Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A review of the empirical links

Abstract

a b s t r a c tWe present the results of a review of the empirical evidence and of the state of knowledge regarding the mechanisms linking ecosystem services and poverty alleviation. The review was undertaken to determine the state of current knowledge about the scale and nature of these linkages, and focus the future research agenda. Research has, to date, focussed largely on provisioning services, and on just two poverty dimensions concerning income and assets, and food security and nutrition. While many papers describe links between ecosystem services and dimensions of poverty, few provide sufficient context to enable a thorough understanding of the poverty alleviation impacts (positive or negative), if any. These papers contribute to the accumulating evidence that ecosystem services support well-being, and perhaps prevent people becoming poorer, but provide little evidence of their contribution to poverty alleviation, let alone poverty elimination. A considerable gap remains in understanding the links between ecosystem services and poverty, how change occurs, and how pathways out of poverty may be achieved based on the sustainable utilisation of ecosystem services.

Spatial covariance of ecosystem services and poverty in China

“…Ouyang et al 1999Ouyang et al , 2016Chen and Zhang 2000;He et al 2005) as well as case studies examining the impacts of PES on both livelihoods and environmental outcomes (e.g. Cao et al 2010;Li et al 2011;Liu et al 2008;Yang et al 2013aYang et al , 2013b; see also Suich et al 2015). However, to our knowledge, ours is the first analysis to examine the spatial covariation of poverty and ES at the scale of China.…”

“…While there is some evidence that increasing agricultural yields can be achieved without adversely impacting non-agricultural ES (Pretty et al 2006), partly through smallscale sustainable agriculture and agroforestry (Perfecto and Vandermeer 2010), the majority of case studies suggest the opposite -increases in human well-being usually result in degradation of non-agricultural ES (Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010b). Moreover, while heavily forested areas tend to be associated with high levels of rural poverty globally (Sunderlin et al 2008), there is as yet no consensus about the importance (or lack thereof) of ES for alleviating poverty (reviewed in Suich et al 2015). The literature that does exist is largely based on case studies examining the relationships between poverty and environmental resources, though there have been some recent large-scale analyses of this relationship (e.g.…”

Ecosystem Services, Well-Being and Deltas: Current Knowledge and Understanding

“…There is, of course, a wide variety of approaches and unresolved questions and relationships between elements of wellbeing and the underlying ecosystem processes (Norgaard 2010;Pascual et al 2017;Suich et al 2015). But at their core, the key scientific issues relate to how ecosystems bring multiple benefits to society, both in material terms and through other pathways.…”

A service-dominant perspective on payments for ecosystem service offerings

“…Pagiola et al 2005;Wunder et al 2008;Suich et al 2015). Despite the plethora of publications, there are still gaps in our understanding about how to design efficient (i.e.…”

“…PES are one policy that accounts for the voluntary transactions of monetized ES offerings between buyers and sellers on the basis of conditionality and additionality of service provisioning (Wunder 2005;Cathcart and Delaney 2006). As a result of the proliferation of monetary valuation methods, PES schemes have become widespread, in both developed and developing countries, and across the global north and south (Pagiola et al 2005;Wunder et al 2008;Balvanera et al 2012;Leimona et al 2015;Suich et al 2015).…”