Headnote
ABSTRACT
Objective: The objective of the study was to estimate the participation of economic, social and environmental forces in the formation of production costs and product prices.
Theoretical Framework: The theory of production costs was innovated by including social opportunity costs and ecosystem services to optimize the effects of information asymmetry on the formation of the Socio-environmental Hedonic Prices (SHP) and the efficiency of managing the agai, tucumá, murumuru and andiroba value chains negotiated by agro-extractive cooperatives in the Amazon.
Method: The methodology defined a cost function to support the construction of the cash flow of the production systems and to estimate the scale of production, environmental liabilities and other indicators of sociobioeconomic viability.
Results and Discussion: The results indicate that the use of more productive and ecological practices can combine product differentiation in terms of quality and sustainability with adjusting the scale of production; making viable to negotiate products on national and international markets at a socio-environmental price. The share of economic, social and environmental costs in the total cost of production was, respectively, 40.3%, 46.8% and 12.9% for acai; 41.2%, 25.3% and 23.6% for tucuma; 38.5%, 40.4% and 21.1% for murumuru; and 37.1%, 36.6% and 26.3% for andiroba. The SHP estimated for the products negotiated by the cooperatives showed values above the reference prices defined and paid by the companies: 49.31% more for agai fruit; 59.48% for fresh tucuma fruit; 56.57% for murumuru kernels; and 62.25% for fresh andiroba seeds.
Research Implications: The conclusion is that certification has little impact on increasing income and spending on consumption and food security, because the market price does not cover the opportunity costs of natural assets and the average scale of production is around % hectare per family farmer or extractivist.
Originality/Value: The research contributes to the literature through the original construction of a socioenvironmental hedonic price with the explicit inclusion of economic, social, and environmental opportunity costs. The value of the research lies in the value creation of products traded by cooperatives of family farmers and extractivists in the Amazon.
Keywords: Social Organization, Extractive Socio-Bioeconomics, Fair Market, Family farming, Amazon.
RESUMO
Objetivo: O objetivo do estudo foi estimar a participação das forças económicas, sociais e ambientais na formação dos custos de produção e preço dos produtos.
Referencial Teórico: A teoria dos custos de produção foi inovada com inclusão dos custos de oportunidade sociais e dos servicos ecossistémicos para otimizar os efeitos da assimetria de informação sobre a formação do preço hedónico socioambiental e a eficiência da gestão das cadeias de valor do açaí, tucumá, murumuru e andiroba negociados por cooperativas agroextrativistas da Amazónia.
Método: A metodologia definiu uma funcáo de custo para fundamentar a construcáo do fluxo de caixa dos sistemas de produção e estimar a escala de produção, passivo ambiental e outros indicadores de viabilidade biosocioeconômica.
Resultados e Discussäo: Os resultados indicaram que о uso de boas praticas mais produtivas e ecolôgicas, podem combinar a diferenciaçäo dos produtos em qualidade e sustentabilidade com o ajuste da escala de produçäo para viabilizar, ao preço socioambiental, as negociaçôes dos produtos nos mercados nacional e internacional. À participaçäo dos custos econômicos, sociais e ambientais no custo total de produçäo foi, respectivamente, de 40,3%, 46,8% е 12,9% para о agai, 41,2%, 25,3% е 23,6% para о tucuma, 38,5%, 40,4% е 21,1% para о murumuru, e 37,1%, 36,6% e 26,3% para a andiroba. О Preço Hedónico Socioambiental estimado para os produtos negociados pelas cooperativas apresentou, por incluir os custos de oportunidade sociais e dos ativos naturais e serviços ecossistémicos, os valores, acima do preco de referéncia definido e pago pelas empresas, de 49,31% para o fruto de acai, 59,48% para o fruto fresco do tucumá, 56,57% para o caroço de murumuru e 62,25% para a sementes frescas de andiroba.
Implicações da Pesquisa: A conclusão é que a certificação causa baixo impacto no incremento da renda e dos gastos em consumo e na seguranca alimentar, em funcáo do preco de mercado náo cobrir os custos de oportunidade dos ativos naturais e a escala média de produção girar em torno de % hectare por agricultor familiar ou extrativista.
Originalidade/Valor: A pesquisa contribui para literatura pela construção original de um preço hedónico socioambiental com a inclusão explícita dos custos de oportunidade económico, social e ambiental. O valor da pesquisa é a спасао de valor dos produtos negociados por cooperativas de agricultores familiares e extrativistas da Amazónia.
Palavras-chave: Organização Social, Sociobioeconomia do Extrativismo, Mercado Justo, Agricultura Familiar, Preco Socioambiental, Amazonia.
RESUMEN
Objetivo: El objetivo del estudio fue estimar la participación de las fuerzas económicas, sociales y ambientales en la formación de los costos de producción y precios de los productos.
Marco Teórico: La teoría de costos de producción fue innovada con la inclusión de los costos de oportunidad social y de los servicios ecosistémicos para optimizar los efectos de la asimetría de la información en la formación del precio hedónico socioambiental y la eficiencia de la gestión de las cadenas de valor de acaí, tucumá, murumuru y andiroba comercializadas por cooperativas agroextractivas de la Amazonía.
Método: La metodología definió una función de costos para apoyar la construcción del flujo de caja de los sistemas de producción y estimar la escala de producción, pasivos ambientales y otros indicadores de viabilidad biosocioeconómica.
Resultados y Discusión: Los resultados indicaron que el uso de buenas prácticas más productivas y ecológicas puede conjugar la diferenciación del producto en calidad y sostenibilidad con el ajuste de la escala de producción para viabilizar la negociación del producto en los mercados nacionales e internacionales a un precio socioambiental. La participación de los costos económicos, sociales y ambientales en el costo total de producción fue, respectivamente, de 40,3%, 46,8% у 12,9% para el acai, 41,2%, 25,3% y 23,6% para el tucuma, 38,5%, 40,4% y 21,1% para el murumuru, y 37,1%, 36,6% y 26,3% para el andiroba. El Precio Hedónico Socioambiental estimado para los productos comercializados por las cooperativas, al incluir los costos de oportunidad de los activos sociales, naturales y servicios ecosistémicos, presentó valores superiores al precio de referencia definido y pagado por las empresas, de 49,31% para el fruto de acai, 59,48% para el fruto fresco de tucumá, 56,57% para la semilla de murumuru y 62,25% para las semillas frescas de andiroba.
Implicaciones de la investigación: La conclusión es que la certificación tiene poco impacto en el aumento de los ingresos y el gasto de consumo y la seguridad alimentaria, ya que el precio de mercado no cubre los costos de oportunidad de los activos naturales y la escala de producción promedio es de alrededor de % hectárea por agricultor familiar o agricultor extractivo.
