Federal Rights and are under intense demand, are suffering the effects of climate change, and the growing discharge of contaminants [41,42,90].
Regarding the communication and transport category, the construction of coastal infrastructure such as ports and communication routes that facilitate their mobility has been carried out despite the environmental impact on the coast, such as the fragmentation of the connectivity of ecosystems, the decrease in the environmental services, and the often-irreversible environmental alterations due to the installation of communication routes on bodies of water [83,91,92,93].
The trend of budget expenditure of the FONDEN indicates the need to construct local and regional planning capacities to generate financial sources in the face of environmental contingencies. Several international agencies emphasize the need for financial sources for the recovery and reconstruction in the case of disasters with the intersectoral collaboration of local governments, civil society, and the business sector, which if necessary could request resources from the federal government once the budget of the federative entities are exhausted [94,95]. An interesting observation that needs further explanation is the rate of growth from 2009 to 2010 of 6199% in the FONDEN that corresponds to public work (repair of street and poles, street cleaning) after disaster events in the region (personal communication of former state secretariat) and the Cancun Climate Change Conference in 2010 (COP16).
Finally, the dynamism of the budget year in the touristic sector is remarkable [96,97,98]. Clearly, this coincides with the appreciation that this sector is the axis of regional transformation that has been a trigger for the investment in the highway and port infrastructure sector [99] and with the common development model of developing countries where the government sees touristic activities as the main currency source [100,101]. In Mexico, as in other coastal countries, coastal areas are dominated by mass tourism that have many disadvantages in terms of environmental changes [102,103].

5.2. Changes in the Spending of the State Budget in the Critical Areas of Coastal Regional Development

Regarding our second research question, do state expenditure budgets show differences between the three states of the YP in those critical areas of coastal regional development? It should be clarified that although the YP has an ecological corridor formed by coastal wetlands with high hydrological importance and essential habitats for bird conservation, it has not shown consistent management strategies that ensure their connectivity and ecological preservation, as was documented by Vidal et al. [104] and despite 62% of the territory of the YP region being under the conservation status and their marine-coastal area forming part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor [105]. Federal budgets are allocated to each state according to their lobbying in the House of Representatives, and each state allocates its federal budget according to what is perceived as their own most pressing needs and environmental challenges, clearly coastal degradation is not one of them. However, federal government compromises with conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (e.g., Protocol of Nagoya) was not evident for any of the three states of the YP. This is shown by ANOVA results where any significant differences among average budgets in aquaculture, fishing and hunting, highway and port infrastructure, tourism and FONDEN programs for the three states were found.
At the state level, the budget assigned by each sector presents changes with slightly pronounced increases and decreases, except for some specific periods that are indicated below. In aquaculture, fishing and hunting (Figure S2), the increase in the budget at the start of the analyzed period could be due to the momentum generated by the federal government in the National Development Plan 2007–2012 [18] in which the need to address the stagnation of sustainable production of the sector and the low income of the producers that participate were considered a political priority. The modernization of the fishing fleet was encouraged in order to elevate sustainable and profitable production to maximize the income of the producers and it was decided that subsidies would be kept to buy fuel. However, the document also highlights that the productive potential of the federal entities must continue with a decentralization process that locally serves the regulatory, socio-economic, and environmental policy causes that promote stagnation [106]. For the YP region, this financial injection became evident during some years when the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) boosted the aquaculture sector [107].
Other financial sources for the agriculture and fishery sector for natural disasters include one specifically for the sector and the FONDEN. These funds were increased following the passage of hydrometeorological events that took place in 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2010 (Karl, Dean, and Felix) that caused extraordinary draught in the sector [81,108,109,110]. Moreover, after the creation of the Special Program against Climate Change in the State of Yucatan and a Climate Change Fund for the YP [109,110] (Figures S3 and S4). The highway and port infrastructure program includes expansion and modernization of highway infrastructure and port installations, temporary employment programs for conservation, and reconstruction of rural roads. These programs are documented in official web pages [111,112,113] (Figure S5).
Financing in the tourism sector is more dynamic than in the fishing sector. It was observed that from 2007 to 2018, the national policy had placed emphasis on the economic growth of the country through boosting tourism that coincides with the declaration of being an international tourism pole in the PND 2012–2018 and implementation of the highway and port infrastructure program [18,99]. The general trend of change in the YP region corresponds to alternating periods of investment to enable touristic attractions and facilities, followed by periods of no investment when the sector reported extraordinary profits. (Figure S6).
The relative proportion of each one of the five categories analyzed as a subtotal value of the sum of the five programs specific to the coastal zones is shown in Figure S7. The importance of the highway and infrastructure, and tourism sectors is highlighted, which coincide with the productive activities indicated with the greatest contribution to the state’s GDP presented in Table 2.
Overall, results show that the effects of climate change in the region are underestimated in the three states. Thus, government budget use for this sector is only available when a disaster has occurred, and there are no financial sources for adaptive governance. Finally, the importance of ZOFEMAT use and exploitation has decreased, thus funds are reserved for surveillance and maintenance, and preservation or improvement of natural areas, their ecosystem services, species, or real estate in the coastal area are not a priority.

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

This study presents an advance in the generation of information and knowledge of the budget applied to environmental challenges facing the YP region after an international political compromise, and it allows understanding of the general use of the budget that represents the priorities of the nation [114]. This is relevant in a context in which the natural resources of the marine coastal area are subjected to intense pressures due to port, industrial, urban, and touristic development. Therefore, it is necessary to have funding oriented to conservation and restoration. The collections that were obtained by the FEI could be used for environmental purposes and contribute to environmental governance of the coastal localities and their sustainable development but knowing what these resources have been used for requires monitoring. However, this study describes that after 2014, there is no evidence of a change in the trend of the government expenditure budget to address the new development paradigm regarding conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the YP. The federal compromise seems not to be addressed coordinately by the three PY states neither by critical areas of regional coastal development.
