Valuing Ecosystem Services related to Biodiversity Function in Protected Areas: A Methodological Approach from São Francisco Xavier Environmental Protection AreaAbstract
Due to the critical state of biodiversity loss, the valuation of biodiversity-related ecosystem services is fundamental for assertive policy-making and sustainable development. This study assessed these services in the São Francisco Xavier Environmental Protection Area in Brazil. The objective was the economic value of aspects of biodiversity, considering the conservation of ecosystems. The method involved identifying relevant ecosystem services associated with local biodiversity and the corresponding economic indicators, then assessing the biodiversity status of the area and integrating this as a weight in the valuation equation. The total economic value of ecosystem services in EPA-SFX was US$4,684.81 per hectare. The study concluded that current financial incentives for biodiversity conservation, such as the Payment for Environmental Services programs, were insufficient compared to the intrinsic value of ecosystem services. The findings emphasize the need to reform valuation models and establish effective financial mechanisms for biodiversity conservation. They also demonstrated that incorporating habitat quality into the valuation equation enhanced the accuracy of the results, bringing them closer to the local context, representing an innovative contribution to this study.
Key words
Biodiversity valuation; Conservation policy; Ecosystem services; Environmental protection area; Habitat quality; Sustainable development
INTRODUCTION
The degradation of natural habitats, primarily driven by human activities, has led to significant biodiversity loss and ecological imbalance. The “Global Biodiversity Outlook 5” report by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) highlights that humanity stands at a crossroads regarding the legacy left for future generations: biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate, and the pressures driving this decline are progressively intensifying (CBD 2010).
The Brazilian Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Assessment highlights that Brazil’s biomes have experienced significant transformations due to anthropogenic activities and natural disasters, leading to substantial biodiversity losses and disruptions in ecosystem service flows. Primary drivers of degradation include land-use changes, urban expansion, pollution, introduction of invasive exotic species, and infrastructure projects (Joly et al. 2019).
In this context, environmental valuation is one of the possible strategies to incorporate biodiversity and ecosystems into decision-making, including as an instrument for developing effective public policies for their conservation. By employing valuation methodologies that accurately reflect the economic value of certain aspects of nature, decision-makers can make more assertive choices regarding natural resource utilization.
It also allows for a comparison of the costs and benefits of different options, choosing those that generate the most significant social and environmental benefits in the long term (Macedo 2015, Costanza et al. 1997). Furthermore, recent studies have underscored the economic significance of ecosystems and their contributions to global well-being. For instance, Costanza et al. (2014), revised the estimated global value of ecosystem services, finding a price ranging between $125 trillion - $145 trillion per year, depending on which unit values are used. Also, they calculated the loss of ecosystem services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use changes to be between $4.3 trillion - $20.2 trillion per year, underscoring the immense economic significance of these ecosystem services.
The current biodiversity loss crisis is strongly linked to the limited way nature is valued, where economic and policy decisions prioritize market-traded aspects, neglecting non-commercial values such as climate regulation and cultural identity, as well as intrinsic values independent of human utility (IPBES 2022, Costanza 2014). In their study, Bartkowski et al. (2015), it points out that biological diversity itself is a complex and abstract ecological concept that cannot be equated to a synonym for nature. The starting point for valuing nature is that these valuations are based on standard economic theory but with a foundation in environmental sciences. Therefore, biodiversity valuation requires a holistic approach to recognizing the complex interconnections between human well-being and ecological processes. In this approach, value tends to differ from price, as biodiversity provides a wide range of benefits not captured by market economic prices (THE VALUE OF BIODIVERSITY IS NOT THE SAME AS ITS PRICE 2019).
Different valuation techniques attempt to capture the value of biodiversity based on market price information related to its direct use (e.g., timber, minerals, recreational fishing) or indirect use (mainly ecosystem functions), or those that capture information on the intrinsic value of biodiversity by identifying how people value nature through observing their behavior and practices captured through questionnaires and interviews (IPBES 2022). However, the conservation status of the habitat, a crucial aspect in biodiversity valuation due to its fundamental role in maintaining biological diversity and ecosystem services, is not always integrated into the valuation process and is often not directly addressed or quantified in these valuation techniques (Bartkowski et al. 2015). High-quality habitats usually support a greater diversity of species and have a greater capacity to withstand disturbances and environmental changes, being crucial for the long-term maintenance of biodiversity (Wudu et al. 2023).
In this context, by combining different types of information about biodiversity, such as data on species, habitats, and ecological functions, it is possible to create indicators that help assess the state of biodiversity. When combined with economic indicators, these indicators can help estimate the value of biodiversity. For instance, Galetti (2023) demonstrated this by valuing carbon capture from Cryptocarya mandioccana, a tree species planted by the endangered and mega seed disperser Jacutinga bird. By quantifying seed dispersal, seedling survival, and tree maturity, the study estimated the bird’s ecosystem service value at US$12.50 per hectare, amounting to over US$1 million annually in a single Atlantic Forest park (Culot et al. 2017, Galetti 2023).
Regarding analyzing the status of biodiversity and how the landscape supports it, geoprocessing and remote sensing are fundamental. These technologies facilitate the detection of issues and analysis of land use and cover, encompassing both anthropogenic and natural transformations. One example is the InVEST Habitat Quality Model, which uses habitat quality and rarity as proxies to represent biodiversity across a landscape, estimating the extent of habitats and their degradation states (Nemec & Raudsepp-Hearne 2013, Oliveira & Cunha 2007, Stanford University 2016). For instance, Xie et al. (2023) applied this model in Shanghai, revealing a significant decline in habitat quality between 2000 and 2017 and emphasizing the need for targeted protection and restoration measures. Their findings underscore the model’s effectiveness as a crucial indicator of ecological integrity and biodiversity sustainability, particularly in urbanized environments where human activities exert continuous pressure on ecosystems.
Based on the challenges outlined above, this study proposed the valuation of key aspects of biodiversity using the São Francisco Xavier Environmental Protection Area (EPA-SFX) as a case study. The applied methodology was grounded in the premise that the current conservation status of the local ecosystem should be incorporated as a weighting factor in the valuation equation, since more conserved habitats tend to support higher-quality biological diversity (CBD 2010, Joly et al. 2019). The selected ecosystem services, representing key biodiversity functions in the area, included forest carbon stock, water purification and supply, and natural regeneration capacity, consistent with the primary objectives underlying the creation of the conservation unit. The selection of these ecosystem services was further informed by an analysis of the Economic Ecological Zoning and the EPA-SFX management plan.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Considering that the economic valuation of biodiversity is a technique that seeks to assign a monetary value to the benefits that biodiversity can provide to society and based on the valuation steps presented by IPBES (2022), and the multidimensionality of biodiversity addressed by Bartkowski et al. (2015), the methodology developed to estimate the value of biodiversity was configured in three stages: the first consisted of identifying the relevant ecosystem services for the territory, related to the ecological function of local biodiversity and the appropriate economic indicators that could be linked to the previous ones; the second stage assessed the territory’s biodiversity status, which was incorporated as a “weight” in the final value equation, and the third step was the actual economic valuation, considering the status and aspects of local biodiversity (equation I).
Where:
QH = Habitat quality (0 to 1);
SE = Ecosystem service indicator*;
IEC = Economic indicator*.
*The type of indicator determines the unit.
The methodology is summarized in Figure 1 and described in detail in the following sections. In brief, it begins with the identification of ecosystem services (ESs) relevant to the biodiversity of the São Francisco Xavier Environmental Protection Area (EPA-SFX), based on available primary and secondary data. The selection of ESs was guided by the objectives of the conservation unit, local constraints, and previous studies where available. Subsequently, economic indicators associated with each ES were identified to support their valuation. Spatial modeling was then conducted using the InVEST software to assess the effects of multiple degradation factors on ecosystems, as well as the sensitivity of each habitat type to the identified threats. The economic analysis integrated habitat quality and local biodiversity representation by correlating ecosystem service values with habitat quality at the map-cell level. This integrated approach enabled the estimation of the final economic value of biodiversity in EPA-SFX. A flowchart summarizing the methodology is presented in Figure 1.
Flowchart of the methodology created to value EPA-SFX biodiversity. Prepared by the author.
Study area
The São Francisco Xavier Environmental Protection Area (EPA) is located in São José dos Campos, Brazil, and is protected under both state and municipal legislation (State Law No. 11,262/2002 and Municipal Complementary Law No. 612/2018). It was established within the framework of the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC) and is regulated by specific land-use instruments, including a management plan, a management council, and Ecological-Economic Zoning (EEZ), which aim to regulate and optimize the use of its natural resources.
The EPA covers an area of 11,880 hectares, encompassing the northern portion of the São Francisco Xavier district in the Serra da Mantiqueira region (Figure 2). It is recognized for its rich natural landscapes, cultural and historical heritage, and ecotourism potential. In addition, the area plays a critical role as an important water producer for the region. The primary objective of this protected area is to regulate the use of natural resources while promoting quality of life, ecological and economic sustainability, and long-term ecosystem conservation (PMSJC 2019).
The EPA-SFX has vegetation cover from the Dense Ombrophilous Forest and high-altitude fields from the Atlantic Forest biome. This diversity of environments allows the presence of several species of native wildlife, as well as a significant regional flora, including endangered and threatened endemic species, such as the Juçara Palm (Euterpe edulis), whose subpopulations are dangerously reduced due to exploitation (CNCFLORA 2012) or even the Muriqui or Mono-Carvoeiro monkey (Brachyteles arachnoides), the largest Brazilian primate, which is among the most threatened species in the world and the Jacutinga bird (Aburria jacutinga), considered a mega seed disperser and also threatened with extinction (Fundação Florestal 2018). Medium and large animals were also registered at EPA SFX, such as the puma (Puma concolor) and the wild cat (Leopardus gutullus) (CNCFLORA 2012).
The Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) integrates data from the IUCN Red List, Key Biodiversity Areas, and the World Database on Protected Areas to identify biodiversity risks and conservation opportunities. An analysis of the São Francisco Xavier Environmental Protection Area (EPA-SFX) indicated that 1,746 species listed on the IUCN Red List may occur within a 50 km radius of the area, including seven critically endangered and 18 threatened species. Furthermore, EPA-SFX encompasses four Key Biodiversity Areas, two of which are designated as Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, while the remaining two are recognized by the Alliance for Zero Extinction (IBAT 2022).
EPA-SFX is part of the Conexão Mata Atlântica project, funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which focuses on restoring and protecting climate and biodiversity-related services in the Southeast Atlantic Forest Corridor. The project aims to enhance carbon stocks, strengthen ecosystem resilience and conserve habitats by reconnecting forest fragments (Henrique & Toniolo 2021, MCTIC 2016).
Identification of ecosystem services related to biodiversity and associated economic indicators
The general approach of the methodology consists primarily of identifying ecosystem services related to biodiversity that are relevant to the analyzed territory. This stage involves surveying the data available for the study site, which may come from primary and/or secondary databases. It is essential to carefully choose ecosystem services and indicators that align with the specific goals of the study and account for site-specific constraints. For instance, locations with a wealth of prior geospatial studies can leverage this information to select suitable ESs. For the most precise results, conducting fieldwork and gathering indicators directly from the local environment may be necessary.
The selection of ESs pertinent to the area can be influenced by various factors, including the significance of ESs for the region’s environmental sustainability, their impact on the health and well-being of local communities, and their role in upholding essential ecological processes. Furthermore, the identification of ESs can be based on the availability of data and scientific information about their occurrence and function in the location, also considering the participation and knowledge of local stakeholders to understand their perceptions and needs concerning ESs. This collaborative and multidisciplinary approach can help define which ESs are most relevant to the territory, considering the economic, social, and ecological dimensions involved.
Once the relevant ecosystem services related to biodiversity have been selected, it is necessary to identify the economic indicators associated with them to define the valuation methods and routes. For example, the amount of carbon sequestered by plant species can be related to the cost of forest carbon credits or the social cost of carbon. The loss of biodiversity, especially of pollinating insect species, can negatively impact agricultural productivity and, consequently, food supply and may be associated with the cost of conducting pollination anthropogenically.
In this study, the valuation of biodiversity in the EPA-SFX was based on the selection of key biodiversity functions and their associated ecosystem services (ESs) that are most linked to the conservation priorities and management objectives of the protected area. These services were chosen because they represent fundamental ecological processes through which local biodiversity contributes to ecosystem integrity, resilience, and human well-being, particularly in relation to climate regulation, water provision, and ecosystem recovery. The selection process was further supported by the Economic-Ecological Zoning and the EPA-SFX management plan (PMSJC 2017a). The EEZ defines land-use categories and environmental restrictions within the territory based on ecological vulnerability, conservation importance, and socioeconomic activities, thereby identifying areas where ecosystem functions must be maintained or restored. The management plan establishes strategic guidelines, priority conservation areas, and permitted uses, with a strong emphasis on protecting water resources, native vegetation, and ecological connectivity. By aligning the selection of ecosystem services with these planning instruments, the valuation framework ensures coherence with local regulatory objectives and reflects the most critical ecological functions recognized for the EPA-SFX. Table I summarizes the selected ecosystem services, consolidated according to the core ecological functions performed by biodiversity in this environment.
The chosen ecological functions of EPA-SFX biodiversity, associated ecosystem services, and associated economic indicators.
After identifying the ecosystem services related to biodiversity in EPA-SFX, the specific values of each service per hectare of forest were obtained using landscape analysis through geoprocessing and remote sensing, adapting them to the reality of EPA-SFX.
Habitat quality and conservation status indicator
The third stage of the methodology consisted of mapping the state of local biodiversity so that the valuation also reflected the status of the habitat and the biodiversity it contains, considering existing degradation vectors, conserved areas, and the existence of protected territories, among other factors.
Previous research assessed the conservation status of the EPA-SFX ecosystem. In this study, spatial modeling was employed to determine how degradation vectors within the territory affected habitat quality. This approach allowed for the identification of the most preserved areas as well as those most degraded (Simões et al. 2024).
The modeling was conducted using the InVEST software, specifically the Habitat Quality module, with the support of experts to assess the impact of various identified degradation factors on the ecosystem. These factors included urban infrastructure, vacation spots, roads, agricultural and pasture areas, exotic species (such as pine and eucalyptus), and deforestation. Additionally, the sensitivity of each habitat type to each identified threat was considered. Based on habitat quality, ecosystems within the São Francisco Xavier Environmental Protection Area were scored from 0 to 1. A score closer to 0 indicated poor habitat quality, while a score closer to 1 indicated better habitat quality. The analysis focused on the EPA-SFX itself and its surrounding 10-kilometer influence zone to evaluate the threats that directly impact the territory, to assess the threats that directly impact the EPA.
