Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research

By Joshua B. Fisher, Geneviève Patenaude, Patrick Meir, A. Nightingale, Mark D. Rounsevell, Mat Williams, Iain Hector Woodhouse. 2013

165 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract A research agenda is currently developing around the linkages between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation. It is therefore timely to consider which conceptual frameworks can best support research at this nexus. Our review of frameworks synthesises existing research on poverty/environment linkages that should not be overlooked with the adoption of the topical language of ecosystem services. A total of nine conceptual frameworks were selected on the basis of relevance. These were reviewed and compared to assess their ability to illuminate the provision of ecosystem services, the condition, determinants and dynamics of poverty, and political economy factors that mediate the relationship between poverty and ecosystem services. The paper synthesises the key contributions of each of these frameworks, and the gaps they expose in one another, drawing out lessons that can inform emerging research. Research on poverty alleviation must recognize social differentiation, and be able to distinguish between constraints of access and constraints of aggregate availability of ecosystem services. Different frameworks also highlight important differences between categories of services, their pathways of production, and their contribution to poverty alleviation. Furthermore, we highlight that it is important to acknowledge the limits of ecosystem services for poverty alleviation, given evidence that ecosystem services tend to be more associated with poverty prevention than reduction. We conclude by reflecting on the relative merits of dynamic Social–Ecological Systems frameworks versus more static checklists, and suggest that research on ecosystem services and poverty alleviation would be well served by a new framework distilling insights from the frameworks we review.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e863f6b9d5ccdcf16ec4cabf227d79ffa7529275

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Middle-range theories of land system change (2018, background): “, & Ali, A. S. (1996). Induced intensification: Agricultural change in Bangladesh with implications for Malthus and Boserup.”
Assessing the Relationship Between Human Well-being and Ecosystem Services: A Review of Frameworks (2014, unknown): “As multidimensional poverty declines, well-being increases (Alkire and Foster 2011; Fisher et al. 2013).”
Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework (2014, unknown): “Influenced by SES research, we present this framework diagrammatically, having previously noted the value of meaningful relationships between components, compared to checklists (Fisher et al., 2013).”
Climate change, food security, and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa (2016, background): “Natural resource outcomes, also referred to as ‘‘ecosystem services’’ (Fisher et al. 2013), include (but are not limited to) changes in water, air or soil quality, and biodiversity.”