The authors of this study maintain that the environmental, social, and economic changes facing the development initiatives should be accompanied by process of discussion and preventive action of the use of the budget, especially in the coastal municipalities where such development is concentrated. However, coastal countries must achieve their established environmental policy objectives, which also require mobilization of resources and good management, not only the implementation of economic instruments [85].
This investigation also helps to recognize that the process of decentralization of the budget would drive local governments to decide on their usage priorities according to the context and to assume their responsibilities in sustainable coastal governance management. However, the analysis of other issues are still pending, such as local administrative reforms and financial strength that facilitate budget use, the exercise of political discussion that promotes causes or defines public spending priorities, the participation of multilateral and international agencies (e.g., World Bank, OCDE) that induce attention to international agendas and the participation of non-governmental organizations. For example, there is a growth in the number of academic publications related to the region that evidences the quality and quantity of knowledge that is generated to make sustainable development possible and meet the objectives of agendas 2030 and 2050 [115], another of the eight key conditions required to evolve for adaptative coastal governance [116]. In particular, it is relevant to address the effects of climate change and pressures on resources and ecosystem services in the marine-coast areas for the sustainable development of economic activities therein, but political will is needed to do so.
For policymakers and practitioners, the results suggest that a stronger environmental and social identity is needed to define YP regional and state budgetary governance in general. First, the results indicate that the federal budget defined by the environmental tax system and the federal view of development should not be the only source of budget use. Each state should design a fiscal system that aligns industry contractors and host government interests to create an incentive for any social and environmental impact derived from their operations, such as the hydrocarbon benefit-sharing system for the Gulf of Mexico and particularly in Campeche [60].
It is necessary to implement an environmental tax reform that includes the use of natural coastal resources by tourism, urban, and industry development, such as land adjacent to beaches, springs of underground water, wind and solar energy, and coastal dunes and wetlands. Among the evaluation criteria to implement them, the environmental effects should be of priority and should be suited to improving environmental outcomes. Fuel subsidies for marine fisheries need to be eliminated, and alternative methods need to be evaluated, and a tax credit system could be used for major fishing products exporters [7] since their activities contribute to national GDP but also sustain important parts of the coastal population in the region (Marine Protected Areas: economics, management and effective policy mixes, OECD). Subsidies from the drinking water, drainage and treatment program in charge of the national water commission within the YP for industrial, touristic, and urban use should be conscientiously revised to avoid underground water quality and quantity degradation. To expand local governance initiatives to promote blue carbon rights and climate change mitigation services from the coastal ecosystem (e.g., mangrove and seagrass), alternatives that include ejidal and private owners of wetlands should be promoted and tested. In addition, under extreme events, tax for collars should also consider damages from other stressors such as tourism activities, pollution, stranding, and climate change effects. We think that without these recommendations, FEI will poorly contribute to the sustainable management of coastal marine areas of the Yucatan Peninsula.
To reinforce research in fiscal economic instruments for sustainable management is needed to increase the period of analysis, that will depend on the presence of standard, reliable, and disponible data from national and local government institutions. However, in Mexico, there are still problems with transparency and accountability in the management and results of public resources [117], which makes it difficult to obtain reliable data to carry out analyzes regarding the budgets exercised by the different levels of government. It is necessary to clarify that in Mexico, the states have poor fiscal autonomy [118] since they do not collect the majority of taxes, particularly those related to the coastal environment as was shown in Table 1 and, those derived from ports, touristic and fisheries development and environmental contingencies. Some collaboration agreements between the federal government and the states can be developed to use those taxes, but it will be necessary to strengthen the local capacities to administrate them.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su131911103/s1, Table S1: Official government sources of information, Table S2: Paired Sampled Statistics, Table S3: Results of the t-test for paired samples, Table S4: Wilcoxon signed ranked test, Figure S1: Changes in coastal programs (2007–2018), Figure S2: Growth rates of sector 08: Aquaculture, fishing and hunting, Figure S3: Changes in growth rates in natural disasters in the agriculture and fishing sector (2007–2018), Figure S4: Changes in growth rates in the Natural Disaster Fund (2007–2018), Figure S5: Change in growth rates in the highway and port infrastructure program (2007–2018), Figure S6: Change in growth rates in the Tourism Category (2007–2018), Figure S7: Changes in growth rates in the category of aquaculture, hunting and fishing, and natural disaster in the agriculture and fishery sector, highway program and port infrastructure, tourism and FONDEN of the 3 states of the sum total of the 5 categories of the 3 states.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft preparation, editing and supervision, L.V.-H.; material preparation, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation and editing D.d.Y.-C.; methodology, material preparation and writing—original draft preparation, B.C.-B.; material preparation and writing—review and editing, M.S.-C.; writing—review, E.R.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from the Climate Change Research Projects (known in Spanish as PINCC) and the Science Faculty (UMDI-Sisal) at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), and the EPOMEX Institute-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México for institutional facilities during the research and to Fernando Márquez (Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa) for figure edition. Thanks to Luis de Jesús García Martínez for his help in data programming and editing of figures and tables.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Marshall, N. Conceptual and Operational Understanding of Social Resilience in a Primary Resource Industry. Insights for Optimizing Social and Environmental Outcomes in the Management of Queensland’s Commercial Fishing Industry? Ph.D. Thesis, School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography James Cook University, Townsville, Australia, October 2005. [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, C.; Adame, F.; Buelow, C.; Frassl, M.; Lee, S.; Mackey, B.; McClure, E.; Pearson, R.; Rajkaran, A.; Rayner, T.; et al. Opportunities for improving recognition of coastal wetlands in global ecosystem assessment frameworks. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 126, 107694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bonnet, J.; Coll-Martínez, E.; Renou-Maissant, P. Evaluating sustainable development by composite index: Evidence from french departments. Sustainability 2021, 13, 761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Vence, X.; López, S. Taxation for a circular economy: New instruments, reforms and architectural changes in the fiscal systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhou, C.; Xie, H.; Zhang, X. Does fiscal policy promote third-party environmental pollution control in China? An evolutionary game theoretical approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. He, P.; Sun, Y.; Shen, H.; Jian, J.; Yu, Z. Does environmental tax affect energy efficiency? An empirical study of energy efficiency in OECD countries based on DEA and Logit model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. OECD. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/environmentaltaxation.htm (accessed on 4 July 2020).
  8. O’Connor, D. Applying economic instruments in developing countries: From theory to implementation. Environ. Dev. Econ. 1998, 4, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público. Criterios Generales de Política Económica Para la Iniciativa de Ley de Ingresos y el Proyecto de Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federación Correspondiente al Ejercicio Fiscal 2020. Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público. Available online: https://www.ppef.hacienda.gob.mx/work/models/PPEF2020/paquete/politica_hacendaria/CGPE_2020.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2021).
  10. Breuning, C.; Busemeyer, M. Fiscal austerity and the trade-off between public investment and social spending. J. Eur. Public Policy 2012, 19, 921–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Figueroa, A. Tributos ambientales en México: Una revisión de su evolución y problemas. Boletín Mex. De Derecho Comp. 2005, 38, 991–1020. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gramkov, C. Green Fiscal Policies: An Armoury of Instruments to Recover Growth Sustainably, Studies and Perspectives Series-ECLAC Office in Basilia, No. 5 (LC/TS.2002/24) (LC/BRS/TS.2019/7); Economic Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC): Santiago, Chile, 2020; p. 56. ISSN 1728-5453. [Google Scholar]
  13. DOF/08/12/2020. Ley Federal de Derechos. 08 de Diciembre de 2020. 508. Available online: http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/lfd.htm (accessed on 4 July 2020).
  14. Nava-Fuentes, J.; Arenas-Granados, P.; Cardoso-Martins, F. Coastal management in Mexico: Improvements after the marine and coastal policy publication. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 137, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Muñoz-Sevilla, N.; Azuz-Adeath, I.; Le Bail, M.; Cortés-Ruiz, A. Coastal development: Construction of a public policy for the shores and seas of Mexico. In Coastal Management: Global Challenges and Innovations; Krishnamurthy, R., Jonatha, M., Srinivasalu, S., Glaeser, B., Eds.; ELSEVIER Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. De Andres, M.; Barragan, J.M. Development of coastal cities and agglomerations: Pressure and impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems. In Coastal Cities and Their Sustainable Future; Rodriguez, G.R., Brebbia, C.A., Eds.; WIT Press: Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, UK, 2005; pp. 63–71. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jiménez-Illescas, A.; Zayas-Esquer, M.M.; Espinosa-Carreón, T.L. Integral Management of the Coastal Zone to Solve the Problems of Erosion in Las Glorias Beach, Guasave, Sinaloa, Mexico. In Coastal Management, Global Challenges and Innovations; Krishnamurthy, R.R., Jonathan, M.P., Srinivasalu, S., Glaeser, B., Eds.; Acad. Press: London, UK, 2019; pp. 141–163. [Google Scholar]
  18. DOF/12/07/2019. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2019–2024. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5565599&fecha=12/07/2019 (accessed on 15 June 2021).
  19. Estudios Territoriales de la OCDE: Yucatán, México. Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos. 2008. Available online: http://acervo.yucatan.gob.mx/contenidos/OCDE_Espanol.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2021).
  20. Sosa-Ferreira, A.P. Condiciones socioeconómicas y vulnerabilidad de la Península de Yucatán. In Cambio Climático en México un Enfoque Costero-Marino; Rivera-Arriaga, E., Azuz-Adeath, I., Alpuche-Gual, L., Villalobos-Zapata, G.J., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Campeche-Cetys-Universidad, Gobierno del estado de Campeche: Campeche, Mexico, 2010; pp. 231–261. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhou, J.; Shafiq, M.; Adeel, A.; Nawaz, S.; Kumar, P. What is theoretical contribution? a narrative review. Sarhad J. Manag. Sci. 2017, 3, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Rondinelli, D. Governments serving people: The changing roles of public administration in democratic governance. In Publica Administration and Democratic Governance. Governments Serving Citicenz; Rodinelli, D., Ed.; UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2007; p. 359. [Google Scholar]
  23. Day, S.; O’Riordan, T.; Bryson, J.; Frew, P.; Young, R. Many stakeholders, multiple perspectives: Long-term planning for a future coast. In Broad Scale Coastal Simulation: New Techniques to Understand and Manage Shorelines in the Third Millenniun; Nicholls, R., Dawson, R., Day, S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 49, pp. 299–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tam, J. Long Term PUBLIC Finance Report: An Analysis of Fiscal Sustainability; Money Macro and Finance (MMF) Research Group: Cardiff, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  25. Schmidt, L.; Prista, P.; Saraiva, T.; O’Riordan, T.; Gómez, C. Adapting governance for coastal change in Portugal. Land Use Policy 2012, 31, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bagstad, K.; Stapleton, K.; D’Agostino, J. Taxes, subsidies, and insurance as drivers of United States coastal development. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Miao, Q.; Shi, Y.; Davlasheridze, M. Fiscal decentralization and natural disaster mitigation: Evidence from the United States. Public Budg. Financ. 2021, 41, 26–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chandran, V.; Rao, R.; Anwar, S. Economic growth and government spending in Malaysia: A re-examination of Wagner and Keynesian views. Econ. Chang. Restruct. 2011, 44, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kolstad, C. Intermediate Environmental Economics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; p. 480. [Google Scholar]
  30. Galán, F. Impuestos Ambientales en México y Experiencias Internacionales: Serie Cuaderno de Investigación en Finanzas Públicas; Senado de la República Instituto Belisario Domínguez: Cuauhtémoc, México, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  31. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Building a New Future: Transformative, Recovery with Equality and Sustainability (LC/SES.38/3-P/Rev.1); United Nations: Santiago, Chile, 2020; p. 235. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hayes, T.; Murtinho, F. Communal governance, equity and payment for ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Motta, R.; Huber, R.; Ruitenbeek, H. Market based instruments for environmental policymaking in Latin America and the caribbean: Lessons from eleven countries. Environ. Dev. Econ. 1999, 4, 177–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Nicolaisen, J.; Hoeller, P. Economics and the environment: A survey of issues and policy options. OECD Econ. Stud. 1991, 16, 7–43. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gutiérrez, A. El Control de Gestión y los Indicadores para la Medición del Desempeño de las Administraciones Tributarias; Centro Interamericano de Administración Tributaria CIAT: Panama City, Panama, 2009; Volume 22, pp. 1–21. Available online: https://www.ciat.org/Biblioteca/AsambleasGenerales/2009/Espanol/repdominicana43_tema3.1_ortiz_mx.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2020).
  36. Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental, A.C. (CEMDA). Análisis de Instrumentos Económicos Aplicables a los Gobiernos Locales, para la Financiación de Acciones de Mitigación de GEI en los Sectores Transporte y Energía, Agosto 2016. Available online: https://www.cemda.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Reporte-final-proyecto-instrumentos-econo%CC%81micos-v0.2-_1_.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
  37. Escalante, R.; Aroche, F. El Caso de México. In Desafíos y Propuestas para la Implementación más Efectiva de Instrumentos Económicos en la gestión Ambiental de América Latina y el Caribe; Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe División de Medio Ambiente y Asentamientos Humanos (Naciones Unidas): Santiago, Chile, 2002; p. 339. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bárcena, A.; Cimoll, M.; García-Buchaca, R.; Samaniego, J.; Pérez, R. The Climate Emergency in Latin America and the Caribbean: The Path Ahead-Resignation or Arction? ECLAC Books, No. 160 (LC/PUB.2019/23-P); Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC): Santiago, Chile, 2020; p. 357. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lloret, A.; Domenge, R.; Castro-Hernández, M. Regulatory limits to corporate sustainability: How climate change law and energy reforms in Mexico may impar sustainability practices in mexican firms. Systems 2019, 7, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Arlinghaus, J.; van Dender, K. The environmental tax and subsidy reform in Mexico. OECD Tax. Work. Pap. 2017, 31, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Solana-Sansores, L. Efectos sociales, económicos y políticos del cambio climático en las pesquerías mexicanas. In Cambio Climático en México un Enfoque Costero-Marino; Rivera-Arriaga, E., Azuz-Adeath, I., Alpuche-Gual, L., Villalobos-Zapata, G.J., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Campeche-Cetys-Universidad, Gobierno del estado de Campeche: Campeche, México, 2010; pp. 305–318. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ávila-Foucat, S.; Espejel, I. Resiliencia de Socioecosistemas Costeros; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2020; p. 175. [Google Scholar]
  43. SEMARNAT. La Gestión Ambiental en México; Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT): Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2006; p. 468. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zárate-Lomelí, D. Instrumentos para la gestión y el manejo de la zona costera de México. In El Manejo Costero en México; Rivera-Arriaga, E., Villalobos, Z.G., Azuz-Adeath, I., Rosado, M.F., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Campeche: Campeche, México, 2004; p. 654. [Google Scholar]
  45. Turner, K.; Schaafsma, M. Coastal zone ecosystem services. From science to values and decision making. Springer Int. Publ. Switz. 2015, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Álvarez Torres, P.; Díaz de León, A.; Pérez-Chirinos, G.; Aguilar, J.C.; Rosado, R.; Efrén, F.; Cortina, S.; Ibáñez, M.; Brachet, G.; Muñoz-Sevilla, P.; et al. Development of a National Ocean Policy in Mexico. In Routledge Handbook on National and Regional Ocean Policies; Abingdon: London, UK, 2015; pp. 294–310. [Google Scholar]
  47. Adame, M.; Brown, C.; Bejarano, M.; Herrera-Silveira, J.; Ezcurra, P.; Kauffman, J.; Birdsey, R. The undervalued contribution of mangrove protection in Mexico to carbon emission targets. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Naciones Unidas, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. La economía del Cambio Climático en América Latina y el Caribe. Paradojas y Desafíos del Desarrollo Sostenible; Naciones Unidas: Santiago, Chile, 2015; p. 98. [Google Scholar]
  49. Quero, G.P.; García, S.J.; Chica, R.J. Marine renewable energy and maritime spatial planning in Spain: Main challenges and recommendations. Mar. Policy 2021, 127, 104444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Producto Interno Bruto 2019. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/temas/pib/ (accessed on 25 February 2021).
  51. Sumalia, U.; Walsh, M.; Hoareau, K.; Cox, A.; Teh, L.; Abdallah, P.; Akpalu, W.; Anna, Z.; Benzaken, D.; Crona, B.; et al. Financing a sustainable ocean economy. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 3259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. De Alencar, N.; Le Tissier, M.; Paterson, S.K.; Newton, A. Circles of coastal sustainability: A framework for coastal management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rivera-Arriaga, E.; Espejel-Carbajal, I.; Gutiérrez-Mendieta, F.J.; Vidal-Hernández, L.E.; Espinoza-Tenorio, A.; Nava-Fuentes, J.C.; García-Chavarría, M.; Sosa-López, A. Global Review of ICZM in Mexico. Costas 2020, 1, 179–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ibarra, P.D. Instrumentos económicos en materia ambiental en México. Revista Enciclopédica Tributaria Opciones Legales Fiscales. 2013, 52, pp. 16–31. Available online: https://doctrina.vlex.com.mx/vid/instrumentos-materia-ambiental-ma-xico-442374490 (accessed on 2 January 2021).
  55. Centro de Estudios de las Finanzas Públicas. Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federación 2015. Gasto Federalizado LXII.Legislatura Cámara de Diputados. 2015. Available online: http://www.cefp.gob.mx/publicaciones/nota/2015/enero/notacefp0032015.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2021).
  56. Política Nacional de Mares y Costas de México (PNMCM). Diario Oficial de la Federación. 30 de noviembre de 2018. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5545511&fecha=30/11/2018 (accessed on 4 July 2020).
  57. Yáñez-Arancibia, A.; Day, J.W.; Twilley, R.R.; Day, R.H. Manglares frente al cambio climático: ¿tropicalización global del Golfo de México? In Cambio Climático en México un Enfoque Costero-Marino; Rivera-Arriaga, E., Azuz-Adeath, I., Alpuche-Gual, L., Villalobos-Zapata, G.J., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Campeche-Cetys-Universidad: Campeche, Mexico, 2010; pp. 231–261. [Google Scholar]
  58. Azuz-Adeath, I.; Rivera-Arriaga, E. Descripción de la dinámica poblacional en la zona costera mexicana durante el periodo 2000–2005. Pap. De POBLACIÓN 2009, 62, 75–107. [Google Scholar]
  59. Muñoz-Sevilla, N.P.; Azuz-Adeath, I.; Le Bail, M. Institutional barriers for the implementation of climate change adaptation actions in the Mexican coastal zones. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 167, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ríos-Granados, G. Tributación ambiental: La contribución por gasto, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Ciudad de México, México, 2010; p. 230. [Google Scholar]
  61. Quijano-Poumián, M.; Rodríguez-Aragón, B. El marco legal de la zona costera. In El Manejo Costero en México; Rivera-Arriaga, E., Villalobos, Z.G., Azuz-Adeath, I., Rosado, M.F., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Campeche: Campeche, Mexico, 2004; p. 654. [Google Scholar]
  62. Alfie, M. Política Ambiental mexicana. Montañas de Papel, Ríos de Tinta y Pocos Cambios en Cuarenta Años, El Cotidiano. 2016, 200, pp. 200, 209–222. Available online: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=32548630018 (accessed on 25 February 2021).
  63. Von Gersdorf, H. El proceso presupuestario en Chile: Opciones de reforma. In Un Estado para la Ciudadanía. Estudios para su modernización; Aninat, I., Razmilic, S., Eds.; Centro de Estudios Públicos, CEP: Santiago, Chile, 2018; pp. 533–574. [Google Scholar]
  64. Toriz, F.G. Análisis del gasto público y el proceso presupuestario en México. Proyecto de Investigación Aplicada. Maestría en Economía y Políticas Públicas. Escuela de Graduados en Administración Pública y Política Pública, Campus Ciudad de México; Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey: Monterrey, Mexico, 2006; p. 75. [Google Scholar]
  65. Naciones Unidas, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. Guía Metodológica de Instrumentos Económicos para la Gestión Ambiental. 2015. Available online: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/37676/S1421003_es.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 1 July 2020).
  66. Valderrama-Landeros, L.; Rodríguez-Zúñiga, M.; Troche-Souza, C.; Velázquez-Salazar, S.; Villeda-Chávez, E.; Alcántar-Maya, J.; Vázquez-Balderas, B.; Cruz-López, M.; Ressl, R. Manglares de México: Actualización y exploración de los datos del sistema de monitoreo 1970/1980-2015; Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2017; p. 128. [Google Scholar]
  67. Bautista-Zúñiga, F.; Batllori-Sampedro, E.; Palacio, G.; Ortíz-Pérez, M.; Castillo-González, M. Integración del conocimiento actual sobre los paisajes geomorfológicos de la Península de Yucatán. In Caracterización y Manejo de los Suelos de la Península de Yucatán: Implicaciones Agropecuarias, Forestales y Ambientales; Bautista, F., Palacio, G., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Campeche: Campeche, México, 2005; pp. 33–58. [Google Scholar]
  68. Orellana-Lanza, R.; Espadas-Manrique, C.; Conde-Álvarez, C.; Gray-García, C. Atlas Escenarios de Cambio Climático en la Península de Yucatán. Centro de Investigaciones Científicas de Yucatán, A. C., Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Centro de Ciencias de la Atmósfera (UNAM), FOMIX Yucatán, SEDUMA Yucatán, Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo; Naciones Unidas: Santiago, Chile, 2010; p. 111. [Google Scholar]
  69. Gracia, A.; Salas de León, D. Golfo de México, circulación y productividad. Ciencias 2004, 76, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
  70. Adame, M.; Nájera, E.; Lovelock, C.; Brown, C. Avoid emissions and conservation of scrub mangrove: Potencial for a blue carbon project in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Biol. Lett. 2018, 14, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Guzmán, N.; Esteves, J.M. Elementos de la vulnerabilidad ante huracanes. Impacto del huracán Isidoro en Chabihau, Yabaín, Yucatán. Política y Cultura 2016, 45, 183–210. [Google Scholar]
  72. Herrera-Silveira, J.; Comin, F.; Capurro-Filograsso, L. Landscape, Land-Use, and Management in the Coastal Zone of Yucatan Peninsula. In Gulf of Mexico: Origin, Waters, and Biota. Volume 4, Ecosystem-Based Management. Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Series; Day, J.W., Yáñez-Arancibia, A., Eds.; Texas A&M University Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2013; p. 460. [Google Scholar]
  73. Herrera-Silveira, J.; Lara-Domínguez, J.; Day, J.; Yañez-Arancibia, A.; Morales-Ojeda, S.; Teutli-Hernández, C.; Kemp, G. Chapter 22-Ecosystem Functioning and Sustainable Management in Coastal Systems with High Freshwater Input in the Southern Gulf of Mexico and Yucatan Peninsula; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 377–397. [Google Scholar]
  74. Yáñez-Arancibia, A.; Day, J. Environmental sub-regions in the Gulf of Mexico coastal zone: The ecosystem approach as an integrated management tool. Ocean Coast. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 727–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Herrera-Silveira, J.; Comin, F.; Aranda-Cirerol, N.; Troccoli, L.; Capurro, L. Coastal water quality assessment in the Yucatan Peninsula: Management implications. Ocean Coast Manag. J. 2004, 47, 625–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rey, W.; Martínez-Amador, M.; Salles, P.; Mendoza, E.; Trejo-Rangel, M.; Franklin, G.; Ruiz-Salcines, P.; Appendini, C.; Quintero-Ibáñez, J. Assessing different flood risk and damage approaches: A case of study in Progreso, Yucatan, Mexico. J. Mar. Sci. 2020, 8, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Consorcio de Instituciones de Investigación Marina del Golfo de México y del Caribe, (CIIMAR GOMC). Orientación de Estrategias de Política Pública para la Conservación y uso Sustentable de los Océanos, Mares y Costas de México. Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco. 2018. Available online: https://ceiba.org.mx/publicaciones/Centro_Documentacion/MaresCostas/180610_CIIMAR_EstrategiasOceanosMaresCostas.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2021).
  78. Alcántara-Ayala, I. Desastres en México: Mapas y apuntes sobre una historia inconclusa. Investig. Geográficas 2019, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Conferencias de Cancún sobre Cambio Climático. Libro blanco. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. Available online: https://sre.gob.mx/images/stories/doctransparencia/rdc/5lbcop16.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2021).
  80. Secretaría de Gobernación (SEGOB). Declaratorias de Desastre Natural Publicadas en el Diario Oficial de la Federación y Número de Municipios Señalados por Entidad Federativa y Tipo de Fenómeno. 2018. Available online: http://dgeiawf.semarnat.gob.mx:8080/ibi_apps/WFServlet?IBIF_ex=D1_DESASTRE00_06&IBIC_user=dgeia_mce&IBIC_pass=dgeia_mce&NOMBREENTIDAD=*&NOMBREANIO=* (accessed on 5 March 2021).
  81. Azuz-Adeath, I.; Cervantes, O.; Espinoza-Tenorio, A.; Santander-Monsalvo, J. Numeralia de la Costa Mexicana. 2018, 10. Available online: https://www.redicomar.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/numeralia-de-la-costa-mexicana.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2020).
  82. Ortiz-Lozano, L.; Granados-Barba, A.; Solís-Weiss, V.; García-Salgado, M.A. Environmental evaluation and development problems of the Mexican Coastal Zone. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2005, 48, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jouault, S.; García de Fuentes, A.; Rivera, T. Un modelo regional de turismo alternativo y economía social en la Península de Yucatán, México. Otra Econ. 2015, 9, 164–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Sanjurjo-Rivera, E. Valoración Económica de Servicios Ambientales Prestados por Ecosistemas: Humedales en México; Instituto Nacional de Ecología: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2001; p. 45. [Google Scholar]
  85. García-Bátiz, M. Aplicación de instrumentos económicos en la gestión ambiental de México. In Cuestiones Sociales y Políticas; Pineda-Ortega, P., Ed.; Universidad de Guadalajara: Jalisco, México, 2015; pp. 149–170. [Google Scholar]
  86. Russell, C.; Powell, P. Choosing Environmental Policy Tools: Theoretical Cautions and Practical Considerations; Inter-American Development Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  87. Inter-American Center of Tax Administrations (CIAT), German Agency of International Cooperation (GIZ), International Center for Taxation and Development (CIFD). Information Sources of Tax Administrations in Latin America. Experiences of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru. CIAT, 2018, 100. Available online: https://www.ciat.org/information-sources-of-tax-administrations-in-latin-america-experiences-of-argentina-brazil-chile-mexico-and-peru-ciat-giz-ictd-2016-english-version-is-now-available/?lang=en (accessed on 5 October 2020).
  88. García, A.; Impuestos ambientales: Explicación, ejemplos y utilidad. Centro de Investigación Económica y Presupuestaria, A.C. 2017. Available online: https://ciep.mx/impuestos-ambientales-explicacion-ejemplos-y-utilidad/ (accessed on 15 May 2021).
  89. DOF/03/03/2008. Acuerdo por el que se Modifica el Convenio de Colaboración Administrativa en Materia Fiscal Federal, Celebrado Entre la Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público y el Gobierno del Distrito Federal y se Suscribe el Anexo No. 1 de dicho Convenio. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5593468& (accessed on 19 May 2020).
  90. Bezaury-Creel, J.E. Las áreas naturales protegidas costeras y marinas de México ante el cambio climático. In Cambio Climático en México un Enfoque Costero-Marino; Rivera-Arriaga, E., Azuz-Adeath, I., Alpuche-Gual, L., Villalobos-Zapata, G.J., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Campeche-Cetys-Universidad, Gobierno del estado de Campeche: Campeche, Mexico, 2010; pp. 689–736. [Google Scholar]
  91. Azuz-Adeath, I. Procesos y ciclos en la costa. In Tópicos de Agenda para la Sostenibilidad de Costas y Mares Mexicanos; Rivera-Arriaga, E., Sánchez-Gil, P., Gutiérrez, J., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Campeche: Campeche, Mexico, 2019; pp. 181–192. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ruiz de Alegría-Arzaburu, A.; Medellín, G. Importancia del monitoreo costero para la construcción de la resiliencia, 543–562. In Gobernanza y Manejo de las Costas y Mares ante la Incertidumbre. Una Guía para Tomadores de Decisiones; Rivera-Arriaga, E., Azuz-Adeath, I., Cervantes Rosas, O.D., Espinoza-Tenorio, A., Silva Casarín, R., Ortega-Rubio, A., Botello, A.V., Vega-Serratos, B.E., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Campeche: Campeche, Mexico, 2020; p. 894. [Google Scholar]
  93. Aguilera, M.A.; Tapi, J.; Gallardo, C.; Núñez, P.; Varas-Belemmic, K. Loss of coastal ecosystem spatial connectivity and services by urbanization: Natural-to-urban integration for bay management. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Banco Mundial. FONDEN: El Fondo de Desastres Naturales de México: Una reseña. Banco Mundial, 2012, Washington, D.C., United States of America. Available online: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/906551468123258202/pdf/753220WP0P130800Box374323B00PUBLIC0.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2021).
  95. Naciones Unidas. Comisión Económica para América Latina. Manual para la evaluación de desastres naturales. 2014. Available online: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/35894/1/S2013806_es.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2021).
  96. García de Fuentes, A.; Xool-Koh, M.; Euán-Ávila, J.; Munguía-Gil, A.; Cervera-Montejano, D. La Costa de Yucatán en la Perspectiva del Desarrollo Turístico; Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2011; p. 87. [Google Scholar]
  97. Fraga, J.; Khafash, L.; Villalobos-Zapata, G. (Eds.) Turismo y Sustentabilidad en la Península de Yucatán, Primera Edición; Universidad Autónoma de Campeche: Campeche, México, 2014; p. 206. [Google Scholar]
  98. Alcocer, P. Cultura, Turismo y Medio Ambiente: Una Mirada Desde los Pueblos Mayas de Yucatán; Patrimonio Cultural y Turismo. Cuadernos, Políticas públicas y turismo cultural en América Latina Siglo XXI; Secretaría de Cultura: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2012; Volume 19, pp. 195–200. [Google Scholar]
  99. García de Fuentes, A.; Jouault, S.; Romero, D. Representaciones cartográficas de la turistificación de la Península de Yucatán a medio siglo de la creación de Cancún. Investigaciones Geográficas 2019, 100, e60023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Orgaz, F.; Moral, S. El turismo como motor potencial para el desarrollo económico de zonas fronterizas en vías de desarrollo. Un estudio de caso. El Periplo Sustentable, 31. 2016. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/1934/193449985009/html/index.html (accessed on 24 September 2021).
  101. Brida, J.G.; London, S.; Rojas, M. El turismo como fuente de crecimiento económico: Impacto de las preferencias intertemporales de los agentes. Investig. Económica 2014, 73, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. UNEP. GEO-6 Regional Assessment for Latin America and the Caribbean. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 2016. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/assessment/geo-6-regional-assessment-latin-america-and-caribbean (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  103. Xu, G. The New Coast: How Can an Environmentally Sustainable Model of Coastal Development Be Developed? Ph.D. Thesis, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, October 2015. [Google Scholar]
  104. Vidal, L.; Vallarino, A.; Benítez, I.; Correa, J. Implementación del plan estratégico Ramsar en humedales costeros de la península de Yucatán: Normativas y regulación. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 2015, 43, 873–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Álvarez Icaza Longoria, P. Importancia ambiental y social del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano en México. Mesoamericana 2010, 14, 97–106. [Google Scholar]
  106. Auditoría Superior de la Federación (ASF). Evaluación Número 1646 “Evaluación de la Política de Pesca y Acuacultura”. Available online: https://www.asf.gob.mx/Trans/Informes/IR2014i/Documentos/Auditorias/2014_1646_a.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2021).
  107. Programa Sectorial de Pesca y Acuacultura 2016-2021. Crecer en Grande, Campeche 2015-2021. Available online: http://www.seplan.campeche.gob.mx/copladecam/ps/ps-pesca.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2021).
  108. DOF 2017 Declaratoria de Desastre Natural por la Ocurrencia de Lluvia Severa del 2 al 4 de Junio de 2017, en 2 Municipios del Estado de Campeche. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5487196&fecha=16/06/2017 (accessed on 3 June 2021).
  109. Decreto176/2014 Por el Que se Aprueba y Ordena la Publicación del Programa Especial de Acción ante el Cambio Climático del Estado de Yucatán. 26 Abril de 2010. Available online: https://www.yucatan.gob.mx/docs/transparencia/ped/2012_2018/PROGRAMA_ESPECIAL_ACCION_CAMBIO_CLIMATICO.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2020).
  110. Fondo de Cambio Climático de la Península de Yucatán. Available online: http://www.ccpy.gob.mx/agenda-regional/fondo-cambio-climatico.php (accessed on 10 June 2020).
  111. TRACSABLOG 2012. Campeche recibirá 2,256 mdp Para Carreteras y Puertos. Available online: https://tracsablog.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/01/campeche-recibir%C3%A1-2256-mdp-para-carreteras-y-puertos.html (accessed on 4 July 2021).
  112. Balance de obras 2013-2018 Campeche. Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes 2017. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/183666/CAMPECHE_ENERO_2017.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2021).
  113. DOF/29/04/2014. Programa Nacional de Infraestructura 2014–2018. Available online: http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5342547&fecha=29/04/2014 (accessed on 4 June 2021).
  114. Shapiro, I. (Ed.) A guide to Budget Work for NGOs; International Budget Project: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; p. 102. [Google Scholar]
  115. United Nations. Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/ (accessed on 25 September 2021).
  116. Nicholson-Cole, S.; O’Riordan, T. Adaptive governance for a changing coastline: Science, policy and publics in search of a sustainable future. In Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance; Adger, W., Lorenzoni, I., O’Brien, K., Eds.; Cambrige University Press: Cambrige, UK, 2009; pp. 368–383. [Google Scholar]
  117. Auditoría Federal de la Federación (ASF). Cámara de Diputados. Diagnóstico Sobre la Opacidad en el Gasto Federalizado. Versión Ejecutiva. 2013. Available online: https://www.asf.gob.mx/uploads/56_Informes_especiales_de_auditoria/Version_Ejecutiva.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
  118. IMCO Instituto Mexicano de la Competitividad. Centro de Investigación en Política Pública. 2020. Available online: https://imco.org.mx/hablemos-de-ingresos-en-los-estados/ (accessed on 19 February 2020).
Figure 1. The geographical location of the Yucatan Peninsula region (20° N, −90° E).
Figure 1. The geographical location of the Yucatan Peninsula region (20° N, −90° E).
Sustainability 13 11103 g001
Figure 2. Budget expenditures in critical areas of coastal regional development in YP states (2007–2018). Crossed white diamond represents the media value; vertical line represents the median value; asterisk represents outlier values; black dot represents an extreme outlier, which was modified for visualization purposes. Horizontal line represents standard deviation. Aqua, Fish. & Hunt. refers to Aquaculture, fishing and hunting program; Highw. & Port Inf. refers to the highway and port infrastructure program. Camp. refers to Campeche; Q. Roo refers to Quintana Roo and Yuc. refers to Yucatan. C.A. Programs refers to critical areas of coastal regional development.
Figure 2. Budget expenditures in critical areas of coastal regional development in YP states (2007–2018). Crossed white diamond represents the media value; vertical line represents the median value; asterisk represents outlier values; black dot represents an extreme outlier, which was modified for visualization purposes. Horizontal line represents standard deviation. Aqua, Fish. & Hunt. refers to Aquaculture, fishing and hunting program; Highw. & Port Inf. refers to the highway and port infrastructure program. Camp. refers to Campeche; Q. Roo refers to Quintana Roo and Yuc. refers to Yucatan. C.A. Programs refers to critical areas of coastal regional development.
Sustainability 13 11103 g002
Table 1. Rights and concessions are indicated in the Federal Law of Rights [13] with respect to the use of natural zones and resources of coastal and marine areas.
Table 1. Rights and concessions are indicated in the Federal Law of Rights [13] with respect to the use of natural zones and resources of coastal and marine areas.
SectorUse of Natural Zones and Resources of Coastal and Marine Areas
Ports and navigationUse and exploitation of maritime port works (ports, terminals, and installations) and port services.
Flagging or resignation of the flag of vessels for nautical tourism and fishing activities,
Fishing and aquacultureCommercial fishing permits and concessions
Commercial aquaculture permits
National WatersService rights related to the use of national waters (use of drinking water, aquaculture, recreation lefts)
Rights to discharge biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastewater to a receiving body for recreation and sport, fishing and hunting, mining, and industrial activities.
WildlifeExport and import rights of specimens, products, and subproducts from wild species, sport hunting.
Non-extractive use of wildlife in lefts for conservation and investigation of wildlife.
Extractive use of specimens of wild fauna in federal lands and zones (ducks, crocodiles).
TourismUse of natural marine and insular elements of the ANP of Federation competition for recreational, tourist, and sports activities.
Use of elements and resources within ANP for touristic or urbanistic activities and tourist services.
Rights to access museums, monuments and archaeological areas owned by the Federation.
MiningExtraction of Stone materials (sand, among others)
Exploitation rights of salts or saline by-products of marine waters and use of ZOFEMAT for that purpose.
MixedRights environmental impact of works and activities.
Exploitation of beaches, ZOFEMAT, land reclaimed from the sea, or any marine water.
Table 2. Categories for which the analysis of the expenditure budget was conducted.
Table 2. Categories for which the analysis of the expenditure budget was conducted.
Expenditure Budget CategoryFederalCampecheQuintana RooYucatan
Fishery and Aquaculture (08)xxxx
Communication and transport (09)xxxx
Environment and natural resources (16)xxxx
Energy (18)-x--
Tourism (21)-xxx
Programmable spending in natural disasters (23)x---
Table 3. ANOVA results for critical areas of coastal regional development between the three states of the YP.
Table 3. ANOVA results for critical areas of coastal regional development between the three states of the YP.
Critical Areas ProgramsANOVA
Fp
Aquaculture, fishing and hunting0.0230.977
Highway and port infrastructure program0.2470.782
FONDEN0.1740.841
Tourism1.1140.340
Table 4. Student and Wilcoxon t-test for a sample.
Table 4. Student and Wilcoxon t-test for a sample.
t/zglSig. (Bilateral)Average Budgets Increased ( Sustainability 13 11103 i001) or Decreased ( Sustainability 13 11103 i002)
Aquaculture, fishing and hunting of Campeche (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (**)−0.314 0.753 Sustainability 13 11103 i003
Aquaculture, fishing and hunting of Quintana Roo (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (**)−0.314 0.753 Sustainability 13 11103 i004
Aquaculture, hunting and fishing of Yucatan (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (**)−1.363 0.173 Sustainability 13 11103 i005
Highway and port infrastructure of Campeche (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (**)−1.572 0.116 Sustainability 13 11103 i006
Highway and port infrastructure of Quintana Roo (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (*)11.52550.000 Sustainability 13 11103 i007
Highway and port infrastructure of Yucatan (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (*)6.50550.001 Sustainability 13 11103 i008
Natural Disaster Fund of Campeche (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (**)−0.105 0.917 Sustainability 13 11103 i009
Natural Disaster Fund of Quintana Roo (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (**)−0.734 0.463 Sustainability 13 11103 i010
Natural Disaster Fund of Yucatan (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (**)−1.572 0.116 Sustainability 13 11103 i011
Tourism of Campeche (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (*)2.94150.032 Sustainability 13 11103 i012
Tourism of Quintana Roo (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (**)−1.992 0.046 Sustainability 13 11103 i013
Tourism of Yucatan (2007–2012) vs. (2013–2018) (**)−1.992 0.046 Sustainability 13 11103 i014
* For these data with normal distribution, a student’s t-test was performed. ** For these data with non-normal distribution, a Wilcoxon test was performed.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vidal-Hernández, L.; de Yta-Castillo, D.; Castellanos-Basto, B.; Suárez-Castro, M.; Rivera-Arriaga, E. Fiscal Economic Instruments for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in Coastal Marine Areas of the Yucatan Peninsula. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11103. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911103

AMA Style

Vidal-Hernández L, de Yta-Castillo D, Castellanos-Basto B, Suárez-Castro M, Rivera-Arriaga E. Fiscal Economic Instruments for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in Coastal Marine Areas of the Yucatan Peninsula. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):11103. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911103

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vidal-Hernández, Laura, Diana de Yta-Castillo, Blanca Castellanos-Basto, Marco Suárez-Castro, and Evelia Rivera-Arriaga. 2021. "Fiscal Economic Instruments for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in Coastal Marine Areas of the Yucatan Peninsula" Sustainability 13, no. 19: 11103. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911103

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop