Evaluates socioeconomic factors affecting native vegetation retention in rural landowners, suggesting policy implications.
The conservation of native vegetation in rural properties of the Brazilian semi‐arid region constitutes a critical challenge for regional environmental sustainability and land degradation prevention. This study analyzed the influence of socioeconomic factors of rural landowners on native vegetation retention in properties from the Central Backlands of Northeast Brazil. Structured interviews were conducted with 65 rural landowners from 10 municipalities in Ceará and Piauí states, collecting information on ethnicity, gender, income, education, and property characteristics. Native vegetation percentage was quantified using MapBiomas Collection 9 data (2023), and spatial analysis was performed in R software. The relationship between socioeconomic variables and native vegetation retention was evaluated through multiple linear modeling with model selection based on Akaike Information Criterion (AICc). Results revealed an average of 49.6% ± 27.4% native vegetation retention, with high variability among properties (2.1%–98.7%). Modeling identified productive area percentage (β = −0.392, p = 0.011) and total family income (β = −0.007, p = 0.008) as the primary negative predictors of native vegetation retention. An exploratory descriptive pattern was observed for education, but no robust inference can be drawn given the sparse education categories (e.g., higher education, n = 2). Female‐led properties presented higher mean retention (52.4% vs. 47.8%), though without statistically significant difference, while experiencing lower family income. The trade‐off between productive intensification and native vegetation retention evidenced a 3.9% reduction for each 10% increase in production area. These findings indicate that native vegetation retention in the semi‐arid region results from complex interactions among socioeconomic factors, demanding contextualized policies that integrate economic incentives, technical assistance, and valorization of traditional knowledge to promote productive practices compatible with land degradation prevention and biodiversity conservation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giroldo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: