Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Poverty reduction, environmental protection and ecosystem services: A prospective theory for sustainable development

  • Published:
Chinese Geographical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Poverty reduction and environmental protection are two global tasks for sustainable development. The study perspective has changed over time, from narrowly focusing on poverty reduction to comprehensively strengthening human-welfare. We reviewed key references targeting the theoretical content and practical approach relying on poverty, environment protection and ecosystem services. We discussed the contradicting views on the relationship of poverty and environmental degradation, and then illustrated the study progress of a cutting-age topic-ecosystem services which pave a way to address poverty reduction and environmental protection together. At last, we investigated essential factors that affect the development and environmental protection. Considering the evolution of the concept of poverty, we found that the environment has occupied an increasing proportion in the cognizance of poverty. The relationship between poverty and environmental degradation is regional uniqueness. In practical aspect, projects based on the management and valuation assessment of ecosystem services draw researchers’ attention all over the world. The appropriate scale, essential economic incentives, morality, law and social equality are key factors affecting individuals’ decisions which directly relate to the sustainable development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams W M, Aveling R, Brockington D et al., 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science, 306(5699): 1146–1149. doi: 10.1126/science.1097920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Narain S, 2002. Community and Household Water Management: The Key to Environmental Regeneration and Poverty Alleviation. In: Marothia D K (ed.). Institutionalizing Common Pool Resources. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agudelo C, Rivera B, Tapasco J et al., 2003. Designing policies to reduce rural poverty and environmental degradation in a hillside zone of the Colombian Andes. World Development, 31(11): 1921–1931. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker T R, Jones J P G, Rendón Thompson O R R et al., 2010. How can ecologists help realise the potential of payments for carbon in tropical forest countries? Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(6): 1159–1165. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01885.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier E B, 2000. The economic linkages between rural poverty and land degradation: Some evidence from Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 82(1–3): 355–370. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00237-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett E M, Peterson G D, Gordon L J, 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12(12): 1394–1404. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohlen P J, Lynch S, Shabman L et al., 2009. Paying for environmental services from agricultural lands: An example from the northern Everglades. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1): 46–55. doi: 10.1890/080107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulas J M, 2004. Implementing cost recovery for environmental services in Mexico. In: World Bank Water Week. Washington, DC: 24–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao S X, Wang X Q, Wang G S, 2009. Lessons learned from China’s fall into the poverty trap. Journal of Policy Modeling, 31(2): 298–307. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2008.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavendish W, 2000. Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development, 28(11): 1979–2003. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X (00)00066-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Nanyue, 2003. Study on the ecological poverty of the Chinese countryside. China Population, Resource and Environment, 13(4): 42–45. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen X, Lupi F, An L et al., 2012. Agent-based modeling of the effects of social norms on enrollment in payments for ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling, 229(24): 16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child M F, 2009. The Thoreau ideal as a unifying thread in the conservation movement. Conservation Biology, 23(2): 241–243. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01184.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chokor B A, 2004. Perception and response to the challenge of poverty and environmental resource degradation in rural Nigeria: Case study from the Niger Delta. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3): 305–318. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clay D, Reardon T, Kangasniemi J, 1998. Sustainable intensification in the highland tropics: Rwandan farmers’ investments in land conservation and soil fertility. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 46(2): 351–378. doi: 10.1086/452342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253–260. doi:10.1038/387253a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily G, 1997. Nature’s Service-social Dependence on Natural Ecosystem. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DFID (Department For International Development), EC (European Commission), UNDP (Uuited Nations Development Programme), World Bank, 2002. Linking Poverty Reduction and Environmental Management: Policy Challenges and Opportunities. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank,.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duraiappah A K, 1998. Poverty and environmental degradation: A review and analysis of the nexus. World Development, 26(12): 2169–2179. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00100-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S, 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4): 663–674. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN), 2002. FAOSTAT Statistics Database. Rome, Italy: UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO, 2011. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture (SOLAW): ManagingvSystems at Risk. London: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome and Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu Bojie, Chen Liding, Yu Xiubo, 2000. The new trends and counter-measures on eco-environmental issues in China. Chinese Journal of Environmental Science, 21(5): 104–106. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu B J, Wang S, Su C H et al., 2013. Linking ecosystem processes with ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1): 4–10. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentilini U, Webb P, 2008. How are we doing on poverty and hunger reduction? A new measure of country performance. Food Policy, 33(6): 521–532. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2008. 04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman R L, 2010. Ecosystem services: How people benefit from nature. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 52(5): 15–23. doi: 10.1080/00139157.2010. 507140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas P L et al., 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69(6): 1209–1218. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, Ruiz-Perez M, 2011. Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5): 613–628. doi: 10.1177/0309133311421708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N et al., 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current Sstate and Trends: Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series (volume 1). Washington, D.C., USA: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield J, Job R F S, 2001. Optimism bias about environmental degradation: The role of the range of impact of precautions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1): 17–30. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2000.0190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang S Q, Lu M, Sato H, 2012. Identity, Inequality, and Happiness: Evidence from Urban China. World Development, 40(6): 1190–1200. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Walters L, Çil A, 2011. Biodiversity and stakeholder participation. Journal for Nature Conservation, 19(6): 327–329. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2011.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan S R, Khan S R, 2009. Assessing poverty-deforestation links: Evidence from Swat, Pakistan. Ecological Economics, 68(10): 2607–2618. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch E W, Barbier E B, Silliman B R et al., 2009. Non-linearity in ecosystem services: Temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment, 7(1): 29–37. doi: 10.1890/080126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landell-Mills N, Porras I, 2002. Silver Bullet or Fool’s Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Sservices and Their Impact on the Poor. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumley S, 1997. The environment and the ethics of discounting: An empirical analysis. Ecological Economics, 20(1): 71–82. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00073-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Our Human Planet. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moseley W G, 2001. African evidence on the relation of poverty, time preference and the environment. Ecological Economics, 38(3): 317–326. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00184-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muchena F N, Onduru D D, Gachini G N et al., 2005. Turning the tides of soil degradation in Africa: Capturing the reality and exploring opportunities. Land Use Policy, 22(1): 23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphree M, 1993. Communal Land Wildlife Resources and Rural District Council Revenues. In: Centre for Applied Social Science. Harare: University of Zimbabwe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narain U, Gupta S, van’t Veld K, 2008. Poverty and resource dependence in rural India. Ecological Economics, 66(1): 161–176. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer E, 2005. Does high indebtedness increase natural resource exploitation? Environment and Development Economics, 10(2): 127–141. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X04001901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opschoor J B, 2007. Environment and poverty: Perspectives, propositions, policies, Working Paper, ISS (437 Novomber)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G, 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(2): 237–253. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer C, Di Falco S, 2012. Biodiversity, poverty, and development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 28(1): 48–68. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grs008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer M L, 2009. Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1): 38–45. doi: 10.1890/080091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon T, Vosti A S, 1995. Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing countries. World Development, 23(9): 1495–1506. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(95)00061-G

