LB

Fa

b

a

ARR2A

KLRBEH

I

dfcaatlw(

ficsm

ms

h0

Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 149–160

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

j o ur na l ho me page: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol

ocal history and landscape dynamics: A comparative study in ruralrazil and rural France

lorent Kohlera,∗, Guillaume Marchandb, Marcelo Negrãoa

CREDA UMR 7227, Paris 3 – CNRS, 28 rue Saint-Guillaume, 75007 Paris, FranceUniversidade Federal do Amazonas, Amazonas, Brazil

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 29 March 2014eceived in revised form5 September 2014ccepted 10 November 2014

eywords:and use/cover changeural Francerazilian inhabited protected areas

a b s t r a c t

In rural France as well as in rural Brazil, the years 1960–1970 were marked by profound socio-economicand environmental changes. In France, these changes were due to the agricultural modernization policy,in Brazil, they were caused mainly by the political integration of the Amazon to the rest of the countryby infrastructure and agricultural colonization. The apparent irreversibility of the parallel phenomena ofsettlement, in France, and deforestation, in Brazil, gives us a comparative ground that this paper wishesto explore. We focused on four Brazilian protected areas and two French rural communes and studied thelocal attachment of the people and their collective attitude toward the environment. To do so, we assessedthe main proximate factors identified in the literature, those determining the attitude of a human grouptoward its environment, an attitude influenced by structural drivers like legal issues and law enforcement.

nvironmental impactysteresis

Our results suggest that these multiple factors are often randomly interconnected and can hardly bemodeled. Land use and cover change may be an interesting way to understand social and environmentalchange, if accompanied by qualitative research about environmental and social perceptions. Our mainconclusion is that collective and individual choices are eventually framed by local history: we use thenotion of hysteresis to suggest that ancient causes may have enduring effects.

ntroduction

On both sides of the Atlantic, parallel and apparently irreversibleynamics unfolded over the last fifty years: the conversion oforests to croplands and pastures, in Brazil, and the conversion ofroplands to settlements,1 in France. In both cases, governmentscknowledge the problem without these drifts being altered. Thepparent irreversibility of these trends has drawn our attentiono the possibility of a comparative approach, to check what similar

ogics are at work in these seemingly distinct phenomena. To do so,

e used an approach based on the land use/cover change scienceLUCC)2 which combines geography and sociology, among others,

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 6 30532133.E-mail address: florent.kohler@gmail.com (F. Kohler).

1 According to Meyer and Turner (1992, p. 47) “the term settlement can denote aorm of land cover or a form of land use (. . .). The category of settlement as a land usencludes areas devoted to human habitation, transportation, and industry. As landover, it incorporates highly altered surface such as buildings and pavements, butuch cover represents only a portion of the total area that a land-use classificationight accord to settlement.”2 According to Meyer and Turner (1992, p. 39), “land use denotes human employ-ent of the land and land cover denotes the physical and biotic character of the land

urface.”

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.010264-8377/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

to understand and predict land use and landscape evolution (Caldaset al., 2007; Lambin, 2002). The advantage of this approach is thatit is founded on observable phenomena, in an attempt to identifystructural and/or proximate causes of land use and cover changes.

In a seminal paper published in 1992, however, Meyer andTurner were pessimistic about the possibility of developing modelsto anticipate future changes, in a social engineering perspec-tive. In fact, all things being equal, the trajectories recorded fromone region to another can vary significantly. However, in presentLand Change Science literature, the modeling approach prevails(Wainwright and Mulligan, 2002; Turner et al., 2007; see for thepresent state of our knowledge, Verburg et al., 2013). Our approachto landscape changes, in a social science perspective, is inspired ingeographical and anthropological works (Bertrand and Bertrand,2002; Alphandéry, 2001) in the sense that we are interested in themodifications of physical places (land cover change) and how these

are carried through by local populations, on a fifty years period oftime. Our comparison will be conducted in the light of the results oftwo multidisciplinary research programs, CLEVERT3 on the French

3 « Conditions socio-environnementales pour la réhabilitation de la biodiver-sité ordinaire » (2010–2013) program funded by French Ministère de l’Ecologie

1 se Poli

ssoui

iRipBosatng

C

Aeatbroortci

Id

wodiptdTla1oftalfao

p

(e

(n

cessive French governments undertook to transform the traditional

50 F. Kohler et al. / Land U

ide and USART4 on the Brazilian side. We will see that despiteeemingly very different contexts (agricultural abandonment in anld industrialized country, expansion of pioneer fronts in an areander development since the 1970s), common features may appear

n the underlying causes of irreversible changes.After referring to the colonization vs. conservation dilemma

n Brazil, and to the ecological turn which followed the Greenevolution in France, we will compare, on one side, four Brazil-

an inhabited protected areas, subjected to internal and externalressures on the environment (three in the Amazon and one inahia State, in the remains of the Atlantic rainforest); on thether, two French communes torn between augmenting the urbanprawling and maintaining the farmlands crisscrossed by hedgesnd groves (“bocage”). For the purpose of our analysis, we explorehe concept of hysteresis, which describes the persistence of a phe-omenon even after its causes ceased to exist (Bourdieu, 2002), aenerally underestimated factor.

ontextualization of French and Brazilian situations

In rural France as well as in rural Brazil, especially the Brazilianmazon, the years 1960–1970 were marked by profound socio-conomic and environmental changes. In France, these changesre due to the policy of agricultural modernization (Green Revolu-ion, land consolidation), whereas in Brazil they are caused mainly,ut not only, by the Amazon integration policy led by the Militaryegime (1964–1985), interweaved with an agrarian reform basedn colonization, and the recognition of Indian Rights by the Statutef the Indian (1973). This Statute was the first step toward theecognition of cultural diversity, ratified by the Brazilian Consti-ution of 1988, followed by the legal acknowledgment of a newategory of citizens in 2007, the so-called “Traditional People”,ncluding Indians, Maroons, and riverine populations.5

n Brazil, inhabited protected areas as a counterbalance toevelopment plans

In contrast to the Atlantic Rainforest, which destruction beganith Portuguese colonization (see Map 1), the threats looming

n the Amazon Forest became reality in the 1960s. Plans for theevelopment and colonization of the Amazon are ideologically

nseparable from the military regime and its “Operation Amazon”lanned in the 1950s (Simmons, 2002). The Superintendence ofhe Amazon (SUDAM) created during this decade was the firstevelopment agency specifically dedicated to this vast territory.he National Development Plan (1966–1970) promoted the estab-ishment of agribusiness companies by building infrastructure andpplying significantly low taxation. According to Margulis (2003),6% of total deforestation recorded until in the 2000s is the resultf tax concessions granted between 1970 and 1987. This plan wasollowed by the National Integration Plan (1970–1974), redirectinghe policy of occupation by fostering agricultural settlements, sos to provide plots of this “land without people” to “men withoutand” (one of the slogans of the operation). The opening of pioneerronts in the state of Rondônia and in southeastern Pará provoked

vast migration of landless peasants from the Northeast and Southf Brazil, as an alternative to a genuine agrarian reform.

The years 1970–1980 saw an annual average of 21,050 km2 ofrimary forest burnt to ashes, whether in the context of agrarian

Commissariat Général au Développement Durable) and by French Caisse des Dépôtst Consignations.4 « Usages et transmission des savoirs et représentations du territoire en Amazonie »

2009–2013) program funded by French Agence Nationale de la Recherche, coordi-ated by F.-M. Le Tourneau.5 Decreto n◦ 6.040, de 7 de fevereiro de 2007.

cy 43 (2015) 149–160

reform (small producers), or through incentives to install largelandowners, outlining the current “arc of deforestation” visible inMap 2. The different phases of migration led to a number of landconflicts, between settlers or small farmers against big landown-ers (Hecht, 1985) as well as between these large landowners andtraditional populations (Araujo et al., 2009).

After the assassination, in 1989, of Chico Mendes (unionist fight-ing for the rights of rubber tappers in acre), a new policy was set upto protect these traditional populations and their territories. Amongthe mechanisms involved was the creation of inhabited protectedareas such as sustainable development reserves (RDS) or extractivereserves (RESEX), as part of the national policy for environmentalprotection (Sistema Nacional de Unidades of Conservac ão, 2000,PP-G7 and ARPA programs6). Other groups gained a perspective ofsocial and land protection as a compensatory measure for historicdebt (Indigenous and Quilombola7 Territories).

We explored the Indigenous aspect during a 5 years fieldresearch lead in Bahia State, in the remains of the Atlantic Rainfor-est. This case study provides a useful perspective on the Amazoniancontext, where we focused on Quilombola communities. By assign-ing a special status to traditionally occupied territories and givingtheir inhabitants access to public services (education, health,energy), the Brazilian government hoped to curb environmentaldegradation, and avoid the errors that led to the destruction of theAtlantic Rainforest, with only 8.5% remaining, mostly under (ratherinefficient) protection (Map 1). As for the Amazon, over 36% of itssurface is currently covered by inhabited protected areas (Map 2).

Map 2 shows that protected areas are able to contain the expan-sion of the pioneer areas of the Amazon, sometimes constitutingresidual forest enclaves within territories largely converted to agro-pastoralism. However, when it comes to consider national scale,these apparent good results should not hide a series of problemsidentified in the scientific literature. Most of the inhabited pro-tected areas are the result of multiple trade-offs, especially inregions of ancient colonization, such as Bahia State (Map 2). Inthese regions (Nordeste and Sudeste), the difficulties to indemnifylarge landowners led the authorities to cut back on non-habitedprotected areas, creating overlapping territories with differingenvironmental regulations. Due to the inextricable problem of landtenure in Brazil and different conflicts with a great array of popu-lation (traditional or not) the conservation units have been largelydefined in accordance of social criteria: in the Atlantic forest, Cullenet al. (2013) emphasized that conservation units created to protectprimates were delimited in function of the previous human occu-pation and are, in fact, too small to maintain a healthy population.We will see that the concerned populations, despite their status of“environmental stewards”, are subject to conflicting issues, makingit difficult to predict their environmental impact or future orienta-tions.

In France, a rural world torn between agricultural activities,environmental protection and the progression of suburbanization

It was only after the Second World War (1939–1945) that suc-

structures of the peasant world, based primarily on self-sufficiency.This process culminated with the Agricultural Orientation Act ofAugust 5, 1960, completed in 1962, which established the principle

6 Respectively Pilot Program for the Protection of Tropical Forests of the G-7 andProtected Areas of the Amazon, funded in the first instance by the G-7 with additionalsupport from the World Bank and WWF.

7 Territory concession to Maroons, descended from fugitive slaves. The term“Quilomborefers to the territory, “quilombolarefers to the population that lives init.

F. Kohler et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 149–160 151

fores

ot

pgmtdeit1rAps2DcI

dmpps

dTs

Map 1. Localization of the studied area in the Brazilian Atlantic Rain

f parity between agriculture and other economic activities, main-aining however the family-based structure of the farms.

Farmers’ access to land ownership was encouraged, throughre-emptive rights given to tenants and sharecroppers. The reor-anization of plots (land consolidation) permitted the use ofotorized vehicles; the creation of agricultural colleges facilitated

he organization of an innovative agro-alimentary sector, coor-inated by the National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA),stablished in 1946. Cultural methods were then market-oriented,ncreasing national productivity. This reform was strengthened byhe establishment of the European Common Agricultural Policy in962, with a negative impact on traditional societies and envi-onmental health. An ecological turn was then adopted by thegriculture Orientation Act of 1999 which established the princi-le of multi-functional agriculture (economic, environmental andocial functions) as a major tool for regional planning (Alphandéry,001). This Act transposed into French Law two major Europeanirectives: Birds (1979) and Habitats (1985), which promoted thereation of a network of ecological corridors, the Green and Bluenfrastructures (IVB).8

But population pressure combined with the regional economicynamism generated a rise in land value. Habitat improve-ent, recreational or commercial settlements, accelerated the

henomenon of “suburbanization” – or urban sprawling. Thishenomenon, less spectacular perhaps than deforestation, is aerious problem by its scope and its irreversibility. The SAFER

8 The implementation of these corridors is part of the European strategy for bio-iversity conservation, derived from the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992.he Pan-European Ecological Network is expected to restore ecologically functionalystems, by linking the protected areas established by the Natura 2000 network.

t showing protected territories and deforested areas (G. Marchand).

(Societies for Land Planning and Rural Settlement, regional Agen-cies of French Ministère de l’Agriculture) issued a statementsummarizing the reasons for concern: in fifty years, agriculturallabor force has fallen below the threshold of 3% of active popu-lation. The French agricultural area decreased by 20% during thesame period, currently representing 28 million ha. 2.5 million hawere lost to infrastructure and housing. Farmland transformedinto artificialized surfaces represented 60,000 ha/year between1990 and 2000 and 77,000 ha/year between 2000 and 2006. After2006, the settlement phenomenon continues with an even fasterpace: until 2010, the areas concerned are about 78,000 ha/year, or3000 km2 in four years (Ministère de l’Agriculture, 2010; SAFER,2012). Map 3, built from the Corine Land Cover data from 1990 to2006, illustrates this situation.

This apparently irreversible expansion of settlement can be par-alleled with the dynamics of deforestation in Brazilian Amazon andAtlantic Rainforest: local dynamics come into contradiction withthe legal scaffolding built precisely for the opposite objective –the maintenance of forested areas in Brazil and agricultural landin France. It is therefore necessary to focus on structural drivingforces before considering the micro-local level, which allows us tounderstand the internal dynamics of change.

Structural factors: globalization, shifting public policies and legalapparatus inconsistencies

As stated by Meyfroidt et al. (2013), globalization process is

a major land change driver as it influences both public policiesat different scales and local economic opportunities, acceleratingmigration trends. An example of this twofold process was given byBrondizio (2008) about the Ac aí palm (Euterpe oleracea) in Marajó

152 F. Kohler et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 149–160

Map 2. Localization of the studied areas in Brazilian Legal Amazon showing protected territories and deforested areas (G. Marchand).

It

cu

sland. Brondizio shows that traditional communities are deeply

ransformed by the global valorization of very specific products.

But underlying factors can also be found in the structure of judi-ial arsenal. If the law provides a framework which is ignored orndermined, it may be due to two main reasons:

(a) The successive public policy guidelines are too discontinuous

and do not allow time for adaptation.

(b) Legal regimes intertwine, or one cancels the effects of the other;the frames established by law stumble over different scales ofimplementation and decision levels.

F. Kohler et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 149–160 153

ing lan

ipmp(rratca

Map 3. Localization of the studied areas in France, show

Instability or discontinuity of public planning policies resultsn the field by the superposition of conservation and developmentrojects. This overlap is due, on the one hand, to the slow imple-entation of new policies, and on the other, to the inertial force

erpetuating the practices related to former ones. As Simmons2002) puts it, the successive plans implemented in the Amazonegion have created land instability, with an exacerbated envi-onmental degradation due to changes in land use, a predatory

dvance of pioneer fronts, and a phenomenon of land grabbing athe expense of small settlers and traditional peoples. These pro-esses went on for decades thanks to shifting legal frames, and tookdvantage of the political invisibility of traditional populations.

d cover change between 1990 and 2006 (G. Marchand).

In France, the successive orientations of agricultural policy wereimplemented slowly. These orientations cannot achieve their goalsunless all agricultural stakeholders (producers, distributors, foodindustry, but also technicians and zoo-technicians executives, edu-cators and students of Agricultural Colleges) are mobilized. Theirimplementation is postponed, as their objectives can be achievedonly with the advent of a new generation of farmers aware of therelated issues. Farmers throughout their life have seen different

policies, and thus experienced different ideological frameworks;they often lament the inconsistencies of their career. Our surveyshowed that farmers – who now are in charge of “landscape stew-ardship” – were those who cared less about leaving some space

1 se Poli

tbet“

fmafrFmj

eotp(gafisoa

rlvmpatccoafidm2

ee1ltaA2Pa

mt2bwmR

systems. Case studies about rural/urban connections can also bemobilized in this effort to understand Land Use Change (Padochet al., 2008; Eloy and Lasmar, 2012; Seto et al., 2012). However,

54 F. Kohler et al. / Land U

o nature (Kohler et al., 2014). If farmers feel close to nature, it isecause they feel they are producing it: this explains the appar-nt paradox of their mentioning a strong natural connection, dueo their outdoors activity, but seeing no reason to leave room forwilderness” (Ahnström et al., 2009).

Since the French decentralization laws of 1982, the decisionsor urban planning and development have been transferred to the

unicipalities, while the main environmental decisions are takent national level, as a transposition of EU law. A combination ofactors come together to encourage local authorities to attract newesidents by multiplying transportation and recreational facilities.arm buildings and farmland are largely exempt from taxes, sounicipalities have interest in promoting housing projects sub-

ected to local taxation.French farmers are then caught in the crossfire: on one side, an

nvironmental legislation governing their activities, experienced asne of the many “constraints” such as climatic or economic uncer-ainty weighing on the viability of their farm. On the other side, therogressive suburbanization, concentrated (house lots) or diffuse“urban sprawl”) multiplying use conflicts because of the pollutionenerated by agricultural activity. In La Genétouze the urbanizedrea increased from 20.4 ha in 1958 to 101 ha in 2008, and the trendrmly continues in 2013. This set of environmental, economic andocial pressures deters potential buyers, and encourages ownersf agricultural land to convert them into residential areas, thusccelerating the process (Ahnström et al., 2009).

In Brazil, the legal apparatus opposes a very restrictive envi-onmental legislation (at least until 2012) to an extremely liberaland tenure system on public lands, allowing an adjustment of indi-idual ownership after one year of effective occupation, “effective”eaning the transformation of forest or savannah into cropland or

asture.9 Meanwhile, the need of an agrarian reform has produced legal regime that allows the landless to claim for the expropria-ion of “unproductive” farms10 – which unproductive areas oftenoincide with the legal reserve mentioned above, an intentionalonfusion encouraging the invasions (GTA, 2008). Landownersbviously prefer to pay fines for environmental crime (usuallymnestied) rather than seeing their property invaded and con-scated. Land tenure insecurity is a powerful driving force foreforestation, and it is encouraged by the land property regimeore than it is inhibited by environmental legislation (Fearnside,

001; Araujo et al., 2009).With 53% of native vegetation located in private properties, for-

st conservation is central in Brazilian, as well as international,nvironmental debate. Accelerated deforestation process from late980s, led to the revision of Brazilian Forest Code, requiring from

and owners the conservation of a percentage of native vegetation,he so-called Legal Reserve. In the Amazon biome this percent-ge is up to 80% of the property (50% in specific cases). In thetlantic Rainforest biome, this Legal Reserve is, surprisingly, only0%. Furthermore, private properties are supposed to protect theermanent Protection Areas, i.e. riparian vegetation, top of the hills,nd all land submitted to erosion (Soares-Filho et al., 2014).

This severe restriction to deforestation, difficult to apply andonitor, unleashed the rebellion of agribusiness sector. These reac-

ions led to another revision of the Code, approved by the end of012. This new Code maintained the percentages of Legal Reserves,ut granted an amnesty to deforestation occurred before 2008,hich encompassed 90% of rural properties. Furthermore, the Per-

anent Protected Areas were included into computing the Legal

eserve, which reduced the environmental liabilities by 58%.

9 Lei No 6.383, de 7 de Dezembro de 1976. Art. 29.10 Brazilian Constitution, 1988, Chapter III, Articles 184–186.

cy 43 (2015) 149–160

Methodology

We chose our case studies in order to assess, empirically, howlocal dynamics may interweave, so as to shed light on their envi-ronmental impact. In Brazil, we focused on the transmission of landuses and representations in traditional communities, and in France,on the willingness of local authorities to implement, or not, poli-cies promoting ecosystem rehabilitation or restoration. We chosean interdisciplinary approach that combines anthropology, humangeography, ethno-ecology11 and ecology. In France, biodiversitysampling conducted in the field allowed to objectify the environ-mental conditions, using the diversity of species inventoried asbiological indicators.

We used the methods of collecting individual life stories,including migration patterns and current mobility systems, andhousehold surveys12 that allowed us to identify environmentalperception and representations. Qualitative data collected throughopen-ended conversations completed these surveys. We also col-lected mental maps, which consist in asking community members,without other indication, to draw maps expressing the local “senseof place”. These maps reveal the interdependence of spatial, tempo-ral, and social representations. GIS maps were then used to comparethe subjective representations of space with the objective char-acteristics of the territory, so as the land use change might bevisualized by the inhabitants.

These methods have been applied in four Brazilian and twoFrench fieldworks, the Pataxó Indigenous Land having been sub-ject to a classic ethnography (see footnote 12). On the Brazilianside (Maps 1 and 2), we conducted two fieldworks in the MiddleAmazon (Pará) where land overlapping is common: the Abuí andJarauacá Quilombo Areas. The other two sites were used as com-parators: the Quilombo of Cunani in northern Amapá, landlocked inthe National Park of Cape Orange, and the Pataxó Indigenous Land(state of Bahia), which overlaps since 2008 the whole area of MountPascal National Park. We decided to introduce this non-Amazoniancase study as it allows us to highlight a very interesting exampleof the outcomes of social relegation. On the French side, the twomunicipalities studied are fairly representative of rural evolutionsince the Second World War in hedge areas (Map 3).

To be concise, we will expose, for each field, only the relevantaspects for our analysis.

Proximate driving forces: behavioral consistencies andinconsistencies

Statistic or stochastic approaches, spatial analysis about humanoccupation or vegetal land cover (Guillaumet et al., 2009), multi-agent models, General Circulation Models (Lambin, 2002) andDPSIR framework13 seek a fairly high level of generality so as to bepolicy-relevant. On the other hand, social sciences acknowledgethat individual psychology is transcended by a combination of col-lective norms and values (Stern, 2000). This collective dimension isconsidered by the Institutional Analysis Development framework(Ostrom, 2011) which allows us to visualize multiscale regulation

11 We used ethno-ecology in Brazil, as Brazilian law did not allow us to proceed tobiodiversity sampling.

12 Anthropological surveys were applied to all the households on three Brazilianstudy areas (Abuí, Cunani, Jarauacá); and to 10% of the inhabitants in French com-munes. The method applied in Pataxó Indigenous Land in Bahia was exclusivelyqualitative, based on an ethnographic inquiry from 2001 to 2005 (Kohler, 2011).

13 DPSIR stands for Driving forces – Pressure – States – Impacts – Responses. It hasbeen adopted by the European Environment Agency.

F. Kohler et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 149–160 155

Table 1Environmental impact drivers, according to scientific literature.

Severe environmental impact Mild or neutral environmental impact

Land property Land property instability Land property stabilitySocial position Social relegation Social valorizationUrban accessibility Urban proximity Isolation

alc

muaiL2tpWvc

CSB

(lsoi

cttaiowatowmlalg

TcaoatQiooTo

more than 5000 plants of Ac aí were planted around the village in thepast five years. These plantations are no longer considered as beingopen access. The owners of the plots recruit a seasonal workforce in

Social capital Social heterogeneity

Soil productivity potential Soil conversion facilitated

Demography Demographic pressure

s we shall see in Section “Urban/rural connections: analyticalimitations for the cases of Cunani (Amapá) and Abuí (Pará)”, theseonnections are not free from inconsistencies.

Scientific studies focusing on environmental issues generallyention an array of positive or negative factors relevant for land

se and cover change. Among the most cited driving forces (Table 1)re the land property situation (Araujo et al., 2009); the social cap-tal (Brondizio et al., 2009); the degree of isolation (Droulers ande Tourneau, 2010); the demographic pressure (Wittemyer et al.,008; Meyer and Turner, 1992); the social position (social relega-ion or low social status – see Andrade and Rhodes, 2012) and theotential of soil conversion (Netting, 1993; Nepstad et al., 2006).e want to show that these factors have a limited explanatory

alue as they combine randomly and do not take temporality intoonsideration.

onsistency of case studies with explanatory models:aints-en-Puisaye (Yonne, France) and Jarauacá (Oriximiná,razil)

Consistent with our model is the commune of Saints-en-PuisayeYonne, 600 inhabitants, 2770 ha), located in Burgundy, where theand consolidation was completed in 1962. This consolidation hastrongly affected hedgerow surfaces, but had no noticeable impactn urban type settlement, which augmented only from 30 to 38 han 50 years (Map 4).

This commune is divided into two soil types: in the East, a cal-areous soil favoring cereal crops, and in the West a clay soil, wherehe activity of mixed farming was maintained. This commune hashe particularity of being far from urban centers (Auxerre is 50 kmway, Joigny 60 km), thus limiting the phenomenon of suburban-zation. This relative isolation has created a virtuous circle in favorf organic farming (10 out of 25 farms); many neo-rural inhabitantsere converted to organic farming in a marked ecological activism

tmosphere. The healthy environment of the commune fosters, inurn, the proudness of organic producers and allows social controlver agricultural practices. The interviews conducted in the field-ork have demonstrated a strong commitment to the landscape asarkers of local identity, especially because a majority of the popu-

ation is native or comes from surrounding areas. The consolidationffected landscapes but had little impact, however, on the nature ofand tenure: in Saints, the smallholders still predominate, creatingood conditions for social cohesion.

Equally consistent is the case of Jarauacá Quilombo Area in therombetas region (Pará, Brazil), which provides a parallel betweenollective management areas, where exists a relative social control,nd areas of individual settlements. This lake is located in the regionf Erepecuru River, where fugitive slaves concentrated before thebolition of slavery (1888), a region colonized shortly after by whiteraders. In 1980–1990, major social and land conflicts opposeduilombolas populations to self-proclaimed owners of the Brazil-

an nut forests. These populations successfully argued their prior

ccupation, which led to the demarcation of Quilombola territoriesf Trombetas and Erepecuru, as well as a land reform settlement,erra Preta II (TRAJAP). Differences are significant in the evolutionf the landscape of the region between the people who chose the

Strong cohesionSoil conversion discouragedDemographic stability or decline

demarcation of Quilombola territories (collective ownership) andthose who preferred individual plots (personal property). Defor-estation is greatest in areas of agrarian reform (250 ha between1992 and 2011 in TRAJAP) than in Quilombola territories (5 ha forthe Quilombo of Trombetas) for a number of households roughlyequivalent (80 against 109). In 1992, there were 877 ha of openareas around Lake Jarauacá. The boundaries shown on the mapdid not exist: they illustrate the current situation. The clearedareas are distributed as follows: future quilombola area Trombe-tas: 155.67 ha; future quilombola area Erepecuru, actually occupiedby “individual”: 357.57 ha; on the left bank of the Lake, futureland reform settlement TRAJAP: 377.96 ha (Map 5). Agrarian reformareas are more accessible and therefore more prone to conver-sion to pasture, but production flow facilities are almost identicalin areas under collective use. In the “collective” land, the decisivefactor would then be the social control that promotes the main-tenance of traditional activities such as extractivism, horticultureand slash-and-burn clearing.

Urban/rural connections: analytical limitations for the cases ofCunani (Amapá) and Abuí (Pará)

Land stability and social control exerted within a community,however, do not guarantee the sustainability of local practices. Theissue of isolation or urban center accessibility is another factor reg-ularly invoked to explain the environmental impact of a population(Droulers and Le Tourneau, 2010). We analyze the cases of Abui (PA)and Cunani (AP) Quilombo areas, both very isolated even by Ama-zonian criteria.14 Both Quilombolas communities face the growinggap between on the one hand, a defined territory associated with aparticular ethnic identity, and on the other, a socio-economic real-ity rooted in cities and marked by the expansion of family networksin nearby towns (Padoch et al., 2008; Eloy and Lasmar, 2012).

In Cunani, after the construction of the National Road (1975)and the creation of the National Park of Cape Orange (1979), the80s were marked by migrations, many being definitive, becauseof the restrictions imposed by the Brazilian Institute of the Envi-ronment (IBAMA, now Chico Mendes Institute) for the exploitationof natural resources and the cost of freight. The expectation thatthe Quilombo area be legally recognized was not enough to stopthe exodus. While it used to be an important commercial center ata time when the State of Amapá lacked roads, the village is nowreduced to fifty permanent inhabitants, and the decline is accel-erating with the announced closure of the primary school. Ac aíplantations, which do not require a permanent residence, seem togrow while traditional slash-and-burn practices are losing ground:

14 In the case of Cunani the advantage of proximity (as the crow flies) of the city isneutralized by the state of the road, impracticable part of the year, which makes thetransport cost prohibitive. Abuí is located 250 km (by the river) from the city of Orix-iminá, and the trip is slowed down by the checkpoints of the Brazilian EnvironmentalInstitute.

156 F. Kohler et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 149–160

Yonne

tnul

Map 4. Land cover in Saints-en-Puisaye (

he neighboring town Calc oene, accelerating the decline of commu-ity life, while planting and harvesting are accompanied by theirsual impacts: predatory fishing, poaching for bush meat, and pol-

utions of all kind. Against all odds, the demographic decline linked

) between 1957 and 2009 (G. Marchand).

to the isolation does not seem to entail a reduced environmentalimpact.

By contrast, in the Abuí community, land security has gener-ated new revenues in connection with city mobility (seasonal or

F. Kohler et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 149–160 157

nd Lak

ptttpslitlta

optoei

L

eeoIthn

s

Map 5. Evolution of the forested area arou

ermanent jobs, social subsidies and pensions, and sales oppor-unity for livestock). These alternatives have been explored afterhe devaluation of forest products, including Brazil nuts (Bertholet-ia excelsa). Despite the distance that separates Abuí and Oriximiná,eople have developed bi-residential strategies based on the inten-ification of river transport. Among the most unexpected, given theayout of the site and the distance to the city, we will mention thentroduction of cattle, encouraged by the urban elite that ensurehe renewal of herds and the commercialization of the meat. It hased to a concentration of wealth in the hands of some families, andhe privatization de facto of communal lands, being cattle breedingn exclusive activity.

In both cases described, the factors “land stability” and “degreef isolation” do not, by themselves, account for the evolution ofractices, nor do they guarantee a reduced ecological footprint ofhe populations concerned. Family and business networks, a resultf unpredictable circumstances, contribute significantly to reori-nt practices, which in both cases have a still reduced but rapidlyncreasing impact where one would expect a decrease.

and conflict and social relegation

The impact of poverty, social exclusion or relegation on defor-station has been studied; it is generally admitted that the impact isxacerbated when traditional systems of redistribution are shakenr have disappeared (for Brazil: Andrade and Rhodes, 2012; forndia: Agrawal, 2005). But little has been said about what is likelyo occur after the situation (social relegation and/or land dispute)

as been settled. Two examples will illustrate this particular phe-omenon of enduring impact, called hysteresis.

In La Genétouze (Vendée, 1700 inhabitants, 1310 ha), land con-olidation took place relatively late (1968–1972) to put an end to

e Jarauacá, in 1992 and 2011 (M. Negrão).

a tense land situation (the land being mostly in the hands of largelandowners living on their incomes) and modernize local agricul-ture. The consolidation coincided with access to land ownership ofmany farmers and sharecroppers. The hedge landscape then disap-peared, which was seen, at that time, as a positive development bythe majority of farmers. The sense of social and technical backward-ness helped intensify the destruction of traditional landscapes,hedges being uprooted even where they should have remainedin place (roadsides and property limits). The familiar landscapeshaving disappeared, the lampposts served as landmarks for sev-eral years. The prevailing discourse among farmers who lived theconsolidation period is that they needed to “evolve”: the peasantcondition was perceived (according to our interviews) as a defaultsituation due to the lack of alternative or capacity to engage inanother activity. Agricultural modernization was therefore seen asliberation from social and environmental constraints, which mightexplain the radical transformation of ancient landscape (Map 6).

The most striking example, however, remains that of the PataxóIndigenous Land, Extreme South of Bahia, legalized in 1991. Thisregion falls within the Atlantic Rainforest biome, and the case stud-ied is exemplary in many respects. Pataxó Indians were evangelizedand settled in 1861. They adopted the livelihoods of smallholderpeasants, until the lands they occupied were classified as “NationalMonument” in 1941, then as National Park in 1961. They were sub-jected to repeated humiliation, having been forbidden for thirtyyears to access the forest, until their rights were gradually recog-nized (Statute of the Indian enacted in 1973, Brazilian Constitutionof 1988). In this region associated with the “discovery” of Brazil, the

Pataxó, when confronted to the authorities or tourists, pride them-selves on their ecological sensitivity and harmony with nature.They obtained, in 1991, the recognition of 1/3 of the area of MountPascal National Park, a Biosphere Reserve, as Indigenous Land,

158 F. Kohler et al. / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 149–160

Vendé

asta

Map 6. Land cover in la Genétouze (

nd became co-managers of the remaining forest. But the ensuingocial regeneration was not accompanied by virtuous environmen-al practices. On the contrary, the activities of wood handicraft tookn industrial scale: between 1991 and 2008, 80% of the area of the

e) in 1957 and 2008 (G. Marchand).

Indigenous Land was cleared (see Map 7). However, on the basisof the same ecological arguments, the Pataxó obtained in 2008 theextension of their territory, now encompassing the entire NationalPark as well as some surrounding communities.

F. Kohler et al. / Land Use Poli

M(e

reatmidic

D

Bpu

smfeIhccee

ap 7. Mount Pascal area (Extreme South of Bahia State) before (1987) and after2008) the delimitation of Pataxó Indigenous Land, created in 1991, just before itsxtension in 2008 (R. Folhes).

This dynamics is based on the investment in school and supe-ior education of the young generations, almost exclusively at thexpense of the forest cover. The depletion of forest resources,ccording to this logic, is widely compensated with the access ofhe young Pataxó to salaried work, the sign of their social advance-

ent. The other relevant factor to explain this deforestation laysn the association between environmental conservation and pastiscriminatory policy against “backward” Indians (Kohler, 2011);

n the same way, in La Genétouze a sense of social backwardnessompounded the environmental impact of land consolidation.

iscussion and conclusion

Our research, conducted in two French communes and fourrazilian protected areas, aimed at emphasizing the difficulty ofredicting the environmental impact and behavior of a given pop-lation.

According to cultural geography’s main hypothesis, populationtability, length of occupation, landmark knowledge and collectiveemory are signs of human-landscape connection and therefore

avor conservation. This set of signs is called sense of place (Simmonst al., 2007, p. 577). The example of La Genétouze and Pataxóndigenous Land showed us that ancient landscapes can be anni-ilated in a specific social configuration; the “structure of feeling

reated and recreated through the experience of everyday life”an be, precisely, a feeling of social relegation which effects canndure for decades. The economic opportunities do not explainverything: the way these opportunities are exploited and the

cy 43 (2015) 149–160 159

logic which underlies this exploitation reveal the way the pastis channeled. A qualitative field study offers a clue to under-stand underlying factors, the long-lasting relationship as revealedby phenomena such as hysteresis, that LUC models can hardlyconsider.

Moreover, people’s attachment to the places they live, whentaken for granted, may bias the scientific approach. We have there-fore exposed different perspectives and case studies, in order toverify the relevance of the LCS and its assumptions about thestructural and proximate causes of change, on both sides of theAtlantic: protected areas in Brazil, and French rural counties dividedbetween suburbanization and maintenance of farming activities.Multiple factors are at work when a human community deter-mines its attitude toward its environment and its own destiny.Globalized interactions are the first structural factor identified asthey impact local economic trends and opportunities. The law,which establishes the framework in which the choice will be exer-cised, is another structural factor that can compromise all typeof community-based sustainability programs (i.e. independence oflaw regimes, or inconsistent legal apparatus favoring infrastructureand facilities).

Proximate drivers are more problematic. By discussing the rel-evant proximate factors identified in scientific literature (landproperty stability, social valorization, isolation, strong social cap-ital, low potential of soil conversion, demographic stability ordecline), factors which allegedly favor a mild or neutral environ-mental impact, we showed that these factors cannot account for allthe cases in study.

Lambin (2002) highlighted the difficulty of taking into consider-ation the historical dimension so as to understand not only “how”but also “why” these changes occur. Our conclusion is that collectiveinertia should be taken into account, as generational transmissionand new educational or economic opportunities interweave to slowdown or accelerate LUC. In fact, many cases result from hysteresis,meaning that we should consider local history as a major driverof environmental impact. The causes of land cover and land usechange may actually be anchored in remote local history: only aqualitative approach allows us to understand why, all other con-ditions being equal, a human community engages, or not, in anenvironment-friendly dynamics. By studying local history, and col-lective representations (“the Natives’ point of view”), we can betterunderstand people’s attitude toward their environment, so as topropose appropriate conservation policies.

The authors wish to thank Florencia Amorena, Ludivine Eloy,Ricardo Folhes and Claire Couly for their kind contribution to thisarticle. The authors also wish to thank Isabelle Laudier (Caissedes Dépôts et Consignations) and French Commissariat Général auDéveloppement Durable.

References

Agrawal, A., 2005. Environmentality – Technologies of Government and the Makingof Subjects. Duke University Press, Durham.

Ahnström, J., Höckert, J., Bergea, H.L., Francis, C., Skelton, P., Hallgren, L., 2009. Farm-ers and Nature Conservation: What is Known About Attitudes, Context Factorsand Actions Affecting Conservation? Agronomy & Horticulture – Faculty Publi-cations, pp. 38–47 (paper 361).

Alphandéry, P., 2001. Les campagnes franc aises de l’agriculture à l’environnement(1945–2000). Politiques publiques, dynamiques sociales et enjeux territoriaux.PhD thesis, Institut d’Etudes Politiques, Paris.

Andrade, G.S.M., Rhodes, J.R., 2012. Protected areas and local communities: aninevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies? Ecol. Soc. 17(4), 14, http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05216-170414.

Araujo, C., Bonjean, C.A., Combes, J.-L., Combes Motel, P., Reis, E.J., 2009. Property

rights and deforestation the Brazilian Amazon. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2), 461–468.

Bertrand, C., Bertrand, G., 2002. Une géographie traversière, l’environnement àtravers territoires et temporalités. Arguments, Paris.

Bourdieu, P., 2002. Le Bal des célibataires. Crise de la société paysanne en Béarn.Points Seuil, Paris.

