Ecosystem Services 50 (2021) 101340

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Full Length Article

Cultural ecosystem services: Linking landscape and social attributes to

ecotourism in protected areas
Raphael Ocelli Pinheiro a, *, Ludwig Triest a, Priscila F.M. Lopes b
a
Biology Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussels (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, B1050 - Brussels, Belgium
b
Ecology Department, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), R. das Biociências, 59078970 - Natal, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Assessment of cultural ecosystem services (CES) and the negative impacts humans can have on them can provide
Marine Protected Areas essential information toward conservation and management strategies. Globally, tourism and recreational CES
Brazil are among the most relevant economic and social activities, with ecotourism in particular growing rapidly in
Participatory mapping
places with high cultural heritage and high biodiversity, such as many protected areas. This study used a
Public Participation Geographic Information
combination of GIS-based methods and interviews in a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in Brazil called Extractive
System
Reserve Acaú-Goiana to investigate whether its users (i.e., visitors and local residents) prefer some CES over
others and whether recreational coastal activities can be affected by different factors and human-caused
stressors, such as ’scariness’, ’unpleasantness’, and ’noisiness’. All assessed CES were identified by re­
spondents to be provided in the MPA. ‘Aesthetic values’ and ‘social relations’ were the most commonly identified
CES, whereas ‘scariness’ and ‘unpleasantness’ were the main stressors. Respondents also showed a preference for
specific areas within the MPA, such as beaches and mangroves. Relying on users to identify hotspots themselves,
in addition to assessing the ecotourism potential of recreational coastal activities, can support the development of
innovative public strategies targeting not only tourists, but also local communities.

1. Introduction Identifying these interactions among diverse ecosystem services is

Over the last decades, the way societies perceive ecosystems, spe­
cifically the services, functions, and goods they provide, have been
rapidly changing (Mace, 2014) as the social and cultural aspects of
ecosystems have become increasingly recognized (MEA, 2005; Kumar
and Kumar, 2008; La Notte et al., 2017). These Cultural Ecosystem
Services (CES), as they are called, are often defined as the non-material
benefits obtained from ecosystems and are classified into ten main
subcategories: recreation and tourism, aesthetics, spiritual values, edu­
cation, inspirational values, cultural diversity, knowledge systems, sense
of place and identity, social relations, and cultural heritage values (MEA,
2005). Often, a single environment can provide a “bundle” of multiple
CES from different subcategories, such as a park that provides both
aesthetic and recreational values (Raudsepp-Hearnea et al., 2010).
Moreover, ecosystem service bundles can also include services from
diverse categories. For example, in some traditional communities
certain animal and plant species may both provide food and have
ethical, political, or spiritual value, i.e., a bundle of both provisioning
and cultural ecosystem services, respectively (Freitas et al. 2020).
essential to understanding the tradeoffs (when an increase in the pro­
vision of a given service occurs at the expense of a decrease in the
provision of another) and synergies (when multiple services are
enhanced simultaneously) (De Groot et al., 2010; Raudsepp-Hearnea
et al., 2010).
Given that ecosystem properties are highly dynamic and multifunc­
tional, they require management strategies that assure some protection
to the integrity of their services, functions, and goods (Chan et al.,
2012). One widely used strategy to protect ecosystems and the services
they provide is to establish Protected Areas (PAs). Worldwide, the
number of PAs with rich biodiversity and historical and cultural heritage
is enormous. However, despite their global prevalence, both the areas
they cover and the degrees of protection they ensure to nature are far
from sufficient (CBD, 2018). Moreover, there are many conflicts sur­
rounding existing PAs, often because they limit human access to tradi­
tionally used ES, including many CES (Lopes et al., 2017). On the other
hand, CES can be particularly relevant when it comes to promoting
conservation initiatives and development of PAs, especially PAs that
permit access and sustainable use by local communities, such as those

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: raphael.ocellipinheiro@unito.it, raphaeloce@hotmail.com (R. Ocelli Pinheiro), ltriest@vub.be (L. Triest), priscila.lopes@ufrn.br (P.F.M. Lopes).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101340
Received 8 December 2020; Received in revised form 28 June 2021; Accepted 1 July 2021
Available online 26 July 2021
2212-0416/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R. Ocelli Pinheiro et al.
classified under category VI of the IUCN (De Vos et al., 2016).
Although most PAs under category VI of the IUCN are located in
the global south (Joppa et al., 2008), the majority of CES assessments
to date, both within and outside PAs, have been carried out in the
north, for example in Europe (Jobstvogt et al., 2014). Marine and
coastal CES assessments are particularly underrepresented every­
where. In Brazil, for example, a country with a coast that occupies
most of the Southwest Atlantic, there was no assessment on marine
and coastal CES until 2017 (Rodrigues et al., 2017), despite multiple
studies demonstrating the relevance of the coast to define culturally
and provide for local communities (Begossi, 1999; Ramires et al.,
2018; Osawa et al., 2020).
There are multiple categories of PAs in Brazil that permit sustain­
able uses, among which are Extractive Reserves (RESEX), a type of
protected area with many successful initiatives (Campos-Silva and
Peres, 2016). In RESEXs, traditional and indigenous communities are
permitted to carry out sustainable extractive activities for their sub­
sistence and to maintain their livelihoods. They are also characterized
by a co-management system that typically involves the government,
environmental agencies, and the local population in the decision-
making process (Di Ciommo, 2007; Fadigas and Garcia, 2012). The
sociocultural attachment of these populations to their environment is
often ancestral, i.e., the result of traditional customs and practices
developed and reproduced over generations. In many indigenous and
traditional communities, the level of connection these groups have
with their local ecosystems is so strong that CES are essential elements
of socio-cultural values and survival (Voora et al., 2008; Brown et al.,
2011; Freitas et al., 2020).
Ecotourism, a specific type of CES, has been widely promoted as a
strategy to support economic development and conservation in many
countries, including Brazil (Mourão, 2001). Additionally, ecotourism
has often been promoted as an economic alternative for communities
living either in or close to PAs, as it can potentially be reconciled
with the cultural and social values of the locality (Kiper, 2013). The
economic potential of ecotourism is enormous, as it accounts for 20%
of all international travel, with a growth rate ranging between
10–30% annually (Brockington et al., 2012; Vincent and Thompson,
2012). Moreover, for 38% of all countries in the world, cultural and
nature-based tourism are the main source of income (WTTC, 2017).
The degree to which the revenues generated from ecotourism remain
with local communities remains contentious (Coria and Calfucura,
2012), but the benefits in terms of job creation are clear. In 2016
alone, Brazilian PAs received 17 million visitors and employed be­
tween 77–133 thousand people (Young and Medeiros, 2018). If there
were to be a 20% increase in visitation (i.e., an extra 3.4 million
annual visitors) it could potentially lead to the creation of 15–42
thousand new jobs. Such job creation would not only provide new
income opportunities to both locals and the institutions that manage
these areas, but also promote the development of new skills and an
improvement to local livelihoods, which are often marked by poverty
(Kohler and Brondizio, 2016).
Nevertheless, ecotourism can also cause stress and have negative
impacts on PAs by disturbing wildlife and ecological processes, and by
causing habitat fragmentation and pollution as a result of infrastructural
development in pristine areas. Moreover, ecotourism can also reinforce
stereotypes about local populations (e.g., reinforcing the view that locals
always live a simple life in harmony with nature) (Weaver, 2006;
2
Ecosystem Services 50 (2021) 101340
Brockington et al., 2012; Kohler and Brondizio, 2016). Although poverty
and social marginalization are commonplace in many communities that
live inside PAs, they tend to be hidden from the environmental narra­
tives sold to tourists (Penna-Firme and Brondízio, 2017). In fact, many of
these communities have scarce access to land, which is often used in a
limited way (Penna-Firme and Brondízio, 2017). There is an expectation
that these communities maintain their traditional ways of life when it
comes to how they use their land, and this can contribute to promoting
the acceptance of the questionable idea of “poverty in paradise” (Fisher
and Christopher, 2007). Finally, ecotourism development in peripheral
regions can also have negative impacts on human health and well-being,
especially when associated with factors such as budgetary deficits,
community opposition, and lack of basic local infrastructure (Blackman
et al., 2005).
Since PAs that enable sustainable use can both provide numerous
CES and be subject to multiple human-caused stressors, including
those related to ecotourism, this study mapped user’ perceptions
of CES and the negative impacts of users and ecotourism in PAs.
Specifically, through a combination of surveying and mapping this
study aimed to: (i) discuss the extent of user relationships with certain
CES and their stressors, and how these CES are related with land-use,
health, and well-being; (ii) understand how stressors and other
compromising factors undermine certain CES and, subsequently,
ecosystems within Marine Protected Areas (MPAs); and (iii) report the
benefits of CES and why they should be taken into account when
assessing the effectiveness of PAs. The latter also serves the interdis­
ciplinary purpose of mapping both recreational hotspots and the
actions to be followed in developing sustainable ecotourism, when
there is potential for it. Additionally, this study provides a holistic
view of ES and their contributions to the health, well-being, and
economy of local groups living in PAs. It is hoped that the results
presented here can contribute toward the development of public
policies overseeing the sustainable use and maintenance of marine
and coastal CES.
2. Materials & methods
2.1. Study area
The Acaú-Goiana RESEX is a Marine Protected Area located in Bra­
zil’s Northeast region (Fig. 1). It was created in September 2007 and
covers a total of 6678 hectares, of which 65.8% is Atlantic forest and the
remaining 34.2% are coastal and marine zones (ICMBio, 2017). It also
incorporates two rivers, the Goiana and Megaó, and their estuarine
areas, as well as mangroves and sand vegetation (restingas) ecosystems.
These ecosystems have been known to protect inland communities from
the damage caused by coastal erosion and storms, in addition to
providing both a source and sink of nutrients and sediments and habitats
for several terrestrial, estuarine and marine species in the area, such as
fish, crustaceans, manatees, sea turtles, estuarine dolphins (Sotalia
guianensis), and multiple predatory birds (Kathiresan and Bingham,
2001; Dahdouh-Guebas et al., 2005; UCSocioambiental, 2017). The
Acaú-Goiana RESEX is known for its sunny weather year-round, and this
attracts a flow of tourists to its beaches, especially in the summer.
Although specific figures for this MPA are not available, 42.7% of all
domestic and foreign tourists in Brazil (about 30 million per year) visit
the country’s northeastern coast (EMBRATUR, 2016).
R. Ocelli Pinheiro et al.
Fig. 1. The RESEX Acaú-Goiana (protected area defined by the translucent borders) with the location of the four sites where the interviews took place (Acaú, Carne
de Vaca, Congaçari, and São Lourenço).
Around 1500 families live in the Acaú-Goiana RESEX in one of six
municipalities: Carne de Vaca, São Lourenço, Tejucupapo and Baldo do
Rio Goiana in the state of Pernambuco, and Caaporã and Acaú in the
state of Paraíba. The local communities are poor, and their livelihoods
are based entirely on what they extract, especially through traditional
fishing practices (fish, shellfish, lobster, crab, etc). These activities are
carried out by both men and women. These practices have created a
strong bond with the land, especially for the large number of women
who work as shellfish collectors and perform important management
and conservation roles (Fadigas and Garcia, 2012). After gleaning, some
of the shellfish is consumed by local households and the rest is sold to
outside buyers for a very small price.
In addition to the traditional fishing villages located inside the
RESEX studied, there are also two Maroon or Quilombola communities:
Povoação Quilombola de São Lourenço and Heroínas de Tejucupapo. Qui­
lombola communities are settlements that were initially formed by
runaway slaves in the 19th century. Today, they are formed by the de­
scendants of these slaves and are characterized by self-identification,
deriving from their black ancestry, ethnic characteristics, unique his­
torical trajectory, cultural practices, and ties to the land (Castro et al.,
2006). Their fight for territorial rights and sustainability issues contrasts
with romanticized ideas of environmental and ecotourism identities,
which do not always reflect true local conditions and expectations
(Castro et al., 2006; Kohler and Brondizio, 2016). The Heroínas de
Tejucupapo (Tejucupapo’s heroins) community, specifically, is a symbol
of empowerment and resistance. The community name is an homage to a
group of women who were responsible for protecting the region and
fighting against a Dutch invasion in the 17th century (Silva and Lage,
2017). Both Quilombola settlements and the fishing villages in the RESEX
struggle to maintain their cultural and historical heritage with the in­
come earned from tourism. Local economic opportunities are limited
and this has led to an outflow of residents, especially young people, who
move to larger cities to study or work. Moreover, the local youth are
often uninterested in continuing the traditional extractive practices due
to the socioeconomic vulnerability in which families live (Fadigas and
Garcia, 2012). The youth are also not very engaged economically when
it comes to the income-generating recreational activities that take place
in the area, such as boat trips and sightseeing tours around the man­
groves, estuary, coral reefs, and beaches.
The degree of social vulnerability is also reflected in the lack of local
infrastructure. Most houses have no sewage system and wastewater is
channeled directly into the mangroves and watercourses behind the
houses. Educational opportunities are also limited. Moreover, the region
faces environmental threats, such as deforestation, shrimp farming,
3
Ecosystem Services 50 (2021) 101340
illegal fishing, and industrial pollution (Fadigas and Garcia, 2012).
Finally, the RESEX does not have a management council or management
plan, even though the area has been protected since 2007 (Brazilian
Department of PAs of the Ministry of the Environment, 2017). Never­
theless, the environmental police are usually present in the area and this
often results in denial of access to customary fishing grounds and a huge
amount of fines for the locals. These policing and punishment actions
are, in general, unaccompanied by educational initiatives or public
policies (ICMBio, 2017).
2.2. Data sampling
The study was carried out in February of 2018, in the municipalities
of Acaú, Carne de Vaca, São Lourenço and Povoado de Congaçari (which
is part of Caaporã). These municipalities are located close to the estuary,
which consists of mangroves and beaches, where most of the fishing
communities are located and is the region that attracts the most tourists
(Fadigas and Garcia, 2012).
Fieldwork included a combination of mapping and surveys based on
the Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS) meth­
odology, whereby participants were invited to provide both geospatial
and socio-demographic information. Different research areas recognize
and use this methodology to achieve multiple research goals, such as to
identify ES (Raymond et al., 2009; Brown et al., 2011), and to map socio-
ecological hotspots (Alessa et al., 2008). The method has enormous PA
management and planning potential as it actively engages users and
captures their experiences (Brown et al., 2011). A total of 84 people
were interviewed, a sample effort and size corresponding to the sample
universe available at the time when the surveys took place and com­
parable to other ES-focused studies (Raymond et al., 2009: 56 re­
spondents; Berkel and Verburg, 2014: 115 respondents; Fagerholm
et al., 2012: 218 respondents). Interviewees (or users) included both
respondents who depend on the provisioning services offered by the
surrounding area, and those who do not. All interviewees were expected
to benefit from local CES to a certain extent. In this study, locals were
considered as the people who lived inside the RESEX area and tourists as
the ones who did not (i.e., locals = 70 and tourists = 14). The discrep­
ancy between the number of locals and the number of tourists is a caveat
of the study that could not be addressed given both a certain resistance
among tourists to participate in the study and the fact that the survey
was done in the low tourism season (thus, there were few tourists
available). Although excluding tourists from the analyses would be a
possibility that would likely influence the results, this was not done here
for three reasons. The first reason is that one possible consequence of
R. Ocelli Pinheiro et al. Ecosystem Services 50 (2021) 101340

