Trade-off decisions in ecosystem management for poverty alleviation

Marije Schaafsma*, Felix Eigenbrod, Alexandros Gasparatos, Nicole Gross-Camp, Craig Hutton, Fiona Nunan, Kate Schreckenberg, Kerry Turner

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The academic literature on trade-offs in ecosystem management has paid relatively little attention to justice and poverty reduction objectives. The aim of this paper is to highlight the multiple dimensions of trade-offs in ecosystem services management for poverty alleviation, and to support decision-makers in planning for the almost inevitable trade-offs arising from environmental interventions. The paper brings together different dimensions or lenses through which to analyse trade-offs in ecosystem management for poverty alleviation in a low-income country context. Following a literature review of trade-off decisions, the paper introduces the Balance Sheets Approach to structure trade-off analysis and appraise decisions. We apply the Balance Sheets Approach to analyse five case studies set in very different social-ecological systems where trade-offs were pertinent and undermined poverty alleviation. We show how the combination of ‘positive’ approaches, often used at strategic level, with ‘value’ approaches which analyse multiple values, multi-scale governance, power and capacity, is necessary to analyse complex trade-offs. Based on the case studies we identify four lessons for future trade-off analysis in the context of ecosystem management for poverty alleviation in low-income settings.

Original languageEnglish
Article number107103
Pages (from-to)1-13
Number of pages13
JournalEcological Economics
Volume187
Early online date25 May 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors

Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Funding

MS was funded by the project ‘A framework for individual and shared preferences for ecosystem services trade-offs’ (grant number: FELL-2014-104 ) of the United Kingdom's Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme. The ESPA programme was funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) , the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) , and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) . AG acknowledges the support of the ESPA project ‘Unraveling biofuel impacts on ecosystem services, human wellbeing and poverty alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa’ (grant number: NE/L001373/1 ) and the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) for the Belmont Forum project FICESSA . KS acknowledges funding from the ESPA project ‘Attaining Sustainable Services from Ecosystems using Trade-off Scenarios’ (grant number: NE-J002267-1 ). NGC was supported by the European Research Council (Grant No. GA 206994 REDIRECT). CH acknowledges funding from the ESPA project ‘Assessing Health, Livelihoods, Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation in Populous Deltas’ (grant number: NE-J002755-1 ). MS was funded by the project ?A framework for individual and shared preferences for ecosystem services trade-offs? (grant number: FELL-2014-104) of the United Kingdom's Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme. The ESPA programme was funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). FE was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant number 680176; SCALEFORES). AG acknowledges the support of the ESPA project ?Unraveling biofuel impacts on ecosystem services, human wellbeing and poverty alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa? (grant number: NE/L001373/1) and the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) for the Belmont Forum project FICESSA. NGC was supported by the European Research Council (Grant No. GA 206994 REDIRECT). CH acknowledges funding from the ESPA project ?Assessing Health, Livelihoods, Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation in Populous Deltas? (grant number: NE-J002755-1). FN acknowledges funding from the ESPA project ?Swahili Seas? (grant number: NE/I003401/1), ?Coastal Ecosystem Services in East Africa? (CESEA) (grant number: NE/L001535/1) and ?Analysing the multi-level governance of renewable natural resources? (grant number: ESPA/ROF/2016-17/02). KS acknowledges funding from the ESPA project ?Attaining Sustainable Services from Ecosystems using Trade-off Scenarios? (grant number: NE-J002267-1). FN acknowledges funding from the ESPA project ‘Swahili Seas’ (grant number: NE/I003401/1 ), ‘Coastal Ecosystem Services in East Africa’ (CESEA) (grant number: NE/L001535/1 ) and ‘ Analysing the multi-level governance of renewable natural resources ’ (grant number: ESPA/ROF/2016-17/02 ).

FundersFunder number
Economic and Social Research Council
United Kingdom's Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation
European Commission
Department for International Development, UK Government
ESPA
Natural Environment Research CouncilNE/J002755/1, NE/I003401/1, NE/L001535/1, NE/J002267/1, NE/L001373/1
European Research Council206994
Horizon 2020NE/L001373/1
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme680176
CESEAESPA/ROF/2016-17/02
Japan Science and Technology AgencyGA 206994

    Keywords

    • Ecosystem services
    • Governance
    • Pluralism
    • Poverty
    • Trade-offs

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Trade-off decisions in ecosystem management for poverty alleviation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this