Adrian Martin

@article{6379eb791dd7438e810389bc36bc20ef,

title = {Sustainability-aligned values: Exploring the concept, evidence, and practice},

author = {Adrian Martin and Patricia Balvanera and Christopher M. Raymond and Erik Gómez-Baggethun and Uta Eser and Rachelle K. Gould and Louise Guibrunet and Zuzana V. Harmáčková and Andra I. Horcea-Milcu and Ann-Kathrin Koessler and Ritesh Kumar and Dominic Lenzi and Juliana Merçon and Agatha Nthenge and Patrick J. O'Farrell and Unai Pascual and Julian Rode and Yuki Yoshida and Noelia Zafra-Calvo},

doi = {10.5751/ES-15498-290418},

issn = {1708-3087},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-11-12},

journal = {Ecology and Society},

volume = {29},

number = {4},

publisher = {The Resilience Alliance},

abstract = {Modern environmental thought has always involved normative claims about the values needed for sustainability. This has often played out in debates between proponents of anthropocentric and ecocentric ways of valuing nature. More recently, there has been a flourishing of interest in relational and pluricentric ways of valuing nature, coinciding with a “turn to values” in the sustainability literature. In this paper we explore the meaning and use of the term “sustainability-aligned values.” Following the 2022 IPBES Values Assessment we consider these as values that are crucial for shaping decisions that will help bring about sustainability. Our characterization of sustainably-aligned values assumes inherent pluralism because of diverse interpretations of sustainability and of pathways toward it. Nevertheless, a review of three bodies of literature suggests that there is considerable agreement about the kinds of values that align with sustainability. In particular, the nurturing of certain relational values is now widely seen as supportive of sustainability, including values regarding what matters in human interactions with nature (such as stewardship), and values regarding relationships between humans (such as collectivism). We proceed to pose critical questions about the proposition that certain values support sustainability. We ask whether this emerging body of thought is consistent with pluralist requirements to foster values diversity, whether an agenda to nurture values aligned with sustainability is actionable, and how mobilizing sustainability-aligned values entails addressing power imbalances.},

note = {Data Availability Statement: No new data is used in this paper.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{c5a58e94af7e410283a846d6d17459f1,

title = {Reviewing the science on 50 years of conservation: Knowledge production biases and lessons for practice},

author = {Neil M. Dawson and Brendan Coolsaet and Aditi Bhardwaj and David Brown and Bosco Lliso and Jacqueline Loos and Laura Mannocci and Adrian Martin and Malena Oliva and Unai Pascual and Pasang Sherpa and Thomas Worsdell},

doi = {10.1007/s13280-024-02049-w},

issn = {0044-7447},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-10-01},

journal = {AMBIO},

volume = {53},

number = {10},

pages = {1395–1413},

publisher = {Allen Press Inc.},

abstract = {Drawing on 662 studies from 102 countries, we present a systematic review of published empirical studies about site-level biodiversity conservation initiated between 1970 and 2019. Within this sample, we find that knowledge production about the Global South is largely produced by researchers in the Global North, implying a neocolonial power dynamic. We also find evidence of bias in reported ecological outcomes linked to lack of independence in scientific studies, serving to uphold narratives about who should lead conservation. We explore relationships in the sample studies between conservation initiative types, the extent of Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ influence in governance, and reported social and ecological outcomes. Findings reveal positive ecological and social outcomes are strongly associated with higher levels of influence of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and their institutions, implying equity in conservation practice should be advanced not only for moral reasons, but because it can enhance conservation effectiveness.},

note = {Data availability statement: The dataset for this study is available at Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7688777. Acknowledgements: This study was funded by the Centre for the Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity (CESAB) of the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) under the Just Conservation project. Additional support was provided by Lille Catholic University under the AMBROISE funding call. JL acknowledges funding by the Robert-Bosch foundation for the project “Wildlife, Values, Justice”. UP acknowledges BC3’s Maria de Maeztu excellence accreditation 2023-2026 (Ref. CEX2021-001201- M) provided by MCIN/AEI/https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{023435a2b3434f5eb497fb84758cedb6,

title = {Conceptualising rural environmental justice in Europe in an age of climate-influenced landscape transformations},

author = {David Brown and Benjamin Bégou and Floriane Clement and Brendan Coolsaet and Lisa Darmet and Mathilde Gingembre and Zuzana V. Harmáčková and Adrian Martin and Barbora Nohlová and Cécile Barnaud},

