Conclusion: Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction

  • Jane Carter Ingram
  • Fabrice DeClerck
  • Cristina Rumbaitis del Rio


As discussed throughout the chapters of the two volumes comprising this series on Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction, in recent years an increasing amount of global attention has focused on the role of the natural environment in contributing to poverty reduction (McNeely and Scherr 2003; Ash and Jenkins 2007; World Bank 2007; Tekelenburg et al. 2009; Chivian and Bernstein 2008; Galizzi and Herklotz 2008). These volumes complement and build upon this growing body of work, but look specifically at the ecological dimensions of multiple development challenges related to rural poverty and the ways in which ecological science can be applied to address some of these challenges.


Ecosystem Service Natural Resource Management Poverty Reduction Rural Poverty Ecological Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ash, N. and M. Jenkins. 2007. Biodiversity and Poverty Reduction: The importance of biodiversity for ecosystem services. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC).Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, E. M., G. D. Peterson, and L. J. Gordon. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12:1394–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter, S. R., H. A. Mooney, J. Agard, D. Capistrano, R. S. DeFries, S. Diaz, T. Dietz, A. K. Duraiappah, A. Oteng-Yeboah, H. M. Pereira, C. Perrings, W. V. Reid, J. Sarukhan, R. J. Scholes, and A. Whyte. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:1305–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chivian, E. and Bernstein, A. eds. 2008. Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. de Groot, R. S., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein, L. Willemen. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7:260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galizzi, P. and Herklotz, A. 2008. The Role of the Environment in Poverty Alleviation (People and the Environment). Fordham University Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  7. IFAD, 2011. International Fund for Agricultural Development. The Rural Poverty Report, 2011. (, accessed on January 12, 2011).
  8. McNeely, J. A. and Scherr, S. J. 2003. Ecoagriculture: Strategies To Feed The World And Save Wild Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. NatCap 2007. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University. accessed on 27 December 2010.
  10. Tallis, H. and Polasky, S. 2009. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural resource management. The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1162:265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tekelenburg, A., B.J.E. ten Brink, M.C.H.Witmer. 2009. How do biodiversity and poverty relate? – An explorative study. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Bilthoven.Google Scholar
  12. World Bank, 2007. Poverty and the Environment: Understanding Linkages at the Household Level. World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Carter Ingram
    • 1
  • Fabrice DeClerck
    • 2
  • Cristina Rumbaitis del Rio
    • 3
  1. 1.Wildlife Conservation SocietyBronxUSA
  2. 2.Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE)Cartago, TurrialbaCosta Rica
  3. 3.The Rockefeller FoundationNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations