NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Conserv Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 17.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:
Conserv Biol. 2010 June ; 24(3): 881–885. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01463.x.
Contrasting Colonist and Indigenous Impacts on Amazonian
Forests
FLORA LU*, CLARK GRAY**, RICHARD E. BILSBORROW†, CARLOS F. MENA††,
CHRISTINE M. ERLIEN‡, JASON BREMNER‡‡, ALISSON BARBIERI§, and STEPHEN J.
WALSH‡
FLORA LU: floralu@ucsc.edu
*Latin
American and Latino Studies Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA
95064-1077, U.S.A
**Carolina
Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524, U.S.A
†Department
††Colegio
of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7420, U.S.A
de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
‡Department
of Geography, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3220, U.S.A
‡‡Department
of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
27599-3140, U.S.A
§Department
of Demography and CEDEPLAR, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo
Horizonte, Brazil
Abstract
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
To examine differences in land use and environmental impacts between colonist and indigenous
populations in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon, we combined data from household surveys and
remotely sensed imagery that was collected from 778 colonist households in 64 colonization
sectors, and 499 households from five indigenous groups in 36 communities. Overall, measures of
deforestation and forest fragmentation were significantly greater for colonists than indigenous
peoples. On average, colonist households had approximately double the area in agriculture and
cash crops and 5.5 times the area in pasture as indigenous households. Nevertheless, substantial
variation in land-use patterns existed among the five indigenous groups in measures such as cattle
ownership and use of hired agricultural labor. These findings support the potential conservation
value of indigenous lands while cautioning against uniform policies that homogenize indigenous
ethnic groups.
Keywords
Amazon; colonists; deforestation; Ecuador; indigenous peoples; land use
Introduction
Indigenous people and colonists inhabit the Amazon Basin and are widely assumed to differ
in their environmental stewardship and conservationist behaviors. Colonists are commonly
seen as seeking material gain through extensive land clearing for commercial agriculture,
whereas indigenous peoples are thought to possess cultural norms and values that promote
conservation and sustainable use of resources (Stocks et al. 2007). We tested the idea that
colonist populations in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon have a greater ecological impact on
Neotropical forests than do indigenous groups as measured by the amount of area cleared
LU et al.
Page 2
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
and the spatial arrangement of that clearing (i.e., patterns of habitat fragmentation).
Understanding the patterns of land use among colonists and indigenous peoples is crucial to
conservation efforts in tropical regions, especially in light of rural population growth, rapid
urbanization in frontier regions, and processes of cultural, economic, and social change
among Amerindians who control large territories in the Neotropics (Nepstad et al. 2006; Lu
2007).
Relatively few researchers have compared indigenous and colonist land use in the same
region, although notable exceptions include Garland (1995), Rudel et al. (2002); Hvalkof
(2006) and Stocks et al. (2007). In addressing ethnic differences in land use, however, each
of these studies has a variety of shortcomings, which we address here. Garland (1995) relied
on survey data, whereas Hvalkof (2006) and Stocks et al. (2007) focused solely on remotely
sensed data. Our work integrates both types of data, which is crucial because this gives a
fuller picture of household decision making and characteristics as factors that help explain
environmental outcomes (Vadez et al. 2003). Such linkages between survey and spatial data
characterize Rudel et al. (2002) study, but they focused on a test of forest-transition theory
rather than an on examining the environmental effects of disparate groups.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
We based our findings here on large and representative samples of indigenous peoples and
colonists occupying the same forest frontier region in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon
(NEA). To compare these populations, we used the results of parallel surveys of over 1270
households and types of land cover identified from Landsat imagery. Our indigenous sample
included five ethnic groups: Huaorani, Kichwa, Cofan, Secoya, and Shuar. These groups
differ in population size and density, history of contact with outsiders, and linguistic
affiliation (Holt et al. 2004).
The NEA study area includes parts of the provinces of Sucumbios, Orellana, Napo, and
Pastaza, and borders the Andean foothills to the west and the Colombian and Peruvian
Amazons to the north and east. The region’s lowland moist tropical forests are among the
world’s most biodiverse (Pitman et al. 2002). Due to rapid agricultural expansion,
urbanization, land-use intensification, and petroleum extraction, Ecuador has had the highest
rate of deforestation in South America since 1990 (FAO 2005). Spontaneous migration into
the NEA followed the discovery of significant oil reserves by a Texaco-Gulf consortium in
1967. Road construction by oil companies facilitated migration from highland and coastal
Ecuador and agricultural colonization (Pichón 1997; Bilsborrow et al. 2004), bringing
colonists into the traditional homelands of Amerindian populations.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The total indigenous population of the Ecuadorian Amazon is over 150000 (INEC 2003),
which is 30% of the total regional population. Our sample of the Huaorani, Kichwa, Cofan,
Secoya, and Shuar encompasses indigenous groups numbering in the tens of thousands to
less than a thousand, those who have lived in the NEA for time immemorial to recent
migrants from the Southern Ecuadorian Amazon, and those with centuries of sustained
contact with outsiders to those who have had contact only within the past 50 years. Holt et
al. (2004) provides ethnographic descriptions of the study populations.
Methods
Collection of Survey Data
The survey data we used were collected in 1999 in a survey of colonists carried out among
778 agricultural households in 64 colonization sectors, and in 2001 in a survey of indigenous
people carried out among 499 households from 36 communities representing five indigenous
groups. Bilsborrow et al. (2004); Pan and Bilsborrow (2005), and Gray et al. (2008) contain
additional methodological details on the surveys.
Conserv Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 17.
LU et al.
Page 3
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
In both the 1999 and 2001 surveys two structured questionnaires were administered to the
male and female head in each sampled household. The male head’s questionnaire included
topics such as land tenure and land use, production and sale of crops and cattle, off-farm
employment, and receipt of technical assistance and credit. Informants reported on the land
area in various uses. Intercropped areas were divided among constituent uses on the basis of
proportional coverage. The female head’s questionnaire provided a household roster and
information on outmigration from the household and household assets.
To compare colonist and indigenous land use, we used the survey data to derive the total
agricultural area managed by each household, area in pasture (almost exclusively for
cattle);area in cash crops planted for market (primarily coffee); and area in other crops used
for subsistence or sale (e.g., corn, rice, and plantains).
Collection of Spatial Data
A time series of Landsat TM images (1986, 1996, 2002; Path 9/Row 60) was classified with
a hybrid supervised-unsupervised classification method (Messina & Walsh 2001). Landcover classes included forest, pasture, crops, barren, urban, and water. Radiometric
correction (Tanre et al. 1990) was applied to make pixel values comparable between images
(Song et al. 2001).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Pattern metrics are used to characterize ecological patterns by assessing composition and
configuration in categorical maps through the use of indices that describe the spatial and
geometric properties of these maps (McGarigal et al. 2002). To understand how changes in
land processes in indigenous and colonist areas transform the areal extent and spatial
arrangement of forests, we determined landscape pattern for the forest cover class from the
remotely sensed images. We used proportion of the landscape covered in primary forest
(PLAND), patch density (PD), and largest patch index (LPI) as metrics for landscape
composition and patch cohesion index (COHESION) and aggregation index(AI) to measure
configuration. Taken together, these metrics balanced explanatory power (Riitters et al
1995), sensitivity to map extent (Saura & Martinez-Millan 2001), and spatial resolution
(Cain et al. 1997).
Landsat TM satellite imagery was available for 54 colonization sectors and 16 indigenous
territories. We calculated the amount of area covered by primary forest in each territory for
two periods—1986–1996 and 1996–2002—and subtracted the forest area of the latter period
from that of the former period to obtain the relative difference (Δ) between colonist and
indigenous areas. We compared these differences between colonist and indigenous areas
with t tests.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
We calculated the amount of deforestation by determining the difference in forest area at
two points in time. The rate of deforestation also describes change in forest area. We
calculated yearly deforestation rates for indigenous territories and colonist sectors as follows
(Dirzo & Garcia 1992; Ochoa-Gaona & Gonzales-Espinosa 2000):
(1)
where A1 and A2 are the forested areas at the start and end, respectively, of the period being
evaluated, and t is the number of years within the period.
Conserv Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 17.
LU et al.
Page 4
Results
Land Use
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Colonist households managed significantly larger agricultural areas overall, for both pasture
and cash crops, but indigenous households managed larger areas in other crops (Table 1).
