Diverse conservation efforts have been expanding around the globe, even under the stress of increasing agricultural production. A striking example is the supply-chain agreements put upon the Amazon forest which had reduced deforestation by 80% from the early 2000s (27,772 km2) to 2015 (6207 km2). However, evaluation of these conservation efforts usually focused on the impacts within the Amazon biome only, while the effects that spill over to other areas (e.g., displacement of environmental pressure from one area to another) were rarely considered. Ignoring spillover effects may lead to biased or even wrong conclusions about the effectiveness of these conservation efforts because the hidden cost outside the target area of conservation may offset the achievement within it. It is thus important to assess the spillover effects of these supply-chain agreements. In this study, we used the two supply-chain agreements (i.e., Soy Moratorium and zero-deforestation beef agreement) implemented in the Amazon biome as examples and evaluated their spillover effects to the Cerrado. To achieve a holistic evaluation of the spillover effects, we adopted the telecoupling framework in our analysis. The application of the telecoupling framework includes the interactions between distant systems and extends the analytical boundaries beyond the signatory areas, which fill the gap of previous studies. Our results indicate that the supply-chain agreements have significantly reduced deforestation by half compared to projections within the sending system (i.e., Pará State in the Amazon, which exports soybeans and other agricultural products), but at the cost of increasing deforestation in the spillover system (i.e., a 6.6 time increase in Tocantins State of the Cerrado, where deforestation was affected by interactions between the Amazon and other places). Our study emphasizes that spillover effects should be considered in the evaluation and planning of conservation efforts, for which the telecoupling framework works as a useful tool to do that systematically.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Almeida L B, 2012. Zoneamento Geoambiental do Estado do Tocantins. Rio Claro, Sao Paulo.
Arima E Y, Richards P, Walker R et al., 2011. Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters, 6(2): 1–7.
Assunção J, Gandour C, Rocha R, 2015. Deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon: Prices or policies? Pages 1–5 Environment and Development Economics.
Bastos T X, Pachêco N A, 2005. Freqüências de Chuva no Estado do Pará no Plano Microrregional. Page Boletim de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento. Belem, Para.
Bond W J, Parr C L, 2010. Beyond the forest edge: Ecology, diversity and conservation of the grassy biomes. Biological Conservation, 143(10): 2395–2404.
Brando P M, Coe M T, DeFries R et al., 2013. Ecology, economy and management of an agroindustrial frontier landscape in the southeast Amazon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 368(1619): 1–9.
Deines J M, Liu X, Liu J, 2015. Telecoupling in urban water systems: An examination of Beijing’s imported water supply. Water International, 41(2): 251–270.
Foley J A, Defries R, Asner G P et al., 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734): 570–574.
Furtado A M M, Ponte F C, 2013. Mapeamento de Unidades de Relevo do Estado do Pará. Revista GeoAmazônica, 2(2): 56–67.
Garrett R D, Rausch L L, 2016. Green for gold: Social and ecological tradeoffs influencing the sustainability of the Brazilian soy industry. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(2): 461–493.
Gibbs H K, Munger J, L’Roe J et al., 2016. Did Ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero–deforestation agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conservation Letters, 9(1): 32–42.
Gibbs H K, Rausch L, Munger J et al., 2015. Brazil’s Soy Moratorium. Science, 347(6220): 377–378.
Hulina J, Bocetti C, Campa III H et al., 2017. Telecoupling framework for research on migratory species in the Anthropocene. Elementa Science of the Anthroponcene, 5(5): 23.
Klink C A, Machado R B, 2005. Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conservation Biology, 19(3): 707–713.
Lambin E F, Gibbs H K, Ferreira L et al., 2013. Estimating the world’s potentially available cropland using a bottom–up approach. Global Environmental Change, 23(5): 892–901.
Lambin E F, Meyfroidt P, 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9): 3465–3472.
Lapola D M, Martinelli L A, Peres C A et al., 2014. Pervasive transition of the Brazilian land–use system. Nature Climate Change, 4(1): 27–35.
Lapola D M, Schaldach R, Alcamo J et al., 2010. Indirect land–use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(8): 3388–3393.
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter S R et al., 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844): 1513–1516.
Liu J, Dou Y, Batistella M et al., 2018. Spillover systems in a telecoupled Anthropocene: Typology, methods, and governance for global sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 33: 58–69.
Liu J, Hull V, Batistella M et al., 2013. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecology and Society, 18(2): 26.
Liu J, Hull V, Luo J et al., 2015a. Multiple telecouplings and their complex interrelationships. Ecology and Society, 20(3): 44.
Liu J, Mooney H, Hull V et al., 2015b. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science, 347(6225): 963–973.
Liu J, Yang W, Li S, 2016. Framing ecosystem services in the telecoupled Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(1): 27–36.
Macedo M N, DeFries R S, Morton D C et al., 2012. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(4): 1341–1346.
Meyfroidt P, Lambin E F, 2009. Forest transition in Vietnam and displacement of deforestation abroad. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(38): 16139–16144.
Morton D C, DeFries R S, Shimabukuro Y E et al., 2006. Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(39): 14637–14641.
Nepstad D, Mcgrath D, Stickler C et al., 2014. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science, 344(6188): 1118–1123.
Santopuoli G, Marchetti M, Giongo M, 2016. Supporting policy decision makers in the establishment of forest plantations, using SWOT analysis and AHPs analysis: A case study in Tocantins (Brazil). Land Use Policy, 54: 549–558.
Santos C A C, Oliveira V G, 2017. Trends in extreme climate indices for Pará State, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia, 32(1): 13–24.
Silva R F B D, Batistella M, Moran E F, 2016. Drivers of land change: Human–environment interactions and the Atlantic forest transition in the Paraíba Valley, Brazil. Land Use Policy, 58: 133–144.
Soares–filho B, Rajão R, Macedo M et al., 2014. Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science, 344(6182): 363–364.
Sun J, Mooney H, Wu W B et al., 2018. Importing food damages domestic environment: Evidence from global soybean trade. PNAS, 115(21): 5415–5419.
Sun J, Tong Y, Liu J, 2017. Telecoupled land–use changes in distant countries. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 16(2): 368–376.
Wang F, Liu J, 2016. Conservation planning beyond giant pandas: The need for an innovative telecoupling framework. Science China Life Sciences, 60(5): 1–4.
Wu W, Tang H, Yang P et al., 2011. Scenario–based assessment of future food security. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 21(1): 3–17.
Yang W, Hyndman D W, Winkler J A et al., 2016. Urban water sustainability: Framework and application. Ecology and Society, 21(4): 14.
Yao Z, Zhang L, Tang S et al., 2017. The basic characteristics and spatial patterns of global cultivated land change since the 1980s. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 27(7): 771–785.
Zhang J, Zhao N, Liu X et al., 2016. Global virtual–land flow and saving through international cereal trade. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 26(5): 619–639.
We thank Sue Nichols for her constructive comments and edits, and Dr. Mateus Batistella for his helpful critiques and insights.
Foundation: US National Science Foundation Award, No.1518518; Complex Dynamics of Telecoupled Human and Natural System; Michigan AgBioResearch; São Paulo Research Foundation, No.15/25892-7
About this article
Cite this article
Dou, Y., da Silva, R.F.B., Yang, H. et al. Spillover effect offsets the conservation effort in the Amazon. J. Geogr. Sci. 28, 1715–1732 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-018-1539-0