Reconciling rural development and ecological restoration: Strategies and policy recommendations for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest |
| |
| Institution: | 1. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina 124, 22460-320 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;2. Programa de Pós Graduação em Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 21941-590 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;3. University of East Anglia, School of Environmental Sciences, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK;4. Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontifícia Universidade Católica, 22453-900 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;5. Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), Instituto de Florestas (IF), Departamento de Ciências Ambientais (DCA). BR 465, Km 07, 23890-000, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;6. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Ecossystem Services and Management Program, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria;7. Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre, Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontifícia Universidade Católica. 22453-900 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;8. Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Informatics, Faculty of Production and Power Engineering, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Balicka 116B, 30-149, Krakow, Poland;1. University of Southern Bahia, Environmental Science Formation Center, Geoprocessing and Coastal Management Laboratory, Porto Seguro, Bahia, Brazil;2. University of Southern Bahia, Environmental Science Formation Center, Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Environmental Genomics, Porto Seguro, Bahia, Brazil;1. Center for Environmental Studies and Research, State University of Campinas, Campinas, SP 13083-867, Brazil;2. EMBRAPA, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Brasília, DF 70770-901, Brazil;3. Center for Global Change and Earth Observations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA;1. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina 124, 22460-320 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;2. Opole University of Technology, Department of Production Engineering and Logistics, Luboszycka 5, 45-036 Opole, Poland;3. University of East Anglia, School of Environmental Science, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom;4. Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontificia Universidade Catolica, 22453-900 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;5. Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, USA;6. The Caribbean Institute, Hoekstrastraat 5, Paramaribo, Suriname;7. The Centre for Agricultural Research in Suriname, Postbus 1914, Paramaribo South, Suriname;1. Department of Ecology, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, Rua do Matão, 321, Travessa 14, 05508-900 São Paulo, SP, Brazil;2. Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology and Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, Stellenbosch, South Africa;3. Laboratoire Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution, UMR 8079 – Université Paris-Sud/CNRS/AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Sud XI, Bâtiment 362, 91405 ORSAY Cedex, France;4. CECS – Centro de Engenharia, Modelagem e Ciências Sociais Aplicadas, Federal University of ABC, Av. dos Estados, 5001, Bairro Santa Terezinha, Santo André, SP, Brazil;5. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina, 124 – Horto, 22460-320 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;6. Department of Ecology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, 68020 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;7. Departamento de Ciências Florestais – Esalq/USP, Av. Pádua Dias 11, 13.418-900, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil;8. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Av. Antonio Carlos, 6627, Pampulha, 31270-901 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil;9. Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Biologia Vegetal, 79070900 Campo Grande, MS, Brazil;10. Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Postbox 7803, N-5020 Bergen, Norway;11. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research – NINA, P.O. Box 5685 Sluppen, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway;12. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Secretaria de Biodiversidade, Departamento de Conservação de Ecossistemas, SEPN 505, bloco B, Ed. Marie Prendi Cruz, 4° andar, sala 402 Asa Norte, 70730542 Brasília, DF, Brazil;13. United Nations University, Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), 5-53-70 Jingumae, Shibuya 150-8925, Japan;14. Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre, Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontifícia Universidade Católica, 22453900 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;15. Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Informatics, Faculty of Production and Power Engineering, University of Agriculture in Kraków, Balicka 116B, 30-149 Kraków, Poland;16. School of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom;17. Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Avenida Pádua Dias n. 11, Centro, Caixa-postal: 9, 13418900 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil;18. Universidade de São Paulo, Departamento de Ciência do Solo, Esalq/USP, Av. Pádua Dias 11, 13.418-900, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil;19. Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Politécnica, Departamento de Engenharia de Computação e Sistemas Digitais, Avenida Professor Luciano Gualberto, Butantã, 05508010 São Paulo, SP, Brazil;20. Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil;1. Faculdade de Ciências Biológicas e Ambientais, UFGD, Dourados, MS, 79.804-970, Brazil;2. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação, UFMS, Campo Grande, MS, 79070-900, Brazil;3. Instituto de Investigaciones de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Avenida Paseo Bolivar (Circunvalar) 16-20, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia;4. Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland 4878, Australia;5. Nature and Culture International, Brasilia DF, 71680385, Brazil;6. UMR CNRS 6554 LETG-Angers, UFR sciences, University of Angers, France;1. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA;2. Center for Conservation and Sustainability, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, USA;3. AgroParisTech, Centre de Montpellier-Gestion Environnementale des Ecosystèmes et des Forêts. Tropicales, Campus d’Agropolis International, 648 Rue Jean-François Breton, 34093 Montpellier Cedex 5, France;4. Department of Forest Sciences, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Avenue Pádua Dias 11, 13.418-900 Piracicaba, Brazil;5. Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (UMR 5175), CEFE-campus CNRS, 1919 Route de Mende, 34293 Montpellier, France;6. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO, USA;7. Environmental Secretariat of Extrema, Extrema, Minas Gerais, Brazil;8. Graduate Program on Applied Ecology, University of São Paulo, Avenue Pádua Dias 11, 13.418-900 Piracicaba, Brazil |
| |
| Abstract: | Increased demand for both agricultural production and forest restoration may lead to increased competition for land in the next decades. Sustainably increasing cattle ranching productivity is a potential solution to reconcile different land uses, while also improving biodiversity conservation and the provision of ecosystem services. If not strategically implemented in integration with complementary policies, sustainable intensification can however result in negative environmental, economic and social effects. We analyzed the potential for sustainable intensification as a solution for a conflict between agricultural expansion and forest restoration in the Paraitinga Watershed at the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, a global biodiversity hotspot. In addition, we provide policy recommendations for sustainable development in the region, based on interviews with producers and local actors. We found that the Paraitinga Watershed has the potential to increase its cattle-ranching productivity and, as a result, relinquish spared land for other uses. This was true even in the most conservative intensification scenario considered (50% of the maximum potential productivity reached), in which 76,702 ha of pastures can be spared for other uses (46% of total pasture area). We found that restoration, apiculture and rural tourism are promising activities to promote sustainable development in the region, thus potentially increasing food production and mitigating competition for land. Our study shows that results from socioeconomic interviews and biophysical modelling of potential productivity increases offer robust insights into practical solutions on how to pursue sustainable development in one of the world’s most threatened biodiversity hotspots. |
| |
| Keywords: | Sustainable intensification Cattle ranching Land-use policies Restoration Land sparing |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
