ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176

www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Environmental evaluation and development

problems of the Mexican Coastal Zone
L. Ortiz-Lozanoa, A. Granados-Barbab,
V. Solı́s-Weissa,, M.A. Garcı́a-Salgadoc
a
Laboratorio de Ecologı´a Costera, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologı´a (ICMyL) UNAM. Apdo.
Postal 70-305, México, D.F., 04510 México
b
Centro de Ecologı´a y Pesquerı´as, Universidad Veracruzana. Av. Hidalgo # 617, Col. Rı´o Jamapa,
Boca del Rı´o Veracruz, México, CP. 94290, Mexico
c
Parque Nacional Cancún-Punta Nizuc-Isla Mujeres, Blvd. Kukulcán km 4.8 Z.H. Cancún, Quintana Roo,
México. CP. 77500, Mexico

Abstract

The coastal zone is the main source of foreign currency for Mexico so that federal policies
are adjusting to try to improve its conditions. To that end, a large and comprehensive study
was financed by the government to assess the state of knowledge of the water quality of coastal
waters and the environmental status of the whole coastal area in Mexico. Based on the existing
literature found in the most important research institutions of the country, as well as on field
visits to 42 coastal cities from 1996 to 1998, and complemented with interviews of more than
80 persons (‘‘key informants’’) involved in the different key activities of the sites visited, the
main environmental parameters useful to assess water and environmental quality were
selected. All the sites where data existed and in particular the 42 main coastal cities were then
analyzed according to the different categories of stress to which they are subjected and the
degree of damage observed and reported. As a result, an environmental diagnosis of the
Mexican coastal zone is outlined, divided by type of activity. The oil and related petrochemical
industries as well as the big tourist resorts were identified as the largest contributors to the
degradation of the natural ecosystems in the Mexican Coastal Zone.
r 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: leonardo@icmyl.unam.mx (L. Ortiz-Lozano), agranados@uv.mx (A. Granados-
Barba), solisw@mar.icmyl.unam.mx (V. Solı́s-Weiss), mig2010@hotmail.com (M.A. Garcı́a-Salgado).

0964-5691/$ - see front matter r 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.03.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
162 L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176

1. Introduction

Mexico is a country of large biological cultural and socioeconomic contrasts: with

a population of about 100 million people and a total surface of 1,958,201 km2 (of
which 5073 km2 are islands or emerged coral reefs), it is the fifth largest country in
America and the 13th worldwide [1,2]. The country is divided into 32 states of which
17 have coastlines: 11 facing the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of California, five facing the
Gulf of Mexico and one the Caribbean Sea (Fig. 1). The Mexican Coastal Zone
(MCZ) is 11,593 km long, the continental shelf has an approximate surface of
500,000 km2, the estuarine areas cover 16,000 km2 and the coastal lagoons
12,500 km2. The total surface area of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is
2,892,000 km2 [3] (Fig. 1). The MCZ is geomorphologically diversified, with tropical
as well as subtropical and temperate zones. Thus, a large number of different
thriving marine habitats have developed and a large (and often rich) variety of
resources can be found, from sandy and rocky beaches to seagrass beds, mangroves,
coral reefs, estuaries and a large number of coastal lagoons. Tropical habitats
dominate and largely contribute to the high biodiversity (recognized as mega-
diversity worldwide) found in the country. The large offshore oil reserves and the

Fig. 1. Cities visited for this study: 1. Tijuana, 2. Ensenada, 3. San Felipe, 4. Loreto, 5. San Carlos, 6. La
Paz/Pichilingue, 7. Los Cabos, 8. Puerto Peñasco, 9. Bahı́a Kino, 10. Hermosillo, 11. Guaymas, 12. Los
Mochis, 13. Topolobampo, 14. Mazatlán, 15. Puerto Vallarta, 16. Guadalajara, 17. Barra de Navidad/San
Patricio Melaque, 18. Manzanillo, 19. Lázaro Cárdenas, 20. Zihuatanejo, 21. Ixtapa, 22. Acapulco, 23.
Puerto Escondido, 24. Puerto Ángel, 25. Huatulco, 26. Salina Cruz, 27. Tapachula, 28. Puerto Madero, 29.
Altamira, 30. Tampico, 31. Jalapa, 32. Veracruz, 33. Boca del Rı́o, 34. Anton Lizardo, 35. Alvarado,
36. Coatzacoalcos, 37. Villahermosa, 38. Ciudad del Carmen, 39. Champotón, 40. Lerma, 41. Campeche,
42. Yucalpetén, 43. Puerto Progreso, 44. Mérida, 45. Puerto Juárez, 46. Cancún, 47 Puerto Morelos, 48.
Playa del Carmen, 49. Cozumel, 50. Chetumal. Other coastal cities: 1. Santa Rosalı́a, 2. San Blas, 3.
Tuxpan, 4. Dos Bocas,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176 163

rich shrimp and other fishery areas constitute additional elements of interest for the
exploitation of the whole region.
Paradoxically, despite these privileged conditions, Mexico has not yet been able to
organize coherently the research or data gathering necessary for the sustainable
development and correct management of its considerable coastal resources. This
situation has historical roots, since from the Spanish conquest, the main activities
promoted for colonial Mexico by the Spaniards were mining and cattle breeding,
both inland activities; thus human settlements in coastal areas were limited and even
hindered. However, nowadays the opposite is taking place and population growth
rates are definitely much higher in the coastal zone than in landlocked areas [4]. This
migration towards the coastal zones constitutes a worldwide trend [1] (Fig. 2).
The diversity of coastal environments and the rich resources found there, coupled
with its fast growing population, constitute the core of the problem of the MCZ and
make it imperative for Mexico to create a system of specific policies to ensure
sustainable development in harmony with environmental conservation [5,6], a
challenge already recognized officially by the Mexican government in its ‘‘Environ-
mental strategies for the integrated management of the coastal zone’’ [7].
In this paper, we present the different activities and threats to the environment
characterizing the development of the MCZ as well as the different strategies or
options that could be applied to improve the conditions and sustainable manage-
ment of this crucial region of Mexico. For a summary of the institutional and legal
framework for the Mexican coastal management, refer to Riviera-Arriaga and
Villalobos [4].

3.5
Annual average population growth rate (%)

1970-1990
3
1990-1995

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Pacific Atlantic Inland Whole
Coast Coast Country
Region

Fig. 2. Annual average population growth rate on coastal and inland regions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
164 L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176

2. Antecedents

Many scientific studies about the knowledge, exploitation, capitalization and

management of the MCZ have been carried out, but unfortunately they are scattered
in the different public and private institutions around the country. This makes it
extremely difficult even to assess the real degree of knowledge involved.
Consequently, the appropriate use of this information for planning or implementing
sustainable management policies is impaired at all levels, federal to municipal [6].
Often, the academic studies are not even taken into account by the government
agencies involved, and the same distrust is witnessed when the academic world is
faced with government studies. In 1995, however, the National Ecology Institute
( ¼ Instituto Nacional de Ecologı́a) i.e. the government agency in charge of the
environmental policies planning, financed an integrated study to assess the state of
knowledge of the quality of the coastal waters of the MCZ, which would serve as a
departure point in its planning policies for an efficient management of the Mexican
coastal zone. It was the first of its kind in Mexico. The resulting report [8] was the
basis for a published CD called ‘‘Integrated study of the Mexican coastal zone’’,
where an analysis of the existing literature about coastal water quality can be found
[9] and for an IOC publication about the database [10]. Among the basic references
at the national level, we recommend Merino-Ibarra [11] and recently Rivera-Arriaga
and Villalobos [4] who made a socioeconomic and environmental analysis of the
Mexican littorals; Contreras et al. [12] who described the environmental problems
faced by the Mexican Atlantic littoral; Contreras [13] who made a specific
characterization of several coastal ecosystems and De la Lanza and Cáceres [14]
who compiled the existing information about coastal lagoons in the MCZ.
Additional studies were undertaken to further analyze the integrative problems of
the MCZ: Vázquez et al. [15], have done it for the Mexican Gulf of Mexico, while
Botello et al. [16] analyzed the Pacific coast.
During the last decade, more comprehensive environmental databases and more
accurate cartographic material have been created. However, this kind of information
has been established with specific, technical or scientific goals in mind, so that its
integration to the public administration needs, constitutes one of the main challenges
faced by policymakers and decisiontakers for the use of the different coastal
resources in the MCZ; in addition, large gaps in the available information were
detected as well as several problems of reliability in the existing one. In order to
provide a useful tool for the planning of the coastal zone management in Mexico, in
the present study an environmental impact assessment of the MCZ is presented,
based in the analysis of the main resources and activities carried out in that zone, as
well as in the impact derived from the increasing human presence in its littorals.

3. Methodology

As part of a government sponsored study whose aim was to assess the degree of
knowledge existing for water quality conditions of the MCZ [1,8], all the literature
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176 165

published on the subject from 1990 to 1997 was compiled. This information was
confronted and complemented for analysis purposes with field visits (1996–1998) to
the main coastal Mexican cities to compare the in situ conditions with the literature,
as well as to interview 86 selected members of the local administration, research
institutes or concerned citizens (such as fishermen). The 42 selected cities (not
counting Mexico City (inland), where the largest amount of information was found)
were chosen for their economic, tourist and/or industrial importance, and the
presence of local educational and research institutes (Fig. 1). The type of coastal
ecosystems present in every State was recorded, as well as their environmental
conditions, the potential or actual damage they are subjected to, be it anthropic or
natural (such as hurricane zones) and the degree of protection that should be
assigned to each one of them. Videotapes and photographs taken during these visits
complement the available information for this evaluation.
In order to produce a general diagnosis of the MCZ, a panel of experts was
convened to evaluate the information gathered (literature research, field visits and
interviews). The main activities related to water quality carried out in the 42 coastal
cities were divided in five groups and their impact to the environment was assessed.
The scale used is from 1 to 5, where 1 corresponded to light impact and 5 to extreme
(Table 1). The same scale was used to hierarchize the leading four ‘‘direct impact
generators’’: urban development, garbage presence, habitat destruction and sewage
discharges. From the resulting matrix, a local diagnosis emerged for each city visited
and all of these jointly constitute an environmental general diagnosis for the MCZ.
The description of each of the different activities that can generate more
environmental impacts is found below, together with an assessment of where
they do cause the most severe impact, and an evaluation of those impact factors in
the MCZ.

