Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21

Beyond Population and Environment: Household

Demographic Life Cycles and Land Use Allocation


Among Small Farms in the Amazon
Stephen G. Perz & Robert T. Walker &
Marcellus M. Caldas
Published online: 6 July 2006
#
Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006
Abstract Most research featuring demographic factors in environmental change has
focused on processes operating at the level of national or global populations. This paper
focuses on household-level demographic life cycles among colonists in the Amazon, and
evaluates the impacts on land use allocation. The analysis goes beyond prior research by
including a broader suite of demographic variables, and by simultaneously assessing their
impacts on multiple land uses with different economic and ecological implications. We
estimate a system of structural equations that accounts for endogeneity among land uses,
and the findings indicate stronger demographic effects than previous work. These findings
bear implications for modeling land use, and the place of demography in environmental
research.
Key words Population
.
environment
.
land use
.
land cover change
.
Amazon.
Introduction
Concern about demographic factors and environmental damage has generated a large
literature featuring a population and environment discourse (e.g., Arizpe et al., 1994;
Lutz et al., 2002; Mazur, 1994; Ness et al., 1993; Pebley, 1998). Much of this literature
draws on Malthusian and Boserupian perspectives and focuses on demographic phenomena
in large-scale aggregates, particularly nation-states or the planet. One often encounters the
use of demographic techniques such as population projections (e.g., MacKellar et al., 1998)
or decompositions (e.g., Bongaarts, 1992), often involving the IPAT identity (e.g., York
et al., 2003). The population and environment discourse in other disciplines also tends to
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
DOI 10.1007/s10745-006-9039-8
S. G. Perz (*)
Department of Sociology, University of Florida, 3219 Turlington Hall,
PO Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 32611-7330, USA
e-mail: sperz@soc.ufl.edu
R. T. Walker
:
M. M. Caldas
Department of Geography, Michigan State University, 116 Geography Building,
East Lansing, MI 48824-1117, USA
focus on aggregate level processes, such as research by geographers on population-induced
agricultural intensification (e.g., Turner et al., 1993).
At the same time, it is widely acknowledged that human impacts on environments
involve scale-dependent processes. This is in part due to recognition by biophysical
scientists that distinct processes are at work as one moves from the cellular to the landscape
level (e.g., ONeill et al., 1986). Attention to scale is also becoming more evident in
environmental social science frameworks, which seek to incorporate factors ranging from
individual agency to international politics (e.g., Gibson et al., 2000; Wood, 2002). Given
the growing literature on scale dependency in human-environment interactions, demo-
graphic environmental research needs to move beyond the population and environment
discourse to consider demographic processes operating on other scales and their impacts on
environmental change.
This paper presents an analysis of household-level demographic processes and their
environmental consequences. We take up the case of frontier colonist households in the
Brazilian Amazon and assess how the demographic location of a household affects its
land use allocation. By demographic location we refer to a constellation of factors
duration of residence, age structure, and generational transitionswhich together delineate
the position of a household along its life cycle. We draw on economic anthropology and
household economics and present a household-level framework based on Chayanovian
theory fused with household production theory.
The analysis models the effects of household demographic life cycles on land use
allocation, and advances beyond previous efforts in three respects. First, we consider a
broader suite of demographic variables than has generally been the case in household land
use models. Second, the analysis evaluates land allocation among several land uses, rather
than deforestation and other single-outcome approaches. In particular, we distinguish
different types of crops, which is theoretically important but rarely done empirically. Third,
the modeling approach explicitly recognizes that allocation of land to one use constitutes an
opportunity cost for allocation to other uses, making land use decisions mutually
endogenous. We therefore use three-stage least squares (3SLS) estimation and specify a
system of equations which accounts for endogeneity among land uses and yields unbiased
estimates of the effects of household demographic factors. The findings show strong effects
of the household life cycle variables, which bears implications for understanding
demographic impacts on environmental processes at different scales.
Theoretical Background
Household Demographic Life Cycles and Land Use
The link between household demographic life cycles and land use was first featured by
Chayanov (1986[1966]), who observed that peasant households in post-revolutionary
Russia contained families with different age structures, and that those households also
farmed different quantities of land. He reasoned that age structures are older in households
with larger numbers of economically active adults and/or smaller numbers of dependent
children. Both allow for greater allocation of labor to agriculture, which in turn enables
cultivation of larger land areas. As a result, Chayanov argued that demographic
differentiation among farm households explained differences in their land use. Chayanov
thus characterized the peasant economy via its emphasis on family labor availability (e.g.,
Harrison, 1975; Hunt, 1979).
830 Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
Chayanov also distinguished among stages in household life cycles on the basis of the
timing of demographic events, particularly fertility and the onset of labor contributions by
older children. Initially, land use by young parents is limited due to low labor availability.
With the onset of childbearing, households exhibit increased dependency without added
labor. The rise in consumption therefore impels expanded land use via the increased
drudgery of the young parents. As the children grow up, they add to the household labor
pool, facilitating further expansion of family land use. In late stages of the life cycle, children
reach adulthood and either leave the household or remain to inherit the farm, forming
multigenerational households. At this generational transition, consumption and labor
availability may decline, resulting in a decrease in land use. However, this trend may be
reversed when the next generation begins to move through its life cycle.
Chayanovs insights have been generalized from post-revolutionary Russia to other
contexts by economic anthropologists and other scholars (e.g., Chibnik, 1984). In developing
regions, households also rely on agricultural production via family farming, land is abundant,
and markets and access to capital are limited.
Markets and Household Production in Developing Regions
Nonetheless, contemporary developing countries exhibit changes left untreated by Chayanov,
such as the formation of markets for land, labor, and capital. These alter the peasant economic
calculus and potentially undermine the importance of household demography as an
explanation for land use. As a result, household production theory emerged to account for
markets via linked production and consumption decisions (e.g., Ellis, 1993; Singh et al.,
1986; Walker, 2003).
Household production theory features the role of markets in stimulating agricultural
commercialization, proletarianization, and the shift of livelihoods toward non-farm activities.
First, developing regions have markets for credit, agricultural inputs and agricultural
products. Such markets open possibilities for households to acquire capital and substitute it
for labor in land use, such as using a chainsaw to cut trees. Markets also make it possible to
produce cash crops for commercial sales rather than household consumption, which can
expand household land use beyond subsistence demand. Second, developing regions also
have labor markets. The presence of labor markets implies that farm households cannot only
hire labor, which changes the effective labor pool available for agriculture, but also sell labor,
which provides an income stream for investment.
Study Region: The Brazilian Amazon
We take up the case of the Brazilian Amazon as a developing region in which to assess the
impact of household demography on land use. The Amazon is an important study case
because it is the worlds largest contiguous rainforest biome and is experiencing rapid
demographic expansion and land cover change. The population of the Legal Amazon rose
from 5.3 million in 1960 to 19.6 million in 2000 (IBGE, 1962, 2000). Similarly, forest
clearing in the Amazon has risen from 152,200 km
2
in 1978 to 587,700 km
2
in 2000
(INPE, 2002). The Amazon is also a good choice for the study of household farming. In
1996, the Legal Amazon had some 900,000 rural establishments (IBGE, 1998a). Of these,
over 800,000 establishments were under 200 ha in size, and in most cases these are family-
run operations.
There are aspects of family demography and land use specific to the Amazon. First,
households on the Amazon frontier contain colonists who migrated from other regions of
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849 831
Brazil. This requires attention to a households duration of residence. The length of time
since arrival has been viewed as important for allowing adaptation of land use strategies to
those suitable in the Amazonian environment (Moran, 1989). Second, colonist agricultural
systems in the Amazon vary substantially. Some households emphasize subsistence crops,
others feature cash crops, yet others focus on cattle ranching, and some engage in
diversified systems (e.g., Serro and Homma, 1993; Walker et al., 2002). These farm
system components require different quantities of labor inputs and have distinct economic
and ecological ramifications. Consequently, it is not adequate to assess land use in terms of
the extent of land in use as in Chayanovian theory, or in terms of agricultural and non-
agricultural activities as in household production theory. And third, Amazonian agriculture
involves agricultural fallows and degraded land. Chayanovian and household production
theories both focus on productive activities, neglecting fallowing practices wherein land is
temporarily allowed to rest, or land degradation where poor soils are taken out of
production (Perz and Walker, 2002; Walker, 2003). It is therefore crucial to account for
secondary vegetation, which appears in fallows and on degraded land.
Household Demographic Life Cycles and Land Use Allocation in the Amazon
This section presents a theoretical framework that fuses Chayanovian thought with
household production theory, and adapts the two to the case of the Amazon. We draw on
previous articulations of demographic processes involved in household life cycles in the
Amazon (Brondizio et al., 2002; Marquette, 1998; McCracken et al., 2002; Perz, 2002;
Perz and Walker, 2002; Walker, 2003; Walker and Homma, 1996; Walker et al., 2002). Our
central argument is that even given markets and factors specific to frontier areas of the
Amazon, land use allocation should still vary among households at different points in their
life cycles because they have distinct demographic characteristics.
We present our theoretical framework via the stylized case of a colonist household. The
life cycle begins when migrants relocate to the frontier. They come as young families,
whether as childless couples or parents with young children, and establish land claims by
clearing primary forest. Having spent much of their savings on the move, and often with
responsibility for young children, the parents begin by cultivating annual crops such as rice,
beans, corn, and manioc. Annuals require considerable labor inputs for clearing, planting,
weeding and harvesting, but land and capital requirements are limited. Because annuals
produce soon after planting, they constitute a low-risk agricultural strategy. However,
because Amazon soil fertility declines with repeated cultivation on a given plot, households
must periodically fallow land and clear more forest to sustain production of annuals. Thus,
early in the life cycle of a colonist household in the Amazon, primary forest area declines,
and land allocated to annual crops and regrowth expands.
As the seasons pass, farmers gain experience in Amazonian agriculture, the labor of
growing children makes larger contributions to the household, and farms accumulate a
stock of deforested land. These changes reduce the risk aversion of colonists, who seek to
obtain credit to purchase capital or hire labor and engage in market-oriented farming
activities, particularly perennial crops and pasture for cattle. Thus, later in the household
demographic life cycle, primary forest declines further as colonists allocate more land to
perennials and pasture.
Older households with larger labor pools often plant perennial crops such as cocoa,
coffee, coconuts, and black peppers. Perennials not only involve substantial labor inputs
during harvesting and processing, they also require significant capital inputs for purchase
and maintenance. Because perennials require several years of growth before the onset of
832 Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
production, and because they are subject to insect and fungal attacks, they pose greater
economic risks to households than annuals. However, produce from perennials often
commands high prices. Perennials also offer environmental advantages because they can be
planted on land formerly under annuals, and they protect soils by providing more permanent
land cover.
Households with less labor often allocate land to pasture for cattle. Pasture is valuable
because it indicates investment in agriculture, which raises land values, and ownership of
cattle constitutes a capital reserve that acts as an insurance substitute to cover unforeseen
expenses, such as for illness (e.g., Tourrand and Veiga, 2003). But smallholders cannot afford
to buy many cattle given the high initial investment involved, and ranching has often been
vilified environmentally due to the large land tracts required, and because many pastures
have not been managed sustainably, leading to land degradation (e.g., Serro and Toledo,
1990). However, cattle are an attractive land use option due emerging urban markets for
beef in the Amazon (Faminow, 1998).
Late in the household life cycle, different trajectories may occur. One involves out-
migration of young adults as they leave to establish their own farms or find urban
employment (McCracken et al., 2002). Labor availability and subsistence demand declines,
leading to a reduction in the land area under crops and pasture, and further expansion of
secondary growth. However, another trajectory is possible if grown children stay in the
parental household (Perz and Walker, 2002). This reflects a generational transition as one
generation passes control of the property to the next. This is particularly likely if the young
adults are parents with young children, for the farm provides the security of an established
enterprise. In this scenario, forest clearing may expand to make way for agriculture as
young children expand demand for subsistence.
Household Life Cycles and Land Use in Previous Research
Following the foregoing discussion, we find it necessary to account for a suite of household
demographic factors: duration of residence, age structure, and generational transitions.
Length of residence captures the effects of agricultural experience on land allocation. In
addition, the age structure of a household, measured in terms of the number of children,
working age adults, and elderly, is necessary to evaluate dependency and labor availability.
Because colonists do not arrive on the frontier at exactly the same ages, and because the
temporal distribution of fertility events varies among households, age structure effects are
distinguishable fromresidence duration effects. We viewgenerational transitions as occurring
in multigenerational households with grandparents and grandchildren, for this implies a
passing of responsibility of the farm from grandparents to new parents.
1
Few previous studies on household land use have considered duration of residence, age
structure, and generational transitions. Most prior models of household land use in Latin
America consider only one of these factors, if any (Walker et al., 2002). This oversight is
1
We considered other approaches to measuring household demographics, but found no satisfactory
alternatives. One reviewer argued to aggregate cohorts instead of using duration of residence in single years,
but this presents problems because there are many factors to consider for defining cohorts, which could result
in many possible cohorts, and greatly affect the findings. Many analysts employ the age of the household
head as a life cycle indicator, but this says little about past fertility events or overall household age structure.
Others have employed Chayanovian dependency ratios, calculated as the units of labor divided by units of
consumption, but these fail to distinguish between youth and elderly dependency. We also avoid true
dependency ratios because they are unstable at the household level.
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849 833
intriguing because studies that have incorporated most or all of these demographic factors
have found strong effects on land use (e.g., Coomes et al., 2000; Perz, 2002; Pichn, 1997).
Our theoretical framework also features five land uses: primary forest, annual crops,
perennial crops, cattle pasture, and secondary vegetation. Previous work on household land
use in the Amazon rarely involves analyses with more than one or two of these uses. Such
work fails to distinguish among land uses with different economic and ecological
consequences, and which become important at different moments in a households life cycle.
Data and Methods
Study Site
Our study case in the Amazon is Uruar, a colonist community situated on the Transamazon
highway with a township located at Lat. 03 42 54 S, Long. 53 44 24 Win the Brazilian
state of Par (IDESP, 1990). Uruar was founded in the 1970s as a colonization project to
resettle rural families from the Brazilian Northeast. The state land-titling agency, INCRA,
surveyed and distributed lots of roughly 100 hectares (ha) to a first wave of colonists. In the
mid-1980s, perennials such as cocoa and black pepper commanded high prices, which
prompted households to expand their clearings for cash crops. This stimulated a second wave
of in-migration, raising the municipalitys population to 25,000 by 1991 (IBGE, 1996).
This dynamism gave way to difficulties in the 1990s, as pest attacks reduced cash crop
production and price declines reduced agricultural incomes. This crisis led to a shift in land
use toward pasture for cattle (Toni, 2003), and catalyzed the emergence of social movements
seeking to improve colonist living standards (Nascimento and Drummond, 2003). Local
organizations served as conduits for new credit programs aimed at small producers, and
used the financing for pasture formation and livestock purchases (Toni, 2003). By 2000,
23% of the forest cover in the municipality had been cleared (Nepstad et al., 2000, cited in
Nascimento and Drummond, 2003, p. 126).
