Mapping solid waste governance modes in a Mexican municipality

ABSTRACT

Human decisions and modes of organization can be analyzed according to their rationale, which can be based on hierarchies, markets, or networks. This classification is known as governance modes. This article addresses municipal solid waste (MSW) governance inside and outside protected areas based on the Sepultura Biosphere Reserve (REBISE) case in Chiapas, Mexico. We conducted semi-structured interviews and a content analysis of laws and municipal regulations to identify the stakeholders and institutions that operate at community and municipal levels. Our research is a first effort to analyze the modes of MSW governance and offers a spatially explicit classification to reveal the spatial differences in how MSW is governed. The populations close to the capital city and the main roads have a multiplicity of mechanisms and modes of MSW governance, which contrasts with distant communities located within the REBISE. This work illustrates the gaps where municipal authorities are unable to fulfill their obligations and the potential of market and collaborative mechanisms. Characterizing governance modes through spatially explicit thematic maps reveals the interactions between stakeholders and formal and informal institutions, which could contribute to territorial planning toward more effective MSW governance.

Summary

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) governance is a social process in which people or organizations (governmental or non-governmental stakeholders) make agreements (formal or informal institutions) about MSW. This process can occur under different contexts, for example, at local, municipal, state or federal scales. The possible interactions between the different types of stakeholders and institutions generate governance structures specific to a social context and historical process (hierarchical structure, markets, networks or hybrids). The identification of these governance structures, through the identification of stakeholders and institutions, allows us to understand internal logics and, therefore, points of improvement in governance. In this research we identify these structures in a Mexican municipality, with the help of maps, in order to present spatially explicit MSW governance information. We succeeded in mapping the hierarchical and market mode at the local and municipal level, and the way in which they interact.

KEYWORDS:

• institutional analysis
• protected areas
• hybrid governance systems
• sustainability
• rural area

Introduction

The increasing volume of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated is a growing global issue adversely affecting human health and the environment (UNEP, 2015). The World Bank estimated 2.01 billion tons of MSW generated worldwide in 2016; this figure would reach 3.40 billion tonnes by 2050 (Silpa et al., 2018). Municipalities are the jurisdictional level responsible for MSW management, mainly focused on collection and treatment (Karak et al., 2012). However, municipalities often face financial and infrastructure constraints that hinder them from providing regular service within their territory (UN-HABITAT, 2015). MSW collection services are usually available mostly in the municipal capital, its surrounding areas, and other urban zones, leaving rural localities either poorly served or completely unattended (Olay-Romero et al., 2020). Moreover, the available information on MSW management is scarce, based on estimates, and limited to urban areas (Turcott Cervantes et al., 2021). Unequal access to municipal collection services creates spatial differences in the MSW management scheme and environmental governance (Hilburn, 2015). Inadequate MSW management can adversely affect rivers, watersheds, refuges, and conservation areas.

This research focused on MSW management in Villaflores, a municipality in Chiapas, Mexico, that comprises part of the La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve (REBISE, for its acronym in Spanish). Through content analysis of official documents (laws, regulations), interviews with key stakeholders, and field visits to the most populated localities, we addressed the question: What solid waste governance modes operate across this Mexican municipality? This study aims to describe MSW governance modes at local (indigenous communities and ejidos) and municipal levels by identifying stakeholders and institutions. Besides, this study offers a typology of governance modes by employing maps to summarize the interactions between stakeholders and infrastructures that lead to different solid waste (SW) governance modes. In theory, we expect to find hierarchical, network, and market structures, in addition to their interactions in the territory. Besides contributing to the analysis of the Mexican MSW governance at a low jurisdictional level, this study is, to our knowledge, one of the first to conduct an explicit spatial classification of governance modes for MSW.

Spatially explicit governance of rural MSW

Governance is the process of designing, implementing, interpreting, and adjusting institutions (Seyle & King, 2014). Institutions are understood as those rules (laws, standards, agreements) that govern the behavior of individuals (Pahl-Wostl, 2009), also called actors (Seyle & King, 2014). The term refers to an alternative model to the monopoly power exercised by the state where collective actions are carried out and in which the different levels of government and civil society interact through complex relationships (Keping, 2018). In this study, we define MSW governance as the interaction between the stakeholders making decisions about MSW, the rules that guide these decisions, the organizational structures formed, and how such decisions impact MSW management. Management encompasses all the actions taken to meet specific objectives, whereas governance refers to those who decide on these, the aims, and the means to achieve them (Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015). MSW governance is a dynamic social process in which formal and informal actors and institutions interact, giving rise to different forms of organization (Jiménez-Martínez, 2018). Such interactions can occur at different scales and levels. The scale is the dimension in which the phenomenon is measured and studied (spatial, temporal, quantitative, analytical, jurisdictional, institutional, networks, management, and knowledge). At the same time, the level—the unit of analysis—describes the phenomenon according to the different positions on the scale; for example, the levels of the jurisdictional scale can be the state, the province, or the municipality (Termeer et al., 2010).

According to Alemie et al. (2015), governance and, more specifically, land governance comprises all activities that occur in social and spatial dimensions. The social dimension includes human actions derived from interactions with the land, while the spatial dimension refers to the physical space where social processes occur (Alemie et al., 2015). Governance is different in urban and rural contexts; in rural areas, the self-organization of the actors differs from the ‘top-down’ logic that prevails in urban contexts. Instead, a combination of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ with the participation of multiple actors and a problem-oriented perspective should target efficient rural spatial governance through controlling rural spatial structures, spatial organization systems, and spatial ownership relationships (Ge & Lu, 2021). However, governance structures are commonly analyzed out of spatial contexts, limited to case studies instead of larger areas (Shkaruba & Kireyeu, 2013). Maps are a tool and an alternative for governance studies in the territory that allows for identifying inconsistent spatial planning, discontinuous space development patterns, and unsustainable space utilization (Ge & Lu, 2021).

Geographic Information System (GIS) and Remote Sensing (RS) data are typically used in different aspects of MSW management, such as landfill regionalization, route optimization models, and network analysis datasets in GIS (Karimi et al., 2022). We found several studies that address MSW governance at different levels, including countries (Dolla & Laishram, 2020; Dolla et al., 2021), states (Aguilar Vera et al., 2019), municipalities (Silvestre et al., 2022; Villalba Ferreira et al., 2020), cities (Arantes et al., 2020; Lee-Geiller & Kütting, 2021), and localities (Delgado Eraso et al., 2021; Fichtel & Duram, 2022; Mukherjee Basu & Punjabi, 2020; Serge Kubanza et al., 2022; Ufua et al., 2020). However, studies addressing MSW governance through spatially explicit analyses are virtually nonexistent, except for two studies. In one of them, Turcott Cervantes et al. (2021) used indicators related to actors, institutions (legislation), and economic aspects in cartographic maps as a tool to summarize and display governance performance in Mexican municipalities (regional level). They found a correlation between the development of waste management institutions and their effective functioning, as well as the widespread presence of the informal sector. In the other study, Aguilar Vera et al. (2019) constructed a connectivity map between the actors involved in waste collection and treatment/valuation companies in the State of Mexico, finding an absence of patterns that optimize their interrelationship. However, we did not find studies on MSW spatial governance in rural areas addressing governance modes from a spatially explicit perspective.

MSW governance modes

The typology of governance modes is a theoretical conceptualization that classifies governance into analytical categories (Pahl-Wostl, 2015, 2019). Identifying such structures is especially relevant for recognizing governance forms, internal approaches, and potential conflicts (Bednar & Henstra, 2018). Governance modes can be classified into hierarchical (top-down), market-based (ruled by economic incentives), and network-based (collaborative), each operating under a different logic (Table 1) (Pahl-Wostl, 2015). In the hierarchical mode, regulatory processes are mainly carried out by formal institutions and governmental actors (Pahl-Wostl, 2015), led by the authority, and its power lies in the rank of a formal hierarchy (Pahl-Wostl, 2019): the higher up the hierarchy, the greater the power. It is governed by a command-control approach. For its part, the market mode is shaped by formal and informal institutions and non-state actors; it is governed by economic incentives, and its power lies in wealth and access to material resources (Pahl-Wostl, 2019). It is based on prices, incentives, and economic interests, and manages MSW as a resource (Hettiarachchi et al., 2018). The third category, the network mode, is shaped by informal institutions and state and non-state actors (Pahl-Wostl, 2009) and is steered through trust and voluntary agreements; its power derives from the role played in the network (Pahl-Wostl, 2019). In the network mode, the government interacts as a partner with other actors through an interdependent relationship based on trust where network actors belong to a group, co-produce knowledge, and share it; its structure is more flexible than the one of the hierarchical mode (Pahl-Wostl, 2015).

Table 1. Differences between governance modes

	Hierarchical	Network-based	Market-based
Institutions ^[1]	Formal^[2]	Informal^[3]	Formal/Informal
Main stakeholders (actors)	Governmental	Governmental/Non-governmental	Non-governmental
Dominant stakeholder	Government	Civil society organizations	Businesses—companies
Decisions of stakeholder	Controlled by written rules	Free, ruled by trust and reciprocity	Free, ruled by price and negotiation
Cause for subordination	Fear of punishment	Belonging to a group	Material benefit
Role of government	Government rules society	Government is a partner in a network society	Government delivers services to society
Origin of power	Position in the formal hierarchy	Centrality of the role in network	Degree of wealth, market quota
Steering	Authority	Trust	Price, economic incentives
Role of knowledge	Expertise for effective ruling	Knowledge as a shared asset	Knowledge for competitive advantage

Source: Adapted from(Pahl-Wostl 2015a, Pahl-Wostl, 2019) [1] Institutions: system of formal and informal rules that govern the behavior of individuals (North 1990; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). [2] Formal institution: Institution linked to official channels of the government bureaucracy that sets compliance mechanisms through third parties (Ulloa 2016) and imposes legal sanctions for non-compliance (; Pahl-Wostl 2015), such as laws, regulations, official standards, decrees, etc. [3] Informal institutions: shared, unwritten social rules that are created, communicated, and reinforced outside official channels (Pahl-Wostl, 2015).

In practice, however, these theoretical categories are rarely found in a pure form; instead, hybrid forms resulting from the interaction and combination of attributes of the (theoretical) governance modes are commonly observed (Pahl-Wostl, 2019). Such hybrid forms can maximize synergies and reduce potential conflicts between modes, mutually complementing their strengths and mitigating their shortcomings (Pahl-Wostl, 2015). We propose three forms of interaction between governance modes: hierarchical-market, hierarchical-network, and market-network modes.

The governance modes and their interactions can contribute to generating a spatially explicit classification (Shkaruba & Kireyeu, 2013) that would add to what has already been described for urban (Jiménez-Martínez, 2018) and rural areas (Hilburn, 2015) in Mexico. Given the unequal context of MSW management, the spatial analysis of MSW governance at the local and municipal levels would help identify inadequate management or lack of organization and resources. Mapping governance modes would help summarize their complexity, identify differences, similarities, and management opportunities in the territory, and contribute to better understanding the interactions within a context—with characteristics typical of Mexican municipalities—where rural, semi-urban, urban, and protected areas converge.

MSW in the municipality of Villaflores, Mexico

With a total surface area of 1907.9 km² (Figure 1), Villaflores is the tenth most populated (109,536 inhabitants) of the 124 municipalities in the State of Chiapas (INEGI, 2020b); 72.94 % of its population lives in a situation of Multidimensional Poverty (CEIEG, 2015) and produces 2.5 % of the total amount of MSW collected in the State (INEGI, 2018). In 2017, approximately 110 tons of MSW were collected daily in the municipality of Villaflores; 77 % (84.7 tons) came from the municipal capital (INEGI, 2018). In 2021, 80 tons were recorded (INEGI, 2021). Some ejidos lack infrastructure, collection services, and final disposal facilities. In addition, backyard waste landfilling, burning, and waste disposal in open dumps along road margins, streams, or on barren land are common (Alvarado Centeno, 2010).

Figure 1. Study area. Information-sources: La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve (CONANP, 2020), municipal political division (INEGI, 2020a), roads (INEGI, 2018) and Agrarian nuclei (RAN, 2019).

As of 2020, 92 % of the population (101,005 inhabitants) in Villaflores is distributed in 62 localities with more than 100 inhabitants (Figure 1) (CEIEG, 2020), 37 of which are ejidos. The average number of occupants per household is 3.8 in these localities (INEGI, 2020b). According to the National Agrarian Registry (RAN), approximately 43 % of the municipal surface area is communally owned as ejido land (838 km²) distributed in 74 certified agrarian nuclei (RAN, 2019). To note, in addition to public and private land ownership, social property (ejido land and land owned by indigenous communities) is legally recognized in Mexico (CEDRSSA, 2015) by the 1915 Agrarian Law and the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (Glenn, 2008). As per the Agrarian Law, ejidos have legal personality and patrimony, and own the land either granted or acquired by any other means. Ejidos operate following their internal regulations, as registered in the RAN, which sets the basis of the economic and social organization. Each ejido has three governing bodies: the Assembly, the ejido commissariat, and the monitoring committee. Another ejido authority is the municipal agency, a decentralized body of the municipal public administration formed by the municipal agent, its deputy, a secretary, a treasurer, police officers, and corporals. Both authorities—the ejido commissariat and the municipal agency—are autonomous but governed by the decisions made by the ejido assembly.

Among the 62 most populated localities in the municipality, 17 are located within La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve (REBISE, for its acronym in Spanish) (Figure 1). The REBISE comprises 26.9 % of the total municipal area (INEGI, 2020a). Founded in 1995, it is a federal instrument of sustainable regional development that aims to conserve and protect natural resources (CONANP, 1999). The REBISE Management Program established as medium- and long-term objectives the characterization, management, and final disposal of non-hazardous SW and the promotion of the design, establishment, regulation, and operation of final disposal sites (sanitary landfills) within its territory (CONANP, 1999). In 2011, MSW management actions were implemented by REBISE in some localities; however, the program was abandoned (Figueroa Sánchez & Cruz-Morales, 2019). In the localities within the REBISE, although the municipality is responsible for MSW management, the REBISE is a federal actor bound to participate in decision-making; although collective work would be expected given its responsibilities over the territory, this does not occur.

Materials and methods

Governance modes were characterized at the local—municipal capital, ejidos, and localities—and municipal levels. Content analyses of interviews and official documents were combined with thematic maps, which provided a municipal geographic synthesis. Each step of the methodology: Information Sources, Content Analysis, and Mapping Governance Modes is outlined in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Methodology. *In individual management there is no group or ejido consensus and we consider it as a form of management and not a governance mode, however, we integrate it as a representation of all the localities without ejidal or municipal governance ** the absence of market-based stakeholders is due to the inaccessibility or remoteness of the location.

Information sources

Seventy-six semi-structured interviews were conducted between March 2019 and February 2020. Fifteen interviews were held in the municipal capital and 60 in 49 rural and urban localities (fieldwork in 50 localities, equivalent to 90 % of the population in the municipality; Figure 1, Appendix 1). One key player of the MSW collection service who operates from the State capital (Tuxtla Gutiérrez City) was also interviewed. Informed consent was requested and obtained from all interviewees. To this end, we used the non-probabilistic snowball sampling method (Otzen & Manterola, 2017; Palinkas et al., 2015; Patton, 2015).

Non-probability samples select typical cases without these being representative of a population. The data cannot be generalized because the standard error cannot be accurately calculated and only describes the sample (Sampieri & Torres, 2018). Snowball sampling, a non-probability type of sample, is widely used in community studies; however, in large populations, not all persons have the same probability of being included because people who are well-known have a better chance of being named (Russell Bernard, 2006). Nevertheless, it allows for an in-depth study of the unit of analysis, making it possible to understand the behavior of the variables (Sampieri & Torres, 2018). The main value of snowball sampling lies in obtaining respondents where they are few in number or where some degree of trust is required to initiate contact (Atkinson & Flint, 2001).

The selection of interviewees targeted relevant social actors with specific characteristics regarding the decision-making process about MSW in their locality or workplace. These included local authorities (municipal, ejido commissariats, and municipal agents), businessmen, garbage scavengers, headmasters of public schools, and citizens. The identification of the sample started in the municipal capital. In the first field trip, the Directorate of Public Services provided the localities covered by the municipal collection route. This information was corroborated, and the names of the local authorities were obtained through interviews with public transport drivers, local inhabitants, and people in the San Juan market at the municipal capital. Non-governmental actors in the market mode were identified through waste collectors in the main streets of the city, who listed the local companies where they sold their waste. In subsequent field trips, key actors were identified in each locality, starting by the local authorities and then by searching for those non-governmental actors mentioned in interviews.

The municipal regulatory framework (i.e. laws and regulations) related to MSW management was reviewed to identify the relevant governmental players and formal institutions that make up the municipal hierarchy (hierarchical mode).

Content analysis

A qualitative content analysis of interviews and official documents followed abductive reasoning: ideas, hypotheses, and conjectures were formulated from empirical data by interpreting perceptions and ideas (Reichertz, 2014). The qualitative content analysis consists of encoding and categorizing trends found in texts, which are then translated into models and concept maps (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). This analysis is commonly used to identify key interview topics (Baxter, 2020). In this case, it was used to identify stakeholders and institutions at a local level (ejidos and communities) and local governance modes, aiming to create a typology of MSW governance modes at the municipal level. A word count (frequency) was first performed to identify the main concepts mentioned in interviews. Then, the encoding process was carried out using the Atlas.ti 7.5.4 software. An initial encoding cycle was based on the theoretical concepts (deductive codes) described in Table 1 and the inductive codes that emerged from interviews. The codes were then reduced in the second encoding cycle by grouping them according to each governance mode; this allowed describing the organizational structures that operate at each level (see the subsections under Results below).

Mapping governance modes

The information collected through interviews was used to characterize each locality in terms of presence/absence of infrastructure (sanitary landfills, ejido dumpsites) and stakeholders (municipal collection services, itinerant buyers of scrap metal, local collection businesses, local door-to-door collectors, garbage scavengers) and programs (e.g. ECORETO is a non-governmental program for gathering, collecting, and recycling containers and packaging material). A data matrix was performed with the information above.

A municipal base map was constructed using geographic information layers from REBISE (CONANP, 2020), localities, the municipal political division (INEGI, 2020a), roads (INEGI, 2018), and certified agrarian nuclei (RAN, 2019). This information was used to construct thematic maps of MSW governance modes using Arc Gis 10.2.1.

The hierarchical-based mode was determined according to the presence/absence of ejido dumpsites (ejido MSW management) and municipal collection services (municipal MSW management). Study localities were grouped according to their similarities. Network-based modes were described along with the ejido hierarchical mode, although it was not explicitly mapped. The market-based mode was determined based on the number of market-based stakeholders per locality. Then, both categories were spatially overlayed to identify hybrid governance systems (Figure 2).

Results

The central concepts expressed in interviews are represented in a word cloud graph (Figure 3). Subsequently, hierarchical, network-based, and hybrid governance modes are described.

Figure 3. Hierarchical mode: state infrastructure and collection services for urban solid waste management in Villaflores municipality, Chiapas.

Hierarchy-based modes of MSW governance

The government authorities in MSW governance are the ejido commissariat and the municipal agency. The ejido commissariat coordinates actions for cleaning public areas with the Committee of Public Health (formed by citizens appointed by the Assembly) and the Public Healthcare Center, made up of healthcare personnel. The municipal agent monitors compliance with agreements and imposes penalties as applicable. The ejido is the lowest level of the jurisdictional hierarchy; power is concentrated in the ejido Assembly, and, at the same time, the legal standing of ejidos makes them part of the governmental organization, subordinating them to the municipal authority. The Assembly is constituted of ejido members who convene monthly to collectively address conflicts and formulate the ejido schedule of activities based on common interests. Ejidos can establish the location of their landfills following an Assembly decision, provided a suitable site is available. A Mexican official standard (NOM-083-SEMARNAT-2003) classifies ejido landfill sites as Type D because they receive less than ten tons per day. Currently, 18 active ejido landfills in the Villaflores municipality function as open dumps (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Hierarchical mode: state infrastructure and collection services for urban solid waste management in Villaflores municipality, Chiapas.

The municipal authority conducts collection operations in the capital city and the most populated towns, disposing of MSW in the municipal sanitary landfill. The municipal authority leads the hierarchical governance of MSW through ‘top-down’ decisions, interacting with ejido authorities within its jurisdiction. Requests from ejido authorities about public cleaning or waste collection are administered based on resource availability. The ‘Regulatory Law and Mandate of Police and Good Government’ (Ayuntamiento Municipal Constitucional, 2008) states that municipal public services comprise public waste cleaning and collection, transportation, and final disposal of waste from public and common areas. The responsibility lies in the office of the Directorate of Public Services in the Villaflores City area. Public cleaning and waste collection services are provided in the city and 18 other localities, covering approximately 90 % of the total population (Figure 4). The average amount of MSW collected ranges from 80 to 90 tons per day.

Depending on whether public cleaning service is/is not provided by the municipality and the availability or lack of an ejido landfill in each locality, four local governance modes were identified: 1) ‘Municipal collection services only’, ejidos or localities that rely solely on municipal collection services; 2) ‘Ejido dumpsite site only’, ejidos that rely exclusively on their own landfill sites; 3) ‘Combined’, ejidos with access to municipal collection services plus an ejido landfill site; and 4) ‘Individual management’, ejidos that have neither access to municipal collection services nor an ejido landfill site and refers to household-level management or the ‘house-lot model’ (Hilburn, 2015). In the latter type of management, waste generation is not estimated, there is neither waste collection nor transfer, and waste treatment is by open burning in ’household backyards (Table 2). Of the 50 localities, 12 correspond to the ‘Municipal collection services only’ group within the REBISE. the ‘Ejido dumpsite only’ group includes 8 localities, 5 outside and 3 within the REBISE. In the ‘Combined’ group, all 10 localities are outside the REBISE. Finally, the largest group, ‘Individual management’, comprises 20 localities, 7 outside and 13 within the REBISE (Table 2).

Table 2. Differences between MSW local governance modes, management and number of ejidos (for more details see Figure 3)

	Stakeholders and institutions			Localities (municipal capital and ejidos)
	Formal actors	Formal institutions	Informal Institutions	Outside REBISE	Within REBISE
Municipal collection service only	Municipal collection services	Regulatory law^[1] [2]	Schedule collection dates	12	0
	Ejido commissariats	—	Communication through a public loudspeaker system
Ejido dumpsite only	Ejido commissariats	Assembly agreements: 1) ejido landfill site as the only final disposal site 2) Fines	—	5	3
	Ejido Public health commissions
Combined	Municipal collection services	Regulatory law^[1] [2]	Citizens might temporarily store MSW in their household waiting for Municipal collection services or dispose of them in the ejido landfill site	10	0
	Ejido commissariats	Assembly agreements
Individual management (Hilburn, 2015)	Citizens	—	—	7	13

[1] 2008 Regulatory Law and Mandate of Police and Good Government of the Villaflores Municipality(Constitucional 2008). [2] 2008 Regulation of cleaning, collection, treatment and final disposal of waste for the municipality of Villaflores, Chiapas (General Secretary of Government 2021a). [3] informal sector of Market-based Mode.

Network-based modes of MSW governance

Network-based governance modes in MSW are identified in the waste collection campaign (‘descacharrización’)—an important ejido activity. The health sector promotes collecting and removing garbage from yards and fumigating to prevent the spread of dengue fever. Some ejido authorities organize their work coordinately through networks, by phone or in person, to share experiences in MSW management and strategies for collaboration with municipal authorities. Sometimes, the municipal authority provides fuel or collection trucks in response to ejido requests to transport MSW to ejido or municipal landfills.

Another network identified concerns the sale of MSW and includes the municipal government (municipal hierarchical mode), a local waste collection company (market mode, formal sector), and landfill scavengers (market mode, informal sector). However, this may not constitute a network since there are very strong power relations. The government vertically establishes agreements that affect the network with no prior consultation. This was evident when the municipal authority mandated that waste collectors stop selling waste to the major bidder, thus imposing the exclusive sale to a local company.

Market-based mode: trading MSW

Non-governmental stakeholders involved in the trade of MSW vary depending on the locality. They include (1) itinerant buyers of metal scrap, (2) local collection businesses, (3) local door-to-door collectors, (4) scavengers on city streets, (5) scavengers working at the municipal landfill site, and (6) the ECORETO Program. Four of these stakeholders can be found in the municipal capital, but only itinerant buyers of metal scrap operate across the municipality and are the only stakeholders in 34 out of 50 localities (68 % of total localities) (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Market-based mode: stakeholders involved in MSW trade in the Villaflores municipality.

Both types of scavengers usually include several family members and can be found in Villaflores City. Scavengers operating at the city center collect waste from the early morning (06:00 hrs) until noon and do not follow fixed collection routes. They walk the streets probing MSW left by citizens before the municipal garbage truck does. Recyclable materials are collected and transported in tricycles to collection businesses. Some nine or ten non-unionized scavengers operate in this way.

Scavengers work in the municipal landfill site from 08:00 am to 06:00 pm. They hold permits issued by the Municipal Presidency since 15 years ago that grant them access to the facilities. Eight scavengers work in areas specifically assigned to them in the landfill site, where a shed stores recyclable materials.

Five recycling businesses—formally established waste collectors—operate in the municipal capital. Although these businesses receive the same type of material, they have specialized into two groups: on the one hand, those whose main business includes PET, cardboard, and office paper; on the other, scrap yards mainly focused on metal. These businesses keep trade relationships with scavengers, local businesses, municipal workers, and private individuals and can even schedule visits to nearby towns to buy recyclables. A single company holds formal contracts with local companies in the municipal capital and agreements with schools and the municipal presidency for collecting recyclable waste. Some businesses keep direct trade relationships with waste-processing companies based in the States of Veracruz, Puebla, or Mexico City or intermediary companies based in Tuxtla Gutiérrez (capital city of Chiapas). Estimates provided by the five local businesses indicate that they jointly collect approximately 156 tons of recyclable MSW per month.

Itinerant buyers of metal scrap, using 1-ton trucks, regularly visit urban or rural localities to buy ferrous waste (iron and aluminum), which has a higher price that covers transportation costs. The frequency of such visits depends on the proximity to their operation facilities; it may decrease during the rainy season when dirt roads are affected by rains or may be limited to the dry season only. The main suppliers are citizens and schools, but buyers also establish agreements with children, who gather metal scrap from public or private areas of the ejido and deliver it to the collecting vehicle. In exchange, children receive fruit or two Mexican pesos (USD $ 0.059–$ 0.12), which they use to buy sweets in local stores.

Schools participate by collecting and selling valuable waste to earn money while raising environmental awareness among the pupils. Schools include this activity in their work plans, establish direct links with local collection businesses, and use the income to pay for monthly services such as the Internet or join the ECORETO program. This country-wide program is being implemented by the civil society ECOCE A.C. to collect recyclable plastics, tinplate, and aluminum waste through the participation of elementary, middle, and high schools. At the end of the school year, the school receives a bank card with the payment, which can be used in supermarkets to buy cleaning supplies or stationery. ECORETO trucks collect some 5 tons per route/week (20 tons per truck/month). Recyclables are delivered to a recycling company based in Tuxtla Gutiérrez, the State capital.

Local door-to-door collectors are individuals who collect MSW at the ejido level and transport them using either motorized units or tricycles (Figure 5). Four collectors provide this service across the third most populated ejido in the municipality in exchange for a small tip (three to five Mexican pesos, USD $ 0.18–$ 0.29). Door-to-door collectors run up to five daily trips, collecting up to 150 kg of MSW. Collectors maintain communication with the municipal agent, who monitors that MSW is not dumped in unauthorized sites.

Hybrid governance systems

Governance modes in the municipality converge at the ejido level, creating hybrid governance systems at the local level. Four different systems were identified in the municipality, represented as groups of localities: 1) Hierarchical (municipal) + Market, 2) Hierarchical (ejido) + Market, 3) Hierarchical (municipal + ejido) + Market, and 4) Individual management + Market (Figure 6). Localities within each group share a similar local organization for ejido management: municipal collection services only, ejido landfill site only, a mixture of both, and individual management, with a different number of stakeholders (none to five) involved in MSW trade in the locality.

Figure 6. Hybrid governance systems in the Villaflores municipality.

Localities in the first system—Hierarchical (municipal) + Market, corresponding to municipal collection services only—can be further subdivided into three subgroups. The first subgroup includes six localities where a single actor related to MSW trade is present; two actors are present in five localities, and five actors are present in a single location. All these localities are near the municipal capital or along paved roads, and none is within the REBISE. This group stands out for having the municipal authority, responsible for MSW management, as the leading government stakeholder, along with various non-governmental stakeholders.

In the Hierarchical (ejido) + Market mode, corresponding to ejido landfill site only, three subgroups can be identified. The first comprises one locality where no actors are present; the second includes five localities with one stakeholder each and 2 with two actors present. All these localities are far from the municipal capital, and those within the REBISE are located along a paved road. This group stands out for the absence of the municipal authority as the main government stakeholder; instead, the ejido authority and a couple of non-governmental stakeholders assume the leadership.

Localities in the Hierarchical (municipal + ejido) + Market mode, corresponding to the Combined service, can be subdivided into four subgroups: three localities with a single actor, five with two actors, one with three actors, and one with four actors; none of those are located within the REBISE. In this case, the municipal and ejido authorities are the leading governmental stakeholders and actively make decisions on MSW; in these localities, a varied group of non-governmental stakeholders are also present.

Finally, the Individual management + Market mode includes 20 localities with individual management and makes a group with a single actor. Twelve of those are located within the REBISE and eight outside it. These localities stand out for the absence of the municipal authority and the ejido organization; instead, management is individual and the only non-governmental stakeholders present are metal scrap itinerant buyers.

Discussion

Governance structures are rarely examined within a spatially explicit context that allows defining a region or system or its local context and interactions, thus making it difficult to identify, visualize, and analyze the configuration of landscapes (Shkaruba & Kireyeu, 2013). MSW governance goes beyond urban areas associated with municipal capitals and localities with large populations; it also includes rural localities with their organization systems, hence the importance of examining MSW differentiating between rural, semi-urban, or urban contexts. By characterizing the stakeholders and the scope of their roles (MSW collection system, MSW trade system, and local agreements), we were able to conduct a spatial characterization of MSW governance modes at the municipal level.

For the hierarchical governance of MSW at the local level, we identified four SW governance modes resulting from the presence or absence of infrastructure (landfill) or services (municipal waste collection). Such differences are evident in ejidos located either within or outside the REBISE. Ejidos within the reserve have no access to municipal collection services and, except for three ejidos, lack an ejido landfill site. The limited options available for REBISE inhabitants highlight the need to implement management plans and programs tailored to the local context. This scenario opens up the possibility of establishing a hybrid hierarchical-network mode between the ejido hierarchical mode (local authority), municipal hierarchical mode (municipal authority), federal hierarchical mode (CONANP), and market mode (ECORETO, local companies), where they could collaborate as a team with each contributing within its capabilities for a better MSW management. However, citizens play a key role in activities related to MSW management in neighborhoods or suburbs (Serge Kubanza et al., 2022) and should be included in decision-making on MSW management.

Localities with individual management or a house-lot model described by Hilburn (2015), where there is no group or ejido consensus, are included in a hierarchical-mode map as a representation of small localities far from the municipal capital and without ejido or municipal governance. Solid waste management takes place only within households but in compliance with a common agreement: keeping private and public spaces ‘clean’. In localities where the lack of participation of governmental and citizen stakeholders leads to inadequate MSW management, informal institutions govern the behavior of individuals in the absence of formal agencies (Ufua et al., 2020). In this case, burning is permitted to control MSW and maintain a visually pleasing space; however, it can be sanctioned if it is carried out without supervision, during the dry season, or if it leads to fires. In practice, none of the localities visited apply sanctions on a regular basis. MSW burning is forbidden only in localities with daily municipal collection services. Non-compliance may lead to fines or social consequences (conflicts among neighbors, discrediting). It should be noted that although MSW burning is common in ejidos, it is prohibited both by municipal regulations (Article 56) (Secretaria General de Gobierno, 2021) and the State Environmental Law Article 239 (Secretaria General de Gobierno, 2018). Moreover, poor MSW incineration or open burning produces dioxins, a type of persistent organic pollutants that contaminate soil and water and bio-accumulate in the food chain (Agamuthu & Narayanan, 2013). Localities where the only MSW treatment consists of backyard burning should be considered in a management plan regardless of their location inside or outside the REBISE.

The hierarchical governance mode implemented by federal, state, and municipal governments underestimates the importance and complexity of the local organization. The ejido level stands out within the Mexican jurisdictional hierarchy for its autonomy, legal support, and importance in decision-making on MSW; it is the level where MSW management decisions are ultimately made. The ejido governance and the organization into ejido commissariats are key decision-making structures at the local level and can contribute to the bottom-up information feedback for public policies on MSW management, particularly within protected areas. According to Jiménez-Martínez , the hierarchical governance of MSW in Mexico based on laws, regulations (formal institutions), and government stakeholders coexists with informal rules, organizations, and structures in a hybrid formal-informal system of institutional interactions. Further exploration of the local governance level would offer opportunities to formulate public policies to strengthen the diversity of MSW management approaches. The market-based governance mode in the REBISE context—represented by itinerant metal-scrap buyers and local collection businesses—is critical for MSW governance and management. The presence of itinerant metal-scrap buyers across the municipality contrasts with the concentration of actors in the municipal capital; while the municipal capital stands out for having the largest number of actors, some ejidos lack market-mode actors. Itinerant metal-scrap buyers are the only means to transfer recoverable waste from ejidos within the reserve to collection centers and input them into a circular model. PET, cardboard, and paper waste are not collected by any other governmental or non-governmental stakeholder. The importance of door-to-door collection by the informal sector is fundamental in waste separation and final disposal; their involvement within the formal economy could promote sustainable waste management in the long term (Fichtel & Duram, 2022).

