Perceptions of environmental change and use of traditional knowledge to plan riparian forest restoration with relocated communities in Alcântara, Eastern Amazon

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Emanoel Gomes de Moura²  Elivaldo Moreira de Oliveira¹  Cristiane Lima Façanha³  Vera Lex Engel⁵  Guillaume Xavier Rousseau²  Danielle Celentano⁴ 

[1] Biodiversity and Conservation Graduate Program, Federal University of Maranhão (UFMA), Campus do Bacanga, Av. dos Portugueses, s/n, 65.000-000 São Luís, MA, Brazil;Agroecology Graduate Program, Maranhão State University (UEMA), Campus Universitário Paulo VI, s/n, Tirirical, 65.054-970 São Luís, MA, Brazil;Amazonian Network for Biodiversity and Biotechnology Graduate Program (BIONORTE), State University of Mato Grosso (UNEMAT), Av. Santos Dumont, s/n, Cidade Universitária - Celbe, DNER, 78.200-000 Cáceres, MT, Brazil;Amazonian Network for Biodiversity and Biotechnology Graduate Program (BIONORTE), Federal University of Maranhão (UFMA), Campus Universitário do Bacanga, Av. dos Portugueses, s/n, 65.000-000 São Luís, MA, Brazil;São Paulo State University (UNESP), Campus of Botucatu, College of Agricultural Science (FCA), R. Dr. José Barbosa de Barros, 1780, 18.610-307 Botucatu, SP, Brazil

Others  :  861820
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-10-11

 received in 2013-10-22, accepted in 2013-12-20,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Riparian forests provide ecosystem services that are essential for human well-being. The Pepital River is the main water supply for Alcântara (Brazil) and its forests are disappearing. This is affecting water volume and distribution in the region. Promoting forest restoration is imperative. In deprived regions, restoration success depends on the integration of ecology, livelihoods and traditional knowledge (TEK). In this study, an interdisciplinary research framework is proposed to design riparian forest restoration strategies based on ecological data, TEK and social needs.

Methods

This study takes place in a region presenting a complex history of human relocation and land tenure. Local populations from seven villages were surveyed to document livelihood (including ‘free-listing’ of agricultural crops and homegarden tree species). Additionally, their perceptions toward environmental changes were explored through semi-structured interviews (n = 79). Ethnobotanical information on forest species and their uses were assessed by local-specialists (n = 19). Remnants of conserved forests were surveyed to access ecological information on tree species (three plots of 1,000 m²). Results included descriptive statistics, frequency and Smith’s index of salience of the free-list results.

Results

The local population depends primarily on slash-and-burn subsistence agriculture to meet their needs. Interviewees showed a strong empirical knowledge about the environmental problems of the river, and of their causes, consequences and potential solutions. Twenty-four tree species (dbh > 10 cm) were found at the reference sites. Tree density averaged 510 individuals per hectare (stdv = 91.6); and 12 species were considered the most abundant (density > 10ind/ha). There was a strong consensus among plant-specialists about the most important trees. The species lists from reference sites and plant-specialists presented an important convergence.