Originalidad/Valor: La investigación contribuye a la literatura a través de la construcción original de un precio hedónico socioambiental con la inclusión explícita de los costos de oportunidad económicos, sociales y ambientales. El valor de la investigación es la creación de valor para los productos comercializados por cooperativas de agricultores familiares y extractivistas de la Amazonía.
Palabras clave: Organización Social, Sociobioeconomía del Extractivismo, Mercado Justo, Agricultura Familiar, Precio Socioambiental, Amazonía.
(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)
1 INTRODUCTION
The inclusive and sustainable growth path, designed by the integration of family farming producers and cooperative extractivists to supply products to agro-industries, certifying companies and government programs, tends to remain inert in terms of meeting the objectives of: eradicating poverty, hunger, and providing decent work through sustainable agriculture and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GGE) and deforestation in line with the Sustainable Development Goals - SDGs (Santana, 2021; Santana et al., 2024; Eggen et al., 2024). The contractual relations between cooperatives and large companies that demand socio-biodiversity products such as acai (Euterpe oleracea Mart.), andiroba (Carapa guianensis Aubl.), Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa Bonpl.), murumuru (Astrocaryum chonta Mart.) and tucumá (Astrocaryum vulgare Mart.), and family farming products such as cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.), coffee (Coffea canephora), oil palm (Elais guineenses Jacq.), and diverse fruits, are impacted by the effects of information asymmetry between agents; in which some social and environmental variables remain hidden in the design of contracts and commercial transactions, reducing the effects on social inclusion and environmental sustainability (Chen et al., 2021; Santana et al., 2023; Santana P. et al., 2025).
In this context, extractive products like acai, andiroba, murumuru and tucuma, included in this research, are threatened by the destruction of the floodplain forest and its surroundings. In the case of acai, the supply of fruit is less than the demand; this has favored the expansion of intensive management of the floodplain, cultivation in agroforestry systems, and monoculture, in order to meet the excess demand from local, national and international markets. As a result, the production of extractive agai fruit grew at an annual rate of 3.44% between 2015 and 2023, while cultivated acai grew at an annual rate of 5.62%, according to data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (BIGS).
The opposite behavior is seen in the other products, with the natural ecosystem providing more supply than demand. For this reason, forest management and planting are in the initial stages of expansion. However, the extractivism economy continues to lose social and bioeconomic importance due to the barriers imposed by: the asymmetry of information in price formation, access to credit, technologies and technical assistance, factors that induce quality, scale of production, and efficiency in the coordination of value chains.
Intensive management of the floodplain and irrigated cultivation has increased the scale of acai fruit production by expanding the area and using informal labor. As a result, in 2015 the IBGE categorized these production systems as Permanent Crop (PC). In 2024, PC acai fruit production was 7.94 times higher than extractive production. In 2023, the value of PC acai production was US$ 1,422,024 thousand, making it the main agricultural product in the State of Para (Brazil); in contrast, the value of extractive agai production was only US$ 118,936.43 thousand (BIGS, 2024). On the other hand, the yield per hectare of PC was 6.94 mt/ha and the price was US$ 902.13/mt.
Given the lack of information available for consumers to differentiate the quality, and the socio-cultural and environmental attributes intrinsic to the product, extracted acai is losing importance in the market, with the price of extracted fruit equaling the price of PC acai. As a result, acai and other extractive products continue to lose their centuries-old function of contributing to the needs and well-being of families in the Amazon, whose diet and income are linked to these products.
Thus, the main policies aimed at reducing inequalities between agro-extractivist agriculture and commodities, by guaranteeing income, employment and food security for family farmers and extractivists, are not having an impact on the development of this economic segment. These policies and programs include: the General Minimum Price Policy for SocioBiodiversity Products (GMPPS-Bio); the Food Acquisition Policy (FAP); the National School Feeding Program (NSFP); the National Program for Strengthening Family Farming (NPSFF); the Constitutional Financing Fund for the North (CFN); and the National Program for Productive Forests (NPPF). In these policies, the market price used as a reference does not incorporate the opportunity costs of the ecosystem services produced by natural assets, or the social cost of the human capital used in production systems. This significantly decreases the effect of these policies on poverty, food insecurity and the destruction of natural ecosystems.
The solution to this problem requires answering the following questions: Why does the inclusion of social and environmental opportunity costs in cash flows reduces the effect of asymmetric information on sustainable performance of agroextractivist cooperatives in the Amazon? Why do the cooperatives accept the "fair prices" set by the demanding companies, even though they do not substantiate for the demands of decent work, quality, scale and environmental sustainability that must be added to the products?
The research hypothesis is that the inclusion of social opportunity costs and natural assets in the cash flow of production systems and the formation of a price (to be paid to producers) that incorporates these variables, called the Socio-environmental Hedonic Price (SHP), can contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and drive an inclusive and sustainable growth path.
The aim of the research was to analyze the potential impact of including the opportunity costs of natural and social assets in the cash flow structure and formation of the SHP of acai, tucuma, murumuru and andiroba products on the performance of cooperatives of family farmers and extractivists in the Amazon. As a result, the hidden information on cost, price, product attributes, trust and the behavior of agents tends to decrease and, at the same time, the efficiency in the coordination of value chains is increased.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
SHP extends the traditional Court's (1939) concept of hedonic pricing by including the effects of variables that influence the economic, social and environmental pillars in the concept of sustainable development. Hedonic pricing was popularized by Griliches (1961) to construct a price index for cars with differentiated quality; it then gave rise to contingent valuation models, specifically applied to value natural assets and ecosystem services (Mitchell & Carson, 1989; Hanemann, 1991; Santana et al., 2017; Santana, 2020), with the aim of assigning prices to public goods that do not have an explicit market price, but which are directly associated with society's well-being.
In this research, SHP is defined by incorporating the opportunity cost of natural assets and of human and social capital into the cash flow of production systems, which generally operate as a hidden force in local development. Then, following Santana et al. (2023), the return on investment in the remuneration of human capital and in the recovery, restoration and/or preservation of natural assets is included in the price of the product. In this way, the SHP of socio-biodiversity products, and of all products in the economy, helps each producer to remunerate the productivity of labor and of the natural ecosystem used and/or preserved.
The implementation of the SHP as a strategy for cooperatives when negotiating with certifying companies and/or agro-industries is the basis for guaranteeing sustainable income for family producers and extractivists. The impact of SHP on sustainable development, by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of a set of programs and policies geared towards agro-extractive products, can increase income, employment, food security, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and, in turn, improve human development indices in the Amazon.
