Access to Ecosystem Benefits: More than Proximity

Abstract

This article responds to a gap in existing research on access to environmental spaces in rural and coastal areas, especially of less advantaged members of society who could potentially benefit the most from exposure to such environments but face a whole host of constraints. We build on existing theorisations of access to natural resources and ecosystem services in the development literature and integrate insights from the sociology of access to environmental spaces, health geography and environmental psychology in industrialised contexts. We employ semi-structured interviews and photo elicitation with socioeconomically disadvantaged respondents in Cornwall, UK. Participants' accounts reveal four mechanisms that mediate access to ecosystem benefits: rights-based, physical, structural and relational, and psychosocial, and we thus extend Ribot and Peluso's access framework. We conclude that socioeconomic disadvantage mediates access to environmental spaces, in particular through psychosocial mechanisms, and highlight the interlinked and complementary nature of the four types of access mechanisms.

Materializing the blue economy: tuna fisheries and the theory of access in the Western Indian Ocean

“…Now we turn to presenting the rationale for enhancing Ribot and Peluso's (2003) theory of access through materiality. Other scholars have attempted to enrich the theory with social concepts (Szaboova et al 2019, for a recent example), or expand some components of the theory like power or authority (such as Sikor and Lund 2017). Our contribution lies in the integration of materiality.…”

Perceived availability and access limitations to ecosystem service well-being benefits increase in urban areas

“…A socially differentiated approach to examining ecosystem service benefits is crucial for ensuring that environmental management is equitable (Gurney et al 2015b). A few studies have examined the role of access mechanisms in mediating benefits derived from ecosystem services, drawing on a range of literature including environmental justice, livelihood capitals, environmental entitlements, and access theory (e.g., Hicks and Cinner 2014, Woodhouse et al 2015, Berbés-Blázquez et al 2017, Chaudhary et al 2018, Kibria et al 2018, Lau et al 2020, Szaboova et al 2020. Even if not framed in terms of access, socio-cultural valuation research on ecosystem services that disaggregates by socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., Lau et al 2018) addresses access through what Ribot and Peluso (2003) call social identity; showing how beneficiaries' sociodemographic characteristics, e.g., gender and age, are associated to differential benefits.…”

“…In the ecosystem service literature, only a few authors investigating issues of access have also considered factors of availability. The physical characteristics examined in these studies include: land availability, coastal development, pollution, and geographic location (Brown et al 2008), the quantity and quality of ecosystems (Milgroom et al 2014), physical and spatial barriers (Wieland et al 2016), land area (Kibria et al 2018), distance (Szaboova et al 2020), and weather (Lau et al 2020). Investigating the physical characteristics affecting availability together with access mechanisms provides more complete and useful information for planning and management of ecosystem services.…”

Constraints in Water Access in Laikipia County, Case of Ewaso Ng’iro River Basin in Kenya

“…The blame game on who draws water more among the upstream and downstream water user groups is not proven but perceptions tend to create a sense of inequality and room for contestations as mentioned by other scholars in the river basin (Lanari et al, 2018;Olagunju et al, 2019). Pastoralists who live down stream and agricultural farmers upstream perceive pastoralists migration during dry seasons in search for pasture and water resources is the source of inter-ethnic conflicts at water access points as noted by (Leclert et al, 2016;Szaboova, Brown, and Fisher, 2020;Warurii, 2013). The contention lies with the perception by the respondent that those with tapped water have more privileged water access unlike those who have water access at the river source (Armah et al, 2018;Leclert et al, 2016;Kipchirchir, 2015).…”