Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research
Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.002
复制
发表时间：
2013-10-01
影响因子：
8.9
通讯作者：
Woodhouse, Iain H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fisher, Janet A.;Patenaude, Genevieve;Woodhouse, Iain H.
目前正在围绕生态系统服务和扶贫之间的联系制定一项研究议程。因此，现在是时候考虑哪些概念框架可以最好地支持这一联系的研究。我们对框架的审查综合了关于贫穷/环境联系的现有研究，这些研究在采用生态系统服务的专题语言时不应被忽视。根据相关性共选定了九个概念框架。对这些指标进行了审查和比较，以评估它们提供生态系统服务的能力，贫困的状况、决定因素和动态，以及调解贫困与生态系统服务之间关系的政治经济因素。这篇论文综合了每个框架的关键贡献，以及它们彼此之间暴露的差距，从中得出了可以为新兴研究提供信息的经验教训。关于减贫的研究必须认识到社会分化，并能够区分生态系统服务可获得性的限制和总体可获得性的限制。不同的框架还突出了服务类别、它们的生产途径以及它们对减贫的贡献之间的重要区别。此外，我们强调，鉴于有证据表明，生态系统服务往往更多地与预防贫困联系在一起，而不是与减少贫困联系在一起，承认生态系统服务在扶贫方面的局限性是重要的。最后，我们反思了动态社会-生态系统框架与更静态的清单的相对优点，并建议一个从我们审查的框架中汲取见解的新框架将很好地服务于生态系统服务和减贫的研究。(C)2013年提交人。爱思唯尔有限公司出版。保留所有权利。
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. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.