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts T H, Regetz J, Steffan-Dewenter I et al., 2008. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: Are there general patterns? Ecology Letters, 11(5): 499–515. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01157.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe D, 2008. The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty debate: A review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx, 42(04): 491–503. doi: 10.1017/S0030605308002032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberger R S, Loomis J, 2001. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values: A technical document supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 revision). Gen Tech Rep RMRS-GTR-72. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozelle S, Huang J K, Zhang L X, 1997. Poverty, population and environmental degradation in China. Food Policy, 22(3): 229–251. doi: 10.1016/S0306-9192(97)00011-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadik N, 1988. 1988 State of the World Population Report: Safeguarding the Future. New York, USA: United Nations Population Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagie H, Morris A, Rofè Y et al., 2013. Cross-cultural perceptions of ecosystem services: A social inquiry on both sides of the Israeli-Jordanian border of the Southern Arava Valley Desert. Journal of Arid Environments, 97: 38–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samal P, Palni L M, Agrawal D, 2003. Ecology, ecological poverty and sustainable development in Central Himalayan region of India. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 10(2): 157–168. doi: 10.1080/13504500309469794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherr S J, 2000. A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation. Food Policy, 25(4): 479–498. doi: 10.1016/S0306-9192(00)00022-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen A, 1976. Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44(2): 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swallow B M, Sang J K, Nyabenge M B et al., 2009. Tradeoffs, synergies and traps among ecosystem services in the Lake Victoria basin of East Africa. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(4): 504–519. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaminathan M, 2000. Weakening Welfare: The Public Distribution of Food in India. New Delhi: LeftWord Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinton S M, Escobar G, Reardon T, 2003. Poverty and environment in Latin America:concepts, evidence and policy implications. World Development, 31(11): 1865–1872. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinton S M, Quiroz R, 2003. Is poverty to blame for soil, pasture and forest degradation in Peru’s Altiplano? World Development, 31(11): 1903–1919. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M et al., 2008. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(28): 9457–9564. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705797105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, 1999. Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96(11): 5995–6000. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.11.5995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ton S, Odum H T, Delfino J J, 1998. Ecological-economic evaluation of wetland management alternatives. Ecological Engineering, 11(1–4): 291–302. doi: 10.1016/S0925-8574(98) 00039-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner R K, Paavola J, Cooper P et al., 2003. Valuing nature: Lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics, 46(3): 493–510. doi: 10.1016/s0921-8009(03) 00189-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011. The UK national ecosystem assessment. In: Conceptual Framework and Methodology. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vignola R, Koellner T, Scholz R W et al., 2010. Decision-making by farmers regarding ecosystem services: Factors affecting soil conservation efforts in Costa Rica. Land Use Policy, 27(4): 1132–1142. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Fu B J, Su C H et al., 2013. Ecosystem services management: An integrated approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1): 11–15. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Fu B J, 2013. Trade-offs between forest ecosystem services. Forest Policy and Economics, 26: 145–146. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank, 1992. World Development Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu T, Kim Y-S, 2012. Environmental markets: concentrate on criteria. Science, 326(20): 1060. doi: 10.1126/science.326.5956.1060-c

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S, 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests-What scope for synergies? World Development, 29(11): 1817–1833. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00070-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S, 2008. Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics, 13(3): 279–297. doi: 10.1017/s1355770x08004282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S, Albán M, 2008. Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 65(4): 685–698. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin R S, Zhao M J, 2011. Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socioeconomic processes—China’s experience as an example. Ecological Economics, 73: 56–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu Fawen, 2004. Study on ecological poverty in northwest region. China Soft Science, (11): 27–30. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman D, Lipper L, McCarthy N, 2008. When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor? Environment and Development Economics, 13(3): 1–24. doi: 10.1017/s1355770x08004294

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085, China

    Nahui Zhen, Bojie Fu, Yihe Lu & Shuai Wang

Authors
  1. Nahui Zhen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bojie Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yihe Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shuai Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bojie Fu.

Additional information

Foundation item: Under the auspices of National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41230745, 41171156)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhen, N., Fu, B., Lu, Y. et al. Poverty reduction, environmental protection and ecosystem services: A prospective theory for sustainable development. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 24, 83–92 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-014-0658-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-014-0658-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation