Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por eng |
Título da fonte: | Sociedade & natureza (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481 |
Resumo: | Among the targets of the Aichi Accord, of which Brazil was a signatory, was the commitment to protect at least 17% of its terrestrial and continental waters and 10% of all marine and coastal areas by 2020. When the target window closed, Brazil had 30% of those projected continental and 27% of the marine areas protected. Those areas, however, are unevenly distributed throughout the country, with the Amazon region exceeding 30% of the projected protection, while only approximately 8% of the Caatinga region has been considered. In this study, we computed the coverage of 98 designated Conservation Areas (CAs) and an ecological corridor in Ceará State (CE) and evaluated their distributions among that state’s various natural environments. Our results indicated that 92.6% % of the total officially protected areas corresponded to Uso Sustentável categories (US), which means sustainable use in English ,largely distributed among ecosystems outside the Caatinga domain, including coastal areas and humid and sub-humid enclaves. Those CAs contain rich bio- and geo-diversities of significant socioeconomic interest, although they do little to protect caatinga vegetation – the predominant ecosystem in the state. Additionally, the predominance of US CAs provide limited legal safeguards to biodiversity, especially among those CAs with low levels of legal protection, such as the category of Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA), which means Environmental Protection Areas in English , which account for the greatest coverage in the state. We conclude that the spatial configuration of state CAs is distant from ideal in terms of their extensions and representativeness, with few areas of protected caatinga vegetation and limited areas with full protection. |
id |
UFU-6_8161748c63c000cc8d6a5d19232543ff |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.www.seer.ufu.br:article/64481 |
network_acronym_str |
UFU-6 |
network_name_str |
Sociedade & natureza (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, BrazilRepresentatividade ecológica e extensão total de áreas protegidas pelas unidades de conservação no estado do Ceará, BrasilPlanejamentoSemiáridoSNUCProtocolo de AichiConservação Planning ConservationSemiaridSNUCAichi ProtocolAmong the targets of the Aichi Accord, of which Brazil was a signatory, was the commitment to protect at least 17% of its terrestrial and continental waters and 10% of all marine and coastal areas by 2020. When the target window closed, Brazil had 30% of those projected continental and 27% of the marine areas protected. Those areas, however, are unevenly distributed throughout the country, with the Amazon region exceeding 30% of the projected protection, while only approximately 8% of the Caatinga region has been considered. In this study, we computed the coverage of 98 designated Conservation Areas (CAs) and an ecological corridor in Ceará State (CE) and evaluated their distributions among that state’s various natural environments. Our results indicated that 92.6% % of the total officially protected areas corresponded to Uso Sustentável categories (US), which means sustainable use in English ,largely distributed among ecosystems outside the Caatinga domain, including coastal areas and humid and sub-humid enclaves. Those CAs contain rich bio- and geo-diversities of significant socioeconomic interest, although they do little to protect caatinga vegetation – the predominant ecosystem in the state. Additionally, the predominance of US CAs provide limited legal safeguards to biodiversity, especially among those CAs with low levels of legal protection, such as the category of Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA), which means Environmental Protection Areas in English , which account for the greatest coverage in the state. We conclude that the spatial configuration of state CAs is distant from ideal in terms of their extensions and representativeness, with few areas of protected caatinga vegetation and limited areas with full protection.As metas de Aichi, das quais o Brasil foi signatário, previam que, até 2020, pelo menos 17% de áreas terrestres e águas continentais e 10% das áreas marinhas e costeiras fossem englobados em áreas protegidas. Finalizado o prazo da meta, o Brasil conta, oficialmente, com 30% da área continental e 27% da área marinha protegidas, todavia distribuídas desigualmente em seu território. Neste estudo, computou-se a cobertura de 98 UCs e um corredor ecológico no estado do Ceará (CE) e foi avaliada sua distribuição entre os vários ambientes naturais do estado. Destarte, buscou-se avaliar a representatividade da conservação promovida pelas UCs em relação aos diferentes ecossistemas estaduais. Os resultados apontam que 92,4% da área protegida corresponde ao regime de Uso Sustentável, distribuída prioritariamente em ecossistemas de exceção do bioma Caatinga, como as áreas costeiras e encraves úmidos e sub-úmidos. Essas áreas apresentam relevância ambiental com rica biodiversidade e geodiversidadade, com interesse socioeconômico, mas o desenho atual de UCs deixou pouco protegida a vegetação de caatinga, ecossistema predominante do estado. Ademais, a predominância de UCs de uso sustentável trazem menos proteção jurídica para salvaguardar a biodiversidade, especialmente aquelas com baixo grau legal de proteção, como a categoria Área de Proteção Ambiental que corresponde à maior cobertura estadual. Conclui-se que a configuração espacial das UCs estaduais ainda está distante do ideal em termos de extensão e representatividade, com poucas áreas protegidas na vegetação de caatinga e pequena extensão de UCs de proteção integral.Universidade Federal de Uberlândia2022-09-06info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/6448110.14393/SN-v34-2022-64481Sociedade & Natureza; Vol. 34 No. 1 (2022): Sociedade & Natureza; v. 34 n. 1 (2022): 1982-45130103-1570reponame:Sociedade & natureza (Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)instacron:UFUporenghttps://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481/34609https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481/34610Copyright (c) 2021 Francisco Vladimir Silva Gomes, Ana Maria Ferreira Santos, , Liana Rodrigues Queiroz, Marcelo Oliveira Teles Menezes, Marcelo Freire Morohttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGomes, Francisco Vladimir SilvaSantos, Ana Maria Ferreira Guerra, Renan Gonçalves PinheiroQueiroz, Liana RodriguesMenezes, Marcelo Oliveira TelesMoro, Marcelo Freire2023-04-06T20:32:29Zoai:ojs.www.seer.ufu.br:article/64481Revistahttp://www.sociedadenatureza.ig.ufu.br/PUBhttps://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/oai||sociedade.natureza.ufu@gmail.com|| lucianamelo@ufu.br1982-45130103-1570opendoar:2023-04-06T20:32:29Sociedade & natureza (Online) - Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil Representatividade ecológica e extensão total de áreas protegidas pelas unidades de conservação no estado do Ceará, Brasil |
title |
Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil |
spellingShingle |
Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil Gomes, Francisco Vladimir Silva Planejamento Semiárido SNUC Protocolo de Aichi Conservação Planning Conservation Semiarid SNUC Aichi Protocol |
title_short |
Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil |
title_full |
Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil |
title_fullStr |
Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil |
title_full_unstemmed |
Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil |
title_sort |
Ecological representativeness and total area protected by natural reserves in Ceará State, Brazil |
author |
Gomes, Francisco Vladimir Silva |
author_facet |
Gomes, Francisco Vladimir Silva Santos, Ana Maria Ferreira Guerra, Renan Gonçalves Pinheiro Queiroz, Liana Rodrigues Menezes, Marcelo Oliveira Teles Moro, Marcelo Freire |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Santos, Ana Maria Ferreira Guerra, Renan Gonçalves Pinheiro Queiroz, Liana Rodrigues Menezes, Marcelo Oliveira Teles Moro, Marcelo Freire |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Gomes, Francisco Vladimir Silva Santos, Ana Maria Ferreira Guerra, Renan Gonçalves Pinheiro Queiroz, Liana Rodrigues Menezes, Marcelo Oliveira Teles Moro, Marcelo Freire |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Planejamento Semiárido SNUC Protocolo de Aichi Conservação Planning Conservation Semiarid SNUC Aichi Protocol |
topic |
Planejamento Semiárido SNUC Protocolo de Aichi Conservação Planning Conservation Semiarid SNUC Aichi Protocol |
description |
Among the targets of the Aichi Accord, of which Brazil was a signatory, was the commitment to protect at least 17% of its terrestrial and continental waters and 10% of all marine and coastal areas by 2020. When the target window closed, Brazil had 30% of those projected continental and 27% of the marine areas protected. Those areas, however, are unevenly distributed throughout the country, with the Amazon region exceeding 30% of the projected protection, while only approximately 8% of the Caatinga region has been considered. In this study, we computed the coverage of 98 designated Conservation Areas (CAs) and an ecological corridor in Ceará State (CE) and evaluated their distributions among that state’s various natural environments. Our results indicated that 92.6% % of the total officially protected areas corresponded to Uso Sustentável categories (US), which means sustainable use in English ,largely distributed among ecosystems outside the Caatinga domain, including coastal areas and humid and sub-humid enclaves. Those CAs contain rich bio- and geo-diversities of significant socioeconomic interest, although they do little to protect caatinga vegetation – the predominant ecosystem in the state. Additionally, the predominance of US CAs provide limited legal safeguards to biodiversity, especially among those CAs with low levels of legal protection, such as the category of Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA), which means Environmental Protection Areas in English , which account for the greatest coverage in the state. We conclude that the spatial configuration of state CAs is distant from ideal in terms of their extensions and representativeness, with few areas of protected caatinga vegetation and limited areas with full protection. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-09-06 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481 10.14393/SN-v34-2022-64481 |
url |
https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.14393/SN-v34-2022-64481 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por eng |
language |
por eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481/34609 https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/sociedadenatureza/article/view/64481/34610 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Uberlândia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Uberlândia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade & Natureza; Vol. 34 No. 1 (2022): Sociedade & Natureza; v. 34 n. 1 (2022): 1982-4513 0103-1570 reponame:Sociedade & natureza (Online) instname:Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU) instacron:UFU |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU) |
instacron_str |
UFU |
institution |
UFU |
reponame_str |
Sociedade & natureza (Online) |
collection |
Sociedade & natureza (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade & natureza (Online) - Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||sociedade.natureza.ufu@gmail.com|| lucianamelo@ufu.br |
_version_ |
1799943982941208576 |