Journal of Environmental Management 275 (2020) 111243

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Uncovering the spatial variability of recent deforestation drivers in the

Brazilian Cerrado
Werikson Rodrigues Trigueiro a, b, João Carlos Nabout a, Geiziane Tessarolo a, *
a
Universidade Estadual de Goiás, Campus de Ciências Exatas e Tecnológicas, CEP 75132-903, Anápolis, Goiás, Brazil
b
Instituto Brasileiro Do Meio Ambiente e Dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Superintendência Regional de Goiás. Goiânia, GO, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In recent years, the Cerrado deforestation has increased considerably, reaching rates higher than in the
Brazilian savanna Amazonian realm. Although the effects of deforestation are well known, the understanding of its drives at
Deforestation regional levels is incipient. Most studies consider that a driver influences deforestation likewise in all regions.
Regional-scale deforestation
However, deforestation has a strong spatial structure that can lead drivers to vary their influence on deforestation
GWR
in different regions. Here, we evaluated the spatial variability in the relationship between the recent Cerrado
MATOPIBA
Spatial variability deforestation and socioeconomic, environmental, and structural drivers at a regional scale. We used a
geographically weighted regression (GWR) to assess the spatial variability of predictor variables. We identified
regions that respond similarly to the drivers by grouping municipalities, considering their GWR coefficients
through hierarchical clustering. The analyses that consider the spatial variability of predictors are more
appropriated to assess the causes of recent deforestation. Remnant natural vegetation influenced the recent
deforestation in all defined regions. Greater access to rural credit concession was the main driving force of
deforestation in the northeast region defined here. Distance to roads increased deforestation in the northeast and
north regions, while it inhibited deforestation in the central-east and southeast regions. Rainfall inhibited
deforestation in the northeast, north, and southwest regions. Steep slope prevented deforestation mainly in the
northeast, north, and southwest regions. Our results highlight that, to effectively reduce Cerrado deforestation,
public policies should integrate strategies focusing not only at national and biome levels but also at the regional
spatial level.

1. Introduction
Deforestation, the removal of native vegetation, is considered a
major environmental issue that causes biodiversity loss (Betts et al.,
2017; Giam, 2017; Norris, 2016; Semper-Pascual et al., 2019), changes
in regional precipitation patterns (Chambers and Artaxo, 2017; Coe
et al., 2017), and reduction in soil fertility (Baldassini and Paruelo,
2020; Hunke et al., 2015; Kassa et al., 2017) and air quality, as well as
ultimately affecting human well-being (Carrillo et al., 2019; Reddington
et al., 2015).
Brazil is one of the four tropical countries with the largest deforested
areas (Austin et al., 2017). Although in the last decade, the enforcement
of public policies has led to a decrease of about 70% in the Amazonian
deforestation rate, the deforestation rate of non-forested ecosystems is
still increasing (Overbeck et al., 2015; Strassburg et al., 2017, 2016).
Over 20,400 km2 of native vegetation in the Cerrado were suppressed
between 2017 and 2019 (Assis et al., 2019), reinforcing it as one of the
most threatened biomes on the planet (Eloy et al., 2016; Strassburg
et al., 2017). Deforestation has occurred in all Cerrado areas (de Arruda
et al., 2019; Espírito-Santo et al., 2016; Garcia and Ballester, 2016;
Grecchi et al., 2014; Silva et al., 2013). However, the MATOPIBA region
– an acronym for the states of Maranhão, Tocantins, Piauí, and Bahia – in
northern Cerrado, is where deforestation reaches the highest rates, and
it has been considered as the last agricultural frontier of the Cerrado
(Graesser et al., 2018; Spera et al., 2016).
Studies have indicated that the main factors associated with defor­
estation are agriculture (i.e., native vegetation replaced by agriculture
areas) (Laurance et al., 2014; Macedo et al., 2012), road proximity
(Barber et al., 2014; Laurance et al., 2014), population density
(López-carr and Burgdorfer, 2013; Tritsch and Tourneau, 2016), and
rural credit concession (Combes et al., 2018; Hargrave and Kis-katos,
2011; Jusys, 2016). Although most of these studies focus on the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: geites@gmail.com (G. Tessarolo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111243
Received 4 December 2019; Received in revised form 7 August 2020; Accepted 15 August 2020
Available online 22 August 2020
0301-4797/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W.R. Trigueiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 275 (2020) 111243

Amazon biome, some recent studies in the Cerrado showed that agri­ 2013); urban and rural population (Laurance et al., 2002; López-carr
culture and livestock farming are the main drivers of deforestation and Burgdorfer, 2013); gross domestic product per capita (Laurance
(Garcia and Ballester, 2016; Magrin et al., 2014; Nepstad et al., 2019; et al., 2002; Nzunda and Midtgaard, 2017); rural credits provided for
Silva et al., 2013). Although agriculture and livestock production have agriculture and livestock (Dalla-Nora et al., 2014; Jusys, 2016); mean
been identified as major drivers of deforestation of many biomes of the distances between deforested areas and the closest roads (Fearnside,
world (Baumann et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2018), the importance of 2007; Pfaff et al., 2007); mean precipitation (Laurance et al., 2002;
those and other variables can vary with the scale analyzed and among Malhi et al., 2008); the amount of remnant native vegetation (Jusys,
regions, when considering the spatial variability of predictors (Brondizio 2016), and mean slope (Dupin et al., 2018). These variables were clas­
and Moran, 2012; Jusys, 2016; Shirvani et al., 2017). For example, the sified into four categories: ecological, climatic, physical, and socioeco­
importance of agriculture and livestock activities varies between recent nomic variables. Further details about these variables can be found in
and old deforestation areas (Garrett et al., 2018; Pacheco, 2012). This Table 1. The deforestation and predictor variables were standardized
spatial variability in the relationship between deforestation and its considering the municipality size (except for mean precipitation, mean
drivers is the result of the geographical and socioeconomic character­ slope, and mean distances between deforested areas and the closest
istics of each region, where the influence of each predictor on defores­ roads).
tation is context-dependent. Thus, disregarding the regional differences
in deforestation analysis may lead to inconclusive studies about the in­
fluence of variables on deforestation (Jusys, 2016), and consequently, 2.2. Data analysis
the proposal of inefficient public policies at local and regional levels.
The Brazilian Cerrado comprises 1297 municipalities with different We used two statistical approaches to investigate the relationship
occupation histories. For example, the expansion of agriculture and between ecological, climatic, socioeconomic, and physical predictors
livestock activities from south to northern regions of the Cerrado started
in the 1960s (Noojipady et al., 2017). Moreover, urbanization, socio­ Table 1
economic, climatic, and geological characteristics vary among munici­ Description of the variables with the respective categories, measurement units,
palities and with time (Campolina, 2019; Klink and Moreira, 2002; and information sources.
Motta et al., 2002). Besides, the conservation of this biome has been Category Description Unit Source
conducted through national and local policies (Eloy et al., 2016), which Response Mean annual deforested Hectares INPE (2017)
may aim at different aspects of deforestation in different regions. variable area between 2013 and (Ha.)
Considering the climatic, cultural, and socioeconomic variation among 2017, standardized by the
municipalities of the Cerrado, the importance of factors associated with area of each municipality.
Socioeconomic Mean area with temporary Hectares IBGE (2017a)
deforestation is likely to be distinct in a more regional context (Lima
crops cultivated between (Ha.)
et al., 2018). 2013 and 2017,
Considering the context-dependency of factors associated with standardized by the area of
deforestation, this study aimed to determine the relationship between each municipality.
Socioeconomic Mean number of bovine Heads/Unit IBGE (2017a)
recent deforestation and climatic, ecological, socioeconomic, and
livestock between 2013 and
physical factors (2013–2017) throughout the Brazilian Cerrado, besides 2017, standardized by the
considering the spatial variability of these predictors. Here, we follow area of each municipality.
the definition of INPE (2018) for Cerrado deforestation, which is the Socioeconomic Number of people residing Count/Unit IBGE (2017a)
removal of native vegetation, including all Cerrado phytophysiognomies in urban zone according to
2010 census, standardized
(forestlands, shrublands, and grasslands), larger than 1 ha. We used a
by the area of each
spatially non-stationary linear regression analysis to assess spatial var­ municipality.
iations in the relationship between climatic, ecological, socioeconomic, Socioeconomic Number of people residing Count/Unit IBGE (2017a)
and physical factors and deforestation in the biome of Cerrado, in rural zone according to
2010 census, standardized
considering the municipal peculiarities. Using this approach, we can
by the area of each
evaluate the importance of those predictors for each municipality in the municipality.
Cerrado area, and thus, supporting the creation of public policies that Socioeconomic Mean Gross Domestic Each R$ IBGE (2017a)
restrict the Cerrado deforestation at a regional level. Product between 2013 and 1000.00
2015, standardized by the
total population.
2. Methodology Socioeconomic Mean agricultural rural Each R$ BANCO
credit provided by financial 1000.00 CENTRAL DO
2.1. Deforestation and predictor variables institutions between 2013 BRASIL, 2017
and 2017, standardized by
the area of each
We obtained the data on deforested areas in the Cerrado from the
municipality.
National Institute for Space Research (INPE, 2018) through the Cerrado Socioeconomic Mean livestock rural credit Each R$ BANCO
Satellite Deforestation Monitoring Project (Prodes Cerrado). This project provided by financial 1000.00 CENTRAL DO
quantifies deforested areas larger than 1 ha. It is considered deforesta­ institutions 2013 and 2017, BRASIL, 2017
tion, the full removal of native vegetation (forest, savanna, and pasture standardized by the area of
each municipality.
phytophysiognomies), regardless of its subsequent utilization (INPE, Physical Mean distance between Kilometers IBGE, 2017b;
2018). Despite data about deforested areas are available from 2001 to deforested areas and the (Km) MMA, 2017
present, annual data are available only from 2013 onward (in previous closest official roads per
years the data was biannual). Thus, we limited the time period of our municipality.
Climatic Mean annual precipitation Millimeters Fick and
analysis from 2013 to 2017.
per municipality. (mm) Hijmans (2017)
Several variables are associated with deforestation, such as physical, Ecological Area of native vegetation Hectares LAPIG (2017)
climatic, and socioeconomic variables. Based on previous studies, we remnant standardized by the (Ha.)
selected the following predictors: total area with temporary crops area of each municipality.
cultivated (Gibbs et al., 2010; Tilman, 1999); the number of bovine Physical Mean slope per Percentage LAPIG (2017)
municipality.
livestock (Barona et al., 2010; Baumann et al., 2017; Walker et al.,

2
W.R. Trigueiro et al.
and spatial variation of Cerrado deforestation: Ordinary Least Square
(OLS) and Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR; Fotheringham,
Brunsdon and Charlton, 2003). Our sample units were the Cerrado
municipalities, where the spatial data are vector layers with 1297 mu­
nicipalities (polygons). The choice of vector-based instead of grid-based
analysis is because most socioeconomic data are available only at the
municipal level. Therefore, in the grid-cell approach, a single munici­
pality would be represented by many grid cells with the same socio­
economic information, which would increase the number of
observations and non-independence (necessary in statistical tests).
Before running both analyses, we standardized (z-scores) all vari­
ables and evaluated the collinearity among predictors using the Vari­
ance Inflation Factor (VIF; Fox and Monette, 1992). GWR considers
spatial dependence and the influence of neighbor areas on independent
local models (Brunsdon et al., 2010). It calculates the local coefficients
using influence weights per neighbor sample. The results are then
“geographically weighted in a way that the closest observations have
more influence on the estimative of the local regression coefficients than
distant observations” (Gollini et al., 2015). We used the kernel bi-square
function to evaluate the influence of each neighbor municipality, while
the adaptive method was applied to establish the maximum influence
distance (also known as bandwidth) by minimizing the corrected Akaike
Information Criterion (AICc). We used a kernel bi-square because we
assume there is a limiting distance, after which the neighbor munici­
palities will have no impact on deforestation of the focal municipality.
Moreover, the use of this adaptative method is indicated for data with
non-uniform sample distributions (Fotheringham et al., 2003; Gollini
et al., 2015), as the data used here.
The use of GWR only justifies if the variables analyzed have non-
stationarity, i.e., differences among the relationships of variables
throughout space. Here, we assessed the spatially non-stationary rela­
tionship among variables using the Monte Carlo test of significance
(Brunsdon et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2014). Subsequently, we used a
pseudo-stepwise procedure to select the subset of predictors that gen­
erates the best model, i.e., the model with lower AICc value. Then, we
calculated a new bandwidth value since it may vary according to
changes in the set of variables (Gollini et al., 2015). Additionally, we
used four collinearity diagnostics to assess local collinearity among the
selected variables: local correlation matrix, Variation Inflation Factor
(VIF), local Variance Decomposition Proportion (VDP), and local Con­
dition Number (CN). Mean values of local correlation above 0.8, VIF
above 10, VDP above 0.5, or CN above 30 can indicate collinearity issues
(Lu et al., 2014).
The local coefficients calculated in the GWR indicate the direction
and importance of each variable for the municipality deforestation. We
mapped the significant coefficient values (p < 0.05) to visualize the
spatial variation in the influence of each variable associated with the
Cerrado deforestation. Additionally, we compared the GWR and OLS
results through the AICc and adjusted R2 values, thus allowing the
comparison of GWR adjustment regarding the overall model. The
adjusted R2 is a measure of goodness of fit with values varying from 0 to
1, where higher values indicate a higher percentage of variation
explained. The AICc is a modification of AIC that account for small
sample sizes, and thus, it is adequate to assess GWR results since this
analysis fit small observation numbers in each iteration. The AICc has
been widely used to compare the GWR model with OLS models (Nakaya,
2007).
We applied a hierarchical clustering with spatial constraints to group
municipalities considering the GWR coefficients and geographical dis­
tances. We then calculated the Euclidean distance of GWR coefficients
and the geographic distance among municipalities to establish the
spatial groups. This clustering analysis allowed us to identify regions
that responded similarly to the predictor variables, and thus, can be
considered robust sample units to understand the deforestation process
at regional levels.
All analyses were performed using the R software version 3.5.1 (R
3
Journal of Environmental Management 275 (2020) 111243
CORE TEAM, 2018). Standardization was performed using the function
“decostand” of package “vegan” (Oksanen et al., 2016), and VIF was
calculated using the function “vifcor” of package “usdm” (Naimi et al.,
2014). The GWR analysis, bandwidth selection, Monte Carlo randomi­
zation, pseudo-stepwise for variable selection, and local collinearity
diagnostics were performed using the package “GWmodel” (Gollini
et al., 2015). The cluster analysis was performed using the package
“ClustGeo” (Chavent et al., 2018).
3. Results
The highest deforestation rate concentrated in northern Cerrado, in
the MATOPIBA region. The mean deforestation rate in this region was
241% higher than the mean Cerrado deforestation rate in the same
period (Table 5). The lowest deforestation rate was reported in southern
Cerrado, despite this region having the lowest remnant native vegeta­
tion (Fig. 1).
The variables studied did not show overall collinearity according to
the criteria defined (Table 2). Additionally, all variables were non-
stationary, justifying their use for the local regression model. No vari­
able selected showed local collinearity (Tables 3 and 4). Thus, they were
used to generate the OLS and GWR models. According to the variable
selection procedures, the set of variables that generated the best model is
formed by the following variables: agricultural rural credit, remnant
native vegetation, precipitation, distance between deforested areas and
the closest roads, and slope (Table 5).
The GWR implementation increased the performance regarding the
overall regression. The GWR explained around 76% of the variation in
deforestation, while the OLS explained about 48%. Also, GWR had a
lower AICc value than the OLS model (Table 6). Both models (consid­
ering the median values of GWR coefficients) have remnant vegetation
as the most significant variable for deforestation. Thus, the increase of
deforestation occurred in municipalities with more remnant vegetation
(Table 6).
The coefficients follow a pattern similar to the deforestation variable,
i.e., significant values occurring in areas where deforestation reached
the highest rates (northern Cerrado). Besides, areas with the lowest
deforestation rates (most south municipalities) had no significant co­
efficients, in the period analyzed (Fig. 2a–e). Moreover, the Matopiba
region, responsible for most of the recent deforestation, had the most
significant values for most predictors. The set of variables (and their
coefficients) indicated five different regions (North, Central-north,
Central-east, Southeast, and West) with similarities regarding the rela­
tionship between the variables and the deforestation rates (Fig. 2b).
The amount of credit for agriculture had a high positive relationship
with deforestation in the northeast region and the lowest positive rela­
tionship with deforestation in the central-east region of the Cerrado.
Moreover, this variable inhibited deforestation (negative values) for
some municipalities in the central-east and southwest regions of the
Cerrado (Fig. 2a). Remnant vegetation was associated with deforestation
increase in all regions of the Cerrado but not in all municipalities and
was negatively associated with deforestation in some municipalities in
the central-east region (Fig. 2b).
Precipitation had a positive relationship with deforestation in the
central-east region and some municipalities of the north region, and
negative in some municipalities of the northeast, north, southeast, and
southwest regions (Fig. 2c). The distance to roads was positively asso­
ciated with deforestation in some parts of the northeast and north re­
gions and negatively associated with deforestation in parts of the
central-east, north, and southeast regions of the Cerrado (Fig. 2d).
Slope showed a positive relationship with deforestation in some mu­
nicipalities of the north region and in one municipality of the central-
east region and a negative association with deforestation in some mu­
nicipalities of the southwest, north, central-east, and northeast regions
of the Cerrado (Fig. 2e).
W.R. Trigueiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 275 (2020) 111243

Fig. 1. – Cerrado delimitation (green, IBGE, 2017c) and the mean deforestation (ha) between 2013 and 2017 standardized by the area of each munici­
pality (m2) of Cerrado.

Table 2 Table 3
Global variance inflation factor (VIF) values of independent Local Pearson’s correlation matrix for the selected independent variables.
variables. Independent Credit for Remnant Precipitation Distance Slope
Variables VIF variables agriculture vegetation to roads

Crops 2.121704 Credit for 1.00

Cattle 1.569686 agriculture
People in urban zone 1.147848 Remnant − 0.16 1.00
People in rural zone 1.115511 vegetation
Gross domestic product 1.187093 Precipitation 0.10 0.00 1.00
Rural credit for agriculture 1.273525 Distance to − 0.01 0.08 0.08 1.00
Rural credit for livestock 1.227423 roads
Remnant native vegetation 2.137587 Slope − 0.13 0.28 0.13 0.03 1.00
Precipitation 1.584171
Distance to roads 1.21942
Slope 1.155284

4
W.R. Trigueiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 275 (2020) 111243

Table 4

Mean and percentage (considering the municipalities with significant GWR coefficient values) of response and predictor variables for the entire Cerrado and per region, between 2013 and 2017. Gwr_p – Mean values of

241.73

101.31

143.10
Local VIF, VDP, and CN values for the selected variables.

56.85

57.21

43.31

81.07
%
Variables VIF VDP

Credit for agriculture 1.313 0.2580402

20261679.61

48247100.98
3056235.30
Remnant vegetation 1.76 0.3305327

10020.44
Matopiba
Precipitation 1.822 0.4951954

1420.69

0.02980
Distance to roads 1.286 0.113273

6.83
Slope 1.77 0.212126
The mean local condition number (CN) of the variables selected is 19.586

189.83

292.90

112.91

125.56
12.88

18.13

77.72
%
4. Discussion

103735794.66

20192978.70
The Cerrado biome has lost about 46% of its native vegetation area

692475.70
Southwest
(Strassburg et al., 2017), and yet the remaining areas have become new

7869.04

1583.38

0.02614
frontiers for agribusiness, increasing the Cerrado deforestation. In this

6.54
study, we evaluated the relationship between climatic, physical, socio­
economic, and ecological factors and the recent deforestation of the

128.64
62.24

11.80

49.48

11.92

92.49

76.57
Cerrado. We found that factors vary and can even change their rela­

%
tionship with deforestation in different regions. Thus, regional analysis
proved to be more adequate to assess the recent deforestation in the

17522329.19

13282850.84
Brazilian Cerrado.

634678.01
Southeast

2579.99

1297.05

0.01594
The increase in explanation of the Cerrado deforestation by the GWR

10.83
model supports the use of analyses that consider spatial variability to
evaluate the factors associated with deforestation in municipal or
regional contexts. It also implies that rates of native vegetation sup­

307.43

100.32

130.47
31.76

25.53

91.36

76.40
pression in this biome have a great relationship with the variables

%
selected. The municipalities with significant coefficients represent over
87% of the total Cerrado deforestation between 2013 and 2017 (Table 5)

35528655.30

28445465.64
1707649.76
Central-east
and over 80% of its remnant native vegetation.

12743.65

1281.25

0.02717
Rural credit has been a critical policy to boost agricultural devel­

6.43
opment in Brazil. Indeed, much of Brazilian variation in agricultural
productivity can be associated with access to rural credit (Assuncao and
207.20

103.38

141.06
Chiavari, 2015). In the Cerrado, northern states receive less rural credit 25.40

36.25

19.53

82.82
than southern states (Dickie et al., 2016). One of the reasons for such a
%

discrepancy in rural credit concession is farm size. Southern regions are 12838275.22

21754881.33
predominantly composed of larger farms, while in northern regions,
1365649.22

there are a higher number of small family farms (Dickie et al., 2016).
8588.99

1449.76

0.02937
North

Many of those small producers do not have land titles, a prerequisite to

6.97
obtain rural credit (Lapola et al., 2014; Spera, 2017). Even for those
pursuing the right to property, the lower level of education, skills, and
108.84

117.83
75.68

83.90
networking most often hamper the access to rural credit concessions
5.48

7.91

5.27
%

(Ferreira- Filho and Vian, 2014). Besides, the Cerrado municipalities are
in regions covered by different constitutional funding. For example,
2803115.43

5875709.24
294892.61
each variable for all municipalities with significant GWR coefficient values.

northern Constitutional Fund finances agriculture in the state of

Northeast

3137.16

1526.32

0.02453

Tocantins, while Maranhão, Piauí, and Bahia are attended by the

7.07
northeastern Constitutional Fund, and Mato Grosso and Goiás are
financed by the center-western Constitutional Fund (Assunção et al.,
157.10

112.17

2018). This geographic variation in funding resources creates variability

87.33

80.30

80.38

99.30

96.78

in rural credit availability (Assunção et al., 2018; Dickie et al., 2016).

%

Despite receiving the lowest amount of agricultural credit in com­

28439474.80

89551885.76

parison to other regions (Table 5), deforestation in the Matopiba region

4695345.30

was substantially impacted by the amount of rural credit, especially in

6512.27

1392.63

0.02335
GWR_P

the northeast region defined here, which is equivalent to Costeiro and

8.15

Floresta de Cocais ecoregions in Sano et al. (2019). This region presents

high precipitation values and the lowest elevation in the Cerrado,
111408488.66
35416499.72

requiring less investment in irrigation and facilitating the use of mech­

5376402.04

anization for cultivated crops. Those factors, combined with the high
4145.26

1402.38

0.02082
Cerrado

availability of rural workforce, cheapens agricultural production in the

8.42

region (Redo et al., 2013). Thus, it is possible that, due to high suitability
for cultivation, even small amounts of agricultural credit can lead to
native vegetation
Mean deforestation

Mean precipitation
Total deforestation

rural credit (R$)

deforested areas

considerable deforestation in this region.

