Analyzing perceptions on soil ecosystem services in the Quilombo Cafundá Astrogilda

Context: The ecosystem services (ES) framework considers the interrelationship between drivers of change, ecosystems, their respective services, and human well-being. However, critiques highlight that these frameworks often overlook power dynamics in the distribution of ES benefits, particularly in vulnerable communities. Understanding how different social groups perceive these services is crucial for developing inclusive and equitable environmental policies.

Objective: This study explores hedonistic and eudaimonic perspectives on well-being, alongside the concept of Buen Vivir, which emphasizes a renewed relationship with nature. Based on these frameworks, we investigate how different social groups perceive the relationship between well-being and soil ecosystem services (SES), including carbon sequestration, in a quilombola community.

Methods: A mixed-methods approach was employed, integrating structured questionnaires with qualitative content analysis. Participants included key stakeholders involved in a local project focused on soil analyses, including carbon stock assessments. Responses were collected from 11 individuals, including 5 researchers from Embrapa Solos, 4 quilombolas, and 2 INEA environmental conservation agents. Statistical methods were utilized to identify patterns in SES perceptions across the different social groups.

Results: “Provision of food, fiber, and fuel”, and “cultural heritage” received the maximum score from all respondents in relation to level of importance. Conservation agents exhibited variability in their ratings, with lower scores for “nutrient cycling”, “carbon sequestration”, “foundation for human infrastructure”, and the “provision of construction materials”. Regarding the perceived importance of “carbon sequestration” and its relevance to well-being, researchers from Embrapa Solos assigned an average rating of 96%. Among environmental conservation agents, 50% did not know what to respond, while the other 50% assigned the highest score. Among quilombolas, 25% did not know what to respond, while 75% assigned the maximum score, resulting in an average importance rating of 90%.

Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of integrating diverse knowledge systems and socio-cultural dimensions into SES research. The variation in perceptions underscores the need for more inclusive dialogues that bridge scientific, traditional, and conservationist perspectives.

Implications: These findings contribute to ongoing discussions on ES and social equity, emphasizing the necessity of incorporating local perspectives into environmental policies and management strategies. By addressing the socio-cultural dimensions of SES, this research informs inclusive conservation strategies. The findings align with SDGs 2 (Zero Hunger), 3 (Good Health and Well-being), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and 15 (Life on Land), emphasizing SES’s role in fostering resilient and equitable communities.