Natural regeneration capacity
To estimate natural regeneration capacity, the areas of interest were the Legal Reserve (LR) and Permanent Preservation Area (PPA) which lacked native vegetation due to degradation or previous deforestation. The vegetation deficit in these areas served as the primary indicator for analysis. Protected by the Brazilian Forest Code (Law No. 12,651/2012), these degraded areas are considered environmental liabilities and must be restored through recovery, recomposition, or regeneration of native vegetation. In the context of the EPA-SFX, a spatial analysis was performed by overlaying the remaining native vegetation layer with the boundaries of LRs and PPAs, excluding areas with consolidated use — those with human occupation before July 22, 2008, as defined by the Brazilian Forest Code. Such areas include agriculture, livestock, forestry activities, or improvements, which were identified through the Rural Environmental Registration System (version 3.0.0).
To identify forest vegetation in the study area, supervised classification was applied using Sentinel-2 L2 satellite images from the summer of 2022 and winter of 2023. The results were validated for accuracy using the Kappa Index, global accuracy, producer accuracy, and user accuracy. Statistical reliability was ensured by carefully selecting samples for the assessment.
The economic indicator for valuing this ecosystem service was the average cost per hectare of restoration in the Atlantic Forest, considering the area’s recovery through active restoration (direct sowing and planting of seedlings). This is a process of recovering native vegetation through human intervention, which consists of planting seeds or seedlings of native tree species, aiming to accelerate the recovery of degraded or deforested areas, increasing vegetation cover, and promoting the reconstruction of forest ecosystems (MMA 2017). According to Brancalion et al. (2019), the cost for this scenario in the Atlantic Forest is approximately US$2000 per hectare. Correcting for inflation, using the IPCA (IBGE) index, the value is US$2,113 (Banco Central do Brasil 2024).
Forest carbon stock
The average carbon accumulation value for the Atlantic Forest was sourced from the literature on studies conducted within the Atlantic Forest Biome, which shares characteristics similar to the study site. These studies encompass relevant carbon stocks of the ecosystem, including above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, dead wood, and soil, as detailed in Table II. For the EPA-SFX, the values of secondary forests were considered. These forests, though fragmented due to prolonged anthropogenic activities, are notable for their high carbon capture capacity. They also provide a variety of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to enhancing resilience against forest degradation, such as the ability to recover quickly after disturbances and return to their original state before deforestation (Poorter et al. 2016).
For conversion into tCO2, the atomic weight of carbon is 12, and oxygen’s is 16; each 1.0 Mg of carbon is equivalent to 3.66 Mg of CO2. Thus, to determine the amount of CO2eq (carbon dioxide equivalent), the carbon value was multiplied by 3.66, which is the conversion factor between the atomic masses of oxygen and carbon.
The Social Cost of Carbon (CSC) was used to value the forest carbon stock, measured in US$/tCO2. The CSC is a parameter that represents the estimated cost of the likely impacts of adding one ton of carbon into the atmosphere (CO2) on agricultural productivity, human health, damage to public or private properties, and biodiversity, among others, that is, it estimates the expenses that would hypothetically be necessary to offset the harmful impacts of climate change on society (Macedo 2015, Daly & Farley 2004). The CSC adopted was US$25.83/tCO2, based on the pricing of average emissions from the report “The Social Cost of Carbon: An Aggregate View of Latin America” (Alatorre et al. 2019).
Water purification and supply
Ecosystem Services related to water supply and quality were estimated based on the ability of plant species present in the native forest to capture and infiltrate rainwater through their roots. Eventually, this water reappears as springs, contributing to the supply of water bodies (Valente & Gomes 2015).
To estimate the amount of water produced by a spring, it is essential to consider the volume of rainwater that infiltrates a unit area of the catchment basin and subsequently replenishes groundwater. Part of this water resurfaces as springs, while another portion directly supplies bodies of water such as lakes and rivers. This calculation is based on forest hydrology principles applied to river basin management, considering the specific characteristics of each biome and soil type. Adapting the findings of Valente & Gomes (2015), in a river basin with well-preserved soil — where rainwater infiltration capacity is high — only 23% of total precipitation reaches the groundwater. This accounts for losses due to vegetation cover interception, transpiration, and subsurface runoff. Additionally, not all groundwater recharge contributes to spring discharge. According to the authors, springs are “surface manifestations of underground water tables,” and only 50% of the recharged water is considered to emerge as spring flow.
To determine the annual precipitation of the São Francisco Xavier EPA, the historical average of the publicly available rainfall network of the National Water Agency, which collects precipitation (rainfall) daily to plan and manage water resources (ANA 2023), was considered. Table III specifies the values for the rainfall point located in EPA-SFX.
According to data from the Rural Environmental Registry, EPA-SFX has 754 water sources within its limits (MMA 2023). To value the provision and quality of water, the tariffs for water supply services, charged by SABESP, a sanitation company in the State of São Paulo, for the municipality of São José dos Campos, were considered (SABESP 2023). For the consumption range above 50m3 per month, the associated tariff is R$9.18/m3, approximately US$1.84/m3 (US$1 = R$5).
Economic valuation
The third stage of the analysis is the economic analysis itself. This step involves applying the economic indicators selected for each ecosystem service related to biodiversity, multiplied by the “weight” from the Habitat Quality InVEST model, which indicates the territory’s state of conservation, to estimate the final economic value.
Total Economic Value (VET) principles were adopted for valuation, a concept derived from ecological economics to evaluate natural resources and ecosystem services (FGVCes 2019). The valuation methods used in this context include the Replacement Cost Method, which is applied to ESs for climate regulation and natural regeneration capacity. This method evaluates the value of the ecosystem service by the cost necessary to restore the degraded environment to its original or equivalent condition. The economic indicator “Assisted Reforestation Cost/Hectare” represents the minimum value to restore the degraded area through assisted reforestation, and the “Social Carbon Cost (CSC)” represents the value of each ton of CO2e avoided by the forest, considering the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
For water flow regulation, we applied the Avoided Cost (Replacement) Method. This approach estimates the value of the ecosystem service by calculating the expenses required for gray infrastructure if the service did not occur naturally. The indicator “Cost of Water Treatment per Liter” reflects how much it would cost to treat the same volume of water without the forest’s natural filtration and purification.
To calculate ecosystem service values, this study divided the territory into hexagonal plots. Each cell received the average habitat quality index derived from the spatial modeling conducted in the previous steps. This index served as the basis for valuing ecosystem services. By applying this approach, it was possible to correlate ecosystem service values with spatial modeling results, using habitat quality as an indicator of local biodiversity.
The modeling approach adopted in this study assumes that areas with higher habitat quality support greater native species richness, whereas reductions in habitat extent and quality negatively affect species persistence within the ecosystem (Sharp et al. 2018). Accordingly, the final economic valuation explicitly incorporates both habitat quality and the spatial representation of biodiversity across the landscape. This integration was achieved by associating ecosystem services and their respective economic indicators with a hexagonal spatial grid, which constituted the units of analysis (Figure 3).
Conceptualization of how the economic valuation calculation was conducted for each hexagon of analysis, where HQ represents the habitat quality index of each unit of analysis. Prepared by the author.
