Comparative analysis for changes in the provision of Ecosystem Services and

Well-being in Brazilian hotspots (Atlantic Forest and Cerrado) in the Sao Paulo

State.

Análise comparativa das mudanças na provisão de Serviços Ecossistêmicos e

bem-estar, em hotspots Brasileiros (Mata Atlântica e Cerrado) no estado de São

Paulo

Fapesp Project N0 2014/05741-1Research Program on Global Environmental Change (PPMCG)

Patricia F. Pinho, PhDInterdisciplinary Climate Change Program (INCLINE) – University of São

Paulo

Visiting Scholar Geosciences – UoE

Email: p.pinho@ed.ac.uk

Research WPs

Commodities Agriculture Expansion & Protected Areas

30% Brazil GDP &

Agriculture annual loss of US$ 4 billions to2020, but sugarcane increases itsproductivity (Assad, Pinto 2008).

~ 45 millions people

Protected areas of São Paulo amongst mostvulnerable socioeconomic and ecologically(Ribeiro et al., 2009)

Climate Change impacting socioeconomicsystems (Ambrizzi et al 2008)

What are the impact of these dynamics on people’s wellbeing ,

protected areas and agricultural land?

Hypothesis

Climatic variabilitythresholds

Adaptation

capacity

vuln

erab

ility

Source: Adapted from ACES/ESPA Project

Study Area

Micro-regions of the São Paulo State

São Paulo State

• Carbon Balance Assessments (quanti-quali analysis)

• Forest Cover Maps

• Socio- climatic indices

• Sustainability Barometer

Regional

• Survey Instruments

• Structured interviews

• Participatory approach

Local

• Bridge regional and local scales

• Integrative workshop

• Climate Resilient Development linked to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Relevance on ES, Wellbeing and

Climate Change

Production Basic profile

Ecosystem Services

Wellbeing

Governance and

production

Climate change

Governance and Legal Reserves

Happiness

Scales and Actors in relation to ES, Wellbeing and Climate Change

Corumbataí

Monteiro Lobato

Cananéia

Results WP 2: Forest Cover and Fragments Maps

7.5% of Forest Cover

76 fragments

31.3% of Forest Cover

77 fragments

81,2% of Forest Cover

198 fragments

Maps: Adrian Gonzalez

Projeções de

Mudanças de

Temperatura

do ar próximo

a superfície

(οC)

2021 – 2050

Modelos

Climáticos

integrantes do

IPCC AR5

Características dos

Cenários

Muito Otimista

Otimista

Mais Realista

Pessimista

Projeções dos Modelos Climáticos do IPCC AR5 - Temperatura

Índice de Vulnerabilidade Sócio-Climática (SCVI)

Sensibilidade

Capacidade AdaptativaExposição

RCCI (CMIP5)

Densidade Pop: 2010

IDHM: 2010

São PauloImpactos Climáticos Projetados (2021-2050 &

2071-2100)

Prob Conf

Temp. Média (+1.5 a +2.0οC & +2.0 a +5.0οC) 3 ***

Temp. Mínima (+1.0 a +2.5οC & +1.0 a +4.5οC) 3 ***

Temp. Máxima (+1.0 a +3.0οC & +1.0 a +5.0οC) 3 ***

Número de dias frios (diminuição) 3 **

Número de noites frias (diminuição) 3 **

Número de dias quentes (aumento) 3 **

Número de noites quentes (aumento) 3 **

Precipitação (-5 & -10% IPCC) 1 *

Aumento no número de dias secos consecutivos 3 **

Aumento da irregularidade na distribuição da

precipitação ao longo do ano

3 **

Aumento na frequência de secas/estiagem 2 *

Vulnerabilidade Sócio-climática (em comparação ao

Brasil como um todo) = ALTA

3 *

Estresse Térmico = Aumento 2 **

Nível de confiabilidade

*** Confiabilidade Alta

** Confiabilidade Média

* Confiabilidade Baixa

Prob. de

ocorrênciaClassificação

- Sem risco ou Incerto

1 Pouca probabilidade (0 - 20%)

2 Probabilidade média (20 - 60%)

3 Probabilidade alta (60 - 100%)

Prescott-Allen, 1997

Measu

res

of

Su

sten

tab

ilit

y

Axis

Human Wellbeing

BEH

Axis

Ecosystem Wellbeing

BEE

TH

EM

ES

IND

ICA

TO

RS

IND

ICE

S

Regional Scale

Methods for Sustainability Barometer

We conducted a linear interpolation adjusting the local scale with

the Barometer scale (Lameira et al., 2015) as:

Onde:EB – Barometer Scale;EB1 - Barometer Scale(Valor inicial do intervalo da Escala do Barômetro);EB2 – Barometer Scale (Valor final do intervalo da Escala do Barômetro);EB - Local Scale (Study areas); EL1 – Local Scale ( initial value of sustainability defined by the study area); EL2 - Local Scale (Final value of the sustainability range defined for the study area);VR – Real Value (value of the indicator observed in each municipality);

Environmental (land use change, forest cover, special together

with geoprocessing analysis.

𝐵𝑆𝑥 = 𝐸𝐿1 − 𝑉𝑅 𝑥 𝐸𝐵1 − 𝐸𝐵2

𝐸𝐿1 − 𝐸𝐿2 𝑥 −1 + 𝐸𝐵1

Sustainable Barometer

Bi-Dimensional matrix

Dimensões Cananéia Corumbataí Monteiro Lobato Rio Claro

BEH 57,08 56,87 48,55 62,53

BEE 69,43 39,15 34,57 39,83

Interviews

Policy

(Institutes, Secretaries, Municipal body)

Local Communities

Farmers, Traditional Communities, rural cooperatives

Elicitation workshop

Stakeholders

Science, Policy and Local communities

ES importance

Wellbeing importance

Climate Change

Science

WP 4 : Survey Instrument and Participatory Approach

(n=114)

materialsubjectiverelational

Convergence of local perception and description with scientific and

political term.

Survey Instrument Results

Evaluation of local knowledge on EcosystemServices

Yes 71%

Did not converge 59%

Do not know

5%

Converged6%

No 29%

Have you heard about ES? Cananeia(%)

Corumbataí(%)

Monteiro Lobato(%)

Yes 81 75 57

No 19 25 43

(%) Benefits from Ecosystem recognized by Locals

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cananeia (n=36)0

10

20

30

40

50

Corumbataí (n=31)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Monteiro Lobato(n=13)

Survey Instrument Results

1. Fish & sea food

2. Water flow and purification

3. Air quality & regulation

1. Water flow and purification

2. Local climate regulation

3. Air quality & regulation

1. Water flow and purification

2. Air quality & regulation

3. Local climate regulation

PC Eigenvalue % variance1 3.71525 65.5632 1.95142 34.437

Monteiro Lobato

Cananéia

Corumbataí

LoadingsPC 1 PC 2

B 0.29538 -0.068593 C -3.9171E-17

6.712E-18D 0.19074 0.31867E 0.19074 0.31867F 0.29538 -0.068593G 0.29538 -0.068593H 0.19074 0.31867I 0.29538 -0.068593J 0.29538 -0.068593K 0.19074 0.31867L 0.29538 -0.068593M 0.19074 0.31867N 0.29538 -0.068593O 0.29538 -0.068593P 0 0Q -0.10464 0.38726R -0.10464 0.38726S 0.10464 -0.38726T 0.29538 -0.068593

B-Recreational ; C-Aesthetics ; D-Cultural ; E-Natural heritage F-Bioquimica;G-Feira; H-Fibra; I-Madeira; J-Peixe; K-Agricultura; L-Agua; M-Biodiversidade;N-Polinizacao; O-Erosao; P-Carbono; Q-Clima global; R-Clima local; S-Purifica aguaT-qualidade do ar.

