Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of a Mexico City Wetland Restoration Effort

References

1. 1. Blackburn J.,
   2. Chambers R.,
   3. Gaventa J.

   2000. Mainstreaming participation in development. OED Working Paper Series 10. Washington DC: World Bank.
2. 1. Bowcutt F.

   1999. Ecological restoration al local communities: A case study from Sinkyone Wilderness State Park, Mendocino County, California. Human Ecology 27:359–268.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
3. 1. Brett E.A.

   2003. Participation and accountability in development management. The Journal of Development Studies 40 (2):1–29.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Bunch R.

   1989. Encouraging farmers’ experiments. Pages 55–60 in Chambers R., Pacey A., Thrupp L.A. (eds), Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
5. 1. Cabin R.J.

   2007. Science-driven restoration: A square grid on a round earth. Restoration Ecology 15:1–7.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
6. 1. Campilan D.

   2000. Conceptual tools for tracking change: Emerging issues and challenges. Pages 192–200 in Estrella M. (ed), Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
7. 1. Chambers R.

   1994. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development 22:1437–1454.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. 1. Chambers R.

   1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
9. 1. Chambers R.

   2002. Participatory Workshops: A Sourcebook of 21 Sets of Ideas and Activities. London: Earthscan Publications.
10. 1. Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (CONEVAL)

    . 2010. Evolución de la pobreza por ingresos en las entidades federativas [Accessed on 24 May]. www.coneval.gob.mx/coneval2/htmls/medicion_pobreza/HomeMedicionPobreza.jsp?categorias=MED_POBREZA,MED_POBREZAentidades
11. 1. Contreras V.,
    2. Martínez-Meyer E.,
    3. Valiente E.,
    4. Zambrano L.

    2009. Recent decline and potential distribution in the last remnant area of the microendemic Mexican axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum). Biological Conservation 142:2881–2885.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
12. 1. Cornwall A.

    2002. Making spaces, changing places: Situating participation in development. IDS Working Paper 170. Brighton: IDS.
13. 1. Cornwall A.,
    2. Gaventa J.

    2001. Bridging the gap: Citizenship, participation and accountability. PLA Notes 40:32–35.

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Davis A.,
    2. Wagner J.R.

    2003. Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 31:463–489.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
15. 1. Estrella M.

    2000. Learning from change. Pages 1–14 in Estrella M. (ed), Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
16. 1. Estrella M.,
    2. Gaventa J.

    1998. Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A literature review. IDS Working Paper 70. Brighton: IDS.
17. 1. Ezcurra E.,
    2. Mazari-Hiriart M.,
    3. Pisanty I.,
    4. Aguilar A.G.

    2006. La Cuenca de México. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
18. 1. Fairhead J.,
    2. Leach M.

    2003. Science, Society and Power: Environmental Knowledge and Policy in West Africa and the Caribbean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. 1. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

    . 2009. Participation: Sharing our resources. Informal Working Group on Participatory Approaches. www.fao.org/participation/
20. 1. Fraser E.D.G.,
    2. Dougill A.J.,
    3. Mabee W.E.,
    4. Reed M.,
    5. McAlpine P.

    2006. Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 78:114–127.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 1. Gann G.D.,
    2. Lamb D.

    , eds. 2006. Ecological Restoration: A Means of Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Livelihoods, vers. 1.1. Tucson AZ: Society for Ecological Restoration International. www.ser.org/pdf/Global_Rationale.pdf
22. 1. Gobster P.H.

    2001. Visions of nature: Conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 56:35–51.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
23. 1. Gottret M.V.,
    2. White D.

    2001. Assessing the impact of integrated natural resource management: Challenges and experiences. Conservation Ecology 5(2):17. www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art17/

    OpenUrl
24. 1. Guijt I.,
    2. Gaventa J.

    1998. Participatory monitoring and evaluation: Learning from change. IDS Policy Briefing 12. Brighton: IDS.
25. 1. Higgs E.

    2005. The two culture problem: Ecological restoration and the integration of knowledge. Restoration Ecology 13:159–164.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
26. 1. Hildyard N.,
    2. Hegde P.,
    3. Wolvekamp P.,
    4. Reddy S.

    2001. Pluralism, participation and power: Joint forest management in India. Pages 56–71 in Cooke B., Kothari U. (eds), Participation: The New Tyranny? New York: Zed Books.
27. 1. Jeanrenaud S.

