Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Access
  • Cited by 83
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Adem Esmail, Blal and Geneletti, Davide 2017. Design and impact assessment of watershed investments: An approach based on ecosystem services and boundary work. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 62, p. 1.

    Berbés-Blázquez, Marta González, José A and Pascual, Unai 2016. Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 19, p. 134.

    Breslow, Sara Jo Sojka, Brit Barnea, Raz Basurto, Xavier Carothers, Courtney Charnley, Susan Coulthard, Sarah Dolšak, Nives Donatuto, Jamie García-Quijano, Carlos Hicks, Christina C. Levine, Arielle Mascia, Michael B. Norman, Karma Poe, Melissa Satterfield, Terre Martin, Kevin St. and Levin, Phillip S. 2016. Conceptualizing and operationalizing human wellbeing for ecosystem assessment and management. Environmental Science & Policy,

    Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. Sachet, Erwan Vanegas, Martha and Piispanen, Kyle 2016. Are the major imperatives of food security missing in ecosystem services research?. Ecosystem Services, Vol. 19, p. 19.

    De Vreese, R. Leys, M. Dendoncker, N. Van Herzele, A. and Fontaine, C.M. 2016. Images of nature as a boundary object in social and integrated ecosystem services assessments. Reflections from a Belgian case study. Ecosystem Services,

    Eigenbrod, Felix 2016. Redefining Landscape Structure for Ecosystem Services. Current Landscape Ecology Reports, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, p. 80.

    Ekener, Elisabeth Hansson, Julia and Gustavsson, Mathias 2016. Addressing positive impacts in social LCA—discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle fuels. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,

    Fagerholm, Nora Oteros-Rozas, Elisa Raymond, Christopher M. Torralba, Mario Moreno, Gerardo and Plieninger, Tobias 2016. Assessing linkages between ecosystem services, land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS. Applied Geography, Vol. 74, p. 30.

    Heink, Ulrich Hauck, Jennifer Jax, Kurt and Sukopp, Ulrich 2016. Requirements for the selection of ecosystem service indicators – The case of MAES indicators. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 61, p. 18.

    Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana Leventon, Julia Hanspach, Jan and Fischer, Joern 2016. Disaggregated contributions of ecosystem services to human well-being: a case study from Eastern Europe. Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 16, Issue. 6, p. 1779.

    Hossain, Md Sarwar Johnson, Fiifi Amoako Dearing, John A. and Eigenbrod, Felix 2016. Recent trends of human wellbeing in the Bangladesh delta. Environmental Development, Vol. 17, p. 21.

    Ligtermoet, Emma 2016. Maintaining customary harvesting of freshwater resources: sustainable Indigenous livelihoods in the floodplains of northern Australia. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries,

    Mahajan, Shauna L. and Daw, Tim 2016. Perceptions of ecosystem services and benefits to human well-being from community-based marine protected areas in Kenya. Marine Policy, Vol. 74, p. 108.

    Palomo, Ignacio Felipe-Lucia, María R. Bennett, Elena M. Martín-López, Berta and Pascual, Unai 2016. Ecosystem Services: From Biodiversity to Society, Part 2.

    Paudyal, Kiran Baral, Himlal and Keenan, Rodney J. 2016. Local actions for the common good: Can the application of the ecosystem services concept generate improved societal outcomes from natural resource management?. Land Use Policy, Vol. 56, p. 327.

    Scholte, Samantha S. K. Todorova, Maya van Teeffelen, Astrid J. A. and Verburg, Peter H. 2016. Public Support for Wetland Restoration: What is the Link With Ecosystem Service Values?. Wetlands, Vol. 36, Issue. 3, p. 467.

    Sinare, Hanna Gordon, Line J. and Enfors Kautsky, Elin 2016. Assessment of ecosystem services and benefits in village landscapes – A case study from Burkina Faso. Ecosystem Services, Vol. 21, p. 141.

    Wieland, Raoul Ravensbergen, Sarah Gregr, Edward J. Satterfield, Terre and Chan, Kai M.A. 2016. Debunking trickle-down ecosystem services: The fallacy of omnipotent, homogeneous beneficiaries. Ecological Economics, Vol. 121, p. 175.

    Xu, Ying Tang, Haiping Wang, Bojie and Chen, Jiao 2016. Effects of land-use intensity on ecosystem services and human well-being: a case study in Huailai County, China. Environmental Earth Sciences, Vol. 75, Issue. 5,

    Asbjornsen, H. Mayer, A. S. Jones, K. W. Selfa, T. Saenz, L. Kolka, R. K. and Halvorsen, K. E. 2015. Assessing Impacts of Payments for Watershed Services on Sustainability in Coupled Human and Natural Systems. BioScience, Vol. 65, Issue. 6, p. 579.


Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being

  • TIM DAW (a1) (a2), KATRINA BROWN (a1), SERGIO ROSENDO (a1) (a3) and ROBERT POMEROY (a4)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 03 November 2011

The concept of ecosystem services (ES), the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, is increasingly applied to environmental conservation, human well-being and poverty alleviation, and to inform the development of interventions. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) implicitly recognize the unequal distribution of the costs and benefits of maintaining ES, through monetary compensation from ‘winners’ to ‘losers’. Some research into PES has examined how such schemes affect poverty, while other literature addresses trade-offs between different ES. However, much evolving ES literature adopts an aggregated perspective of humans and their well-being, which can disregard critical issues for poverty alleviation. This paper identifies four issues with examples from coastal ES in developing countries. First, different groups derive well-being benefits from different ES, creating winners and losers as ES, change. Second, dynamic mechanisms of access determine who can benefit. Third, individuals' contexts and needs determine how ES contribute to well-being. Fourth, aggregated analyses may neglect crucial poverty alleviation mechanisms such as cash-based livelihoods. To inform the development of ES interventions that contribute to poverty alleviation, disaggregated analysis is needed that focuses on who derives which benefits from ecosystems, and how such benefits contribute to the well-being of the poor. These issues present challenges in data availability and selection of how and at which scales to disaggregate. Disaggregation can be applied spatially, but should also include social groupings, such as gender, age and ethnicity, and is most important where inequality is greatest. Existing tools, such as stakeholder analysis and equity weights, can improve the relevance of ES research to poverty alleviation.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being
      Available formats
Corresponding author
*Correspondence: Dr Tim Daw e-mail:
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

W.M. Adams , R. Aveling , D. Brockington , B. Dickson , J. Elliott , J. Hutton , D. Roe , B. Vira & W. Wolmer (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306: 11461149.

W.N. Adger , T.P. Hughes , C. Folke , S.R. Carpenter & J. Rockstrom (2005) Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309: 1036.

S. Alkire (2002) Dimensions of human development. World Development 30: 181205.

P. Baer (2009) Equity in climate–economy scenarios: the importance of subnational income distribution. Environmental Research Letters 4: 015007.

A. Balmford , B. Fisher , R.E. Green , R. Naidoo , B. Strassburg , R. Kerry Turner & A.S.L. Rodrigues (2011) Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of losing wild nature. Environmental Resource Economics 48: 161175.

I.J. Bateman , G.M. Mace , C. Fezzi , G. Atkinson & K. Turner (2011) Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environmental Resource Economics 48: 177218.

C. Béné , B. Hersoug & E.H. Allison (2010) Not by rent alone: analysing the pro-poor functions of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Development Policy Review 28: 325358.

K. Brown , T. Daw , S. Rosendo , M. Bunce & N. Cherrett (2008) Ecosystem services for poverty alleviation: marine and coastal situational analysis. Synthesis report. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)/Department for International Development (DFID), UK.

J. Boyd & S. Banzhaf (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63: 616626.

E.H. Bulte , L. Lipper , R. Stringer & D. Zilberman (2008) Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives. Environment and Development Economics 13: 245254.

S.R. Carpenter , H.A. Mooney , J. Agard , D. Capistrano , R.S. DeFries , S. Díaz , T. Dietz , A.K. Duraiappah , A. Oteng-Yeboah , H.M. Pereira , C. Perrings W.V. Reid , J. Sarukhan , R.J. Scholes & A. Whyte (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 106: 13051312.

W.W.L. Cheung & U.R. Sumaila (2008) Trade-offs between conservation and socio-economic objectives in managing a tropical marine ecosystem. Ecological Economics 66: 193210.

J.E. Cinner , T. Daw & T.R. McClanahan (2009) Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conservation Biology 23: 124130.

B. Crona , M. Nyström , C. Folke & N. Jiddawi (2010) Middlemen, a critical social-ecological link in coastal communities of Kenya and Zanzibar. Marine Policy 34: 761771.

P. Dasgupta (2001) Human Well-being and the Natural Environment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

B. Fisher & R.K. Turner (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biological Conservation 141: 11671169.

B. Fisher , R.K. Turner & P. Morling (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68: 643653.

R. Godoy , V. Reyes-Garcia , E. Byron , W.R. Leonard & V. Vadez (2005) The effect of market economies on the well-being of indigenous peoples and on their use of renewable natural resources. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 121138.

L. Hein , K. van Koppen , R.S. de Groot & E.C. van Ierland (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57: 209228.

O. Johansson-Stenman (2005) Distributional weights in cost-benefit analysis. Should we forget about them? Land Economics 81: 337352.

N. Kosoy & E. Corbera (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69: 12281236.

T.R. McClanahan & B. Kaunda-Arara (1996) Fishery recovery in a coral-reef marine park and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Conservation Biology 10: 11871199.

D.J. McCauley (2006) Selling out on nature. Nature 443: 2728.

E. Nelson , G. Mendoza , J. Regetz , S. Polasky , H. Tallis , D. Cameron , K.M. Chan , G.C. Daily , J. Goldstein , P.M. Kareiva , E. Lonsdorf , R. Naidoo , T.H. Ricketts & M. Shaw (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 411.

R.B. Norgaard (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69: 12191227.

S. Pagiola , A. Arcenas & G. Platais (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33: 237253.

D. Pearce (2003) The social cost of carbon and its policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19: 362384.

L.H. Pendleton & E.L. Howe (2002) Market Integration, Development, and Smallholder Forest Clearance. Land Economics 78: 119.

S. Polasky , E. Nelson , D. Pennington & K.A. Johnson (2010) The impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: a case study in the state of Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics 48: 219242.

R.B. Pollnac , R.S. Pomeroy & I.H.T. Harkes (2001) Fishery policy and job satisfaction in three southeast Asian fisheries. Ocean and Coastal Management 44: 531544.

M. Porter , R. Mwaipopo , R. Faustine & M. Mzuma (2008) Globalization and women in coastal communities in Tanzania. Development 51: 193198.

C. Raudsepp-Hearne , G.D. Peterson & E.M. Bennett (2010 a) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 107: 52425247.

C. Raudsepp-Hearne , G.D. Peterson , M. Tengö , E.M. Bennett , T. Holland , K. Benessaiah , G.K. MacDonald & L. Pfeifer (2010 b) Untangling the environmentalist's paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? BioScience 60: 576589.

M. Ravallion (2001) Growth, inequality and poverty: looking beyond averages. World Development 29: 18031815.

J.C. Ribot & N.L. Peluso (2003) A theory of access. Rural Sociology 68: 153181.

U.T. Srinivasan , S.P. Carey , E. Hallstein , P.A.T. Higgins , A.C. Kerr , L.E. Koteen , A.B. Smith , W. Watson , J. Harte & R.B. Norgaard (2008) The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 105: 17681773.

TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB, Malta: Progress Press.

R.A. Turner , A. Cakacaka , N.A.J. Graham , N.V.C. Polunin , M.S. Pratchett , S.M. Stead & S.K. Wilson (2007) Declining reliance on marine resources in remote South Pacific societies: ecological versus socio-economic drivers. Coral Reefs 26: 9971008.

K.J. Wallace (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139: 235246.

WRI (2007) Nature's Benefits in Kenya: An Atlas of Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing. Washington, DC, USA and Nairobi, Kenya: Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing, MENR, Central Bureau of Statistics and International Livestock Research Institute, WRI.

S. Wunder , S. Engel & S. Pagiola (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65: 834852.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Environmental Conservation
  • ISSN: 0376-8929
  • EISSN: 1469-4387
  • URL: /core/journals/environmental-conservation
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *