CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 70Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impactOil Palm Production and Sustainability

Commodity-centric landscape governance as a double-edged sword: The case of soy and the Cerrado Working Group in Brazil

Open access
Bastos Lima, Mairon G., Persson, U. Martin·2020·Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
DOI 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00027
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Persistent ecological and socio-economic impacts from the expansion of industrial monocultures in the tropics have raised land use sustainability to the top of the environmental policy agenda. As major crops such as soy continue to experience growing market demand and threaten both natural ecosystems and traditional populations, a number of multi-stakeholder governance initiatives have been established around agricultural commodity chains or key landscapes. Effectiveness in curbing unsustainable land use, however, remains limited. In this context, innovative initiatives have blurred the lines to combine both supply chain and landscape governance. We analyze such arrangements – here conceptualized as commodity-centric landscape governance (CCLG) – with an in-depth case study of the Cerrado Working Group, a multi-stakeholder initiative led by civil society and the soy agribusiness to address land use change in that savannah landscape in Brazil. The paper examines how that initiative has come about, its agenda, as well as usually underexposed political dimensions using agenda-setting theory. The research is based on extensive fieldwork in Brazil, with data collected through document analysis and 56 key-informant interviews. The findings suggest that a sustainable development agenda for the Cerrado has been substantially narrowed to become mostly one of conversion-free soy supply, serving more the interests of that agroindustry and its consumers than those of the landscape’s most vulnerable stakeholders, such as local communities. While the Cerrado Working Group has importantly broadened the policy scope beyond commodity certification, its limited inclusiveness and a skewed agenda have led to instruments that target only soy farmers as beneficiaries. We conclude that, although effective for targeting conversion drivers, CCLG can reinforce existing land use patterns by granting disproportionate power to dominant stakeholders and thus limiting the agenda to incremental changes. As a consequence, distant demand-side actors may exert greater governance authority than the landscape’s own population. If embodying norms of inclusiveness and equitable participation, CCLG may serve as an entry point, but it does not per se replace inclusive land-use planning and integrated landscape governance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00027

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A supply chain framing typically takes existing landscape configurations for granted and, implicitly or explicitly, works to preserve them.

    “At the heart of the matter is the fact that a supply chain framing typically takes existing landscape configurations for granted and, implicitly or explicitly, works to preserve them (Bastos Lima and Persson, 2020).”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Bastos Lima and Persson, 2020

    In “Second-Level Agenda Setting: Issue Framing and Attribute Salience” (page unavailable), the paper says the Cerrado initiative treats soy as the only development path while tacitly ignoring alternatives. The Discussion (page unavailable) says powerful actors avoid changes that could disrupt the agenda of increasing soy supplies. This supports the claim about taking the existing soy-centered model for granted, but not its broader assertion that supply-chain framings typically work to preserve existing landscape configurations. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. Alix-Garcia, J. and Gibbs, H. K. (2017). Forest conservation effects of Brazil's zero deforestation cattle agreements undermined by leakage. Global Environ Chang. 47, 201-217. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017. 08.009 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Alpízar, F., Nordén, A., Pfaff, A., and Robalino, J. (2017a). Unintended effects of targeting an environmental rebate. Environ. Resour. Eco. 67, 181-202. doi: 10.1007/s10640-015-9981-2 · DOI
  3. Alpízar, F., Nordén, A., Pfaff, A., and Robalino, J. (2017b). Spillovers from targeting of incentives: exploring responses to being excluded. J. Econ. Psychol. 59, 87-98. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2017.02.007 · DOI
  4. Arima, E., Richards, P., Walker, R., and Caldas, M. M. (2011). Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Amazon. Environ Res Lett. 6:024010. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024010 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Arts, B., Buizer, M., Horlings, L., Ingram, V., van Oosten, C., and Opdam, P. (2017). Landscape approaches: a state-of-the-art review. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42, 439-463. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060932 · DOI
  6. Arvor, D., Daugeard, M., Tritsch, I., De Mello-Thery, N. A., Thery, H., and Dubreuil, V. (2018). Combining socioeconomic development with environmental governance in the Brazilian Amazon: the Mato Grosso agricultural frontier at a tipping point. Environ. Dev. Sust. 20, 1-22. doi: 10.1007/s10668-016-9889-1 · DOI
  7. Bachrach, P., and Baratz, M. M. (1962). Two faces of power. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 56, 947-952. doi: 10.2307/1952796 · DOI
  8. Balmas, M., and Sheafer, T. (2010). Candidate image in election campaigns: attribute agenda setting, affective priming, and voting intentions. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 22, 204-229. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edq009 · DOI
  9. Barnett, M. N., and Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power and pathologies of international organizations. Int. Organ. 53, 699-732. doi: 10.1162/002081899551048 · DOI
  10. Bastos Lima, M. G., and Gupta, J. (2014). The extraterritorial dimensions of biofuel policies and the politics of scale: live and let die? Third World Q. 35, 392-410. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2014.893484 · DOI
  11. Bastos Lima, M. G., Persson, M. P., and Meyfroidt, P. (2019). Leakage and boosting effects in environmental governance: a framework for analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:105006. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab4551 · DOI
  12. Bastos Lima, M. G., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Brana Varela, J., and Gupta, A. (2017). A reality check on the landscape approach to REDD+: lessons from Latin America. Forest Policy Eco. 78, 10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.013 · DOI
  13. Borck, J. C., and Coglianese, C. (2009). Voluntary environmental programs: assessing their effectiveness. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 305-324. doi: 10.1146/annurev.environ.032908.091450 · DOI
  14. Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., Persson, U. M., et al. (2017). The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Dev. 96, 359-374. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020 · DOI
  15. Borras, S. M., Franco, J. C., Gomez, S., Kay, C., and Spoor, M. (2012). Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean. J. Peasant Stud. 39, 845-872. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2012.679931 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Campbell, J. M. (2015). Conjuring Property: Speculation and Environmental Futures in the Brazilian Amazon (Culture, Place, and Nature). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
  17. Chervier, C., Le Velly, G., and Ezzine-de-Blas, D. (2019). When the implementation of payments for biodiversity conservation leads to motivation crowding-out: a case study from the Cardamoms forests, Cambodia. Ecol. Eco. 156, 499-510. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017. 03.018 · DOI
  18. Clapp, J. (2017). The trade-ification of the food sustainability agenda. J. Peasant Stud. 44, 335-353. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2016.1250077 · DOI
  19. Clapp, J., and Dauvergne, P. (2005). Paths to a Green World: The Political Economy of the Global Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/5265.001.0001 · DOI
  20. Clapp, J., and Fuchs, D. (eds). (2009). Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262012751.001.0001 · DOI
  21. Cook, S. (2006). Structural change, growth and poverty reduction in Asia: Pathways to inclusive development. Dev. Policy Rev. 24, 51-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7679.2006.00341.x · DOI
  22. Corbera, E., and Pascual, U. (2012). Ecosystem services: heed social goals. Science 335, 655-656. doi: 10.1126/science.335.6069.655-c · DOI
  23. Cossart, S., Chaplier, J., and Beau de Lomenie, T. (2017). The French law on duty of care: a historic step towards making globalization work for all. Business Hum. Rights J. 2, 317-323. doi: 10.1017/bhj.2017. · DOI
  24. Costedoat, S., Koetse, M., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D. (2016). Cash only? Unveiling preferences for a PES contract through a choice experiment in Chiapas, Mexico. Land Use Policy 58, 302-317. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.023 · DOI
  25. Dahl, R. (1957). The concept of power. Behav. Sci. 2, 201-215. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830020303 · DOI
  26. Deans, H., Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., and Derkyi, M. (2018). Advanced value chain collaboration in Ghana's cocoa sector: an entry point for integrated landscape approaches? Environ. Manage. 62, 143-156. doi: 10.1007/s00267-017-0863-y · DOI
  27. Dimitrov, R. S. (2005). Hostage to Norms: States, institutions and global forest politics. Global Environ. Polit. 5, 1-24. doi: 10.1162/1526380057747 85499 · DOI
  28. Duff, G., Garnett, D., Jacklyn, P., Landsberg, J., Ludwig, J., Morrison, J., et al. (2009). A collaborative design to adaptively manage for landscape sustainability in north Australia: lessons from a decade of cooperative research. Landsc. Ecol. 24, 1135-1143. doi: 10.1007/s10980-008-9236-5 · DOI
  29. Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Corbera, E., and Lapeyre, R. (2019). Payments for environmental services and motivation crowding: towards a conceptual framework. Ecol. Eco. 156, 434-443. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.026 · DOI
  30. Faria, N. M.X., Rosa, J. A.R., and Facchini, L. A. (2009). Poisoning by pesticides among family fruit farmers, Bento Gonçalves, Southern Brazil. Rev. Saude Publica, 43, 1-10. doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102009005000014 · DOI
  31. Freeman, O. E., Duguma, L. A., and Minang, P. A. (2015). Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecol. Soc. 20:24. doi: 10.5751/ES-07175-200124 · DOI
  32. Gardner, T. A., Benzie, M., Borner, J., Dawkins, E., Fick, S., Garrett, R., et al. (2019). Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Dev. 121, 163-177. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.025 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Garrett, R. D., Levy, S., Carlson, K. M., Gardner, T. A., Godar, J., and Villoria, N. (2019). Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Global Environ. Change 54, 135-147. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003 · DOI
  34. Garrett, R. D., and Rausch, L. L. (2016). "Green for gold: social and ecological tradeoffs influencing the sustainability of the Brazilian soy industry". J. Peasant Stud. 43, 461-493. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2015.1010077 · DOI
  35. Gibbs, H. K., Munger, J., L'Roe, J., Barreto, P., Pereira, R., Christie, M., et al. (2016). Did ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero-deforestation agreements in the brazilian amazon? Conserv. Lett. 9, 32-42. doi: 10.1111/conl.12175 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Gibbs, H. K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D. C., Noojipady, P., et al. (2015). Brazil's soy moratorium. Science 347, 377-378. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa0181 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Green, J. M. H., Croft, S. A., Durán, A. P., Balmford, A. P., Burgess, N. D., Fick, S., et al. (2019). Linking global drivers of agricultural trade to on-the- ground impacts on biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 23202-23208. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1905618116 · DOI
  38. Gupta, J., Pouw, N. R.M., and Ros-Tonen, M. A.F. (2015). Towards and elaborated theory of inclusive development. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 27, 541-559. doi: 10.1057/ejdr.2015. · DOI
  39. Hajer, M. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  40. Hunke, P., et al. (2015). The Brazilian Cerrado: assessment of water and soil degradation in catchments under intensive agricultural use. Ecohydrology 8, 1154-1180. doi: 10.1002/eco.1573 · DOI
  41. Ingram, V., van den Berg, J., van Oorschot, M., Arets, E., and Judge, L. (2018). Governance options to enhance ecosystem services in cocoa, soy, tropical timber and palm oil value chains. Environ. Manage. 62, 128-142. doi: 10.1007/s00267-018-0996-7 · DOI
  42. Iyengar, S., Peters, M. D., and Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the "not-so-minimal" consequences of television news programs. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 76, 848-858. doi: 10.1017/S00030554001 8966X · DOI
  43. Kaimowitz, D. (2008). The prospects for reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) in mesoamerica. Int. Forestry Rev. 10, 485-495. doi: 10.1505/ifor.10.3.485 · DOI
  44. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
  45. Knaggard, A. (2015). The multiple streams framework and the problem broker. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 54, 450-465. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12097 · DOI
  46. Kusters, K., Buck, L., de Graaf, M., Minang, P., van Oosten, C., and Zagt, R. (2018). Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi-stakeholder platforms in integrated landscape initiatives. Environ. Manage. 62, 170-181. doi: 10.1007/s00267-017-0847-y · DOI
  47. Lambin, E. F., Gibbs, H. K., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K. M., Fleck, L. C., Garrett, R. D., et al. (2018). The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Climate Change 8, 109-116. doi: 10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1 · DOI
  48. Lambin, E. F., Meyfroidt, P., Rueda, X., Blackman, A., Borner, J., Cerutti, P. O., et al. (2014). Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Global Environ. Change 28, 129-140. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.007 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Lambin, E. F., and Thorlakson, T. (2018). Sustainability standards: interactions between private actors, civil society, and governments. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 369-393. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025931 · DOI
  50. Martinelli, L. A., Batistella, M., Bicudo da Silva, R. F., and Moran, E. (2017). Soy expansion and socioeconomic development in municipalities of Brazil. Land 6:62. doi: 10.3390/land6030062 · DOI
  51. Martinez-Alier, J. (2014). The environmentalism of the poor. Geoforum 54, 239-241. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.019 · DOI
  52. McCombs, M. (2014). Setting the Agenda. Cambridge: Polity Press
  53. Meyfroidt, P., Abeygunawardane, D., Ramankutty, N., Thomson, A., and Zeleke, G. (2019). Interactions between land systems and food systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 38, 60-67. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.010 · DOI
  54. Milder, J. C., Hart, A. K., Dobie, P., Minai, J., and Zaleski, C. (2014). Integrated landscape initiatives for African agriculture, development, and conservation: a region-wide assessment. World Dev. 54, 68-80. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.07.006 · DOI
  55. Munroe, D. K., Batistella, M., Friis, C., Gasparri, N. I., Lambin, E., Liu, J., et al. (2019). Governing flows in telecoupled land systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 38, 53-59. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.05.004 · DOI
  56. Nepstad, D., Irawan, S., Bezerra, T., Boyd, W., Stickler, C., Shimada, J., et al. (2013). More food, more forest, few emissions, better livelihoods: linking REDD+, sustainable supply chains and domestic policy in Brazil, Indonesia, and Colombia. Carbon Manage. 4, 639-58. doi: 10.4155/cmt.13.65 · DOI
  57. O'Farrell, P. J., and Andersson, P. M. L. (2010). Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 2, 29-65. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.005 · DOI
  58. Oliveira, G., and, Hecht, S. (2016). Sacred groves, sacrifice zones, and soy production: globalization, intensification and neo-nature in South America. J. Peasant Studies 43, 251-285. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2016.11 46705 · DOI
  59. Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., et al. (2014). Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64, 1027-1036. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu146 · DOI
  60. Pendrill, F., Persson, U. M., Godar, J., Kastner, T., Moran, D., Schmidt, S., et al. (2019). Agricultural and forestry trade drivers large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Global Environ. Change 56, 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.002 · DOI
  61. Persson, U. M., and Alpízar, F. (2013). Conditional cash transfers and payments for environmental services-a conceptual framework for explaining and judging differences in outcomes. World Dev. 43, 124-137. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.10.006 · DOI
