Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being

Abstract

SUMMARYThe concept of ecosystem services (ES), the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, is increasingly applied to environmental conservation, human wellbeing and poverty alleviation, and to inform the development of interventions. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) implicitly recognize the unequal distribution of the costs and benefits of maintaining ES, through monetary compensation from 'winners' to 'losers'. Some research into PES has examined how such schemes affect poverty, while other literature addresses trade-offs between different ES. However, much evolving ES literature adopts an aggregated perspective of humans and their well-being, which can disregard critical issues for poverty alleviation. This paper identifies four issues with examples from coastal ES in developing countries. First, different groups derive well-being benefits from different ES, creating winners and losers as ES, change. Second, dynamic mechanisms of access determine who can benefit. Third, individuals' contexts and needs determine how ES contribute to well-being. Fourth, aggregated analyses may neglect crucial poverty alleviation mechanisms such as cash-based livelihoods. To inform the development of ES interventions that contribute to poverty alleviation, disaggregated analysis is needed that focuses on who derives which benefits from ecosystems, and how such benefits contribute to the well-being of the poor. These issues present challenges in data availability and selection of how and at which scales to disaggregate. Disaggregation can be applied spatially, but should also include social groupings, such as gender, age and ethnicity, and is most important where inequality is greatest. Existing tools, such as stakeholder analysis and equity weights, can improve the relevance of ES research to poverty alleviation.

The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda

“…However, there has been insufficient attention to understanding well-being as co-created by people and ecosystems (Smith et al 2013), as well as incorporating the subjectivity of well-being in this context (Breslow et al 2016). It is notoriously difficult to assess human well-being in a way that captures fine-grained variations within or among groups of people in the same place (Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010, Daw et al 2011, Russell et al 2012. Applying sense of place tools as an indicator of subjective well-being could contribute to meeting these challenges.…”

Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica

“…However, if the ES concept is to become a fully operational planning tool, it is necessary to move beyond this simplistic perception. Important trade-offs have been recognized between ecosystem management for extracting tangible products (such as food and fibre) versus maintaining intangible services (for example water regulation) (MEA 2005;Rodríguez et al 2006), but less attention has been given to the relationships between intangible ES (Daw et al 2011).…”

Reviews on land use change induced effects on regional hydrological ecosystem services for integrated water resources management

“…However, Kremen et al (2000) and McConnell (2002) proposed that the overall impacts of ecosystem services on human well-being cannot be determined by the research in one region or modeling through using shortterm data. Identically, Daw et al (2011) concluded that people benefited from ecosystem services constrained by the family size, education level, poverty, vulnerability, and social relations. These findings are also appropriate for hydrological ecosystem services.…”