Figure 2. Map of the 1114
municipalities of the Caatinga region showing variation in forest cover
(a) and food security index (b) between the years of 2006 and 2017.
Also, the correlation between
forest cover and food security was complex and spatially structured (all
models performed better with spatial error) and, as expected, presented
a boom-bust pattern described by a weak but significant quadratic
function for both years (for 2006; z = -2.40, p=0.016 and for 2017; z =
-3.13, p = 0.001). Briefly, food security tends to increase in
mid-deforested and reaches its peak around 50% of deforestation when it
comes to drop again to similar levels of food security found in highly
forested municipalities. A deeper analysis suggests that this pattern is
mostly driven by economic poverty that presents a u-shaped curve in
response to forest cover for both years (Fig 4.) However, the second
most important dimension (PC 2) of food security presented a direct
relationship with forest cover suggesting that inequality increases in
more forested areas. As a result, low levels of food security can be
grouped in two types: 1) poor people living in forested areas with
social inequality and; 2) poor people living in deforested areas with
smaller social inequality. In our study, the tradeoffs (gain-lose or
lose-gain) group the poorest municipalities, but the ones losing forest
and gaining food security are more unequal (in terms of income) while
the ones gaining forest and losing food security are less unequal.