Uruar is an appropriate site for an assessment of how household demographic life cycle
factors affect land use allocation. First, this community consists almost entirely of small
farms that rely primarily on family labor. Second, the Transamazon highway corridor
around Uruar exhibits substantial deforestation for various land uses, but also substantial
secondary growth.
Data Collection
In June and July 1996, a nine-member research team consisting of North American and
Brazilian social and agricultural scientists administered a survey questionnaire to farm
households in Uruar. The questionnaire was divided into two components, where the first
addressed household characteristics and the second concerned the lot(s) held by households.
The household component included items such as family age composition, sources of
income, and material wealth. The lot component included items such as land use, access to
credit, use of agricultural technologies, and distance to market.
Systematic sampling of farm lots proved intractable because not all lots had houses.
Moreover, systematic sampling of houses encountered was problematic because residents
were sometimes absent. We therefore sampled by first opportunity of residents encountered
on their lot. We employed a cadastral map of Uruar from the Par state office of Brazils
834 Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
agricultural research agency, EMBRAPA/CPATU, as our sampling frame, to ensure that
sampling was not clustered spatially or selective of households by socioeconomic status.
2
The sample includes 261 households, or 12% of all rural establishments in Uruar in
1996 (IBGE, 1998a). The sample also includes 347 lots, as 25% of households held more
than one lot, and the same questions were asked about each lot. The sample consists of
households with one family (71%) and two or more families (29%), indicating some
multifamily households working the same land.
3
In addition, 12% of households had one or
more elderly members, indicating multigenerational families.
Outcome Variables: Land Use Allocation
The outcome variables are measures of land allocation among primary forest, annual crops,
perennial crops, cattle pasture, and secondary vegetation.
4
Separation of annual and
perennial crops is an advance beyond previous work and difficult to do. Annuals are often
interplanted, and data for perennials refers to trees (and vines) rather than area planted. But
because annuals differ from perennials in many respects, it is crucial to separate the two.
We therefore used other data from the 1996 survey, information for Uruar from the 1995/
1996 agricultural census (IBGE, 1998a) and our field notes (from yearly visits beginning in
1996) to separately estimate land areas for annuals and perennials.
5
Table I presents descriptive statistics and correlations for the land use variables. The
farms in the survey had most of their land in primary forest (65 ha), with substantial
pasture (22 ha), some annuals and perennials (3.9 ha each), and secondary growth
(6.8 ha). Standard deviations indicate substantial variation in land allocation among the
lots in the sample. Skew values for all five raw measures were large, so we transformed
them into natural logarithms (ln) with smaller skew values, indicating more normal
distributions that are more appropriate for regression analysis.
2
The 1996 Brazilian population count (IBGE, 1998b) and 1995/1996 Brazilian agricultural census (IBGE,
1998a) allow for comparisons to assess sampling bias. The Uruar sample had a mean household size of 7.5,
while the 1996 population count figure for the municipality of Uruar was only 5.6, but it is not clear from
census documentation whether families beyond the first were counted. If we exclude people outside the first
family, household size in the Uruar sample is also 5.6. The 1995/1996 agricultural census indicated the
following land use allocation in Uruar: 65% in primary forest, 5.6% under cropland, 23% under pasture, and
5.9% under secondary growth. Table I indicates a very similar distribution. We conclude that sampling bias is
limited.
3
We recognize that different families in a given household may be at different life cycle locations. However,
Chayanov left open the possibility of multifamily households. For purposes here, it is crucial to recognize the
labor contributions and dependency of families rather than exclude them from the analysis, for their presence
affects land use. Nonetheless, we ran models keeping only the lots held by one family, and the results are
similar to those presented.
4
These measures refer to land use reported by households, which may or may not correspond to physical
land cover. Land use is still analytically important because use categories reflect distinctions and decisions
made by households.
5
We assumed that beans and corn are interplanted, so if both were planted, we divided their combined area
in half, and added the result to other annual crops to estimate the total land area under annuals. For
perennials, we assumed that the tree crops (cocoa, coffee, oranges, cupuau, etc.) were planted with 3m by
3m spaces, yielding 1,111 trees per hectare, while vine crops (i.e., black peppers) were planted with 2m by
2m spaces, yielding 2,500 vines per hectare. This allowed conversion from plantings to areas, which we then
summed for all perennials reported. We validated the accuracy of our estimates by adding the areas under
annuals and perennials to the reported areas under primary forest, cattle pasture and regrowth, and comparing
the sum to the reported total land area. The summed total was 101.1 ha, and the reported total was
100.7 ha, a difference of 0.4 ha; the correlation between the two figures was very high (r > 0.99). We
conclude that the estimates are valid.
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849 835
Table I indicates that the land use outcomes are interrelated. Primary forest exhibits
negative correlations with the other land uses, which is expected given that forest is cleared
for agriculture. Primary forest area shows the strongest inverse relationship with pasture,
which is not surprising given the large extent of pasture relative to crops and regrowth.
Annuals, perennials and pasture are positively correlated, a reflection of their expansion
during the process of farm establishment. Secondary growth also shows positive
associations with the agricultural land uses, a reflection of the need to fallow or abandon
land. That said, the correlations are moderate, which may reflect the different points in the
household life cycle at which specific land uses become important.
Explanatory Variables: Household Life Cycle Location and Other Factors
Table II presents seven groups of explanatory variables: socioeconomic background, initial
land cover, context of lot, institutional context, remittances and hired labor, land
management practices, and household life cycle location. We feature the role of household
demographic life cycle variables from Chayanovian theory, and include the other variables
as controls following household production theory and specificities of the Amazon
frontier.
6
Table I Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Land Use Outcomes, Farm Lots, Uruar, Par, Brazil,
1996 (n = 347)
Land use Mean Std.
dev.
Skewness Correlation with:
primary forest
Annual
crops
Perennial
crops
Pasture Secondary
growth
Primary forest
Hectares (ha) 65.05 33.67 3.15 1.00
Natural log (ln) ha 3.98 0.92 4.79 1.00
Annual crops
Ha 3.92 4.52 2.43 0.08+ 1.00
Ln ha 0.41 1.78 0.62 0.07 1.00
Perennial crops
Ha 3.92 7.56 4.19 0.03 0.23*** 1.00
Ln ha 0.13 1.74 0.07 0.10+ 0.41*** 1.00
Pasture
Ha 22.17 17.89 1.30 0.25*** 0.04 0.04 1.00
Ln ha 2.32 1.91 1.67 0.20*** 0.27*** 0.18** 1.00
Secondary growth
Ha 6.79 8.69 2.28 0.03 0.04 0.11* 0.02 1.00
Ln ha 0.70 2.02 0.53 0.08+ 0.14** 0.14* 0.02 1.00
+
p < 0.15, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
6
Table II indicates which variables are from the household questionnaire, and which come from the lot
questionnaire. The statistics in Table II are calculated for lots, including for the household variables, so the
figures are weighted toward households with more than one lot. However, the values do not change much if
calculated for households, since 75% held one lot.
836 Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
Table II Descriptive Statistics for Explanatory Variables and Correlations with Land Use Outcomes, Farm
Lots, Uruar, Par, Brazil, 1996 (n = 347)
Explanatory variable Unit
1
Mean Std.
dev.
Correlation with
primary forest
Annual
crops
Perennial
crops
Pasture Secondary
growth
Socioeconomic background
Previous job of household
head (0 = non-agricultural,
1 = agriculture)
H 0.67 0.47 0.04 0.03 0.21*** 0.07 0.03
Initial wealth
(factor index)
H 0.00 1.28 0.11* 0.19*** 0.17** 0.11* 0.08
Initial agricultural
capital (factor index)
H 0.00 2.47 0.02 0.11* 0.04 0.01 0.11*
Initial land cover
Ln ha cleared upon
acquisition
L 0.26 2.38 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.11* 0.08+
Context of lot
Ordinal lot number
(1 = 1st, 2 = 2nd...6th)
L 1.25 0.43 0.03 0.41*** 0.33*** 0.34*** 0.23***
Kilometers to Uruar town L 31.16 15.49 0.27*** 0.18** 0.28*** 0.35*** 0.13*
Neighborhood organization
(0 = No, 1 = Yes)
L 0.34 0.47 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.12*
Damage by fire set
by neighbor (0 = No,
1 = Yes)
L 0.21 0.41 0.17** 0.15** 0.11* 0.22*** 0.19***
Institutional context
Use of credit (0 = No,
1 = Yes)
L 0.46 0.50 0.12* 0.25*** 0.30*** 0.42*** 0.08+
Extension agency assistance
(0 = No, 1 = Yes)
L 0.16 0.37 0.19** 0.08 0.20*** 0.15** 0.07
Commercial business
(0 = No, 1 = Yes)
H 0.09 0.29 0.03 0.14** 0.13* 0.13* 0.12*
Remittances and hired labor
Remittance income
(0 = No, 1 = Yes)
H 0.11 0.31 0.08+ 0.06 0.10+ 0.13* 0.07
Ln days of labor hired H 2.25 2.24 0.03 0.11* 0.11* 0.03 0.04
Land management practices
Agricultural inputs
(factor index)
L 0.00 2.12 0.14* 0.11* 0.24*** 0.22*** 0.06
Pasture rotation
(0 = No, 1 = Yes)
L 0.69 0.46 0.13* 0.28*** 0.27*** 0.61*** 0.04
Life cycle location
Years on lot L 10.12 6.70 0.13* 0.17** 0.30*** 0.23*** 0.27***
Number of adults
(ages 1565)
H 4.33 2.65 0.07 0.02 0.22*** 0.22*** 0.11
Number of adults squared H
Number of children
(under age 15)
H 2.93 2.83 0.02 0.06 0.11* 0.01 0.04
Number of elderly
(ages 66+)
H 0.15 0.46 0.02 0.10+ 0.07 0.06 0.05
Generational transition
(elderly children)
H
+
p < 0.15, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
1
H Household-level characteristic, L lot-level characteristic. All statistics are calculated for lots.
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849 837
Control Variables
Socioeconomic background refers to three variables that characterize assets held by
households upon their arrival in Uruar. Previous job indicates whether the household head
had worked in agriculture.
7
Previous agricultural experience should be particularly
important for cultivating crops, given their labor intensity. Most household heads did have
previous agricultural experience, which shows a positive correlation with perennials. Initial
wealth refers to financial assets. Households who brought wealth were better able to
liquidate assets, facilitating farm implementation and altering land allocation. We measure
initial wealth using indicators of durable goods possession and housing quality. These were
converted to z-scores, weighted by factor loadings from principle components analysis, and
summed to form an index with a mean of zero.
8
Initial agricultural capital is also a factor-
weighted index, constructed using three measures of whether a household owned specific
agricultural implements at the time of their arrival.
9
Agricultural technologies such as
chainsaws may afford more rapid implementation of farming systems. The standard
deviations for both wealth indexes indicate asset inequality in the sample, and both exhibit
significant correlations with land use.
Initial land cover is operationalized in terms of the ln ha deforested when the household
acquired a lot. The antilog of the ln mean was only 1.3 ha, though the standard deviation
indicates considerable variation. More initial deforestation facilitates farm implementation.
This reduces the labor inputs necessary for agricultural land use, but also makes more
extensive regrowth possible. The correlations, though weak, confirm these expectations.
Context of lot comprises four indicators that situate a lot in a households farming
system and among neighboring lots. First, we consider the order in which a household
acquired a lot. The first lot acquired is generally the most heavily used, so second and later
lots (25% of all lots in the survey) should have more forest and less cropland, pasture and
regrowth, expectations confirmed by the correlations. Second, we account for distance to
market, especially important for commercial land use decisions because transport costs are
high on unpaved roads in the study area, reducing the profitability of more distant lots. Lots
averaged about 30 km from Uruar town, though this varied substantially. Larger distances
should correspond to more primary forest and less land under the other use types,
expectations confirmed by the correlations. Third, the presence of neighborhood
organizations indicates whether neighboring households were mobilized for cooperative
labor arrangements, against land invasions, and/or to secure agricultural credit, all of which
should allow for greater agricultural land use. About 34% of lots were in organized
neighborhoods, but weak correlations suggest ambiguous effects on land allocation. And
fourth, we consider damage to vegetation from fires set by neighbors. Fire damage may
reduce primary forest, facilitating the expansion of agricultural land, but the damage may
exceed a households ability to use the burned land productively, leading to substantial
7
We also considered the household heads region of birth and years of schooling. However, neither of these
variables exhibited significant effects.
8
Variables and factor weights from principle components analysis for the initial wealth index are: house in
town 0.80, brick walls 0.50, electricity, 0.64, generator 0.57, gas stove 0.67, sewing machine 0.54,
refrigerator 0.79, radio 0.53, television 0.81, satellite dish 0.70, bicycle 0.66, and car 0.50. The eigenvalue
for this factor was 5.08, and the common variance was 42.4%.
9
Variables and factor weights from principle components analysis for the initial agricultural capital index
are: chainsaw 0.81, cocoa dryer 0.63, and tractor 0.48. The eigenvalue for this factor was 1.28, and the
common variance was 42.8%.
838 Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
secondary growth. About 20% of lots had incurred fire damage, and it shows significant
land use correlations in the expected directions.
Institutional context comprises three variables that tie a lot to public and private agencies
and the urban economy. First, the use of credit indicates the importance of lending
institutions. Because credit can offset capital scarcity, it facilitates commercialization.
Consequently, use of credit should lead households to allocate less land to forest and more to
perennials and cattle.
10
Nearly half of the lots surveyed were owned by households with
credit, and credit exhibits the anticipated associations with land use. Second, extension
assistance indicates whether government agricultural agents had ever visited a given lot.
Extension agents in Uruar focus on commercial activities, so assistance should correspond
to less forest and more of the other uses, especially perennials and cattle. Only 16% of lots
had been visited by extension agents, but it shows the expected correlations. And third,
some farm households ran local businesses in Uruar town. Investment in commercial
enterprises initially diverts resources from agriculture, though earnings may help finance
expanded land use. About 9% of lots were owned by households with businesses, and the
correlations suggest that those lots had less agricultural land, perhaps due to diverted
investment.
Remittances and hired labor are included to assess the effects of labor markets. The
remittances variable refers to whether a household had absent family members sending
money, and this occurred among households who owned 11% of the lots surveyed. Like
credit, remittances can offset capital scarcity and facilitate greater land use. However, the
correlations are weak and run in the other direction, which implies that remittances are put
to uses other than agriculture. Hired labor, measured as the ln days of labor paid by a
household in the previous year, can offset family labor scarcity and encourage forest
clearing, especially for commercial agriculture. On average, households paid for 9.5 days
of hired labor. The positive association with perennials is consistent with the use of hired
labor to expand cash crops.
Land management practices refers to two strategies households may employ to sustain
production on their lots, namely the use of agricultural inputs and pasture rotation. The
agricultural inputs measure is a factor-weighted index calculated using indicators of use of
pesticides and fertilizers to sustain crop productivity.
11
While some households may employ
inputs to reduce the land area in use, others may do so to sustain production in larger areas.
The correlations suggest that the latter interpretation is correct, via the negative association
with forest and positive associations with crops and pasture. Pasture rotation requires more
grazing land for a given number of cattle. Rotation, used on 69% of the lots surveyed,
shows a positive correlation with pasture and a negative association with forest as expected,
but also positive associations with crops.
Demographic Life Cycle Variables
Demographic variables that define a households life cycle location should also influence
land allocation. Table II measures life cycle location using six variables: time on lot,
11
Variables and factor weights from principle components analysis for the agricultural inputs index are:
insecticides 0.74, fungicides 0.54, herbicides 0.53, chemical fertilizers 0.81, and organic fertilizers 0.58. The
eigenvalue for this factor was 2.12, and the common variance was 42.3%.
10
We considered using measures of tenure status, but land titles are usually necessary to obtain credit, and
titles have a high correlation with credit (r > 0.60). Because credit is more proximate to land use, and because
credit exerted stronger effects, we exclude tenure status.
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849 839
number of adults, adults squared, number of children, number of elderly, and a child
elderly interaction term.
Time on lot captures a households duration of residence with reference to their land.
This indicates a households experience with a property via exploration of its resources and
experimentation with agricultural techniques. Long-term ownership should yield less land
allocated to forest and more to the other uses. The survey data indicate a mean duration of
10 years with substantial variation, and significant correlations with the land use outcomes
in the expected directions.
The next four variables assess age structure effects on land use allocation. Theoretically,
these four variables change in tandem with time on lot. But as shown in Table III, they are
independent to the extent that children are born over time and households acquire lots at
different moments in their life cycles. The number of working-age adults (persons age 1565)
measures household labor availability.
12
More adults should lead to larger production
systems with less primary forest and more agriculture. Because crops require heavy labor
inputs, the effect of adults should be especially important for annuals and perennials. We
also consider the square of adults because households with especially large labor pools may
increasingly allocate labor to off-farm activities such as wage work in town. The effect of
the adults squared term should be the opposite of the adults effect. Hence, the overall
impact of adults should be non-linear, with declining marginal effects, such that forest
decline and agricultural expansion attenuate in especially large households due to
increasing off-farm labor allocation. Table II shows an average above four adults for the
sample, with substantial variation, and correlations with land use largely as expected.
The number of children (persons under age 15) measures the impact of young household
members on land use.
13
Children constitute pressure to plant annual crops to meet
subsistence demand, but older children expand the household labor pool, allowing for
larger areas of commercial crops. Table II shows a mean of nearly three children for the
sample, with a large standard deviation. Correlations with land use outcomes are somewhat
weak, which may reflect the countervailing effects of children, though there is a significant
positive effect on perennials, consistent with an interpretation emphasizing child labor
contributions.
The number of elderly (persons age 66+) measures the extent of aging among colonist
households. Elderly household members imply that children are grown and some have left
to start their own farms or other enterprises. This suggests a decline in household size,
reducing agricultural land areas and increasing secondary growth. Table II indicates few
elderly on average but substantial variation, and weak correlations with land use.
We operationalize generational transition using a childelderly interaction term.
Conceptually, this term defines multigenerational households as those where the farm is
being handed from one generation to the next, which often happens when the grandchildren
arrive. The interaction term allows for evaluation of the generational transition effect on
land use net of the distinct influences of elderly members and children by themselves.
Households with elderly members as well as children are taken to exhibit transitions from
one generations life cycle to another, implying a rise in subsistence demand, which should
prompt greater agricultural land use and a decline in secondary growth.
12
One might object that men and women should have separate variables to assess their distinct effects on
land use. However, correlation analysis indicated a strong association between the number of men and
women (r > 0.60), and models with a single variable for adults were stronger.
13
One might object that aggregating children ages 015 mixes true dependents and those contributing labor.
We recognize other possible age cutoffs but use the 015 due to limitations in the survey data. This still
provides an indication of the net effect of young household members on land use.
840 Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
Modeling Land Use Allocation
Land allocation must be viewed in terms of joint decisions among competing land uses.
This makes land allocation decisions mutually endogenous (i.e., simultaneous), for the
decision to allocate more land to one use on a lot of a given finite size constitutes an
opportunity cost and limitation on the quantity of land left to allocate to other uses. Planting
of annuals comes at the expense of forest; later, perennials and pasture replace forest and
annuals; and eventually, secondary growth replaces cropland and pasture.
But household models of land use rarely account for endogeneity in land allocation
decisions (e.g., Jones et al., 1995). Most common are models that assume independence
among the various outcomes (e.g., Perz, 2001; Pichn, 1997). Such efforts overlook
endogeneity and the consequent problems of estimation bias and inconsistency, with the
result that conclusions about factors affecting land use may be incorrect. As a result,
analysts have used other approaches, such as seemingly unrelated regression (SURE),
which accounts for correlated error terms (Pan et al., 2001; Perz, 2002). The limitation of
SURE is that it only indirectly accounts for the effect of one outcome variable on another,
and does not allow direct observation of whether, for example, more pasture or something
else is planted at the expense of perennials.
We therefore employ three-stage least squares (3SLS) estimation. This involves creation
of a system of structural equations where the error terms are correlated and one or more
dependent variables are endogenous explanatory variables in other equations. Like 2SLS,
3SLS uses instrumental variables to produce consistent estimates of the endogenous
variables. And like SURE, 3SLS uses 2SLS estimation for each equation to adjust for
correlated errors and obtain a consistent error covariance matrix. But 3SLS then uses GLS
estimation, which adjusts for correlated errors and incorporates the instrumented variables
to simultaneously estimate the entire system of equations. 3SLS thus goes beyond SURE by
creating instrumented variables; 3SLS also goes beyond 2SLS by generating results for the
entire system. Both advances are necessary to adequately account for the endogeneity of
land allocation decisions and simultaneously evaluate the effects of household demographic
variables for multiple land uses.
Table III Correlations Among Life Cycle Demography Variables, Farm Households and Lots, Uruar,
Par, Brazil, 1996
Life cycle demography variable Time in Uruar/on lot Number
of adults
Number
of children
Number
of elderly
Households (n = 261)
Duration of residence in Uruar 1.00
Number of adults (ages 1565) 0.22** 1.00
Number of children (under age 15) 0.02 0.46*** 1.00
Number of elderly (ages 66+) 0.19** 0.16** 0.18** 1.00
Lots (n = 347)
Time on lot 1.00
Number of adults (ages 1565) 0.12* 1.00
Number of children (under age 15) 0.02 0.45*** 1.00
Number of elderly (ages 66+) 0.12* 0.15** 0.15** 1.00
+
p < 0.15, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849 841
Model specification worked from results from SURE models (Perz, 2002), rerun for all
five outcomes, in order to identify instrumental variables. We then evaluated the per-
formance of the SURE models, and constructed a 3SLS system by using significant
variables from the SURE equation for a given land use outcome in that outcomes equation
in the 3SLS model. We then iteratively tested the 3SLS system, dropping variables that
were insignificant in a given equation if used in more than one, and excluded variables that
never reached significance and whose removal did not significantly change or weaken the
system. We constrained the process of specification by including all of the household
demographic life cycle variables in each equation, and using the control variables to
identify the system. This reflects our focus on life cycles and facilitates comparisons of their
effects among the land use outcomes. It also reflects our expectation that the life cycle
variables do not have the same effects on each land use outcome.
14
Findings
Table IV presents results from our modeling effort: a system of five equations, each with
coefficients for instrumented land use variables, selected control variables, and the
household demographic life cycle variables. All five equations have significant chi-square
values.
Primary Forest
The weakest equation is the first, for primary forest. None of instrumented land use
variables exerted independent effects on forest area. However, lots had more primary forest
if they 1) were farther from Uruar town, 2) they had not been damaged by fire, and 3) they
had not been visited by extension agents. Household demographic variables exhibit limited
impacts on primary forest. The number of children reduces forest area, likely a reflection of
subsistence demand early in the household life cycle.
Annual Crops
The story for annual crops is considerably different, in large part due to significant effects
of household demographic variables. Among the instrumented land use variables, pasture
area has a positive effect on annuals. This suggests that households manage risk not only by
planting annuals but also by running cattle as a form of rural insurance. It is likely also a
period effect, for in the years just before the 1996 survey, problems with perennials led
many households to focus on annuals for food security and cattle for their marketability.
With respect to the control variables, lots had larger areas planted under annuals if they
1) belonged to households who arrived with less initial wealth, and 2) were the first lot
acquired. While the initial wealth effect is weak, both of these findings are consistent with
the interpretation that annuals provide a subsistence. Households generally live on the first
14
One potential problem with 3SLS is that misspecification of one equation yields inconsistent and biased
estimates of coefficients in the other equations. We worked from a SURE system with equations with r
2
values ranging from about 0.20 to 0.50 and significant F-ratios (p < 0.001). This suggests that there were
effective instruments for the land use outcomes. By systematically changing model specification and
evaluating the results, we were able to evaluate specifications by iterating toward equations such that further
alterations produced similar but weaker models. Through this process, we distinguished the most effective
instruments, which allowed us to identify the system and satisfy the order condition.
842 Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
lot acquired, which is also the lot where food is grown, and poor households are especially
concerned to minimize risks by planting annuals.
That said, the most important explanation for land allocation to annual crops involves
the demographic life cycle variables, especially age structure. The number of adults has a
strong and positive but non-linear effect on annuals, a reflection of the importance of
Table IV Three-stage Least Squares Model of Land Use Allocation with Life Cycle Location and Other
Variables, Farm Lots, Uruar, Par, Brazil, 1996.
Explanatory variable Primary
forest
Annual
crops
Perennial
crops
Pasture Secondary
growth
Equation parameters 14
1
12 15 16 16
Model chi-square 60.62*** 106.24*** 103.92*** 186.68*** 78.18***
Intercept 3.81*** 0.78 1.11 4.77* 0.01
Endogenous land use variables
Ln ha under primary forest 0.01 0.37 0.92+ 0.2
Ln ha under annual crops 0.15 0.94* 1.01** 0.41
Ln ha under perennial crops 0.1 0.06 0.14 0.35
Ln ha under pasture 0.09 0.28* 0.38* 0.66***
Ln ha under secondary growth 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.13
Socioeconomic background
Previous job (0 = non-agricultural,
1 = agricultural)
0.39*
Initial wealth (factor index) 0.03+ 0.08**
Initial agricultural capital (factor index) 0.16* 0.24*
Initial land cover
Ln ha cleared upon acquisition 0.01 0.31***
Context of lot
Ordinal lot number (1 = 1st, 2 = 2nd...6th) 1.43*** 2.27** 0.94+
Kilometers to Uruar town 0.01*** 0.0002
Neighborhood organization (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 0.33+
Damage by fire set by neighbor (0 = No,
1 = Yes)
0.18+ 0.76*
Institutional context
Use of credit (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 0.41*
Extension agency assistance (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 0.2+ 0.62+
Commercial business (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 1.01*
Remittances and hired labor
Remittance income (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 0.56+
Ln days of labor hired 0.13**
Land management practices
Agricultural inputs (factor index) 0.11*
Pasture rotation (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 1.45***
Life cycle location
Years on lot 0.003 0.01 0.002 0.01 0.14***
Number of adults (ages 1565) 0.06 0.41** 0.84*** 0.21 0.27
Number of adults squared 0.001 0.04*** 0.07** 0.03 0.02
Number of children (under age 15) 0.05** 0.09* 0.13* 0.18** 0.09
Number of elderly (ages 66+) 0.03 0.56* 0.25 0.79* 0.42
Generational transition (elderly children) 0.0004 0.06+ 0.03 0.1* 0.09+
+
p < 0.15, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
1
Valid cases after listwise deletion of cases with missing values: n = 310.
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849 843
household labor as well as livelihood diversification into other activities if the labor pool is
especially large. Children have a positive effect on annuals, which we interpret as primarily
reflecting subsistence demand for food. Contrary to expectations, elderly members also
have a positive effect on annuals, which suggests that old age dependency generates
measurable subsistence demands. Also unexpected is a negative effect of generational
transitions on annuals. However, this effect is weak and does little to offset the larger
independent effects of children and elderly members.
Perennial Crops
The third column presents the equation for perennial crops. Less land under annuals leads
to more under perennials, while more pasture expands perennials. These findings suggest
that perennials tend to replace annuals, and that perennials and pasture tend to expand
simultaneously. Both results are consistent with the life cycle framework outlined earlier.
Focusing on the control variables, a lot had more land under perennials if 1) the
household head had prior agricultural experience, 2) the household arrived with less initial
wealth, 3) it was the first lot acquired by a household, 4) the household hired more labor,
and 5) it received more agricultural inputs. The finding for agricultural experience is
consistent with arguments that knowledge about agriculture facilitates commercialization of
production. The negative coefficient for initial wealth combines aspects of settlement cohort
and period effects. Earlier settlement cohorts, who in general brought less wealth with them,
also had more time to cultivate perennials, putting them in a better position to manage pest
outbreaks in the early 1990s. A similar interpretation applies to the concentration of
perennials on the first lot acquired. Households initially expand their farming activities on
their first lot, and it takes time to plant and maintain perennials before they become
productive, but the price declines and pest attacks in the years prior to the 1996 survey
likely slowed new perennial plantations, especially on newly acquired lots. The positive
effects of hired labor and agricultural inputs on perennials follow expectations, and reflect
the importance of emerging labor, input, and product markets in the study site, as per
household production theory.
Net of these factors, household demographic variables are very important for land
allocation to perennials, particularly age structure. As with annuals, the number of adults
exerts a large, positive, and non-linear effect on land planted under perennials. The effect of
children on perennials is also positive and significant. This likely reflects the labor
contributions of older children, which follows our expectations that households with older
children expand plantings of perennial crops.
Pasture
The strongest equation is that for pasture. Among the instrumented endogenous variables,
primary forest shows a weak negative effect, suggesting that pasture expands to some
extent at the expense of forest. Annual crops show a large positive impact on pasture,
indicating a period effect resulting from problems with perennials that led many households
to shift their farming systems toward annual crops and cattle.
Larger pasture areas occur on lots if they 1) were held by a household that arrived with
less initial agricultural capital, 2) were the second or later lot acquired, 3) were located in an
organized neighborhood, 4) received investments made with bank loans or other credit, and
5) practiced pasture rotation. The negative coefficient for initial agricultural capital may
reflect settlement cohort and period effects, wherein households who arrived earlier (and
844 Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
tended to be poorer) had more time to plant more pasture, especially in the years
immediately prior to the 1996 survey during problems with perennials. The order of
acquisition effect, while weak, is the opposite of that seen for crops, and suggests that
households with more than one lot tended to allocate their pasture to newer lots. This is
likely a period effect, reflecting the expansion of pasture when more recent lots were
acquired. Further, there is a weak positive effect of neighborhood organizations on pasture,
and a stronger positive effect of credit. The influences of both of these variables also reflect
period effects. In the early 1990s, new credit lines appeared, notably the FNO-e program
aimed at smallholders (Toni, 2003). Loans were made to households via local
organizations, who used credit to expand pastures and cattle herds. However, the single
most important variable is pasture rotation. By dividing pastures into two or four fields with
fences to rotate cattle and lengthen the productive life of grazing land, households are
making a serious commitment to ranching, which multiplies the grazing area required.
The demographic variables show weaker and different effects on pasture than perennials.