Each ecosystem service was spatially allocated to the hexagonal units following service-specific criteria. For natural forest regeneration, a vegetation deficit was calculated for each hexagon, reflecting the potential for ecosystem recovery. Carbon stock valuation assumed a uniform average stock distributed equally across all hexagons, given the scale of analysis and data availability. In contrast, annual precipitation was spatially allocated based on the area of each hexagon, allowing rainfall values to be proportionally distributed across the landscape. This approach ensured a consistent and spatially explicit integration of ecological and economic information in the valuation process.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Habitat quality and conservation status indicator
The results indicate that the EPA-SFX achieved an average habitat quality index of 0.66 on a scale from 0 (lowest quality) to 1 (highest quality). When considering the 10 km buffer zone, the average index decreased to 0.33 (Figure 4). The highest habitat quality values were observed in areas with extensive continuous native vegetation, while the lowest values occurred in previously deforested regions with a higher concentration of pastures and urban infrastructure. These lower values were particularly prominent in the central-southern portion of the EPA, where altitudes are lower (Simões et al. 2024).
EPA-SFX and the habitat quality index represent the territory’s biodiversity state. Prepared by the author.
The analysis also reveals heterogeneity in habitat quality, driven by land use and topographic variation. Land use, particularly pasture, directly affects habitat quality, with pasture areas showing average to poor indicators of habitat quality. Urbanization plays a crucial role, as urban centers within the EPA-SFX contribute to land subdivision and increased deforestation, especially on smaller properties (Simões et al. 2024).
The establishment of the São Francisco Xavier Environmental Protection Area (EPA-SFX) plays a crucial role in mitigating habitat degradation. The habitat quality index within the EPA-SFX was nearly twice that of the surrounding 10-kilometer buffer, highlighting its effectiveness in preserving biodiversity. This reinforces the importance of maintaining the EPA’s integrity to safeguard ecosystems and sustain essential ecosystem services (Zhang et al. 2023).
Natural regeneration capacity
The forest vegetation obtained by the classification of land uses had an extension of 9872 hectares, corresponding to 83% of the territorial extension of EPA-SFX. The land use and occupation map generated presented an overall accuracy of 88.2% and a Kappa Index of 81%, indicating a hit with high significance, highlighting the precision of the model, especially in the category of native vegetation, which obtained accuracy from the producer and user greater than 99% (Landis & Koch 1977).
The geospatial analysis of native vegetation and areas protected by the Forest Code — Legal Reserve (LR) and Permanent Preservation Area (PPA) — identified 250 hectares requiring restoration, excluding consolidated use and administrative easement areas. Among these, small rural properties (up to 4 fiscal modules) account for 102 hectares of vegetation deficit, while larger properties contribute 148 hectares. This distribution aligns with trends observed in the Atlantic Forest, where medium and large farms exhibit higher deforestation rates (Chiaretti 2021, Klein & Medaglia 2022). The native vegetation deficit map is shown in Figure 5.
Native vegetation liabilities within the areas demarcated as Legal Reserve (LR) and Permanent Preservation Area (PPA). Prepared by the author.
The calculation of vegetation liabilities in the EPA-SFX reveals a pattern in the native vegetation deficit per property. As shown in the histogram (Figure 6), approximately 243 properties (73%) have vegetation deficits of up to 0.4 hectares. This finding aligns with the 2021 report The Forest Code in the Atlantic Forest, which indicates that 88% of registered properties had deficits in PPA and LR of less than 0.5 hectares (Faria et al. 2021).
Area histogram of native vegetation liabilities in rural properties from EPA-SFX (2023). Prepared by the author.
It was possible to calculate the potential for regeneration of floristic biodiversity in EPA-SFX by associating the deficit of native vegetation in protected areas with habitat quality. This calculation is considered the economic indicator of active reforestation of the Atlantic Forest, representing the value that the natural capacity of the ecosystem has to recover its ecological functions over time without human intervention, such as planting seeds or seedlings. The result was that this ecosystem function of EPA-SFX generates a value of US$219,600.93, equivalent to US$18.48/ha.
The Atlantic Forest has a strong regeneration capacity, enabling recovery of degraded areas, particularly after agricultural abandonment or reduced disturbances. Between 2011 and 2015, Brazil restored around 740,000 hectares of forest, with 85,000 hectares in São Paulo. In the Paraíba Valley, where EPA-SFX is located, forest cover increased by 75% from 1985 to 2011. This regeneration, driven by natural processes in abandoned agricultural areas, highlights the importance of local biodiversity in large-scale environmental restoration (Crouzeilles et al. 2019, Silva et al. 2017).
Given the upward trajectory of natural regeneration in recent decades, the value achieved — reflecting the investment required for active regeneration — must be reflected in public policies that promote the conservation and restoration of EPA-SFX ecosystems. The ability of the Atlantic Forest to regenerate itself highlights the importance of measures that encourage the protection of natural areas and the restoration of degraded landscapes, especially considering that novel ecosystems enhance both ecosystem services and biodiversity (Evers et al. 2018).
Effective resource allocation and sustainable management are essential for supporting natural regeneration and ecosystem services in EPA-SFX. Strategically located within the Serra da Mantiqueira, one of São Paulo’s key ecological and economic regions, it plays a vital conservation role. As part of multiple protected areas, including the Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve, EPA-SFX is crucial for regional and national biodiversity conservation. (MMA 2006, ICMBIO 2018).
Forest carbon stock
The values obtained in the literature for Atlantic Forest remnants (Table II) ranged from 26.80 to 65.58 Mg C per hectare, resulting in an average of 49.93 Mg C/ha, which corresponds to 182.73 Mg CO2/ha, considering that 1.0 Mg of carbon is equivalent to 3.66 Mg of CO2. Considering the carbon stock index, this EPA-SFX ecosystem function generated an estimated value of US$21,682,012.75, equivalent to US$1,825.09 per hectare.
This carbon absorption capacity highlights the territory as an important proxy for mitigating the effects of climate change. EPA-SFX plays a crucial role in stabilizing the regional and global climate by functioning as a carbon sink. The stability of forest ecosystems in EPA-SFX is crucial not only for local biodiversity but also for maintaining stored carbon in tree biomass for longer periods, thus contributing to reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Maure et al. 2023, Mo et al. 2023).
According to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2022), anthropogenic global warming — already 1.1°C above pre industrial levels — has driven unprecedented climate changes, including extreme weather events, natural disasters, and the warmest decade in the past 125,000 years. Given this context, the ecosystem functions provided by the region’s biodiversity further emphasize the need for public policies focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Strengthening these functions in EPA-SFX is particularly relevant, as projections for the next decade indicate that the three greatest global risks will be the failure to mitigate and adapt to climate change, natural disasters, and extreme weather events (WEF 2023).
Another highlight in the context of carbon is the recent mechanisms to reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions, with emphasis mainly on the carbon market, in which companies that have yet to reach their greenhouse gas reduction targets compensate for their emissions through carbon credits (Trouwloon et al. 2023). The São Francisco Xavier EPA holds significant potential for generating carbon credits, as indicated by the previously calculated values.
Currently, the mechanisms for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), which generate carbon credits by preserving forests threatened by deforestation and burning for economic activities, have not yet been applied to the Atlantic Forest. Despite being one of the most biodiverse forests in the world, the Atlantic Forest has experienced significant reduction over the centuries and remains more fragmented than the Amazon. This high level of fragmentation makes implementing the REDD mechanism less viable due to scale limitations and higher implementation costs (Aguilar et al. 2013, Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica & INPE 2021).
Recent initiatives have used participatory methodologies to expand the carbon market in the Atlantic Forest. One example is the Carbonflor PES program, which generates Carbon Plus (C+), representing one ton of CO₂ stored in biomass through forest conservation or reforestation (ECCON 2022). Such initiatives, adapted to the Atlantic Forest’s characteristics, could be implemented in EPA-SFX to support biodiversity conservation through financial incentives.
Water purification and supply
One of the most notable features of the São Francisco Xavier EPA-SFX is its water production capacity, which includes significant areas for underground aquifer recharge, an extensive hydrographic network, and abundant drainage heads. Among these is the Rio do Peixe Hydrographic Basin, whose watercourse serves as the main tributary to the Jaguari River that holds the highest water production per square kilometer in the entire Paraíba Valley (PMSJC 2017b). These waters flow into the Paraíba do Sul River, playing a critical role in supplying the Metropolitan Region of Rio de Janeiro and, in the future, the Cantareira basin in São Paulo, one of the most important in the state. The region also boasts numerous springs, a result of its natural characteristics, including geology, geomorphology, climate, and flora (COPPETEC 2007, PMSJC 2017b).
The ecosystem function related to water and assessed in the EPA-SFX encompasses both the provision and quality of water, emphasizing the crucial role of biodiversity in water capture, infiltration, storage, and purification. Considering the average rainfall in the territory, an annual production of 26 million m3 per year was calculated. The value associated with this ecosystem service was calculated at US$33,753,956.81 per year, representing EPA-SFX’s annual contribution in this specific aspect of biodiversity of US$2,841.24/hectare.
The valuation of this water supply underscores the critical importance of this natural resource for the territory, as it is a determining factor for protecting the Environmental Protection Area at federal, state, and municipal levels. Furthermore, the Economic Ecological Zoning of the EPA-SFX, as established by the EPA Management Plan (Resolution 064/2008 SMA), includes the Water Resources Conservation Zone (ZCRH), which is dedicated to the protection and conservation of the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater resources used for public supply. This reinforces the significance of this ecosystem function for both the region and its areas of influence (Fundação Florestal 2018, PMSJC 2019).
Valuation of ecosystem services related to biodiversity functions
Table IV below summarizes the total values of ecosystem services related to biodiversity functions calculated from EPA-SFX.
The EPA-SFX already incorporates an internationally recognized economic instrument as part of its public environmental policy — a valuation mechanism for the benefits generated by ecosystems and biodiversity. The Municipal Payment for Environmental Services (PES) Program of São José dos Campos, known as the Mais Água Program, incentivizes the preservation of native vegetation areas within the municipality and encourages the adoption of sustainable practices in rural areas. These efforts aim to protect the region’s water resources and enhance water production (Fiore et al. 2020, PMSJC 2024). According to the latest PES public notice, a property that meets the maximum criteria in all valuation requirements (conservation, water quality, agricultural production, and property management) is eligible for a payment of R$1,550.00 per hectare per year, approximately US$310 per hectare per year (based on an exchange rate of US$1 = R$5) (PMSJC 2024), a value that represents only 6.6% of that calculated for the ecosystem functions considered in this research.
The Payment for Environmental Services program, which provides a significant annual payout, is part of the Conexão Mata Atlântica project. This initiative aims to restore and protect ecosystem services related to biodiversity, climate, and carbon stocks in the Southeast Atlantic Forest Corridor, which includes the São Francisco Xavier EPA. The maximum annual payment for an entire rural property, assuming it achieves the highest score in all criteria outlined in the public notice, is R$12,000 or US$2,400 (based on an exchange rate of US$1 = R$5). This amount represents 50% of the value per hectare calculated in this study. However, for properties larger than one hectare, this payment does not fully capture the potential of the ecosystem services provided by the area. (FINATEC 2018, MCTIC 2016).
The Paraíba do Sul River Basin Integration Committee (CEIVAP), which includes EPA-SFX, implemented a Pilot Program for Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) focused on water resources, conserving 718.63 hectares and restoring 188.58 hectares. However, the payments — R$150/ha/year (about US$30/ha/year) — account for less than 1% of the estimated ecosystem service value. Additionally, the program does not fully capture other benefits, such as disaster prevention and climate regulation (Almeida et al. 2023, Pavani et al. 2020).
Assessing the financial value attributed to biodiversity conservation incentive programs is crucial, particularly when considering the disparity between the resources provided and the intrinsic value of ecosystems. While these programs are vital for preserving ecologically significant areas, the payments offered are often insufficient compared to the tangible benefits that biodiversity and its ecosystem functions provide.
This discrepancy between financial incentives and ecological value may prompt landowners to explore alternative land-use options, which are often less favorable to biodiversity conservation, such as converting land into monoculture commodity production. A striking example of this imbalance is the current value of a bag of soybeans, which is approximately US$24 (CEPEA 2024). With production costs and an average yield of 60 bags/ha in Brazil, the net profitability amounts to US$700 per hectare, a figure that significantly exceeds the payments provided by environmental incentive programs for land preservation or biodiversity conservation.
Rethinking the valuation of biodiversity conservation and financial incentive models is essential in this context. It is crucial not only to implement economic strategies that make conservation a viable and attractive option for landowners but also to recognize the value of conserved ecosystems. These strategies include increasing the financial value of incentive programs, implementing more equitable economic compensation mechanisms, and developing sustainable business models that effectively integrate biodiversity conservation into agricultural and land use practices.
Research indicates that conservation investments yield significant economic benefits. Polasky et al. (2012) examined a conservation program in Minnesota, USA, which allocated approximately US$171 million annually to improve ecosystem services, using factors of changes in ecosystem services similar to those in this present study: carbon sequestration, water quality, and the provision of habitat for biodiversity in alternative land use scenarios, and decision-making criteria. Over 25 years (2001-2026), the total projected cost of the initiative was US$3.983 billion. However, the estimated economic return, based on the value of ecosystem services preserved and enhanced, reached US$9.026 billion. This resulted in a return on investment of approximately US$2-3 for every dollar spent, demonstrating the financial viability and long-term benefits of conservation strategies (Polasky et al. 2012).
A 2017 report on the Economics of Forest Restoration highlighted the economic benefits of restoration investments, including job creation, ecotourism stimulation, sustainable production, improved quality of life, and property appreciation. One wetlands restoration project, which invested US$475,000 in 546 hectares, created five direct jobs, contributed over US$210,000 to the local economy and generated an economic output exceeding US$600,000. This resulted in an efficiency rate of approximately 10.5 jobs per US$1 million invested, demonstrating the strong economic impact of ecosystem restoration (Benini & Adeodato 2017).
The financial valuation attributed to programs to encourage biodiversity conservation is crucial, especially given the possibility that current economic models are not adequately considering the negative externalities of environmental degradation. If these externalities are not properly internalized, they could negatively impact society, especially the most vulnerable layers, intensifying social inequalities and compromising long-term economic and social development (Benini & Adeodato 2017, TEEB 2010).
While this research makes a significant contribution to integrating biodiversity conservation into economic valuation, certain limitations must be considered. For instance, the accuracy of environmental modeling and valuation is constrained by the availability and quality of environmental data, which may either under- or overrepresent the contributions of site-specific biodiversity functions. Additionally, economic valuation may oversimplify complex ecological interactions, potentially overlooking non-market values such as sociocultural and intrinsic benefits of biodiversity. Finally, the study provides a snapshot of ecosystem service valuation at a given moment, without accounting for future land-use changes or climate variability, which could influence ecosystem service dynamics over time.
Among the key challenges to improve methodological procedures, developing a more dynamic model that accounts for temporal changes in land use and climate scenarios would yield more accurate long-term results. Additionally, strengthening stakeholder engagement is essential to ensuring that conservation incentives are effective and aligned with local socioeconomic realities. Future research should explore innovative financing mechanisms, such as biodiversity credits, to enhance conservation incentives.
In terms of innovation, this study integrates habitat quality — using Habitat Quality INVEST model as a proxy for biodiversity representation within a landscape — into economic valuation. The underlying premise is that areas with higher habitat quality tend to support greater biodiversity and thus hold higher economic value, whereas degraded areas contribute less. This approach enhances the accuracy of the final valuation, ensuring it more realistically reflects ecological conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
In response to the challenges associated with biodiversity loss and the limited integration of conservation status into economic assessments, this study aimed to value key aspects of biodiversity within the São Francisco Xavier Environmental Protection Area (EPA-SFX) by explicitly incorporating ecosystem conservation as a core component of the valuation process. By integrating habitat quality as a weighting factor in the economic valuation equation, this approach moved beyond conventional assessments that treat ecosystem services independently of conservation status.
The results demonstrate that incorporating conservation as an explicit variable yields a more realistic and policy-relevant estimate of biodiversity value, reflecting both its intrinsic ecological importance and its tangible economic contributions. Conservation status was assessed through spatial modeling that accounted for habitat conditions, degradation pressures, and local ecological characteristics, enabling a spatially explicit representation of biodiversity value across the landscape.
The analysis of ecosystem services related to biodiversity: natural regeneration, carbon removal, and water provision, EPA-SFX demonstrated the significant contribution of these services to the territory. However, current financial incentive programs for conservation have a low payment value compared to the tangible benefits offered by biodiversity and its ecosystem functions. This disparity requires reconsidering valuation and financial incentive models for biodiversity conservation.
Analyzing financial programs for local conservation highlights the need to reassess resource allocation for biodiversity, including payments for environmental services. It is essential to implement equitable compensation mechanisms and sustainable business models that integrate conservation into land use practices. Emphasizing the long-term economic benefits of conservation can encourage landowners to prioritize biodiversity over alternative land uses.
Ultimately, this approach aims to prioritize and assign higher value to areas that most effectively support ecosystem functions, thereby strengthening conservation efforts. By incorporating conservation into economic valuation, the proposed methodology not only recognizes the direct and indirect benefits of preserved ecosystems but also advocates for strategies that prioritize ecological integrity. In this way, the study is expected to contribute to more effective and sustainable natural resource management by fostering greater awareness of the value of biodiversity and the necessity of its protection.
By improving financial valuation and incentives, it aims to ensure the long-term well-being of both the environment and the communities dependent on it.
References
-
AGUILAR AF, MONTEIRO JMG, NEHREN U, ROBLEDO MA & ALFONSO SP. 2013. Avaliação da viabilidade de implantação do mecanismo REDD+ no município de Cachoeiras de Macacu, RJ. Boletim de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento 231. Rio de Janeiro: Embrapa Solos, 44 p. Available at: https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/149153/1/BPD-231-Mecanismo-REDD.pdf
» https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/149153/1/BPD-231-Mecanismo-REDD.pdf -
ALATORRE JE, CABALLERO K, FERRER J & GALINDO LM. 2019. El costo social del carbono: una visión agregada desde América Latina. Santiago: CEPAL. Available at: https://repositorio.cepal.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/471ab218-0a3a-475a-bedd-097ec0b58b30/content
» https://repositorio.cepal.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/471ab218-0a3a-475a-bedd-097ec0b58b30/content -
ALMEIDA TS, TROVARELLI P & MASSI KG. 2023. Relationship between Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs and Disasters in Southeast Atlantic Forest region, Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc 95: e20220256. DOI: 10.1590/0001-3765202320220256.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202320220256 -
ANA – AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE ÁGUAS E SANEAMENTO BÁSICO. 2023. Sistemas ANA. Available at: https://www.gov.br/ana/pt-br/assuntos/aplicativos-sistemas/
» https://www.gov.br/ana/pt-br/assuntos/aplicativos-sistemas/ -
BANCO CENTRAL DO BRASIL. 2024. Calculadora do cidadão. Available at: https://www3.bcb.gov.br/CALCIDADAO/publico/corrigirPorIndice.do?method=corrigirPorIndice
» https://www3.bcb.gov.br/CALCIDADAO/publico/corrigirPorIndice.do?method=corrigirPorIndice -
BARTKOWSKI B, LIENHOOP N & HANSJÜRGENS B. 2015. Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity. Ecol Econ 113: 1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.023.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.023 -
BENINI RM & ADEODATO S. 2017. Economia da restauração florestal. São Paulo: The Nature Conservancy, 136 p. Available at: https://www.nature.org/media/brasil/economia-da-restauracao-florestal-brasil.pdf
» https://www.nature.org/media/brasil/economia-da-restauracao-florestal-brasil.pdf -
BRANCALION PHS, MELI P, TYMUS JRC, LENTI FEB, BENINI RM, SILVA APM, ISERNHAGEN I & HOLL KD. 2019. What makes ecosystem restoration expensive? A systematic cost assessment of projects in Brazil. Biol Conserv 240: 108274. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108274.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108274 -
CBD – CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 2. Montreal, 88 p. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/gbo/gbo2/cbd-gbo2-po.pdf
» https://www.cbd.int/doc/gbo/gbo2/cbd-gbo2-po.pdf -
CEPEA – CENTRO DE ESTUDOS AVANÇADOS EM ECONOMIA APLICADA. 2024. Indicador da soja. Available at: https://cepea.esalq.usp.br/br/indicador/soja.aspx
» https://cepea.esalq.usp.br/br/indicador/soja.aspx -
CHIARETTI D. 2021. Déficit na Mata Atlântica recai sobre grandes imóveis. Observatório Florestal. Available at: https://observatorioflorestal.org.br/deficit-na-mata-atlantica-recai-sobre-grandes-imoveis/?doing_wp_cron=1700439712.9286270141601562500000&_sf_s=déficit.
» https://observatorioflorestal.org.br/deficit-na-mata-atlantica-recai-sobre-grandes-imoveis/?doing_wp_cron=1700439712.9286270141601562500000&_sf_s=déficit -
CNCFLORA – CENTRO NACIONAL DE CONSERVAÇÃO DA FLORA. 2012. Euterpe edulis in Lista Vermelha da flora brasileira. Available at: http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Euterpeedulis
» http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Euterpeedulis -
COPPETEC – FUNDAÇÃO COORDENAÇÃO DE PROJETOS PESQUISAS E ESTUDOS TECNOLÓGICOS. 2007. Plano de Recursos Hídricos da Bacia do Rio Paraíba do Sul. Edited by Associação Pró-Gestão das Águas da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Paraíba do Sul -AGEVAP. Resende - RJ. Available at: https://www.ceivap.org.br/downloads/PSR-RE-009-R1.pdf
» https://www.ceivap.org.br/downloads/PSR-RE-009-R1.pdf - COSTANZA R. 2014. Foreword: The importance of valuing ecosystem services. In: De Groot R & Braat L (Eds), Valuing Ecosystem Services: Concepts, Methods and Case Studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. DOI: 10.4337/9781781955161.00008.
-
COSTANZA R ET AL. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260. DOI: 10.1038/387253a0.
» https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 -
COSTANZA R, DE GROOT R, SUTTON P, VAN DER PLOEG S, ANDERSON SJ, KUBISZEWSKI I, FARBER S & TURNER RK. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 26: 152-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 -
CROUZEILLES R ET AL. 2019. There is hope for achieving ambitious Atlantic Forest restoration commitments. Perspect Ecol Conserv 17(2): 80-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecon.2019.04.003.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.04.003 -
CULOT L, BELLO C, BATISTA JLF, DO COUTO HTZ & GALETTI M. 2017. Synergistic effects of seed disperser and predator loss on recruitment success and long-term consequences for carbon stocks in tropical rainforests. Sci Rep 7(7662): 1-8. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08222-4.
