Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-kcxw8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T10:24:18.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecosystem services and food security: assessing inequality at community, household and individual scales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2016

CHRISTOPHER D. GOLDEN Open the ORCID record for CHRISTOPHER D. GOLDEN [Opens in a new window] ,
A. CLARE GUPTA ,
BAPU VAITLA  and
SAMUEL S. MYERS
CHRISTOPHER D. GOLDEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA USA Harvard University Center for the Environment, Cambridge, MA USA
A. CLARE GUPTA
Affiliation:
Department of Human Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA USA
BAPU VAITLA
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA USA
SAMUEL S. MYERS
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA USA Harvard University Center for the Environment, Cambridge, MA USA
*
*Correspondence: Christopher D. Golden e-mail: golden@hsph.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Wildlife populations provide harvestable meat to people and contribute to local food security. Throughout the year, and particularly at times of agricultural food shortages, wildlife and other wild foods play a critical role in supporting food security and enhancing local human nutrition. We explored the distribution of food security benefits of agricultural food production and a particular ecosystem provisioning service – wildlife harvest in the Makira Natural Park (MNP) of Madagascar – at community, household and individual levels. We found strong variation in wildlife consumption both among communities and among households and less variation among individuals within households. Mean household wildlife consumption in the target community was 10 kg per year ranging by approximately two orders of magnitude, with poorer and more food insecure households more reliant on wildlife for food. Meats (including wildlife) appeared to be evenly distributed within households, unaffected by age, sex, birth order and body weight, while other foods (including stew, rice and other staples) appeared to be allocated based on body mass. Reductions in wildlife consumption cause increased risk of food insecurity and specific nutritional deficiencies. The findings from our multilevel study suggest that disaggregated analysis that merges ecosystem services theory and the microeconomics of resource allocation allows for a more accurate valuation approach.

Keywords

bushmeatfood securityhuntingMadagascarnutrition

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 381 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aarts, G., MacKenzie, M., McConnell, B., Fedak, M. & Matthiopoulos, J. (2008) Estimating space-use and habitat preference from wildlife telemetry data. Ecography 31: 140–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, V.M., Pressey, R.L. & Naidoo, R. (2010) Opportunity costs: who really pays for conservation? Biological Conservation 143: 439–448.Google Scholar
Agarwal, D. (1997) “Bargaining” and gender relations: within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3: 1–51.Google Scholar
Alix-Garcia, J. & Wolff, H. (2014) Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annual Review of Resource Economics 6: 361–380.Google Scholar
Barrett, C.B. (2010) Measuring food insecurity. Science 327 (5967): 825–828.Google Scholar
Becker, G.S. (1981) A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bigman, D. & Fofack, H. (2000) Geographical targeting for poverty alleviation: an introduction to the special issue. World Bank Economics Review 14: 129–145.Google Scholar
Bourguignon, F. & Chiappori, P.A. (1992) Collective models of household behavior: an introduction. European Economic Review 36: 355–364.Google Scholar
Brashares, J.S., Golden, C.D., Weinbaum, K., Barrett, C. & Okello, G. (2011) Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108 (34): 13931–13936.Google Scholar
Claeson, M. & Waldman, R.J. (2000) The evolution of child health programmes in developing countries: from targeting diseases to targeting people. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78: 1234–1245.Google Scholar
Costanza, R., dArge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.Google Scholar
Evans, A. (1991) Gender issues in rural household economics. Institute of Development Bulletin 22: 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fa, J.E., Olivero, J., Real, R., Farfán, M.A., Márquez, A.L., Vargas, J.M., Ziegler, S., Wegmann, M., Brown, D., Margetts, B. & Nasi, R. (2015) Disentangling the relative effects of bushmeat availability on human nutrition in central Africa. Scientific Reports 5 (8168): 1–8.Google Scholar
FAO/WHO (1992) World Declaration on Nutrition. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Folbre, N. (1986) Hearts and spades: paradigms of household economics. World Development 14: 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedl, E. (1974) Women and Men: An Anthropologist's View. New York, USA; Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Gittelsohn, J. & Vastine, A.E. (2003) Sociocultural and household factors impacting on the selection, allocation and consumption of animal source foods: current knowledge and application. Journal of Nutrition 133: 4036S–4041S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golden, C.D., Wrangham, R.W. & Brashares, J.S. (2013) Assessing the accuracy of interviewed recall for rare, highly seasonal events: the case of wildlife consumption in Madagascar. Animal Conservation 16 (6): 597–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, C.D. (2009) Bushmeat hunting and use in the Makira Forest north-eastern Madagascar: a conservation and livelihoods issue. Oryx 43: 386–392.Google Scholar
Golden, C.D., Brashares, J.S. & Kremen, C. (2014) Economic valuation of subsistence harvest of wildlife in Madagascar. Conservation Biology 28 (1): 234–243.Google Scholar
Golden, C.D. & Comaroff, J. (2015) Effects of social change on wildlife consumption taboos in northeastern Madagascar. Ecology and Society 20 (2): 41.Google Scholar
Golden, C.D., Fernald, L.C., Brashares, J.S., Rasolofoniaina, B.R. & Kremen, C. (2011) Benefits of wildlife consumption to child nutrition in a biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108 (49): 19653–19656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowdy, J.M. (1997) The value of biodiversity: markets, society, and ecosystems. Land Economics 73: 25–41.Google Scholar
Haddad, L. (1997) Intrahousehold resource allocation in developing countries: models, methods, and policy, xii + 341pp. Baltimore, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hardenbergh, S.H. (1997) Why are boys so small? Child growth, diet and gender near Ranomafana, Madagascar. Social Science & Medicine 44 (11): 1725–1738.Google Scholar
Kari, S. & Korhonen-Kurki, K. (2013) Framing local outcomes of biodiversity conservation through ecosystem services: a case study from Ranomafana, Madagascar. Ecosystem Services 3: e32–e39.Google Scholar
Luck, G.W., Chan, K.M. & Klien, C.J. (2012) Identifying spatial priorities for protecting ecosystem services. F1000Research 1: 17.Google Scholar
McElroy, M.B. & Horney, M.J. (1981) Nash-bargained household decisions: towards a generalization of the theory of demand. International Economic Review 22 (2): 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Milner-Gulland, E.J., Bennett, E.L. & SCB 2002 Annual Meeting Wild Meat Group (2003) Wild meat: the bigger picture. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 351–357.Google Scholar
Mkandawire, T. (2005) Targeting and universalism in poverty reduction. SPD No. 23. Geneva, Switzerland: UNRISD.Google Scholar
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T.R. & Ricketts, T.H. (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 9495–9500.Google Scholar
Naidoo, R. & Ricketts, T.H. (2006) Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biology 4: 2153–2164.Google Scholar
Nasi, R., Taber, A. & van Vliet, N. (2011) Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon basins. International Forestry Review 13 (3): 355–368.Google Scholar
Novaro, A.J., Redford, K.H. & Bodmer, R.E. (2000) Effect of hunting in source-sink systems in the neotropics. Conservation Biology 14: 713–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, T.A., Thomas, L., Wilcox, C., Ovaskainen, O. & Matthiopoulos, J. (2008) State-space models of individual animal movement. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 87–94.Google Scholar
Poudyal, M., Ramamonjisoa, B.S., Hockley, N.J., Rakotonarivo, S.O., Gibbons, J.M., Mandimbiniaina, R., Rasoamanana, A. & Jones, J.P.G. (2016) Can REDD+ social safeguards reach the “right” people? Lessons from Madagascar. Global Environmental Change 37: 31–42.Google Scholar
Ribot, J.C. & Peluso, N.L. (2003) A theory of access. Rural Sociology 68: 153–181.Google Scholar
Rosenhouse, S. (1989) Identifying the poor: is ‘headship’ a useful concept? Living Standards Measurement Study Working Paper. vii + 50pp.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. (1956) “Social indifference curves.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 70 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Satcher, D. & Higginbotham, E.J. (2008) The public health approach to eliminating disparities in health. American Journal of Public Health 98: 400–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarce2 (2008). Statistics icon. Used under terms of Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ [www document]. URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Statistics#/media/File:Fisher_iris_versicolor_sepalwidth.svg Google Scholar
Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., Babigumira, R., Ickowitz, A., Paumgarten, F., Reyes-García, V. & Shively, G. (2014) Challenging perceptions about men, women and forest product use: a global comparative study. World Development 64: S56–S66.Google Scholar
Turner, M.G. (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 20: 171–197.Google Scholar
Webb, P., Coates, J., Frongillo, E.A., Rogers, B.L., Swindale, A. & Bilinsky, P. (2006) Measuring household food insecurity: why it's so important and yet so difficult to do. Journal of Nutrition 136 (5): 1404S–1408S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wieland, R., Ravensbergen, S., Gregr, E.J., Satterfield, T. & Chan, K.M.A. (2016) Debunking trickle-down ecosystem services: the fallacy of omnipotent, homogenous beneficiaries. Ecological Economics 121: 175–180.Google Scholar
Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J. & Watson, R. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314: 787–790.Google Scholar