Conclusions

Slash-and-burn agriculture is the main source of livelihood but also the main driver of forest degradation. Effective restoration approaches must transform problems into solutions by empowering local people. Successional agroforestry combining annual crops and trees may be a suitable transitional phase for restoration. The model must be designed collectively and include species of ecological, cultural, and socioeconomic value. In deprived communities of the Amazon, forest restoration must be a process that combines environmental and social gains.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Celentano et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being. A framework for assessment. Washington: Island Press; 2005.
• [2]Brasil: Código florestal brasileiro (Lei Nº 12.651 de 25 de Maio de 2012). 2012. [http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2011-2014/2012/Lei/L12651.htm webcite]
• [3]Rodrigues RR, Gandolfi S, Nave AG, Aronson J, Barreto TE, Vidal CY, Brancalion PH: Large-scale ecological restoration of high-diversity tropical forests in SE Brazil. Forest Ecol Manag 2011, 261:1605-1613.
• [4]Society for Ecological Restoration International: The Primer on ecological restoration. 2004. [http://www.ser.org webcite]
• [5]Higgs E: The two-culture problem: ecological restoration and the integration of knowledge. Restor Ecol 2005, 13:159-164.
• [6]Chokkalingam U, Sabogal C, Almeida E, Carandang AP, Gumartini T, de Jong W, Brienza S, Lopez AM, Murniati Nawir AA, Rumboko L, Toma T, Wollenberg E, Zhou Z: Local participation, livelihood needs and institutional arrangements: three keys to sustainable rehabilitation of degraded tropical forestlands. In Forest Restoration in Landscapes: Beyond planting trees. Edited by Mansourian S, Vallauri D, Dudley N. New York: Springer; 2005.
• [7]Ramakrishnan PS: Participatory use of traditional ecological knowledge for restoring natural capital in agroecosystems of rural India. In Restoring Natural Capital: Science, Business and Practice. Edited by Aronson J, Milton SJ, Blignaut JN. Washington: Island Press; 2007:137-145.
• [8]Vieira DLM, Holl KD, Peneireiro FM: Agro-successional restoration as a strategy to facilitate tropical forest recovery. Restor Ecol 2009, 17:451-459.
• [9]Defesa: Centro de Lançamento de Alcântara: janela brasileira para o espaço. 2013. [http://www.cla.aer.mil.br/ webcite]
• [10]Almeida AWB: Os quilombolas e a base de lançamento de foguetes de Alcântara. Brasília: MMA; 2006.
• [11]Caldarelli CE: Avaliação de impactos ambientais e o licenciamento ambiental no brasil: reflexões a partir do caso do complexo terrestre cyclone 4. FGV University, History, Politics and Cultural Goods Department; 2011. [PhD thesis]
• [12]Brito CMS, Rego MMC: Community of male Euglossini bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in a secondary forest, Alcântara, MA, Brazil. Braz J Biol 2001, 61:631-638.
• [13]Hays TE: An empirical method for the identification of covert categories in ethnobiology. Am Ethnol 1976, 3:489-507.
• [14]Bernard HR: Research methods in cultural anthropology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publ; 1988.
• [15]Borgatti SP: ANTHROPAC 4.0. Analytic Technologies: Natick, MA; 1996.
• [16]Puri RK: Anthropac for environment and anthropology, introduction to anthropac for environment and anthropology. 2001. http://www.uka.ac.uk/anthropology/staff/rajP.html webcite]
• [17]Caulkins D, Hyatt SB: Using consensus analysis to measure cultural diversity in organizations and social movements. Field Methods. Altamira 1999, 11:5-26.
• [18]Smith JJ: Using ANTHROPAC 3.5 and a spreadsheet to compute a free-list Salience Index. Cult Anthropol Methods Newsl 1993, 5:1-3.
• [19]Weller SC: Structured interviewing and questionnaire construction. In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. Edited by Russell BH. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press; 1998.
• [20]Sunderlin WD, Angelsen A, Belcher B, Burgess P, Nasi R, Santoso L, Wunder S: Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Dev 2005, 33:1383-1402.
• [21]FAO: A review of Cassava in Latin America and the Caribbean with country case studies on Brazil and Colômbia. Rome: FAO; 2004.
• [22]FAO: The world cassava economy: facts, trends and Outlook. Rome: FAO; 2000.
• [23]Shibu J: Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agroforest Syst 2009, 76:1-10.
