4.6 Article

Evolution of Land Use in the Brazilian Amazon: From Frontier Expansion to Market Chain Dynamics

期刊

LAND
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 981-1014

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land3030981

关键词

land use; land distribution; accessibility; deforestation frontier; Amazon; Brazil

资金

  1. Dutch National Science Foundation (NWO-WOTRO)
  2. ERC [311819]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [311819] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Agricultural census data and fieldwork observations are used to analyze changes in land cover/use intensity across Rondonia and Mato Grosso states along the agricultural frontier in the Brazilian Amazon. Results show that the development of land use is strongly related to land distribution structure. While large farms have increased their share of annual and perennial crops, small and medium size farms have strongly contributed to the development of beef and milk market chains in both Rondonia and Mato Grosso. Land use intensification has occurred in the form of increased use of machinery, labor in agriculture and stocking rates of cattle herds. Regional and national demands have improved infrastructure and productivity. The data presented show that the distinct pathways of land use development are related to accessibility to markets and processing industry as well as to the agricultural colonization history of the region. The data analyzed do not provide any indication of frontier stagnation, i.e., the slowdown of agricultural expansion, in the Brazilian Amazon. Instead of frontier stagnation, the data analyzed indicate that intensification processes in consolidated areas as well as recent agricultural expansion into forest areas are able to explain the cycle of expansion and retraction of the agricultural frontier into the Amazon region. The evolution of land use is useful for scenario analysis of both land cover change and land use intensification and provides insights into the role of market development and policies on land use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据