For colonists, total area managed, area in cash crops, and area in pasture were, respectively,
2.1, 1.8, and 5.5 times as large on average as those of indigenous populations. Nevertheless,
the area in annual crops was only half (0.48 times) as large. For both colonists and
indigenous populations, a majority of the agricultural area was devoted to market-oriented
uses, such as pasture and cash crops.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Consistent with the much larger areas in cash crops and pasture, colonist households were
more likely to own cattle, use modern agricultural inputs (fertilizer, herbicides or pesticides),
sell crops, hire agricultural laborers, and participate in agricultural markets. Indigenous
peoples were much farther away from markets, had less access to human capital (such as
formal education and the ability to speak Spanish), and were less likely to claim individual
tenure over their agricultural lands—all factors likely to limit the extent of agricultural
activities (Table 2). Nevertheless, substantial variability existed between indigenous groups.
For instance, whereas 1.3% of the Huaorani households surveyed owned cattle, 69.7% of the
Secoya did, a rate of cattle ownership higher than the colonists. Cattle ownership among the
Secoya was encouraged by Occidental Exploration and Petroleum Company, who operated a
concession block in Secoya territory (Valdivia 2005). Although none of the Huaorani had
hired agricultural laborers in the previous year, 57.6% of Secoya households did. Kichwa
households grew as much cash crops as colonists, with over 82% reporting engagement in
this market activity.
Landscape Change
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Overall, colonist rates of forest clearance were considerably higher than indigenous rates of
clearance (Table 3). For example, between 1986 and 1996 the area in primary forest
decreased by 24%in the sample of colonist farms, but decreased by only13% in indigenous
territories. The rate of deforestation in indigenous territories was lower in 1996–2002 than in
1986–1996. Nevertheless, the deforestation rate in colonist areas was higher in 1996–2002
and significantly higher than that of the indigenous territories in both periods. Increases in
the density of forest patches seen in 1986–1996 and in 1996–2002 reflect forest
fragmentation resulting from deforestation. The largest patch-index values indicated that the
largest forest patches decreased significantly in size from 1986–1996. Although
deforestation of the largest patches slowed in 1996–2002, the largest forest patches in
colonist areas were deforested more than in indigenous areas. Measures of patch cohesion
index in colonist areas were very low for both time periods, which indicated that although
more patches of forest existed, they are not well connected. The low values for the
aggregation index pointed to a landscape in which forest patches were disaggregated. The
metrics of landscape fragmentation, aggregation and connectedness of primary forest
patches all indicated a more fragmented and less connected forest landscape in colonist areas
than in indigenous territories.
Discussion
We found that the five indigenous populations studied affected the forest to a much lesser
degree than colonists. From 1986 to 2002, indigenous areas exhibited substantially lower
rates of deforestation and there was a higher proportion of the landscape covered by primary
forest. Furthermore, several measures indicated colonist lands exhibited greater forest
fragmentation. The conservation implications of these findings speak to the value of
Conserv Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 17.
LU et al.
Page 5
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
indigenous lands in maintaining forest cover, with the caveat that the categorization of
“indigenous people” obfuscates substantial diversity, not just in cultural, historical, and
demographic characteristics, but also in terms of land-use patterns.
Acknowledgments
We thank many colleagues for assistance, especially B. Frizelle, B. Torres, F. Vaquero, A. Ona, K. Alvarez, D.
Chavez, A. Ruız, F. Pichon, L. Murphy, W. Pan, P. Suarez, and C. Ocampo-Raeder. Our gratitude goes to
EcoCiencia, CEPAR, Carolina Population Center’s Spatial Analysis Unit, and the Department of Geography’s
Landscape Characterization and Spatial Analysis Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, IERAC,
CONADE, Ecuador’s Ministry of Agriculture, and INIAP. Many thanks to our dedicated field researchers and
especially to the indigenous and colonist households and communities who participated in this research. Supported
by the National Institutes of Health (R01-HD38777-01), National Science Foundation, U.S. National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NCC5-295), Mellon Foundation, Summit Foundation, Compton Foundation, and
PROFORS.
Literature Cited
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Bilsborrow R, Barbieri A, Pan W. Changes in population and land use over time in the Ecuadorian
Amazon. Acta Amazonica. 2004; 34:635–647.
Cain DC, Riitters K, Orvis K. A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landscape Ecology. 1997;
12:199–212.
Dirzo R, Garcia MC. Rates of deforestation in Los Tuxtlas, a Neotropical area in Southeast Mexico.
Conservation Biology. 1992; 6:84–90.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). State of the world’s forests. Vol. 2005. FAO; Rome: 2005.
Garland, EB. The social and economic causes of deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon Basin: natives
and colonists. In: Painter, M.; Durham, WH., editors. The social causes of environmental
degradation in Latin America. University of Michigan Press; Ann Arbor, Michigan: 1995. p.
217-246.
Gray C, Bilsborrow R, Bremner J, Lu F. Indigenous land use in the Ecuadorian Amazon: a crosscultural and multilevel analysis. Human Ecology. 2008; 36:97–109.
Holt, F.; Bilsborrow, R.; Ona, A. Occasional paper. Carolina Population Center, University of North
Carolina; Chapel Hill, North Carolina: 2004. Demography, household economics, and land and
resource use of five indigenous populations in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon: a summary of
ethnographic research.
Hvalkof, S. Progress of the victims: political ecology in the Peruvian Amazon. In: Biersack, A.;
Greenberg, JB., editors. Reimagining political ecology. Duke University Press; Durham, North
Carolina: 2006. p. 195-232.
Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica y Censos de Ecuador (INEC). Sistema integrado de consultas a los
censos nacionales. Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica y Censos de Ecuador; Quito: 2003.
Lu F. Integration into the market among indigenous peoples: a cross-cultural perspective from the
Ecuadorian Amazon. Current Anthropology. 2007; 48:593–602.
McGarigal, K.; Cushman, SA.; Neel, MC.; Ene, E. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for
categorical maps. University of Massachusetts; Amherst: 2002.
Messina JP, Walsh SJ. 2.5 D morphogenesis: modeling land use and landcover dynamics in the
Ecuadorian Amazon. Plant Ecology. 2001; 156:75–88.
Nepstad D, et al. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands.
Conservation Biology. 2006; 20:65–73. [PubMed: 16909660]
Ochoa-Gaona S, Gonzales-Espinosa M. Land use and deforestation in the highlands of Chiapas,
Mexico. Applied Geography. 2000; 20:17–42.
Pan W, Bilsborrow R. The use of a multilevel statistical model to analyze factors influencing land use:
a study of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Global and Planetary Change. 2005; 47:232–252.
Pichon F. Colonist land-allocation decisions, land use, and deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon
frontier. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 1997; 45:707–744.
Conserv Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 17.
LU et al.
Page 6
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Pitman N, Terborgh J, Silman M, Nunez P, Neill D, Ceron C, Palacios W, Aulestia M. A comparison
of tree species diversity in two upper Amazonian forests. Ecology. 2002; 83:3210–3224.
Riitters KH, O’Neil RV, Hunsaker JD, Wickman JD, Yankee DH, Timmins SP, Jones KB, Jackson
BL. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology. 1995; 10:23–
29.
Rudel T, Bates D, Machinguiashi R. A tropical forest transition? agricultural change, out-migration,
and secondary forests in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers. 2002; 92:87–102.
Saura S, Martinez-Millan J. Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent.
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing. 2001; 67:1027–1036.
Song C, Woodcock CE, Seto KC, Lenney MP, Macomber SA. Classification and change detection
using Landsat TM data: when and how to correct atmospheric effects? Remote Sensing of
Environment. 2001; 75:230–244.
Stocks A, McMahan B, Taber P. Indigenous, colonist and government impacts on Nicaragua’s
Bosawas Reserve. Conservation Biology. 2007; 21:1495–1505. [PubMed: 18173473]
Tanre D, Deroo C, Duhaut P, Herman M, Morcrette JJ, Perbos J, Deschamps PY. Description of a
computer code to simulate the satellite signal in the solar spectrum: the 5S code. International
Journal of Remote Sensing. 1990; 11:659–668.
Vadez V, Reyes-Garcıa V, Godoy R, Williams L, Apaza L, Byron E, Huanca T, Leonard W, Perez E,
Wilkie D. Validity of self-reports to measure deforestation: evidence from the Bolivian lowlands.
Field Methods. 2003; 15:289–304.
Valdivia G. On indigeneity, change, and representation in the northeastern Ecuadorian Amazon.
Environment and Planning A. 2005; 37:285–303.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Conserv Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 17.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 1
Conserv Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 17.