Adult labor is not important for pasture, a reflection of the low labor requirements for
ranching. The negative child effect suggests that it is older households that expand their
pasture area, but the negative effect of elderly members indicates a decline in pasture area
among the oldest households. Both findings are consistent with the theoretical framework.
The positive effect of the instrumented perennials variable suggests that older households
shift their labor toward perennials even as they also expand pasture for cattle. This is a
finding overlooked in the literature on pasture expansion, and not easily discerned without a
system of equations for multiple land uses. The negative elderly effect may reflect the fact
that 43% of the households in the sample with elderly members received state retirement
income, which would constitute an alternative form of insurance to cattle. However, there is
a positive generational transition effect, which indicates that there is more pasture on lots
held by households with both elderly and young members. Thus, the decline in pasture late
in the household demographic life cycle is dampened by a generational transition, which is
consistent with the theoretical framework.
Secondary Growth
In the last equation, among the instrumented endogenous variables, only pasture is sig-
nificant, but it exerts a very strong negative impact, suggesting a tradeoff in land allocation
with secondary growth. This follows expectations, in that older pasture is often taken out of
use and becomes secondary growth.
Several control variables exhibit significant effects. Regrowth was more extensive on
lots that 1) were held by households with less initial agricultural capital, 2) had more forest
cleared upon acquisition, 3) had fire damage to vegetation, 4) had not been visited by
extension agents, 5) were held by households without a commercial business in town, and
6) were held by households receiving remittance income. The effects of initial capital, forest
cleared upon arrival, fire damage, and lack of extension visits all reflect in various ways the
limited ability of colonist households to keep land in production. Capital scarcity, large
cleared areas upon acquisition, widespread fire damage, and lack of extension assistance
sooner or later necessitate fallowing or risk of land degradation, both of which result in
expanding secondary growth. The commercial business effect suggests that households
with enterprises in Uruar town also had capital to invest in larger farming systems,
reducing the extent of regrowth on their lots. The remittances effect, while weak, suggests a
livelihood diversification strategy wherein some households opt to focus more on wage
labor and less on farming, expanding regrowth.
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849 845
Regarding the demographic life cycle variables, time on lot has a strong positive impact on
the extent of secondary growth, while age structure is of no consequence, and a weak
generational transition effect appears. The finding for time on lot confirms the importance of
residence duration for regrowth, consistent with the theoretical framework, which suggested
more secondary growth among long-established households. The weak generational
transition effect follows expectations that households with elderly and young members have
somewhat less secondary vegetation, which complements findings of larger production
systems in multigenerational households.
Discussion
Household Demographic Processes and Land Use
Household demographic life cycle variables have diverse effects on different land uses, and
these impacts are consonant with expectations based on Chayanovian and household
production theories. Duration of residence is vital for understanding the extent of secondary
growth; age structure is crucial for labor-intensive land uses; and generational transitions
affected several aspects of land allocation. These findings indicate that household
demographic processes have environmental consequences even in the presence of markets.
Estimation of a system of equations offers insights about land allocation that go beyond
previous modeling efforts and reveal some contrasts with prior work. First, the significance of
endogenous land use variables shows which land uses constitute opportunity costs for other
land uses. The significant effects occurred among the agricultural land uses and secondary
growth. Although agriculture replaces primary forest, the extent of forest did not vary much
among lots in the sample, whereas the other land uses varied substantially. Second, the use of
a system of equations indicates indirect effects of many explanatory variables on the land use
outcomes. Variables important for annuals, such as adult labor and child dependency, are
indirectly important for cattle pasture because the instrumented annuals variable is significant
in the pasture equation. Similarly, credit and pasture rotation are important for understanding
the extent of secondary growth via their effects on pasture, which exhibits a significant effect
on regrowth. Thus, complex causal pathways become evident when we model multiple land
uses simultaneously. And third, household demographic life cycle variables often exhibited
stronger effects in the foregoing analysis than our previous modeling approaches for the study
case. Perz (2001) used OLS estimation and found no significant effects for household
demographic variables on annual crops, and Perz (2002) employed SURE and found
significant life cycle impacts on annuals but not on pasture.
Statics and Dynamics in Household Life Cycle Demography and Land Allocation
A caveat to the findings is that they come from cross-sectional data, whereas the theoretical
model we evaluated was framed in dynamic terms. However, other evidence suggests that
temporal interpretations of differences in land allocation in the cross-sectional data here
reflect dynamic processes. Populations are aging in frontier areas of the Amazon. Brazilian
census data indicate that Uruars under-15 population declined from 44.7% in 1991 to
37.0% in 2000 (IBGE, 1996, 2000). The 1996 Uruar survey showed that 40% of the
people in the households sampled were under age 15, consistent with the census data. Land
use change in the Amazon follows our theoretical framework. Walker and Homma (1996)
compare land use profiles of households along the Transamazon highway for the 1970s and
846 Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
early 1990s. In 1975, households had 2.5 ha under rice and 6.4 ha under pasture, and by
1993, households had 4.1 ha under rice and 37 ha of pasture, confirming pasture
expansion. Other authors, using retrospective questions for land use (e.g., Coomes et al.,
2000) and multitemporal analysis of satellite images (e.g., Brondizio et al., 2002) have
found similar changes. We conducted another survey on land use in Uruar in 2002, and
preliminary analysis of those data indicates dynamics consistent with our models. House-
holds aged because the number of children per household declined, while the number of
elderly members rose. In parallel, land allocation changed such that the area under annuals
declined, while perennials and pasture both expanded. We plan to pursue dynamic modeling
to confirm whether these demographic and land use changes correspond at the household
level.
Implications for Demographic Environmental Research
Demographic environmental research has largely advanced via methodological innovations
(e.g., Pebley, 1998; Lutz et al., 2002). Demographers and other social scientists have
developed creative means of integrating data for land cover research using GIS (e.g., Walsh
and Crews-Meyer, 2002), which has fostered agent-based dynamic simulation modeling
(e.g., Parker et al., 2003). However, such efforts have rarely incorporated demographic
processes (cf. An et al., 2005).
That said, theoretical innovations will also be necessary to advance demographic
contributions to environmental science. By moving across scales in the social sciences, from
families to the global system, one encounters different theoretical traditions that help account
for environmental outcomes (Wood, 2002). Demographic environmental studies would
benefit from following this lead by diversifying beyond the population and environment
discourse. Such movement is beginning, such as via efforts that feature environmental
consequences of demographic processes in social networks (e.g., Curran, 2002), but much
more stands to be done.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by a grant from the US National Science Foundation
(SBR-9511965). We thank Charles Wood for support in the US, Adilson Serro and Alfredo Homma for
support in Brazil, and research team members Andr Caetano, Roberto Porro, Fabiano Toni, Clio Palheta,
Rui Carvalho, and Luiz Guilherme Teixeira, as well as the people of Uruar, for insights about the study site.
Errors are the responsibility of the authors.
References
An, L., Linderman, M., Qi, J., Shortridge, A., and Liu, J. (2005). Exploring Complexity in a Human
Environment System: An Agent-Based Spatial Model for Multidisciplinary and Multiscale Integration.
Annals of the American Association of Geographers 95(1): 5479.
Arizpe, L., Stone, M.P., and Major, D.C. (eds.) (1994). Population and Environment: Rethinking the Debate,
Westview, Boulder.
Bongaarts, J. (1992). Population Growth and Global Warming. Population and Development Review 18:
299319.
Brondizio, E.S., McCracken, S.D., Moran, E.F., Siqueira, A.D., Nelson, D.R., and Rodriguez-Pedraza, C.
(2002). The colonist footprint: toward a conceptual framework of land use and deforestation trajectories
among small farmers in the Amazonian frontier. In Wood, CH, and Porro, R (eds.), Deforestation and
Land Use in the Amazon, University of Florida, Gaineville, pp 133161.
Chayanov, A.V. (1986[1966]). The Theory of Peasant Economy, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Chibnik, M. (1984). A Cross-National Examination of Chayanovs Theory. Current Anthropology 25(3):
335340.
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849 847
Coomes, O.T., Grimard, F., Burt, G.J. (2000). Tropical Forests and Shifting Cultivation: Secondary Forest Fallow
Dynamics among Traditional Farmers of the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Economics 32: 109124.
Curran, S. (2002). Migration, social capital and the environment: considering migrant selectivity and networks
in relation to coastal ecosystems. In Lutz, W, Prskawetz, A, and Sanderson, WC (eds.), Population and
Environment: Methods of Analysis, Population Council, New York, pp 89119.
Ellis, F. (1993). Peasant Economics: Farm Households and Agrarian Development, 2nd edn, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Faminow, M.D. (1998). Cattle, Deforestation and Development in the Amazon: An Economic, Agronomic
and Environmental Perspective, CAB International, Oxford.
Gibson, C., Ostrom, E., and Toh-Kyeong, A. (2000). The Concept of Scale and the Human Dimensions of
Global Change: A Survey. Ecological Economics 32: 217239.
Harrison, M. (1975). Chayanov and the Economics of the Russian Peasantry. Journal of Peasant Studies 2
(2): 379417.
Hunt, D. (1979). Chayanovs Model of Peasant Household Resource Allocation. Journal of Peasant Studies
6(3): 247285.
IBGEInstituto Nacional de Geografia e Estatstica (1962). Censo Demogrfico de 1960, IBGE, Rio de
Janeiro.
IBGE (1996). Censo Demogrfico de 1991, IBGE, Rio de Janeiro.
IBGE (1998a). Censo Agropecurio de 1995/1996, IBGE, Rio de Janeiro.
IBGE (1998b). Contagem Populacional de 1996, IBGE, Rio de Janeiro.
IBGE (2000). Censo Demogrfico de 2000, IBGE, Rio de Janeiro.
IDESPInstituto de Desenvolvimento do Estado do Par (1990). Uruar, IDESP, Belm.
INPEInstituto Nacional de Estudos Espaciais (2002). Monitoramento da Floresta Amaznica Brasileira por
Satlite: Projeto PRODES Website available at www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/index.html
Jones, D.W., Dale, V.W., Beauchamp, J.J., Pedlowski, M.A., O_Neill, R.V. (1995). Farming in Rondonia.
Resource and Energy Economics 17: 155188.
Lutz, W., Prskawtez, A., and Sanderson, W.C. (eds.) (2002). Population and Environment: Methods of
Analysis Supplement to Population and Development Review vol 28.
MacKellar, F.L., Lutz, W., McMichael, A.J., Suhrke, A., Mishra, V., O_Neill, B., Prakeesh, S., and Wexler, L.
(1998). Population and climate change. In Rayner, S., and Malone, E.L. (eds.), Human Choice and
Climate Change, vol 1: The Societal Framework, Battelle, Columbus, pp 89193.
Marquette, C.M. (1998). Land Use Patterns among Small Farmer Settlers in the Northeastern Ecuadorian
Amazon. Human Ecology 26(4): 573598.
Mazur, L.A. (ed.) (1994). Beyond the Numbers: A Reader on Population, Consumption, and the Environment
Washington, District of Columbia: Island.
McCracken, S.D., Siqueira, A.D., Moran, E.F., and Brondizio, E.S. (2002). Land use patterns on an agricultural
frontier in brazil: insights and examples from a demographic perspective. In Wood, C.H., and Porro, R.
(eds.), Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp 162192.
Moran, E.F. (1989). Adaptation and maladaptation in newly settled areas. In Schumann, D., and Partridge, W.
(eds.), The Human Ecology of Tropical Land Settlement in Latin America, Westview, Boulder, pp 2041.
Nascimento, E.P., and Drummond, J.A. (eds.) (2003). Amaznia: Dinamismo Econmico e Conservao
Ambiental, Garamond, Rio de Janeiro.
Ness, G.D., Drake, W.D., and Brechin, S.R. (eds.) (1993). PopulationEnvironment Dynamics: Ideas and
Observations, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.
ONeill, R.V., DeAngelis, D.L., Waide, J.B., and Allen, T.F.H. (1986). A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems,
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Pan, W., Murphy, L., Sullivan, B., and Bilsborrow, R. (2001). Population and Land Use in Ecuadors
Northern Amazon in 1999: Intensification and Growth on the Frontier Paper presented at the Population
Association of America meetings, Washington, District of Columbia.
Parker, D.C., Manson, S.M., Janssen, M.A., and Hoffmann, M.J., and Deadman, P. (2003). Multi-Agent
Systems for the Simulation of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: A Review. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 93(2): 314337.
Pebley, A.R. (1998). Demography and the Environment. Demography 35(4): 377389.
Perz, S.G. (2001). Household Demographic Factors as Life Cycle Determinants of Land Use in the Amazon.
Population Research and Policy Review 20(3): 159186.
Perz, S.G. (2002). Household Demography and Land Use Allocation among Small Farms in the Brazilian
Amazon. Human Ecology Review 9(2): 116.
Perz, S.G., Walker, R.T. (2002). Household Life Cycles and Secondary Forest Cover among Small Farm
Colonists in the Amazon. World Development 30(6): 10091027.
848 Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849
Pichn, F.J. (1997). Colonist Land-Allocation Decisions, Land Use, and Deforestation in the Ecuadorian
Amazon Frontier. Economic Development and Cultural Change 45(4): 707744.
Serro, E.A.S., and Homma, A.K.O. (1993). Brazil. In Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment in the
Humid Tropics, National Academy, Washington, pp 265351.
Serro, E.A.S., and Toledo, J.M. (1990). The search for sustainability in Amazonian pastures. In Anderson,
A.B. (ed.), Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps Toward Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rain Forest
Columbia University Press, New York, pp 195213.
Singh, I., Squire, L., and Strauss, J. (eds.) (1986). Agricultural Household Models: Extensions, Applications
and Policy, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Toni, F. (2003). Uruar: Pecuarizao na Fronteira Agrcola. In Toni, F., and Kaimowitz, D. (eds.), Municpios
e Gesto Florestal na Amaznia, AS Editores, Natal, pp 175218.
Tourrand, J.-F., Veiga, J.B. (eds.) (2003). Viabilidade de Sistemas Agropecurios na Agricultura Familiar na
Amaznia Belm: Embrapa Amaznia Oriental.
Turner, B.L. II, Hyden, G., and Kates, R.W. (eds.) (1993). Population Growth and Agricultural Change in
Africa, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Walker, R.T. (2003). Mapping Process to Pattern in the Landscape Change of the Amazonian Frontier.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(2): 376398.
Walker, R.T., and Homma, A.K.O. (1996). Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon:
An Overview. Ecological Economics 18:6780.
Walker, R.T., Perz, S.G., Caldas, M.M., and Teixeira Silva, L.G. (2002). Land Use and Land Cover Change
in Forest Frontiers: The Role of Household Life Cycles. International Regional Science Review 25(2):
169199.
Walsh, S.J., Crews-Meyer, K.A. (eds.) (2002). Linking People, Place and Policy: A GIScience Approach,
Kluwer, Boston.
Wood, C.H. (2002). Introduction: land use and deforestation in the Amazon. In Wood, C.H., and Porro, R.
(eds.), Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp 138.
York, R., Rosa, E.A., and Deitz, T. (2003). Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of
Modernity. American Sociological Review 68(2): 279300.
Hum Ecol (2006) 34:829849 849

Вам также может понравиться