  62. Poynton, S. (2015). Beyond Certification. Oxford: Do Sustainability.
  63. Rauniyar, G., and Kanbur, R. (2009). Inclusive growth and inclusive development: A review and synthesis of Asian Development Bank literature. J. Asia Pacific Eco. 15, 455-469. doi: 10.1080/13547860.2010.517680 · DOI
  64. Rausch, L. L., Gibbs, H. K., Schelly, I., Brandão, A. Jr., Morton, D. C., Filho, A. C., et al. (2019). Soy expansion in Brazil's Cerrado. Conserv. Lett. 12:e12671. doi: 10.1111/conl.12671 · DOI
  65. Reed, J, van Vianen, J., Barlow, J., and Sunderland, T. (2017). Have integrated landscape approaches reconciled societal and environmental issues in the tropics? Land Use Policy 63, 481-492. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.021 · DOI
  66. Reed, J., van Vianen, J., Deakin, E. L., Barlow, J., and Sunderland, T. (2016). Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2540-2554. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13284 · DOI
  67. Rode, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., and Krause, T. (2015). Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecol. Eco. 117, 270-282. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.019 · DOI
  68. Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., Reed, J., and Sunderland, T. (2018). From synergy to complexity: The trend towards integrated value chain and landscape governance. Environ. Manage. 62, 1-14. doi: 10.1007/s00267-018-1055-0 · DOI
  69. Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., Van Leynseele, Y. P. B., Laven, A., and Sunderland, T. (2015). Landscapes of social inclusion: Inclusive value-chain collaboration through the lenses of food sovereignty and landscape governance. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 27, 523-540. doi: 10.1057/ejdr.2015. · DOI
  70. Sauer, S. (2018). Soy expansion into the agricultural frontiers of the Brazilian Amazon: the agribusiness economy and its social and environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy 79, 326-338. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.030 · DOI
  71. Sawyer, D., and Lahsen, M. (2016). Civil society and environmental change in Brazil's Cerrado. Environment 58, 16-23. doi: 10.1080/00139157.2016.12 29541 · DOI
  72. Sayer, J., Margules, C., Boedhihartono, A. K., Dale, A., Sunderland, T., Supriatna, J., et al. (2015). Landscape approaches; what are the pre-conditions for success? Sust. Sci. 10, 345-355. doi: 10.1007/s11625-014-0281-5 · DOI
  73. Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J. L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., et al. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 8349-8356. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1210595110 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Schouten, G., and Glasbergen, P. (2011). Creating legitimacy in global private governance: the case of the roundtable on sustainable palm oil. Ecol. Eco. 70, 1891-1899. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.012 · DOI
  75. Strassburg, B., Brooks, T., Feltran-Barbieri, R., and Crouzeilles, R. (2017). Moment of truth for the Cerrado hotspot. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1:0099. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0099 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Van der Ven, H., Rothacker, C., and Cashore, B. (2018). Do eco-labels prevent deforestation? Lessons from non-state market driven governance in the soy, palm oil, and cocoa sectors. Glob. Environ. Change 52, 141-151. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.002 · DOI
  77. Van Oosten, C., Moeliono, M., and Wiersum, F. (2018). From product to place -Spatializing governance in a commodified landscape. Environ. Manage. 62, 157-169. doi: 10.1007/s00267-017-0883-7 · DOI
  78. Vieira, R. R.S., Ribeiro, B. R., Resende, F. M., Brum, F. T., Machado, N., and Loyola, R. (2018). Compliance to Brazil's Forest Code will not protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Diver. Distrib. 24, 434-438. doi: 10.1111/ddi. 12700 · DOI
  79. Visser, O. (2015). Finance and the global land rush: Understanding the growing role of investment funds in land deals and large-scale farming. Can. Food Studies La Revue Can. Des études Sur L'alimentation 2, 278-286. doi: 10.15353/cfs-rcea.v2i2.122 · DOI
  80. Wunder, S. (2007). The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv. Biol. 21, 48-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00559.x · DOI
  81. Yao, G., Hertel, T. W., and Taheripour, F. (2018). Economic drivers of telecoupling and terrestrial carbon fluxes in the global soybean complex. Glob. Environ. Change 50, 190-200. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.005 · DOI
  82. Zanzanaini, C., Trân, B. T., Singh C., Hart, A., Milder, J., and DeClerck, F. (2017). Integrated landscape initiatives for agriculture, livelihoods and ecosystem conservation: an assessment of experiences from South and Southeast Asia. Landsc Urban Plan 165, 11-21. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017. 03.010 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bastos Lima, M. G., & Persson, U. M.
Affiliations
Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
ORCID
Persson, U. Martin
Venue
Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2020-03-12
Volume
3
ISSN
2624-893X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/ffgc.2020.00027
OpenAlex
W3012309920
Cited by
70
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 6
FWCI
15.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Forests and Global Change (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Global trade, sustainability, and social impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
Keywords
Cerrado, land use change, multi-stakeholder governance, supply chain governance, agenda-setting theory, stakeholder inclusion, local communities, sustainable development, land use planning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review