4. Results

4.1. Fisheries and aquaculture

In the last decade, Mexico has increased its catch significantly, now ranking 17th
worldwide, with more than one million metric tons/year and an average value of
more than 1000 million dollars (USD)/year in 2001 (this includes scale fish,
crustaceans and mollusks).
Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico have dramatically increased: demersal fisheries
represent now around 40% of the total catch. Sport fishing already constitutes quite
a sizeable contribution to the fish catch, especially in the Pacific Ocean, but reliable
data are unavailable so that an accurate assessment at this point is not possible.
Another activity directly related to fisheries is the capture of aquarium specimens,
including live rock reef, fishes and other reef dwellers’ invertebrates like corals,
sponges, echinoderms and mollusks. This poorly documented industry is very
lucrative due to the wide variety of species with high demand (and high price) found
in the MCZ. This activity is being actively carried out in Baja California Sur,
 166
L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176
Table 1
Environmental impacts evaluation in the different coastal cities studied

CITY/IMPACT (in parenthesis: Fisheries & Agricultural Industrial Tourism & Harbors Urban Garbage Habitat Wastewater MODE
location of city in Fig. 1) Aquaculture Recreation development presence destruction discharges

San Felipe (3) 1 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Bahı́a Kino (9) 1 4 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 1
Loreto (4) 1 0 0 3 1 2 1 3 2 1
Antón Lizardo (34) 3 1 0 1 1 1 4 1 3 1
Ixtapa (21) 1 3 0 5 1 1 1 4 2 1
Los Cabos (7) 1 0 1 5 2 3 1 4 2 1
Chetumal (50) 1 4 0 1 1 4 3 2 5 1
B. de Navidad-Melaque (17) 1 2 0 3 1 3 2 4 5 1
Huatulco (25) 1 1 0 5 0 4 2 5 3 1
Puerto Morelos (47) 2 0 0 1 3 2 1 2 2 2
Champotón (39) 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2
Puerto de Lerma (40) 2 1 4 0 2 2 2 2 4 2
Playa del Carmen (48) 1 0 1 3 2 2 2 4 4 2
Yucalpetén (42) 3 0 0 2 3 2 2 4 4 2
Zihuatanejo (20) 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 2
Topolobampo (13) 2 2 3 1 4 2 2 3 3 2
Campeche (41) 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 4 2
Ciudad del Carmen (38) 3 2 4 2 3 3 2 2 4 2
Lázaro Cárdenas (19) 2 2 4 1 5 3 2 4 4 2
Veracruz (32) 2 0 3 3 5 4 4 2 5 2
Puerto Ángel (24) 2 1 0 3 1 3 3 2 4 3
Puerto Vallarta (15) 0 1 1 3 3 3 1 4 3 3
Puerto Progreso (43) 1 0 0 3 5 2 2 3 3 3
Puerto Peñasco (8) 3 0 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 3
Puerto Escondido (23) 3 1 0 3 2 2 3 2 4 3
Salina Cruz (26) 2 1 4 1 3 3 1 3 3 3
Ensenada (2) 2 0 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3
Puerto de San Carlos (5) 4 4 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3
La Paz (6) 2 0 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 3
Puerto Madero (28) 4 5 3 1 3 2 3 2 4 3

L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176

Manzanillo (18) 4 3 3 3 5 4 3 3 4 3
Tijuana (1) 1 0 3 1 0 4 4 2 4 4
Boca del Rı́o (33) 3 0 0 4 0 2 3 4 4 4
Cozumel (49) 1 0 1 4 3 3 3 4 4 4
Alvarado (35) 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 4
Guaymas (11) 4 2 4 2 4 4 3 3 5 4
Mazatlán (14) 4 1 3 5 4 4 2 5 4 4

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Cancún (46) 2 0 1 5 1 3 3 5 5 5
Puerto de Altamira (29) 0 1 5 0 5 3 1 5 5 5
Acapulco (22) 3 1 1 5 4 4 2 5 5 5
Coatzacoalcos (36) 2 2 5 2 5 4 5 5 5 5
Tampico-Madero (31) 4 2 5 3 5 5 3 4 5 5
MODE 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 4
Scale for impacts
0 ¼ Not present 2 ¼ Moderate 4 ¼ Severe
1 ¼ Light 3 ¼ Intense 5 ¼ Extreme

167
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
168 L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176

Revillagigedo Islands (Colima), Sinaloa and the reef areas of Veracruz and the
Mexican Caribbean.
Activities related to capture, processing, conservation and transportation of fish
products are also potential causes of habitat destruction and wastewater discharges
detrimental to water quality; overfishing in turn can cause the direct loss of the
exploited species [17]. Fisheries are causing ‘‘moderate’’ impacts in the MCZ in
general. However, the impact can reach severe levels in cities like San Carlos
(Sonora), Alvarado (Veracruz) and Puerto Madero (Chiapas). This is mainly due to
the unloading of fishery by-products in harbors where no management programs
exist for the treatment of organic residues and where engine maintenance for fishery
boats and ships generates direct pollution to the water (such as oil, grease and fuels).
It would thus be advisable to carry out monitoring programs both for water
discharges emanating from local fishing and processing plants, and to monitor the
pathways followed by the organic wastes produced, down to their final destination.
Aquaculture activities are based in man-made infrastructures designed to grow
target species, mainly represented in the MCZ by the highly profitable shrimps. The
total aquaculture production in the MCZ was 196,000 tons in 2001 with a value of
more than 300 million USD; shrimp, and secondarily, oysters were the main
products.
Shrimp farming is potentially dangerous to the MCZ, especially if practised
intensively, because of the important modifications or direct pollution of adjacent
ecosystems caused by the discharge of by-products generally into the closest water
body [18]; in this case, in-depth studies are needed in order to evaluate its effects on
the environment, because the situation is different depending on the region (Pacific
or Atlantic coasts) or other countries. According to our present knowledge, this
activity as a whole is now causing only ‘‘moderate’’ damage, mainly because it is
seldom practised intensively. Only in Sinaloa State can this activity be considered to
cause a severe impact on the local environment, mainly due to the fact that more
than 70% of the national aquaculture infrastructure is located in that state (in excess
of 20,000 Ha) and thus the surrounding waters, mainly coastal lagoons where most
of the shrimp farms are located, receive large amounts of nutrients [18]. As a
protective measure, continuous programs for the revision, maintenance and
modernization of the existing infrastructure for the shrimp farms is recommended,
including the treatment of the effluents directly discharged into the environment.

4.2. Agriculture activities

All activities regarding planting, growing and harvesting of any crops in contact
with the MCZ are considered here. Accurate evaluation of damage to the CZ is
difficult in this type of study, since impacts evident in the coastal area could be due to
activities carried out far away and transported there. Mexico’s agricultural
production is close to 31 million tons/year [18]. The impacts observed included
habitat modifications and destruction due to deviations of rivers and land
preparation for agriculture. Also, leaching of pesticides and other organic
compounds routinely used in agriculture in Mexico impair water quality. In this
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176 169

study, we considered that the impact of this activity in the MCZ is ‘‘moderate’’
except where practised intensively as in the areas of Hermosillo-Bahı́a Kino (Sonora)
and Alvarado where ‘‘severe’’ impacts were detected (Table 1), while in Puerto
Madero they reached ‘‘extreme’’ status. Surveillance and careful monitoring
programs should be performed, including water analyses and control of the local
crops, as well as their discharged by-products because dangerous compounds have
already been detected in the most affected areas.

4.3. Industrial activities

All activities related to industry in the CZ cause environmental modifications and

damage water quality. The impact these activities are causing in the MCZ were rated
as ‘‘moderate’’ except around cities like Salina Cruz and Lázaro Cárdenas
(Michoacán) and Guaymas (Sonora) where impacts are ‘‘severe’’ and Coatzacoalcos
(Veracruz), Tampico-Madero and Altamira (Tamaulipas) where they reach
‘‘extreme’’ levels; the latter are due to their local industrial parks and to their port0 s
management; all with inadequate handling of environmental noxious substances.
Compulsory programs for the treatment of industrial wastewaters should be carried
out and constantly supervised, as this is a severe problem directly affecting water
quality.

4.3.1. Electricity production

Facilities and infrastructure designed for the operation of thermoelectric plants in
the MCZ is considered here, as well as the effects of their operation on the
environment, like cooling processes and waste discharges to sea. All these have
already caused habitat modifications and/or destruction due to the construction of
the plants themselves and their direct discharges to the sea. In this study, we found
that the impact can be qualified as ‘‘intense’’ locally in all the facilities present in the
MCZ, more importantly in cities like Lerma (Campeche), Guaymas, and Manzanillo
(Colima). Continuous monitoring and careful supervision of discharges to the sea
are recommended since reports already exist of important concentrations of
hexavalent Chromium around the areas of cooling water discharges. Those could
be due to the high temperatures present in the cooling ducts.

4.3.2. Oil-related activities.

The largest oil deposits in Latin America are found in Mexico where oil is the
single most valuable resource of the MCZ and the first source of foreign currency.
Mexican average crude oil production in 2002 was 3177 thousand bbl daily, which
represent more than 3000 million dollars or 40% of the total value of exports for
Mexico. Nowadays, 96% of the oil and gas production comes from coastal states
(73% from offshore extraction). The oil fields are located mainly in the coastal plains
or in the continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico. The Campeche Sound is, by far, the
most productive area.
The Mexican oil industry is expected to continue its profitable expansion—but its
fast growth with little or no consideration for the environment has caused direct or
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
170 L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176

indirect damage to the areas where it is carried out, to the point of being labeled as
incompatible with the existing ecological and social local systems. These activities in
the MCZ (extraction, refining and transportation) are causing habitat destruction or
important modifications mainly due to infrastructure construction and aging ducts.
Water quality is also impaired where waste discharges are present or when accidental
spills occur. All this is causing ‘‘intense’’ impacts in the MCZ reaching ‘‘severe’’
levels in the industrial ports of Tampico-Madero, Salina Cruz and Lázaro Cárdenas,
and ‘‘extreme’’ levels in Coatzacoalcos. No locality with oil industry can be
considered to have ‘‘minimum’’ levels of impact, since these activities are not
compatible with pristine natural environments.
To improve the situation, the Mexican oil company, which by now has already
programmed some restoration projects, should be encouraged to consider policies of
sustainability and care about conservation and preservation of the environment
rather than focus mainly on restoration. Modernization of their equipment and
ducts are needed to avoid pollution at the source or spilling accidents. It would be
appropriate to create and enforce the necessary laws to compel this company to go
beyond its present ‘‘ecological restoration’’ projects and carry out sustainability-
oriented programs for the preservation and conservation of the local ecological
heritage. Monitoring programs should be permanent in areas subjected to oil
exploitation and related activities, preferably carried out by recognized research
centers or if performed by private laboratories, the results should be available to the
scientific community at large.

4.3.3. Tourism and recreation

This is a fundamental industry for Mexico, since it is the second source of foreign
currency for the country. Mexico has spectacular sites, which already are or can be
used as tourist attractions or resorts. The most important coastal tourist centers in
the Mexican Pacific are (from north to south): Loreto and Cabo San Lucas (Baja
California Sur), Mazatlán and Puerto Vallarta (Jalisco), Manzanillo, Ixtapa-
Zihuatanejo and Acapulco (Guerrero) and Huatulco (Oaxaca) while in the Gulf of
Mexico and Caribbean we can cite: Veracruz (Veracruz), Campeche (Campeche),
Cancun, Cozumel and Tulum (Quintana Roo). In the 1970’s, the federal
government’s decisive involvement and financial inputs resulted into a considerable
thrust for this industry. In 1982, 93% of the federal investment in tourism was
directed towards the CZ: large resorts were built in the states of Baja California,
Quintana Roo and Veracruz. As a result, in 2000, there were already about 91,800
hotel rooms and 16.6 million tourists visiting the MCZ. This represented an
additional (and significant) income of 3000 million USD, which is a considerable
increase knowing that in 1983, the same activity had produced 700 million USD [2].
However, the high potential of tourism, a celebrated ‘‘industry without chimneys’’, is
not without potential negative impacts on both the environment and the local
population. That is why it is necessary to understand that its development requires
professional studies, with sustainable development in mind.
Mercado-Cerón et al. [19] have concluded that tourism has generated un-
questionable pressure on natural resources, in part because when building resorts,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176 171

pre-established designs are usually preferred to original projects in harmony with the
specific environmental and social characteristics where they will be located. That is
why in the short, middle or long-term environmental damage will ensue and, as a
consequence, hurt the tourism industry, which requires pristine settings, or at least
good ecological restoration.
All infrastructure necessary to satisfy both national and international tourist
needs in Mexican coastal cities, as well as the different activities designed to promote
their development are considered here. All of them generally cause habitat
destruction and environment modifications as well as wastewater discharges
with direct negative effects on water quality. Those activities are having ‘‘moderate’’
to ‘‘intense’’ impacts on the environment, reaching ‘‘severe’’ levels in Boca del
Rio (Veracruz) and Cozumel (Quintana Roo) and ‘‘extreme’’ in the main tourist
resorts like Ixtapa and Acapulco, Los Cabos, Huatulco, Mazatlán and Cancun. A
careful planning should be carried out, at least and to begin with, in the largest
tourist resorts, which would include sustainable development models based both
on local environmental and socio-cultural realities. Both aspects should be weighed
carefully in the local context in order to achieve harmony, rather than try to
transplant foreign models often ill-adapted to the local landscapes, habits and/or
traditions.
All activities related to recreation, leisure and sport in general, can cause (directly
or indirectly) habitat destruction, waste production and water quality impairment.
In the MCZ, the impacts were considered ‘‘low’’ to ‘‘intense’’ reaching ‘‘severe’’
levels in Mazatlán and ‘‘extreme’’ in Acapulco and Cancun. To control the negative
effects of these activities, regulations to eliminate waste discharges are recom-
mended, and since few cities have cleaning and/or maintenance programs for their
coastal recreation zones, education, prevention, correction and maintenance
programs at the national level should be carried out.

4.3.4. Port-related activities

In Mexico there are 49 maritime ports of which 28 are considered important.
Passenger transportation in 2002 was of almost 9 million persons (56,000 moorings),
and the commercial freight transportation was in the same period of about 218.5
million tons. The most important ports for the country are: Tampico-Madero,
Tuxpan, Veracruz, Coatzacoalcos (Veracruz State) and Progreso (Yucatán) in the
Gulf of Mexico and Ensenada (Baja California), Sta. Rosalı́a and San Carlos (Baja
California Sur) Guaymas, Mazatlán (Sinaloa), Manzanillo, Lázaro Cárdenas and
Salina Cruz in the Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1).
We include here all activities carried out around ports like maritime traffic, cargo
loading and unloading, docking and so on. Destruction of habitats, landscape
modification and damage to water quality are common where these activities take
place. A serious problem was detected as a result of this study: the information
relative to ports is not open to the public: in fact around the country, the Integral
Port Management (API for its initials in Spanish) implements a policy of prohibiting
the entrance to their premises to any outsider even if only to document graphically
an environmental study.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
172 L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176

Our analysis indicated that these activities were causing ‘‘intense’’ to ‘‘severe’’
impacts to the environment in such ports where tourist activities take place
predominantly, like La Paz (Baja California Sur), Acapulco (Guerrero) and
Mazatlán, reaching ‘‘extreme’’ levels in industrial ports such as Lázaro Cárdenas,
Manzanillo, Altamira, Tampico-Madero and Coatzacoalcos. To alleviate the
problems caused by this activity, the recommendation would be to carry out a
careful supervision of all port infrastructures as well as constant monitoring of water
quality around ports and adjacent areas. The lack of information and the difficulties
of access to these areas to check the sites generate an uneasy situation, which is why
every effort should be made to rectify it. At present, alarming data have been found,
regarding some water quality parameters like coliforms and heavy metal concentra-
tions in nearby areas, which can be attributed to port activities.

4.3.5. Urban development

In the MCZ there are seven cities with a population between 250,000 and 1 million
inhabitants and a constant increase in its growth rates: Tijuana, Ensenada, Tampico,
Acapulco, Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz and Mazatlán. This makes it necessary to take
adequate precautionary measures, in order to avoid environmental impacts related
to urban growth [20–22]. Urban development includes the establishment of human
settlements along the coastline, as well as their effects (direct and indirect) on the
environment. It directly causes habitat destruction, landscape modifications,
domestic water discharges and solid residues among others. In this study, we found
that such settlements were causing ‘‘moderate’’ to ‘‘intense’’ impact to the CZ
reaching ‘‘severe’’ levels in at least 10 coastal cities (Table 1) and qualified as
‘‘extreme’’ in Tampico-Madero. The direct effect that urban development can cause
to the environment is difficult to determine as a separate entity, because it is always
coupled to other activities like tourism, industry, agriculture, fisheries, ports or a
combination of these; however, in all cases, it appears as urgent to at least regulate
and supervise the plants responsible for water treatment in these areas: Our in situ
observations clearly indicated that most wastewater treatment plants do not fulfill
their purpose due to partial malfunctioning or because they do not work at all.
Another problem is that urban planning is almost non-existent. Very few coastal
cities can boast development in harmony with their regional context. Careful
planning is needed, where the natural advantages of an area can be positively
combined with urban development and socio-cultural tendencies.

4.3.6. Garbage presence

Solid waste abandoned on the shore that can be found along the waterfront
streets, beaches and in coastal waters is considered here. Impacts include aesthetic
aspects and can lead to health hazards. They reflect inadequate maintenance
programs and lack of hygiene in every place they are found. Our observations
indicate that this garbage is causing, in general, ‘‘moderate’’ impacts in the MCZ,
reaching ‘‘severe’’ levels in Veracruz, Alvarado, Anton Lizardo and Tijuana. In
order to correct this situation, education, prevention, maintenance and cleaning
programs are necessary along the coastal areas.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176 173

4.3.7. Habitat destruction and landscape modification

Besides the effects of the other activities already mentioned above, we analyze here
the changes in coastal landscapes generated by man-made constructions along the
shoreline or adjacent ecosystems, like interconnections of water bodies to build
marinas, wharfs, docks, break-waters and so on, which result in destruction of
natural coastal areas like mangroves, coastal lagoons, coral reefs and beaches among
others. Those activities are causing ‘‘moderate’’ impacts to the MCZ in general,
being ‘‘severe’’ in Ixtapa, Los Cabos, Playa del Carmen (Quintana Roo), Yucalpetén
(Yucatán), Barra de Navidad-Melaque, Boca del Rı́o and Tampico-Madero. They
were considered ‘‘extremely severe’’ in Huatulco, Mazatlán, Cancun, Acapulco,
Altamira and Coatzacoalcos. Such activities are closely related to the developing
programs of the local State administrations, which is why there is little that can be
done; however, if sustainable development is incorporated into planning policies, the
impacts should be less severe in all cases. It is important to consider that any
investment done to preserve the environment will always result in lower costs
(economically and others) in the long term, than the depletion of resources in the
short term for maximum but ephemeral gains.

4.3.8. Wastewater discharges

Related to the activities mentioned above, domestic or industrial wastewater
discharged directly into the coastal environment can cause harmful effects on water
quality. One of the most common is severe oxygen deficiencies that can induce the
asphyxiation of the biota of estuaries and coastal areas [23]. This activity is causing
‘‘severe’’ impacts in the littorals, of at least 16 coastal cities, reaching ‘‘extreme’’
levels in Chetumal and Cancún, Barra de Navidad-Melaque (Jalisco), Veracruz,
Coatzacoalcos, Guaymas, Acapulco, Altamira and Tampico-Madero.

5. Discussion

A common feature, detected practically in every water body included in this

analysis in the MCZ is the presence of fecal and other coliforms . This is an alarm-
ing kind of pollution in large coastal cities and tourist resorts and leads us to
consider directly the causes: lack of treatment of water discharges, inadequate or
inefficient utilization of available water treatment techniques as well as nonexis-
tent or inefficient quality control in the water treatment plants that are in opera-
tion. This factor is directly related to urban development particularly where either
tourism or industrial and port activities are prevalent. In our analysis this factor
was rated as ‘‘extreme’’ in nine cities, ‘‘severe’’ in 16 cities and ‘‘intense’’ in 10 cities
(Table 1).
From the results shown in Table 1 we can deduct that the large oil industrial
compounds as well as the large tourist resorts are the main sources of the
environmental impacts considered ‘‘severe’’ to ‘‘extreme’’ in the MCZ. Implicit in
their operations, severe habitat destruction and landscape modifications take place
and damage water quality in adjacent areas.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
174 L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176

In zones of oil extraction or industrial activities, severe impacts were detected.

Tourist, industrial and urban developments have evolved with no planning or
control on potential dangers to the environment. We could observe that there is a
general abuse of the loading capacity of water bodies and that there is no
consideration for the intrinsic characteristics of each region for its harmonious
development; mitigating and corrective measures are preferred to preservation and
ecological conservation.
Given the existing measures of environmental quality parameters, as well as the
impacts observed during these study field visits, we can say that the areas with more
severe damage are those with large tourist resorts like Acapulco and Cancun and
industrial port areas, especially those involved in the oil industry like Coatzacoalcos,
Lázaro Cárdenas, Tampico-Madero and Altamira, where the mode was 5 (or
extreme) in the matrix of impacts evaluation (Table 1).
It is only lately that the government as well as the public at large have shown
genuine interest in the MCZ, which is why tradition and experience in these areas is
scarce and the available information is fragmented and far from comprehensive.
The observations made during the visits to the 42 coastal cities complemented by
local interviews with different population sectors from university members to
stakeholders and fishermen showed that lack of communication and inefficiency in
the distribution of the available information is generalized throughout the country
and that, in some cases, security measures carried out by the government prevent the
possibility to even get close to some selected areas, let alone document graphically
their situation.

6. Final considerations

It is necessary to constantly update and complete the information about the

quality of coastal environments of Mexico in order to be able to establish the
necessary legislation for the adequate development of that region, in accordance with
the international treaties in this matter where Mexico is co-signatory. This can be
carried out with careful planning, and as part of it, generalized sampling and
monitoring programs at local, regional, state and national levels. This will help to
establish different categories in which to encompass groups of regions to be similarly
according to their particular characteristics.
A strict supervision of incoming and outgoing waters in port areas around the
country is recommended. Besides the fact that it is not possible to try and evaluate
their water quality due to the hermetism surrounding those premises nowadays, the
very few studies that make references to these areas show very high values of
pollutants.
The activities of electricity and oil companies should be carefully supervised and
subjected to monitoring especially regarding their use of coastal waters and their
water discharges into the environment. In the case of the Mexican oil company the
recommendation is to modernize their equipment and carry out permanent
conservation policies rather than ecological restoration projects.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176 175

It is necessary to build new water treatment plants along the Mexican shoreline
and modernize the existing ones. It is urgent to do it in the areas of active urban
development. It would be highly advisable to create an agency charged with the
supervision of the water treatment plants along the coast since severe shortcomings
were detected regarding them.
The creation of a commission charged to determine which institutions or
organizations are able to carry out the necessary studies recommended above would
be very useful. Certification of such institutions or organizations should be based on
the level of their personnel, modernization of their research equipment and reliability
of their results. That commission would determine the standards of such
measurements and the technology to be used.
Strengthening of the existing links between government agencies and research
centers as well as universities should be actively encouraged, because they would
undoubtedly help in the implementation of planning programs for its management
as well as in the organization and financing of the research projects carried out in the
crucial area of Mexico.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge all collaborations and/or consulting of all persons

that have in one way or another helped in this project, especially: M. Merino,
F. Páez, J. Romero J., A. V. Botello, F. Vázquez, L. Rosales, V. Macı́as, A. V. de la
Cerda, F. Contreras, M. Molina, I. Quintana, I. Ortiz, R. González, I. Palomar,
N. Canales, T. Pérez, C. Méndez, S. Santiago, J. Romero C., R. Bernal,
A. Gutiérrez, M. Hermoso, M. Zamudio, V. Ochoa, E. Escobar, G. Salvador,
N. Schafino, A. Frausto, J. Galicia, S. Jofré).
We also would like to acknowledge the following institutions which provided part
of the information used here: CICESE, UABC, CIBNOR, CICIMAR, UABCS,
CRIP, UNISON, CETMAR, ITESM, UAS, ITLM, UdeG, FONATUR, UMAR,
UACH, CIP, ECOSUR, UNAM, INE, INEGI, UAM, IEST, SEMAR, UNE, Granja
FAUNAMAR, UV, I.deE. A.C., NE Laguna Verde, ITMAR, UJAT, EPOMEX,
UAC, SEMARNAT, UNACAR, UAY, CINVESTAV, Amigos de Sian Ka’an, PN
Isla Contoy, PN Punta Nizuc-Cancun, Playacar, ITEC and the Drinking Water
Commissions around the country. Last but not least, we would like to thank all
involved citizens like lighthouse keepers, fishermen and common people living in the
MCZ who were interviewed and provided very useful information about the local
problems they face.

