Ambio

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 458–467 | Cite as

Human perceptions of landscape change: The case of a monodominant forest of Attalea speciosa Mart ex. Spreng (Northeast Brazil)

  • Gabriela M. A. de Almeida
  • Marcelo A. Ramos
  • Elcida L. Araújo
  • Cristina Baldauf
  • Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque
Report

Abstract

From the perception of human populations, we can assess the changes occurring in certain landscapes and the factors that cause those changes. Such studies have proven helpful in increasing the knowledge of the history of a landscape, recognizing past formations and projecting its future. Our research objective was to determine how a landscape dominated by the palm tree Attalea speciosa, a species of ecological, economic, and cultural importance, has been changing over time by synthesizing and comparing historical documents and local perceptions. This study was conducted in Araripe Environmental Protection Area, Northeast Region, Brazil. To understand local landscape change, we interviewed active harvesters in four communities in which A. speciosa use has been documented. Historical documents were evaluated as a complement to the interview data. According to local informants, areas previously used for cultivation and animal husbandry that were abandoned or decimated by droughts in the region may have fostered the expansion of a monodominant A. speciosa forest. Furthermore, other forms of landscape management resulting from human population growth may also have affected the current and past distribution of this forest.

Keywords

Ethnobiology Ethnoecology Environmental Perception Landscape Ecology Local Ecological Knowledge 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the residents of the Macaúba, Tabocas, Boa Esperança, and Barro Branco, especially those who directly contributed to this research by sharing their knowledge, the staff of the Casa de Apoio Santa Rita-ICMBio for logistical support, and all members of the Laboratory of Applied and Theoretical Ethnobiology (Laboratório de Etnobiologia Aplicada e Teórica–LEA-UFRPE). They also thank the Pernambuco Research Foundation (Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de Pernambuco– FACEPE) for the financial support (APQ-1264- 2.05/10). They also thank the Brazilian National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico–CNPq) for the fellowships granted to the UPA and ELA.

