Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

The Role of Private Reserves of Natural Heritage (RPPN) on natural

vegetation dynamics in Brazilian biomes
Fábio Gabriel Nascibem a, b, *, Ramon Felipe Bicudo Da Silva c, d, Alessandra Aparecida Viveiro e,
Oswaldo Gonçalves Junior f
a
PECIM, University of Campinas, UNICAMP, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil
b
Municipal Secretary of Agriculture and Environment of Monte Alto-SP, Brazil
c
Center for System Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, United States
d
Center for Environmental Studies and Research, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil
e
School of Education, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil
f
School of Applied Sciences, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil

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

Keywords: Despite having the richest biodiversity in the world, Brazil has lost vegetation cover in all biomes, with the
Decentralized governance agribusiness being an important driver of such changes. Different governance systems, decentralized actions and
Biodiversity public policies have been developed to control deforestation, and in this study, we focus on the role of Private
Conservation unit
Reserves of Natural Heritage (RPPN) as an instrument for the conservation and recovery of natural vegetation.
Land-use and management
Forest recovery
Therefore, we raise the following questions: How many RPPNs are there and what are their spatial distribution?
Are RPPNs an important mean of conservation/restoration of Brazilian biomes? Do they contribute (at statisti­
cally significant levels) to the conservation of natural vegetation within their respective rural properties
compared with rural properties without private reserves? Thus, we investigated the natural vegetation cover
(between 1990 and 2018) in rural properties with and without RPPNs looking at the municipalities where RPPNs
are found, and analyzing the results at country and biome levels. The results indicate that RPPNs are significantly
associated with gains in natural vegetation cover in the Cerrado, Caatinga and Atlantic Forest biomes. We
conclude that RPPNs have great potential in recovering natural landscapes associated to the Brazilian biomes.
However, their few numbers across the Brazilian territory (1750 units of RPPN) and spatially highly concentrated
in the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest, challenges the capacity of this conservation strategy to deal with the envi­
ronmental degradation promoted by the expansion of economics activities across the country.

1. Introduction surrounding communities and by changing people’s perception of their

Private Reserves of Natural Heritage (RPPNs), created in Brazil in
1990 by the federal decree 98914/1990 and amended by the decree
1922/1996 (Brasil, 1996), are voluntary private areas transformed into
conservation areas by their landowners. Once designated as RPPNs
(officially approved by legal authorities), the areas cannot be used for
other purposes (e.g., agriculture), and the landowners must assume the
commitment to conserve the area, sometimes through environmental
education programs, tourism or promoting the development of scientific
research in the area. These activities potentially increase the conserva­
tion significance of the RPPNs by raising awareness among the
relationship with the environment (Broering, 2011). In return, land­
owners benefit from tax reductions and easier access to farm credit
(Souza, 2012).
Despite belonging to the group of Conservation Units for Sustainable
Use, which allows the presence of human populations and economic
exploitation (Ferreira, Venticinque and Almeida, 2005), RPPNs are
considered of Integral Protection by the National Law of Conservation
Units (Brasil, 2000), which mean more restricted uses (Lima and Franco,
2014). Hence, land-use, human occupation or direct exploitation of
natural resources through economic activities within RPPNs are very
restrictive. To compensate landowners to do not exploit RPPNs, there

* Corresponding author at: PECIM, University of Campinas, UNICAMP, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil.
E-mail addresses: fnascibem@yahoo.com.br (F.G. Nascibem), ramonbicudo@gmail.com (R.F.B. Da Silva), alessandraviveiro@gmail.com (A.A. Viveiro), osgoju@
gmail.com (O. Gonçalves Junior).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106820
Received 26 February 2021; Received in revised form 29 May 2023; Accepted 15 July 2023
0264-8377/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.G. Nascibem et al.
are economic and tax benefits, which leads private reserves to be
recognized as a type of payment for ecosystem services (PES). A mech­
anism already implemented by the legislation of several countries, such
as the United States, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, France and
Austria, among others (Bolfe et al., 2013; Picharillo and Ranieri, 2019).
In Brazil, PES is little known and explored as a governance strategy to
foster the creation of RPPNs (Veiga Neto, 2008; Silva et al., 2016a).
However, in order to stimulate the PES as a conservation tool, in 2021,
the Brazilian National Congress approved the law that instituted the
National Policy for Payment of Environmental Services (Brasil, 2021).
The new legal framework included RPPNs as a type of ecosystem con­
servation strategy that is eligible to receive PES. In addition to the policy
for payment for environmental services, we highlight the Brazilian
Forest Code [Law 12651/2012 (Brasil, 2012)], which is a national policy
to enforce conservation within private rural properties. The Code re­
quires a minimum conservation area within each rural property, the
legal reserve area (which varies according to the biome), and the
maintenance of natural vegetation around riparian areas and water
springs, which are the permanent preservation areas. These conserva­
tion areas within rural properties are compulsory; while the RPPNs, the
focus of this study, are voluntary conservation units.
Shumba et al. (2020) studied the importance of Private Land Con­
servation Areas (PLCA) in South Africa, which represents a similar sys­
tem to the Brazilian RPPNs. Their results showed that between 1990 and
2013, PLCAs lost 3% of natural vegetation cover, while unprotected
rural areas registered a 6% loss. In Brazil, previous studies indicate that
RPPNs are effective in the conservation of forest fragments and threat­
ened species, as well as for attracting ecotourism and stimulating the
development of research centers (Rylands and Brandon, 2005; Giova­
nelli and Cantagallo, 2006; Lima and Franco, 2014).
RPPN owners are considered protagonists of conservation, some­
times motivated by altruistic values, economic incentives, or juridical
solutions to land tenure conflicts (Simão Neto, 2017; Schacht, 2017;
Mesquita, 2014; Basniak, 2016a; Slovak, 2017; Barreto, and Oliveira,
2019, 2020). In this study we share the understanding of previous au­
thors that forests and natural areas are common goods (Ostrom et al.,
1999; Ostrom, 2000; Dietz, Ostrom and Stern, 2003). In response to
Hardin (1968)’s tragedy of the commons, Ostrom et al. (1999) argued
that people engaged in particular causes promote alternative gover­
nance models and, consequently, contribute to improve a given situa­
tion. Hence, in response to the inability of central authorities (i.e., the
government) in addressing environmental issues (Dietz, Ostrom and
Stern, 2003), decentralized management (Morrison et al., 2019) and
self-governance strategies adopted by local actors emerge as an alter­
native to manage and conserve the commons (Dietz et al., 2003; Ostrom,
1990; Paavola, 2011; Salzer et al., 2020; Shimada, 2014; Ostrom, 2006),
such as the RPPNs in Brazil.
Despite the potential of RPPNs for biological conservation in Brazil,
previous studies have observed conflicts stemming from them (Silva,
2017). For instance, local/traditional communities dependent on land
and natural resources can be critically affected by the creation of RPPNs,
as local people will have their access banished, may leading them to face
socioeconomic difficulties.
This study aims to understand the contribution of RPPNs for the
conservation of natural vegetation areas across the Brazilian biomes.
The following questions are raised: How many RPPNs are there and
what are their spatial distribution? Are RPPNs an important mean of
conservation/restoration of Brazilian biomes? Do they contribute (at
statistically significant levels) to the conservation of natural vegetation
within their respective rural properties compared with rural properties
without private reserves? To address these questions, the study in­
vestigates the natural vegetation cover (between 1990 and 2018) in
rural properties with and without RPPNs on municipalities where there
is the occurrence of RPPNs, analyzing the results at country and biome
levels.
The previous literature has broadly discussed the importance of
2
Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820
Conservation Units in Brazil from the viewpoint of land-use and land-
cover (Ayach, Bacani and Silva, 2014; Machado et al., 2020) or
focusing on RPPNs [i.e., but only local studies (Cordeiro et al., 2008;
Oliveira and Oliveira, 2018; Zanchetta and Rosa, 2020)], while our
study brings a nationwide analysis accounting for 57.4% of Brazilian
RPPNs. Although scant knowledge has been built on the effective role of
RPPNs for the protection and recovery of natural vegetation in Brazil,
the available literature indicates enormous potential for this private
environmental governance system to support biological conservation.
Therefore, this study features a broader view (i.e., at country and biome
level), contributing with new perspectives to the understanding of
RPPNs across the Brazilian biomes.
2. Brazilian biomes and changes in natural vegetation cover
Brazil is a megadiverse country and composed by six biomes: Cer­
rado (Brazilian Savannah), Atlantic Forest, Amazon, Caatinga, Pampa
and Pantanal. The Amazon, Cerrado and Atlantic Forest are considered
important biodiversity hotspots, while the Pantanal is the largest
wetland in the world (Brandon et al., 2005). However, the conservation
status of these biomes is an issue of great concern (e.g., urbanization,
agricultural expansion), and the use of natural resources have caused
deforestation and forest degradation with impacts on biodiversity and
ecosystem services (Margulis, 2003; Ferreira, Venticinque and Almeida,
2005; Leal et al., 2005; Silva et al., 2017b).
The Cerrado, considered the richest area in savannah biodiversity in
the world (Klink et al., 2002; Brandon et al., 2005), has been severely
affected by the expansion of agriculture (Machado et al., 2004; Silva
et al., 2023). Between 2013 and 2015, 1.8 Mha of Cerrado were defor­
ested (BOLSON, 2018). Despite that, no reduction goals or policies have
been stipulated by the Brazilian government under the Paris Agreement
to this biome (Bolson, 2018).
The Atlantic Forest, located in the coastal areas of the country, has
suffered the effects of human occupation for many years (Pinto et al.,
2006; Joly et al., 2014; Silva et al., 2016a), and only fragments of the
original vegetation remain, the majority in fragments up to 50 ha (Zaú,
1998; Ribeiro et al., 2009; Lira et al., 2012; Joly et al., 2014). The biome
has about 11–16% of preserved vegetation cover (Rezende et al., 2018),
with 9% of the remaining natural vegetation protected by conservation
units (Ribeiro et al., 2009). Despite the status of conservation of natural
vegetation areas in the Atlantic Forest, there are regions within Atlantic
Forest under forest transition [i.e., net gain of natural vegetation cover
in regions previously under deforestation (Baptista and Rudel, 2006;
Lira et al., 2012; Silva et al., 2016a)]. The main causes related to the
recovery of the natural vegetation are attributed to the abandonment of
areas formerly occupied by agricultural activities, with the consequent
natural regeneration (Silva et al., 2016a), but also by the role of public
conservation policies, especially acting on deforestation control (Silva
et al., 2017a, 2017b), and through ecological restoration projects
(Crouzeilles et al., 2019).
According to the National Institute for Space Research (INPE),
deforestation in the Amazon increased by 29.54% between August 2018
and July 2019, compared to the previous year (INPE, 2019), further
fragmenting the biome (Montibeller et al., 2020). Qin et al. (2019),
however, claim that the estimates from INPE are underestimated by
15%, and that in the period from 2000 to 2017, were deforested about
40 Mha deforested in the region. The concerns raised by research in­
stitutes and civil organizations regarding these increased trends of
deforestation in recent years led the federal government, between 2019
and 2022, to escalate in its aggressive rhetoric against INPE and other
institutions committed with the environmental governance of the
Amazon. The federal government reactions also supported by agribusi­
ness sectors caused the dismantling of surveillance agencies, such as the
Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBIO) and the
Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources
(IBAMA) (Scatimburgo, 2018; Fearnside, 2019a; 2019b). It is known
F.G. Nascibem et al.
that in Brazil the weakening of surveillance and law enforcement (Silva
et al., 2017a, 2017b; Scatimburgo, 2018; Fearnside, 2019a; 2019b)
enhances the importance of implementing actions through environ­
mental leadership, creating decentralized agreements and management
systems in order to counteract deforestation and forest degradation. In
this context, RPPNs are of great importance to the Amazon and other
biomes.
The Caatinga, in the Brazilian semiarid region, also suffers with
agribusiness expansion, which has caused the fragmentation of the
biome (Leal et al., 2005). A major problem in Caatinga biome is the
mistaken view of its ecological value, usually considered “biologically
poor,” and the notion that its semiarid condition (e.g., long-term
droughts) must be addressed through irrigation and other water man­
agement projects (Tabarelli and Silva, 2002; Dantas, 2010). In recent
years, there have been discussions among different stakeholders, such as
scientists, economists, environmentalists and government agents, to­
wards the conservation of the Caatinga, as well as to highlight its
importance for biodiversity, and to change the mistaken perceptions of
its ecological values (Silvino et al., 2016).
The Pampa and Pantanal also suffer by the agricultural expansion,
requiring urgent actions combining multi-varied efforts to find solutions
to the present situation of degradation (Pereira, 2014; Miranda, Paranho
Filho and Pott, 2018). The main solutions pointed out are a combination
of efforts, either by creating/enforcing stringent laws, expanding the
creation of protected areas, forming wildlife corridors, but also fostering
a cultural change in order to economically exploit the biomes’ ecological
wealth, for example with ecotourism (Brandon et al., 2005; Leal et al.,
2005; Klink; Machado, 2005; Veríssimo et al., 2011; Lima and Franco,
2014; Palazzi, 2018).
3. Materials and methods
This research performs spatiotemporal analyses of remote sensing
data (years 1990 and 2018) in a Geographic Information System (GIS)
and uses statistical analysis for further understanding the land change
trajectories associated to the rural properties participants in private
reserve programs. Our approach intends to investigate how the RPPN (a
governance system) affected the change trajectories in natural vegeta­
tion cover (in the last 28 years) across Brazilian biomes. While doing
that, we control the analysis by evaluating rural properties with and
without RPPNs only in municipalities where RPPNs are found.
3.1. Data and spatiotemporal analysis
We first built a database to deal with all the required information by
gathering and compiling datasets previously distributed and stored in
different sources and formats. A great part of the RPPNs across the
country are not georeferenced (i.e., not linked to a known Earth coor­
dinate system), and many Brazilian states have no database for this in­
formation. Additionally, there is no centralized platform for geographic
information about RPPNs (e.g., spatial information, maps) due to their
different regulatory agencies in Brazil, organized at three levels of
government: federal, state and municipality. Currently, it is known that
approximately 54.6% of all RPPNs were created at state level, 42.3% at
federal level, and 3.1% at municipality level [National Confederation of
RPPNs (Confederação Nacional Das Rppn, 2020) (CNRPPN, on-line, http
s://www.rppn.org.br)].
At federal level, the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Con­
servation (ICMBIO) centralizes and discloses available georeferenced
data through the RPPN Monitoring System [SIMRPPN (http://sistemas.
icmbio.gov.br/simrppn/publico/)], where all private reserves (100%)
are registered, a situation not observed for RPPNs created at state or
municipality levels. However, some of the RPPNs (approximately
34.3%) created by state level agencies are registered with the National
Registry of Conservation Units [CNUC (https://www.mma.gov.br/areas
-protegidas/cadastro-nacional-de-ucs)], a system maintained by the
3
Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820
Brazilian Ministry of the Environment. Thus, although incomplete,
CNUC has a registry of 307 RPPNs. Based on the RPPNs registered with
both SIMRPPN and CNUC until August 2020, a total of 1005 RPPNs were
identified (approximately 57.4% of the total)—i.e., 698 at federal level
(ICMBIO, 2020), and 307 at state level (Cadastro Nacional de Unidades
de Conservação, 2020). According to the CNRPPN (Painel De Indica­
dores Da Confederação Nacional De Rppn, 2020), there are 1639 RPPNs
in Brazil, spread throughout the country’s territory. The data with pri­
vate reserves were organized into a single shapefile with the corre­
sponding centroid (i.e., point) for each reserve, a georeferenced
information made available by the SIMRPPN and CNUC systems (Min­
istério Do Meio Ambiente, 2020). Hence, neither of those systems fea­
tures the respective RPPN polygons (i.e., a digital mapping
representation of the reserve’s boundaries), but only a central location
point – i.e., centroid (Fig. 1A).
Based on the Brazilian municipality grid of 2020, provided by the
Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics [IBGE, 2020(a) (https://
www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/organizacao-do-territorio/malhas-territ
oriais/15774-malhas.html?=&t=downloads)], the centroids were used
to identify the municipalities where RPPNs are found. Thus, the 1005
centroids identified 567 municipalities across the country (Fig. 1B).
Subsequently, we extracted information of rural properties (properties’
boundaries in digitalized map format, i.e., polygons) from the National
Rural Environmental Registry System [SINCAR, 2020 (http://www.car.
gov.br/publico/imoveis/index)], obtaining a dataset with all rural
properties registered in the 567 municipalities. This methodological step
aimed to fill the geospatial information gap of the location of each RPPN
within its respective rural property (i.e., absence polygon shapefiles
with the RPPN location). The RPPN centroids were used to create two
groups of rural properties: (1) rural properties with RPPN, and (2) rural
properties without RPPN. The criterion for the definition of a rural
property “with RPPN” is when the centroid point overlaps the polygon of
the rural property (i.e., the centroid is within the property boundaries),
while the other rural properties were classified as “without RPPN.” It is
important to note that our unit of analysis is the rural property, since the
RPPN polygons are not available in any of those databases accessed or in
other public/private data sources.
Thus, rural properties with and without RPPN are analyzed to un­
derstand how this conservation instrument influences the dynamics of
natural vegetation cover, allowing comparisons with rural properties
without RPPN (i.e., control group). This approach allows us to verify
whether rural properties with RPPN show different results in the dy­
namics of conservation and recovery of natural vegetation between
1990 and 2018. Of the total RPPNs, 79 are found in non-rural areas
(RPPN in urban areas) or in rural properties not registered in the SINCAR
(without boundaries as digital files), totaling 7.86% of the total sample.
Hence, these 79 RPPNs are not considered in the study.
To evaluate the effect of RPPNs on the natural vegetation cover
changes, we used a thematic mapping dataset (raster format) for the
years of 1990 and 2018 provided by MapBiomas, collection 4.0, with
global accuracy at 80% (Mapbiomas, 2020; Souza et al., 2020). The
MapBiomas thematic maps are produced based on Landsat satellite data
with spatial resolution of 30 × 30 m per pixel. The thematic maps were
analyzed at biome level (Ministério Do Meio Ambiente, 2020). We
consider 1990 as the initial year for our analysis, when the RPPN system
was created (Federal Law 98914/1990). The MapBiomas data is orga­
nized into 27 classes of land-use and land-cover, and for the purpose of
this study the original classes were reclassified into: (1) natural vege­
tation (forest formations, mangroves, savannas, natural grasslands,
wetlands, flood plains, salt formations, dunes, beaches, rock formations
and other natural formations) and (2) non-natural cover (agriculture,
mining, urban areas and other non-natural land covers). The reclassified
raster files were cropped by using the polygon with the 567 munici­
palities (extracted from the IBGE municipality grid file) containing
RPPNs. To analyze the dynamics of the natural vegetation and
non-natural cover in rural properties with and without RPPNs, we
F.G. Nascibem et al. Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820

Fig. 1. Map of Brazil with (A) identification of biomes and centroid points with the locations of the RPPNs and (B) federative units highlighting municipalities
containing RPPNs.

calculated the area (ha) of ‘natural vegetation’ and ‘non-natural cover’ hypothesis t-student tests to access if changes in natural vegetation cover
classes in 1990 and 2018, in each biome. were significantly different between rural properties ‘with’ and
Based on the 28 years of land-use and land-cover changes, we applied ‘without’ RPPNs. The hypothesis Wilcoxon test was applied to the cases

Fig. 2. Flowchart with the synthesis of methodological steps.

4
F.G. Nascibem et al.
where the data presented non-parametric distribution [i.e., normal
distribution rejected at p-value< 0.01 by the Shapiro-Wilk test (Silva
et al., 2020)].
To conduct the hypothesis tests, the area equivalent to the Legal
Reserve in each of the rural properties (in both with and without RPPNs)
where discounted. The Legal Reserve is defined by the Brazilian Forest
Code [Law 12.651/2012 (Brasil, 2012)], which constrain a percentage
of the rural property for conservation of the local natural environment,
varying according the biome as follow: 80% in the Amazon biome, 35%
in the Cerrado areas within the Legal Amazon, and 20% for the other
regions of Cerrado and to the other biomes. Therefore, our tests will
better represent the conservation role promoted by the RPPNs, dis­
counting the minimum area (legal reserve) set by the Forest Code and
looking beyond its impact over the changes observed between 1990 and
2018.
This study does not use control variables, such as topography [e.g.,
positively correlated with natural vegetation cover (Freitas et al.,
2010)], or economic and infrastructure factors [e.g., favoring natural
vegetation recovery (Silva et al., 2016a)]. It examines the rural
Fig. 3. Boxplot displaying the natural vegetation changes per biome between 1990 and 2018.
5
Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820
properties considering that both groups are always within the same
municipalities, and therefore exposed to similar conditions of slope,
economic factors and available infrastructure. We present in Fig. 2a
flowchart of the entire methodological procedure to improve the un­
derstanding of our approach for future studies.
4. Results
We found that RPPNs are not equally distributed across the Brazilian
biomes, as our results revealed just 15 in Pantanal (1%), 23 in the Pampa
(3%), 56 in the Amazon (8%), 86 in the Caatinga (11%), 193 in the
Cerrado (24%), and 632 in the Atlantic Forest (53%).
The t-student tests for all biomes (nationwide scale) did not find
significant results (at p-values < 0.05) for the differences (mean values)
in natural forest cover changes between rural properties with and
without RPPNs. However, given the non-parametric distribution of the
data, the Wilcoxon test found medians values (Fig. 2) significantly
different (at p-values < 0.05) for the natural vegetation changes in the
Atlantic Forest, Cerrado and Caatinga biomes and at country level
F.G. Nascibem et al.
(nationwide scale), indicating a trend of increase in natural vegetation
cover into rural properties with RPPN at significantly higher levels
compared to rural properties without RPPN. Here we note that the re­
sults at significant levels for each biome were observed just for the three
with the higher numbers of rural proprieties with RPPN.
Descriptive statistics in nationwide level showed that the mean area
of rural properties with RPPN is 3046.6 ha (median = 138.6; standard
deviation = 10504), while in rural properties without RPPN the mean
area is 133.41 ha (median = 13.5 ha; standard deviation = 4495.7).
5. Discussion
Our study explored the effects of an environmental governance sys­
tem that has not been widely explored in the literature, and which has
proved to be important to favor the increase of natural vegetation in
Brazilian biomes. We noted that Amazon and Pampa (Figs. 2e and 2f)
biomes did not show statistical significance for their results, hence
unconclusive about the role of RPPNs at their biome levels in contrib­
uting to the stability or to the increase of natural vegetation cover. One
reason for this is that there are few RPPNs in these biomes, which does
not allow conclusions to be drawn. We noticed that at the country level
the major tendency was the increase of natural vegetation cover (Fig. 2)
within the group of rural properties with RPPN, suggesting that this
environmental governance strategy represents an important driver to
increase natural vegetation in private rural lands.
The group without RPPN has a central tendency around the median
in all cases, with a third quartile very close to the median, which is close
to zero (Fig. 3), indicating that there is little variation in the natural
vegetation cover. In these rural properties, the compulsory mechanisms
of preservation, such as legal reserves and permanent preservation
areas, according to the Brazilian Forest Code of 2012, may lead land­
owners to do not conserve natural areas above the legal minimum
require by the Code. Here we argue that without another type of
incentive, including a financial strategy, landowners are discouraged to
engage in private conservation programs/RPPN, and as consequence,
prioritizing land for agricultural activities. This decision-making process
has already been observed by Pereira et al. (2009), who studied the case
of the Corumbataí River Basin, State of São Paulo, concluding that
without good incentive programs or due to the high cost of surveillance
to allow Forest Code’s compliance, it will be difficult to advance towards
the conservation/recovery of natural vegetation areas.
Therefore, from the Wilcoxon tests, we verified that the groups with
and without RPPNs have statistical differences, indicating that the
RPPNs contributed to the recovery and increase of vegetation cover in
rural properties, above the minimum set by the Forest Code as Legal
Reserve.
The results show the relevance of RPPNs to restore natural vegeta­
tion areas in Brazilian biomes, especially for the Caatinga (Fig. 2b),
Cerrado (Fig. 2a) and Atlantic Forest (Lima, 2012) (Fig. 2d). Is important
to note that these three biomes are highly threatened by the current
expansion of agribusiness (Gontijo, 2020; Dou et al., 2018).
In the Cerrado, we can still verify in the boxplot (Fig. 2a) the trend of
natural vegetation loss in the group "with RPPN". Studies (Machado
et al., 2004a, 2004b; Rocha et al., 2011; Souza, 2018) have demon­
strated that the expansion of crop areas (e.g., soybean) and forest fires
are driven decreases in natural vegetation cover in this biome (Pinheiro
& Durigan, 2009), impacting rural properties that have conservation
units. In the Pantanal (Fig. 2c), we noticed that the benefit of RPPNs was
to avoid considerable losses of natural vegetation, a different situation to
the observed in the group "without RPPN", with a clear trend of natural
vegetation loss.
Other studies have shown that conservation practices in rural prop­
erties increase vegetation cover and biodiversity (Boron et al., 2016;
Silva et al., 2017a, 2017b). We also found similar results to those
observed in Shumba et al. (2020), where PLCAs contributed to conserve
natural vegetation and biodiversity in South Africa by reducing loss of
6
Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820
vegetation cover at significant levels than those observed in unprotected
rural areas.
Given the weakening of federal government surveillance to enforce
Brazilian environmental legislation, in part due to the lobbying influ­
ence by the agribusiness and mining sectors (Scatimburgo, 2018;
Fearnside, 2019a, 2019b), the presence of RPPNs within rural properties
in the Atlantic Forest, Caatinga and Cerrado biomes has been effective in
providing encouragement for the conservation of forest remnants and to
drive natural vegetation increases.
In the Atlantic Forest, both groups, with and without RPPN, have
shown positive values for natural vegetation cover increase, indicating
that conservation/recovery is taking place, which may be the result of
natural regeneration in abandoned areas (Silva et al., 2016a), and results
of ecological restoration projects (Crouzeilles et al., 2019). The general
increasing trend in natural vegetation cover in the Atlantic Forest has
already been explained by the forest transition theory (Rudestam et al.,
2015; Zhai et al., 2017), in which socioeconomic changes (e.g., eco­
nomic development, rural out migration) and conservation policies in
the biome has favored the abandon of former agricultural areas leading
to the return of forest cover mainly through natural regeneration (Silva
et al., 2016a, 2017a, 2017b; Fioravanti, 2020). In Fig. 4 we present maps
of rural properties, with RPPNs, for all biomes, in the years of 1990 and
2018.
From these examples (Fig. 4) we notice that in the Atlantic Forest,
Cerrado and Caatinga, rural properties with RPPNs contributed to the
recovery of natural vegetation areas. Meanwhile, in the Pantanal, the
RPPN’s effect was to control the loss of natural vegetation cover, as
observed in the boxplot (qual figure especificamente).
We found that deforestation increased in recent years as an effect of
relaxation and actions to undermine the environmental policies of the
previous government -from 2018 to 2022-(Rajão et al., 2020). In this
context, protected areas are even more important given their potential in
conserving natural vegetation, such as the private reserves known as
RPPN, which are part of the Brazilian National System of Conservation
Units (Brasil, 2000). Previous studies highlighted the importance of
protected areas and RPPN as a key strategy to cope with deforestation
and biodiversity loss, such as by promoting education actions to foster
reflection and awareness in participants and helping to change people’s
perception of their relationship with the nature (Rylands and Brandon,
2005; Giovanelli and Cantagallo, 2006; Santos and Costa, 2008; Lima
and Franco, 2014; Campelo and Melo, 2018; Silva, 2020).
Other authors are more skeptical, such as Ehlers (2003), who claims
that the total area conserved by private protected areas is not significant
(as we noted in Amazon and Pampa biomes) and that their contribution
is restricted to protecting forest fragments, thus being insufficient at
biome level or other large scales. Zaú (1998), Ribeiro et al. (2009) and
Tabarelli et al. (2005) argue that private protected areas do not solve the
problem of forest fragmentation, by area limitation, and that several
wildlife species need natural corridors and larger areas than those pro­
vided by protected areas. However, the authors agree that designated
areas for conservation contribute to preserve fragments of natural
vegetation, but that efforts to integrate fragments at landscape levels
would be necessary. Additionally, Ribeiro et al. (2009) suggest trans­
forming larger fragments into protected areas in order to increase the
spatial scale of those natural remnants under protection, which we argue
that could be achieved by the implementation of RPPNs. Lima and
Franco (2014) agree with the argument that the preserved areas may be
small, but highlights their importance as supplementary actions within a
broad territorial management perspective. For instance, even small in
scale, RPPNs could play a significant role in the Atlantic Forest conser­
vation, as a previous study found that significant trends in natural
vegetation loss in the last three decades were majorly observed in
fragments up to 1 ha (Silva et al., 2020).
We noted that the rural properties with RPPNs are of varying sizes,
evidenced by the high SD value, and that many are small and have
limited reach to protect large areas of natural remnants, e.g., to support
F.G. Nascibem et al.
Fig. 4. Rural properties in different biomes where it was found statistical significance for the effect of RPPNs on the recovery/conservation of natural vegetation.
the conservation of sensitive species to edge effects or to support species
(e.g., mammals) dependent on large continuous habitats (Zaú, 1998;
Tabarelli et al., 2005; Filgueiras, Ianuzzi and Leal, 2011). On the other
hand, they make important contributions to the provision and conser­
vation of ecosystem services, source of seeds and seedlings of the local
native flora, essential for successful projects of ecological restoration,
and habitat of many local wildlife species, such as pollinators – key
functional groups for numerous agricultural activities, provided there is
planning to interconnect them (Dondina et al., 2016; Santos et al., 2020;
Halinski et al., 2020). This corroborates the importance of increasing the
number of RPPNs across the country.
For some cases, the potential economic benefit is one of the main
motivations to create RPPNs. In Mato Grosso state, an example emerges
from a community living near by a RPPN, that is economically
benefiting from the many actions and activities developed within the
7
Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820
protected area (Pimentel and Guarim, 2008). According to the authors,
one example of the economic benefits is through the employment of
local people to become part of local fire brigades. In addition, RPPNs
may promote tourism wherever they are located, boosting local econ­
omy (Sanches et al., 2011).
Although important to conserve and to foster increases of natural
vegetation, the RPPNs face many challenges to achieve conservation
goals at national scales. They are often small areas and they lack of
technical knowledge about native plants (Machado, 2007), they need to
improve management capacity of their staffs (Basniak, 2016b; Simão
Neto, 2017), and face the lack of economic incentives, which often
makes it difficult to create new reserves. Economic incentives have po­
tential to turn RPPNs attractive for landowners less prone to adopt this
and similar conservation strategies at the rural property, which is a
challenge to be tackled by policymakers in order to promote a future
F.G. Nascibem et al.
where more landowners will join the conservation cause (Pelin et al.,
2009; Mesquita, 2014; Schacht, 2017; Barreto, 2019). In a context where
the compliance level of rural properties with the Forest Code is limited
(i.e., less natural vegetation cover than the minimum) (Azevedo et al.,
2017), other studies has noted the importance of monetary incentives,
such as PES to foster natural vegetation increase within rural private
lands (Simedo et al., 2020; Pissarra et al., 2022; Siqueira et al., 2022;
Silva et al., 2023). Hence, we argue that the new National Policy for
Payment of Environmental Services will create not only a mean to
achieve higher compliance levels across rural properties and biomes
with the Code, but will also foster additional increases of natural
vegetation cover through the creation of RPPNs.
RPPNs grant landowners the possibility of deducting federal taxes (if
they are in rural areas) or municipal taxes (if they are in urban areas).
They also participate in PES programs supported by federal, state and
municipal level agencies—the decision on which level the landowner
will engage varies according to the available program that best suits the
region where the rural property is found (Silva et al., 2016). PSE pro­
grams in Brazil are usually localized (i.e., concentrated in few regions),
and lacking coordination across the country (Weins and Ueta, 2022).
Aimed at improving the RPPN system into a more effective policy,
the understanding of the motivations of landowners to transform private
lands in permanent preservation areas is key. Additionally, by under­
standing their motivations, new programs and incentives can be shaped
to encourage other landowners, and to provide the necessary knowledge
to support successful initiatives and tools, such as improved PES pro­
grams (Weins and Ueta, 2022), which will foster the adoption and the
effectiveness of RPPNs.
6. Conclusions
This study focused its attention on Private Reserves of Natural Her­
itage (RPPN), investigating their role in the conservation and recovery
of vegetation in Brazilian biomes. The results revealed natural vegeta­
tion cover increase at significant levels in the Atlantic Forest, Cerrado
and Caatinga biomes in rural properties with RPPNs when compared to
rural properties without RPPNs. Additionally, we have observed
significantly higher rates of recovery and increase of areas of natural
vegetation in rural properties with RPPNs in the last twenty years
(1990–2018). Thus, we argue that RPPNs are an effective instrument to
promote decentralized environmental governance.
Further studies are necessary to develop in-depth knowledge on the
issues and challenges related to the conservation of Brazilian biomes, as
well as to propose solutions and pathways to remedy the current situa­
tion of environmental degradation. We also urge for the needed of high-
quality geospatial data, such as digital maps of RPPNs, centralized data
source systems (converging all the information available concerning
protected areas), and continuous development of data infrastructure and
information about the private reserves, which is currently incomplete
and out of date.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Bicudo da Silva Ramon Felipe: Supervision, Visualization, Writing
– original draft, Writing – review & editing. Viveiro Alessandra
Aparecida: Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review &
editing, Writing – original draft. Nascibem Fábio Gabriel: Data cura­
tion, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology,
Project administration, Resources, Software, Writing – original draft.
Junior Oswaldo Gonçalves: Supervision, Validation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal rela6onships that could have appeared to influence
8
Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820
the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank State University of Campinas/UNICAMP for
all the support provided. We also thank the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoa­
mento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES), grant no.
88882.435459/2019-01, and the Espaço da Escrita (Pró-Reitoria de Pes­
quisa/UNICAMP) for the language services provided. We are very grateful
to MapBiomas who generated the land-use and land-cover data used in
this paper (Project MapBiomas – Collection v.6.0 of Brazilian Land Cover
& Use Map Series, accessed on December, 2021 through the link:
https://mapbiomas.org/colecoes-mapbiomas?cama_set_language=en).
References
Ayach, Lucy Ribeiro, Bacani, Vitor Matheus, Silva, Jaime Ferreira da, 2014. Unidades de
Conservação no Pantanal do município de Aquidauana-MS: uma análise da evolução
do uso da terra e cobertura vegetal e suas implicações / conservation units in
pantanal in the municipality (.). In: Caderno de Geografia [S.L.]. Catholic Pontifical
University of Minas Gerais,, pp. 139–154. https://doi.org/10.5752/p.2318-
2962.2014v24n42p139.
Azevedo, A.A., Rajão, R., Costa, M.A., Stabile, M.C.C., Macedo, M.N., Reis, T.N.P.,
Alencar, A., Soares-Filho, B.S., Pacheco, R., 2017. Limits of Brazil´s forest code as a
means to end illegal deforestation. PNAS 114 (29), 7653–7658. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1604768114.
Baptista, Sandra R., Rudel, Thomas K., 2006. A re-emerging Atlantic forest?
Urbanization, industrialization and the forest transition in Santa Catarina, southern
Brazil. Environ. Conserv. v. 33 (n. 3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0376897906003134.
Barreto, Valdelice Leite, 2019. Panorama das Reservas Particulares do Patrimônio
Natural em Sergipe: uso do solo, representatividade ecológica e efetividade de
gestão. Dissertation (Master’s) - Postgraduate Program in Development and
Environment Studies, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, p. 130, 2019.
Basniak, Marília Thiara Rodrigues, 2016. Efetividade de Manejo das Unidades de
Conservação Privadas de Curitiba, 2016. Dissertation (Master’s) - Postgraduate
Course in Forest Engineering, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, p. 134.
Basniak, Marília Thiara Rodrigues, 2016. Efetividade de Manejo das Unidades de
Conservação Privadas de Curitiba, 2016. Dissertation (Master’s) - Postgraduate
Course in Forest Engineering, Federal University of Paraná,, Curitiba, p. 134. Access
at: 4 sep. 2020.
Bolfe, Camila, Amaral, Newton, Pftischer, Elisete Dahmer, Tengaten, Mateus Borges,
2013. Perspectivas de pagamento por serviç os ambientais na bacia hidrográ fica do
rio das antas. Encicl. Biosf. v. 9 (n. 16), 2609–2624.
Bolson, Simone Hegele, 2018. O CERRADO NAS METAS BRASILEIRAS DO ACORDO DE
PARIS: a omissão do estado brasileiro com o desmatamento na cumeeira da América
do Sul. In: Revista de Direito Ambiental e Socioambientalismo [S.L.], v. 4. Conselho
Nacional de Pesquisa e Pos-Graduacao em Direito - CONPEDI,, pp. 112–131. https://
doi.org/10.26668/indexlawjournals/2525-9628/2018.v4i1.3996. Available at:
〈https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327268832_O_CERRADO_NAS_METAS
_BRASILEIRAS_DO_ACORDO_DE_PARIS_A_OMISSAO_DO_ESTADO_BRASILEIRO_CO
M_O_DESMATAMENTO_NA_CUMEEIRA_DA_AMERICA_D〉.
Boron, Valeria, Payán, Esteban, Macmillan, Douglas, Tzanopoulos, Joseph, 2016.
Achieving sustainable development in rural areas in Colombia: future scenarios for
biodiversity conservation under land use change. In: Land Use Policy [S.L.]. Elsevier
BV., pp. 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.017
Brandon, K., Fonseca, Gustavo A.B., Rylands, Anthony Brome, Silva, José Maria Cardoso,
2005. Conservação brasileira: desafios e oportunidades. Megadiversidade v. 1 (n. 1),
7–13.
Brasil. Decreto no 1.922, de 5 de junho de 1996. Dispõe sobre o reconhecimento das
Reservas Particulares do Patrimônio Natural, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial
da União: seção 1, Brasília, DF, p. 10024, 07 jun. 1996.
Brasil. Senado Federal. Lei Nº 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000: Institui o Sistema Nacional
de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza - SNUC. Brasília, 2000.
Brasil.Câmara dos Deputados. Lei nº 12.651, de 25 de maio de 2012. Dispõe sobre a
proteção da vegetação nativa; altera as Leis nos 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1981,
9.393, de 19 de dezembro de 1996, e 11.428, de 22 de dezembro de 2006; revoga as
Leis nos 4.771, de 15 de setembro de 1965, e 7.754, de 14 de abril de 1989, e a
Medida Provisória no 2.166- 67, de 24 de agosto de 2001; e dá outras providências.
Centro de Documentação e Informação, Brasília, DF, 2012.
Brasil. Presidência da República. Lei nº 14.119, de 13 de janeiro DE 2021: Institui a
Política Nacional de Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais; e altera as Leis n os 8.212,
de 24 de julho de 1991, 8.629, de 25 de fevereiro de 1993, e 6.015, de 31 de
dezembro de 1973, para adequá-las à nova política. Diário Oficial da União: seção 1,
Brasília, DF, p. 7, 14. Jan. 2021.
F.G. Nascibem et al.
Broering, Andréia. Reserva particular de patrimônio natural (RPPN), paisagem e
integração social: um estudo de caso da comunidade do entorno da RPPN Passarim.
2011. 143 f. Dissertation (Master’s) - Postgraduate Course in Environmental Science
at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2011. Available at: 〈https://www.teses.us
p.br/teses/disponiveis/90/90131/tde-17012012–003716/publico/rppn.pdf〉.
Access at: 4 sep. 2020.
Cadastro Nacional de Unidades de Conservação, 2020. Avaliable at: <https://www.gov.
br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/areasprotegidasecoturismo/plataforma-cnuc-1>. Access at:
19. jul. 2023.
Campelo, Ana Karine Ribeiro, Melo, Juliana Barroso de, 2018. A importância de projetos
de educação ambiental em uma unidade de conservação no semiárido nordestino.
RBCIAMB n. 49, 81–94.
Confederação Nacional Das Rppn, 2020. Available at: 〈https://www.rppn.org.br/
orgaos-ambientais〉. Access at: 02. Jan. 2020.
Cordeiro, J.L.P., Oliveira, L.F.B., Hesenack, H., 2008. Mudanças na paisagem em uma
Unidade de Conservação de Mato Grosso, Brasil. Diálogo n. 13, 93–115.
Crouzeilles, Renato, Santiami, Edson, Rosa, Marcos, Pugliese, Ludmila, Brancalion, Pedro
H.S., Rodrigues, Ricardo R., Metzeger, Jean Paul, Calmon, Miguel,
Scaramuzza, Carlos, De M, A., Matsumoto, Marcelo H., Padovezi, Aurélio,
Benini, Rubens de M., Chaves, Rafael B., Metzger, Thiago, Fernandes, Rafael B.,
Scarano, Fabio R., Schimitt, Jair, Lui, Gabriel, Christ, Pedro, Vieira, Rodrigo M.,
Senta, Mateus M.D., Malaguti, Gustavo A., Strassburg, Bernardo B.N.,
Pinto, Severino, 2019. There is hope for achieving ambitious Atlantic Forest
restoration commitments. In: Perspectives In Ecology And Conservation [S.L.], v. 17.
Elsevier BV, pp. 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.04.003.
Dantas, Eustogio Wanderley Correia. Mutações no Nordeste brasileiro: reflexão sobre a
produção de alimentos e a fome na contemporaneidade. Revista Franco-Brasileira de
Geografia, Paris, 2010. Avaliable in: <〈https://confins.revues〉. org/6686?
lang=pt>. Access in 12. Mar. 2022.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science v.
302, 1207–1212.
Dondina, Olivia, Katoaka, Leila, Orioli, Valerio, Bani, Luciano, 2016. How to manage
hedgerows as effective ecological corridors for mammals: a two-species approach. In:
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment [S.L.], v. 231. Elsevier BV.,, pp. 283–290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.07.005.
Dou, Yue, Silva, Ramon Felipe Bicudo Da, Yang, Hongbo, Liu, Jianguo, 2018. Spillover
effect offsets the conservation effort in the Amazon. In: Journal Of Geographical
Sciences [S.L.], v. 28. Springer Science and Business Media LLC., pp. 1715–1732.
〈https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-018-1539-0〉. Available at: 〈https://www.researc
hgate.net/publication/327390223_Spillover_effect_offsets_the_conservation_effort_
in_the_Amazon〉. Access at: 4 set. 2020.
Ehlers, Eduardo Mazzaferro. Determinantes da recuperação da Mata Atlântica no estado
de São Paulo. 2003. 351 p. Thesis (PhD) - Postgraduate course in Environmental
Science at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo,. Available at: 〈https://teses.usp.
br/teses/disponiveis/90/90131/tde-28022008–170551/publico/eduardo_ehlers_tes
e.pdf〉. Access at: 4 sep. 2020.
Fearnside, P.M., 2019a. Retrocessos sob o Presidente Bolsonaro: um desafio à
sustentabilidade na Amazoˆnia. Sustentabilidade Int. Sci. J. v.1 (n.1), 36–39 (april/
june).
Fearnside, P.M.O.Desmonte da Legislaç ão Ambiental. IN: WEISS; J. S. (org.). Movimentos
Socioambientais. 1ª ed. Xapuri Socioambiental: Formosa, 2019b.
Ferreira, L.V., Venticinque, E., Almeida, S., 2005. O desmatamento na Amazônia e a
importância das áreas protegidas. Estud. Av. v. 19 (n. 53), 157–166.
Filgueiras, Bruno K.C., Ianuzzi, Luciana, Leal, Inara R., 2011. Habitat fragmentation
alters the structure of dung beetle communities in the Atlantic Forest. In: Biological
Conservation, [S.L.], v. 144. Elsevier BV.,, pp. 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2010.09.013.
Fioravanti, Carlos. Estado de São Paulo Registra Aumento de 4,9% na Área de Vegetação
Nativa. Avaliable at: 〈https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/estado-de-sao-paulo-regis
tra-aumento-de-49-na-area-de-vegetacao-nativa/〉. Access at: 29 jun. 2020.
Freitas, Simone R., Hawbaker, Todd J., Metzger, Jean Paul, 2010. Effects of Roads,
Topography, and Land Use on Forest Cover Dynamics in the Brazilian Atlantic
Forest. In: Forest Ecology And Management [S.L.], v. 259. Elsevier BV., pp. 410–417.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.036
Giovanelli, J.G.R., Cantagallo, C., 2006. Conservaç ão ambiental através das reservas
particulares do patrimoˆnio natural (RPPN). Logos n. 13, 25–31.
Gontijo, Manuel Loureiro. Avaliação do risco de colapso de ecossistemas terrestres em
três biomas no Brasil: Mata Atlântica, Cerrado e Caatinga. 2020. 168 p. Dissertação
(mestrado em ecologia) - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Conservação e
Manejo da Vida Silvestre, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte,
2020.
Halinski, Rosana; Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro; Santos, Charles Fernando Dos; Acosta,
André Luis; Guidi, Daniel Dornelles; Blochtein, Betina. Forest fragments and natural
vegetation patches within crop fields contribute to higher oilseed rape yields in
Brazil. Agricultural Systems, [S.L.], v. 180, p. 102768–1, abr. 2020. Elsevier BV.
〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102768〉. Available at: 〈https://www.scien
cedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521×19305669〉. Access at: 4 sep. 2020.
Hardin, G., 1968. A tragedy of the commons. Science v. 162 (n. 3859), 1243–1248.
Instituto Chico Mendes De Conservação Da BiodiversidadeICMBIO, 2020. Sistema
Informatizado de Monitoria de RPPN, 2020. Avaliable at: 〈http://sistemas.icmbio.
gov.br/simrppn/publico/〉. Access at: 02. Jan. 2020.
Instituto Nacional de Geografia e Estatística, 2020. Avaliable at: <https://www.ibge.go
v.br.> Access at: 19. jul. 2023.
Instituto Nacional DE PESQUISAS ESPACIAIS(INPE), 2019. A estimativa da taxa de
desmatamento por corte raso para a Amazônia Legal em 2019 é de 9.762 km2, 2019.
9
Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820
Available at: 〈http://www.inpe.br/noticias/noticia.php?Cod_Noticia=5294〉. Access
at: 02. Jan. 2019.
Joly, Carlos A., Metzger, Jean Paul, Tabarelli, Marcelo, 2014. Experiences from the
Brazilian Atlantic Forest: ecological findings and conservation initiatives. In: New
Phytologist [S.L.], v. 204. Wiley, pp. 459–473. 〈https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12
989〉. Available at: 〈https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/np
h.12989〉. Access at: 4 sep. 2020.
Klink, C.A., Machado, R.B., 2005. A conservação do Cerrado brasileiro. Megadiversidade
v. 1 (n. 1), 147–155.
Klink, Carlos Augusto, Gonzales, I., Vicentinni, K., 2002. O Bioma Cerrado. In:
SEELIGER, U., CORDAZZO, C., BARBOSA, F. (Eds.), (Org.) Os sites e o programa
brasileiro de pesquisas ecológicas de longa duração. PELD, Belo Horizonte.
Leal, I.R., et al., 2005. Mudando o curso da conservação da biodiversidade na Caatinga
do Nordeste do Brasil. Megadiversidade v. 1 (n. 1), 1–8.
Lima, Carolina Marques Guilen. Modelagem de transição florestal na Mata Atlântica.
2012. 61 p. Dissertação (Mestrado em Análise e Modelagem de Sistemas
Ambientais)- Programa de Pós-Graduação em Análise e Modelagem de Sistemas
Ambientais, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2012.
Lima, Priscylla Cristina Alves de, Franco, José Luiz de Andrade, 2014. As RPPNs Como
Estratégia Para a Conservação da Biodiversidade: o caso da chapada dos veadeiros.
In: Sociedade & Natureza [S.L.], v. 26. FapUNIFESP (SciELO),, pp. 113–125. 〈http
s://doi.org/10.1590/1982-451320140108〉. 〈https://www.scielo.br/pdf/sn/v26n1
/0103-1570-sn-26-1-0113.pdf〉. Access at: 4 sep. 2020.
Lira, Paula K.Tambosi, Leandro, R., Ewers, Robert M., Metzger, Jean Paul, 2012. Land-
use and Land-cover Change in Atlantic Forest Landscapes. In: Forest Ecology And
Management, [S.L.], v. 278. Elsevier BV, pp. 80–89 (ago). 〈http://lerf.eco.br/img
/publicacoes/2012_1611%20Land%20use%20and%20land%20cover%20change%
20in%20Atlantic%20Forest%20landscapes.pdf〉.
Machado, Mariana, 2007. Reservas Particulares No Estado De São Paulo: Avaliação Da
Efetividade Na Conservação Da Natureza. Dissertation (Master) - Postgraduate
course in Environmental Science, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, p. 165, 2007.
Machado, R.B., Ramos Neto, M.B., Pereira, P.G.P., Caldas, E.F., Gonçalves, D.A.,
Santos, N.S., Tabor e M. STEININGER, K., 2004. Estimativas de perda da área do
Cerrado brasileiro. Relatório técnico não publicado. Conservação Internacional,
Brasília, DF.
Machado, Ricardo B., Ramos, Neto, Mário, B., Pereira, Paulo Gustavo P., Caldas, Eduardo
F., Gonçalves, Demerval A., Santos, Nazareno S., Tabor, Karyn, 2004. STEININGER.
Estimativas de perda da área do Cerrado brasileiro. Relatório técnico não publicado.
Conservação Internacional, Brasília, DF.
Machado, Ricardo Bomfim et al. As várias faces das ameaças às áreas de conservação no
Brasil. Cienc. Cult., São Paulo, v. 72, n. 2, p. 58–64, abr. 2020 . Disponível em
<〈http://cienciaecultura.bvs.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0009–67252
020000200015&lng=pt&nrm=iso〉>. acessos em 06 maio 2023. 〈https://doi.org/10
.21800/2317–66602020000200015〉.
Mapbiomas. Metodologia, 2020. Available at: https://mapbiomas.org. Access at: 02.
Mai. 2020.
Margulis, S., 2003. Causas do Desmatamento da Amazônia Brasileira. Banco Mundial:
Brasília.
Mesquita, Carlos Alberto Bernardo. A Natureza COMO O MAIOR PATRIMÔNIO: desafios
e perspectivas da conservação voluntária em áreas protegidas privadas no brasil.
2014. 179 p. Thesis (PhD) - Postgraduate Course in Environmental Sciences, Federal
Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica-Rj, 2014. Available at: 〈https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/281620397_A_Natureza_como_o_Maior_Patrimo
nio_Desafios_e_perspectivas_da_conservacao_voluntaria_em_areas_protegidas_priva
das_no_Brasil〉. Access at: 4 sep. 2020.
Ministério Do Meio Ambiente, 2020. Biomas. Available at: 〈https://www.mma.gov.br/
biomas.html〉. Access at: 02. Jan. 2020.
Ministério Do Meio Ambiente. Cadastro Nacional de Unidades de Conservação, 2020a.
Available at: 〈https://www.mma.gov.br/areas-protegidas/cadastro-nacional-de
-ucs/dados-georreferenciados.html〉. Access at: 02. Jan. 2020.
Miranda, Ciomara de Souza, Paranho Filho, Antonio Conceição, Pott, Arnildo, 2018.
Changes in Vegetation Cover of the Pantanal Wetland Detected by Vegetation Index:
A Strategy for Conservation. In: Biota Neotropica [S.L.], v. 18. FapUNIFESP
(SciELO),, pp. 1–6. 〈https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-bn-2016-0297〉. Available
at: 〈https://www.scielo.br/pdf/bn/v18n1/1676-0611-bn-18-1-e20160297.pdf〉.
Access at: 4 sep. 2020.
Montibeller, Bruno, Kmoch, Alexander, Virro, Holger, Mander, Ülo, Uuemaa, Evelyn,
2020. Increasing Fragmentation of Forest Cover in Brazil’s Legal Amazon from 2001
to 2017. In: Scientific Reports [S.L.], v. 10. Springer Science and Business Media LLC,
pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62591-x. Available at:
〈https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-62591-x#citeas〉. Access at: 4 sep.
2020.
Morrison, T.H., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Lemos, M.C., Huitema, D., Phelps, J., Evans, L.,
Cohen, P., Song, A.M., Turner, R., Quinn, T., Hughes, T.P., 2019. The black box of
power in polycentric environmental governance. In: Global Environmental Change
[S.L.]. Elsevier BV,, p. 101934-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2019.101934. Available at: 〈https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/
S0959378019302729?token=3703DF311C13283ABFABC19F609F62FA5C1AB2C
BDD641D5D44D0115E003B3270F245F7415B941F373A23536DF7A25BFB〉. Access
at: 4 sep. 2020.
Oliveira, B.R.; Oliveira, A.M.F. O desafio de conservação do ambiente natural em áreas
de pressão antrópica: a análise do caso RPPN-UPF entre 2011 e 2017. IN: encontro
estadual de geografia “a diversidade da geografia e a geografia da diversidade nas
primeiras décadas do século XXI, 35., Erechin-RS. Anais […]. Erechin-RS: Federal
University of Fronteira Sul, 2018.
F.G. Nascibem et al.
Oliveira, M.T.C. Proprietários e as razões da conservação voluntária nas Reservas
Particulares do Patrimônio Natural da Reserva da Biosfera do Cinturão Verde da
Cidade de São Paulo. 2020. 435 f. Tese (doutorado em Ciência Ambiental)-
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciência Ambiental, Universidade de São Paulo, São
Paulo-SP, 2020.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Ostrom, E., et al., 1999. Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science
v. 284 (n. 5412), 278–282.
Ostrom, E., 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J. Econ. Perspect.
v. 14 (n. 3), 137–158.
Ostrom, E. Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and
Development Framework. IN: SABATIER, P (org.). Theories of the Policy Process.
Westview Press: Bouder, 2006.
Paavola, J., 2011. Climate change: the ultimate ‘tragedy of the commons’? Sustain. Res.
Inst. Pap. n. 24, 1–32.
Painel De Indicadores Da Confederação Nacional De Rppn. Available at: 〈https://datast
udio.google.com/u/0/reporting/0B_Gpf05aV2RrNHRvR3kwX2ppSUE/page/J7k〉.
Access at: 13. May. 2020.
Palazzi, Giovanna. A meta para o sistema de áreas protegidas no bioma Pampa: como
estamos e para onde vamos?. 2018. 39 p. Dissertation (Master’s) - Postgraduate
Course in Ecology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2018.
Available at: 〈https://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/handle/10183/180576/
001065786.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y〉. Access at: 4 sep. 2020.
Pelin, Angela, Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2009. Motivações para o estabelecimento de
RPPNs e análise dos incentivos para sua criação e gestão no Mato Grosso do Sul. Nat.
Conserv. v. 7 (n. 2), 72–81.
Pereira, Luiz Henrique. et al. Análise da alteração da cobertura vegetal natural em uma
bacia hidrográfica considerando a evolução dos instrumentos Legais: Área de
Preservação Permanente e Reserva Legal. In […] XIII Simpósio Brasileiro de
Geografia Física Aplicada, 2009, Viçosa. Anais do XIII Simpósio Brasileiro de
Geografia Física Aplicada, 2009. p. 1–10.
Pereira, V.C., 2014. Elementos para pensar a contribuição do desenvolvimento rural para
conservação do bioma Pampa. Mundo Agrar. v. 15 (n. 28).
Picharillo, Caroline, Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. Payment For environmental
services: guidelines for identifying priority areas focusing on biodiversity. Ambient.
Soc. vol.22 [cited 2020-09-05], e03033. Available from: <〈http://www.scielo.br
/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1414-753×2019000100321&lng=en&nrm=is
o〉>. Epub Nov 25, 2019. ISSN 1809-4422. 〈https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422
asoc201703033vu2019l3ao〉.
Pimentel, Cristina Cuiabália Rodrigues; Guarim, Vera L.úcia Monteiro Dos Santos.
Percepção da comunidade Pimenteira com relação às ações conservacionistas da
RPPN SESC Pantanal –Barão de Melgaço – MT. Revista Espacio y Desarrollo, n. 20, p.
117–128, 2008.
Pinheiro, E.S., Durigan, G., 2009. Dinâmica espaço-temporal (1962-2006) das
fitofisionomias em unidade de conservação do Cerrado no sudeste do Brasil. Rev.
Bras. Bot. v. 32 (n. 3), 441–454.
Pinto, Luiz Paulo, Bedê, L.úcio, Paese, Adriana, Fonseca, M.ônica, Paglia, Adriano,
Lamas, Ivana, 2006. Mata Atlântica Brasileira: os desafios para conservação da
biodiversidade de um hotspot mundial. In: Rocha, C.F.D.;, Bergallo, M.V.;, Sluys, M.
V.;, Alves, M.A.S. (Eds.), Biologia da Conservação: essências. RiMa, São Carlos,
pp. 91–118.
Pissarra, Teresa Cristina Tarlé, et al., 2022. Methodological proposal for Payments for
Environmental Services (PES) aiming to produce clean water in springs. Ci. e Nat.,
St. Maria v. 44, e23. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460×69453 (Ed. Esp. VI SSS).
Qin, Y., Xiao, X., Dong, J., Xiao, Xiangming, Dong, Jinwei, Zhang, Yao, Wu, Xiaocui,
Shimabukuro, Yosio, Arai, Egidio, Biradar, Chandrashekhar, Wang, Jie,
Zou, Zhenhua, Liu, Fang, Shi, Zheng, Doughty, Russell, Moore, I.I.I., Berrien, 2019.
Improved estimates of forest cover and loss in the Brazilian Amazon in 2000–2017.
Nat. Sustain v. 2, 764–772. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0336-9.
Rajão, Raoni, Soares-Filho, Britaldo, Nunes, Felipe, Börner, Jan, Machado, Lilian,
Assis, D.ébora, Oliveira, Amanda, Pinto, Luis, Ribeiro, Vivian, Rausch, Lisa,
Gibbs, Holly, Figueira, Danilo, 2020. The rotten apples of Brazil’s agribusiness.
Science v. 369 (n. 6501), 246–248. Available at: 〈https://science.sciencemag.org/c
ontent/369/6501/246〉. Access at: 7 sep. 2020.
Rezende, C.L., Scarano, F.R., Assad, E.D., Joly, C.A., Metzger, J.P., Strassburg, B.B.N.,
Tabarelli, M., Fonseca, G.A., Mittermeier, R.A., 2018. From Hotspot to Hopespot: an
Opportunity for the Brazilian Atlantic forest. In: Perspectives In Ecology And
Conservation [S.L.], v. 16. Elsevier BV,, pp. 208–214. 〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pecon.2018.10.002〉. Available at: 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S2530064418301317〉. Access at: 7 sep. 2020.
Ribeiro, Milton Cezar, Metzger, Jean Paul, Martensen, Alexandre Camargo,
Ponzoni, Flávio Jorge, Hirota, M.árcia Makiko, 2009. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest:
How Much Is Left, and How Is the Remaining Forest Distributed? Implications for
Conservation. In: Biological Conservation [S.L.], v. 142. Elsevier BV,,
pp. 1141–1153. 〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021〉. Available at: 〈http
s://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320709000974〉. Access
at: 7 sep. 2020.
Rocha, Genival Fernandes, et al., 2011. Detecção de desmatamentos no bioma cerrado
entre 2002 e 2009: padrões, tendências e impactos. Rev. Bras. De. Cartogr. (n. 63/
03), 341–349.
Rudestam, Kirsten, Langridge, Ruth, Brown, Abigail, 2015. The Commons” as A Dynamic
Variable in Understanding Strategic Alliances of Scale: A Groundwater Case Study in
Pajaro Valley, California. In: Environmental Science & Policy, [S.L.]. Elsevier BV,,
pp. 33–40 (out). 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1
462901115001008〉.
10
Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820
Rylands, A.B., Brandon, K., 2005. Unidades de conservaç ão brasileiras. Megadiversidade
v. 1 (n. 1), 27–35.
Salzer, Anja, Neudert, Regina, Beckmann, Volker, 2020. Potentials and Constraints of
Common Pasture Use – Field Experiments on Common Pool Resource Management
in Azerbaijan and Georgia. In: International Journal Of The Commons [S.L.], v. 14.
Ubiquity Press, Ltd.,, pp. 225–244. 〈https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.953〉. Available at:
〈https://www.thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.5334/ijc.953/〉. Access at: 7 sep.
2020.
Sanches, Keila Lima, et al., 2011. Avaliação econômica das atividades de uso indireto em
uma Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural. Cerne, Lavras v. 17 (n. 2), 223–229
(abr/jun.).
Santos, Alexandre Rosa Dos, Araújo, Emanuel França, Barros, Quétila Souza,
Fernandes, Milton Marques, Fernandes, M.árcia Rodrigues de Moura, Moreira, Taís
Rizzo, Souza, Kaíse Barbosa, Silva, Evandro Ferreira, Silva, Jeferson Pereira Martins,
Santos, Jeangelis Silva, Billo, D.âmaris, Silva, Rodrigo Freitas, Nascimento, Glícia
Silvania Pedroso, Gandini, Simony Marques da Silva, Pinheiro, André Alves,
Ribeiro, Wilian Rodrigues, Gonçalves, Morgana Scaramussa, Silva, Samuel Ferreira
da, Senhorelo, Adriano Posse, Heitor, Fabrício Dias, Berude, Leandro Christo,
Almeidatelles, Lucas Arthur de, 2020. Fuzzy concept applied in determining
potential forest fragments for deployment of a network of ecolo. In: Ecological
Indicators, [S.L.], v. 115. Elsevier BV, pp. 115–106423 (ago.). 〈https://www.scien
cedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470160×20303605〉.
Santos, Nivea Dias dos, Costa, Denise Pinheiro da, 2008. A importância de Reservas
Particulares do Patrimônio Natural para a conservação da brioflora da Mata
Atlântica: um estudo em El Nagual, Magé, RJ, Brasil. Acta Bot. Bras. v. 22 (n. 2), 359-
37.
Scatimburgo, A., 2018. O desmonte da agenda ambiental no governo bolsonaro.
Perspectivas v. 52, 103–117.
Schacht, Gustavo Luis. Reservas Particulares do Patrimônio Natural no estado do Paraná
(Brasil) e as Áreas Protegidas Privadas na Catalunha (Espanha): situação atual,
políticas públicas e gestão ambiental. 2017. 241 f. Thesis (PhD) -Postgraduate course
in Physical Geography, Department of Geography, Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and
Human Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2017. Available at: 〈https://
teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/8/8135/tde-26062017–090213/publico/2017_Gus
tavoLuisSchacht_VCorr.pdf〉. Access at: 7 sep. 2020.
Shimada, Daisaku, 2014. External Impacts on Traditional Commons and Present-day
Changes: A Case Study of Iriai Forests in Yamaguni District, Kyoto, Japan. In:
International Journal Of The Commons [S.L.], v. 8. Ubiquity Press, Ltd.,
pp. 207–235. 〈https://www.thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.18352/ijc.348/〉
Shumba, Tafadzwa, Vos, Alta De, Biggs, Reinette, Esler, Karen J., Ament, Judith M.,
Clemens, Hayley S., 2020. Effectiveness of Private Land Conservation Areas in
Maintaining Natural Land Cover and Biodiversity. In: Global Ecology And
Conservation [S.L.], v. 22. Elsevier BV.,, pp. 1–11. 〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gecco.2020.e00935〉. Available at: 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S2351989420300342〉. Access at: 07 sep. 2020.
Silva, Ana Carolina Marcante. A importância da RPPN Estação Veracel na preservação da
biodiversidade de insetos aquáticos em uma região de Mata Atlântica. 2020. 33 f.
Dissertation (Master) - Postgraduate course in tropical aquatic systems, Universidade
Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilheús-BA, 2020.
Silva, Fabio Leandro da, Picharillo, Caroline, Macera, Leonardo Gallo, Monteiro, J.éssica
de Almeida, Peres, Renata Bovo, 2016. Procedimentos para a obtenção do
pagamento por serviços ambientais no âmbito da instituição de uma reserva
particular do patrimônio natural. Ext. Rural v. 3 (n. 2), 120–137.