» https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08222-4 - DALY HE & FARLEY J. 2004. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. Washington: Island Press, 454 p.
-
ECCON. 2022. Metodologia PSA CarbonFlor. Available at: https://www.reservasvotorantim.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Metodologia-PSA-Carbonflor.pdf
» https://www.reservasvotorantim.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Metodologia-PSA-Carbonflor.pdf -
EVERS CR, WARDROPPER CB, BRANOFF B, GRANEK EF, HIRSCH SL, LINK TE, OLIVERO-LORA S & WILSON C. 2018. The ecosystem services and biodiversity of novel ecosystems: A literature review. Glob Ecol Conserv 13: e00362. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.e00362.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.e00362 -
FARIA VG ET AL. 2021. O Código Florestal na Mata Atlântica. Piracicaba, SP: Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Universidade de São Paulo, 44 p. Available at: https://acervo.socioambiental.org/sites/default/files/documents/prov0401.pdf
» https://acervo.socioambiental.org/sites/default/files/documents/prov0401.pdf -
FGVCES. 2019. Diretrizes empresariais para valoração de serviços ecossistêmicos. Available at: http://mediadrawer.gvces.com.br/publicacoes-2/original/devese3_pt.pdf
» http://mediadrawer.gvces.com.br/publicacoes-2/original/devese3_pt.pdf - FINATEC – FUNDAÇÃO DE EMPREENDIMENTOS CIENTÍFICOS E TECNOLÓGICOS. 2018. Projeto recuperação e proteção dos serviços relacionados ao clima e à biodiversidade no corredor sudeste da Mata Atlântica do Brasil (Projeto Conexão Mata Atlântica): edital de seleção pública PSA n° 003/2018. Brasília, DF.
-
FIORE FA, BARDINI VS & CABRAL PCP. 2020. Institutional arrangements for implementation of a municipal payment program for water environmental services: case study of Sao José dos Campos (SP). Eng Sanit Ambient 25(2): 303-313. DOI: 10.1590/s1413-41522020193011.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-41522020193011 -
FUNDAÇÃO FLORESTAL. 2018. APA São Francisco Xavier. Available at: https://www.infraestruturameioambiente.sp.gov.br/fundacaoflorestal/
» https://www.infraestruturameioambiente.sp.gov.br/fundacaoflorestal/ -
FUNDAÇÃO SOS MATA ATLÂNTICA & INPE. 2021. Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atlântica: período 2019/2020. São Paulo: Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica, 73 p. Available at: https://cms.sosma.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SOSMA_Atlas-da-Mata-Atlantica_2019-2020.pdf
» https://cms.sosma.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SOSMA_Atlas-da-Mata-Atlantica_2019-2020.pdf - GALETTI M. 2023. A jacutinga e as mudanças climáticas. In: Um naturalista no Antropoceno: Um biólogo em busca do selvagem [online]. São Paulo: Editora UNESP, p. 83-87. ISBN: 978-65-5714-454-1. DOI: 10.7476/9786557144541.0007.
- HENRIQUE R & TONIOLO MA. 2021. Territorial Planning and Sustainable Development: A Case Study from the APA São Francisco Xavier-SP. Ambient Soc 24. DOI: 10.1590/1809-4422asoc20200041r1vu2021L5AO.
-
IBAT – INTEGRATED BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT TOOL. 2022. Available at: www.ibat-alliance.org
» www.ibat-alliance.org -
ICMBIO – INSTITUTO CHICO MENDES DE CONSERVAÇÃO DA BIODIVERSIDADE. 2018. Plano de Manejo da APA da Serra da Mantiqueira. Brasília, 371 p. Available at: https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/unidade-de-conservacao/unidades-de-biomas/mata-atlantica/lista-de-ucs/apa-da-serra-da-mantiqueira/arquivos/plano_de_manejo_serra_da_mantiqueira_2018.pdf
» https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/unidade-de-conservacao/unidades-de-biomas/mata-atlantica/lista-de-ucs/apa-da-serra-da-mantiqueira/arquivos/plano_de_manejo_serra_da_mantiqueira_2018.pdf - IPBES – INTERGOVERNMENTAL SCIENCE-POLICY PLATFORM ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES. 2022. Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature. In: Balvanera P, Pascual U, Christie M, Baptiste B & González-Jiménez D (Eds), Bonn: IPBES Secretariat. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6522522.
- IPCC – INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. 2022. Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781009325844.
- JOLY CA ET AL. 2019. 1° Diagnóstico Brasileiro de Biodiversidade & Serviços Ecossistêmicos. São Carlos: Editora Cubo, 178 p. DOI: 10.4322/978-85-60064-88-5.
-
KLEIN L & MEDAGLIA T. 2022. Fogo e desmatamento. Rainforest Journalism Fund (RJF) e Pulitzer Center. Available at: https://cortinadefumaca.ambiental.media/
» https://cortinadefumaca.ambiental.media/ - LANDIS JR & KOCH GG. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159-174.
-
MACEDO F. 2015. O Caminho da valoração. P22ON - Serviços Ecossistêmicos, October, p. 2. Available at: https://www.p22on.com.br/2015/10/02/o-caminho-da-valoracao/
» https://www.p22on.com.br/2015/10/02/o-caminho-da-valoracao/ -
MATOS FAR ET AL. 2020. Secondary forest fragments offer important carbon and biodiversity cobenefits. Glob Change Biol 26: 509-522. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14824.
» https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14824 -
MAURE LA, DINIZ MF, COELHO MTP, MOLIN PG, SILVA FR & HASUI E. 2023. Biodiversity and carbon conservation under the ecosystem stability of tropical forests. J Environ Manag 345: 118929. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118929.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118929 -
MCTIC – MINISTÉRIO DA CIÊNCIA, TECNOLOGIA E INOVAÇÃO. 2016. Conexão Mata Atlântica. Available at: https://conexaomataatlantica.mctic.gov.br/cma/portal/
» https://conexaomataatlantica.mctic.gov.br/cma/portal/ -
MMA – MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE. 2006. Mosaicos do corredor da Serra do Mar e Mosaico de UCS Serra da Mantiqueira. Available at: https://www.rbma.org.br/programas/docs_programas/mosaicos_corredores_ecologicos/01_05_07.pdf
» https://www.rbma.org.br/programas/docs_programas/mosaicos_corredores_ecologicos/01_05_07.pdf -
MMA – MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE. 2017. Planaveg: Plano Nacional de Recuperação da Vegetação Nativa. Edited by Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Ministério da Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento, and Ministério da Educação. Brasília - DF. Available at: https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade-e-biomas/biomas-e-ecossistemas/conservacao-1/politica-nacional-de-recuperacao-da-vegetacao-nativa/planaveg_plano_nacional_recuperacao_vegetacao_nativa.pdf
» https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade-e-biomas/biomas-e-ecossistemas/conservacao-1/politica-nacional-de-recuperacao-da-vegetacao-nativa/planaveg_plano_nacional_recuperacao_vegetacao_nativa.pdf -
MMA – MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE. 2023. Sistema de Cadastro Ambiental Rural (SICAR), v3.0.0. Available at: https://www.car.gov.br/publico/imoveis/index
» https://www.car.gov.br/publico/imoveis/index -
MO L ET AL. 2023. Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential. Nature 624: 92-101. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06723-z.
