Return on investment of the ecological infrastructure in a new forest frontier in Brazilian Amazonia
Introduction
Infrastructure refers to the physical elements of interrelated systems that provide goods and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions (Fulmer, 2009). There are two types of infrastructure: socio-economic and ecological. Socio-economic infrastructure is composed of the physical assets required by both social sectors (such as financial, educational, health, cultural, defense, and judicial) and economic sectors (such as energy, water and sewage, food and agriculture, transportation, and communications). Economic and social infrastructures are also known as “hard” or “soft” infrastructures, respectively. The ecological (or green or natural) infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural and semi-natural areas that is planned and managed for its natural resource values and for the associated benefits it confers to human populations (Benedict and McMahon, 2006). Both types of infrastructure are required for human development, but investments in ecological infrastructure are much smaller than investments in socio-economic infrastructure (Ruggeri, 2009).
Ecological infrastructure underpins human well-being by directly supplying ecosystem services that cannot be imported and by providing services that, through interaction with the socio-economic infrastructure, become valuable to humans (Collados and Duane, 1999, Costanza et al., 2014). To be effective, ecological infrastructures should: (a) be large and connected enough to protect all species existing in a territory, (b) provide all goods and services that people need, and (c) increase society's resilience against the negative impacts of global climate changes (Garda et al., 2010, Maes et al., 2015, Sussams et al., 2015). If societies want long-term prosperity, they must design and establish their ecological infrastructures, integrating them at several spatial scales (Yu, 2012).
The core of any ecological infrastructure is composed of protected areas, which are clearly defined geographical spaces that are recognized, dedicated, and managed through legal or other effective means to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Dudley, 2008). Currently, the global ecological infrastructure is built around 155,584 terrestrial protected areas covering around 12.5% of the world's land surface as well as 7318 marine protected areas covering 3% of the world's marine ecosystems (Watson et al., 2014). Most of the existing protected areas have not been fully implemented because financial resources for building the core of a global ecological infrastructure have always been significantly smaller than what is needed (Jenkins and Joppa, 2009). Although the act of designating an area as protected by governments can halt ecosystem loss for some time, a protected area can only achieve the desired goals if it receives enough funds to be well-managed (Bruner et al., 2001).
In the last few years, there has been a trend in which key national governments have reduced their commitment to supporting protected areas (Watson et al., 2014). The lack of support by governments has traditionally been demonstrated by cuts in the operational budgets of the agencies responsible for protected area management. However, currently, governments are also reducing the strictness of the conservation status of protected areas, opening them to more intense human activities, reducing their sizes via boundary changes, and removing legal protection (Mascia et al., 2014, Bernard et al., 2014).
Watson et al. (2014) suggested that more studies documenting the return on investment (ROI) of protected areas for local societies could help to renew the interest of local and national governments in this particular component of the world's ecological infrastructure. Although the use of return on investment is not new in conservation (see review by Boyd et al., 2015), it has primarily been used to identify conservation gaps during systematic conservation planning or to guide future resource allocations across regions (Murdoch et al., 2007, Murdoch et al., 2010), rather than to provide evidence that existing protected areas are indeed good investments for local societies (Task Force on Economic Benefits of Protected Areas of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of IUCN, in collaboration with the Economics Service Unit of IUCN, 1998).
In this paper, we present the return on investment of nine protected areas that compose the core of the ecological infrastructure of the State of Amapá, Brazilian Amazonia (hereafter referred to simply as “Amapá”). We calculate the costs of implementing these protected areas as well as some direct benefits they can generate for the local human population. We selected Amapá as a case study because it is a new forest frontier, i.e., it harbors large stocks of natural ecosystems, has low deforestation rates, and has low population density (Bryant et al., 1997, Becker, 2009). New forest frontiers are relevant because they cover around 5.8 million km2 in South America, Africa, and Asia (Bryant et al., 1997) and are the places where conflicts regarding the fate of the world's largest stocks of pristine ecosystems will possibly emerge in the near future if sustainable land-use policies are not implemented at an appropriate pace.
Section snippets
Study area
Amapá is located in northern Brazil and is bordered by French Guyana and Suriname (Fig. 1). Amapá has an area of 14,281,458 ha (Drummond et al., 2008) and a population of 669,526 (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2014). Most of the population is urban, with 74.6% of the population living in the capital of Macapá and in Santana. Amapá's gross domestic product (GDP) for 2013 was US $5.5 billion, representing 0.2% of Brazil's GDP (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2014
Costs of protected areas
A total of US $62.0 million over five years is required to establish the nine protected areas (Fig. 2). Most of the establishment costs will go to building infrastructure (US $36.7 million), followed by equipment acquisition (US $18.4 million), and planning and demarcation (US $6.9 million).
The nine protected areas in Amapá require 3051 staff members (Table 2). There is a large gap between existing and required staff numbers. Field staff should grow from 65 to 2769, while management staff should
Discussion
We estimated that the costs for establishing the infrastructure needed to maintain 9.2 million ha is US $147.3 million over five years, followed by annual recurrent costs of US $32.7 million. This is equivalent to US $3.2 h− 1 y− 1 during the establishment phase and US $3.5 h− 1 y− 1 thereafter. Costs associated with staff salaries are the largest (51.5%) in the post-establishment phase. Currently, by combining field and management staff, the nine protected areas in Amapá have a staff density of 1:88,292
Acknowledgments
This paper is part of the Ph.D. thesis presented by T.C.A.C. Dias in the Graduate Program in Tropical Biodiversity (UNIFAP-EMBRAPA-IEPA-Conservation International). J.M.C. Silva received support from the University of Miami and A. Cunha received financial support from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), grant #475614/2012-7. We thank Luis Barbosa for helping us with the map and spatial analyses.
References (60)
- et al.
Natural capital and quality of life: a model for evaluating the sustainability of alternative regional development paths
Ecol. Econ.
(1999) - et al.
Changes in the global value of ecosystem services
Glob. Environ. Chang.
(2014) - et al.
Estimating management costs of protected areas: a novel approach from the Eastern Arc Mountains, Tanzania
Biol. Conserv.
(2012) - et al.
Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system
Biol. Conserv.
(2009) - et al.
Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, 1900–2010
Biol. Conserv.
(2014) - et al.
Maximizing return on investment in conservation
Biol. Conserv.
(2007) - et al.
Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change
Glob. Environ. Chang.
(2005) Government investment in natural capital
Ecol. Econ.
(2009)- et al.
Quantifying and comparing the value of non-timber forest products in the Amazon
Ecol. Econ.
(2006) - et al.
Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future?
J. Environ. Manag.
(2015)
Avoided deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: simulating the effect of the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve
For. Ecol. Manag.
Inclusion of costs in conservation planning depends on limited datasets and hopeful assumptions: inclusion of costs in conservation planning
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
Who should pay for tropical conservation, and how could the costs be met?
Oryx
Potencial Econômico nas Florestas Estaduais da Calha Norte: Madeira e Castanha-do-Brasil
Amazônia: Geopolítica na Virada do III Milênio
Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21th Century
Downgrading, downsizing, degazettement, and reclassification of protected areas in Brazil: loss of protected area in Brazil
Conserv. Biol.
An estimate of the costs of an effective system of protected areas in the Niger Delta–Congo Basin Forest Region
Biodivers. Conserv.
Conservation planning: a review of return on investment analysis
Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy
Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity
Science
Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries
Bioscience
The Last Frontier Forests: Ecosystems and Economics on the Edge
Economia dos produtos florestais não-madereiros no Estado do Amapá: Sustentabildade e desenvolvimento endógeno
Atlas das unidades de conservação do Estado do Amapá
Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories
Brazil's Amazon forest in mitigating global warming: unresolved controversies
Clim. Pol.
What in the world is infrastructure?
Infrastruct. Invest.
Biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in the Amazon
Syst. Biodivers.
Key human dimensions of gaps in global biodiversity conservation
Bioscience
Balanço Geral do Estado do Amapá: 2014
Cited by (28)
Linking G2SFCA method and circuit theory to promote spatial equity and landscape connectivity in urban ecological infrastructure
2023, Journal of Environmental ManagementMinimum costs to conserve 80% of the Brazilian Amazon
2022, Perspectives in Ecology and ConservationPriority areas for conservation of primates in a threatened Amazonian savanna
2022, Journal for Nature ConservationA digital approach to quantifying political vulnerability of protected areas
2021, Environmental Science and PolicyCitation Excerpt :In addition to biodiversity conservation, protected areas (PAs) provide numerous benefits to society (Mcneely, 2020), both directly through tourism, fishing and other forms of extractivism (Dias et al., 2016; do Val Simardi Beraldo Souza et al., 2019), and indirectly through renewal of hydrological cycles, mitigation of climate change, maintenance of physical and mental health, etc. (Buckley, 2020; Buckley et al., 2019; Dudley and Stolton, 2010; Melillo et al., 2016).
Modeling pollutant dispersion scenarios in high vessel-traffic areas of the Lower Amazon River
2021, Marine Pollution BulletinCitation Excerpt :Results shown in Figs. 5a-d, 6a-d, 7 and in Table 2 (supplementary file) suggest that the observed risks only provide basic, although crucial, information to support the adequate assessment of eventual environmental impacts caused by oil spills in the Lower Amazon River region. The integration between numerical simulation and LSI data - depending on the specific scope of the assessment - is also extremely useful for the analysis of potential impacts caused by oil spills on geomorphologically and biologically sensitive environments (Dias et al., 2016; Santos et al., 2018) that are relatively unknown (IEPA, 2017). In addition, likely oil spills could severely affect urban areas of high socioeconomic interest.
Socio-economic outcomes of ecological infrastructure investments
2021, Ecosystem Services