Incorporating basic needs to reconcile poverty and ecosystem services

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this recordConservation managers frequently face the challenge of protecting and sustaining biodiversity without producing detrimental outcomes for (often poor) human populations that depend upon ecosystem services for their wellbeing. However, win-win solutions are often elusive and can mask trade-offs and negative outcomes for the wellbeing of particular groups of people. To deal with such trade-offs, approaches are needed to identify both ecological as well as social thresholds to determine the acceptable 'solution space' for conservation. Although human wellbeing as a concept has recently gained prominence among conservationists, they still lack tools to evaluate how their action affects human wellbeing in a given context. This paper presents the Theory of Human Needs in the context of conservation, building on an extensive historical application of needs approaches in international development. We detail an innovative participatory method, to evaluate how human needs are met, using locally relevant thresholds. We then establish the connections between human needs and ecosystem services. An application of this method in coastal East Africa identifies households who are in serious harm through not meeting different basic needs, and uncovers the role of ecosystem services in meeting these. Drawing from the international development and wellbeing literature, we suggest that this methodological approach, can help conservationists and planners balance poverty alleviation and biodiversity protection, ensure that conservation measures do not, at the very least, push individuals into serious harm and as a basis for monitoring the impacts of conservation on multidimensional poverty. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.This paper results from the project Sustainable Poverty Alleviation from Coastal Ecosystem Services (SPACES) project number NE-K010484-1, funded by the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme. The ESPA programme is funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

Revisiting the relationships between human well-being and ecosystems in dynamic social-ecological systems: Implications for stewardship and development

This is the final version. Available from Cambridge University Press via the DOI in this record.Non-technical summary We argue that the ways in which we as humans derive well-being from nature - for example by harvesting firewood, selling fish or enjoying natural beauty - feed back into how we behave towards the environment. This feedback is mediated by institutions (rules, regulations) and by individual capacities to act. Understanding these relationships can guide better interventions for sustainably improving well-being and alleviating poverty. However, more attention needs to be paid to how experience-related benefits from nature influence attitudes and actions towards the environment, and how these relationships can be reflected in more environmentally sustainable development projects. Technical summary In the broad literatures that address the linked challenge of maintaining ecosystem integrity while addressing poverty and inequality, there is still a need to investigate how linkages and feedbacks between ecosystem services and well-being can be taken into account to ensure environmental sustainability and improved livelihoods. We present a conceptual model towards a dynamic and reciprocal understanding of the feedbacks between human well-being and ecosystems. The conceptual model highlights three mechanisms through which people derive benefits from ecosystems (use, money and experience), and illustrates how these benefits can affect values, attitudes and actions towards ecosystems. Institutions and agency determine access to and distribution of benefits and costs, and also present barriers or enabling factors for individual or collective action. The conceptual model synthesises insights from existing but mostly separate bodies of literature on well-being and the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, and reveals gaps and areas for future research. Two case studies illustrate how recognizing the full feedback loop between how ecosystems support human well-being and how people behave towards those ecosystems, as well as intervention points within the loop, can guide better action for sustainable poverty alleviation and stewardship of the biosphere.Swedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Counci

The Gendered Nature of Ecosystem Services

This is the final version. Available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record. This article assesses the extent to which our conceptualisation, understanding and empirical analysis of ecosystem services are inherently gendered; in other words, how they might be biased and unbalanced in terms of their appreciation of gender differences. We do this by empirically investigating how women and men are able to benefit from ecosystem services across eight communities in coastal Kenya and Mozambique. Our results highlight different dimensions of wellbeing affected by ecosystem services, and how these are valued differently by men and women. However, it is not just the division of costs and benefits of ecosystem services that is gendered. Using a heuristic device of the ‘ecosystem-wellbeing chain’ we explain patterns within our primary data as an outcome of gendered knowledge systems, gendered behavioural expectations, gendered access to resources and gendered institutions. We conclude that this holistic, gendered understanding of ecosystem services is important not just for how ecosystem services are conceptualised, but also for the development and implementation of sustainable and equitable policy and interventions.Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA)Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC

Life satisfaction in coastal Kenya and Mozambique reflects culture, gendered relationships and security of basic needs: Implications for ecosystem services

This is the final version. Available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record. Data availability: Data are published in https://reshare.ukdataservice.ac.ukLife satisfaction is both a desirable ‘end’ for sustainable development, and a means to understand the priorities, and behaviour of people towards local ecosystems. Ecosystem-services research on life satisfaction has focused on cultural services in wealthy, Western contexts, although ecosystem services are essential for poor people's livelihoods in the Global South. We examined reported life satisfaction from a survey of over 2000 people in rural and urban settings of coastal Kenya and Mozambique. We coded respondents’ open-ended reasons for their reported satisfaction, and used multiple correspondence analysis to explore the characteristics of people who mentioned different reasons. We tested associations between satisfaction and the meeting of basic needs and income, with binary logistic regression, accounting for site and gender. Life satisfaction was lower in Kenya, for men, and in the most urbanised site. Respondents explained high, and low, satisfaction in terms of social relationships, basic needs, money and employment. They rarely mentioned the ecosystem services and related livelihoods that underpin those, suggesting an instrumental relation to nature. Meeting basic needs, including economic security better predicted satisfaction than household income. Life satisfaction reflected material differences in people's lives but also different evaluative criteria and national cultures. For example, family reasons more commonly explained women's satisfaction, while money was more important for urban-dwelling men. We propose that the holistic perspective offered by life-satisfaction research can inform environmental management alongside more focused ecosystem-service research. For example, our results suggest that a) interventions should recognise immediate needs and social relationships, b) the role of ecosystem services for subjective wellbeing varies by local culture and individual identities and c) secure and fair access to ecosystem services may support life satisfaction better than high incomes that are insecure or inequitably distributed.Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)Department for International Development (DFID)Natural Environment Research Council (NERC

Elasticity in ecosystem services: Exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being

Although ecosystem services are increasingly recognized as benefits people obtain from nature, we still have a poor understanding of how they actually enhance multidimensional human well-being, and how well-being is affected by ecosystem change. We develop a concept of “ecosystem service elasticity” (ES elasticity) that describes the sensitivity of human well-being to changes in ecosystems. ES Elasticity is a result of complex social and ecological dynamics and is context dependent, individually variable, and likely to demonstrate nonlinear dynamics such as thresholds and hysteresis. We present a conceptual framework that unpacks the chain of causality from ecosystem stocks through flows, goods, value, and shares to contribute to the well-being of different people. This framework builds on previous conceptualizations, but places multidimensional well-being of different people as the final element. This ultimately disaggregated approach emphasizes how different people access benefits and how benefits match their needs or aspirations. Applying this framework to case studies of individual coastal ecosystem services in East Africa illustrates a wide range of social and ecological factors that can affect ES elasticity. For example, food web and habitat dynamics affect the sensitivity of different fisheries ecosystem services to ecological change. Meanwhile high cultural significance, or lack of alternatives enhance ES elasticity, while social mechanisms that prevent access can reduce elasticity. Mapping out how chains are interlinked illustrates how different types of value and the well-being of different people are linked to each other and to common ecological stocks. We suggest that examining chains for individual ecosystem services can suggest potential interventions aimed at poverty alleviation and sustainable ecosystems while mapping out of interlinkages between chains can help to identify possible ecosystem service trade-offs and winners and losers. We discuss conceptual and practical challenges of applying such a framework and conclude on its utility as a heuristic for structuring interdisciplinary analysis of ecosystem services and human wellbeing.This paper results from the project Sustainable Poverty Alleviation from Coastal Ecosystem Services (SPACES) project number NE-K010484-1, funded by the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme. The ESPA programme is funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

The Gendered Nature of Ecosystem Services

This article assesses the extent to which our conceptualisation, understanding and empirical analysis of ecosystem services are inherently gendered; in other words, how they might be biased and unbalanced in terms of their appreciation of gender differences. We do this by empirically investigating how women and men are able to benefit from ecosystem services across eight communities in coastal Kenya and Mozambique. Our results highlight different dimensions of wellbeing affected by ecosystem services, and how these are valued differently by men and women. However, it is not just the division of costs and benefits of ecosystem services that is gendered. Using a heuristic device of the ‘ecosystem-wellbeing chain’, we explain patterns within our primary data as an outcome of gendered knowledge systems, gendered behavioural expectations, gendered access to resources and gendered institutions. We conclude that this holistic, gendered understanding of ecosystem services is important not just for how ecosystem services are conceptualised, but also for the development and implementation of sustainable and equitable policy and interventions

Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: A blind spot for global sustainability

The connected nature of social-ecological systems has never been more apparent than in today's globalized world. The ecosystem service framework and associated ecosystem assessments aim to better inform the science-policy response to sustainability challenges. Such assessments, however, often overlook distant, diffuse and delayed impacts that are critical for global sustainability. Ecosystem-services science must better recognise the off-stage impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services of place-based ecosystem management, which we term 'ecosystem service burdens'. These are particularly important since they are often negative, and have a potentially significant effect on ecosystem management decisions. Ecosystem-services research can better recognise these off-stage burdens through integration with other analytical approaches, such as life cycle analysis and risk-based approaches that better account for the uncertainties involved. We argue that off-stage ecosystem service burdens should be incorporated in ecosystem assessments such as those led by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Taking better account of these off-stage burdens is essential to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of cross-scale interactions, a pre-requisite for any sustainability transition.Funding for a workshop was supported by the European Union within the project EcoFINDERS (grant no. FP7–264465), by a postdoctoral research grant from the Basque government to EG and a Juan de la Cierva Formación grant from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness to IP