Although we were able to make a spatially explicit classification of hierarchical and market modes, there are methodological challenges in representing network governance modes. Network governance at the municipal level was difficult to identify because of the short duration of the organizational structures (annual relations between ejido commissaries) and the periodicity and timeliness of the initiatives (biannual ‘descacharrización’). We consider that at a larger scale—regional or statewide —, it will be easier to identify multiple and varied network organizational structures. However, in this case study, the municipality is a livestock area with predominantly rural and peri-urban localities and without large industrial or urban centers. The amount of waste generated in rural or semi-urban areas does not represent an opportunity to establish new waste management actors, which would favor the generation of governance networks. Considering that local organization networks respond to immediate needs related to system collapses or crises (Chen et al., 2019), the municipality is not currently in this situation, given that the rural context and the volume of MSW produce do not yet meet the social conditions for the network mode to be strengthened.

Hybrid governance systems allowed us to identify groups of localities with similar dynamics in the municipality. There is a gradient in the presence of the municipal government as the predominant government stakeholder in MSW management, access to facilities, and the presence of non-governmental stakeholders. According to Griffin (2012), hybridity can have different arrangements depending on the set of stakeholders, institutions, and management who pursue a common goal and whose presence and form are key drivers in achieving good governance objectives. The result of jurisdictional hybridity domains (local, national, or international) may include the interaction of various public governance domains, such as infrastructure and planning, that are relevant to governance practices within a specific governance area, as well as potential conflicts or discrepancies among jurisdictions (Lindqvist, 2013). In this case, the identification of the four hybrid governance systems was based on the infrastructure and services available in the municipality and the presence of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders.

According to Ge and Lu (2021), the primary goal of spatial governance in rural areas is the coordination of ‘government power’, ‘market power’ and ‘social power’ to provide solutions for improving the effectiveness of territorial spatial planning. The novelty in our work lies in employing maps as summaries of the interactions between stakeholders and infrastructure that facilitate the identification of different SW governance modes. Cartography based on qualitative analysis is uncommon (Marx, 2022), yet it demonstrates the importance of societal knowledge and experience as valuable information for researchers and stakeholders; even if this knowledge cannot be extrapolated to other populations or locations, it can be replicated (Wridt, 2010). Turcott Cervantes et al. (2021) offers a regionalization of governance in 66 municipalities located in central Mexico using thirteen governance indicators. His results showed a strong correlation between the development and implementation of local waste management legislation and policies and the proper functioning of other aspects of MSW management. However, the scale used does not allow for analyzing institutional processes, and the governance elements are unclear. Therefore, their identification at the local level is necessary, as was done in our research.

In our work, snowball sampling enabled the identification of non-governmental actors in the market mode (local businesses, waste collectors, ECORETO) in several localities other than the municipal capital. These actors are not registered in government databases, and their identification was possible thanks to fieldwork and the knowledge of interviewees. The systematization of interviews through content analysis, which was subsequently translated into a thematic map of governance modes at the local level, represents an effort to explain the municipal and local territorial dynamics in a summarized way. Our research spatially illustrated the theoretical governance modes, i.e. hierarchical, network-based, and market-based modes (Pahl-Wostl, 2015, 2019). The thematic maps in this study provide information to stakeholders and can be used as a tool for spatial planning and decision-making at municipal and local levels. Also, our results raise new questions related to the interrelationships between stakeholders in the territory; for example, what is the area of influence of each stakeholder? How do stakeholders relate to each other within a governance mode? These interrelations could be visualized in a map of networks representing the spatiotemporal dynamics of the territory.

Finally, although the aim of the present study was not to evaluate the effectiveness of governance modes for MSW management, we suggest that further studies should test the hypothesis that the greater the diversity of stakeholders and institutions, the greater the flexibility and capacity to address and manage issues, which would be then reflected in the effectiveness of SW management and the resilience of the management system. This premise was analyzed by Baird et al. (2019) through a framework of collaborative governance of socio-ecological systems but has not been examined in relation to MSW governance.

Conclusions

The theoretical classification of governance modes was a useful analytical approach. However, as anticipated, we found no pure governance modes but hybrid, combined forms of interactions. Among the three possible forms of interaction between governance modes (hierarchical-market, hierarchical-networks, and market-networks) we were able to translate the first one into a spatial characterization. The hierarchical-market mode was further subdivided according to the jurisdictional scale into two levels: municipal-market hierarchical and ejido-market hierarchical. Beyond the municipal authority, it is crucial to recognize the ejido as the bottom level where Mexican MSW management decisions are ultimately made. Market and network-based MSW governance modes have a major role in MSW within the REBISE; however, it was impossible to map the latter.

Our investigation reveals territorial differences among localities according to the presence or absence of actors and institutions at the local and municipal levels. Hence, governance modes across a municipality can be spatially classified through a typology, allowing the recognition of theoretical governance modes and new forms according to the territorial context. The construction of spatially explicit maps of governance modes can contribute to improving governance systems and research avenues on environmental governance.

