IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v81y2019icp49-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opportunity cost of a private reserve of natural heritage, Cerrado biome – Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Saraiva Farinha, Maycon Jorge Ulisses
  • Mario Bernardo, Luciana Virginia
  • Filho, Adelsom Soares
  • Berezuk, André Geraldo
  • da Silva, Luciana Ferreira
  • Ruviaro, Clandio Favarini

Abstract

Brazil is widely recognized as a world leader in agricultural production. In order to achieve this status, several agricultural frontiers were sculpted throughout the decades. This was associated to land use change, mainly the substitution of natural vegetation for agricultural crops such as soybean and corn. On the other hand, conservation units were included in the national Brazilian proposal to conserve biodiversity and natural resources. Among these is the Private Natural Heritage Reserve (RPPN), which refers to private property. In this case, the establishment of a conservation unit depends on landowner’s decision making. This may be favoured because the Brazilian legislation allows economic activities (low-impact) to be developed in the RPPN. In this sense, this research was triggered to calculate the opportunity cost of an RPPN compared to the production of soybean and corn. The methodology was designed to define the net benefit of conservation based on the opportunity cost to create the RPPN. To estimate costs and revenues of agricultural production, we used secondary data. Carbon sequestration was estimated from the use of geotechnologies and parametrized equations. As a conclusion, if payments for a set of ecosystem services are accounted for, the estimated monetary values may be higher than the ones addressed to agricultural production.

Suggested Citation

  • Saraiva Farinha, Maycon Jorge Ulisses & Mario Bernardo, Luciana Virginia & Filho, Adelsom Soares & Berezuk, André Geraldo & da Silva, Luciana Ferreira & Ruviaro, Clandio Favarini, 2019. "Opportunity cost of a private reserve of natural heritage, Cerrado biome – Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 49-57.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:49-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718307543
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pennington, Derric N. & Dalzell, Brent & Nelson, Erik & Mulla, David & Taff, Steve & Hawthorne, Peter & Polasky, Stephen, 2017. "Cost-effective Land Use Planning: Optimizing Land Use and Land Management Patterns to Maximize Social Benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 75-90.
    2. Johnson, Kris A. & Polasky, Stephen & Nelson, Erik & Pennington, Derric, 2012. "Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: An agricultural case study in the Minnesota River Basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 71-79.
    3. Altmann, Alexandre & Silva Stanton, Márcia, 2018. "The densification normative of the ecosystem services concept in Brazil: Analyses from legislation and jurisprudence," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 282-293.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vieira, Leandro T.A. & Azevedo, Thaís N. & Castro, Antonio A.J.F. & Martins, Fernando R., 2022. "Reviewing the Cerrado's limits, flora distribution patterns, and conservation status for policy decisions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    2. Ahmad Bathaei & Dalia Štreimikienė, 2023. "A Systematic Review of Agricultural Sustainability Indicators," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Jiang, Yanan & Guan, Dongjie & He, Xiujuan & Yin, Boling & Zhou, Lilei & Sun, Lingli & Huang, Danan & Li, Zihui & Zhang, Yanjun, 2022. "Quantification of the coupling relationship between ecological compensation and ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    2. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    3. Yuxiang Ma & Min Zhou & Chaonan Ma & Mengcheng Wang & Jiating Tu, 2021. "Hybrid Economic-Environment-Ecology Land Planning Model under Uncertainty—A Case Study in Mekong Delta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-22, October.
    4. Hongmi Koo & Janina Kleemann & Christine Fürst, 2018. "Land Use Scenario Modeling Based on Local Knowledge for the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Northern Ghana," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Ahtikoski, Anssi & Haikarainen, Soili & Karhu, Jouni & Haara, Arto & Nieminen, Mika & Penttilä, Timo & Nousiainen, 2020. "Cost-effective land-use options of drained peatlands– integrated biophysical-economic modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Susan Stratton Sayre, 2019. "Pay for the Option to Pay? The Impact of Improved Scientific Information on Payments for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 591-625, June.
    7. Lee, Jongyeol & Kim, Hyungsub & Song, Cholho & Kim, Gang Sun & Lee, Woo-Kyun & Son, Yowhan, 2020. "Determining economically viable forest management option with consideration of ecosystem services in Korea: A strategy after successful national forestation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Ando Fahda Aulia & Harpinder Sandhu & Andrew C. Millington, 2020. "Quantifying the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in Oil Palm Dominated Landscapes in Riau Province in Sumatra, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-23, June.
    9. Haozhe Zhang & Qingyuan Yang & Huiming Zhang & Lulu Zhou & Hongji Chen, 2021. "Optimization of Land Use Based on the Source and Sink Landscape of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Fengdu County in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, November.
    10. Yan, Jinming & Zhang, Dongsheng & Xia, Fangzhou, 2021. "Evaluation of village land use planning risks in green concepts: The case of Qiwangfen Village in Beijing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    12. Jung A Lee & Jinhyung Chon & Changwoo Ahn, 2014. "Planning Landscape Corridors in Ecological Infrastructure Using Least-Cost Path Methods Based on the Value of Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-22, October.
    13. Depietri, Yaella & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2020. "Managing fire risk at the wildland-urban interface requires reconciliation of tradeoffs between regulating and cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    14. Petrovszki, Judit & Szilassi, Péter & Erős, Tibor, 2024. "Mass tourism generated urban land expansion in the catchment of Lake Balaton, Hungary – analysis of long-term changes in characteristic socio-political periods," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    15. Vasilis C. Kapsalis & Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos & Konstantinos G. Aravossis, 2019. "Investigation of Ecosystem Services and Circular Economy Interactions under an Inter-organizational Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-29, May.
    16. Wenyuan Jiang & Zhenxiang Zeng & Zhengyun Zhang & Yichen Zhao, 2022. "Regulation and Optimization of Urban Water and Land Resources Utilization for Low Carbon Development: A Case Study of Tianjin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, February.
    17. Xueting Zeng & Liang Cui & Qian Tan & Zhong Li & Guohe Huang, 2018. "A Sustainable Land Utilization Pattern for Confirming Integrity of Economic and Ecological Objectives under Uncertainties," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, April.
    18. Noe, Ryan R. & Nachman, Elizabeth R. & Heavenrich, Hannah R. & Keeler, Bonnie L. & Hernández, Daniel L. & Hill, Jason D., 2016. "Assessing uncertainty in the profitability of prairie biomass production with ecosystem service compensation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 103-108.
    19. Bianca Tilliger & Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos & Jesus Victor Bustamante & Josef Settele, 2015. "Disentangling Values in the Interrelations between Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Conservation—A Case Study of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-26, September.
    20. Johnson, Kris A. & Dalzell, Brent J. & Donahue, Marie & Gourevitch, Jesse & Johnson, Dennis L. & Karlovits, Greg S. & Keeler, Bonnie & Smith, Jason T., 2016. "Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 175-185.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:49-57. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.