Measure
Colonists
Indigenous
Kichwa
Shuar
Huaorani
Cofan
Secoya
Total agricultural area (ha)
7.85 (9.24)
3.70 (3.91)
4.18 (3.63)
4.89 (5.57)
1.35 (1.26)
2.30 (2.20)
4.38 (3.18)
Area in cash crops (ha)
2.44 (2.70)
1.31 (1.96)
1.64 (2.13)
2.07 (2.20)
0.06 (0.36)
0.89 (1.32)
0.25 (0.50)
Area in other crops (ha)
0.74 (1.37)
1.56 (1.52)
1.79 (1.70)
1.44 (1.61)
1.28 (1.09)
1.26 (0.94)
1.33 (1.10)
Area in pasture (ha)
4.67 (7.86)
0.84 (2.65)
0.76 (1.81)
1.43 (4.71)
0.00 (0.00)
0–14 (0.50)
2.80 (3.07)
778
499
239
99
79
49
33
Number of households
*
LU et al.
Mean household land use by ethnicity (SD).*
Significance of colonist versus indigenous contrasts: all p < 0.001.
Page 7
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 2
Measure
Conserv Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 17.
a
Colonists
Indigenous
Kichwa
Shuar
Huaorani
Cofan
Secoya
Owned cattle
60.0
28.3
31.8
34.3
1.3
14.3
69.7
Used modern agricultural inputsa
33.8
6.3
6.3
12.2
0.0
4.9
4.3
Sold cropsa
81.6
65.7
82.4
74.7
21.5
55.1
39.4
Hired agricultural laborersa
67.4
20.6
18.4
29.3
0.0
22.4
57.6
Travel time to market (minutes)
62.0
229.2
144.6
206.3
446.1
240.8
160.0
Household head spoke Spanish
100.0
89.4
95.8
97.0
67.1
75.5
93.9
Adult men with primary education
68.7
66.4
70.1
81.7
54.8
32.7
70.0
Adult women with primary education
61.9
43.6
48.1
59.3
32.7
14.0
38.9
Individual land ownershipb
100.0
67.1
78.7
97.0
2.5
36.7
93.9
Household size (mean number)
5.90
6.37
6.56
6.60
6.63
5.62
4.68
Population under age 12
38.4
44.5
44.7
49.6
40.8
42.0
36.6
Total fertility ratec
5.0
7.6
-
-
-
-
-
LU et al.
Mean values of selected land-use characteristics of colonist and indigenous populations (percentages except as indicated).
In the previous 12 months.
b
Land tenure described by the head of household as private rather than land in usufruct or communal tenure.
c
Mean number of births that a woman would expect to have over her life time on the basis of current fertility of women of different age groups. Not calculated for indigenous subgroups due to small
numbers of women of reproductive age.
Page 8
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
View publication stats
Table 3
Metric*
Deforestation rate (%/year)
Primary forest (%)
Conserv Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 17.
Patch density (patches/100 ha)
Largest patch index (%)
1986–1996
1996–2002
colonist
indigenous
p
colonist
indigenous
comparison
3.93 (1.65)
1.67 (1.41)
<0.001
4.16 (3.51)
0.73 (1.87)
<0.001
−24.42 (7.65)
−13.26 (10.33)
<0.001
−9.47 (5.34)
−2.40 (7.32)
<0.001
9.62 (5.21)
3.35 (3.92)
<0.001
0.92 (3.84)
1.89 (2.66)
<0.001
−8.79 (8.63)
−2.37 (7.67)
<0.01
0.08 (0.04)
0.11 (0.09)
<0.001
−1.82 (2.60)
−0.17 (0.37)
<0.05
−33.63 (17.43)
−14.37 (13.27)
Cohesion (0–100)
−0.09 (0.20)
−0.12 (0.14)
Aggregation index (0–100)
−1.71 (1.87)
−0.18 (0.34)
LU et al.
Rates of forest clearing and comparison of landscape-change metrics for primary forest between colonist sectors and indigenous community territories,
1986–1996 and 1996–2002 (SD).
<0.001
*
This table shows the mean annual rate of deforestation for colonist farms and indigenous territories in the two study samples and measures of change in primary forest as captured by changes in the pattern
metrics within the two time periods. Definitions: primary forest, proportion of the landscape covered by primary forest; patch density, indicator of fragmentation measured as the number of primary forest
patches per 100 ha; largest patch index, percentage of overall area constituted by the largest forested patch; cohesion, measure of the physical connectedness among patches of primary forest (almost zero
when proportion of area covered by primary forest is maximally subdivided and increases up to 100 as forest connectedness increases); aggregation index, measure of spatial aggregation or dispersion of
forested patches (zero when the patch types are maximally disaggregated [i.e., there are no adjacent primary forest patches] and 100 when the landscape is contiguous).
Page 9