References

  1. Albuquerque, U.P., R.F.P. Lucena, and E.M.F. Lins Neto. 2014a. Selection of research participants. In Methods and techniques in ethnobiology and ethnoecology, ed. U.P. Albuquerque, L.V.F.C. Cunha, R.F.P. Lucena, and R.R.N. Alves, 1–14. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albuquerque, U.P., M.A. Ramos, and N.L. Alencar. 2014b. Methods and techniques used to collect ethnobiological data. In Methods and techniques in ethnobiology and ethnoecology, ed. U.P. Albuquerque, L.V.F.C. Cunha, R.F.P. Lucena, and R.R.N. Alves, 15–38. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, A.B. 1983. The biology of Orbignya martiana (Palmae), a tropical dry forest dominant in Brazil. Ph.D. Diss., Botany Dept., Univ. Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  4. Andrade, M.P. 2007. Conflitos Agrários e Memória de Mulheres Camponesas. Estudos Feministas 2: 445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balée, W.A., and C. Erickson. 2006. Time, complexity, and historical ecology. In Time and complexity in historical ecology: Studies in the neotropical lowlands, ed. W. Balée, and C. Erickson, 1–20. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Balee, W. 1988. Indigenous adaptation to Amazonian palm forests. Principes 32: 47–54.Google Scholar
  7. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10: 1251–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernard, H.R. 2006. Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology, 4 ed. 133 p. California: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bell, S. 2001. Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brigídio, J. 2001. Ceará, homens e fatos. Fortaleza: Edições Demócrito Rocha.Google Scholar
  11. BIODIESELBR. 2006. Babaçu. Retrieved 31 August, 2012, from http://www.biodieselbr.com/plantas/babacu/babacu.htm.
  12. Bürgi, M., A.M. Hersperger, and N. Schneeberger. 2004. Driving forces of landscape change – current and new directions. Landscape Ecology 19: 857–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campos, J.L.A., T.L.L. Silva, U.P. Albuquerque, N. Peroni, and E.L. Araújo. 2015. Knowledge, use, and management of the Babassu Palm (Attalea speciosa Mart. ex Spreng) in the Araripe region (Northeastern Brazil). Economic Botany 69: 240–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casas, A., B. Pickersgill, J. Caballero, and J. Valiente-Banuet. 1997. Ethnobotany and domestication in Xoconochtli, Stenocereus stellatus (Cactaceae), in the Tehuacán Valley and La Mixteca Baja, México. Economic Botany 51: 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cavalcanti, M.C.B.T., M.A. Ramos, E.L. Araújo, and U.P. Albuquerque. 2015. Implications from the use of non-timber forest products on the consumption of wood as a fuel source in human-dominated semiarid landscapes. Environmental Management 56: 389–401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chambers, R., and L. Mayoux. 2003. Reversing the paradigm: quantification and participatory methods. Submitted to the EDIAIS Conference: New Directions in Impact Assessment for Development: Methods and Practice. University of Manchester, UK 24: 25 November 2003. pp. 24.Google Scholar
  17. Clement, C.R. 1999. 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic resources. I. The relation between domestication and human population decline. Economic Botany 53: 188–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, K., W. Jong, P. Cronkleton, D. Sheil, T. Lybam, T. Kusumanto, and C.J.P. Colfer. 2006. Guide to Participatory Tools for forest communities. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFO). pp. 37.Google Scholar
  19. Fagerholm, N., N. Käyhkö, F. Ndumbaro, and M. Khamis. 2012. Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments – Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators 18: 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Figueiredo Filho, J. 2010a. Engenhos de Rapadura do Cariri: Documentário da vida rural. Fortaleza: Edições URCA e UFC. Fac-símile 1958. 100 p.Google Scholar
  21. Figueiredo Filho, J. 2010b. História do Cariri. v. 1. Fortaleza: Edições URCA e UFC. Fac-símile 1964. 114 p.Google Scholar
  22. Figueiredo Filho, J. 2010c. História do Cariri. v. 3. Fortaleza: Edições URCA e UFC. Fac-símile 1966. 166 p.Google Scholar
  23. Galdos, M.V., C.C. Cerri, and C.E.P. Cerri. 2009. Soil carbon stocks under burned and unburned sugarcane in Brazil. Geoderma 153: 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IBAMA. 2004. Plano de manejo da Floresta Nacional do Araripe, 323. Brasília: Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis.Google Scholar
  25. Kass, D.C.L., and E. Somarriba. 1999. Traditional fallows in Latin America. Agroforestry Systems 47: 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lykke, A.M. 2000. Local perceptions of vegetation change and priorities for conservation of woody-savanna vegetation in Senegal. Journal of Environmental Management 59: 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. May, P.H., A.B. Anderson, M.J. Balick, and J.M.F. Frazão. 1985. Subsistence benefits from the Babassu Palm (Orbignya martiana). Economic Botany 39: 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Medeiros, M.F.T. 2014. Procedures for documentary analysis in the establishment of ethnobiological information. In Methods and techniques in ethnobiology and ethnoecology, ed. U.P. Albuquerque, L.V.F.C. Cunha, R.F.P. Lucena, and R.R.N. Alves, 75–85. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2012. Relatório Parametrizado - Unidade de Conservação. Retrieved 30 August, 2012, from http://sistemas.mma.gov.br/cnuc/index.php?ido=relatorioparametrizado.exibeRelatorioerelatorioPadrao=trueeidUc=8.
  30. Mitja, D., and I. Ferraz. 2001. Establishment of babassu in pastures in Pará, Brazil. Palms 45: 138–147.Google Scholar
  31. Nucci, J.C. 2007. Origem e desenvolvimento da ecologia e da ecologia da Paisagem. Revista Eletrônica Geografar 2: 77–99.Google Scholar
  32. Patton, M.Q. 2001. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage Publications, Inc. 598 p.Google Scholar
  33. Peters, C.M., M.J. Balick, F. Kahn, and A.B. Anderson. 1989. Oligarchic forests of economic plants in Amazonia: utilization and conservation of an important tropical resource. Conservation Biology 3: 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramírez-Marcial, N., M. Gonzáles-espinosa, and G. Williams-Linera. 2001. Anthropogenic disturbance and tree diversity in Montane Rain Forests in Chiapas, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rao, K., S. Nautityal, and R.K.M.K.G. Saxena. 2003. Local Peoples’ Knowledge, Aptitude and Perceptions of Planning and Management Issues in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Management 31: 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rêgo, J.F. 1999. Amazônia: do extrativismo ao neoextrativismo. Ciência Hoje 147: 1–6. Google Scholar
  37. Silva, M.R. 2008. Distribuição do babaçu e sua relação com os fatores geoambientais na bacia do Rio Cocal, Estado do Tocantins. Dissertation. Brasília, Brazil: Universidade de Brasília.Google Scholar
  38. Vitte, A.C. 2007. O desenvolvimento do conceito de paisagem e a sua inserção na geografia física. Mercator 6: 1171–1178.Google Scholar
  39. Xu, J., L. Chen, Y. Lu, and B. Fu. 2006. Local people’s perceptions as decisions support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. Journal of Environmental Management 78: 362–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratório de Etnobiologia Aplicada e Teórica (LEA)Universidade Federal Rural de PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de Ciências BiológicasUniversidade de PernambucoNazaré da MataBrazil
  3. 3.Laboratório de Ecossistemas Nordestinos (LEVEN)Universidade Federal Rural de PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  4. 4.Laboratório de Etnoecologia e Biodiversidade (LEB)Universidade Federal Rural do SemiáridoMossoróBrazil

Personalised recommendations