References

[1] INEGI. Anuario estadı́stico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Mexico. Instituto Nacional de
Geografı́a e Informática, 2000. 732p
[2] Merino-Ibarra M. The coastal zone of Mexico. Coastal Management 1987;15:27–42.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
176 L. Ortiz-Lozano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 161–176

[3] SEDESOL-INE. Informe de la situación general en materia de equilibrio ecológico y protección al

ambiente 1993–1994. Secretarı́a de Desarrollo Social (SEDESOL), México, 1994. 374pp.
[4] Rivera-Arriaga E, Villalobos G. The coast of Mexico: approaches for its management. Ocean &
Coastal Management 2001;44:729–56.
[5] Ortiz-Lozano L, Granados-Barba A, Solı́s-Weiss V. Towards the establishment of an integrated
management program for a coastal zone. In: Ozhan E, editor. MEDCOAST-EMECS 99 Joint
conference, Land-Ocean Interactions: Managing Coastal Ecosystems. 9–13 November, Antalya,
Turkey, 1999. pp. 951–61.
[6] Ortiz-Lozano L, Solı́s-Weiss V, Granados-Barba A. Scientific research in Tamaulipas coastal zone,
México: implications for its coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management 2000;43:927–36.
[7] SEMARNAP. Estrategia Ambiental para la Gestión Integrada de la Zona Costera de México:
Propuesta. Instituto Nacional de Ecologı́a, Secretarı́a de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y
Pesca. INE-SEMARNAP, México, 2000. 40pp.
[8] Solı́s-Weiss V, Granados-Barba A, Garcı́a-Salgado M, Ortiz-Lozano L, Zamudio-Reséndiz ME,
Hermoso-Salazar y M, Gutiérrez-Velázquez A. Diagnóstico Ambiental y Desarrollo de una Base de
Datos de la Zona Costera de la República Mexicana. Informe Final Proyecto INE-UNAM 1997.
60pp.
[9] INE. La Calidad del Agua en los Ecosistemas Costeros Mexicanos. Disco Compacto en formato pdf.
Instituto Nacional de Ecologı́a SEMARNAT, 2000. 407pp.
[10] Solis-Weiss V, Granados Barba A. Diagnosis of environmental impacts on the Mexican Coastal Zone
with a comprehensive ad-hoc database, vol. 188. IOC UNESCO Publication; 2004. p. 257–70.
[11] Merino-Ibarra M. El manejo de la zona costera mexicana: una evaluación preliminar. In: El manejo
de ambientes y recursos costeros en América Latina y el Caribe. Departamento de Asuntos
Cientı́ficos y Tecnológicos de la OEA y el Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, Buenos Aires,
Argentina 1990;1:137–55.
[12] Contreras Espinosa F, Herzig M, Vázquez Botello A. Atlas del Golfo y Caribe de México:
diagnóstico ambiental. Centro de Ecodesarrollo-Secretarı́a de Pesca. México, 1988. 44pp.
[13] Contreras Espinosa F. Ecosistemas Costeros Mexicanos. CONABIO-Universidad Autónoma
Metropolitana, Unidad Iztapalapa. México, 1993. 415pp.
[14] De la Lanza G, Cáceres C. Lagunas Costeras y Litoral Mexicano. Universidad Autónoma de Baja
California Sur, México, 1994. 525pp.
[15] Vázquez F, Rangel R, Mendoza A, Fernández J, Aguayo E, Palacio A, Sharma VK. Southern Gulf of
México. In: Sheppard C, editor. Seas at the Millenium: an environmental evaluation. New York:
Elsevier Science Ltd; 2000. p. 467–82.
[16] Botello V, Toledo A, de la Lanza-Espino G, Villanueva-Fragoso GS. The Pacific coast of Mexico. In:
Sheppard C, editor. Seas at the Millenium: an environmental evaluation. New York: Elsevier Science
Ltd; 2000. p. 483–99.
[17] Coleman C, Williams SL. Overexploiting marine ecosystem engineers: potential consequences for
biodiversity. TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution 2002;17(1):40–4.
[18] Páez-Osuna F. The environmental impact of shrimp aquaculture: a global perspective. Environmental
Pollution 2001;112:229–31.
[19] Mercado-Cerón MT, Rojas Bustamante IA, Calderón Sánchez C. Análisis del impacto ambiental
generado por los grandes desarrollos turı́sticos en México. Investigaciones Geográficas número
especial. Instituto de Geografı́a UNAM, México, 1993. p. 21–33.
[20] Yeung Y. Coastal mega-cities in Asia: transformation, sustainability and management. Ocean &
Coastal Management 2001;44:319–33.
[21] Nur Y, Fazi S, Wirjoatmodjo N, Han Q. Towards wise coastal management practice in a tropical
megacity-Jakarta. Ocean & Coastal Management 2001;44:335–53.
[22] Jiang Y, Kirkman H, Hua A. Megacity development: managing impacts on marine environments.
Ocean & Coastal Management 2001;44:293–318.
[23] Matthiessen P, Law RL. Contaminants and their effects on estuarine and coastal organisms in the
United Kingdom in the late twentieth century. Environmental Pollution 2002;120:739–57.