Perceptions of Farmers in Northern Rio Grande do Sul on Ecosystem Services Provided by Forests

Sônia Beatris Balvedi Zakrzevski, Cleusa Vicente Vargas, Vanderlei Secretti Decian


This work aims to characterize the perceptions of agroecological and conventional farmers, living in the North of Rio Grande do Sul, about the ecosystem functions and services of the forests. 120 farmers had participated in the research, 60 conventional and 60 agroecological. The data collection was carried out through a structured interview, whose data were subjected to statistics. Agroecological and conventional farmers recognize that forests provide numerous environmental functions (regulation, provision, habitat and information). The functions of regulation and provision were the most cited, and there are differences in the percentage of citations between agroecological and conventional farmers. The results that, the older were the interviewee, the number of citations related to the regulatory services decreases, and the number of citations of the provision services increases. It is concluded that the farmers in the studied region have an understanding of the importance of forests for human well-being and for the productive activities they carry out. This understanding is broader and deeper among agroecological farmers, among those who are younger and have a higher level of education.


Ecology; Conservation; Agriculture; Environmental Education


Abram, N. K., Meijaard, E., Ancrenaz, M., Runting, R. K., Wells, J. A., Gaveau, D., et al. (2014). Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo. Ecosystem Services, 7, 116-127. DOI:

Agbenyega, O., Burgess, P.J., Cook, M. & Morris, J. (2009). Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy, 26(3), 551-557. DOI:

Allendorf, T. D.; Brandt, J. S.; Yang, J. M (2014). Local perceptions of Tibetan village sacred forests in northwest Yunnan. Biological Conservation, 169, 303–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.001

Alvares, C.A. ; Stape, J.L. ; Sentelhas, P.C. ; Gonçalves, J.L.M. ; Sparovek, G. (2013). Koppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 22(6), 711-728.

Ayeni, A.O. & Olorunfemi, F.B. (2014). Reflections on environmental security, indigenous knowledge and the implications for sustainable development in Nigeria. Jorind, 12, 46-57.

Bardin, Laurence. L'analyse de contenu. Paris: PUF, 1995. In : Maingueneau, Dominique. Novas tendências em Análise do Discurso. Campinas: Pontes/Unicamp, 3ª ed, 1997.

Bossio, D.; Geheb, K.; Critchley, W. (2010). Managing water by managing land: addressing land degradation to improve water productivity and rural livelihoods. Agricultural Water Management, 97(4), 536-542. DOI:

Brancalion, P. H., Cardozo, I. V., Camatta, A., Aronson, J., & Rodrigues, R. R. (2014). Cultural ecosystem services and popular perceptions of the benefits of an ecological restoration project in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Restoration Ecology, 22, p. 65-71. DOI: 10.1111/rec.12025.

Brasil.(2003). Lei n° 10.831, de 23 de dezembro de 2003. Dispõe sobre a agricultura orgânica e dá outras providências.

Brasil. (2006). Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar – Pronaf - LEI 11.326/2006. BRASIL.

Brasil. (2009). Programa de Educação Ambiental e Agricultura Familiar – PEAAF BRASIL.

Brasil. (2010). Programa Nacional de Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural na Agricultura Familiar e na Reforma Agrária – PRONATER - Lei nº 12.188.

Brown, G. (2013). The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services, 5, 58–68. DOI:

Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S. & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological indicators, 21, 17-29. DOI:

Campanili, M. & Schäffer, W. B. (2010). Mata Atlântica: Manual de adequação ambiental. BRASIL. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas. Departamento de Conservação da Biodiversidade. Núcleo Mata Atlântica e Pampa.

Castro, A. J.; Martín-López, B.; García-Llorente, M.; Aguilera, P. A.; López, E. & Cabello, J. (2011). Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in a semiarid Mediterranean region. Journal of Arid Environments, 75(11), 1201-1208.DOI:

Castro, A. J., Martín-López, B., López, E., Plieninger, T., Alcaraz-Segura, D., Vaughn, C. C. et al. (2015). Do protected areas networks ensure the supply of ecosystem services? Spatial patterns of two nature reserve systems in semi-arid Spain. Applied Geography, 60, 1-9.

Castro, A. M.; García-Llorente, M.; Martín-López, B.; Palomo, I. & Iniesta-Arandia, I. (2014). Multidimensional approaches in ecosystem services assessment. Earth Observ. Ecosyst.

Chao, S. (2012). Forest peoples: numbers across the world. Forest Peoples Programme. Retrieved May 16, 2019, from

Constanza, R. & Daly, H. E. (1992). Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology. 6, 37-46.

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

Daily, G C. (1997). Nature’s services. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Daly, H. & Farley, J. (2004). Ecological economics: principles and applications. Washington: Island Press.

De Groot, R., Stuip, M., Finlayson, M. & Davidson, N. (2006). Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services.International Water Management Institute.

De Groot, R., Wilson, M. A. & Boumans, R. M.J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological economics. 41, p. 393-408.

De Sousa Dantas, M., Almeida, N. V., dos Santos Medeiros, I., & da Silva, M. D.(2017). Diagnóstico da vegetação remanescente de Mata Atlântica e ecossistemas associados em espaços urbanos. Journal of Environmental Analysis and Progress, 2, 87-97. DOI:

Del Rio, V. & Oliveira, L. (1996). Percepção Ambiental: a Experiência Brasileira. São Carlos: Editora da UFSCar.

Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations. The Global Forest Resources Assessment. Retrieved May 16, 2019, from

Fagerholm, N.; Käyhkö, N.; Ndumbaro, F. & Khamis, M. (2012). Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments–Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, 18, 421-433. DOI:

Finotti, E.; Santos, D. C.(2013). Análise de Ocorrência de Vendavais no Rio Grande do Sul. Ciência e Natura, Edição especial, dez, p. 518-520. DOI:

Fraser, J. A., Diabaté, M., Narmah, W., Beavogui, P., Guilavogui, K., De Foresta, H., et al. (2016). Cultural valuation and biodiversity conservation in the Upper Guinea forest, West Africa. Ecology and Society, 21. DOI: 10.5751/ES-08738-210336.

Frick, J., Bauer, N., Lindern, E.V. & Hunziker, M. (2018). What forest is in the light of people's perceptions and values: socio-cultural forest monitoring in Switzerland. Environments, 5(11), 121. DOI:

Gamfeldt, L., Snäll, T., Bagchi, R., Jonsson, M., Gustafsson, L., Kjellander, P., et al. (2013). Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nature communications. 4(1), 1-8. DOI:

Alarcon, G.G.; Fantini, A. C. & Salvador, C. H. (2016). Benefícios locais da Mata Atlântica: Evidências de comunidades rurais do sul do Brasil. Ambiente & Sociedade, 16(19), 87-110. DOI:

Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Rafaelli, G.D.; Frid, C.L.J. (Ed.). Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 110-139.

Hansen, M. C.; Stehman, S. V.; Potapov, P. V. (2010). Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (19), 8650-8655. DOI:

Hartter, J.(2010). Resource use and ecosystem services in a forest park landscape. Society and Natural Resources, 23(3), 207-223. DOI:

Hoffmann, M. et al. (2010). The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science, 330(6010), 1503-1509. Retrieved Dec 12, 2019, from

Iftekhar, M. S. & Takama, T. (2007). Perceptions of biodiversity, environmental services, and conservation of planted mangroves: a case study on Nijhum Dwip Island, Bangladesh. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 16, 119-137. DOI:

INPE. O futuro que queremos. Website do Instituto de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE). Disponível em:. Acesso: 23 Jun. 2018.

Jones, N.; Ross, H.; Lynam, T.; Perez, P. & Leitch, A.(2011). Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society 16(1), 46. [online] URL:

Justen, J. G. K., Muller, J. J. V. & Toresan, L. (2012). Levantamento Socioambiental. In: Vibrans, A. C. et al. (Org.). Inventário Florístico Florestal de Santa Catarina. Volume I. Diversidade e Conservação dos Remanescentes Florestais. Blumenau: Edifurb.

Kandziora, M.; Burkhard, B.; Müller, F. (2013). Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators: a theoretical matrix exercise. Ecological Indicators, 28, 54-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006.

Kroll, F., Müller, F., Haase, D., & Fohrer, N.(2012). Rural–urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land use policy, 29, 521-535. DOI:

Leadley, P., Pereira, H.M., Alkemade, R., Fernandez-Manjarrés, J.F., Proença, V., Scharlemann, J.P.W. & Walpole, M.J. (2010). Biodiversity Scenarios: Projections of

st century change in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series n. 50. Retrieved Aug 18, 20019, from

Liang, J., Crowther, T. W., Picard, N., Wiser, S., Zhou, M., Alberti, G., et al. (2016). Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science, 354, aa8957. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf8957.

Lima, W. de P.; Ferraz, S. F. de B. & Ferraz, K. M. P. M. (2013). Interações bióticas e abióticas na paisagem: uma perspectiva eco‐hidrológica. In: Calijuri, M. do C.;

Cunha, D. G F. (Ed.) Engenharia ambiental conceitos tecnologia e gestão. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.

Liu, J.; Ouyang, Z. & Miao, H. (2010). Environmental attitudes of stakeholders and their perceptions regarding protected area-community conflicts: A case study in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(11), 2254–2262. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.007.

López-Santiago, C., Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Plieninger, T., González Martín, E., & González, J. (2014). Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society. 19. DOI:

Martín-López, B. et al.(2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One, 7(6), e38970. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.

Mcclanahan, T. R. et al. (2014). Perceived benefits of fisheries management restrictions in madagascar. Ecology and Society, 19(1). DOI:

Maren, I. E.; Bhattarai, K. R.; Chaudhary, R. P. (2014). Forest ecosystem services and biodiversity in contrasting Himalayan forest management systems. Environmental Conservation, 41, 73-83. DOI: 10.1017/S0376892913000258.

Meijaard, E., Abram, N. K., Wells, J. A., Pellier, A. S., Ancrenaz, M., Gaveau, D. L., et al. (2013). People’s perceptions about the importance of forests on Borneo. PloS one, 8(9), e73008. DOI:

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment synthesis report. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 2005.

Mittermeier, R.A.; Gil, P.R.; Hoffmann, M.; Pilgrim, J.; Brooks, J; Miitermeier, C.G.; Lamourux, J.; Fonseca, G.A.B. (2004). Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Cemex, Washington, DC.

Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; Fonseca, G.A.B.; Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858. DOI:

Muhamad, D.; Okubo, S.; Harashina, K.; Gunawan, B. & Takeuchi, K. (2014). Living close to forests enhances people׳ s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosystem Services, 8, 197-206. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.003.

Nedel, A. S.; Sausen, T. M.; Saito, S. M.(2012). Zoneamento dos desastres naturais ocorridos no estado do Rio Grande do Sul no período 2003–2009-Parte II: Granizo e Vendaval. Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia, 27(2), 119-126.

Nepal, S.; Spiteri, A. (2011). Linking livelihoods and conservation: an examination of local residents’ perceived linkages between conservation and livelihood benefits around Nepal’s Chitwan National Park. Environmental Management, 47(5), 727-38. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-011-9631-6.

Ouko, C.A., Mulwa, R., Kibugi,R., Owuor, M.A., Zaehringer, J.G., Oguge, N.O.(2018). Community Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and the Management of Mt. Marsabit Forest in Northern Kenya. Environments, 5(11), 121. DOI:

Palomo, I.; Martín-López, B.; Potschin, M.; Haines-Young, R. & Montes, C. (2013). National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem Services, 4, 104-116.

Paris, A.M.V., Warnava, F.P.; Decian, V. S. & Zakrzevski, S.B. (2016). O que os jovens gaúchos que residem na Mata Atlântica pensam sobre o Pampa? Perspectiva, 40(152), 111-123.

Plieninger, T.; Dijks, S.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–129. DOI:

Quintas-Soriano, C., Brandt, J. S., Running, K., Baxter, C. V., Gibson, D. M., Narducci, J.,et al. (2018). Social-ecological systems influence ecosystem service perception: a Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) analysis. Ecology and Society, 23(3). DOI: 10.5751/es-10226-230303.

Raymond, C. M. et al (2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1301–1315. DOI:

Reynolds, T. W.; Bostrom, A.; Read, D. & Morgan, G. (2010). Now What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople. Risk Anal, 30(10), 1520-38. DOI:

Rodrigues, M. L. Malheiros, T.F., Fernandes, V. & Darós, T.D.(2012). A Percepção Ambiental Como Instrumento de Apoio na Gestão e na Formulação de Políticas. Saúde Soc. São Paulo, 21(3), 96–110. DOI:

Salatino, A. & Buckeridge, M. (2016). Mas de que te serve saber botânica? Estudos avançados, 30(87), 177-196. DOI:

Secretariado da Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica (2014). Panorama da Biodiversidade Global 4. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas.

Silva, M. R. O. & Lopes, P. F. M. (2015). Each fisherman is different: Taking the environmental perception of small-scale fishermen into account to manage marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 51, 347–355. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.019.

Silva, T.S. da, Candido, G.A. & Freire, E.M.X.(2009). Conceitos, percepções e estratégias para conservação de uma estação ecológica da Caatinga nordestina por populações do seu entorno. Soc. nat., 21(2), 23-37. DOI:

Sinare, H.; Gordon, L. J.; Kautsky & E. Enfors. (2016). Assessment of ecosystem services and benefits in village landscapes–A case study from Burkina Faso. Ecosystem services, 21, 141-152. DOI:

Sinu, P. A.; Kent, S. M. & Chandrashekara, K.(2012). Forest resource use and perception of farmers on conservation of a usufruct forest (Soppinabetta) of Western Ghats, India. Land Use Policy, 29(3), 702–709. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.006.

Soares-Filho, B., Rajão, R., Macedo, M., Carneiro, A., Costa, W., Coe, M., et al. (2014). Cracking Brazil's forest code. Science,344, 363-364. DOI: 10.1126/science.1246663.

Souza, C. A. et al. (216). Environmental services associated with the reclamation of areas degraded by mining: potential for payments for environmental services. Ambiente & Sociedade, 19(2), 137–168.

Tambosi, L. R.; Vidal, M. M.; Ferraz, S. F. D. B. & Metzger, J. P.(2015). Funções eco-hidrológicas das florestas nativas e o Código Florestal. Estudos avançados, 29(84), 151-162. DOI:

TEEB (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB.

UNEP. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. Montreal, Quebec: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

UNESCO (1973). Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAAB) – Expert Panel on Project 13: Percepction of Environmental Quality. Paris. Disponível em: Acesso em: 30 de mar. 2020.

United Nations (2015). Forests pivotal to new Post-2015. Development Agenda

Forests. Website of United Nations. Disponível em: Acesso em: 16 de mai. 2019.

United Nations (2017). Six Global Forest Goals agreed at UNFF Special Session. Website of United Nations. Disponível em: Acesso em: 18 de out. 2019.

United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Forests. (2016). United Nations strategic plan for forests, 2017-2030. Disponível em: Acesso em: 18 de out. 2019.

Varjabedian, R. (2010). Lei da Mata Atlântica: retrocesso ambiental. Estudos avançados, 24, 147-160.

Wandersee, J. H.; Schussler, E. E. (2001). Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Science Bulletin, Columbus, 47(1): 2-9.

Whyte, A.V.T (1977). MAB Technical Notes 5 - Guidelines for field studies in environmental Perception. Paris: UNESCO. Disponível em: Acesso em: 30 de mar. 2020.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Base de Dados e Indexadores: Base, Diadorim,, DOI Crossref, Dialnet, Scholar Google, Redib, Doaj, Latindex, Portal de Periódicos CAPES

Research, Society and Development - ISSN 2525-3409

Licença Creative Commons
Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional

Rua Irmã Ivone Drumond, 200 - Distrito Industrial II, Itabira - MG, 35903-087 (Brasil)