Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 49–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

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

Opportunity cost of a private reserve of natural heritage, Cerrado biome – T

Brazil
Maycon Jorge Ulisses Saraiva Farinhaa, Luciana Virginia Mario Bernardob,
Adelsom Soares Filhoa, André Geraldo Berezuka, Luciana Ferreira da Silvac,
Clandio Favarini Ruviaroa,
⁎

a
Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados – UFGD, Brazil
b
Universidade do Oeste do Paraná – Unioeste, Brazil
c
Universidade Estadual de Mato Grosso do Sul – UEMS, Brazil

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Brazil is widely recognized as a world leader in agricultural production. In order to achieve this status, several
Conservation units agricultural frontiers were sculpted throughout the decades. This was associated to land use change, mainly the
Land use substitution of natural vegetation for agricultural crops such as soybean and corn. On the other hand, con-
Environmental assessment servation units were included in the national Brazilian proposal to conserve biodiversity and natural resources.
Net primary productivity
Among these is the Private Natural Heritage Reserve (RPPN), which refers to private property. In this case, the
Net benefit of conservation
establishment of a conservation unit depends on landowner’s decision making. This may be favoured because the
Brazilian legislation allows economic activities (low-impact) to be developed in the RPPN. In this sense, this
research was triggered to calculate the opportunity cost of an RPPN compared to the production of soybean and
corn. The methodology was designed to define the net benefit of conservation based on the opportunity cost to
create the RPPN. To estimate costs and revenues of agricultural production, we used secondary data. Carbon
sequestration was estimated from the use of geotechnologies and parametrized equations. As a conclusion, if
payments for a set of ecosystem services are accounted for, the estimated monetary values may be higher than
the ones addressed to agricultural production.

1. Introduction
In Brazil, conservation units are distributed in integral protection
and sustainable use areas. Those classified as sustainable use stand out
in number of units and size of the total area (Ministry of the
Environment, 2018). These are divided into 7 categories (i- environ-
mental protection area, ii- relevant ecological interest area, iii- national
forest, iv- extractive reserve, v- reserve of fauna, vi- sustainable de-
velopment reserve, vi. natural heritage) intended for the development
of socioeconomic activities by the resident community in the area
(Ministry of the Environment, 2012).
Conservation units are territorial portions chosen for biodiversity
conservation and beauty scenic, and can be created by public or private
agents, Moreover, they are protected areas that provide ecosystem
goods and services to the population living close to them (Brasil, 2000).
In the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, such services were classified
into four categories: Provision Services (supply of products such as
drinking water, wood and medicinal plants) is considered the first
category; following there are Regulatory Services (in this category,
there are climate regulation, carbon sequestration, pollination, among
other positive natural factors), Cultural Services (cultural heritage, re-
ligious values and education) and Support Services (soil formation,
cycle of nutrients and primary production) (Scherl et al., 2006).
A Private Reserve of Natural Heritage (PRNH) is one of the cate-
gories of conservation areas provided for by the Brazilian legislation. It
is commonly characterized by biodiversity and by scenic beauty. Its
differential, in relation to other categories, lies in its attributes of pri-
vate property. Thus, it is the only category that depends on the land-
owner decision to be created, the others are created exclusively by
governmental decision (Brasil, 2000). Due to this characteristic, we
decided to choose this kind of conservation unit, considering that in
conserving the area and making it as official RPPN, the owner chooses
not to exploit it as agricultural area, in this way, the decision is pre-
sented as a opportunity cost.
Furthermore, PRNH it is characterized as perpetual, that is, when
the owner allocates a fraction or all of his area for the conservation of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: clandioruviaro@ufgd.edu.br (C.F. Ruviaro).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.028
Received 19 May 2018; Received in revised form 18 August 2018; Accepted 18 August 2018
Available online 29 October 2018
0264-8377/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.J.U. Saraiva Farinha et al.
the natural aspects, even if the property is sold or inherited, it will
remain as a PRNH. In the case of PRNHs, the management plan pro-
vides detailed information about the area. Included in this plan and in
the term of commitment of this conservation unit, there are, for ex-
ample, activities that could be developed according to the national
legislation. The use of PRNHs should be related to scientific research
and visitation aiming sustainable tourism practices and environmental
education (Brasil, 2000).
The commercialization of this environmental service may con-
tribute to the payment of costs related to the maintenance of areas and
to reduce deforestation by generating income for the local community.
In these cases, however, there is a dependence on prices paid in the
market. In the case of PRNHs, carbon credit may be an additional in-
come for landowners because their area can be used for ecotourism.
Thus, carbon trading is a factor that may contribute to the creation of
new PRNHs, if it is considered a profitable investment. In addition,
there is an exemption from rural land tax payment on the area (Brasil,
2000).
The Cerrado biome is a savannah considered as one of the richest in
the world because it is made up of different renewable natural resources
(Schiassi et al., 2018). However, the biome lost more than 50% of its
native vegetation cover, with the expansion of the agricultural frontier
in the 20th century (Myers et al., 2000; Klink and Machado, 2005). In
the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, the Cerrado biome is predominant in
61% of the area, to which the estimated loss of vegetation in 2014
exceeded 70% of the vegetation of this biome (Soares-Filho et al.,
2014).
It happens, however, that Mato Grosso do Sul has agriculture as one
of its main economic activities. In this way, the decision on how to use
land is related to concurrent activities. In 2014, temporary plantations
of soybean and corn occupied 3,753,936 ha of land of Mato Grosso do
Sul. Corn production totaled 8251.12 t, and the average yield was
5172 kg per hectare. Soybeans totaled 6,339,386 t produced, with an
average yield of 2938 kilos per hectare (IBGE, 2015).
Part of this production is carried out in the Cerrado biome.
Agricultural expansion in this biome has changed its biodiversity. These
changes may have irreversible consequences in the future: the biome
may cease to exist. In order to prevent this, conservation units may help
to reduce this process of deterioration of the Cerrado biome. Such units
may not only promote the preservation of environmental character-
istics, but also, in the case of PRNHs, provide economical results that
allow an autonomous maintenance of each unit (Strassburg et al.,
2017).
In this way, the question that was posed for this study was: Are the
economic incentives offered to the owners of PRNHs in Mato Grosso do Sul
equivalent to the amount earned by the production of soybeans and corn in
the region where the unit is located? The objective of this research is to
calculate the opportunity cost of a PRNH compared to the production of
soybean and corn. The hypothesis of the study is that economic in-
centives offered to PRNHs are greater than the financial return obtained
from the production of soybean and corn.
2. Materials and methods
The research seeks to identify the creation of RPPN opportunity cost
in the Cerrado biome in relation to soybean and corn production. The
option for these agricultural crops is due to the frequency with which
they are cultivated in different Brazilian states and in Mato Grosso do
Sul. The BL-consevation equation of Norton-Griffiths and Southey
(1993) was used. Tourism revenues estimates were disregarded in the
survey due to the lack of information as well as the collect primary data
from the RPPN administration that denied the information access.
The RPPN evaluated is located in the municipality of Jardim. This
area was chosen as part of the Bonito / Serra da Bodoquena tourist
region. This region is characterized by practices of nature tourism in the
state of Mato Grosso do Sul, where part of it is carried out in
50
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 49–57
conservation areas, characterizing itself as sustainable tourism. From
the National Register of Conservation Units, the location of this unit in
the tourist region was identified.
The limitation of data available for estimating net primary pro-
ductivity due to global solar radiation is observed. By limiting in-
formation, the available data were used for periods of 12 months, from
September 2016 to August 2017 and June 2017 to May 2018.
2.1. Characterization of the study area
The municipality of Jardim is located in the state of Mato Grosso do
Sul, at its Southwest Mesoregion. The PRNH is located 30 km from the
city of Jardim, at 21°26′21.93″ S and 56°26′17.57″ W. The Management
Plan of the unit was prepared in 2007 and indicates that the unit is
formed by the Cerrado and Pantanal biomes. It has an area of
307.53 ha, which represents 21.5% of the total area of the property. In
the PRNH, tourist activities such as trails, free diving, cavalcade and
bird watching are developed. Fig. 1 shows the location of the study area
in Mato Grosso do Sul:
2.2. Delimitation of the area for agricultural data collection
The area considered for the study of economic activity (agricultural
production) is the one with a possible availability for soybean and corn
planting, excluding the Legal Reserve and Permanent Preservation
Areas (PPA). In Brazil, all rural properties must allocate these areas for
the preservation of water and vegetable resources. Water resource areas
related to the Prata River and its tributaries, such as the case of the
PRNH studied, are provided for by the State Law no. 1871/1998, which
states that, in these cases, water resources need special protection bands
fixed at 150 m on each side (Mato Grosso do Sul, 2008). Regarding the
PPA area, inside the PRNH, the northern boundary of the unit is the
Prata River, with an extension of approximately 3330 m (Manço de and
Pivatto, 2007). The Olho d'Água River, a tributary of the Prata River,
has a length of approximately 1450 m (Coelho et al., 2011). Con-
sidering that the PRNH area has 307.53 ha (ha), minus the 20% of the
Legal Reserve, the size of the area is 246.03 ha. The PPA will be de-
termined according to Chart 1:
The Olho d'Água River is contained inside the PRNH; thus, it is
necessary to consider its two margins to identify the value of MPA.
Unlike the Prata River, which is the northern limit, only one of its
borders is considered. In addition, the possible agricultural production
can be performed in 152.6 ha (Chart 2).
2.3. Calculation of opportunity cost
The opportunity cost was calculated by the following Eq. (1)
(Norton-Griffiths and Southey, 1993):
NPconsevation = (direct NPuse + indirect NPuse + NPnon-use) − OP-
conservation (1)
Where:
NPconservation: net profit of conservation; Direct use: carbon
credit; Indirect use: protection of the biome’s characteristics (soil and
water preservation); Non-use: value of existence (value disregarded in
this research due to the impossibility of calculation);
OPconservation: opportunity cost of the preserved area. In this
study, the values of indirect use were identified from ecosystem en-
vironmental services per hectare for the Cerrado biome (Costanza et al.,
1997; Medeiros, 1995; Santos et al., 2000).
For the dollar exchange rate against the real currency, the annual
average of 2017 was used for both periods analyzed, this being the most
recent annual average, in which US$ 1 equals R$ 3.20 (Table 2):
By substituting, in Eq. (1), the value identified for environmental
services, we have Eq. (2), in m2:
M.J.U. Saraiva Farinha et al.
Fig. 1. Location of the study area in Mato Grosso do Sul.
NPconservation = (direct NPuse + 188,823.42) − Occonservation
(2)
The equation in bold will be used in the article, however with area
converted into hectares. In order to identify the value of
OCconservation, Eq. (3) should be used, considering the production of
soybean and corn:
OCconservation = Total Revenues − Total Costs (3)
For the identification of the values of revenue and total costs, the
information for soybean Richetti (2016a) and Richetti and Garcia
(2017) and for Richetti corn (2016b; 2017) were used for the costs and
quantity produced of these crops. The average price of soybeans to
Brazil for the 2016/2017 harvest is US$ 19.7 (Conab, 2017a) and 2017/
2018 is US$ 19.1 (Famasul, 2017). The average price of the corn bag for
51
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 49–57
the Central-South Region of Brazil for the 2017 harvest is US$ 10.00
(Conab, 2017a) and 2018 US $ 9.4 (Famasul, 2018). From this quantity
of sacks per hectare, production costs and revenues were identified for
the size of the area pertaining to the conservation unit.
2.4. Estimation of carbon sequestration or net primary productivity
In order to collect direct NPuse information, this benefit refers to
the1 carbon credit. For this, information about carbon sequestration
was collected from net primary productivity. The materials used in this
study were Sentinel-2A satellite images, scenes T21KWS, obtained on
1
The revenues and costs of sustainable tourism were disregarded due to
unavailability of information.
M.J.U. Saraiva Farinha et al.
Chart 1. PPA of the Prata River and the Olho d'água River.
March 15, 2017. The option for the Sentinel-2A, MSI sensor (Multi-
spectral Instrument), was based on the spatial and spectral resolution of
this sensor. The MSI has 13 spectral bands, ranging from the visible
band, i.e., from near infrared to short wave infrared, from 443 to
2202 nm (nm), with spatial resolutions of four bands of 10 m, six bands
of 20 and three bands of 60 m, respectively. The radiometric resolution
is 12 bits, with the image acquired in intervals of 0 to 4095 potential
values of light intensity.
The four scenes of the MSI, with spatial resolution of 10 m, were
preprocessed using the FLAASH® (Fast Line-of-Sight Atmospheric Analysis
of Spectral Hypercubes) algorithm of the software ENVI, aiming to cor-
rect scattering and absorption of atmospheric components from the
parameters obtained directly from the scenes. The scenes were cor-
rected in its atmosphere, transforming the radiance data into re-
flectance. Such transformations may highlight information not very
visible in the original images, or may preserve information content (for
a given application) with a reduced number of transformed bands
(Ponzoni and Shimabukuro, 2009).
For the delimitation of the area of the Conservation Unit, we used
the colored composition of bands 8, located in the near infrared
(835.1 nm), bands 4 (664.5 nm) and 2 (496.6 nm), visible, all with a
spatial resolution of 10 m. In order to explore the spectral properties of
the vegetation, in the spectral bands of the visible and near infrared,
different vegetation indexes have been suggested in the literature. The
net primary productivity is related to the vegetation index (Goward
et al., 1985). In this case, the option for the index was the Normalized
Chart 2. Ecosystem services by hectares - closed biome.
52
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 49–57
Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) (Rouse et al., 1973) (4).
NDVI = (R8 − R4)/(R8 + R4) (4)
R8: reflectance in band 8 of Sentinel 2A;
R4: reflectance in band 4 of Sentinel 2A.
The bands 8 (near infrared) and 4 (visible) of the Sentinel 2A sa-
tellite were used for the elaboration of the NDVI with the application of
a mask on the scenes aiming to eliminate external interferences and to
extract spectral information only from the area of the conservation unit.
As it is a conservation unit created in the late 1990s, with native ve-
getation preserved (Manço de and Pivatto, 2007), the value of NDVI
was considered constant from September 2016 to August 2017. This
period was chosen due to the availability of information on global solar
radiation, information obtained from the meteorological station of the
municipality of Jardim.
For the estimation of net primary productivity, photosynthetically
active radiation (PAR) was considered to be linearly related to this
productivity (Monteith, 1977). In addition, PAR is the proportion of
global solar radiation available for the photosynthesis process in rela-
tion to which the net primary productivity can be estimated from the
Photosynthetically Active Absorbed Radiation (PAAR) (Nascimento
et al., 2009) (5).
NPP = ε × Σ PAAR (5)
NPP = net primary productivity;
ε = efficiency factor of the use of light;
M.J.U. Saraiva Farinha et al.
PAAR = Photosynthetically Active Absorbed Radiation.
PAAR is identified from the relation (6).
PAAR = fPAAR × IPAR (6)
PAAR = Photosynthetically Active Absorbed Radiation;
fPAAR = fraction of the photosynthetically active absorbed radiation;
IPAR = incident photosynthetically active radiation.
The IPAR value was identified considering that it is 50% of global
solar radiation (Ferreira, 2006; Szeicz, 1974). The solar radiation was
extracted monthly for the period previously identified from the me-
teorological station of the municipality of Jardim, state of Mato Grosso
do Sul (Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia and Instituto Nacional de
Meteorologia, 2017). The fraction of the photosynthetically active ab-
sorbed radiation (fPAAR) estimates the energy absorption capacity of
the plant canopy (McCallum et al., 2010). For the estimation of its
value, we used the parametric model on Ruimy et al. (1994), which
took into consideration atmospheric corrections in the definition of its
parameterized Eq. (7).
fPAAR = −0.025 + 1.25 × NDVI (7)
The light efficiency factor eε had its estimated value from the NDVI
and, thus, can be classified into three classes (Chart 3) (Sobrino and
Raissouni, 2000).
Values for PAAR, fPAAR and IPAR were estimated in milijoules per
square meter per day (MJ/m2 day), ε was estimated in gram per square
Fig. 2. Classification of the PRNH Area based on the NDVI.
53
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 49–57
Chart 3. Classes of ε, according to NDVI.
meter per day (g/m2/day) and productivity is expressed in tons per year
(t/year).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Estimation of carbon sequestration and commercialization
The area was classified into three classes based on its NDVI. Thus, it
was possible to identify how many hectares of the conservation unit
refer to each class (Fig. 2). The largest area corresponds to a NDVI
greater than 0.5. The higher the value of NDVI, the greater the vege-
tation density of the study area (Lima et al., 2017; Sartori et al., 2009).
It is understood that NDVI is an index that tends to linear proportion-
ality (Almeida et al., 2012). It is observed that from the NDVI it is
possible to map the photosynthetically active vegetation of the study
area. In this way, the index allows to estimate the biomass of the ve-
getation and to relate it to the carbon stock (Coltri et al., 2009), con-
sidering that the NDVI is related to the structural characteristics of the
vegetation (Rouse et al., 1973; Meneses and Almeida, 2011; Galvão
et al., 2016). In addition, it is observed that the NDVI, characterizes the
vegetation from its sanitary state and productivity (Baptista, 2006).
The net primary productivity of the area can be found in Table 1,
with mean NDVI (2016/2017) of 0.59 and mean NDVI (2018) of 0.55.
Thus, from the methods used, we obtained that the estimate of net
primary productivity or carbon sequestration of the study area is 3.0 t
M.J.U. Saraiva Farinha et al. Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 49–57

Table 1
Net primary productivity of the area.
Months (2016/2017) Global Solar Radiation - MJ/m² IPAR (50% of global solar radiation) fPAAR (−0.025 + 1.25 × NDVI) PAAR (fPAAR × IPAR)

September 0,000872 0,000436 0,7125 0,000311

October 0,000908 0,000454 0,7125 0,000324
November 0,000905 0,000453 0,7125 0,000323
December 0,000943 0,000472 0,7125 0,000336
January 0,001019 0,000510 0,7125 0,000363
February 0,001063 0,000532 0,7125 0,000379
March 0,000970 0,000485 0,7125 0,000346
April 0,000691 0,000346 0,7125 0,000246
May 0,000586 0,000293 0,7125 0,000209
June 0,000639 0,000319 0,7125 0,000228
July 0,000783 0,000392 0,7125 0,000279
August 0,000675 0,000338 0,7125 0,000240
∑APAR 0,003582
ε= 0,985
PPL g/m²/day (ε * ∑APAR) 0,003529
Area (m²) 2.470.800,00
PPL area/m²/day 8718,5
PPL year 3182250,0
2017/2018 PPL (ton/year) 3,2
June 0,000639 0,000319 0,7125 0,000228
July 0,000783 0,000392 0,7125 0,000279
August 0,000675 0,000338 0,7125 0,000240
September 0,00091104 0,00045552 0.6625 0,000301782
October 0,000860524 0,000430262 0.6625 0,000285048
November 0,000925469 0,000462734 0.6625 0,000306561
December 0,000986731 0,000493365 0.6625 0,000326855
January 0,001032836 0,000516418 0.6625 0,000342127
February 0,001312034 0,000656017 0.6625 0,000434611
March 0,001505202 0,000752601 0.6625 0,000498598
April 0,000991686 0,000495843 0.6625 0,000328496
May 0,000770936 0,000385468 0.6625 0,000255373
∑APAR 0,003826431
ε= 0,985
PPL g/m²/day (ε * ∑APAR) 0,003769034
Area (m²) 2.470.800,00
PPL area/m²/day 9312,5
PPL Year 3399073,5
PPL (ton/year) 3,4
PPL1 + PPL2= 3,2 + 3,4 ∼ 6,5

per year. The primary productivity of the vegetation should be con-
sidered as representing the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed in the
photosynthesis process. In this process the plants use solar energy,
carbon dioxide and water to produce organic compounds (Gonsamo
and Chen, 2017).
The net primary productivity represents the absorption of the
carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere, which is converted into
biomass (Zhao and Running, 2009). This productivity is an essential
component related to the carbon flux of terrestrial ecosystems (Ito,
2011). In addition, net primary productivity offers ecosystem services
important for human survival (Ardö, 2015). Net primary productivity
determines the capacity of the land in relation to the supported load of
inhabitants. From this productivity, there are regulations regarding the
climate and the water cycle (Gonsamo and Chen, 2017).
In addition, the reduction of net primary productivity can influence
food security, since carbon sinks can be reduced (Zhao and Running,
2009). Also, from this reduction, global warming may increase (Zhao
and Running, 2009). In this context, the climatic changes related to this
warming, can result in negative impacts on the survival of plant species
(Niu et al., 2014; Orsenigo et al., 2014; Attorre et al., 2018).
3.2. Income and costs of agricultural production of soybeans and corn
Regarding the costs of soybean and corn production, the informa-
tion available in Fig. 3 was considered.
The inputs have the largest participation in the composition of the
costs of soy production (45.9%). Among these inputs, fertilizers have
the highest percentage of participation (17.6%). The cost to be paid
with the revenues originating from the harvest of the period will de-
pend on the climatic conditions during the productive period (Roessing
and Meneghelo, 2001). The productive increase of soybean is related to
the dependence of good cultivation practices and climatic character-
istics for productive success (Hasan et al., 2015).
The importance for Brazil in relation to the production of soybeans
refers to the economic factor (Espíndola and Cunha, 2015). In addition,
soybean production assists in corn productivity planted in a dystrophic
Latosol with natural nitrogen (Mascarenhas et al., 1978; Gallo et al.,
1981). Regarding corn production, costs were estimated from the fol-
lowing information (Fig. 3). The input factor is again considered the
group with the highest share in corn production costs (45.5%), with
fertilizers being the largest component (21.50%).
Brazil is considered the third largest corn producer in the world
(FAO, 2012), but production costs help to determine its productivity
due to management, soil fertility and pest control (Fancelli and
Dourado Neto, 2003). Moreover, this production influences other
supply chains due to the use of the product as an input for food pro-
duction (Cruz et al., 2011). Thus, reductions in production may nega-
tively affect other productions. There is a need to improve the way by
which agricultural products are disposed of. Marketing could be fa-
cilitated if there were investments in logistics. For corn, specifically,
exports could be higher if there were international product certifica-
tions (Oliveira, 2014).
Relating costs and the average selling price of soybeans and corn to
the study area, it is possible to identify the costs and revenues related to
the possible agricultural production in the area (Table 2).
Table 2 gathers information on income and costs of soybean and

54
M.J.U. Saraiva Farinha et al. Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 49–57

Fig. 3. Production costs of soybean and corn.

Table 2
Estimate of costs and agricultural revenues in the area in the 2016/2017 and 2017/12018 crop.
Production cost – 2016/2017
Production type Cost per ha−1 Area Costs US$
(US$)
Soybeans 850.18 152.6 129,737.5
Corn 699.50 106,743.5
Production cost – 2017/2018
Soybeans 910.80 152.6 138,988.00
Corn 688.30 105,034.50
Quantity average produced in the area
Production type Bags per ha−1 Area Total produced
(bags)
Soybeans 60 152.6 9,156
Corn 88 13,428
Revenues – 2016/2017
Production type Total produced Bag average price Revenues (US$)
(bags) (US$)
Soybeans 9,156 19.7 180,373.00
Corn 13,428 10.0 134,280.00
Revenues – 2017/2018
Soybeans 9,156 19.1 174,879.50
Corn 13,428 9.4 126,223.00
Production type Revenues (US$) Costs US$ Total
Soybeans (2016/ 180,373.00 (129,737.5) 50,635.50
2017)
Corn 134,280.00 (106,743.5) 27,536.50
Soybeans (2017/ 174,879.50 (138,988.00) 35,891.50
2018)
Corn 126,223.00 (105,034.50) 21,188.50
Total 135,252.00

corn production for the study area. Thus, the OCconservation was US$
135,252.00, considering that there could be two crops in the period of
the research in the area. In both years of production, positive results
were obtained when the total costs for both crops were deducted from
total revenues. Corn and soybeans tend to increase production over the
years Conab (2017b), but climate change may make this productive
increase difficult, especially if there is water shortage. Thus, there is a
need to take care of natural resources so that the production of agri-
businesses is maintained and, if possible, expanded (Vivan et al., 2015).
3.3. Result of Npconservation
The Eq. (2) was used to identify the result of the NPconservation:
NPconservation = (direct NPuse + 188,823.42) − OCconservation
Thus, direct NPuse, composed of the estimated carbon sequestration
of 6.5 multiplied by the value of the ton of trading on the stock ex-
change referring to November 10, 2017, US$ 7.40, results in US$ 48.10.
NPconservation = (48.10 + 188,823.42) − 135,252.00
This results in a conservation of US$ 53,619.52, which is a positive
value, meaning that conservation of private areas may bring greater
monetary results to owners if ecosystem services are paid. In addition,
such values can be even higher if the values corresponding to the

55
M.J.U. Saraiva Farinha et al.
tourism that can be made in these areas and the value of NPnon-use
were considered.
The importance of ecosystem services valuation in the Cerrado
biome is highlighted. Attributing value to these activities can contribute
to human perception about the importance of environmental con-
servation. It is believed that the acquisition of knowledge regarding
ecosystem services has been rapid, since the earliest research con-
ducted, for example, by Ehrlich and Mooney (1983) and Daily (1997).
In analyzing ecosystem services, the costs and benefits of land man-
agement can be identified, and these can influence how it is used
(Johnson et al., 2012).
Considering that humanity depends on a healthy environment and
with natural resources available for use (Costanza, Daly, 1992), the
evaluation of ecosystem services can help in the elaboration of public
policies that value environmental conservation, from economic in-
centives to private partnerships agents that target their areas for this
purpose (Johnson et al., 2012).
However, landowners usually have economic returns only on pro-
ducts that are marketable, such as food and energy source. Not being
remunerated to produce collective goods, such as the ecosystem ser-
vices performed on their property (Pennington et al., 2017). In the case
of Brazil, the use of the concept of ecosystem services is considered
recent, covering a period of 15 years, mainly when related to national
environmental laws (Altman and Stanton, 2018). This indicator may
represent the need for improvement and inclusion of ecosystem services
in public actions for environmental valuation.
4. Conclusion
Brazil has collaborated with global food through the export of food
to different parts of the world. Throughout its history, it has experi-
enced different moments of food import, of supply of its necessities and
of production of surpluses of foods, obtained by the expansion of
agricultural borders. This expansion occurred in different periods of the
country's history. It is marked by the insertion of technologies for
agricultural cultivation, changes in environmental characteristics, de-
forestation, changes in land use and loss of biodiversity. The native
vegetation is replaced by an agricultural crop that can be commercia-
lized internally or externally. It is justified by the need to feed an ex-
panding global population and by economic issues. However, when
native vegetation is replaced by agricultural activities, the result is the
gradual loss of ecosystem products and services in the different regions
of the country. Thus, the change in the use of soil and the use of natural
resources for production are part of its development.
On the other hand, there are institutional measures used to ensure
that there is environmental preservation and conservation in rural
properties. An example is the current Brazilian Forestry Code, which
determines that rural producers should mark areas within the rural
property to conserve or preserve the characteristics of the biome into
which the property is inserted. Thus, through the intervention of the
State, the objective is to reduce the environmental impacts that occur
during the agricultural production in the country in order to achieve a
sustainable agriculture. In addition, the country invests in the creation
of conservation units based on the needs identified by public and pri-
vate agents. In this case, in relation to private agents, investments must
result in monetary return in the shortest time possible. Upon creating a
PRNH, the landowner is making an investment and needs to be re-
warded for such an action, considering that producing food is important
as well as conserving areas for the continuity of different ecosystem
products and services in each biome of the country (Amazon, Caatinga,
Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, Pantanal and Pampa).
The research results pointed out that investments in PRNHs may
bring monetary results more significant than the production of soybean
and corn in Mato Grosso do Sul. It should be noted that the creation of
RPPNs requires technical studies and public consultation. Its creation
depends on factors other than the owner's desire to conserve
56
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 49–57
biodiversity. Among these, is the checklist presented in Decree n. 5. 746
of 2006, as well as the technical opinion indicating the implications
regarding the creation of the conservation unit. In this way, it is not all
areas that can become an RPPN.
In this way, not all areas can become an RPPN. Therefore, even if
there is an indication that there is competition in land use, in relation to
food production and conservation, it is necessary to observe the lim-
itation in the process of creating RPPNs. Furthermore, conservation
areas may not occupy the entire property. This means that conservation
and food production can coexist in a private area, and conservation can
benefit this production by creating a microclimate in the area and its
surroundings.
Besides, the remuneration for ecosystem products and services is
still limited. Expansion and perpetuation of this action are needed. The
result identifies the need to expand economic incentive measures for
the creation of conservation units in view of the environmental benefits
related to them. For this, it is necessary that there is an interest of the
State in expanding the environmental conservation and awareness of
the national population on this matter. The research limitation refers to
the lack of information on the results of profits with ecotourism. On the
other hand, the estimates made allow understanding that by protecting
areas, Brazil is assisting in the continuity of the ecosystem services of its
biomes. Moreover, when they are valued, they justify economically the
need to create public policies to reward those who destine their areas to
environmental protection. Future studies may indicate how the loss of
biodiversity in Mato Grosso do Sul influences food production.
References
Almeida, T., Baptista, G.M.M., Brites, R.S., Meneses, P.R., Rosa, A.N.C.S., Sano, E.E.,
