Participative mapping of cultural ecosystem services in Pedra Branca State Park, Brazil

Natureza e Conservacao

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 120-127

  Ribeiro, Fernando P ^a   Ribeiro, Katia T ^b  

^a Conservação Internacional Brasil ^*  (Brazil)

^b INSTITUTO CHICO MENDES DE CONSERVAÇÃO DA BIODIVERSIDADE   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Cultural ecosystems services; Geographic information system; Immaterial benefits; Protected areas management; Public participation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85006046107     PISSN: 16790073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ncon.2016.09.004     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bratman, G.N., Daily, G.C., Levy, B.J., et al. The benefits of nature experience: improved affect and cognition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 138 (2015), 41–51.
2. Brown, G., Montag, J.M., Lyon, K., Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25 (2011), 633–651.
3. Brown, G., Schebella, M.F., Weber, D., Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 121 (2014), 34–44.
4. Brown, G., Strickland-Munro, J., Kobryn, H., et al. Stakeholder analysis for marine conservation planning using public participation GIS. Appl. Geogr. 67 (2016), 77–93.
5. Chiesura, A., The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68 (2004), 129–138.
6. Cid, B., Figueira, L., Mello, A.F.T., et al. Short-term success in the reintroduction of the red-humped agouti Dasyprocta leporina, an important seed disperser, in a Brazilian Atlantic Forest reserve. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 7 (2014), 796–810 Available online: www.tropicalconservationscience.org.
7. Fadini, A.A.B., Sustentabilidade e Identidade Local: Pauta para um Planejamento Ambiental Participativo em Sub-bacias Hidrográficas da Região Bragantina. Tese de Doutorado. 2005, UNESP, Rio Claro.
8. Godbey, G.C., Graefe, A., James, S.W., The benefits of local recreation and park services: a nationwide study of the perceptions of the American public. 1992, National Recreation and Park Association, Ashburn, VA.
9. Gonçalves, N.M., Hoeffel, J.L.M., Percepção ambiental sobre unidades de conservação: os conflitos em torno do Parque Estadual de Itapetinga – SP. 2012, Visões Transdisciplinares sobre Ambiente e Sociedade, Revista VITAS n. 3, jun.
10. Granizo, T., Molina, M.E., Secaira, E., et al. Manual de Planificación para la Conservación de Áreas, PCA. 2006, TNC y USAID, Quito.
11. Guimarães, E., Pellin, A., BiodiverCidade: desafios e oportunidades na gestão de áreas protegidas urbanas. 2015, Matrix Editora, São Paulo 200 p.
12. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística), Censo Demográfico. 2010.
13. ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade), Relatório de Gestão 2015. 2015, ICMBio, Brasília.
14. INEA (Instituto Estadual do Ambiente), Plano de Manejo–Parque Estadual da Pedra Branca. 2013, INEA, Rio de Janeiro.
15. Lemieux, C.J., Doherty, S.T., Eagles, P.F.J., et al. Healthy Outside-Healthy Inside: the human health and well-being benefits of Alberta's protected areas – towards a benefits-based management agenda. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) Occasional Paper No. 20. 2015, CCEA Secretariat, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada vi + 71 pp.
16. Malleret-King, D., Glass, A., Wanyony, I., et al. Socio-Economic Monitoring Guidelines for Coastal Managers of the Western Indian Ocean, SocMon WIO (Version 1). 2006, CORDIO East Africa publication pp. 108.
17. Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., et al. Evidence based public health policy and practice: green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?. J. Epidemiol. Commun. 60 (2006), 587–592.
18. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
19. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., et al. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403 (2000), 853–858.
20. Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López-Santiago, C., et al. Participatory scenario planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: the doñana social-ecological system in southwestern spain. Ecol. Soc., 16, 2011, 23.
21. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., et al. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33 (2013), 118–129.
22. Rambaldi, G., Kwaku Kyem, P.A., McCall, M., et al. Manejo y comunicación de la información territorial en forma participativa en los países en vía de desarrollo. Eletron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries 11 (2006), 1–11.
23. Raymond, C.M., Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 1301–1315.
24. Scarano, F., Rio de Janeiro: the metropolis and the Atlantic Forest. The Atlantic Forest: History that looks to the future, 2014, Edições de Janeiro, Conservação Internacional, Rio de Janeiro, 182–223.
25. Stoll-Kleemann, S., Opposition to the designation of protected areas in Germany. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 44 (2001), 109–128.
26. Trzyna, T., Urban Protected Areas: Profiles and best practice guidelines. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 22. 2014, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 110 xiv+.
27. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2015). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/366).
28. Wright, P.A., Matthews, C., Building a culture of conservation: research findings and research priorities on connecting people to nature in parks. Parks J. 21 (2015), 11–24.