Spatially explicit valuation of the Brazilian Amazon Forest’s Ecosystem Services

Article metrics

Abstract

The Brazilian Amazon forest is tremendously important for its ecosystem services but attribution of economically measurable values remains scarce. Mapping these values is essential for designing conservation strategies that suitably combine regional forest protection with sustainable forest use. We estimate spatially explicit economic values for a range of ecosystem services provided by the Brazilian Amazon forest, including food production (Brazil nut), raw material provision (rubber and timber), greenhouse gas mitigation (CO2 emissions) and climate regulation (rent losses to soybean, beef and hydroelectricity production due to reduced rainfall). Our work also includes the mapping of biodiversity resources and of rent losses to timber production by fire-induced degradation. Highest values range from US$56.72 ± 10 ha−1 yr−1 to US$737 ± 134 ha−1 yr−1 but are restricted to only 12% of the remaining forest. Our results, presented on a web platform, identify regions where high ecosystem services values cluster together as potential information to support decision-making.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Forest values for individual value components
Fig. 2: Forest values overlaid with highly biodiverse areas.
Fig. 3: Areal extent of intervals of forest values in US$ ha−1 yr−1 for each valuation component and for the total value map (see Figs. 1 and 2).

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available at http://amazones.info. Further description of how the data were processed and analysed is presented in the SI.

References

  1. 1.

    Baccini, A. et al. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5962 (2017).

  2. 2.

    Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 26, 152–158 (2014).

  3. 3.

    Oliveira, U. et al. Biodiversity conservation gaps in the Brazilian protected areas. Sci. Rep. 7, 9141 (2017).

  4. 4.

    Phillips, O. L. & Brienen, R. J. W. Carbon uptake by mature Amazon forests has mitigated Amazon nations’ carbon emissions. Carbon Balance Manag. 12, 1 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Fearnside, P. M. Environmental services as a strategy for sustainable development in rural Amazonia. Ecol. Econ. 20, 53–70 (1997).

  6. 6.

    Oliveira, L. J., Costa, M. H., Soares-Filho, B. & Coe, M. Large-scale expansion of agriculture in Amazonia may be a no-win scenario. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 1–10 (2013).

  7. 7.

    Soares-Filho, B. et al. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 10821–10826 (2010).

  8. 8.

    Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).

  9. 9.

    Costanza, R. et al. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go?. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Groot, R. et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 50–61 (2012).

  11. 11.

    Pearce, D, Markandya, A. & Barbier, E. Blueprint for a Green Economy (Earthscan, London, 1989).

  12. 12.

    Bateman, I. J. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50 (2013).

  13. 13.

    Andersen, L. E, Granger, C. W, Reis, E. J, Weinhold, D. & Wunder, S. The Dynamics of Deforestation and Economic Growth in the Brazilian Amazon 282 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2002).

  14. 14.

    Strand, J. Modeling the marginal value of rainforest losses: a dynamic value function approach. Ecol. Econ. 131, 322–329 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Torras, M. The total economic value of Amazonian deforestation, 1978–1993. Ecol. Econ. 33, 283–297 (2000).

  16. 16.

    Laurila-Pant, M., Lehikoinen, A., Uusitalo, L. & Venesjärvi, R. How to value biodiversity in environmental management?. Ecol. Indic. 55, 1–11 (2015).

  17. 17.

    Small, N., Munday, M. & Durance, I. The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob. Environ. Chang. 44, 57–67 (2017).

  18. 18.

    Rangel, T. F. et al. Modeling the ecology and evolution of biodiversity: biogeographical cradles, museums, and graves. Science 361, eaar5452 (2018).

  19. 19.

    Soares-Filho, B. S. et al. Economic Valuation of Changes in the Amazon Forest Area: Economic Losses by Fires to Sustainable Timber Production (Center for Remote Sensing, Belo Horizonte, 2017).

  20. 20.

    Resolution n. 406 of February 2, 2009 (CONAMA, Brazil, 2009).

  21. 21.

    Oliveira, A. S. et al. Economic losses to sustainable timber production by fire in the Brazilian Amazon. Geogr. J. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12276 (2018).

  22. 22.

    Lovejoy, T. E. & Nobre, C. Amazon tipping point. Sci. Adv. 4, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat2340 (2018).

  23. 23.

    Brando, P. M. et al. Abrupt increases in Amazonian tree mortality due to drought–fire interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6347–6352 (2014).

  24. 24.

    Silvestrini, R. A. et al. Simulating fire regimes in the Amazon in response to climate change and deforestation. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1573–1590 (2011).

  25. 25.

    Mendonça, M. J. C. et al. The economic cost of the use of fire in the Amazon. Ecol. Econ. 49, 89–105 (2004).

  26. 26.

    Nunes, F. et al. Economic benefits of forest conservation: assessing the potential rents from Brazil nut concessions in Madre de Dios, Peru, to channel REDD+ investments. Environ. Conserv. 39, 132–143 (2012).

  27. 27.

    Jaramillo-Giraldo, C., Soares Filho, B., Carvalho Ribeiro, S. M. & Gonçalves, R. C. Is it possible to make rubber extraction ecologically and economically viable in the Amazon? The southern Acre and Chico Mendes Reserve case study. Ecol. Econ. 134, 186–197 (2017).

  28. 28.

    Ribeiro, S. et al. Can multifunctional livelihoods including recreational ecosystem services (RES) and non timber forest products (NTFP) maintain biodiverse forests in the Brazilian Amazon?. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 517–526 (2018).

  29. 29.

    Fearnside, P. M In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science (ed. H. Shugart) (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2017).

  30. 30.

    Stickler, C. M. et al. Dependence of hydropower energy generation on forests in the Amazon Basin at local and regional scales. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 110, 9601–9606 (2013).

  31. 31.

    Sumila, T. C. A., Pires, G. F., Fontes, V. C. & Costa, M. H. Sources of water vapor to economically relevant regions in Amazonia and the effect of deforestation. J. Hydrometeorol. 18, 1643–1655 (2017).

  32. 32.

    Rochedo, P. R. R. et al. The threat of political bargaining to climate mitigation in Brazil. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 695–698 (2018).

  33. 33.

    Van der Hoff, R., Rajão, R. & Leroy, P. Clashing interpretations of REDD+ “results” in the Amazon Fund. Clim. Change 150, 433–445 (2018).

  34. 34.

    Soares-Filho, B. et al. Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440, 520–523 (2006).

  35. 35.

    Soares-Filho, B. et al. Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science 344, 363–364 (2014).

  36. 36.

    Steege, H. et al. The discovery of the Amazonian tree flora with an updated checklist of all known tree taxa. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–15 (2016).

  37. 37.

    Oliveira, U. et al. The strong influence of collection bias on biodiversity knowledge shortfalls of Brazilian terrestrial biodiversity. Divers. Distrib. 22, 1232–1244 (2016).

  38. 38.

    Summary for Policymakers of the Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production (IPBES, Bonn, 2016).

  39. 39.

    Oliveira, U. et al. Economic Valuation of Changes in the Amazon Forest Area: Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in the Brazilian Amazon (Center for Remote Sensing, Belo Horizonte, 2017).

  40. 40.

    Nunes, F. S., Soares Filho, B. & Rodrigues, H. Valorando a floresta em pé: a rentabilidade da castanha do Brasil no Acre. In IX Encontro Nacional da Ecoeco, Brasília (2011).

  41. 41.

    Dean, W Brazil and the Struggle for Rubber: A Study in Environmental History (Studies in Environment and History) (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2002)

  42. 42.

    Bowman, M. S. et al. Persistence of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: a spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land Use Policy 29, 558–568 (2012).

  43. 43.

    Fearnside, P. M. Conservation policy in Brazilian Amazonia: understanding the dilemmas. World Dev. 31, 757–779 (2003).

  44. 44.

    Pires, G. F. & Costa, M. H. Deforestation causes different subregional effects on the Amazon bioclimatic equilibrium. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 3618–3623 (2013).

  45. 45.

    Merry, F., Soares-Filho, B. S., Nepstad, D., Amacher, G. & Rodrigues, H. Balancing conservation and economic sustainability: the future of the Amazon timber industry. Environ. Manage. 44, 395–407 (2009).

  46. 46.

    State Capitals of Brazil (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2010); http://downloads.ibge.gov.br/downloads_geociencias.htm

  47. 47.

    State Boundaries of Brazil (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2015); http://mapas.ibge.gov.br/bases-e-referenciais/bases-cartograficas/malhas-digitais

  48. 48.

    Projeto Prodes: Monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, 2017); http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/index.php

  49. 49.

    Limits of Biomes in Brazil (Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 2017); http://mapas.mma.gov.br/i3geo/datadownload.htm

  50. 50.

    Bonham-Carter, G. Geographic Information Systems for Geoscientists: Modelling with GIS (Pergamon, Oxford, 1994).

  51. 51.

    Houghton, R. A. et al. Annual fluxes of carbon from deforestation and regrowth in the Brazilian Amazon. Nature 403, 301–304 (2000).

  52. 52.

    Allen, M. R., Stott, P. A., Mitchell, J. F. B., Schnur, R. & Delworth, T. L. Quantifying the uncertainty inforecasts of anthropocentric climate change. Nature 407, 617–620 (2000).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We received financial support from the Norwegian government through the World Bank. Feedback was provided by Y. Kraus and J. Vincent. B.S.F., M.C., G.P., R.J. and U.O. received support from CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico). U.O., A.O. and R.H. received support from CAPES (Coordenação e Aperfeiçoamento de Nível Superior). B.S.F. was also supported by the Humboldt Foundation. P.M. was supported by TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) AgriFood project.

Author information

J.S., B.S.F. and M.C. designed the project, conducted research and wrote the manuscript. G.P., U.O., S.R., R.R. and A.O. conducted research and helped write the manuscript. J.S. and R.M. conducted research. P.M., M.T. and R.H. helped write the manuscript.

Correspondence to Jon Strand or Britaldo Soares-Filho.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Sections 1–7, Supplementary Figures 1–75, Supplementary Tables 1–19, Supplementary References 1–163

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strand, J., Soares-Filho, B., Costa, M.H. et al. Spatially explicit valuation of the Brazilian Amazon Forest’s Ecosystem Services. Nat Sustain 1, 657–664 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0175-0

Download citation

Further reading