    2002. People-Oriented Approaches in Global Conservation: Is the Leopard Changing its Spots? London: IIED. www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/9134IIED.pdf
28. 1. Jiménez J.J.,
    2. Rojas Rabiela T.,
    3. del Amo S.,
    4. Gómez Pompa A.

    1995. Conclusiones y recomendaciones del taller. Pages 19–43 in Rojas Rabiela T. (ed), Presente, Pasado y Futuro de las Chinampas. Mexico City: CIESAS.
29. 1. Kapoor I.

    2001. Towards participatory environmental management? Journal of Environmental Management 63:269–279.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 1. Kothari U.

    2001. Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. Pages 139–152 in Cooke B., Kothari U. (eds), Participation: The New Tyranny? New York: Zed Books.
31. 1. Leach M.,
    2. Mearns R.,
    3. Scoones I.

    1999. Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development 27:225–247.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
32. 1. Martin A.,
    2. Sherington J.

    1997. Participatory research methods—Implementation, effectiveness and institutional context. Agricultural Systems 5:195–216.

    OpenUrl
33. 1. Mazari-Hiriart M.,
    2. Cruz-Bello G.,
    3. Bojórquez-Tapia L.A.,
    4. Juárez-Marusich L.,
    5. Alcantar-López G.,
    6. et al.

    2006. Groundwater vulnerability assessment for organic compounds: Fuzzy multicriteria approach for Mexico City. Environmental Assessment 37:410–421.

    OpenUrl
34. 1. McDuff M.

    2001. Building capacity of grassroots conservation organizations to conduct participatory evaluation. Environmental Management 27:715–727.

    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
35. 1. McNeely J.A.

    1997. Biodiversity and Sustainable Use: Creating Partnerships with the Private Sector, NGOs and Local Communities to Support Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
36. 1. Mosse D.

    2001. ‘People’s knowledge,’ participation and patronage: Operations and representations in rural development. Pages 16–35 in Cooke B., Kothari U. (eds), Participation: The New Tyranny? New York: Zed Books.
37. 1. New Economics Foundation (NEF)

    . 1998. Communities Count! A Step by Step Guide to Community Sustainability Indicators. London: NEF.
38. 1. Peet R.,
    2. Watts M.

    1996. Liberation ecologies: Development, sustainability, and environment in an age of market triumphalism. Pages 1–45 in Peet R., Watts M. (eds), Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. London: Routledge.
39. 1. Robson C.

    2000. Small-Scale Evaluation: Principles and Practice. London: Sage Publications.
40. 1. Rojas Rabiela T.

    1995. Las chinampas del Valle de México. Pages 53–70 in Rojas Rabiela T. (ed), Presente, Pasado y Futuro de las Chinampas. Mexico City: CIESAS.
41. 1. Solís C.,
    2. Sandoval J.,
    3. Pérez-Vega H.,
    4. Mazari-Hiriart M.

    2006. Irrigation water quality in southern Mexico City based on bacterial and heavy metal analyses. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 249:592–595.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
42. 1. Taylor P.,
    2. Deak A.,
    3. Petit J.,
    4. Vogel I.

    2006. Learning for Social Change: Exploring Concepts, Methods and Practice. Brighton: IDS.
43. 1. Tyler S.R.

    2006. Comanagement of Natural Resources: Local Learning for Poverty Reduction. Ottawa: IDRC.
44. 1. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

    . 2006. Xochimilco: Un Proceso de Gestión Participativa. Mexico City: UNESCO.
45. 1. Wilken G.C.

    1995. ¿Por qué persisten las chinampas? Características esenciales de un sistema sostenible. Pages 73–75 in Rojas Rabiela T. (ed), Presente, Pasado y Futuro de las Chinampas. Mexico City: CIESAS.
46. 1. Zambrano L.,
    2. Valiente E.

    2008. Mitigación del impacto de las especies introducidas en la zona lacustre de Xochimilco. Final report of project activities. Mexico City: Restoration Ecology Laboratory, UNAM.
47. 1. Zambrano L.,
    2. Vega E.,
    3. Herrera L.G.,
    4. Prado E.,
    5. Reynoso V.H.

    2007. A population matrix model and population viability analysis to predict the fate of endangered species in highly managed water systems. Animal Conservation 10:297–303.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science