When integrated with public policies, the SHP tends to boost contracts for the supply of raw materials and products to certifying companies, agro-industries and the FAP and NSFP social programs, which do not keep up with the changing dynamics of the product and input markets in this diversity of economic systems. This can be done by adjusting the market prices of products with statistics from the BIGS, and by setting prices for products collected from nature that are not yet included in BIGS statistics (Santana, 2021; Santana et al., 2024с). In effect, the opportunity cost of environmental services and human capital used for more productive and sustainable practices helps to structure the entire value chain of sociobiodiversity products in the Amazon.
The relevant literature applied in the methodological construction of this research integrates the pioneering studies from Simon (1979) on bounded rationality, Akerlof (1970) on asymmetric information, and Georgescu-Roegen (1977), Williamson & Winter (1996), Santana (2020) and Santana et al. (2025) on local development and bioeconomy. Following, this knowledge is applied to mitigate the problems caused by anthropogenic action in the use of Amazonian ecosystems (Stiglitz, 2000; Santana, 2013; Strand et al., 2018; Santana et al., 2023; Santana et al., 2024a; Costa, 2024). The proposed methodology is original by introducing the opportunity cost of natural assets, human capital and social capital into the cash flow of enterprises, specifically extractivism and agroforestry systems. It is an efficient way of anchoring the value of the forest and the knowledge and traditions of Amazonian communities in the price of products.
Given the conflicting interests of the agents, the prices paid to producers and to cooperatives of family farmers and extractivists, due to the limited rationality of Simon's decisions (1977) and Akerlof's asymmetric information (1970), do not remunerate the productivity of labor and the natural ecosystem (Santana, 2021; Santana et al., 20245). In this case, unlike the scenario studied by Akerlof, the demanding companies are better informed than the cooperatives, and the latter even more so than the producers. The integrating and/or certifying companies have more information about the willingness to pay of consumers in the main market segments, according to Santana (2020), Ferreira & Santana (2020), Santana ef al. (2024b), Santana P. et al. (2025) and Veloso et al. (2025); which is defined on the basis of purchasing power, level of formal education and degree of demand for quality, health safety, respect for cultural traditions, and compliance with existing laws regarding labor, land and the sustainable use of the Amazon's natural ecosystems.
In the negotiations between companies and cooperatives, this knowledge is the basis for making demands on the size of the contracts so that the products are traded at a price above the practiced on the market (known as "fair price"), with the aim of differentiating the brand of the products by differentiating quality, social inclusion and environmental sustainability (Santana et al., 2024b; Santana P. et al., 2025). The certifying companies, based on the information collected by the negotiating agents, know that the supply of these extractive products, with the exception of agai, is greater than the demand currently identified. The excess demand is gradually diminishing as a result of restrictions on the products' qualities for food, human health and well-being, and on the interaction with the fauna and flora of the Amazon's natural ecosystems. As a result of this information imbalance, the prices set by the companies do not remunerate all the contractual requirements for the production and supply of the products (Ruf et al., 2019; Knôblsdorfer et al., 2021; Santana et al., 2024b; Santana P. et al., 2025). As a result, the benefit of negotiation tends to be greater for companies.
In this sense, over time producers realize that the prices are not worth the extra effort and some accept to continue delivering products to the cooperatives, while others give up and sell to middlemen and other companies with fewer demands and paying higher prices. In both cases, it was observed in discussions at the workshops that information between cooperatives and cooperative members is opaque, which leads some of them to abandon their relationship with the organization, and others to increase their opportunism in order not to apply all the labor and environmental requirements and to negotiate part of their production with other clients, leading to a second-best situation for the market balance of these products.
The operation of this price formation system, under the influence of asymmetric information, tends to generalize the practice of predatory management of floodplain and dryland ecosystems in surrounding areas, causing negative environmental externalities and threatening the supply and well-being of communities that depend on extractivism. Cooperatives that negotiate with large companies and participating in FAP, NSFP and PNPSFF policies, disregarding the opportunity costs of unpaid family labor and the producer's decision- making and risk-taking role, end up forcing the price of extractivist products to collapse in line with the price of substitute commodities. The resulting effect is an increase in social and environmental liabilities, which together contribute to continuing the cycle of deforestation and poverty.
In the context of cooperative relations as the central link connecting cooperative members and the companies that require the products, information asymmetry is gaining importance in the process of coordinating the chain to reach local, regional and global markets (Vosooghidizaji et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2021; Dari-Matticci et al., 2021; Avinadav & Shamir, 2021; Pishchulov et al., 2023; Zhoo et al., 2023; Yin, 2024; Santana et al., 2024b; Santana P. et al., 2025). Here, the social and environmental dimensions linked to costs and prices, and their relationships of trust, transparency, risks, benefits and well-being perceived by the agents, configure the vector of variables that trigger the process of change in the efficiency of cooperatives in coordinating value chains and boost the growth of the local economy. In practice, according to Krag et al. (2017), Santana et al. (2024b), Bahia et al. (2024) and Santana P. et al. (2025), agents do not perceive the effects caused by these dimensions on relations between companies and cooperatives, and between cooperatives and their members.
The hidden points with the greatest impact on the performance of ecological production are: the absence of the opportunity costs of ecosystem services and human capital in the cash flow, and the failure to include their effects in the "fair prices" of the transaction for buying and selling socio-biodiversity products. In turn, the asymmetry of information between companies and cooperatives degrades the irrationality of decisions, with negative impacts on the weakest agents by causing increased inefficiency in the coordination of food value chains (DariMattacci, 2021; Avinadov, 2021; Santana P. et al., 2025). Other factors found in dialogue with cooperative managers and suppliers include prices below costs, and conflicts of interest due to the lack of transparency in dialogues. Similarly, as reported in Mardenli et al. (2024), Santana et al. (2024b) and Santana P. et al. (2025), the effects of asymmetric information on decisions and coordination of the value chain are aggravated by: social and environmental issues, the absence of a database on production costs and transaction prices, and the power of customers in price formation.
In fact, the potential benefits attributed to the power of the social organization of small farmers and extractivists in cooperatives loses significance. As revealed in Iddrisu et al. (2020), Knôblosdorfer et al. (2021), Gomes et al. (2024) and Santana P. et al. (2025), the certification of products from small cocoa producer organizations does not make the relationship with food security and local development significant. In this case, it is perceived that the "fair price" (or "premium price") does not compensate for the certifiers" demands with regard to the requirements to human rights and environmental impacts included in the contracts.
In this context, this research proposes a methodological alternative to overcome the limitations of theoretical and applied works so far by incorporating the opportunity cost of using and not using ecosystem services and human capital, which are considered to be the main hidden forces in the negotiation of socio-biodiversity products in the Amazon. This theoretical and methodological contribution, according to Santana et al. (2016), Santana (2020), Ferreira & Santana (2020), Oliveira et al. (2021), Santana et al. (2024b) and Veloso et al. (2025), makes it possible to define a price that includes the weights of the economic, social and environmental dimensions; thus reflecting the socio-environmental equilibrium value of the products and guiding decisions to sell surplus production to cooperatives, agro-industries, certifiers and government programs.
To date, the public procurement and credit policies in vogue do not endogenously include the weights of the social and environmental dimensions in the systemic indicators of the impacts on local development. Furthermore, the proposed SHP incorporates the explicit and hidden forces that have a direct impact on increasing the income, employment and food security of family farmers and extractivists. This can help ensure that the objectives of policies and certification effectively contribute to preventing deforestation and improving poverty, health, education and sustainability indicators.
3 METHODOLOGY
The research study area is the state of Pará (Brazil), where the pilot experiment was developed in partnership with two cooperatives of extractivists and family farmers: Cooperativa dos Fruticultores de Abaetetuba (Cofruta), and Cooperativa Mista Agroextrativa de Santo António do Tauá (Camtauá). These cooperatives are not yet members of the Organization of Brazilian Cooperatives in Pará (OCB/PA). They were chosen for the case study because of their willingness to collaborate with information, make field studies possible, and hold mentoring workshops to convey the results of the study to the cooperatives' managers and members.
Cofruta has 105 active cooperative members (37 women and 68 men) and sells 15 products (in which agai, tucumá, murumuru and andiroba are the cooperative's main products), 10 of which come from extractivism and five from family farming. Camtauá has 54 members (28 women and 26 men) and works with tucumá, murumuru and andiroba products. The products are traded as ecological, or organic, because they do not utilize chemical inputs or predatory forest management. A description of the products and the characteristics of the cooperatives and their relations with their members and clients are described in Bahia et al. (2024). The location of the cooperatives and the area of activity of the producers included in the research is shown in Figure 1.
Primary data for the case study of these two cooperatives was obtained through interviews with cooperative members, and consolidated in workshops with managers and cooperative members, to structure the cash flow and define the SHP. In this process of coproduction of knowledge and learning, the asymmetry of information tends to diminish at the same time as rationality increases in the negotiations between the cooperatives, the cooperative members and the companies that demand the products.
The methodology used to define the SHP for the production and processing links in the cooperatives is summarized in Flowchart. Initially, the methodology was presented to the managers and some cooperative members, followed by the definition of the strategy of visiting producers in the main production systems for interviews and data collection. During the visits, a questionnaire was used to obtain the technical coefficients associated with the quantities and prices of labor, inputs, equipment and social and environmental services, to make up the fixed costs (which do not vary with the quantity produced), variable costs (which vary with the quantity produced), and initial environmental costs (costs of using and not using land, water and ecosystem services produced by nature).
Based on this primary and secondary data from research on the subject, the cash flow was drawn up for adjustment in a workshop with cooperators and managers; sharing the knowledge and information generated about the production systems in use. Based on this data, it was shown how to estimate production costs and SHP per ton of product, environmental liabilities per hectare and net income indicators, the break-even point and profitability, compared to the analysis without including social and environmental costs. This was necessary because the unit budget of the production systems was not made by the producers, who revealed to be unaware of these indicators; which are important for adding knowledge and helping to define the selling price of the products each year.
At the cooperative, the methodology is applied to the processing, packaging and distribution of products received from co-operators and negotiated with clients, as well as the cooperative's communication and management services. At the end, it was presented how value is added to the product and the estimated benefit to be shared with the cooperative members.
The environmental cost includes the opportunity cost of land and water, i.e. the cost of leasing land and water supply, with adjustments for locational environmental externalities (Azevedo Jr. & Santana, 2022; Santana et al., 2023; Oliveira et al., 2023). The costs of ecosystem services are estimated through the willingness to pay for the preservation of natural assets, and the willingness to receive for the alternative use of natural assets (Santana et al., 2017; Santana, 2020; Oliveira ег al., 2021). The carbon sequestration and storage service was estimated from information generated by forest inventories of secondary forest (classified as 5, 10, ог 20 or more years old) and native forests (Salomão et al., 2012; Salomão et al., 2014; Souza et al., 2024). Based on this information, the annual increase in carbon production of production systems and/or the natural ecosystem was obtained.
Fixed costs include the producer's pro-labore to pay for experience, knowledge over time and his ability to make decisions and take risks in managing the business, the return on own invested capital, and the depreciation of equipment and facilities used in the production system. Variable costs include the services of hired labor and unpaid family labor involved in cultivation, harvesting and transporting the produce, fuel costs (petrol and diesel), communication, bags, tools and climate risks (Santana, 2020; Santana et al., 2023; Nogueira & Santana, 2024), and post-harvest costs. The composition of these costs innovates the preparation of the cash flow, highlighting the inclusion of the opportunity costs of the natural ecosystem and the social cost of human capital from the producer's decision-making and management activity.
The model for analyzing costs and price formation was specified in two equations: the unit cost of production (Equation 1), which differs from traditional cost analyses by including the environmental component, and the SHP (Equation 2).
... (1)
Where:
UC, is the unit cost of product q per hectare; CES, is the opportunity cost of environmental services of product q, which is based on ES, (the environmental service associated with the production system of q) and a; (the price of environmental service i); VC, is the variable cost of product q, which is based on X, (the quantity of variable inputs and services used in the production of q) and 5; (the price of variable input or service j); FC, is the fixed cost of product q, which is based on W, (the quantity of fixed inputs and services used in the production of q) and y; (the price of fixed input or service k).
The socio-environmental hedonic price is adjusted by the ratio between the environmental cost and the sum (environmental cost + fixed cost) of producing product q. The price varies according to the production system in use, as specified in Equation 2 (Santana et al., 2023)
... (2)
Where:
SHP, is the socio-environmental hedonic price of product q, MP, is the market price of product q, and 6 is the coefficient for adjusting the market price to the socio-environmental hedonic price.
When making decisions based on this methodology, the SHP must ensure remuneration for labor productivity and sustainable growth in production. Thus, the selling price, or negotiation price, is given by Equation 3.
... (3)
Where:
О is the quantity produced per hectare, used to estimate the average cost per kg or Mt of the product. In order to adjust the result to the goals of increasing market share and, in turn, the level of competitiveness with the competition, the profit margin must be added to SHP.
The profit margin is adjusted based on the results of an opinion poll on the Willingness to Pay (WTP+) a higher price for the socio-biodiversity products studied, based on the attributes differentiated by being associated with the traditions and socio-cultural values of family producers and extractivists, and the preservation of natural ecosystems. The data was obtained by applying a survey to co-operators, postgraduate students, researchers from the states of the Legal Amazon and research groups from São Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul. The data sample adopted a confidence level of 5% and a statistical error of 7%.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The research was carried out in two cooperatives that work with acai, andiroba, murumuru and tucuma in the form of extractivism and are not members of the OCB/PA system. Cooperative members who have implemented agroforestry systems and intensive forest management were not included in the research. The data consolidated in Table 1 was presented at a workshop to exchange knowledge on how to negotiate prices with the cooperative members and the large companies that demand the products.
Table 1 shows the cash flow data for production systems in the stabilization phase, or with at least eight years in production. The technical production coefficients were defined based on the average number of açaí, tucumá and murumuru clumps and the number of andiroba trees per hectare. The average of the technical coefficients of the farms of 20 representative producers from the two cooperatives was: 200 acai clumps with three stipes, producing 10 kg/stipe; 150 tucuma clumps with three stipes, producing 27 kg/stipe and 70% effective production, given the company's requirement to leave 30% of the fruit in the clumps; 100 murumuru clumps with three stipes and 18 kg/stipe; 30 andiroba trees producing 170 kg/tree.
The technical coefficients and production costs per hectare are also detailed in Table 1. Variable costs include hired and family labor, nylon bags, fuel and tools. These costs accounted for 73.8% for acai, 60.4% for tucuma, 62.6% for murumuru and 58% for andiroba.
Fixed costs refer to the depreciation of durable equipment, the small boat, the cost of equity (i.e. own capital) and the producer's pro-labore. These costs varied between 13.3%, for acai, and 16.2%, for murumuru.
Environmental costs include land and the ecosystem services of the preserved forest. The share of socio-environmental costs was 12.9%, 23.6%, 21.1% and 26.3% for agai, tucuma, murumuru and andiroba, respectively. When accounting, these costs represent the environmental liability estimated by the difference between the private cost and the environmental cost (Table 1), and indicate that the depreciation or depletion of natural assets (Azevedo Jr. & Santana, 2022) is the main hidden force causing the destruction of forest biodiversity, soil fertility and water quality; which directly influences poverty rates, food supply and the well-being of society.
The results indicate that the price paid by the cooperatives to the producers (i.e. the market price per kg of fruit) was below the unit cost for acai and murumuru, and above for tucuma and andiroba, indicating that these activities are unable to prevent the deforestation of the forest for other uses, as they perceive that the productivity of labor and natural assets is not being adequately compensated.
In turn, by surpassing the socio-bioeconomic unit costs of production, the SHP generates a net benefit, or profit, for the producers. With this result, the extraction of these species can stimulate the adoption of technological and innovative practices that are more productive and make the forest more inclusive and sustainable, as has already begun in some cases for açaí and tucuma. The next step is to move on, as in the case of açaí, to domesticating and growing these products in agroforestry systems, or in productive forests with low ecological impact, in order to expand the scale and supply national and international markets.
In this way, the technological path associated with inclusive and sustainable value chains for socio-biodiversity products, such as Costa (2024) proposes for the agai economy, they can increase efficiency of the cooperatives studied through product differentiation and effective negotiation, applying SHP in transactions with agents in the local, national and international market segments.
Socio-environmental liabilities, when internalized in the cash flow, increase the costs of producers who demand prices adjusted to their ecological and social footprints. In this case, fair trade certification of producers who adopt good practices to create economic, social and environmental value for their products, aiming to adjust supply to meet the demand of consumers, especially those who are willing to pay higher prices for these attributes associated with the objectives of sustainable development in the Amazon.
4.1 DEVELOPMENT FORCES AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY
With regard to the strengths and opportunities for making the economy of sociobiodiversity products viable through the willingness to pay differentiated prices for these products, the survey results are shown in Figure 3. In Figure 3A, 72% of respondents assessed that the socio-biodiversity economy combines strengths with the opportunities signaled by the global market; defined by consumers who argue that the evolution of this economy contributes to the preservation of the Amazon's natural ecosystems. This hegemonic perception expressed by society can be increased by a further 23% if more productive, efficient and sustainable practices are used to neutralize the real weaknesses and threats linked to the causes of deforestation and forest fires (Strand et al., 2018; Brandão et al., 2021; Costa, 2023; Silva et al., 2023; Santana et al., 2024a). The 3% defined by weaknesses and threats, although with a small share, may increase their effects with the slow regularization of land ownership and monitoring of deforestation in settlements and areas affected by agricultural projects, mining, forestry concessions and hydroelectric dams.
In Figure 3B, referring to the results of the willingness to pay a higher price to differentiate products by their quality, social inclusion and sustainability characteristics, it can be seen a market segmentation according to income, level of education and access to information. The niche market made up of consumers with a higher level of education and income, with a WTP+ greater than or equal to 30%, represents 17% of the market. This market, according to Souza et al. (2024) and Veloso et al. (2025), guides the decisions of entrepreneurs to add value to products and expand the scale of production with the differentiating characteristics of product brands, adding extra information to QR Code applications to offer transparency and confidence to consumers in different locations.
The second market niche is defined by consumers willing to pay a price increase between 10% and 29%, and was represented by 35% of respondents. This also includes people with a high level of education and an above-average income, which boosts sales of products that meet the desired socio-economic requirements. The third segment includes potential consumers with WTP+ between 1% and 9%, representing 44% of those interviewed, the majority of whom have a below-average income and level of education. The remaining 4% tend to continue buying products at market prices and expect prices to decrease as they scale up.
These results guide the definition of competitive and more efficient strategies for adding value and differentiating products, with the aim of meeting consumer preferences according to the market niche.
4.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC COMPOSITION OF COSTS
Following, we present the distribution of economic, social and environmental costs in the formation of the total costs of each product (Figure 4). This is a contribution of the research, aiming to inform society about the socio-environmental equilibrium price capable of defining the dynamics of this market through a new path of economic growth with social inclusion and environmental sustainability (Santana, 2021). This demonstrates to niche consumer markets the impact of their spending on the purchase of these products and, in turn, on producers' costs and revenues. From the perspective of a model of Economic, Social and Environmental Management (ESE Management), with explicit foundations in the composition of production, processing and supply costs for cooperatives, the sustainable use of natural ecosystems defined according to the WTP+ is made possible in order to meet the preferences of consumers in each niche and market.
In Figure 4, it is clear that without SHP, the share of the environmental dimension - ranging from 12.9%, for acai, to 26.3%, for andiroba - would disappear, as would at least 50% of the fraction related to the social dimension. As these environmental liabilities are not included in traditional analyses, product prices do not reflect this market reality. Therefore, without the SHP, public policies and actions to certify products without the use of chemicals and agro-industrial integration are not contributing to eliminating deforestation, malnutrition, poverty and, in turn, promoting local development.