Mean agricultural

and the closest

Mean slope (%)

official roads

On the other hand, the southwestern region received the highest

Mean distance
Total remnant

(mm/year)

amount of agricultural and livestock rural credit in the Cerrado

between
Variables

(Table 5). However, credit for agriculture had no relationship with

(km)
Table 5

(ha)

(ha)

(ha)

deforestation in this region. Some studies have suggested that, in this

5
W.R. Trigueiro et al. Journal of Environmental Management 275 (2020) 111243

Table 6 are still covered by remnants of native vegetation. Another region with a
Standardized coefficient (Std. Coef) in the regression models for each predictor positive relationship between remnant native vegetation and defores­
variable. Linear (OLS) and GWR models and were compared using the adjusted tation was the southwestern region, which comprises the states of Mato
R2 (R2Adj) and corrected Akaike Information Criterion (AICc). Bold coefficients Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul. The state of Mato Grosso is located in the
indicate p < 0.05 for OLS. Legal Amazon region, where the legal reserve of every property should,
Variables OLS – Std. Coef GWR – Std. Coef by law, be at least 35% (BRASIL, 2012). However, most areas of that
Median Minimum Maximum region have reached or surpassed the amount of legal land conversion
allowed (Rausch et al., 2019; Sano et al., 2019). Thus, our results
Credit for agriculture − 0.011 0.037 − 2.969 20.072
Remnant vegetation 0.666 0.282 − 1.674 1.469 represent an alarming issue since this region has about 36.6% of
Precipitation − 0.011 − 0.073 − 2.581 3.170 remnant native vegetation (Table 5), and thus, deforestation processes
Distance to roads 0.078 0.001 − 1.078 0.915 in this region may occur predominantly in areas that should be desig­
Slope ¡0.149 − 0.050 − 1.297 1.334 nated to legal reserves.
R2Adj 0.488 0.768
AICc 2821.801 2076.630
In some municipalities of the central-eastern region, the intensity of
remnant native vegetation was negatively associated with deforestation.
That occurred predominantly in areas of the complex of conservation
Cerrado region, agriculture has been developed mainly in anthropized units of Jalapão. In this case, the protection conferred by the conser­
areas, particularly through the replacement of native grasslands in vation units contributed to mitigate deforestation. Indeed, many studies
deforested areas. Thus, agriculture credit received may not has been have found that legal protection is an effective strategy to inhibit
used to open new areas for cultivation (Jusys, 2016; Picoli et al., 2020; deforestation and maintain the native vegetation of the Cerrado (Brum
Spera, 2017). However, although the direct conversion of native vege­ et al., 2019; Carranza et al., 2014; Clemente et al., 2020; Françoso et al.,
tation into agriculture is low in the western region, deforestation in this 2015; Lima et al., 2018).
region, especially in the state of Mato Grosso, was high in the recent The south region of the Cerrado showed the lowest deforestation
years and occurred mainly due to the expansion of pasture areas later rates, and thus, most municipalities in this region did not have signifi­
replaced by agriculture (Picoli et al., 2020; Zaiatz et al., 2018). cant coefficients. However, it is important to consider that we used only
The positive relationship between remnant native vegetation and recent deforestation data (2013–2017), and the southern Cerrado was
deforestation can indicate the high deforestation risk in some parts of deforested in the 60s, during the green revolution (de Arruda et al.,
the Cerrado (Jusys, 2016; Lima et al., 2018). The positive association 2019; Sawyer, 2008). Thus, this region had low deforestation rates
occurred in the northern region, where approximately 60% of the areas because of the few remnants of native vegetation. Besides, this area has

Fig. 2. Local parameters estimated through the GWR for each predictor variable selected (a–e). Values and colors are plotted only for the municipalities with
significant coefficients (p < 0.05). Grouping of the municipalities in five classes according to the geographical distances and similarities of GWR coefficients, with
emphasis on the MATOPIBA region (black contour; f).

6
W.R. Trigueiro et al.
the highest proportion of cleared areas that are suitable for soybean
production (Rausch et al., 2019), which may have inhibited deforesta­
tion of new areas for agriculture.
In general, deforestation occurs at larger proportions in areas of
livestock activity with more access to roads and urban centers (Ferreira
et al., 2013; Laurance et al., 2002; Soares-Filho et al., 2004). Roads
connect remote areas, and cheapen the transportation costs, increasing
deforestation in surrounding areas. Although this happened for some
municipalities in the northeast and north areas, we found an opposite
pattern in the region known as Bico do Papagaio, located at the border of
the states of Tocantins and Maranhão, as well as in the region bordered
by the states of Mato Grosso and Tocantins. These areas are located far
from the capitals and have poor infrastructure, and yet had high
deforestation. Similar results were found by Lima et al. (2018) when
analyzing the Cerrado deforestation between 2002 and 2009. The au­
thors suggested that, since the major roads of the Cerrado were built in
the 1960s, nearby areas were deforested in the following years, i.e.,
before the analyzed period. Because we are analyzing even more recent
data, the same explanation can be applied here. However, considering
the recent land-use conversion, such deforestation of remote and pris­
tine areas in the Cerrado may be a result of land speculation, because
remote areas are purchased at low prices but reach high values after its
conversion for commodity production (Pitta et al., 2018; Sawyer, 2016).
Precipitation and slope are critical variables for rainfed crops and
have been associated with crop frequency and deforestation (Jusys,
2016; Spangler et al., 2017). Large-scale agriculture in the Cerrado oc­
curs mainly in flat areas with regular precipitation (Miziara and Fer­
reira, 2008). Mountainous areas restrict agriculture activities due to the
difficulty in mechanization and soil fragility, susceptibility to erosions,
particularly during intensive rainfall (Busch and Ferretti-gallon, 2017;
Freitas et al., 2010; Jasinski et al., 2005). Thus, steep slope, combined
with high levels of precipitation, are factors that inhibit the Cerrado
deforestation (Lima et al., 2018). Steeper slopes and higher precipitation
were negatively associated with deforestation, mainly in the northeast,
north, and southwest regions. Those regions were responsible for much
of the agricultural expansion of the Cerrado in recent years (Carneiro
Filho and Costa, 2016). Thus, deforestation in those areas is highly
dependent on those variables. We did not detect inhibition of defores­
tation in areas of low precipitation, which may be due to the use of
irrigation systems, decreasing the rainfall dependence for agriculture
(Ferreira et al., 2013). However, for some areas with low precipitation,
such as the state of Piauí, an increase in precipitation leads to an increase
in deforestation. Because desertification is common in this area (Silva
et al., 2013), higher values of precipitation could increase the number of
areas suitable for agriculture.
Here, it is important to notice that spatial variation in the influence
of predictors can be related to the spatial variation of deforestation
purposes. Precipitation and slope are significant variables for defores­
tation related to agriculture production (occurring mainly in the Mato­
piba region, Mato Grosso, and western Bahia), while those variables can
have minor impacts on deforestation related to livestock production.
Although the Matopiba region (Fig. 2f) was not identified as a spe­
cific group in the clustering analysis, it is worth to highlight this area
regarding the advance of deforestation in the Cerrado, since eight out of
the nine municipalities with the strongest deforestation are located in
the Matopiba region (Fig. 1). Matopiba is the region known as the
newest agricultural frontier of the Cerrado (Lima et al., 2019). This area
has experienced the highest conversion rates for agriculture, and recent
models estimate a loss of 10.3–15.9 million hectares of native vegetation
in this region for the next decades (Matricardi et al., 2018; Soterroni
et al., 2019; Spera et al., 2016). The agricultural expansion in this area
was motivated by water availability, climate and soil conditions, agro­
industry entrepreneurship, and governmental policies (de Araújo et al.,
2019; Noojipady et al., 2017). Those are the reasons why credit for
agriculture and amount of remnant native vegetation showed a positive
relationship with deforestation in most municipalities in this region.
7
Journal of Environmental Management 275 (2020) 111243
Matopiba is a region with a high proportion of continuous native
vegetation (Lima et al., 2019), with roughly 43% of all vegetation of the
biome (Table 5). Therefore, the high proportion of native vegetation in
the Matopiba region should be a warning due to its positive association
with deforestation. Additionally, this area has a high concentration of
remnant areas highly suitable for soybean production (Rausch et al.,
2019) that can accelerate the conversion of native vegetation into
agricultural areas.
Although the Matopiba region appears to be a homogenous area, this
region is highly diverse not only in terms of biophysical variables (soil,
topography, and climate) but also in terms of land use and occupation.
This region also shows an enormous disparity in social, economic, and
productive aspects (Buainain et al., 2017; Pereira et al., 2018; Sano
et al., 2019). For example, the variation in Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) per capita between 2000 and 2003 was higher in the Matopiba
region than in all Brazilian states (Pereira et al., 2018), with some mu­
nicipalities of Tocantins and Bahia reaching GDP values 100% higher
than municipalities of Piauí and Maranhão (Bolfe et al., 2016).
Regarding the agrarian structure in the Matopiba region, there is a high
concentration of large farms in the Tocantins, while northern Maranhão
has a high concentration of small family farms. These variations affect
the type of economic activity developed in each area and social in­
dicators. The state of Maranhão has the highest rates of poverty, illit­
eracy, and consequently, social vulnerability in the Matopiba region
(Pereira et al., 2018). Therefore, this high heterogeneity among the
Matopiba region may explain why the municipalities were clustered in
different groups in our analysis, which possibly affects the deforestation
rate and speed.
Although we did not model for future scenarios, we can infer from
our results that if deforestation continues to be associated with the same
variables identified here, northern regions (states of Maranhão, Piaui,
Bahia, and Tocantins) will likely to be the most deforested states in the
next years. These regions have a high proportion of remnant native
vegetation and can potentially increase the amount of agricultural credit
received. These pressures can be accelerated due to the high suitability
for soybean production, which is the crop with the greatest expansion in
these areas (Rausch et al., 2019). However, although those regions are
under similar pressures, we can infer a speed variation of deforestation
progress. For example, some areas in the central-eastern region, despite
the large proportion of remnant vegetation, had a low association of that
variable with deforestation. These results are mainly due to conserva­
tion units of the Jalapão region and large distance from roads, which
were important factors to inhibit deforestation in this region. Thus,
considering the permanence of this scenario, these areas can have a
slower deforestation rate than in northeast and north areas, yet with
high conversion rates. Central and southern areas will have lower
deforestation rates in the future due to the small proportion of native
vegetation and the high proportion of already-cleared areas that can be
used for the expansion of economic activities. Our inferences agree with
studies that explicitly modeled the future deforestation in the Cerrado
(Câmara et al., 2015; Ferreira et al., 2013; Lima et al., 2018).
Considering the regional variability in the relationship between
different factors and the Cerrado deforestation, we emphasize that
public policies should be prioritized in each area to effectively reduce
future deforestation. In the northeast and central-eastern regions, where
the agriculture funding had a high influence on deforestation, conces­
sions of rural credit should be provided with environmental regulation
and monitoring to prevent this funding to be used in illegal conversion of
native vegetation. Monitoring and inspection of deforestation are crucial
for the north region, which has a considerable proportion of remnant
native vegetation. Here, we emphasize that the monitoring hitherto
provided by the INPE (Deter Cerrado and Prodes Cerrado) offers data
that can be used to identify deforestation sources. Once identified,
deforested areas can be subjected to various public policies related to
inspection and vegetation restoration. The restoration of native vege­
tation should be prioritized in the southeast and southwest regions that
W.R. Trigueiro et al.
massively lack legal reserves and permanent preservation areas (Bra­
zilian Forest Service, 2019). Moreover, in those regions, the charges for
environmental damage compensation are critical to dissuading possible
transgressors. For the Matopiba region, better control of agricultural
rural credit concessions, environmental regulatory inspection, and
monitoring of resource use can limit deforestation. Furthermore, it is
essential to monitor and inspect the large remnants of native vegetation
in this area. However, other policies with an emphasis on land regula­
tion and the creation of new conservation units are also fundamental for
this region.
It is noteworthy that the regions defined here are not entirely ho­
mogeneous in their deforestation processes because they comprise mu­
nicipalities from different states and with different biophysical
characteristics. Even at a municipal level, heterogeneity can be found in
deforestation, especially on large scales, where some variables, such as
distance to roads, can vary considerably. Therefore, we highlight that
most socioeconomic data are available only at the municipal level, and
close municipalities can present similarities regarding socioeconomic
activities. Thus, we believe that our results are robust at the regional
level and that they can be useful to guide effective decision making
about Cerrado deforestation at a regional level.
5. Conclusion
New frontiers of deforestation have occurred in Cerrado, and our
study shows the importance of ecological, climatic, socioeconomic, and
physical variables to predict deforestation at a regional level. Moreover,
different types of predictors relate to deforestation, as well as a single
predictor can relate in many ways throughout space. Thus, it is neces­
sary to establish public policies focused individually on each region,
considering their biological, physical, social, and economic
characteristics.
Credit author statement
The ideas of the manuscript were conceived and discussed by all
authors. Data analysis were carried out by W.R.T and G.T. W.R.T. wrote
the manuscript, and G.T. and J.C.N. commented and edited the
manuscript.
Data accessibility
All dataset used in this study were obtained from public sources and
can be accessed in the following links:
Cerrado deforestation: http://terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br.
Slope and remmant vegetation: https://www.lapig.iesa.ufg.br/
lapig/
Socioeconomic data: https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas
/downloads-estatisticas.html and https://dadosabertos.bcb.gov.br/
Precipitation: https://www.worldclim.org/
Funding
WRT was supported by Brazilian Institute of Environment and
Renewable Natural Resources – IBAMA. GT was supported by PNPD/
CAPES Postdoctoral fellowship (convênio UEG/CAPES N.817,164/2015
- PROAP). JCN was supported by a CNPq productivity grant (process
305,798/2019–7). This study was partially supported by CNPq, FAPEG
and National Institutes for Science and Technology (INCT) in Ecology,
Evolution and Biodiversity Conservation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
8
Journal of Environmental Management 275 (2020) 111243
Acknowledgements
We thank the Ministry of the Environment (MMA), Brazilian Institute
of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), Central bank of Brazil, WorldCim -
Digital platform for global climatic data, Laboratory of Image Processing
and Geoprocessing (Lapig), and National Institute of Space Research
(INPE) for providing the data used.
References
Assis, L.F.F.G., Ferreira, K.R., Vinhas, L., Maurano, L., Almeida, C., Carvalho, A.,
Rodrigues, J., Maciel, A., Camargo, C. TerraBrasilis, 2019. A spatial data analytics
infrastructure for large-scale thematic mapping. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 8, 513.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8110513.
Assuncao, J.J., Chiavari, J., 2015. Towards efficient land use in Brazil. ISEE Conf. Abstr.
2015, 708. https://doi.org/10.1289/isee.2015.2015-708.
Assunção, J., Souza, P., Figueiredo, B., 2018. Distribution Channels for Rural Credit:
Design of Financial Services Increase Farmer’s Uncertainty, Climate Policy Initiative.
Austin, K.G., González-Roglich, M., Schaffer-Smith, D., Schwantes, A.M., Swenson, J.J.,
2017. Trends in size of tropical deforestation events signal increasing dominance of
industrial-scale drivers. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
aa6a88.
Baldassini, P., Paruelo, J.M., 2020. Deforestation and current management practices
reduce soil organic carbon in the semi-arid Chaco, Argentina. Agric. Syst. 178,
102749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102749.
BANCO CENTRAL DO BRASIL, 2017. Matriz de dados do crédito rural. Disponível Em.
https://dadosabertos.bcb.gov.br/dataset/matrizdadoscreditorural. (Accessed 27
November 2017).
Barber, C.P., Cochrane, M.A., Souza, C.M., Laurance, W.F., 2014. Roads, deforestation,
and the mitigating effect of protected areas in the Amazon. Biol. Conserv. 177,
203–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.004.
Barona, E., Ramankutty, N., Hyman, G., Coomes, O.T., 2010. The role of pasture and
soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 024002
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024002.
Baumann, M., Israel, C., Piquer-Rodríguez, M., Gavier-Pizarro, G., Volante, J.N.,
Kuemmerle, T., 2017. Deforestation and cattle expansion in the Paraguayan Chaco
1987–2012. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1179–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-
017-1109-5.
Betts, M.G., Wolf, C., Ripple, W.J., Phalan, B., Millers, K.A., Duarte, A., Butchart, S.H.M.,
Levi, T., 2017. Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact
landscapes. Nature 547, 441–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23285.
Bolfe, É.L., Victória, D.D.C., Contini, E., Bayma-Silva, G., Spinelli-Araujo, L., Gomes, D.,
2016. Matopiba em crescimento agrícola Aspectos territoriais e socioeconômicos.
Rev. política agrícola 25, 38–62.
BRASIL, 2012. LEI No 12.651, DE 25 DE MAIO DE 2012. Diário Of. da União - Seção 1 -
28/5/2012, Página 1. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005229.
Brondizio, E.S., Moran, E.F., 2012. Level-dependent deforestation trajectories in the
Brazilian Amazon from 1970 to 2001. Popul. Environ. 34, 69–85. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11111-011-0159-8.
Brum, F.T., Pressey, R.L., Bini, L.M., Loyola, R., 2019. Forecasting conservation impact to
pinpoint spatial priorities in the Brazilian Cerrado. Biol. Conserv. 240, 108283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108283.
Brunsdon, C., Fotheringham, A.S., Charlton, M.E., 2010. Geographically weighted
regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geogr. Anal. 28, 281–298.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1996.tb00936.x.
Buainain, A.M., Garcia, J.R., Vieira Filho, J.E.R., 2017. Dinâmica da economia e da
agropecuária no Matopiba (Brasília).
Busch, J., Ferretti-gallon, K., 2017. What drives deforestation and what stops it ? A meta-
analysis. Rev. Environ. Econ. Pol. 11, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rew013.
Câmara, G., Soterroni, A., Ramos, F., Carvalho, A., Andrade, P., Souza, R.C., Mosnier, A.,
Mant, R., Buurman, M., Pena, M., Havlik, P., Pirker, J., Kraxner, F., Obersteiner, M.,
Kapos, V., Affonso, A., Espíndola, G., Bocqueho, G., 2015. Modelling Land Use
Changes in Brazil 2000-2050. São José Dos Campos. Brasília, Laxenburg, Cambridge.
Campolina, B., 2019. Population growth and urbanization in the Brazilian Cerrado. In:
Hosono, A., Hamaguchi, N., Bojanic, A. (Eds.), Innovation with Spatial Impact:
Sustainable Development of the Brazilian Cerrado. Springer Singapore, Singapore,
pp. 163–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6182-1_6.
Carneiro Filho, A., Costa, K., 2016. The Expansion of Soybean Production in the Cerrado:
Paths to Sustainable Territorial Occupation, Land Use and Production. São Paulo.
Carranza, T., Balmford, A., Kapos, V., Manica, A., 2014. Protected area effectiveness in
reducing conversion in a rapidly vanishing ecosystem: the Brazilian Cerrado.
Conserv. Lett. 7, 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12049.
Carrillo, B., Branco, D.K., Trujillo, J.C., Lima, J.E., 2019. The externalities of a
deforestation control policy in infant health: evidence from Brazil. Econ. Dev. Cult.
Change 67, 369–400. https://doi.org/10.1086/698164.
Carter, S., Herold, M., Avitabile, V., Bruin, S. De, Sy, De, V., Kooistra, L., Rufino, M.C.,
2018. Agriculture-driven deforestation in the tropics from 1990 – 2015: emissions,
trends and uncertainties. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 014002 https://doi.org/10.1088/
1748-9326/aa9ea4.
Chambers, J.Q., Artaxo, P., 2017. Deforestation size influences rainfall. Nat. Clim.
Change 7, 175. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3238.
Chavent, M., Kuentz-Simonet, V., Labenne, A., Saracco, J., 2018. ClustGeo: an R package
for hierarchical clustering with spatial constraints. Comput. Stat. 33, 1799–1822.
W.R. Trigueiro et al.
Clemente, C.M.S., Espírito-Santo, M.M., do, Leite, M.E., 2020. Estimates of deforestation
avoided by protected areas: a case study in Brazilian tropical dry forests and Cerrado.
Landsc. Res. 45, 470–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2020.1730773.
Coe, M.T., Brando, P.M., Deegan, L.A., Macedo, M.N., Neill, C., Silvério, D.V., 2017. The
forests of the Amazon and cerrado moderate regional climate and are the key to the
future. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 10 https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917720671.
Combes, J.L., Delacote, P., Combes Motel, P., Yogo, T.U., 2018. Public spending, credit
and natural capital: does access to capital foster deforestation? Econ. Model 73,
306–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.04.006.
Dalla-Nora, E.L., de Aguiar, A.P.D., Lapola, D.M., Woltjer, G., 2014. Why have land use
change models for the Amazon failed to capture the amount of deforestation over the
last decade? Land Use Pol. 39, 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2014.02.004.
de Araújo, M.L.S., Sano, E.E., Bolfe, É.L., Santos, J.R.N., dos Santos, J.S., Silva, F.B.,
2019. Spatiotemporal dynamics of soybean crop in the Matopiba region, Brazil
(1990-2015). Land Use Pol. 80, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2018.09.040.
de Arruda, M.R., Slingerland, M., Santos, J.Z.L., Giller, K.E., 2019. Agricultural land use
change and associated driving forces over the past 180 years in two municipalities of
the Brazilian Cerrado. Geojournal 84, 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-
018-9875-2.
Dickie, A., Magno, I., Giampietro, J., Dolginow, A., 2016. Challenges and Opportunities
for Conservation, Agricultural Production, and Social Inclusion in the Cerrado
Biome. CEA Consulting.
Dupin, M.G., Espírito-Santo, M.M., Leite, M.E., Silva, J.O., Rocha, A.M., Barbosa, R.S.,
Anaya, F.C., 2018. Land use policies and deforestation in Brazilian tropical dry
forests between 2000 and 2015. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 035008 https://doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/aaadea.
Eloy, L., Aubertin, C., Toni, F., Laine, S., Lúcio, B., Bosgiraud, M., 2016. On the margins
of soy farms: traditional populations and selective environmental policies in the
Brazilian Cerrado. J. Peasant Stud. 43, 494–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03066150.2015.1013099.
Espírito-Santo, M.M., Leite, M.E., Silva, J.O., Barbosa, R.S., Rocha, A.M., Anaya, F.C.,
Dupin, M.G.V., 2016. Understanding patterns of land-cover change in the Brazilian
Cerrado from 2000 to 2015. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150435.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0435.
Fearnside, P.M., 2007. Brazil’s Cuiabá- Santarém (BR-163) Highway: the environmental
cost of paving a soybean corridor through the Amazon. Environ. Manage. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0149-2.
Ferreira, M.E., Ferreira, L.G., Miziara, F., Soares-Filho, B.S., 2013. Modeling landscape
dynamics in the central Brazilian savanna biome: future scenarios and perspectives
for conservation. J. Land Use Sci. 8, 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1747423X.2012.675363.
Ferreira- Filho, J.B.S., Vian, C.E.F., 2014. Brazilian experience with the occupation of the
cerrado: the dynamics of large farms vs small farms. African J. Agric. Resour. Econ.
9, 18–32.
Fick, S.E., Hijmans, R.J., 2017. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate
surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37 (12), 4302–4315.
Forest Service, Brazilian, 2019. Consulta Pública: Regularidade.
Fotheringham, A., Brunsdon, C., Charlton, M., 2003. Geographically Weighted
Regression: the Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships. John Wiley & Sons.
Fox, J., Monette, G., 1992. Generalized collinearity diagnostics. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 87,
178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2290467.
Françoso, R.D., Brandão, R., Nogueira, C.C., Salmona, Y.B., Machado, R.B., Colli, G.R.,
2015. Habitat loss and the effectiveness of protected areas in the Cerrado
Biodiversity Hotspot. Nat. Conserv. 13, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ncon.2015.04.001.
Freitas, S.R., Hawbaker, T.J., Metzger, P.J., 2010. Effects of roads, topography, and land
use on forest cover dynamics in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 259,
410–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.036.
Garcia, A.S., Ballester, M.V.R., 2016. Land cover and land use changes in a Brazilian
Cerrado landscape: drivers, processes, and patterns. J. Land Use Sci. 11, 538–559.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2016.1182221.
Garrett, R.D., Koh, I., Lambin, E.F., le Polain de Waroux, Y., Kastens, J.H., Brown, J.C.,
2018. Intensification in agriculture-forest frontiers: land use responses to
development and conservation policies in Brazil. Global Environ. Change 53,
233–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.011.
Giam, X., 2017. Global biodiversity loss from tropical deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U. S. A. 114, 5775–5777. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706264114.
Gibbs, H.K., Ruesch, A.S., Achard, F., Clayton, M.K., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N.,
Foley, J.A., 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land
in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 21, 16732–16737. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.0910275107.
Gollini, I., Lu, B., Charlton, M., Brunsdon, C., Harris, P., 2015. GWmodel : an R package
for exploring spatial heterogeneity using geographically weighted models. J. Stat.
Software 63, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v063.i17.
Graesser, J., Ramankutty, N., Coomes, O.T., 2018. Increasing expansion of large-scale
crop production onto deforested land in sub-Andean South America. Environ. Res.
Lett. 13, 84021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad5bf.
Grecchi, R.C., Gwyn, Q.H.J., Bénié, G.B., Formaggio, A.R., Fahl, F.C., 2014. Land use and
land cover changes in the Brazilian Cerrado: a multidisciplinary approach to assess
the impacts of agricultural expansion. Appl. Geogr. 55, 300–312. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.09.014.
Hargrave, J., Kis-katos, K., 2011. Economic causes of deforestation in the Brazilian
Amazon. Environ. Resour. Econ. 54, 471–494.
9
Journal of Environmental Management 275 (2020) 111243
Hunke, P., Mueller, E.N., Schröder, B., Zeilhofer, P., 2015. The Brazilian Cerrado:
assessment of water and soil degradation in catchments under intensive agricultural
use. Ecohydrology 8, 1154–1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1573.
IBGE, 2017a. Sistema IBGE de Recuperação automática – SIDRA. Banco de Tabelas
estatísticas. available at: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/home/pms/brasil. (Accessed 27
November 2017).
IBGE, 2017b. Cartas e Mapas: bases cartográficas contínuas. Available at: ftp://geoftp.
ibge.gov.br/cartas_e_mapas/bases_cartograficas_continuas/bc250/versao2017/sha
pefile/. (Accessed 29 April 2018).
IBGE, 2017c. Biomas e Sistema costeiro-Marinho do Brasil - 1:250 000. Available at: http
s://www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/informacoes-ambientais/15842-biomas.html?=&
t=downloads. (Accessed 22 November 2017).
INPE, 2017. Coordenação geral de observação da terra. Programa de monitoramento da
Amazônia e demais biomas. Desmatamento do Bioma Cerrado - prodes. Available at:
http://terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/downloads. (Accessed 1 December 2017).
Jasinski, E., Morton, D., Defries, R., Shimabukuro, Y., Anderson, L., Hansen, M., 2005.
Physical landscape correlates of the expansion of mechanized agriculture in Mato
Grosso, Brazil. Earth Interact. 9, 1–18.
Jusys, T., 2016. Fundamental causes and spatial heterogeneity of deforestation in Legal
Amazon. Appl. Geogr. 75, 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.08.015.
Kassa, H., Dondeyne, S., Poesen, J., Frankl, A., Nyssen, J., 2017. Impact of deforestation
on soil fertility, soil carbon and nitrogen stocks: the case of the Gacheb catchment in
the White Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 247, 273–282. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.06.034.
Klink, C.A., Moreira, A.G., 2002. Past and current human occupation, and land use. In:
Oliveira, P.S., Marquis, R.J. (Eds.), The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and Natural
History of a Neotropical Savanna. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 69–88.
LAPIG, 2017. Lapig maps. Available at: http://maps.lapig.iesa.ufg.br/lapig.htm.
(Accessed 13 February 2018).
Lapola, D.M., Martinelli, L.A., Peres, C.A., Ometto, J.P.H.B., Ferreira, M.E., Nobre, C.A.,
Aguiar, A.P.D., Bustamante, M.M.C., Cardoso, M.F., Costa, M.H., Joly, C.A., Leite, C.
C., Moutinho, P., Sampaio, G., Strassburg, B.B.N., Vieira, I.C.G., 2014. Pervasive
transition of the Brazilian land-use system. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 27–35. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nclimate2056.
Laurance, W.F., Albernaz, A.K., Schroth, G., Fearnside, P.M., Bergen, S., Venticinque, E.
M., Da Costa, C., 2002. Predictors of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.
J. Biogeogr. 29, 737–748.
Laurance, W.F., Sayer, J., Cassman, K.G., 2014. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on
tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2013.12.001.
Lima, T.C., Ribeiro, S.C., Soares-Filho, B., 2018. Integrating econometric and spatially
explicit dynamic models to simulate land use transitions in the Cerrado biome. In:
Olmedo, M.T.C., Paegelow, M., Mas, J.F., Escobar, F. (Eds.), Geomatic Approaches
for Modeling Land Change Scenarios. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 399–417.
Lima, M., Silva Junior, C.A. da, Rausch, L., Gibbs, H.K., Johann, J.A., 2019. Demystifying
sustainable soy in Brazil. Land Use Pol. 82, 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2018.12.016.
López-carr, D., Burgdorfer, J., 2013. Deforestation drivers: population, migration, and
Tropical land use. Environment 55, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00139157.2013.748385.
Lu, B., Harris, P., Charlton, M., Brunsdon, C., 2014. The GWmodel R package: further
topics for exploring spatial heterogeneity using geographically weighted models.
Geo Spatial Inf. Sci. 17, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10095020.2014.917453.
Macedo, M.N., Defries, R.S., Morton, D.C., Stickler, C.M., Galford, G.L., Shimabukuro, Y.
E., 2012. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon
during the late 2000s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 109, 1341–1346.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111374109.
Magrin, G.O., Marengo, J.A., Boulanger, J.P., Buckeridge, M.S., Castellanos, E.,
Poveda, G., Scarano, F.R., Vicuña, S., 2014. Central and south America. Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 1499–1566.
Malhi, Y., Mlhi, Y., Barbier, N., Lima, A., Shimabukuro, Y., Anderson, L., Saatchi, S.,