» https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06723-z -
NEMEC KT & RAUDSEPP-HEARNE C. 2013. The use of geographic information systems to map and assess ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv 22: 1-15. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-012-0406-z.
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0406-z -
OLIVEIRA OMG & CUNHA RDA. 2007. O SIG como ferramenta de análise da paisagem: o caso do mangue no bairro de São Domingos em Ilhéus-BA. Paisag Ambient 24: 39-48. DOI: 10.11606/issn.2359-5361.v0i24p39-48.
» https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2359-5361.v0i24p39-48 -
PAVANI BF, RIBEIRO TCL, GONCALVES DA, SOUSA JUNIOR WC, GIAROLLA A & ARRAUT EM. 2020. Payments for ecosystem services to water resources protection in Paraíba do Sul Environmental Protection Area. Ambient Soc 23: e01341. DOI: 10.1590/1809-4422asoc20190134r1vu2020L2DE.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20190134r1vu2020L2DE -
PMSJC – PREFEITURA MUNICIPAL DE SÃO JOSÉ DOS CAMPOS. 2017a. Diagnóstico síntese – Plano Diretor. São José dos Campos. Available at: https://www.sjc.sp.gov.br/media/2hqcjibh/22_sintese_diagnostico_tecnico.pdf
» https://www.sjc.sp.gov.br/media/2hqcjibh/22_sintese_diagnostico_tecnico.pdf -
PMSJC – PREFEITURA MUNICIPAL DE SÃO JOSÉ DOS CAMPOS. 2017b. Leitura técnica do município para revisão do Plano Diretor, volume 3: São Francisco Xavier. São José dos Campos, p. 131–188. Available at: http://planodiretor.sjc.sp.gov.br/resources/uploads/EstudoTecnico/Anexo/PD_VOLUME_3_C1.pdf
» http://planodiretor.sjc.sp.gov.br/resources/uploads/EstudoTecnico/Anexo/PD_VOLUME_3_C1.pdf -
PMSJC – PREFEITURA MUNICIPAL DE SÃO JOSÉ DOS CAMPOS. 2019. Secretaria de Urbanismo e Sustentabilidade – Unidades de conservação. Available at: https://www.sjc.sp.gov.br/servicos/urbanismo-e-sustentabilidade/unidades-de-conservacao/
» https://www.sjc.sp.gov.br/servicos/urbanismo-e-sustentabilidade/unidades-de-conservacao/ -
PMSJC – PREFEITURA MUNICIPAL DE SÃO JOSÉ DOS CAMPOS. 2024. Serviços ambientais. Available at: https://www.sjc.sp.gov.br/servicos/urbanismo-e-sustentabilidade/servicos-ambientais/
» https://www.sjc.sp.gov.br/servicos/urbanismo-e-sustentabilidade/servicos-ambientais/ -
POLASKY S, JOHNSON K, KEELER B, KOVACS K, NELSON E, PENNINGTON D, PLANTINGA AJ & WITHEY J. 2012. Are investments to promote biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services aligned? Oxf Rev Econ Policy 28: 139-163. DOI: 10.1093/oxrep/grs011.
» https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grs011 -
POORTER L ET AL. 2016. Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests. Nature 530: 211-214. DOI: 10.1038/nature16512.
» https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16512 -
RONQUIM CC, SILVA RFB, FIGUEIREDO EB, BORDONAL RO, TEIXEIRA AHC, COCHASRK TCD & LEIVAS JF. 2016. Carbon sequestration associated to land-use and land-cover changes in the forestry sector in Southern Brazil. Remote Sens Agric Ecosyst Hydrol 9998: 99981T. DOI: 10.1117/12.2242094.
» https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2242094 -
SABESP – COMPANHIA DE SANEAMENTO BÁSICO DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO. 2023. Tarifas de água e esgoto. Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo, 7 Apr 2023. Available at: https://www.sabesp.com.br/servicos/para-voce
» https://www.sabesp.com.br/servicos/para-voce - SHARP R ET AL. 2018. InVEST User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project: Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32693.78567.
-
SILVA RFB, BATISTELLA M, MORAN EF & LU D. 2017. Land changes fostering Atlantic Forest transition in Brazil: Evidence from the Paraíba Valley. Prof Geogr 69: 80-93. DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2016.1178151.
» https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2016.1178151 - SIMÕES GS, SOUSA JUNIOR WC, SINISGALLI PA, ARRAUT EM, ASSING ACB, GUIDOLINI JF & SOUZAH PA. 2024. Assessing habitat quality: Landscape analysis approach in Brazil Environmental Protection Area utilizing InVEST habitat quality model and local stakeholders’ perception. SSRN Electron J. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4854207.
-
STANFORD UNIVERSITY. 2016. Natural Capital Project, InVEST. Available at: https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest
» https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest -
TEEB – THE ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY. 2010. TEEB para formuladores de políticas locais e regionais. Available at: https://teebweb.org/publications/teeb/
» https://teebweb.org/publications/teeb/ -
THE VALUE OF BIODIVERSITY IS NOT THE SAME AS ITS PRICE. 2019. Nature 573(7775): 463-464. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02882-0.
» https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02882-0 -
TROUWLOON D, STRECK C, CHAGAS T & MARTINUS G. 2023. Understanding the use of carbon credits by companies: A review of the defining elements of corporate climate claims. Glob Chall 7: 2200158. DOI: 10.1002/gch2.202200158.
» https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.202200158 - VALENTE OF & GOMES MA. 2015. Conservação de nascentes: hidrologia e manejo de bacias hidrográficas de cabeceiras. Viçosa: Aprenda Fácil.
-
VERLY OM ET AL. 2023. Atlantic forest woody carbon stock estimation for different successional stages using Sentinel-2 data. Ecol Indic 146: 109870. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109870.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109870 -
VILLANOVA PH, TORRES CMME, JACOVINE LAG, SOARES CPB, SILVA LF, SCHETTINI BLS & ROCHA SJSS. 2019. Carbon stock growth in a secondary Atlantic Forest. Rev Árvore 43(4): e430402. DOI: 10.1590/1806-90882019000400002.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-90882019000400002 -
WEF – WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. 2023. The Global Risks Report 2023. Geneva. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/reports/globalrisks-report-2023/
» https://www.weforum.org/reports/globalrisks-report-2023/ -
WUDU K, ABEGAZ A, AYELE L & YBABE M. 2023. The impacts of climate change on biodiversity loss and its remedial measures using nature based conservation approach: a global perspective. Biodivers Conserv 32: 3681-3701. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-023-02656-1.
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02656-1 -
XIE ZX, ZHANG B, SHI YT, ZHANG XY & SUN ZX. 2023. Changes and protections of urban habitat quality in Shanghai of China. Sci Rep 13: 1-13. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-32247-7.
» https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32247-7 -
ZANINI AM, MAYRINCK RC, VIEIRA SA, CAMARGO PB & RODRIGUES RR. 2021. The effect of ecological restoration methods on carbon stocks in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. For Ecol Manage 481: 118734. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118734.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118734 -
ZHANG X, LIAO L, HUANG Y, FANG Q, LAN S & CHI M. 2023. Conservation outcome assessment of Wuyishan protected areas based on InVEST and propensity score matching. Glob Ecol Conserv 45: e02516. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02516.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02516
Edited by
-
Handling editor
Mirco Solé
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
