Estimating the value of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes amid intensification pressures: The Brazilian case.
The Brazilian agricultural commodities market and the agribusiness sector are facing an increasing international demand for improved environmental standards, such as those regarding climate change and biodiversity loss. Although there are many studies on the structural determinants of sustainable ag...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br:doc/1147916 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1147916 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101476 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Ecosystem service |
| Sumario: | The Brazilian agricultural commodities market and the agribusiness sector are facing an increasing international demand for improved environmental standards, such as those regarding climate change and biodiversity loss. Although there are many studies on the structural determinants of sustainable agriculture related to the production systems, markets, and governance, there is a paucity of studies focusing on the valuation of ecosystem services (ES) provided by agricultural landscapes for which no market exists. In this context, the present paper provides estimates of the value of ES related to changes in land use and management in intensive agricultural landscapes in Brazil, using a discrete choice experiment. The results show a significant demand for changes in land use and management to deliver improved ES provision, with marginal willingness to pay (WTP) estimates falling within the R$104-541 interval (?18-93) per household and year. According to WTP, ES are ordered as follows: improved biodiversity, soil conservation, carbon storage, and aesthetics. Preference heterogeneity points to novel effects worth of closer look in future research. The results provide evidence of social support for a change to a more sustainable agricultural production model. |
|---|