Social perception of tree plantations in the Atlantic forest of Argentina: the role of management scale

Lucía Cariola, Andrea E. Izquierdo, Norma I. Hilgert

Abstract


Land use changes associated with the advance of forest plantations on lands previously used for agriculture generate diverse perceptions of the socio-environmental impact they entail. In last decades there has been a transformation in land use associated with the development of forestry activity in the northwest of the province of Misiones, Argentina. Considering local communities in order to improve assessment, governance and decision-making in sustainable management, we posed two questions: What are local communities’ environmental, social and economic perceptions of tree plantations? What is the role of scale of production in these perceptions? To this purpose we first described the productive matrix of the landscape mapping the forest plantation cover of the area and classifying the productive units in different Forest Management Model (large, medium and small scale). Then, we identified and selected participants from comparable rural communities in each FMM, who through a Q survey grouped phrases according their perceptions. Subsequently, emerging viewpoints were recognised. Our analysis shows that forestry activity is not poorly conceptualized in contrast to conceptualization of the management of larger-scale productive systems in combination with government policies promoting them. The management carried out through large areas that result in a homogenization of the landscape are perceived negatively. In general terms, the local imagination perceives the promotion and establishment of forestry companies as a mistake if planning to protect pre-existing familiar productive systems is not previously carried out.

Keywords


tree plantations, agricultural productive systems, monoculture plantations, perception of environment, sustainable land-use planning, local livelihood and well-being

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andersson K, Lawrence D, Zavaleta J, Guariguata M (2015) More trees, more poverty? The socioeconomic effects of tree plantations in Chile, 2001–2011. Environmental Management 57: 123–136.

Barr N (2008) Landscape analysis and visualisation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-3-540-69168-6.

Barry J, Proops J (1999) Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28(3): 337-345.

Belastegui HM (2006) Los colonos de Misiones. Editorial Universitaria de Misiones. Posadas, 184 p.

Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, Geijzendorffer IR, et al. (2015) Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14 (June 2015): 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007.

Bieling C (2013) Perceiving and responding to gradual landscape change at the community level: Insights from a case study on agricultural abandonment in the Black Forest, Germany. Ecology and Society 18(2): doi: 10.5751/ES-05590-180236.

Brown SR (1980) Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press, 355 p.

Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, et al. (2012) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bio Science 62(8): 744-756.

Charnley S (2005) Industrial Plantation Forestry: Do Local Communities Benefit? Journal of Sustainable Forestry 21(4): 59-73.

Chifarelli D (2010) Acumulación, éxodo y expansión. Un análisis sobre la agricultura familiar en el norte de Misiones. Ediciones INTA. Buenos Aires. 202 pp.

Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, et al. (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 359: 6373 http://science.sciencemag.org.

Furlan V, Cariola L, García D, Hilgert NI (2015) Caracterización de los sistemas agroforestales familiares y estrategias de uso del ambiente en el Bosque Atlántico Argentino. Gaia Scientia 9: 69-81.

Gerber JF (2011) Conflicts over Industrial Tree Plantations in the South: Who, How and Why? Global Environmental Change 21(1): 165–76. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.005.

INDEC -Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos- (1980) Censo nacional de población y vivienda 1980. Serie D: población. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

IPEC -Instituto Provincial de Estadísticas y Censos- (2015) Gran Atlas de Misiones. Posadas, Misiones, Argentina. 430 p. http://www.ipecmisiones.org/gran-atlas-de-misiones.

ISE (2006) International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions). http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/Accessed 28 August 2015.

Izquierdo AE, Angelo CD De, Aide T M (2008) Thirty years of human demography and land-use change in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina: An evaluation of the forest transition model. Ecology and Society 13(2). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art3/

Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Turner BL II (eds.) (1995) Regions at risk: comparisons of threatened environments. United Nations Univ. Press, Tokyo.

Korten DC (1980) Community organization and rural development: A learning process approach. Public Administration Review 9-10: 480-512.

Kottak CP (1999) The new ecological anthropology. American Anthropologist 101(1): 23-35.

Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(9): 3465-3472.

Leys A, Vanclay J (2010) Land-use change conflict arising from plantation forestry expansion: Views across Australian fence-lines. International Forestry Review 12(3): 256-269. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1505/ifor.12.3.256.

Mastrángelo A, Trpin V (comps) (2011) Entre chacras y plantaciones. Trabajo rural y territorio en producciones que Argentina exporta. Buenos Aires. CICCUS. 254 p.

Meijaard E, Abram NK, Wells JA, Pellier AS, Ancrenaz M, Gaveau DLA, Runting RK, Mengersen K (2013) People’s perceptions about the importance of forests on Borneo. PLoS ONE 8(9): e73008. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073008.

Orians GH (2001) An evolutionary perspective on aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts (USA) 2: 25-29.

Paruelo JM (2011) Valoración de servicios ecosistémicos y planificación del uso del territorio ¿Es necesario hablar de dinero? Capítulo 5. In: Laterra P, Jobbágy EG, Paruelo JM (eds.). Valoración de servicios ecosistémicos: conceptos, herramientas y aplicaciones para el ordenamiento territorial. MAG/INTA.

Paruelo JM, Laterra P, Viglizzo E (2014) Un plan operativo para incorporar los servicios ecosistémicos en el proceso de ordenamiento territorial. In: Paruelo JM, Jobbágy EG, Laterra P, Diéguez H, Collazo MG, Paniza A (eds.) Ordenamiento Territorial: Conceptos, Metodologías y Experiencias. Buenos Aires, UBA/MAG/FAO.

Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, et al. (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27: 7–16 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343517300040?via%3Dihub.

Pramova E, Locatelli B, Djoudi H, Somorin OA (2012) Forests and trees for social adaptation to climate variability and change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3: 581–596.

Püschel-Hoeneisen N, Simonetti JA (2012) Forested habitat preferences by Chilean citizens: Implications for biodiversity conservation in Pinus radiata plantations. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 85(2): 161-169.

Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Tengö M, Bennett EM, Holland T, Benessaiah K, Pfeifer L (2010) Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: Why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? BioScience 60(8): 576–589 http://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4

Schmolck P (2014) PQ method. Retrieved October 16 2014.

Sodhi N, Lee T, Sekercioglu C, Webb E, Prawiradilaga DM, Lohman DJ, Pierce NE, Diesmos AC, Rao M, Ehrlich PR (2010) Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 1175–1188.

Steelman TA, Maguire LA (1999) Perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(3): 361-388.

Stenner P, Marshall H (1996) A Q methodological study of rebelliousness. European Journal of Social Psychology 25(6): 612–636.

Tengo M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem Governance: The multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO 43: 579–591. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3.

Van Exel J, Graaf G.d (2005) Q methodology: A sneak preview. Social Sciences 2: 1-30 http://qmethod.org/articles/vanExel.pdf.

Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277: 494–499.

Webler T, Danielson S, Tuler S, (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute. http://www.seri-us.org/sites/default/files/Qprimer.pdf.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


SCImago Journal & Country Rank