• [24]Ferreira FR, Possidio EL, Soares NB, Castro Neto MT, Pinto ACQ, Donadioa LC, Freitas GB: Germoplasma de manga no Brazil. 2002. [http://www.cpatsa.embrapa.br/public_eletronica/downloads/OPB784.pdf webcite] EMBRAPA, 2002
• [25]FAO: Towards defining forested gradation: Comparative analysis of existing definitions. Rome: FAO; 2009. [Forest Resources Assessment Programme. Working Paper 154]
• [26]IPCC: Definitions and methodological options to inventory emissions from direct humaninduced degradation of forests and devegetation of other vegetation types. Kanagawa: IPCC-IGES; 2003. [http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/degradation_contents.html webcite]
• [27]Fearnside PM: Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates and consequences. Conserv Biol 2005, 19:680-688.
• [28]Foley JA, Asner GP, Costa MH, Coe MT, DeFries R, Gibbs HK, Howard EA, Olson S, Patz J, Ramankutty N, Snyder P: Amazonia revealed: forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Front Ecol Environ 2007, 5:25-32.
• [29]Celentano D, Sills E, Sales M, Veríssimo A: Welfare outcomes and the advance of the deforestation frontier in the Brazilian Amazon. World Develop 2012, 40:850-864.
• [30]Lawrence D, Radel C, Tully K, Schmook B, Schneider L: Untangling a decline in tropical forest resilience: constraints on the sustainability of shifting cultivation across the globe. Biotropica 2010, 42:21-30.
• [31]Martini LCP, Trentini EC: Agricultura em zonas ripárias do sul do Brasil: conflitos de uso da terra e impactos nos recursos hídricos. Revista Sociedade e Estado 2011, 26:613-630.
• [32]Junk WJ, Ohly JJ, Piedade MTF, Soares MGM: The Central Amazon floodplain: actual use and options for a sustainable management. Leiden: Backhuys Publishers; 2000.
• [33]Michalski F, Metzger JP, Peres CA: Rural property size drives patterns of upland and riparian forest retention in a tropical deforestation frontier. Global Environ Chang 2010, 20:705-712.
• [34]Fearnside PM: Land tenure issues as factors in environmental destruction in Brazilian Amazónia: the case of southern Pará. World Dev 2001, 29:1361-1372.
• [35]Harris RR: Defining reference conditions for restoration of riparian plant communities: examples from California, USA. Environ Manage 1999, 24:55-63.
• [36]Uprety Y, Asselin H, Bergeron Y, Doyon F, Boucher JF: Contribution of traditional knowledge to ecological restoration: practices and applications. Ecoscience 2012, 19:225-237.
• [37]International Tropical Timber Organization and International Union for Conservation of Nature: Restoring forest landscapes: an introduction to the art and science of forest landscape restoration. Yokohama: ITTO; 2005.
• [38]Rodrigues E: Ecologia da Restauração. Editora Planta: Londrina; 2013.
• [39]Lamb D, Erskine PD, Parrotta JA: Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 2005, 310:1628-1632.
• [40]Turner NJ: The earth’s blanket: traditional teachings for sustainable living. Vancouver and Seattle: British Columbia and University of Washington Press; 2005.
• [41]Baez S, Ambrose K, Hofstede R: Ecological and social bases for the restoration of a high andean cloud forest: preliminary results and lessons from a case study in northern Ecuador. In Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Science for Conservation and Management. Edited by Bruijnzeel LA, Scatena FN, Hamilton LS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010:628-643.
• [42]Dalle SP, Potvin C: Conservation of useful plants: an evaluation of local priorities from two indigenous communities in Eastern Panama. Econ Bot 2004, 58:38-57.
• [43]Brasil: Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente (CONAMA, Resolução n° 429, de 28 de fevereiro de 2011). 2011. [http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=644 webcite]
• [44]D’Antonio C, Meyerson LA: Exotic plant species as problems and solutions in ecological restoration: a synthesis. Restor Ecol 2002, 10:703-713.
• [45]Prach K, Marrs R, Pysek P, Van Diggelen R: Manipulation of succession. In Linking Restoration and Ecological Succession. Edited by Walker LR, Walker J, Hobbs RJ. : Springer Series on Environmental Management; 2007:121-149.
• [46]Lamb D, Gilmour D: Issues in forest conservation: Rehabilitation and restoration of degraded forests. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); 2003.
• [47]Lee KN: Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 1999, 2:3.