Mudanças e continuidades: economia florestal, serviços urbanos e unidades domésticas no estuário amazônico

Nos últimos 30 anos, observa-se no estuário Amazônico o crescimento da população urbana e o aumento da cobertura florestal lado a lado, graças à expansão da economia do açai (Euterpe oleracea), o qual passou de um alimento local e cotidiano para um suplemento alimentar de moda e exóticonuma escala nacional e internacional. Apesar da riqueza gerada por essa economia florestal não madereira, ela não tem trazido o esperado desenvolvimento regional aos municípios nem melhoria de qualidade devida a seus moradores, principalmente pela falta de indústrias locais que agreguem valor ao fruto do açaí. Baseado em um estudo etnográfico e longitudinal na cidade de Ponta de Pedras, na Ilha do Marajó, o artigo visa refletir sobre o desenvolvimento e limites da economia do açaí, seu impactona estruturação das unidades domésticas e nos municípios produtores

Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina.Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina.Fil: Settele, Josef. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung. Department of Community Ecology; Alemania.Fil: Brondízio, Eduardo. Indiana University Bloomington. Department of Anthropology; Estados Unidos.Fil: Ngo, Hien T. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania.Fil: Guèze, Maximilien. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania.Fil: Agard, John. University of the West Indies. Department of Life Sciences; Trinidad y Tobago.Fil: Arneth, Almut. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research. Atmospheric Environmental Research; Alemania.Fil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad; México.Fil: Brauman, Kate A. University of Minnesota. Institute on the Environment; Estados Unidos.Fil: Butchart, Stuart H. M. BirdLife International; Reino Unido.Fil: Chan, Kai. University of British Columbia. Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability; Canada.Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina.Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina.Fil: Ichii, Kazuhito. National Institute for Environmental Studies. Center for Global Environmental Research; Japón.Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University. Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability; Estados Unidos.Fil: Mazhenchery Subramanian, Suneetha. United Nations University. Institute of Advanced Studies; Japón.Fil: Midgley, Guy. Stellenbosch University. Department of Botany and Zoology; Sudáfrica.Fil: Miloslavich, Patricia. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Oceans and Atmosphere; Australia.Fil: Molnár, Zsolt. Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Traditional Ecological Knowledge Research Group; Hungría.Fil: Obura, David. Coastal Oceans Research and Development – Indian Ocean; Kenya.Fil: Pfaff, Alexander. Duke University; Estados Unidos.Fil: Polasky, Stephen. University of Minnesota. Department of Applied Economics; Estados Unidos.Fil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum. Department of Life Sciences; Reino Unido.Fil: Razzaque, Jona. University of the West of England. Faculty of Business and Law. Department of Law; Reino Unido.Fil: Reyers, Belinda. Stellenbosch University. Department of Conservation Ecology; Sudáfrica.Fil: Roy Chowdhury, Rinku. Clark University. Graduate School of Geography; Estados Unidos.Fil: Shin, Yunne J. Institute of Research for Development, Sète & Montpellier; Francia.Fil: Visseren Hamakers, Ingrid. George Mason University. Department of Environmental Science and Policy; Estados Unidos.Fil: Willis, Katherine. University of Oxford. Department of Zoology; Reino Unido.Fil: Zayas, Cynthia N. University of the Philippines. Center for International Studies; Filipinas.Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS)–a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was established in 2011, and is now one of the major international social-ecological systems (SES) research networks. During this time, SES research has undergone a phase of rapid growth and has grown into an influential branch of sustainability science. In this Perspective, we argue that SES research has also deepened over the past decade, and helped to shed light on key dimensions of SES dynamics (e.g. system feedbacks, aspects of system design, goals and paradigms) that can lead to tangible action for solving the major sustainability challenges of our time. We suggest four ways in which the growth of place-based SES research, fostered by networks such as PECS, has contributed to these developments, namely by: 1) shedding light on transformational change, 2) revealing the social dynamics shaping SES, 3) bringing together diverse types of knowledge, and 4) encouraging reflexive researchers

The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was established in 2011, and is now one of the major international social-ecological systems (SES) research networks. During this time, SES research has undergone a phase of rapid growth and has grown into an influential branch of sustainability science. In this Perspective, we argue that SES research has also deepened over the past decade, and helped to shed light on key dimensions of SES dynamics (e.g. system feedbacks, aspects of system design, goals and paradigms) that can lead to tangible action for solving the major sustainability challenges of our time. We suggest four ways in which the growth of place-based SES research, fostered by networks such as PECS, has contributed to these developments, namely by: 1) shedding light on transformational change, 2) revealing the social dynamics shaping SES, 3) bringing together diverse types of knowledge, and 4) encouraging reflexive researchers

Human-environment research: Past trends, current challenges, and future directions