Souza, E.B., 2012. Introdução ao Processamento de Imagens de Sensoriamento
Remoto. UnB, Brasília.
Altman, A., Stanton, M.S., 2018. The densification normative of the ecosystem services
concept in Brazil: analyses from legislation and jurisprudence. Ecosyst. Serv. 29,
282–293.
Ardö, J., 2015. Comparison between remote sensing and a dynamic vegetation model for
estimating terrestrial primary production of Africa. Carbon Bal. Manag. 10 article 8.
Attorre, F., Abeli, T., Bacchetta, G., Farcomeni, A., et al., 2018. How to include the impact
of climate change in the extinction risk assessment of policy plant species? J. Nat.
Conserv. 2018.
Baptista, G.M.M., 2006. Sensoriamento Remoto Hiperespectral: o novo paradigma nos
estudos de solos tropicais. Brasília: Universa.
Brasil, 2000. Lei n° 9.985/2000 - Regulamenta o art. 225, § 1°, incisos I, II, III e VII da
Constituição Federal, institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da
Natureza e dá outras providências. Available in: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_
03/LEIS/L9985.htm. Access in: dez. 2016.
Coelho, L.S., Urt, M.C.M., Duleba, S., Lemos, V.B., 2011. Turismo em unidades de
conservação: resultados do plano de manejo para RPPN Fazenda Cabeceira do Prata –
Jardim/MS. Tourism Karst Areas 4 (2).
Coltri, P.P., Ramirez, G.M., Walter, M.K.C., Junior, J.Z., Pinto, H.S., Nascimento, C.R.,
Gonçalves, R.R.V., 2009. Utilização de índices de Vegetação para Estimativas não
Destrutivas da Biomassa, Estoque e Sequestro de Carbono no Cafeeiro Arábica. XIV
Simpósio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto. Natal. pp. 121–128.
CONAB-Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento, 2017a. Proposta de Preços Mínimos –
safra 2016/2017. Conab, Brasília, pp. 1–208 2(2).
CONAB-Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento, 2017b. Acompanhamento da safra bra-
sileira de grãos 4. pp. 1–200.
Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv.
Biol. 6, 37–46.
Costanza, R., D’arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O’neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., Van Den Belt, M., 1997.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387,
253–260.
Cruz, J.C., Filho, I.A.P., Pimentel, M.A.G., Coelho, A.M., Karam, D., Cruz, I., Garcia, J.C.,
Moreira, J.A.A., Oliveira, M.F., Gontijo Neto, M.M., Albuquerque, P.E.P., Viana, P.A.,
Mendes, S.M., Costa, R.V., Alvarenga, R.C., Matrangolo, W.J.R., 2011. Produção de
milho na agricultura familiar. Embrapa Milho e Sorgo, Sete Lagoas, MG, pp. 1–45.
Daily, G. (Ed.), 1997. Nature’s Services. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1–375.
Ehrlich, P.R., Mooney, H.A., 1983. Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services.
BioScience 33, 248–254.
Espíndola, C.J., Cunha, R.C.C., 2015. A dinâmica geoeconômica recente da cadeia pro-
dutiva de soja no Brasil e no Mundo. Geotextos 11 (1), 217–238.
Famasul, 2017. Acompanhamento de safra – soja 2017/2018. Circular 231/2017. pp.
1–16.
Famasul, 2018. Acompanhamento de safra – Circular 256/2018 – Milho 2017/2018. pp.
1–12.
Fancelli, A.L., Dourado Neto, D., 2003. Milho: estratégias de manejo para alta
M.J.U. Saraiva Farinha et al.
produtividade. ESALQ/USP/LPV, Piracicaba, SP.
FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization, 2012. Production: Crops. (Accessed January
2017). www.faostat.fao.org.
Ferreira, W.P.M., 2006. Radiação Solar em Sete Lagoas – MG. Embrapa, Sete Lagoas, pp.
1–21.
Gallo, P.B., Lavorenti, A., Sawazaki, E., Hiroce, R., Mascarenhas, H.A.A., 1981. Efeito de
cultivos anteriores de soja na produção e no teor de nitrogênio das folhas e dos grãos
de milho. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 5 (1), 64–67.
Galvão, L.S., Epiphanio, J.C.N., Breunig, F.M., Formaggio, A.R., 2016. Crop type dis-
crimination using hyperspectral data (org.) In: Lyon, J.G., Thenkabail, P.S. (Eds.),
Hyperspectral Remote Sensing of Vegetation. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Gonsamo, A., Chen, J.M., 2017. Vegetation primary productivity. Reference Module in
Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences.
Goward, S.N., Tucker, C.J., Dye, D.G., 1985. North American vegetation patterns ob-
served with the NOAA-7 advanced very high resolution radiometer. Plant Ecol. 64
(1), 3–14.
Hasan, N., Suryani, E., Hendrawan, R., 2015. Analysis of soybean production and demand
to develop strategic policy of food self sufficiency: a system dynamics framework.
Procedia Comput. Sci. 72, 605–612.
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Estados@: Mato Grosso do Sul.
2015. Available in: < http://www.ibge.gov.br/estadosat/perfil.php?sigla=ms > .
(Accessed September 2016).
Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia, Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia, 2017. Estações e
dados. (Accessed September 2017). http://www.inmet.gov.br/portal/.
Ito, A., 2011. Historical meta-analysis of global terrestrial net primary productivity: are
estimates converging? Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3161–3175.
Johnson, K.A., Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Pennington, D., 2012. Uncertainty in ecosystem
services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: an agricultural
case study in the Minnesota river basin. Ecol. Econ. 79, 71–79.
Klink, C.A., Machado, R.B., 2005. Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserv. Biol. 19
(3), 707–713.
Lima, F.J.O., Lopes, F.B., Andrade, E.M., Faria, C.C., Barbosa, A.S.T., 2017. Uso do sen-
soriamento remoto no monitoramento de plantas aquáticas. Conexões Ciência e
Tecnologia 11 (1), 49–56.
Manço, D. de G., Pivatto, M.A.C., 2007. Diagnóstico e plano de manejo RPPN Fazenda
Cabeceira do Prata, Jardim/MS. Available in: http://www.imasul.ms.gov.br/wp-
content/uploads/sites/74/2015/06/3-planodemanejorppncabeceiradoprata.pdf.
Access in: set. 2016.
Mascarenhas, H.A.A., Hirole, R., Braga, N.R., Miranda, M.A.C., Bulisani, E.A., Pommer,
C.V., Sawazaki, E., Gallo, P.B., Pereira, J.C.V.N.A., 1978. Efeito do nitrogênio re-
sidual de soja na produção do milho. pp. 1–16.
Mato Grosso do Sul, 2008. Lei n° 1.871/2008 - Estabelece a forma de conservação da
natureza, proteção do meio ambiente e defesa das margens nas áreas contíguas aos
Rios da Prata e Formoso, e dá outras providências. file:///C:/Users/Maycon/
Downloads/ LEI%20N%C2%BA%201871%20Faixa%20de%20Prote
%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20especial%20do%20rio%20Formoso%20e%20Prata.pdf.
(Accessed November 2016). .
McCallum, I., Wagner, W., Schmullius, C., Shvidenko, A., Obersteiner, M., Fritz, S.,
Nilsson, S., 2010. Comparison of four global FAPAR datasets over Northern Eurasia
for the year 2000. Remote Sens. Environ. 114 (5), 941–949.
Medeiros, J.X., 1995. Aspectos econômicos-ecológicos da produção e utilização do carvão
vegetal na siderurgia brasileira (org.) In: May, Peter.H. (Ed.), Economia ecológica:
aplicações no Brasil, pp. 83–114.
Meneses, P.R., Almeida, T., 2011. Introdução ao Processamento de Imagens de
Sensoriamento Remoto (Org). UNB e CNPQ, Brasília.
Ministry of the Environment, 2012. SNUC – Sistema Nacional de Unidades de
Conservação da Natureza e PNAP- Plano Estratégico Nacional de Áreas Protegidas.
MMA/SBF, Brasília.
Ministry of the Environment, 2018. Dados Consolidados – Unidades de Conservação.
Available in: http://www.mma.gov.br/areas-protegidas/cadastro-nacional-de-ucs/
dados-consolidados.html. Access in: Jun. 2018.
Monteith, J.L., 1977. Climate and efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philos. Trans.
R. Soc. London B (281), 277–294.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A., Kent, J., 2000.
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403 (6772), 853–858.
Nascimento, R.S., Brito, J.I.B., Braga, C.C., 2009. Estimativa da Produtividade Primária
57
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 49–57
usando dados de IVDN para o Estado da Paraíba. Anais XIV Simpósio Brasileiro de
Sensoriamento Remoto 5321–5327.
Niu, S., Luo, Y., Li, D., Cao, S., Xia, J., Li, J., et al., 2014. Plant growth and mortality under
climatic extremes: an overview. Environ. Exp. Bot. 98, 13–19.
Norton-Griffiths, M., Southey, C., 1993. The Opportunity Costs of Biodiversity
Conservation: a Case Stufy of Kenya. CSERGE GEC. Centre for Social and Economic
Research on the Global Environment, London, pp. 1–49.
Oliveira, A.L.R., 2014. A logística do agronegócio: para além do apagão logístico (Orgs.)
In: Buainain, A.M., Alves, E.J., Silveira, M.F.J., Navarro, Z. (Eds.), O mundo rural no
Brasil do século 21: a formação de um novo padrão agrário e agrícola. Embrapa,
Brasília, pp. 337–370.
Orsenigo, S., Mondoni, A., Rossi, G., Abeli, T., 2014. Some like it hot and some like it cold,
but not too much: plant responses to climate extremes. Plant Ecol. 215, 677–688.
Pennington, D.N., Dalzell, B., Nelson, E., Mulla, D., Taff, S., Hawthorne, P., Polasky, S.,
2017. Cost-effective land use planning: optimizing land use and land management
patterns to maximize social benefits. Ecol. Econ. 139, 75–90.
Ponzoni, F.J., Shimabukuro, Y.E., 2009. In: Silva, A. (Ed.), Sensoriamento remoto no
estudo da vegetação. São José dos Campos, SP.
Richetti, A., 2016a. Viabilidade econômica da cultura da soja na safra 2016/2017, em
Mato Grosso do Sul. Comunicado Técnico. Embrapa, pp. 1–5.
Richetti, A., 2016b. Viabilidade econômica do milho safrinha, para Mato Grosso do Sul,
em 2017. Comunicado Técnico. Embrapa, pp. 1–10.
Richetti, A., 2017. Viabilidade econômica do milho safrinha, para Mato Grosso do Sul, em
2018. Comunicado Técnico. Embrapa, pp. 1–6.
Roessing, A.C., Meneghelo, D.G., 2001. Tecnologias de produção da soja – Região Central
do Brasil – 2001/2002. Embrapa Soja, Londrina, PR, pp. 1–267.
Rouse, J.W., Haas, R.H., Schell, J.A., Deering, D.W., 1973. Monitoring vegetation systems
in the great plains with ERTS. Proceeding of ERTS-1, 3. pp. 309–317.
Ruimy, A., Saugier, B., Dedieu, G., 1994. Methodology for the estimation of terrestrial net
primary production from remotely sensed data. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 5263–5283.
Santos, J.E., Nogueira, F., Pires, J.S.R., Obara, A.T., Pires, A., MZCR, 2000. Funções
Ambientais e Valores dos Ecossistemas Naturais Estudo de Caso: Estação Ecológica de
Jataí v.1 São Paulo, Rima Editora.
Sartori, A.A.C., Silva, R.F.B., Pianucci, M.N., Zimback, C.R.L., 2009. Influência do período
de estiagem no Índice de Vegetação (NDVI), no município de Botucatu-SP. Simpósio
Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto, 14. (SBSR), Natal – RN. INPE, Anais, São José
dos Campos, pp. 4363–4369.
Scherl, L.M., Wilson, A., Wild, R., Blockhus, J., Franks, P., McNeely, J.A., McShane, T.O.,
2006. As áreas protegidas podem contribuir para a redução da pobreza?
Oportunidades e limitações. Gland/Suíça e Cambridge/Reino Unido: IUCN (União
Mundial para a Natureza), pp. 1–60.
Schiassi, M.C.E.V., Rios de Souza, V., Lago, A.M.T., Campos, L.G., Queiroz, F., 2018.
Fruits from the Brazilian Cerrado region: Physico-chemical characterization, bioac-
tive compounds, antioxidant activities, and sensory evaluation. Food Chem. 245,
305–311.
Soares-Filho, R., Macedo, M., Carneiro, A., Costa, W., Coe, M., Hermann, R., Alencar, A.,
2014. Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science 344 (6182), 363–364.
Sobrino, J.A., Raissouni, N., 2000. Toward remote sensing methods for land cover dy-
namic monitoring: application to Marocco. Int. J. Remote Sens. 21, 353–363.
Strassburg, B.B.N., Brooks, T., Feltran-Barbieri, R., Iribarrem, A., Crouzeilles, R., Loyola,
R., Latawiec, A.E., Oliveira Filho, F.J.B., Scaramuzza, C.A.M., Scarano, F.R., Soares
Filho, B., Balmford, A., 2017. Moment of truth for the Cerrado hotspot. Nat. Ecol.
Evol. 1–3.
Szeicz, G., 1974. Solar radiation for plant growth. J. Appl. Ecol. 11, 617–636.
Vivan, G.A., Robaina, A.D., Peiter, M.X., Parizi, A.R.C., Barboza, F.S., Soares, F.C., 2015.
Rendimento e rentabilidade das culturas da soja, milho e feijão cultivados sob
condição de sequeiro. Semina: Ciências Agrárias 36 (5), 2943–2950.
Zhao, M., Running, S.W., 2009. Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net pri-
mary production from 2000 through 2009. Science 329, 940–943.
Further reading
Richetti, A., Garcia, R.A., Viabilidade econômica da cultura da soja na safra 2017/2018,
em Mato Grosso do Sul. Comunicado Técnico. Embrapa, (2018) 1–5.