AMBIO

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 298–309 | Cite as

Implications of Rural–Urban Migration for Conservation of the Atlantic Forest and Urban Growth in Misiones, Argentina (1970–2030)

  • Andrea E. Izquierdo
  • Héctor R. Grau
  • T. Mitchell Aide
Review Paper

Abstract

Global trends of increasing rural–urban migration and population urbanization could provide opportunities for nature conservation, particularly in regions where deforestation is driven by subsistence agriculture. We analyzed the role of rural population as a driver of deforestation and its contribution to urban population growth from 1970 to the present in the Atlantic Forest of Argentina, a global conservation priority. We created future land-use-cover scenarios based on human demographic parameters and the relationship between rural population and land-cover change between 1970 and 2006. In 2006, native forest covered 50% of the province, but by 2030 all scenarios predicted a decrease that ranged from 18 to 39% forest cover. Between 1970 and 2001, rural migrants represented 20% of urban population growth and are expected to represent less than 10% by 2030. This modeling approach shows how rural–urban migration and land-use planning can favor nature conservation with little impact on urban areas.

Keywords

Globalization Human demography Deforestation Landscape planning Subtropical Argentina STELLA 

References

  1. Achard, F., H.D. Eva, H. Stibig, P. Mayaux, J. Gallego, T. Richards, and J. Malingreud. 2002. Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297: 999–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aide, T.M., and H.R. Grau. 2004. Globalization, migration, and Latin American ecosystems. Science 305: 1915–1916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, L.E. 2002. Rural–urban migration in Bolivia: Advantages and disadvantages. La Paz, Bolivia: Instituto de Investigaciones Socio-económicas, Universidad Católica Boliviana.Google Scholar
  4. Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: A review. Oikos 71: 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelsen, A., and D. Kaimowitz. 1999. Rethinking the causes of deforestation: Lessons from economic models. The World Bank 14: 73–98.Google Scholar
  6. Brook, B.W., C.J.A. Bradshaw, L.P. Koh, and N.S. Sodhi. 2006. Momentum drives the crash: Mass extinction in the tropics. Biotropica 38(3): 302–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colcombet, L., and C. Noseda. 2000. Destination of the lands occupied by properties of the Province of Misiones. Unpublished Report. Montecarlo, Area de Extensión: INTA, EEA (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  8. Fearnside, P.M. 2001. Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil. Environmental Conservation 28: 23–38.Google Scholar
  9. Galindo-Leal, C., and I. Gusmão-Câmara. 2003. The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity status, threats and outlook. Washington, DC, USA: Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International, Island Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gasparri, N.I., and H.R. Grau. 2006. Regional patterns of deforestation in subtropical Argentina and its ecological context and socio-economic. In Argentina environmental situation 2005, ed. A.D. Brown, U. Martinez Ortiz, M. Acerbi, and J. Corcuera, 442–446. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Fundación Vida Silvestre. (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  11. Geist, H.J., and E.F. Lambin. 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52: 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giraudo, A.R., E.R. Krauczuk, V. Arzamendia, and H. Povedano. 2003. Critical analysis of protected areas in the Atlantic Forest of Argentina. In The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity status, threats and outlook, ed. C. Galindo-Leal, and I. Gusmão Câmara, 245–261. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grau, H.R., and M. Aide. 2008. Globalization and land-use transitions in Latin America. Ecology and Society 13(2): 16. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art16/.
  14. Grau, H.R., T.M. Aide, J.K. Zimmerman, J.R. Thomlinson, E. Helmer, and X. Zou. 2003. The ecological consequences of socioeconomic and land-use changes in postagriculture Puerto Rico. BioScience 53(12): 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grau, H.R., T.M. Aide, and N.I. Gasparri. 2005a. Globalization and soy-bean expansion into semiarid ecosystems of Argentina. Ambio 34: 265–266.Google Scholar
  16. Grau, H.R., N.I. Gasparri, and T.M. Aide. 2005b. Agriculture expansion and deforestation in seasonally dry forests of north-west Argentina. Environmental Conservation 32: 140–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hecht, S.B. 1993. The logic of livestock and deforestation in Amazonia. BioScience 43(10): 687–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoekstra, J.M., T.M. Boucher, T.M. Ricketts, and C. Roberts. 2005. Confronting a biome crisis: Global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters 8: 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos). 1947. National Census of Population and Housing 1947. Argentina: Buenos Aires (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  20. INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos). 1960. National Census of Population and Housing 1960. Argentina: Buenos Aires (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  21. INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos). 1970. National Census of Population and Housing 1970. Argentina: Buenos Aires (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  22. INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos). 1980. National Census of Population and Housing 1980. Serie D: Población. Argentina: Buenos Aires (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  23. INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos). 1991. National Census of Population and Housing 1991. Argentina: Buenos Aires (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  24. INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos). 2001. National Census of Population and Housing 2001. Argentina: Buenos Aires (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  25. Izquierdo, A.E., C.D. De Angelo, and T.M. Aide. 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): 3. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art3/.
  26. Jepson, W.A. 2005. A disappearing biome? Reconsidering land cover change in the Brazilian savanna. Geographical Journal 171: 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klooster, D. 2003. Forest transitions in Mexico: Institutions and forests in a globalized countryside. Professional Geographer 55: 227–237.Google Scholar
  28. Laclau, P. 1994. The conservation of natural resources and man in the Selva Paranaense. Technical Bulletin No 2. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  29. Laurance, W.F., A.K.M. Albernaz, P.M. Fearnside, E.M. Venticinque, and S. Hadley. 2002. Predictors of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 297: 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manzi, G.A. 2000. Industrial development missions. A critical perspective to the discussion with a view to territorial integration. Posadas, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Misiones (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  31. Mather, A.S., and C.L. Needle. 1998. The forest transition: A theoretical basis. Area 30: 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyerson, F.A., L. Merino, and J. Durand. 2007. Migration and environment in the context of globalization. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 182–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mittermeier, R.A., P. Robles-Gil, M. Hoffmann, J.D. Pilgrim, T.M. Brooks, C.G. Mittermeier, J.L. Lamoreux, and G. Fonseca. 2004. Hotspots revisited: Earths biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Mexico City: CEMEX.Google Scholar
  34. Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olson, D.M., and E. Dinerstein. 2002. The Global 200: Priority ecoregions for global conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89: 125–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Placci, G., and M. Di Bitetti. 2005. Environmental situation on the Upper Parana Atlantic Forest ecoregion. In Argentina environmental situation, ed. A. Brown, U. Martínez Ortiz, M. Acerbi, and J. Corcuera, 197–210. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  37. Polèse, M. 1998. Urban and regional economy. Introduction to the relationship between territory and development. Cartago, Costa Rica: Libro Universitario Regional (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  38. Sloan, S. 2007. Fewer people may not mean more forest in Latin American forest frontiers. Biotropica 39(4): 443–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 2007. State of the world population. Unleashing the potential of urban growth. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/swpmain.htm.
  40. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 2009. State of the world population. Facing a changing world: women, population and climate. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2009/en/.
  41. Walker, R. 1987. Land use transition and deforestation in developing countries. Geographical Analysis 19(1): 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilcox, B.A., and D.D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: The effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125: 879–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wright, S.J., and H.C. Muller-Landau. 2006. The future of tropical forest species. Biotropica 38: 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea E. Izquierdo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Héctor R. Grau
    • 1
  • T. Mitchell Aide
    • 3
  1. 1.CONICET; Instituto de Ecología Regional (IER), Universidad Nacional de TucumánTucumanArgentina
  2. 2.Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico (CeIBA)Puerto IguazúArgentina
  3. 3.University of Puerto RicoPuerto RicoArgentina

Personalised recommendations