2008. Interactions between rainfall, deforestation and fires during recent years in the
Brazilian Amazonia. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 1779–1785. https://doi.
org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0026.
Matricardi, E.A.T., Aguiar, A.S., Miguel, E.P., Angelo, H., Gaspar, R.D.O., 2018.
Modelagem do desmatamento na região do MATOPIBA. Nativa 6, 198. https://doi.
org/10.31413/nativa.v6i2.5092.
Miziara, F., Ferreira, N., 2008. Expansão da fronteira agrícola e evolução da ocupação e
uso do espaço no estado ee Goiás: subsídios à política ambiental. In: Ferreira Jr, L.G.
(Ed.), A Encruzilhada Socioambiental – Biodiversidade, Economia E
Sustentabilidade No Cerrado. Editora UFG, Goiânia, pp. 107–125.
MMA, 2017. Download de dados geográficos. Available at: http://mapas.mma.gov.br/
i3geo/datadownload.htm. (Accessed 1 December 2017).
Motta, P.E.F., Curi, N., Franzmeier, D.P., 2002. Relation of soils and geomorphic surfaces
in the Brazilian Cerrado. In: Oliveira, P.S., Marquis, R.J. (Eds.), The Cerrados of
Brazil: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical Savanna. Columbia University
Press, New York, pp. 13–32.
Naimi, B., Hamm, N.A.S., Groen, T.A., Skidmore, A.K., Toxopeus, A.G., 2014. Where is
positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling? Ecography 37,
191–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00205.x.
Nakaya, T., 2007. Geographically weighted regression. In: K, K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Geographical Information Science. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, pp. 179–184.
Nepstad, L.S., Gerber, J.S., Hill, J.D., Dias, L.C.P., Costa, M.H., West, P.C., 2019.
Pathways for recent Cerrado soybean expansion: extending the soy moratorium and
W.R. Trigueiro et al.
implementing integrated crop livestock systems with soybeans. Environ. Res. Lett.
14 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aafb85.
Noojipady, P., Morton, D.C., Macedo, M.N., Victoria, D.C., Huang, C., Gibbs, H.K.,
Bolfe, E.L., 2017. Forest carbon emissions from cropland expansion in the Brazilian
Cerrado biome. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 025004 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
aa5986.
Norris, K., 2016. Ecology: the tropical deforestation debt. Curr. Biol. 26, R770–R772.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.06.039.
Nzunda, E.F., Midtgaard, F., 2017. Spatial relationship between deforestation and
protected areas, accessibility, population density, GDP and other factors in mainland
Tanzania. For. Trees Livelihoods 26, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14728028.2017.1322921.
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Mcglinn, D., Minchin, P.
R., O’Hara, R.B., Simpson, G.L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M.H.H., Szoecs, E., Wagner, H.,
Simpson, G.L., Solymos, Peter, Stevens, M.H.H., Szoecs, Eduard, 2016. Vegan:
community Ecology package.
Overbeck, G.E., Eduardo, V., Scarano, F., Lewinsohn, T.M., Fonseca, C.R., Meyer, S.T.,
Müller, S., Ceotto, P., Dadalt, L., D, G., Ganade, G., Gossner, M.M., Guadagnin, D.L.,
Lorenzen, K., Jacobi, C.M., Weisser, W.W., Pillar, V., 2015. Conservation in Brazil
needs to include non-forest ecosystems. Divers. Distrib. 21, 1455–1460. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ddi.12380.
Pacheco, P., 2012. Geoforum actor and frontier types in the Brazilian Amazon: assessing
interactions and outcomes associated with frontier expansion. Geoforum 43,
864–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.02.003.
Pereira, C.N., de Castro, C.N., Porcionato, G.L., 2018. Dinâmica econômica,
infraestrutura e logística no Matopiba (Brasília).
Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., Walker, R., Aldrich, S., Caldas, M., Reis, E., Perz, S., Bohrer, C.,
Arima, E., Laurance, W., Kirby, K., 2007. Road investments, spatial spillovers, and
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Reg. Sci. 47, 109–123. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9787.2007.00502.x.
Picoli, M.C.A., Rorato, A., Leitão, P., Camara, G., Maciel, A., Hostert, P., Sanches, I.D.,
2020. Impacts of public and private sector policies on soybean and pasture
expansion in Mato Grosso—Brazil from 2001 to 2017. Land 9, 20. https://doi.org/
10.3390/land9010020.
Pitta, A.F.T., Cerdas, G., Mendonça, M.L., 2018. Transnational Corporations and Land
Speculation in Brazil. São Paulo.
Rausch, L.L., Gibbs, H.K., Schelly, I., Brandão, A., Morton, D.C., Filho, A.C.,
Strassburg, B., Walker, N., Noojipady, P., Barreto, P., Meyer, D., 2019. Soy expansion
in Brazil’s Cerrado. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12671 https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12671.
Reddington, C.L., Butt, E.W., Ridley, D.A., Artaxo, P., Morgan, W.T., Coe, H.,
Spracklen, D.V., 2015. Air quality and human health improvements from reductions
in deforestation-related fire in Brazil. Nat. Geosci. 8, 768–773. https://doi.org/
10.1038/NGEO2535.
Redo, D., Aide, T.M., Clark, M.L., 2013. Vegetation change in Brazil’s dryland ecoregions
and the relationship to crop production and environmental factors: cerrado,
Caatinga, and Mato Grosso, 2001–2009. J. Land Use Sci. 8, 123–153. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1747423X.2012.667448.
Sano, E.E., Rodrigues, A.A., Martins, E.S., Bettiol, G.M., Bustamante, M.M.C., Bezerra, A.
S., Couto, A.F., Vasconcelos, V., Schüler, J., Bolfe, E.L., 2019. Cerrado ecoregions: a
spatial framework to assess and prioritize Brazilian savanna environmental diversity
for conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 232, 818–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2018.11.108.
10
Journal of Environmental Management 275 (2020) 111243
Sawyer, D., 2008. Climate change, biofuels and eco-social impacts in the Brazilian
Amazon and Cerrado. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 1747–1752. https://doi.
org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0030.
Sawyer, D.R., 2016. Ecosystem Profile: Cerrado Biodiversity Hotspot.
Semper-Pascual, A., Decarre, J., Baumann, M., Busso, J.M., Camino, M., Gómez-
Valencia, B., Kuemmerle, T., 2019. Biodiversity loss in deforestation frontiers:
linking occupancy modelling and physiological stress indicators to understand local
extinctions. Biol. Conserv. 236, 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2019.05.050.
Shirvani, Z., Abdi, O., Buchroithner, M.F., Pradhan, B., 2017. Analyzing spatial and
statistical dependencies of deforestation affected by residential growth: gorganrood
basin, Northeast Iran. Land Degrad. Dev. 28, 2176–2190. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ldr.2744.
Silva, C.R. da, Souza, K.B. de, Furtado, W.F., 2013. Evaluation of the progress of
intensive agriculture in the Cerrado Piauiense – Brazil. IERI Procedia 5, 51–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ieri.2013.11.069.
Soares-Filho, B., Alencar, A., Nepstad, D., Cerqueira, G., Vera Diaz, M. del C., Rivero, S.,
Solorzano, L., Voll, E., 2004. Simulating the response of land-cover changes to road
paving and governance along a major Amazon highway: the Santarém-Cuiabá
corridor. Global Change Biol. 10, 745–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-
8817.2003.00769.x.
Soterroni, A.C., Ramos, F.M., Mosnier, A., Fargione, J., Andrade, P.R., Baumgarten, L.,
Pirker, J., Obersteiner, M., Kraxner, F., Câmara, G., Carvalho, A.X.Y., Polasky, S.,
2019. Expanding the soy moratorium to Brazil’s Cerrado. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav7336.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav7336.
Spangler, K.R., Lynch, A.H., Spera, S.A., 2017. Precipitation drivers of cropping
frequency in the Brazilian Cerrado: evidence and implications for decision-making.
Weather. Clim. Soc. 9, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0024.1.
Spera, S., 2017. Agricultural intensification can preserve the Brazilian Cerrado: applying
lesson’s to Brazil’s from Mato Grosso and Goiás last agricultural frontier. Trop.
Conserv. Sci. 10, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917720662.
Spera, S., Galford, G., Coe, L., Macedo, M.M., Mustard, J.F., 2016. Land-Use change
affects water recycling in Brazil’ s last agricultural frontier. Global Change Biol. 22,
3405–3413. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13298.
Strassburg, B.B.N., Latawiec, A., Balmford, A., 2016. Urgent action on Cerrado
extinctions. Nature 540, 199. https://doi.org/10.1038/540199a.
Strassburg, B.B.N., Brooks, T., Feltran-Barbieri, R., Iribarrem, A., Crouzeilles, R.,
Loyola, R., Latawiec, A.E., Oliveira Filho, F.J.B., Scaramuzza, C.A. de M., Scarano, F.
R., Soares-Filho, B., Balmford, A., 2017. Moment of truth for the Cerrado hotspot.
Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0099, 0099.
Tilman, D., 1999. Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for
sustainable and efficient practices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 96,
5995–6000. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.11.5995.
Tritsch, I., Tourneau, F. Le, 2016. Population densities and deforestation in the Brazilian
Amazon: new insights on the current human settlement patterns. Appl. Geogr. 76,
163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.09.022.
Walker, N.F., Patel, S.A., Kalif, K.A.B., 2013. From Amazon pasture to the high street:
deforestation and the Brazilian cattle product supply chain. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 6,
446–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291300600309.
Zaiatz, A.P.S.R., Zolin, C.A., Vendrusculo, L.G., Lopes, T.R., Paulino, J., 2018.
Agricultural land use and cover change in the Cerrado/Amazon ecotone: a case study
of the upper Teles Pires River basin. Acta Amazonica 48, 168–177. https://doi.org/
10.1590/1809-4392201701930.