Silva, José Irivaldo Alves Oliveira, 2017. Desenvolvimento e meio ambiente no
semiárido: contradições do modelo de conservação das Reservas Particulares do
Patrimônio Natural (RPPNs) na Caatinga. Soc. estado. [Online]. vol.32 (n.2),
313–344. 〈http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-69922
017000200313&lng=en&nrm=iso〉>. ISSN 1980-5462. https://doi.org/10.1590/
s0102-69922017.3202003.
da Silva, Ramon F.B., Batistella, Mateus, Moran, Emilio F., 2016. Drivers of Land Change:
Human-environment Interactions and the Atlantic Forest Transition in the Paraíba
Valley, Brazil. In: Land Use Policy [S.L.], v. 58. Elsevier BV.,, pp. 133–144.
〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.021〉. Available at: 〈https://www.sc
iencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837716307359〉. Access at: 7 sep.
2020.
Silva, Ramon Felipe Bicudo, De Castro Victoria, Daniel, Nossack, F.ábio Ávila,
Viña, Andrés, Millington, James D.A., Vieira, Simone Aparecida, Batistella, Mateus,
Moran, Emilio, Liu, Jianguo, 2023. Slow-down of deforestation following a Brazilian
forest policy was less effective on private lands than in all conservation areas.
Commun. Earth Environ. v. 4, 111.
Silva, Ramon Felipe Bicudo da, Batistella, Mateus, Moran, Emilio Federico, 2017.
Socioeconomic Changes and Environmental Policies as Dimensions of Regional Land
Transitions in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. In: Environmental Science & Policy [S.L.],
v. 74. Elsevier BV,, pp. 14–22.
Silva, Ramon Felipe Bicudo da, Rodrigues, Marjorie Delgado Alves, Vieira, Simone
Aparecida, Batistella, Mateus, Farinaci, Juliana, 2017. Perspectives for
Environmental Conservation and Ecosystem Services on Coupled Rural–urban
Systems. In: Perspectives In Ecology And Conservation [S.L.], v. 15. Elsevier BV,,
pp. 74–81. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1679007316301
657〉.
Silva, Ramon Felipe Bicudo Da, Batistella, Mateus, Moran, Emilio Federico,
Lu, Dengsheng, 2016. Land Changes Fostering Atlantic Forest Transition in Brazil:
evidence from the paraíba valley. In: The Professional Geographer [S.L.], v. 69.
Informa UK Limited, pp. 80–93. 〈https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2016.
1178151〉. Available at: 〈https://msu.edu/~moranef/documents/Silva%20et%20al
%202016.pdf〉. Access at: 7 sep. 2020.
F.G. Nascibem et al.
Silva, Ramon Felipe Bicudo Da, Millington, James D.A., Moran, Emilio Federico,
Batistella, Mateus, Liu, Jianguo, 2020. Three Decades of Land-use and Land-cover
Change in Mountain Regions of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. In: Landscape And
Urban Planning [S.L.], v. 204. Elsevier BV,, 103948 (dez). 〈https://www.sciencedi
rect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204620312743?via%3Dihub〉.
Silvino, Amanda Sousa, Viglio, José Eduardo, Ferreira, L.úcia da Costa, 2016.
A Conservação da Caatinga em Diferentes Arenas do Semiárido Brasileiro. In:
Sustentabilidade em Debate [S.L.], v. 7. Editora de Livros IABS,, pp. 182–194.
Simão Neto, Isaac. Análise da efetividade das reservas particulares do patrimônio natural
(RPPNs) de âmbito federal em Santa Catarina. 2017. 180 p. Dissertation (Master’s) -
Professional Master’s Course in the Postgraduate Program in Territorial Planning
and Socio-Environmental Development at the State University of Santa Catarina,
Florianópolis, 2017. Available at: 〈https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32
7651446_ANALISE_DA_EFETIVIDADE_DAS_RESERVAS_PARTICULARES_〉. Access at:
7 sep. 2020.
Simedo, Mariana Bárbara Lopes, et al., 2020. The assessment of hydrological availability
and the payment for ecosystem services: a pilot study in a brazilian headwater
catchment. Water v. 12 (n. 10), e2726. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102726.
Siqueira, Hygor Evangelista, et al., 2022. Estimativa de perdas de solo na área de
proteção ambiental do rio Uberaba. Ci. Fl., St. Maria v. 32 (n. 3), 1205–1226.
https://doi.org/10.5902/1980509841259.
Sistema Nacional De Cadastro Ambiental Rural(SINCAR), 2020. Consulta pública, 2020.
Available at: 〈http://www.car.gov.br/publico/imoveis/index〉. Access at: 02 may.
2020.
Slovak, Peter. Local communities and private protected areas in the Atlantic Forest of
Brazil: implications for sustainable development and nature conservation. 2017. 283
f. Thesis (PhD) - Curso de PhD In Development Studies, University Of Sussex, Sussex-
Ing, 2017. Available at: 〈https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321823123_
Local_communities_and_private_protected_areas_in_the_Atlantic_Forest_of_Brazil_
implications_for_sustainable_development_and_nature_conservation〉. Access in: 7.
set. 2020.
Souza, Carlos M., Shimbo, Julia Z., Rosa, Marcos R., Parente, Leandro L., Alencar, Ane A.,
Rudorff, Bernardo F.T., Hasenack, Heinrich, Matsumoto, Marcelo, Ferreira, Laerte
G., Souza-Filho, Pedro W.M., Oliveira, Sergio W.De, Rocha, Washington F.,
Fonseca, Antônio V., Marques, Camila B., Diniz, Cesar G., Costa, Diego,
Monteiro, Dyeden, Rosa, Eduardo R., Vélez-Martin, Eduardo, Weber, Eliseu J.,
Lenti, Felipe E.B., Paternost, Fernando F., Pareyn, Frans G.C., Siqueira, João V.,
Viera, José L., Ferreira Neto, Luiz C., Saraiva, Marciano M., Sales, Marcio H.,
Salgado, Moises P.G., Vasconcelos, Rodrigo, Galano, Soltan, Mesquita, Vinicius V.,
Avezedo, Tasso, 2020. Reconstructing Three Decades of Land Use and Land Cover
Changes in Brazilian Biomes with Landsat Archive and Earth Engine. In: Remote
11
Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106820
Sensing, [S.L.]. MDPI AG,, p. 2735-27, 25 ago. 〈https://www.researchgate.ne
t/publication/343851866_Reconstructing_Three_Decades_of_Land_Use_and_Land_Co
ver_Changes_in_Brazilian_Biomes_with_Landsat_Archive_and_Earth_Engine〉.
Souza, Italo R.ômulo Mendes da Silva. Avaliação espaço-temporal do uso e cobertura do
solo no parque nacional das nascentes o Rio Parnaíba. Trabalho de conclusão de
curso (Especialização) - Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do
Piauí, Campus Corrente Tecnologia em Gestão Ambiental, 2018.
Souza, J.L. Perguntas e Respostas sobre Reserva Particular Do Patrimônio Natural.
Brasília: ICMBIO- Coordenação Geral de Criação, Planejamento e Avaliação de
Unidades de Conservação - CGCAP, 2012.
Tabarelli, M., Pinto, Luiz Paulo, Silva, José Maria Cardoso Da, Bede, Lucio Cadeval,
2005. Desafios e oportunidades para a conservação da biodiversidade na Mata
Atlântica brasileira. Megadiversidade v. 1 (n. 1), 132–138.
Tabarelli, Marcelo; Silva, J.M.C. Áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação, utilização
sustentável e repartição dos benefícios do bioma Caatinga. In […] ARAÚJO, E. L.
et al. (Org.) Biodiversidade, conservação e uso sustentável da flora do Brasil. Recife:
Imprensa Universitária da UFRPB, 2002. p. 47–52.
Veiga Neto; F.C. A Construção dos Mercados de Serviços Ambientais e suas Im-Plicações
Para O Desenvolvimento Sustentável No Brasil. 2008. 286 f. Tese (Doutorado em
Desenvolvimento, Agricultura e Sociedade) – Instituto de Ciências Humanas e
Sociais, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2008.
Veríssimo, A., Rolla, A., Vedoveto, M., Futada, S.De.M., 2011. Áreas protegidas na
Amazônia Brasileira: Avanços e desafios. Instituto Socioambiental,, Belém: Imazon;
São Paulo.
Weins, Niklas Werner,; Ueta, Mariana Hase. In […] WEINS, Niklas Werner. et al. (org.).
Cidades & Bem-estar humano: Governança e Infraestrutura. EDUTFPR: Curitiba,
2022, 140 p.
Zanchetta, Micheli Leite; Rosa, Diogo Martins. Uso de imagens landsat para o
monitoramento da cobertura florestal de três RPPNs em Rondônia. Nativa, [S.L.], v.
8, n. 2, p. 205–209, 10 abr. 2020. Nativa. 〈https://doi.org/10.31413/nativa.v8i2.8
583〉. Available at: 〈https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340572499_USO_D
E_IMAGENS_LANDSAT_PARA_O_MONITORAMENTO_DA_COBERTURA_FLORESTA
L_DE_TRES_RPPNs_EM_RONDONIA〉. Access at: 7 sep. 2020.
Zaú, A.S., 1998. Fragmentação da mata Atlântica: aspectos teóricos. Floresta e Ambient.
v. 5 (n. 1), 160–170.
Zhai, Deli, Xu, Jianchu, Dai, Zhicong, Schimidt-Vogt, Dietrich, 2017. Lost in transition:
forest transition and natural forest loss in tropical China. Plant Divers. v. 39 (n. 3),
149–153. Available at: 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2468265916301652〉. Access at: 17. Feb. 2021. 〈https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pld.2017.05.005〉.