Mayra F. Tavares, Patrícia Gallo, Nathália Nascimento, Jürgen Bauhus, Pedro H. S. Brancalion, Mélanie Feurer
{"title":"Smallholders' perspectives, motivations, and incentives for restoring the Brazilian Atlantic Forest","authors":"Mayra F. Tavares, Patrícia Gallo, Nathália Nascimento, Jürgen Bauhus, Pedro H. S. Brancalion, Mélanie Feurer","doi":"10.1111/rec.14270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ecosystem restoration, recognized as a critical strategy for climate change adaptation and mitigation, faces significant challenges in achieving widespread implementation. A particular facet of this challenge lies in the active involvement of rural landowners. Our study aimed to understand rural landowners' perspectives, motivations, and characteristics that influence their participation in restoration projects in the Atlantic Forest of southeastern Brazil. Qualitative content analysis was conducted on 68 semi‐structured interviews with two groups of landowners: 36 who received support and 32 who did not receive project support from a local non‐governmental organization to restore native forests on their landholdings. Approximately three‐quarters of the sample are classified as smallholders (<80 ha). The main difference between the two groups is the dependence on agricultural production as the main source of income, with 22% of <jats:italic>farmers</jats:italic> in the supported group and 72% in the unsupported group. This socio‐economic characteristic appeared to influence the decision to restore native forest. <jats:italic>Farmers'</jats:italic> focus tends to be linked to rural production, and the main obstacle to restoration was the loss of productive land. They usually allow natural forest regeneration to establish on slopes. The other type of landowner (lifestylers) mainly restored land through planting of seedlings, with the main barrier being the cost of restoration. Both groups had water conservation as their main motivation for restoration. Our study shows that understanding the perspectives and motivations of the diversity of rural landowners is crucial to effectively engage them and address the socio‐economic feasibility of different restoration approaches.","PeriodicalId":54487,"journal":{"name":"Restoration Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restoration Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14270","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Ecosystem restoration, recognized as a critical strategy for climate change adaptation and mitigation, faces significant challenges in achieving widespread implementation. A particular facet of this challenge lies in the active involvement of rural landowners. Our study aimed to understand rural landowners' perspectives, motivations, and characteristics that influence their participation in restoration projects in the Atlantic Forest of southeastern Brazil. Qualitative content analysis was conducted on 68 semi‐structured interviews with two groups of landowners: 36 who received support and 32 who did not receive project support from a local non‐governmental organization to restore native forests on their landholdings. Approximately three‐quarters of the sample are classified as smallholders (<80 ha). The main difference between the two groups is the dependence on agricultural production as the main source of income, with 22% of farmers in the supported group and 72% in the unsupported group. This socio‐economic characteristic appeared to influence the decision to restore native forest. Farmers' focus tends to be linked to rural production, and the main obstacle to restoration was the loss of productive land. They usually allow natural forest regeneration to establish on slopes. The other type of landowner (lifestylers) mainly restored land through planting of seedlings, with the main barrier being the cost of restoration. Both groups had water conservation as their main motivation for restoration. Our study shows that understanding the perspectives and motivations of the diversity of rural landowners is crucial to effectively engage them and address the socio‐economic feasibility of different restoration approaches.
期刊介绍:
Restoration Ecology fosters the exchange of ideas among the many disciplines involved with ecological restoration. Addressing global concerns and communicating them to the international research community and restoration practitioners, the journal is at the forefront of a vital new direction in science, ecology, and policy. Original papers describe experimental, observational, and theoretical studies on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater systems, and are considered without taxonomic bias. Contributions span the natural sciences, including ecological and biological aspects, as well as the restoration of soil, air and water when set in an ecological context; and the social sciences, including cultural, philosophical, political, educational, economic and historical aspects. Edited by a distinguished panel, the journal continues to be a major conduit for researchers to publish their findings in the fight to not only halt ecological damage, but also to ultimately reverse it.