By including the social opportunity costs of natural assets in the cash flow and the return on investment in preserving these assets in prices, environmental liabilities are equalized and the economy tends to evolve by expanding the scale of production, improving quality and adding value to products. To the extent that ESE Management increases production efficiency, access to information and transparency in sharing results with producers, cooperatives can move away from operational inertia and towards a path of growth with social inclusion and environmental sustainability (Santana, 2021; Bahia et al., 2024).
The anchor that sustains the extractive economy and contributes to achieving the objectives of sustainable development (income and employment, sustainable production and consumption, empowerment of women, reduction of climate change, etc.) is the application of SHP to ensure that the benefits to producers are greater than the socio-bioeconomic costs of production. This helps to strengthen the organization of producers to use more productive and sustainable practices to increase the quality and scale of production, add value and sell products at competitive prices capable of remunerating the productivity of labor and the natural ecosystems of the Amazon.
4.3 ADDING VALUE TO PRODUCTS
The creation and inclusion of economic, social and environmental value for the acai, tucuma, murumuru and andiroba products supplied to the Cofruta and Camtauá cooperatives, as described in Table 2, only covers the links of input supply, fruit production and processing by the cooperative. The values were established per hectare to focus on the scale that remunerates the productivity of the labor and natural assets used. The production systems analyzed do not utilize chemical inputs (manure, fertilizer and pesticides), but use fossil fuels, equipment, tools and packaging that do not incorporate the environmental and social costs compatible with the methodology proposed in this study. Therefore, the participation of this segment was considered the same for the traditional system in use and the socio-environmental system proposed.
The added value was calculated from the results in Table 1 and the diagram in flowchart. Inputs and materials were accounted for in the supplier link, or segment before the farm gate, labor wages, interest and net income of cooperative producers and cooperatives that process the fruits to meet consumer requirements (Table 2).
The value chain is short because the analysis took into account the links with suppliers and cooperatives. The other links of industrialization and distribution of products to the end consumer were not analyzed. In the production link, each hectare of forest managed with these products would generate, in 2024, an added value per hectare of US$ 5,950.88, US$ 2,041.42, US$ 1.390.03 and US$ 1,368.12, respectively, for agai, tucumá, murumuru and andiroba. These figures are 58.9% higher than those obtained in 2024 by the traditional system for agai, and around 70% higher for the other products. This would be the value gained by the cooperative members, since the input segment does not adopt good sustainable practices and the contracting companies already incorporate this gain in product prices, with or without the inclusion of social and environmental services. The share of this link in adding value varied between 15.7% for murumuru, and 19.2% for tucuma (Table 2).
The cooperatives form the link to the production of the cooperative members and add value to the raw material through drying, sorting, industrial processing and packaging practices. In this case study, only the acai fruit was processed into pulp. For the other products, only the drying stage of the fresh fruit was considered. Still, the added value to fresh fruit per hectare amounted to US$ 24,464,73, US$ 7,798.24, US$ 6,894.57 and US$ 6,402.82 for agai, tucuma, murumuru and andiroba, respectively. The cooperatives" share of the total added value per hectare ranged from 72.56%, for tucumá, to 77.15%, for andiroba (Table 2).
Of the total added value of US$ 17,746.19/ha in the açaí value chain, the input supply link contributed 4.71%, the production link contributed 18.64%, and the cooperative link 76.65% (Table 2). The tucuma chain shows a different distribution, with the input supply link contributing 8.43%, the production link 19.0%, and the cooperative link 72.56% of the total added value of R$ 6,326.10/ha. In the other two chains, the distribution was more homogeneous, given the characteristics of the activities of fruit handling and collection.
When comparing the added value of the proposed socio-environmental model with the model currently in practice, the differences are significant. In Table 2, AVI indicated that the value added by the proposed model was 1.799, 1.70, 1.75 and 1.675 times greater than the traditional model for acai, tucumä, murumuru and andiroba, respectively. This difference arises from the reduction of the effects of information asymmetry on the dynamics of extractive product markets, the opportunity costs of natural and social assets; which are not captured in the prices set by the contracting companies. In the case of extractive acaí, whose prices and quantities produced are listed in BIGS documents, over the last five years the price paid to producers by the cooperatives has been lower than that recorded by BIGS.
The power play applied to the pricing of these products adds the information that tucumá, murumuru and andiroba are in much greater supply than demand, which is why the buying companies set very low prices in the face of high demands to ensure the preservation of the natural ecosystem and human rights. In this market, agents are unaware of the economic, social and environmental costs, so defining the socio-environmental equilibrium price is a guarantee for the continuity of extractivism on a sustainable basis. The adoption of such methodologies requires speed so that deforestation evolves more slowly and discontinuously, While malnutrition and poverty are reduced.
The increase in added value helps to redirect the formation of human and social capital, Which increases the competences and capacities of coordinating the cooperation relationships within, and between, the ecosystems formed by institutions that interact with the agents operating in the value chains studied, making governance more efficient. This can enable the adoption of technologies and innovations in the processes, products and management of value chains to trigger the generation of income, employment, environmental sustainability and improvements in people's quality of life.
These results reveal a value with great potential to impact on the growth of the family farming and extractivist economy, driven by cooperatives integrated with agro-industries and/or certifying companies. However, the average production and/or fruit collection area is considered around % hectare per cooperative member. Therefore, increasing the scale of fruit production and industrial processing through the use of more productive, inclusive and sustainable practices requires credit for investment, funding and insurance against climate and price risks and, fundamentally, land regularization and environmental licensing. Without resolving the barriers imposed by these latent variables, agroextractivist cooperativism in the Amazon will not be able to break the vicious circle of poverty and human development (Santana, 2021; Santana et al., 2024c; Santana P. et al., 2025).
5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The results of this case study of the Cofruta and Camtauá agroextractivist cooperatives, showed that the low entrepreneurial vision of the managers is one of the causes of their comfort in accepting the pricing of products by the demanding companies, due to a lack of access to information and technical knowledge about the dynamics of negotiations with companies that act as monopsonies and/or oligopsonies. Although the methodology includes the opportunity costs of ecosystem services and human capital in the cash flow and the socio-environmental equilibrium price (SHP) captures the economic, social and environmental effects in the prices, the managers prefer to continue with the status quo; not sharing the information with the cooperative members, in order to start a negotiation dialogue so that the companies adjust the methodology used to set product prices.
The results indicate that if cooperatives adopt sustainable competitive strategies, they can combine product differentiation in terms of quality, social inclusion and environmental sustainability with the scale of production to make it viable to negotiate products on national and international markets at a SHP. The share of economic, social and environmental costs in the total cost of production was, respectively: 40.3%, 46.8% and 12.9% for acai; 41.2%, 25.3% and 23.6% for tucumä; 38.5%, 40.4% and 21.1% for murumuru; and 37.1%, 36.6% and 26.3% for andiroba. With this, market agents can identify the balance of socio-bioeconomic forces that define the price and cause impacts on sustainable development.
As it includes social opportunity costs and the costs of natural assets and ecosystem services, the SHP estimated for the products negotiated by the cooperatives was above the market reference price defined and paid by the companies; notably: 49.31% for açaí fruit, 59.48% for fresh tucuma fruit, 56.57% for murumuru kernels and 62.25% for fresh andiroba seeds. Product certification can thus prevent deforestation by increasing income and spending on food security, given that the combination of production and/or collection systems takes place throughout the year. Even in the case of acai, which has high self-consumption by extractivist families, additional income is needed to acquire the proteins and vitamins necessary for proper health and social well-being
Even with the inclusion of the opportunity costs of natural and social assets in the cash flow as elements in the formation of the SHP, and an increase in the efficiency of cooperative management in the governance of value chains, the average area managed is around % hectare per cooperative member. Thus, extractivism 1s close to backyard farming, categorized in the agricultural census as establishments with up to 50 clumps and/or productive trees from the Amazon's natural ecosystems. This scale does not generate enough income to remunerate the productivity of labor and natural assets. It is therefore a barrier that prevents the administrative transition of agro-extractivist cooperatives, and the access to enough credit to reach the minimum scale and break the vicious circle of poverty.
In theoretical terms, the study contributes to broadening the understanding of the effects of asymmetries in the transaction process between family farming and extractivist, and cooperatives, agro-industries and certifying companies, considering the integrated view of the effects of bounded rationality, asymmetric information that cause imbalances in knowledge sharing, and in the efficiency of the governance of inclusive and sustainable value chains.
The study's original contribution is the formation of a SHP, as a result of including the opportunity costs of keeping the forest standing and payments for environmental services in the cash flow, which contributes to increasing income and employment, reducing poverty and food insecurity among family producers and extractivists, as well as creating the conditions for access to the carbon market. With this, by adding the values created when using more productive practices with social inclusion and a reduction in deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions, the objective of integrating producers into cooperatives, agro-industries and/or certifiers of differentiated products can be realized.
The case study has limitations because the cooperatives do not organize a database on their members' production systems, involved costs, prices and production. There are no management strategies to guide the use of more productive, inclusive and sustainable practices in the market, or how to manage climate and price risks. The results are limited to the cases studied, and only the innovative scientific and methodological knowledge generated can be extrapolated; this is given the specificity of the cooperatives in that they negotiate with few clients and are not part of the OCB/PA System.
The suggestions for future works are: to replicate the methodology proposed in other cooperatives, and to expand knowledge and improve the efficiency of product sales negotiations and the management of the entire value chain; to complete the analysis of the other links in the value chains of the products studied; to carry out a study to enable access to credit and technical assistance, to increase the scale of production and add value to products.
References
REFERENCES
Akerlof, С. A. (1970). The market for "lemons": quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 84(3), 488-500.
Avinadov, T. & Shamir, N. (2021). The effect of information asymmetry on orderingand capacity decisions in supply chains. European Journal of Operational Research, 292(2), 562-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.11.004
Azevedo Jr., W. С. & Santana, A. С. О produto interno bruto do Brasil ajustado pela depreciação do solo agricola. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 60(2): 228505. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2021.228505
Azevedo Jr., W. С. & Santana, A. С. (2022) Impact of agricultural activities on the Brazilian soil fertility: a physical and financial analysis of soil nutrient balance. Russian Agricultural Sciences, 48(1), 30-39. Doi: 10.3103/S1068367422020021
Bahia, P. Q., Gomes, S. C., Santana, A. C., Oliveira, R. M. S. & Silva, D. C. S. (2024). Configuração das relações de integração entre cooperativas e agricultores familiares extrativistas no estado do Pará. Revista ARACÉ, 6(4), 14056-14093. https://doi.org/10.56238/arev6n4-177
Chen, T., Levy, H., Martin, X. & Shalev, R. (2021). Buying products from whom you know: personal connections and information asymmetry in supply chain relationships. Review of Accounting Studies, 26, 1492-1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-020-09578-1
Costa, Е. A. (2024). Economia e território: constituição e dinámica da economia do açaí па região do Grão-Pará (1995-2011). Belém: NAEA.
Costa, F. A. (2023). From the appropriation of public lands to the dynamics of deforestation: the formation of the land market in the Amazon (1970-2017). Nova Economia, 33(2), 305333. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6351/7751
Court, A. T. (1939). Hedonic price indexes with automotive examples. (pp. 98-119) in: The Dynamics of automobile demand. NewY ork: General Motors.
Dari-Maticci, G., Onderstal, S. & Parisi, F. (2021). Asymmetric solutions to asymmetric information problems. International Review of Law and Economics, 66, 1-8, 105981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2021.105981
Ferreira, У. A. & Santana, A. С. (2020). A governança da cadeia de valor do dendé na percepçäo dos atores sociais integrados, estado do Para. International Journal of Development Research. 10, 41739 - 41746. https://doi.org/10.37118/ijdr.20299.10.2020
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1977). Inequality, limits and growth from a bioeconomic viewpoint. Review of Social Economy, 35, 361-375.
Gomes, $. C., Cardoso, L. Е. C., Cabral, E. R., Santana, A. C., Negrão, К. К. M. & Bahia, P. Q. (2024). Unlocking Community Engagement in REDD+ Initiatives: Insights from a Case Study in the Amazon. Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 24(1.2), 1-13. Doi: 10.34257/GJHSSBVOL24IS2PG1.
Ggriliches, Z. (1961). Hedonic price indexes for automobiles: an econometric analysis of quality change (pp. 137-96). In: NBER (ed.). The price statistics of the federal government. New York, National Bureau of Economic Research)
Hanemann, W. М. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? The American Economic Review, 81(3), 635-647.
Iddrisu, M., Aidoo, R. & Wongaa, C. A. (2020). Participation in UTZ-RA voluntary cocoa certification scheme and its impact on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Ghana. World Development Perspectives, 20, 1-13 100244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100244
Knôblsdorfer, I., Selare, J. & Qaim, М. (2021). Effects of Fairtrade on farm household food security and living standards: Insights from Cote d'Ivoire. Global Food Security, 29, 1-8, 100535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100535
Krag, М. N., Santana, A. C., Salomão, К. P., Oliveira, С. М. & Gomes, $. С. (2027). А Governança do arranjo produtivo local da castanha-do-brasil na região da Calha Norte, Pará. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 553), 589-608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1234-56781806-94790550310
Mardenli, A., Sackmann, D. & Fiedler, A. (2024). Determinants of information asymmetry in agri-food upply chains. The International Journal of Logistics Management, vol. ahead-ofprint, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/1JLM-08-2023-0330
Mitchell, К. С. & Carson, К. T. (1989). Usillg survey.v to value public goods - lhe contingent valualioll method. Washington, Resources for the Future.
Neven, D. (2015). Desarrollo de cadenas de valor alimentarias sostenibles: principios rectores. Roma: FAO.
Nogueira, A. K. M. & Santana, A. C. (2024) Influence of rains in the andiroba and copaiba oils supply and the impact on the socioeconomic and environmental benefit inthe West Of Pará. RGSA - Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental (ANPAD), 18(7), 1-19, е07228. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n7-145
Pischulov, G., Richter, K. & Golesorkhi, S. (2023). Supply chain coordination under asymmetric information and partial vertical integration. Annals of Operations Research, 329, 1315-1356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04705-4
Ruf, F., Leitz, E. U., Gboko, K. C. & Carimentrand, A. (2019). Des certifications inutiles? Les relations asymétriques entre coopératives, labels et cacaoculteurs en Côte d'Ivoire 1. Revue internationale des études du développement, 31-61.
Salomão, К. P., Brienza Jr., S., & Santana, A. С. (2012). Análise da florística e estrutura de floresta primária visando a seleção de espécies-chave, através deanálise multivariada, para a restauração de áreas mineradas em unidades de conservação. Revista Árvore, 36, 9891008.
Salomáo, К. P., Vieira, 1. С. G., Brienza Jr., S., Amaral, D. D. & Santana, A. С. (2012). Sistema Capoeira Classe: uma proposta de sistema de classificação de estágios sucessionais de florestassecundárias para o estado do Pará. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi. Ciências Naturais, 7, 297-317.
Santana, A. C. (2020). Bioeconomia aplicada ao agronegócio: mercado, externalidades e ativos naturais. Piracanjuba: Editora Conhecimento Livre. Doi: 10.37423/2020.edcl190.
Santana, А. С. (2013). Efeitos do FNO no desenvolvimento socioeconómico da Região Norte: análise de eficácia. Belém, PA: Banco da Amazónia.
Santana, P. J. A., Santana, A. C., Olimpio, S. C. M., Gomes, S. C., Mendes, F. A. T., Santana, Adina L. & Costa, N. L. (2025). Identification and use of latent variables in the analysis of the effects of certification on cocoa farms in the Transamazon. RGSA - Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 19(1), 1-20, e010781. Doi: https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v19n1-044
Santana, A. C., Gomes, S. С. & Santos, М. A. $. (2024с). Carteira de projetos estratégicos para o desenvolvimento sustentavel do estado do Para 2050. (Relatório de Pesquisa). Belém: FADESP/SEPLAD, 2024c.
Santana, A. C., Lins, P. М. P., Dantas, В. С. R., Santana, Adina L. & Costa Filho, С. A. (2024b). Yield of Bunches of Fresh Oil Palm Fruits (Elaeis Guineenses JACQ.) Grown in Pará: Barrier to Illegal Transport. RGSA - Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 18(11), 1-24, е010036. Doi: https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n11-235
Santana, A. C., Santana, Adiana L., Gomes, S. C., Costa, N. L., Oliveira, E. S., Santana, Adamo L. & Oliveira, С. M. T. $. (2024a). Contribuições metodológicas para explicar os fatores determinantes da destruição da Floresta Amazónica. RGSA - Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 18, 1-34, p.e05174. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n4-084.
Santana, A. C., Santana, Ádiana L., Santana, Adamo L., Oliveira, G. M. T. S & Santos, M, A. S. (2023). Bioeconomic evaluation of an agroforestry system and the potential to recover degraded areas and capitalize producers in the state of Pará, Brazilian Amazon. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente (UFPR), 61, 439-455. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v6110.80516
Santana, A. C., Santana, Adamo L., Amin, М. M., Salomão, В. P., Costa, N. L., Santos, М. A. S. & Castilho, A. F. (2017). Theoretical and methodological contributions to the contingent evaluation of the natural resources of the Carajas National Forest. International Journal of Development Research, 7(4), 12468-12474.
Silva, J. G., Almeida, R. B. & Carvalho, L. V. (2023). An economic analysis of a zerodeforestation policy in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics, 203, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107613
Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. The American Economic Review, 69(4), 493-513.
Souza, R. F., Santana, Adina L. & Santana, А. С. (2024). А configuração e análise do mercado de Pet food na cidade de Belém, estado do Para. Contribuciones a las Ciencias Sociales, 17, e7368 - 16. Doi: 10.55905/revconv.17n.6-088
Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). The Contributions of the Economics of Information to Twentieth Century Economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1441-478.
Strand, J., Costa, М. H., Oliveira, U., Ribeiro, $. C., Pires, С. F., Rajáo, R., May, P. H., Hoff, R., Siikamäki, J., Motta, К. $. & Toman, М. (2018). Spatially explicit valuation of the Brazilian Amazon Forest's Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability, 1, 657-664. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0175-0
Veloso, T. C., Santana, A. C., Calvi, M. F., Azevedo Jr., W. C., Gomes, S. C., Mendes, F. A. T. & Santana, Adamo L. (2025). Sociobioeconomic effects of the transition of cocoa grown in agroforestry systems to full sun in the Amazon. RGSA - Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental (ANPAD), 19(1), 1-21, e010739. Doi: https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v19n1-100
Vosooghidizaji, M., Taghipour, A. & Canel-Depitre, B. (2019). A literature review on information asymmetry in supply chain coordination. International Journal of Production Research, 58(6), 1-6. Doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1685702
Williamson, O. E. & Wintrer, S. G. (1996). La naturaleza de la empresa: origenes, evolucion y desarrollo. México: Fundo de Cultura Económica.
Yin, G. (2024). Information asymmetry problems and solutions in supply chain management of industrial enterprises. Journal of Economic Theory and Business Management, 1(1), 1416. https://do1.org/10.5281/zenodo. 10576455
Zhoo, R-R., Wang, Q., Tian, Y. & Chen, Q-H. (2023). Explaining the stability of cooperation in agricultural industry chains based on the institutional theory: multiple mediating effects of perceived value and trust. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-15, 1094879. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1094879