Acronyms

CONANP Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas

SW Solid Waste

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

PET Polyethylene terephthalate

RAN National Agrarian Registry

REBISE La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve

Acknowledgements

We thank the ejido commissariats, municipal agents, heads and teachers of public schools, scavengers, itinerant collectors, door-to-door collectors, and local businessmen who selflessly took the time to participate in the interviews and address our inquiries. This study is part of a Ph.D. dissertation in the Postgraduate Program in Ecology and Sustainable Development at ECOSUR and received financial support through a scholarship granted by Mexico’s Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencia y Tecnología (CONAHCyT). María Elena Sánchez-Salazar edited the English manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Figures, tables, and complementary material can be found at: Cruz Paz, Grecia (2022), ‘Mapping modes of solid waste governance in a Mexican municipality’, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/3kmd7j6ggj.1

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by CONAHCYT (Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencia y Tecnología; National Council of Humanities, Science, and Technology) by a traditional grant scholarship 2018-1.

Notes on contributors

Grecia Cruz-Paz

Grecia Cruz-Paz El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Chiapas, México.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Field visit localities and number of interviews per locality

Table

	Locality	Population 2020(INEGI, 2020a)	Within REBISE	Description	Locality type	Interviews	Total number of households	Average number of occupants
1	Villaflores	37546	No	Municipal capital	Urban	15	12904	3.62
2	Jesús María Garza	8050	No	Ejido	Urban	1	2610	3.72
3	Cristóbal Obregón	4996	No	Ejido	Urban	3	1610	3.81
4	Benito Juárez	4343	No	Ejido	Urban	1	1336	3.78
5	Guadalupe Victoria (Lázaro Cárdenas)	4280	No	Ejido	Urban	1	1241	4.03
6	Doctor Domingo Chanona	3355	No	Ejido	Urban	1	1155	3.74
7	Cuauhtémoc	3312	No	Ejido	Urban	1	1105	3.51
8	Villa Hidalgo	2742	No	Ejido	Urban	1	837	3.83
	Average number of 8 urban localities	—					2849.7	3.7
9	Nuevo México	3440	No	Ejido	Rural	1	1195	3.6
10	Joaquín Miguel Gutiérrez	1904	No	Ejido	Rural	1	621	3.64
11	Roblada Grande	1873	No	Ejido	Rural	1	528	4
12	La Sirena	1619	No	Colonia	Rural	1	528	3.8
13	Libertad Melchor Ocampo	1526	No	Ejido	Rural	2	504	3.56
14	Francisco Villa	1380	No	Ejido	Rural	5	439	3.65
15	16 de Septiembre	1293	No	Ejido	Rural	1	371	4
16	Calzada Larga	1191	No	Ejido	Rural	1	416	3.63
17	Agrónomos Mexicanos	1116	No	Ejido	Rural	1	431	3.18
18	Ignacio Zaragoza	1098	No	Ejido	Rural	1	395	3.45
19	Úrsulo Galván	1067	No	Ejido	Rural	1	358	3.59
20	Unión y Progreso	818	No	Ejido	Rural	1	266	3.51
21	Ribera Horizonte	786	No	Localidad	Rural	1	244	3.95
22	Nueva Esperanza	720	No	Fraccionamiento	Rural	1	214	4.04
23	Tenochtitlán	689	No	Ejido	Rural	0	274	3.15
24	Palenque de los Pinos	665	No	Ejido	Rural	1	214	4.03
25	Bicentenario	626	No	Fraccionamiento	Rural	1	211	3.6
26	El Portillo	589	No	Ejido	Rural	1	132	4.87
27	Progreso Agrario	374	No		Rural	1	123	3.53
28	El Carmelo (Ranchería)	372	No	Ranchería	Rural	1	111	4
29	Esfuerzo Campesino Magisterial (Socama)	299	No	Ejido	Rural	1	94	4.53
30	Nueva Palestina	278	No	Ejido	Rural	1	50	5.67
31	Espinal Buenavista	159	No	Ejido	Rural	1	43	4.42
32	El Porvenir	146	No	Localidad	Rural	1	63	3.65
33	San Marcos	128	No	Ejido	Rural	0	48	3.46
34	Hermenegildo Galeana	128	No	Ejido	Rural	1	57	3.46
35	Nuevo Horizonte	103	No	Ejido	Rural	1	29	3.96
36	La Ciénega	52	No		Rural	1	31	3.25
37	Los Ángeles	988	Yes	Ejido	Rural	2	294	3.81
38	Tierra y Libertad	800	Yes	Ejido	Rural	1	224	4.15
39	Villahermosa	661	Yes	Ejido	Rural	2	219	4.44
40	Tres Picos	518	Yes	Ejido	Rural	1	149	4.47
41	Ricardo Flores Magón	511	Yes	Ejido	Rural	1	149	3.99
42	Heriberto Jara	370	Yes	Ejido	Rural	1	107	3.66
43	California	296	Yes	Ejido	Rural	4	94	4.23
44	Josefa Ortiz de Domínguez	271	Yes	Ejido	Rural	1	65	4.67
45	30 de Noviembre	252	Yes	Ejido	Rural	1	63	4.42
46	La Sombra de la Selva	234	Yes	Ejido	Rural	1	67	4.18
47	Niquidámbar	177	Yes	Ejido	Rural	1	66	3.54
48	Nueva Independencia	147	Yes	Ejido	Rural	1	33	4.90
49	Los Laureles	136	Yes	Ejido	Rural	1	48	3.78
50	Viva Chiapas	114	Yes	Ejido	Rural	2	36	3.68
	Average number of 42 rural localities						228.6	3.9
	Average number of 50 localities	Total = 98538 90% of total Municipality population				Interviews = 75 Total hours= 23.4 Average time by interview = 28.1	648.04	3.9
51	Chiapa de Corzo	NA	No	State capital	Urban	1