Why Should Ecosystem Services Be Governed to Support Poverty Alleviation? Philosophical Perspectives on Positions in the Empirical Literature

Lehmann, Ina; Martin, Adrian; Fisher, Janet

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.003

Cited by 32 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, different discourses bring to bear different rationales, with Discourse 1 prioritizing the interests (Q‐28, 29 and 30), needs and sufficientarian basis (Q‐8 [marginally] highest for Discourse 1) (sufficientarianism being the idea that everyone has a right to a decent livelihood; see Lehmann et al. (2018) or Gosseries (2011)). Discourse 2 adds to this focus on interests a strong priority around do no harm principles (Q‐4: +4*; distinguishes all discourses), and social safeguards, emphasizing human rights (Q‐6: +3*, and Q‐18: +4).…”

Section: Discourses On Poverty Within Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is evident in the animated so‐called ‘new conservation’ (Holmes, Sandbrook, & Fisher, 2017; Kareiva & Marvier, 2012; Soule, 2013), and the Half Earth/Whole Earth debates (Büscher et al., 2017; Wilson, 2016). This paper interrogates contemporary debates about one of the most ethically urgent issues that intersect with conservation: human well‐being and its converse, poverty (Adams et al., 2004; Howe, Corbera, Vira, Brockington, & Adams, 2018; Lehmann, Martin, & Fisher, 2018). Conservation has long confronted poverty because of the spatial intersection at a global scale of biodiversity and of human development challenges, noted in Fisher and Christopher (2007), and described by E. O. Wilson as an ‘awful symmetry’ (Wilson, 1992, p. 260).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conservationists' perspectives on poverty: An empirical study

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity conservation interventions have long confronted challenges of human poverty. The ethical foundations of international conservation, including conservation's relationship with poverty, are currently being interrogated in animated debates about the future of conservation. However, while some commentary exists, empirical analysis of conservation practitioner perspectives on poverty, and their ethical justification, has been lacking thus far. We used Q methodology complemented by more detailed qualitative analysis to examine empirically perspectives on poverty and conservation within the conservation movement, and compare these empirical discourses to positions within the literature. We sampled conservation practitioners in western headquartered organizations, and in Bolivia, China, Nepal and Uganda, thereby giving indications of these perspectives in Latin America, Asia and Africa. While there are some elements of consensus, for instance the principle that the poor should not shoulder the costs of conserving a global public good, the three elicited discourses diverge in a number of ways. Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism differentiate the perspectives, but beyond this, there are two distinct framings of poverty which conservation practitioners variously adhere to. The first prioritizes welfare, needs and sufficientarianism, and is more strongly associated with the China, Nepal and Uganda case studies. The second framing of poverty focuses much more on the need for ‘do no harm’ principles and safeguards, and follows an internationalized human rights‐oriented discourse. There are also important distinctions between discourses about whether poverty is characterized as a driver of degradation, or more emphasis is placed on overconsumption and affluence in perpetuating conservation threats. This dimension particularly illuminates shifts in thinking in the 30 or so years since the Brundtland report, and reflecting new global realities. This analysis serves to update, parse and clarify differing perspectives on poverty within the conservation, and broader environmental movement, to illuminate consensual aspects between perspectives, and reveal where critical differences remain. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Section: Discourses On Poverty Within Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservationists' perspectives on poverty: An empirical study

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Poverty and livelihood outcomes are often overlooked in discussions around LUI (Liao and Brown, 2018;Loos et al, 2014), yet when trade-offs are not considered in policy design, poorer people are more likely to be negatively impacted (McShane et al, 2011). Decisions on trade-offs should focus on equity, justice and fairness (Bowen et al, 2017), thus the livelihoods of the poorest should take priority (Lehmann et al, 2018) in LUI discussions and decision-making. In line with such arguments, findings from the expansion of commercial agriculture case-study exhibit conditions under which certain levels of environmental degradation, as a result of LUI, may be justifiable given the wellbeing benefits for the poor (resulting in lose-win outcomes).…”

Section: Considering Development In Land Use Intensificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of land use intensification on human wellbeing: Evidence from rural Mozambique

Smith

Ryan

Vollmer

et al. 2019

Global Environmental Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensifying land use is often seen as a corollary of improving rural livelihoods in developing countries. However, land use intensification (LUI) frequently has unintended impacts on ecosystem services (ES), which may undermine the livelihoods of the same people who could benefit from intensification. Poorer households are disproportionately dependent on ES, so inequalities may also rise. A disaggregated analysis of LUI is thus fundamental to better understand how LUI can progress in an equitable manner. Using a suite of multiscale, multidisciplinary social-ecological methods and operationalising multidimensional concepts of land use intensity and wellbeing, we examine three case studies in rural Mozambique. Drawing on qualitative focus group discussions, 1576 household surveys and geospatial data from 27 Mozambican villages, we assess how wellbeing and inequality change with three common LUI pathways: transitions to smallholder commercial crop production, charcoal production, and subsistence expansion. Wellbeing improved with intensification of smallholder commercial and subsistence agriculture, inequality did not change. Intensification of unsustainable charcoal production showed no overall effect on either wellbeing or inequality. Improvements in wellbeing amongst the poorest households were only found with intensification of commercial crop production where villages had highly accessible markets. Our findings suggest that socioeconomic benefits from agricultural intensification and expansion may overcome localised environmental trade-offs, at least in the short term. However, unsustainable charcoal resource management and limited productive investment opportunities for rural households resulted in both reduced market access and limited wellbeing improvements. Sustainable and inclusive markets are therefore crucial developments alongside LUI to sustain wellbeing improvements for all households, to ensure that no one is left behind.

show abstract

“…This highlights the necessity to integrate the relevant targets of at least seven SDGs (1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, and 17). By example, reducing hunger (SDG 1) through sustainable inland fisheries is inextricably linked with water and ecological quality targets (Irvine et al, ; Lehmann et al, ; Lynch et al, ). Recognizing the role of aquatic life as a foundation for sustainable resource use, and the effects on that of degraded habitats, should promote a greater role of advocacy among freshwater and conservation scientists.…”

Section: The Role Of Scientists In Informed Decision Making and Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Role Of Scientists In Informed Decision Making and Advmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Aquatic conservation in the age of the Sustainable Development Goals

Irvine

2018

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why Should Ecosystem Services Be Governed to Support Poverty Alleviation? Philosophical Perspectives on Positions in the Empirical Literature

Cited by 32 publications

References 29 publications

Conservationists' perspectives on poverty: An empirical study

Conservationists' perspectives on poverty: An empirical study

Impacts of land use intensification on human wellbeing: Evidence from rural Mozambique

Editorial: Aquatic conservation in the age of the Sustainable Development Goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About