↓ Skip to main content

Avança Brasil: Environmental and Social Consequences of Brazil's Planned Infrastructure in Amazonia

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, December 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
267 Mendeley
Title
Avança Brasil: Environmental and Social Consequences of Brazil's Planned Infrastructure in Amazonia
Published in
Environmental Management, December 2002
DOI 10.1007/s00267-002-2788-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip M. Fearnside

Abstract

"Avança Brasil" (Forward Brazil) is a package of 338 projects throughout Brazil; the portion of the plan to be carried out in Brazil's Legal Amazon region totals US$43 billion over 8 years, US$20 billion of which would be for infrastructure causing environmental damage. Brazil's environmental impact assessment system is not yet capable of coping with the challenge presented by Avança Brasil. Generic problems with the licensing process include stimulation of a lobby in favor of construction before decisions are made on the advisability of the projects, the "dragging effect" of third parties, whereby economic activity is attracted to the infrastructure but escapes the environmental impact assessment system, a tendency for consulting firms to produce favorable reports, a bureaucratic emphasis on the existence of steps without regard to the content of what is said, and the inability to take account of the chain of events unleashed when a given project is undertaken. The environmental and social costs of forest loss are high; among them is loss of opportunities for sustainable use of the forest, including loss of environmental services such as biodiversity maintenance, water cycling, and carbon storage. The benefits of export infrastructure are meager, especially from the point of view of generating employment. Much of the transportation infrastructure is for soybeans, while the hydroelectric dams contribute to processing aluminum. The example of Avança Brasil makes clear the need to rethink how major development decisions are made and to reconsider a number of the plan's component projects.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 14 5%
United States 7 3%
Italy 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 239 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 18%
Researcher 44 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 9%
Professor 20 7%
Other 63 24%
Unknown 34 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 81 30%
Environmental Science 77 29%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 19 7%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Engineering 8 3%
Other 21 8%
Unknown 48 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2016.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#737
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,214
of 135,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 135,797 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.