1 se Poli

B

B

C

C

D

E

F

G

G

H

K

K

L

M

M

M

Wainwright, J., Mulligan, M. (Eds.), 2002. Environmental Modelling: Finding Sim-

60 F. Kohler et al. / Land U

rondizio, E.S., 2008. The Amazonian Caboclo and the Ac aí palm: Forest Farmers inthe Global Market. New York Botanical Garden Press, New York, NY, USA.

rondizio, E.S., Ostrom, E., Young, O.R., 2009. Connectivity and the gover-nance of multilevel social–ecological systems: the role of social capi-tal. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 253–278, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.020708.100707.

aldas, M., Walker, R., Arima, E., Perz, S., Aldrich, S., Simmons, C., 2007. Theorizingland cover and land use change: the peasant economy of Amazonian Deforesta-tion. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 97 (1), 86–110.

ullen Jr., L., Sana, D.A., Lima, F., Abreu de, K.C., Uezu, A., 2013. Selectionof habitat by the jaguar, Panthera onca (Carnivora: Felidae), in the upperParaná River, Brazil. Zoologia 30 (4), 379–387, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702013000400003.

roulers, M., Le Tourneau, F.M., 2010. L’Amazonie brésilienne et le développementdurable. Belin, Paris.

loy, L., Lasmar, C., 2012. Urbanization and transformation of indigenous resourcemanagement: the case of Upper Rio Negro (Brazil). Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 4,372–388.

earnside, P.M., 2001. Land-tenure issues as factors in environmental destruc-tion in Brazilian Amazonia: the case of southern Para. World Dev. 29 (1),361–372.

TA, 2008. O fim da floresta? A devastac ão das unidades de conservac ão e terrasindígenas no estado de Rondônia. Rondônia’s GTA Report, 62 pp.

uillaumet, J.-L., Laques, A.-E., Léna, P., de Robert, P., 2009. La spatialisation de labiodiversité: un outil pour la gestion durable des territoires. Editions de l’IRD,Bondy.

echt, S.B., 1985. Environment, development and politics: capital, accumulation andthe livestock sector in eastern Amazonia. World Dev. 13 (6), 663–684.

ohler, F., 2011. Tombeau des Aymorés: le Monde souterrain des Indiens Pataxó.Peeters, Louvain.

ohler, F., Thierry, C., Marchand, G., 2014. Multifunctional agriculture and farm-ers’ attitude: two case studies in rural France. Hum. Ecol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9702-4.

ambin, E.F., 2002. Modelling land-use change. In: Wainwright, J., Mulligan, M. (Eds.),Environmental Modelling: Finding Simplicity in Complexity. John Wiley & Sons,Oxford, pp. 245–254.

argulis, S., 2003. Causas de desmatamento da Amazônia brasileira. World Devel-opment Report, 100 pp.

eyfroidt, P., Lambin, E.F., Erb, K.-H., Hertel, T.W., 2013. Globalization of land use:distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Curr.Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 (5), 438–444.

eyer, W.B., Turner, B.L., 1992. Human population growth and global land-use/coverchange. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23, 39–61.

cy 43 (2015) 149–160

Ministère de l’Agriculture, 2010. Méthodologie Teruti-Lucas, http://www.agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/enquetes/territoire-prix-des-terres/teruti-lucas-utilisation-du/

Nepstad, D.C., Stickler, C.M., Almeida, O.T., 2006. Globalization of the Amazon soy andbeef industries: opportunities for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1595–1603,http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1523-1739.2006.00510.x.

Netting, R.M., 1993. Smallholders, householders: farm families and the ecology ofintensive. In: Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Ostrom, E., 2011. Background on the institutional analysis and develop-ment framework. Policy Stud. J. 39 (1), 7–27, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1541-0072.2010.00394.x.

Padoch, C., Brondizio, E.S., Costa, S., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Sears, R., Siqueira,A., 2008. Urban forest and rural cities: multi-sited households, consump-tion patterns, and forest resources in Amazonia. Ecol. Soc. 13 (2), 2 (URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art2/).

SAFER (Sociétés d’aménagement foncier et d’établissement rural), 2012. State-ment, http://www.safer.fr/communique-diminution-surface-agricole-ferme-france.asp

Seto, K.C., Reenberg, A., Boone, C.G., Fragkias, M., Haase, D., Langanke, T.,Marcotullio, P., Munroe, D.K., Olah, B., Simon, D., 2012. Urban land telecon-nections and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (20), 7687–7692,http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109.

Simmons, C.S., 2002. The local articulation of policy conflict: land use, environment,and amerindian rights in eastern Amazonia. Prof. Geogr. 54 (2), 241–258.

Simmons, C.S., Walker, R.T., Arima, E.Y., Aldrich, S.P., Caldas, M.M., 2007. The Amazonland war in the south of Pará. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 97 (3), 567–592.

Soares-Filho, B., Rajão, R., Macedo, M., Carneiro, A., Costa, W., Coe, M., Rodrigues, H.,Alencar, A., 2014. Land use: cracking Brazil’s Forest Code. Science 344 (6182),363–364, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1246663.

Stern, P.C., 2000. Psychology and the science of human–environment interactions.Am. Psych. 55, 523–530.

Turner II, B.L., Lambin, E.F., Reenberg, A., 2007. The emergence of land changescience for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. U.S.A. 104 (52), 20666–20671, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704119104(published online before print December 19, 2007).

Verburg, P.H., Mertz, O., Erb, K.-H., Espindola, G., 2013. Human settlements andindustrial systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 (1), 433–534.

plicity in Complexity. John Wiley & Sons, Oxford.Wittemyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W.T., Coleman, A., Burton, O., Brashares, J.S., 2008.

Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges. Science 321(5885), 123–126.