this study is to show the tourism potential for areas rich in CES, but
overlooked by the tourism sector. The second reason is that the inte­
gration of different perceptions could provide a better overview of the
different CES offered by MPAs. Finally, this study does not aim to assess
the differences in perceptions among distinct user groups. There was a
reasonable balance between the number of women and men who
responded, with 45 female and 39 male interviewees (representing 54%
and 46% of all respondents, respectively), all between the ages of 18 and
84 years old (43 土 16.7 years old). Forty-eight percent of users reported
a monthly income of one Brazilian minimum wage (R$954.00 in 2018),
equivalent to USD PPP 433.00 (according to OECD data from December
2018), followed by 37%, who stated that they earned less than that
(Table 1).
Although the MEA (2005) recognizes 10 categories within the CES
framework, eight were considered here, along with three potential
stressors. Based on previous assessment records (Kienast et al., 2012;
Newton et al., 2012; Plieninger et al., 2013; Ribeiro and Ribeiro, 2016),
the category ‘Knowledge systems’ was integrated into ‘Educational
values’ due to the similarities between them and the difficulty at
differentiating them apart when using PPGIS. The category ‘Sense of
place’ was excluded from the mapping activity because it was too
complex to measure with this methodology. However, it was included in
the interviews. The three potential stressors (‘Unpleasantness’, ‘Scari­
ness’, and ‘Noisiness’) were selected based on the negative human im­
pacts on natural or transformed ecosystems, which affect aesthetics,
safety, health, well-being, and economics of these environments (Lyy­
timäki and Sipilä, 2009; Shackleton et al., 2015).
After requesting authorization from the RESEX managers, each po­
tential interviewee was invited to participate only after having been
explained the purpose of the research. After their oral authorization and
acceptance to join the study, interviewees were provided with an
explanation of the CES concept and shown a map of the RESEX. The first
interview question sought to collect respondent perceptions of CES in
general and its stressors (“Do you know of or use any areas in the PA for
recreation or to practice sports?”) (see Supplementary Table S1). For this
part, a 400 × 400 m grid map of the reserve and a pen were provided to
each respondent and they were asked to identify places in the RESEX
where they recognize any of seven CES or three stressors by freely
writing a number between 0 and 11 in each cell of the map. One of the
main objectives of this study was to present the CES categories in a way
that could be easily understood by respondents, regardless of their
educational level or degree of familiarity with the ES framework. Some
aspects of this study are limited by the mapping method and involve
some inaccuracies (Fagerholm et al., 2012), such as those highlighted
earlier (e.g., the difficulty to differentiate certain CES spatially) and the
fact that the survey did not cover all municipalities within the RESEX.
With respect to the latter, it implies that a lack of points associated with
a given CES or stressor in a given location does not necessarily mean that
that location is not relevant or not under stress. Next, respondents were
presented with a list of the 16 coastal recreational activities that take
place in the area, along with 16 factors that could potentially hinder
users from being able to carry out these activities (Table 2). Respondents
were asked to mark all the coastal recreational activities they carry out
in the area and the reasons why they do not carry out the other activities.
The second part of the interview consisted of closed questions and
sought to identify the socio-demographic background of respondents
and, with the help of a Likert scale, to assess their sense of place, health,
and well-being. In order to understand user preferences for determined

Table 1
Table with information about users’ characteristics and livelihood. Users include both locals and tourists.
Sex Percentage Age Percent Education Percentage Profession Percentage Salary (Brazilian Percentage
(%) (%) (%) (%) minimum wage) (%)

Female 54 below 15.5 primary school 59.5 student 4.8 less than 1 36.9
25
Male 46 26–35 19 secondary school 22.6 homemaker 14.2 1 47.6
36–45 27.4 undergraduate/ 11.9 fisherman 26.2 2 9.5
technical
46–55 14.3 graduate studies 1.2 shellfish 13.1 3 6
collector
above 23.8 illiterate 4.8 unemployed 4.8
56
retired 9.5
rural worker 4.8
teacher 3.6
other 19

Table 2
Checklist containing all the coastal recreational activities and all the possible factors for the users to decline engaging in
them.
Coastal recreational activities Possible factors for not carrying out activities

Walking Bad weather

Jogging Lack of information
Meditation/yoga Health problems
Picnicking at the beach Inability
Reading Unavailable
Swimming No company
Water sports (surfing, bodyboarding, kayaking, etc.) Polluted area
Submerged sports (diving, snorkeling, etc.) Presence of crowds
Wildlife viewing Lack of public transportation
Boating Lack of appropriate places for recreational activities
Fishing Expensive activities
Beach sports (volleyball, frisbee, etc.) Lack of infrastructure
Beach play (sandcastles, rocks, etc.) Area does not have car access
Environmental activities I prefer other activities
Spiritual/religious activities Great distance between home and beach
Artistic activities (painting, photographing, writing, etc.) Lack of policing/security
Educational activities Drought periods

4
R. Ocelli Pinheiro et al. Ecosystem Services 50 (2021) 101340

areas within the MPA (beaches, mangroves, rivers, rocky areas, open
forested areas, thickets, shrimp farms, sugarcane plantations, cliffs,
urban areas, coral reefs, cultural heritage sites), each respondent was
asked to rate each habitat on a Likert scale from ’1′ to ’5′ , with ’1′
indicating “strongly dislike” and ’5’ indicating “strongly like”.
Regarding sense of place, each respondent was asked: (i) “How do you
feel in the RESEX?” (with ’1’ indicating “very sad” and ’5’ “very
happy”), and (ii) “How would you best describe the RESEX’s environ­
ment?” (with ’1’ indicating “very calm” and ’5’ “very lively”). For health
and well-being, each respondent was asked to rate whether the RESEX
had a positive effect on: (i) their physical health (mobility, conditions,
etc.), (ii) social well-being (relationship, friendship, etc.), and (iii)
mental well-being (happiness, creativity, etc.), on a three level scale
(’yes’, ’partially’, or ’no’). Overall, each interview lasted approximately
20 minutes (see Supplementary Table S2).
2.3. Data analysis
To understand how services are distributed throughout the land­
scape, a spatial analysis was carried out with ArcGIS 10.3. To create a
map with a point density based on the total number of points that users
identified per grid cell, all 84 maps were overlaid (Fig. 2). Data
normalization was carried out for the total number of points using the
formula: z = (x − minimum) / (maximum − minimum), and rescaled to
a range between 0.2 to 1 (minimum and maximum values per cell of the
grid).
Statistical analyses were carried out with R Studio v2.15 (R Core
Development Team, 2012). A chi-square test was used to analyze the
different ratings between the areas provided by respondents. A corre­
lation analysis was used to analyze the interaction between the ES and
common tradeoffs and synergies. Specifically, a Pearson’s correlation
test was used to check for possible relationships between different
coastal activities (e.g., between fishing and boating) and the reasons that
undermine them (i.e., stressors such as overcrowded spaces and health
problems). Finally, a Canonical Correlation Analysis was used to
investigate whether coastal activities (e.g., fishing) were correlated with
stressors (e.g., overcrowded spaces).
3. Results
3.1. Cultural ecosystem services and stressors
All eight CES assessed here were promptly identified in all the lo­
calities evaluated. A total of 515 points were marked on the maps by the
respondents (locals = 427 points and tourists = 88 points), where 425
were CES (locals = 356 and tourists = 69) and 90 stressors (locals = 71
and tourists = 19). The two maps show the density points generated,
along with pie charts for each municipality representing the proportion
of all CES and stressors identified in the area. The first map (Fig. 2)
represents all the CES and the second (Fig. 3) all the stressors identified
by the users. The highest density of CES and stressors points was in Acaú,
which is a municipality with easy access to beaches, mangroves, and
estuarine areas. ’Aesthetic values’ was the CES category that got the
most points (110), followed by ’social relations’ (Fig. 4). On the other
extreme, ’educational values’ and ’cultural heritage’ had the lowest
number of points. In general, stressors were identified to a lesser degree,
with some emphasis on ’scariness’ and ‘unpleasantness’.

Fig. 2. Full map of the RESEX with a 400 m × 400 m grid and the cultural ecosystem services density points and pie charts based on the identification of the
respondents and normalized with the minimum/maximum method.

5
R. Ocelli Pinheiro et al. Ecosystem Services 50 (2021) 101340

Fig. 3. Full map of the RESEX with a 400 m × 400 m grid and the stressors density points and pie charts based on the identification of the respondents and
normalized with the minimum/maximum method.

Fig. 4. Total number (%) and types of identified cultural ecosystem services (black) and stressors (gray) by respondents. Parentheses show the total number of points
in each category.

6
R. Ocelli Pinheiro et al.
Fig. 5. Ratings (mean values) ranging from 1 to 5 given by respondents about the areas of the RESEX. Error bars included.
3.2. Evaluation of the areas
At the RESEX level, the ratings show users’ preferences for certain
areas (p < .001), especially for natural ones like the beaches, mangroves
and rivers (Fig. 5). Spots where shrimp farming was practiced had the
lowest rate. Chi-square values can be found as Supplementary Table S3.
3.3. Correlation between identified recreational coastal activities and
factors that undermine them
Pearson’s correlation analysis for coastal activities showed positive
upper moderate correlation (r = 0.60) between ’boating’ and ’fishing’,
and a positive lower moderate correlation between ’educational actions’
with ’wildlife watching’ (0.45), ’artistic activities’ (0.42), and ’water
sports’ (0.42) (Supplementary Table S4). As for the reasons for not
engaging in coastal activities, there was a positive upper moderate
correlation between ’lack of public transportation’ with ’lack of
appropriate places for recreational activities’ (0.66), ’health problems’
with ’inability’ (0.64), and ’lack of information’ with (i) ’lack of secu­
rity/policing’ (0.58), (ii) ’lack of public transportation’ (0.54) and (iii)
’lack of appropriate places for recreational activities’ (0.50) (see Sup­
plementary Table S5).
The canonical correlation analysis between the recreational coastal
activities in the reserve and the possible factors that undermine them
showed a positive lower moderate correlation between ’wildlife
watching’ and ’lack of public transportation’ (0.44), ’lack of infra­
structure’ (0.36), and ’presence of crowds’ (0.31). ’Lack of infrastruc­
ture’ also had a positive lower moderate correlation with
’environmental actions’ (0.39). Moreover, ’artistic activities’ presented
a positive lower moderate correlation with ’lack of information about
the area’ (0.43) and ’lack of appropriate places for recreational activ­
ities’ (0.33) (Supplementary Table S6).
7
Ecosystem Services 50 (2021) 101340
4. Discussion
4.1. CES Identification, mapping and contributions
Aesthetic values, social relations, religious values, and inspirational
values were the CES most identified by users, reaffirming how users both
depend on and connect with nature in protected areas in more ways than
just as a source of provisioning services (e.g., fishing) (Voora et al.,
2008; Brockington et al., 2012; Ribeiro and Ribeiro, 2016). These CES
are related to the different natural and cultural components of the
reserve, as well as the interactions between them and the way they are
perceived by the users. The recognized importance of selected areas
within the RESEX, as identified by the density points, highlights the
relevance of social, ecological, and geographic aspects. These factors
explain the concentration of human activities in specific areas of the PA,
notably the areas associated with beliefs and traditions of the local
populations, their access to the mangroves, the estuary, and their set­
tlements. By identifying high-density areas, it can contribute toward
unveiling both the ineffective and effective locations at producing
desired CES and, therefore, contribute toward land-use and ecotourism
planning (Raudsepp-Hearnea et al., 2010). Within the RESEX, there is a
general preference among residents and tourists for natural over built
environments. The singular scenic beauty of certain places, such as the
estuary, beaches, and mangroves, were recognized by respondents to be
important landscape attributes. According to Cooper et al. (2016), the
uniqueness and richness of natural areas bring joy, comfort, and inspi­
ration to people in different ways. The fact that interviewees valued the
scenic beauty, especially that provided by the beaches, mangroves, and
rivers, reinforces the relevance of these sights for ecotourism. This
preference may be due, in part, to the fact that this PA contributes to­
ward maintaining these ecosystems in semi-pristine conditions, which,
in turn, feeds back eco-environmental initiatives and eco-friendly
behavior (Wright and Mathews, 2015). The RESEX is marked by social
R. Ocelli Pinheiro et al.
relations, given that it is the workplace of many respondents, a site
where conversations, informal encounters and activities take place, and
also the source of many stories and experiences. Most users (65%) stated
that visiting the RESEX contributes positively to social aspects of their
well-being, given that these visits strengthen good relationships among
themselves and social stability in the communities. These social aspects
are likely fomented by the known impacts of ecosystems on the types
and features of social interactions that are established in particular
places and cultures (MEA, 2005). With respect to sense of place, most
users, i.e. 68%, considered themselves “very happy” when in the area,
followed by 17% “neutral”. Moreover, 35% of users considered the
environment to be “calm”, whereas 24% considered it to be “very
lively”. Furthermore, with regard to ecotourism planning, these types of
assessments, i.e. those that include sense of place and social values, have
the potential to address the spatial and temporal inter-scalar influences
that occur in a given place (Masterson et al., 2019).
The high number of inspirational values identified in the RESEX can
be attributed to the fact that many respondents recognize the estuarine
areas as a source of reflection and inspiration. Most of the users inter­
viewed (71%) recognize the positive influence of estuaries on mental
aspects of well-being, for example that they contribute to happiness,
creativity, and stress reduction. Meanwhile, parts of the RESEX were
also mentioned as highly relevant to spiritual values, especially given
the presence of many different religious centers and sacred natural sites.
Cultural ecosystem services, such as spiritual and inspirational values,
may or may not be associated with specific landscape attributes (Brown
et al., 2011), depending on the culture in place. For example, African-
Brazilian religions, which are often found in Quilombola communities,
have an important and strong bond with nature that is marked by their
sense of respect, dependence, integration, and even submission towards
nature (Santos, 2006). However, religious traditions professing their
respect for nature do not necessarily ensure environmental conscious­
ness, and the direct relationship between religion and care for the
environment is still unclear (Bhagwat et al., 2011). Nevertheless, given
Brazil’s expressive socio-ecological and cultural diversity, policies to
protect nature have failed to recognize the role sacred or inspirational
natural sites can play in aiding conservation. To date, these policies have
been based on historical exclusionary measures developed by typically
racist elites and governments who have classified traditional and
indigenous community practices, along with their cultural and religious
manifestations, as exotic and folkloric (Penna-Firme and Brondízio,
2017). Despite the reluctance in Brazil to recognize these natural sacred
sites as emblems of ecosystems conservation, the idea in itself is not new;
examples can be drawn from both Africa and Asia, as well as some
globally recognized sites (Dudley et al., 2009; Bhagwat et al., 2011), that
attract visitors and pilgrims from various parts of the world. Analyzing
areas with overlapping conservation and sacred interests is an over­
looked avenue toward improving the efficiency of PAs.
On the other hand, educational values and cultural heritage were
poorly recognized by the interviewees. For example, of the few who
expressed a desire to revive their ancestral heritage, culture, and tradi­
tional practices, they reported the difficulty of uniting the communities.
According to these respondents, if the connection between their heritage
and the RESEX were better valued, it would not only promote the local
culture but also open new income generating opportunities through
historical tourism. Cultural heritage contributes to maintaining the
identity of traditional communities and reveals the historical and
contemporary human interactions with ecosystems that have developed
over time (e.g. property distribution, agriculture, conservation prac­
tices) (Voora et al., 2008). These results affirm the challenges of inte­
grating different cultures and heritage factors into ecological, socio-
cultural, and educational contexts. It is necessary to reflect on the im­
plications and challenges that recognizing and safeguarding these sites
can add to managing PAs and integrating communities. By introducing
these factors into comprehensive marine and coastal area conservation
and management, or ecotourism development, it could improve
8
Ecosystem Services 50 (2021) 101340
strategic planning, evaluation, education, and enhance new partner­
ships and networks (Cooper et al, 2016).
4.2. Human-induced stressors on CES
Many respondents reported a lack of security and policing in the
RESEX, which could explain why many felt unsafe in certain areas.
Violence, motivated by high levels of alcoholism and drug abuse in the
communities, appears to be a contributing factor in the perceived lack of
safety. Tragically, many traditional and indigenous communities suffer
from high levels of alcohol and drug abuse (WHO, 2021), which often
leads to violence and the presence of drug mafias, even within PAs
(Wrathall et al., 2020). The reasons for such misfortunes are deep and
complex and beyond the scope of this paper (see, for example, WHO,
2021), nonetheless, these problems cannot and should not be ignored
when assessing PAs or planning ecotourism initiatives.
Water pollution and litter are also common and visible problems. Of
all the sites analyzed in the MPA, the lowest rated one had an abandoned
shrimp farm, which many respondents believed was a primary source of
pollution and diseases. Both construction and operation of shrimp farms
alter the hydrology of the surrounding area and destroy mangroves and
estuaries, among other negative impacts, which leads to biodiversity loss
and compromised ES (Barraza-Guardado et al., 2013). These impacts do
not disappear once the shrimp farms are shut down, apart from any
efforts to restore the region (Barraza-Guardado et al., 2013), which is
not the case in the RESEX.
The above identified stressors are related to land-use, individual
preferences, and specific pollution and infrastructure issues. Although
the negative impacts of the RESEX assessed in this study are not spe­
cifically related to the ecosystems themselves (e.g., in the RESEX, the
darkness and stillness of some parts of the mangrove forest are associ­
ated with areas where illegal drugs are consumed), they can both impact
ecosystems and be impacted by ecosystem processes. If humans are to be
accepted as integral components of ecosystems, then it is important to
differentiate these negative human impacts from ecosystem disservices,
a concept that has been recently used in scientific literature to discuss
socio-ecological systems (Döhren and Haase, 2015). There remains a
need for an operational ecosystem disservices classification (Blanco
et al., 2019), however, disservices are often regarded as disruptive
processes that are either fundamentally non-human or that contain
natural elements of an ecosystem (Shackleton et al., 2015). In this sense,
the negative associations that some people have with nature are actually
by-products of the misuse of natural sites by humans (real or perceived),
which generates stressors. An assessment of these negative human im­
pacts could provide information on multiple fronts, from too many
recreational activities to improper use of specific areas. These aspects
can jeopardize full access to and/or acceptance of these areas by com­
munities and tourists. Initiatives and approaches that foster low impact
activities in PAs, while also raising awareness and ensuring safety, can
benefit both nature and human well-being (Venohr et al., 2018).
Assessing the trade-offs between CES and the factors that either
generate or influence their supply and demand is complex (Raudsepp-
Hearnea et al., 2010). In terms of coastal activities, the high correlation
between ‘boating’ with ’fishing’ can be explained by the difficulty
people have in separating the two activities (i.e., people go on boats to
do their recreational fishing). The correlations between ’educational
actions’ with ’wildlife watching’, ’artistic activities’ and ’water sports’
are probably due to the importance of these activities on making in­
dividuals aware of the conservation of ecosystems and their species
(Ardoin et al., 2020). The RESEX is likely providing users with an
encompassing sense of the local reality, not only through verbal, visual,
and artistic representations, but also through their own senses, by
stimulating awareness of this reality through recreational activities in
aquatic ecosystems. Regarding the possible factors for not carrying out
recreational activities, the highest correlation (’lack of public trans­
portation’ with ’appropriate places for recreational activities’) was
R. Ocelli Pinheiro et al.
explained by the close association of tourism with infrastructure and
mobility. PAs in general are believed to be designed to combine people,
with some places and activities in close proximity, which is not exactly
the case of the RESEX. In terms of infrastructure, most tourists inter­
viewed reported that housing options were either unavailable or unaf­
fordable and prefer to stay with relatives or in summerhouses that they
use during vacation periods.
The ’lack of information’, along with ’security/policing’, ’public
transportation’, and ’appropriate places for recreational activities’ can
be explained by a lack of administrative planning, and the constantly
reported disorganization, lack of initiatives and investments, lack of
recreational infrastructure, and lack of involvement with the sur­
rounding community. Nevertheless, about half (51%) of the respondents
in this study indicated that the RESEX has had a positive impact on their
health, in terms of mobility, temperance, and strength. Ultimately, some
of the positive relationships that emerged in the correlation analysis
could also be explained by a difficulty for respondents to distinguish
between recreational activities and compromising factors, probably due
to their overlapping and bundled characteristics (Raudsepp-Hearnea
et al., 2010; Plieninger et al., 2013).
5. Conclusion
In this case study, both CES and the stress they experience were
significantly perceived by the users of the MPA. Acknowledging these
connections can contribute toward establishing a more holistic under­
standing of land-use, management, and conservation of PAs. On a local
scale, this study identified the main ecotourism resources related to CES
that the RESEX can provide, while also taking into account the per­
ceptions of diverse users and the socio-spatial nature of their activities
and impacts, as well as the important role of traditional and Quilombola
communities. Two findings of this study are worth highlighting. The first
is (i) that this MPA has a multicultural identity, as perceived by the
interviewees themselves, especially with regard to the quilombola com­
munities. One possible way to account for this cultural diversity is to
involve local residents of MPAs in management positions and in space
appropriation decisions, given that some communities, such as the qui­
lombola communities, have specific rights over the development and use
of resources and territories. By doing so, it could also simultaneously
enhance certain CES, i.e. sense of place, knowledge systems, and cultural
heritage, as they are associated with specific connections that some
cultures have with the environment. The second point (ii) has to do with
the unlocked potential for ecotourism, despite the recognized presence
of essential elements and sites that could promote this activity. This
potential has been curtailed by a lack of infrastructure and safety com­
bined with the lack of a management plan. In the absence of proper
planning, barriers and conflicts can arise over the appropriation and
sustainable use of CES. Finally, PA territories should also be considered
social institutions, as they are populated with cultural histories, aspi­
rations and even fear if not managed properly. PAs can and should also
be designed to improve human behaviour and experiences, in addition
to protecting natural environments, which in turn would likely enhance
the contributions of nature to people, particularly in the form of CES.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Paulo Augusto Santos, Anna Letícia Bueno,
Keco, and Alessandra Pessoa for their tremendous assistance during
fieldwork; Luiza F. de Paula and Loic Gillerot for their helpful comments
and support; Pieter Wolfs, whose memory and friendship continue to
9
Ecosystem Services 50 (2021) 101340
inspire us; the administration of the Acaú -Goiana RESEX and Luís
Guimarães for providing the necessary logistical support for the study to
take place; the respondents and the local communities for their collab­
oration, especially Dada, the Quilombola leader of the Comunidade
Quilombola de São Lourenço; the Flemish International Council (VLIR-
UOS), for providing the financial support for studies and fieldwork;
CNPq, for a productivity grant (301515/2019-0); and the CYTED pro­
gram, through its ECOMAR network (417RT0528).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101340.
References
Alessa, N., Kliskey, A., Brown, G., 2008. Social-ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial
approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape Urban Plann.
85, 27e39.
Ardoin, N. M. , Bowers, A. W., Gaillard, E. Environmental education outcomes for
conservation: A systematic review. Biological Conservation, Volume 241, 108224,
ISSN 0006-3207 (2020).
Barraza-Guardado, R. et al. Effluents of shrimp farms and its influence on the coastal
ecosystems of Bahía de Kino, Mexico. The Scientific World Journal. 2013: 306370
(2013).
Begossi, A. Caiçaras, Caboclos and Natural Resources: Rules and Scale Patterns.
Ambiente & Sociedade. Ano II, No 5 (1999).
van Berkel, D.B., Verburg, P.H., 2014. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural
ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Ind. 37, 163–174.
Bhagwat, S.A., Ormsby, A., Rutte, C., 2011. The Role of Religion in linking conservation
and development: Challenges and opportunities. J. Study Religion Nat. Cult. 5 (1).
Blackman, A., et al. Factors contributing to successful tourism development in peripheral
regions. The Journal of Tourism Studies. vol. 16, no 2 (2005).
Blanco, J., Dendoncker, N., Barnaud, C., Sirami, C., et al., 2019. Ecosystem disservices
matter: Towards their systematic integration within ecosystem service research and
policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 36, 100913.
Brazilian Department of Protected Areas of the Ministry of the Environment. Relatório
Parametrizado - Unidade de Conservação. Available at: http://sistemas.mma.gov.br/
cnuc/index.php?ido=relatorioparametrizado.
exibeRelatorio&relatorioPadrao=true&idUc=1563. (Accessed: 13th December
2017).
Brockington, D., Duffy, R., Igoe, J., 2012. Nature unbound: conservation, capitalism and
the future of protected areas. Taylor & Francis, London.
Brown, G., Montag, J.M., Lyon, K., 2011. Public participation GIS: a method for
identifying ecosystem services. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25 (7), 633–651.
Campos-Silva, J.V., Peres, C.A., 2016. Community- based management induces rapid
recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci. Rep. 6 (34745), 1–13.
Castro, F., Siqueira, A., Brondízio, E., Ferreira, L., 2006. Use and misuse of the concepts
of tradition and property rights in the conservation of natural resources in the
Atlantic rain Forest (Brazil). Ambiente e Sociedade. 19 (1), 24–41.
Chan K.M.A., et al. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for
constructive engagement. BioScience, 62, pp. 744-756. (2012).
Cooper, N., Brady, E., Steen, H., Bryce, R., 2016. Aesthetic and spiritual values of
ecosystems: Recognizing the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural
ecosystem ‘services’. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 218–229.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Protected areas - an overview. Available at:
https://www.cbd.int/protected/overview/default.shtml. (Accessed: 10th August
2018).
Coria, J., Calfucura, E., 2012. Ecotourism and the development of indigenous
communities: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Ecol. Econ. 73, 47–55.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., et al., 2005. How effective were mangroves as a defense against the
recent tsunami? Curr Biol. 15, 443–447.
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in
integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,
management and decision making. Ecology Complex. 7 (3), 260–272.
De Vos, A., Cumming G., Moore C. A., Maciejewski K., Duckworth G. The relevance of
spatial variation in ecotourism attributes for the economic sustainability of protected
areas. (2016).
Di Ciommo, R., 2007. Turismo, gênero e pesquisa participativa na reserva extrativista
marinha do Corumbau. Caderno Virtual de Turismo 7 (2).
Döhren, P., Haase, D., 2015. Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of the
art with a focus on cities. Ecol. Indicators 52, 490–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2014.12.027. ISSN 1470-160X.
Dudley, N., Higgins-Zogib, L., Mansourian, S., 2009. The Links between Protected Areas,
Faiths, and Sacred Natural Sites. Conserv. Biol.: J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 23, 568–577.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01201.x.
EMBRATUR (Instituto Brasileiro do Turismo) Brasil recebeu mais de 6 milhões de
estrangeiros em 2015. 2016. Available at: http://www.embratur.gov.br/arquivos/
pdf/noticias/Livro-EMBRATUR-50-ANOS_Vfinal_nov2016.pdf. (Access 12th August
2018).
R. Ocelli Pinheiro et al.
Fadigas, A., Garcia, L., 2012. Conservation of the estuarine zone of the Goiana and
Megaó rivers in northeastern Brazil: an analysis of the strategies adopted by
fisherwomen communities. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. 12 (4),
577–582.
Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., Khamis, M., 2012. Community stakeholders’
knowledge in landscape assessments – mapping indicators for landscape services.
Ecol. Ind. 18, 421–433.
Fisher, B., Christopher, T., 2007. Poverty and biodiversity: measuring the overlap of
human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots. Ecol. Econ. 62 (1), 93–101.
Freitas, C.T., Lopes, P.F.M., Campos-Silva, J.V., Noble, M.M., Dyball, R., Peres, C.A.,
Young, J., 2020. Co-management of culturally important species: A tool to promote
biodiversity conservation and human well-being. People and Nature. 2 (1), 61–81.
ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação de Biodiversidade). RESEX Acaú-
Goiana. Available at: http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/unidadesdeconservacao/
biomas-brasileiros/marinho/unidades-de-conservacao-marinho/2280-resex-acau-
goiana. (Accessed 13th December 2017).
Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., Kenter, J.O., 2014. Looking below the surface: The cultural
ecosystem service values of UK marine protected areas (MPAs). Ecosyst. Serv. 10,
97–110.
Joppa, L., Loarie, S., Stuart, L., 2008. On the protection of “protected areas”. PNAS 105
(18), 6673–6678.
Kathiresan, K., Bingham, B.L., 2001. Biology of mangroves and mangrove ecosystems.
Advances Mar Biol. 40, 81–251.
Kienast, F., Degenhardt, B., Weilenmann, B., Wäger, Y., Buchecker, M., 2012. A GIS-
assisted mapping of landscape suitability for nearby recreation. Landscape Urban
Plann. 105, 385e399.
Kiper, T., 2013. In: Advances in Landscape Architecture. InTech. https://doi.org/
10.5772/55749.
Kohler, F., Brondizio, E.S., 2016. Considering the needs of indigenous and local
populations in conservation programs. Conserv. Biol.. Accepted Author Manuscript.
31 (2), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12843.
Kumar, M., Kumar, P., 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural
perspective. Ecol. Econ. 64 (4), 808–819.
La Notte, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Paracchini, M.L., Liquete, C., Egoh, B.,
Geneletti, D., Crossman, N.D., 2017. Ecosystem services classification: A systems
ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol. Ind. 74, 392–402.
Lopes, P.F.M., Mendes, L., Fonseca, V., Villasante, S., 2017. Tourism as a driver of
conflicts and changes in fisheries value chains in Marine Protected Areas. J. Environ.
Manage. 200, 123–134.
Lyytimäki, J., Sipilä, M., 2009. Hopping on one leg – the challenge of ecosystem
disservices for urban green management. Urban For. Urban Greening 8 (4), 309–315.
Mace, G.M., 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558.
Masterson, V.A., Enqvist, J.P., Stedman, R.C., Tengö, M., 2019. Sense of place in
social–ecological systems: from theory to empirics. Sustain. Sci. 14 (3), 555–564.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Mourão, R.M.F.M., 2001. Melhores Práticas de Ecoturismo de Boas Práticas
Socioambientais. Funbio-EcoBrasil.
Newton, A.C., et al., 2012. Cost-benefit analysis of ecological networks assessed through
spatial analysis of ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 571e580.
Osawa, Takeshi, Ueno, Yusuke, Nishida, Takaaki, Nishihiro, Jun, 2020. Do both habitat
and species diversity provide cultural ecosystem services? A trial using geo-tagged
photos. Nature Conservation. 38, 61–77.
Penna-Firme, Rodrigo, Brondízio, Eduardo, 2017. Quilombolas as “green collectives”:
contesting and incorporating environmentalism in the Atlantic Forest. Brazil.
Ambiente & sociedade. 20 (2), 139–158.
10
Ecosystem Services 50 (2021) 101340
Plieninger, Tobias, Dijks, Sebastian, Oteros-Rozas, Elisa, Bieling, Claudia, 2013.
Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level.
Land Use Policy. 33, 118–129.
R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2012. Available at: www.r-
project.org. (Accessed 10th May, 2018).
Ramires, M. et al. Artisanal fishing and fishermen of Ilhabela - São Paulo State - Brazil.
Boletim do Instituto de Pesca. [S.l.], v. 38, n. 3, p. 231-246, nov. 2018. ISSN 1678-
2305 (2018).
Raudsepp-Hearnea, C., Petersona, G.D., Bennettc, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles
for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. PNAS. March 16 107 (11), 2010.
Raymond, Christopher M., Bryan, Brett A., MacDonald, Darla Hatton, Cast, Andrea,
Strathearn, Sarah, Grandgirard, Agnes, Kalivas, Tina, 2009. Mapping community
values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 68 (5), 1301–1315.
Ribeiro, F.P., Ribeiro, K.T. 2016. Participative mapping of cultural ecosystem services in
Pedra Branca State Park, Brazil. Nat Conservacao (2016).
Rodrigues, G. J., et al., 2017. Marine and Coastal Cultural Ecosystem Services:
knowledge gaps and research priorities. One Ecosyst. 2: e12290.
Santos, J. P. Práticas religiosas, meio ambiente e dignidade. Anais do I Seminário
Educação, Cultura e Justiça Ambiental: meio ambiente e espaços sagrados no
contexto das unidades de conservação. Rio de Janeiro, 106 (2006).
Shackleton, C., Ruwanza, S., Sanni, G.K., Bennett, S., Lacy, P., Modipa, R., Mtati, N.,
Sachikonye, M., Thondhlana, G., 2015. Unpacking Pandora’s Box: Understanding
and Categorising Ecosystem Disservices for Environmental Management and Human
Wellbeing. Ecosystems 19, 587–600.
Silva, M., 2017. A, Lage. A. C. Histórias negadas e memórias esquecidas das heroínas de
Tejucupapo, XXXI Congreso Alas Uruguay.
UCSocioambiental (Unidades de Conservação no Brasil). RESEX Acaú-Goiana. 2017.
Available at: https://uc.socioambiental.org/uc/581550. (Accessed 13th December
2017).
Venohr, Markus, Langhans, Simone D., Peters, Oliver, Hölker, Franz, Arlinghaus, Robert,
Mitchell, Lewis, Wolter, Christian, 2018. The underestimated dynamics and impacts
of water-based recreational activities on freshwater ecosystems. Environ. Rev. 26
(2), 199–213.
Vincent, V.C., Thompson, W., November 2002, 2012,. Assessing Community Support and
Sustainability for Ecotourism Development. Journal of Travel Research 41, 153–160.
Voora, V., Barg, S., Pimachiowin, A., 2008. World Heritage Project Area: Ecosystem
Services Valuation Assessment. International Institute for Sustainable Development,
Winnipeg.
Weaver, D. B. Sustainable tourism: theory and practice. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann
(Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford. OX2 8DP 30, UK) (2006).
WHO (World Health Organization). Indigenous peoples and substance abuse. Available
at: https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/activities/indigenous/en/. (Accessed:
2nd March 2021).
Wrathall D. J. Et al. The impacts of cocaine-trafficking on conservation governance in
Central America. Global Environmental Change. Volume 63, 102098. ISSN 0959-
3780 (2020).
Wright, Pamela A., Mathews, Carling, 2015. Building a culture of conservation: research
findings and research priorities on connecting people to nature in parks. Parks J. 21
(2) https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-
21-2.en10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-21-2PAW.en.
WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council). Global economic impact and issues 2017.
Available at: http://www.wttc.org. (Accessed: 22nd May 2018).
Young, C.E.F., Medeiros, R., 2018. Quanto vale o verde: a importância econômica das
unidades de conservação brasileiras. Conservação Internacional. Rio de Janeiro. 180p.