Survey Instrument Results : Principal Component Analysis

(%) Benefits from Ecosystem recognized by Locals

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Cananeia (n=36) Corumbataí (n= 31) Monteiro Lobato (n=13)

Health

Education

Personal activities

Political voice and governance

Social connections

Environmental conditions

Personal insecurity

Economic insecurity

Feelings

Not Known inform

Survey Instrument Results: Wellbeing Evaluation

For categories of wellbeing we follow `The measurement of economic performance and social

progress revisited: Reflections and Overview` by Stiglitz et al 2014

1. Feelings

2. Social connections

3. Health

1. Feelings

2. Health and Economic Sec

3. Environmental Conditions

1. Environmental conditions

2. Health

3. Economic security

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Cananeia (n=36)

Cananeia's producers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Corumbataí (n= 31)

Corumbatai's producers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Monteiro Lobato (n=13)

Monteiro Lobato's producers

Survey Instrument Results:

Wellbeing Evaluation in relation to Ecosystem Services

1. Water flow purify

2. Air regulation

3. Food

1. Others

2. Air regulation

3. Water flow purif

1. Others

2. Water flow purify

3. Air regulation

Linkages ES and Wellbeing

ES Perception Wellbeing Perception ES importance to

Wellbeing Perception

Cananeia 1. Fish/food

2. Water flow purif

3. Air regulation

1. Feelings

2. Social connections

3. Health

1. Water flow purify

2. Air regulation

3. Food

Corumbatai 1. Water flow purify

2. Air regulation

3. Local climate

1. Feelings

2. Health and

Economic Sec

3. Environmental

Conditions

1. Others

2. Air regulation

3. Water flow purif

Monteiro

Lobato

1. Water flow purify

2. Local climate

3. Air regulation

1. Environmental

conditions

2. Health

3. Economic security

1. Others

2. Water flow purify

3. Air regulation

Final Considerations of preliminary results

REGIONAL : Barometer of Sustainability

• The 3 regions are not sustainable

– in the agriculture commodities environmental performance were low (CO, ML) and high in

Protected Area (CA)

– Health Performance are low in Agriculture Commodities landscapes ; Socio-economic

dimensions showed relatively low in CA.

– LOCAL : INTERVIEWS

• In the 3 regions , people perceive ES as part of their wellbeing with central focus on water flow

/quality, air regulation , food , health, and environmental conditions.

• Provisioning services had priority in all 3 regions; Followed by Regulating Services (air quality

and local climate).

• The protected areas, people perceive two folds more ES than the other agriculture landscapes

(Corumbatai and Monteiro Lobato);

• In both agriculture dominated landscapes , water flow and air quality are the most cited ES.

• Health directly linked to Wellbeing in the 3 regions.

• Environmental Conditions linked to wellbeing in agricultural landscapes.

• In two regions (CA and CO) subjective wellbeing perception most important.

• In the 3 watersheds similar responses to ES perceptions and ES to wellbeing perception - > ES thus

intrinsically linked to wellbeing (?).

Science & Policy Relevance for Socio-Ecological Systems

- Local peoples perception matters

- Policy perception of local meaning matters

Scales Linkages

Climate Resilient Development

Sustainable development goals despite a

changing climate

Donors such as World Bank and

Europeans branches are aiming to

support climate resilient development - It

is beyond only material dimensions of

wellbeing as development program uses.

Examples of Policy Interventions based

on the integrated analysis :

Material dimensions of wellbeing (Access

transfer schemes such as PES , credit

line, etc -> improving capabilities via

providing conditions such as land reform,

market regulation)

Relational dimensions of wellbeing :

human and skills development schemes ;

empowerment via government reforms

Subjective dimensions : social and

cultural dimensions (SDGs)

Team & Funders

Pesquisadores Colaboradores

Internacional

University of Edinburgh

Dra Genevieve Patenaude

National

Dr Jean Pierre Ometto e Dr Peter M. Toledo – Centro de Ciência do Sistema Terrestre – INPE – São José dos Campos- SP

Dr. José Marengo – CEMADEN-São José dos Campos- SP

Dr. David Lapola, CEPAGRI-UNICAMP

Ms: Moara Canova, CEPAGRI, Unicamp

Ms: Adrían Gonzalez – IB- USP

Bianca Laurino –FFLCH

Giovana Marra –FFLCH – USP

Website: www.sabemclima.com.br