This chapter reflects on issues and questions underscoring the preceding chapters while providing a brief overview of current and future directions in the study of human-environment interactions. A discussion of future directions begins with recognizing that the challenges of studying complex coupled humanenvironment systems are not new, although current processes of globalization and climate change render such challenges pressing, and of wider societal relevance. In this brief overview, we highlight questions related to institutions, ecosystem services, health, adaptation to climate change, urbanization, and methodological challenges. This chapter reflects on issues and questions underscoring the preceding chapters while providing a brief overview of current and future directions in the study of human-environment interactions (HEI). A discussion of future directions begins with recognizing that the challenges of studying complex coupled humanenvironment systems are not new, although current processes of globalization and climate change render such challenges pressing, and of wider societal relevance. As we look into the present and future of HEI research, we are challenged with many of the same long-standing questions confronted from a variety of disciplinary angles as in past decades. These challenges pertain to complexity, scale, heterogeneity, governance, and barriers to interdisciplinary bridging, among other themes. Although we are constantly improving upon methodological tools and analytical concepts in human-environment research, a key challenge remains to bridge disciplinary knowledge to the demands of (interdisciplinary) problems we face today. This has been a central concern for the contributors to this volume. Different disciplinary traditions have confronted the question of how local populations interact with larger social, ecological, and economic processes and how we understand complex pathways of change and transitions in HEI systems and their variance across scales. These questions have required the research community to consider the tradeoffs of scaling up (and down) human-environment analysis and confront common yet questionable assumptions about different degrees of social and environmental homogeneity. We have learned that context, units of analysis, and the choices of temporal and spatial scales regarding the questions asked can strongly influence the understanding obtained. Yet, the many challenges of scaling (e.g., how to gain insights into lower-level phenomena from broader-scale behavior or vice versa) continue to define an important conceptual and analytical frontier for the HEI research community and the social sciences in general. It is important to recognize the evolution of such efforts, as discussed in the introduction to this volume and illustrated in different chapters, as part of the effort put toward interdisciplinary approaches to HEI research. We have come a long way from opportunistic methodological and theoretical borrowing to increasingly interdisciplinary and collaborative research frameworks (Moran 2010; Ostrom 2009). The emergence of social-ecological systems frameworks, as discussed below, illustrates relevant advancements on this front. Progressively, these developments are influencing the training of a new generation of scholars and practitioners equipped with language and skills to address old, new, and pressing questions confronting us today. In these and other frameworks, there is a critical need to detail the historical trajectories of HEI systems in order to generate accurate and robust understanding of their dynamics

Inter-Urban Dependency among Amazonian Cities: Urban Growth, Infrastructure Deficiencies, and Socio-Demographic Networks

This paper examines the process of urbanization in the Brazilian Amazon with attention to the formation of inter-urban networks and their linkages to a regional urban system. Based on the integration of historical census, census micro-data (2000), and field research it examines Amazonian cities in terms foundation history, urban functions and services, population sizes, and employment. It also examines the emergence of subregional inter-urban networks through transportation and population movement. Three main arguments regarding Amazonian urbanization are discussed. 1) The lack of urban infrastructure in the Amazon is non-selective, affecting cities notwithstanding age, size, and location. 2) As a result, subregional inter-urban networks are emerging marked by the rise of node service cities in different parts of the region. 3) High rates of urbanization, dependency on subsidies, lack of industries and dominant informal economy points to limited prospects for short-term improvements in urban conditions and quality of life

Inter-Urban Dependency among Amazonian Cities: Urban Growth, Infrastructure Deficiencies, and Socio-Demographic Networks

This paper examines the process of urbanization in the Brazilian Amazon with attention to the formation of inter-urban networks and their linkages to a regional urban system. Based on the integration of historical census, census micro-data (2000), and field research it examines Amazonian cities in terms foundation history, urban functions and services, population sizes, and employment. It also examines the emergence of subregional inter-urban networks through transportation and population movement. Three main arguments regarding Amazonian urbanization are discussed. 1) The lack of urban infrastructure in the Amazon is non-selective, affecting cities notwithstanding age, size, and location. 2) As a result, subregional inter-urban networks are emerging marked by the rise of node service cities in different parts of the region. 3) High rates of urbanization, dependency on subsidies, lack of industries and dominant informal economy points to limited prospects for short-term improvements in urban conditions and quality of life

Burn scar transition matrix analysis showing land area by number of sequential years burned, Pimentel Barbosa Indigenous Reserve, Brazil, 2007–2010.

<p>Landsat TM and ETM+ imagery used in our analyses were obtained courtesy of the United States Geological Survey (USGS).</p

Remains of mechanized tree-chaining on private property adjacent to western boundary of Pimentel Barbosa Indigenous Reserve, Brazil, 2012.

<p>Photograph by Carlos E. A. Coimbra Jr.</p

Mosaic of calibrated satellite imagery overlaid with reserve boundaries and deforestation mapped from 1973 to 2010, Pimentel Barbosa Indigenous Reserve, Brazil, 1973–2010.

<p>Landsat MSS and TM imagery used in our analyses was obtained courtesy of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and from the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE) under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.</p