doi = {10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103371},

issn = {0743-0167},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-08-01},

journal = {Journal of Rural Studies},

volume = {110},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {• Driven by net-zero policies, major landscape shifts expected in rural Europe. • Injustices arise from potential climate-influenced landscape transformations. • Empirical environmental justice study of three rural European landscapes. • Unequal land access central to rural environmental justice.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{3453572c4b374a9e8bda211e0958c093,

title = {Is it just conservation? A typology of Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ roles in conserving biodiversity},

author = {Neil M. Dawson and Brendan Coolsaet and Aditi Bhardwaj and Francesca Booker and David Brown and Bosco Lliso and Jacqueline Loos and Adrian Martin and Malena Oliva and Unai Pascual and Pasang Sherpa and Thomas Worsdell},

doi = {10.1016/j.oneear.2024.05.001},

issn = {2590-3322},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-06-21},

journal = {One Earth},

volume = {7},

number = {6},

pages = {1007–1021},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {As conservation initiatives expand in response to biodiversity loss, there remains limited understanding about what forms of governance and roles for different actors produce the best ecological outcomes. Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ (IPs’ and LCs’) roles extend beyond participation to more equitable governance based on relative control and recognition of their values and institutions, but the relationship with conservation outcomes remains unclear. We review 648 empirical studies to develop a typology of IP and LC roles in governance and, for a subsample of 170, analyze relationships with reported ecological outcomes. The findings reveal that more equitable governance, based on equal partnership or primary control for IPs and LCs, are associated with significantly more positive ecological outcomes. This carries important implications, including for actions toward the Global Biodiversity Framework targets, suggesting a need to elevate the role of IPs and LCs to conservation leaders while respecting their rights and customary institutions.},

note = {Funding information: This study was funded by the Centre for the Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity (CESAB) of the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) under the JustConservation project. J.L. acknowledges funding by the Robert Bosch Foundation for the project “Wildlife, Values, Justice.” U.P. acknowledges BC3’s Maria de Maeztu excellence accreditation 2023–2026 (Ref. CEX2021-001201- M) provided by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{57e3a055119841a6affcb868845fadbf,

title = {Plural values of nature help to understand contested pathways to sustainability},

author = {Adrian Martin and Erik Gómez-Baggethun and Martin Quaas and Ricardo Rozzi and Alejandro Tauro and Daniel P. Faith and Ritesh Kumar and Patrick O'Farrell and Unai Pascual},

doi = {10.1016/j.oneear.2024.04.003},

issn = {2590-3322},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-05-17},

journal = {One Earth},

volume = {7},

number = {5},

pages = {806–819},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Despite globally agreed sustainability goals, advocacy for specific pathways of action remains highly contested. Disagreement about how best to advance sustainability can produce constructive debate but can also lead to marginalization, conflict, and inaction. This review uncovers how different “values of nature” underpin allegiance to different pathways of action for sustainability. It analyzes four selected pathways: (1) Green Economy, (2) Nature Protection, (3) Earth Stewardship and Biocultural Diversity, and (4) Degrowth and Post-Growth. We identify how these four pathways diverge in the values they prioritize and how these values are inseparable from the kind of knowledge and solutions they advocate to resolve environmental crises. The review reveals the underlying values that differentiate (and connect) competing pathways and argues that transparency and reflection on these differences is a step toward more constructive use of diversity. Looking forward, we identify promising directions involving deliberative governance, institutional reforms, and disruption of dominance.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{f4f94858d4714a9297fe683f18dc4e27,

title = {The role of values in future scenarios: What types of values underpin (un)sustainable and (un)just futures?},

author = {Zuzana V. Harmáčková and Yuki Yoshida and Nadia Sitas and Lelani Mannetti and Adrian Martin and Ritesh Kumar and Marta Berbés-Blázquez and Rebecca Collins and Klaus Eisenack and Ellen Guimaraes and María Heras and Valerie Nelson and Aidin Niamir and Federica Ravera and Isabel Ruiz-Mallén and Patrick O'Farrell},

doi = {10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101343},

issn = {1877-3435},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-10-01},

journal = {Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability},

volume = {64},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Values have been recognized as critical leverage points for sustainability transformations. However, there is limited evidence unpacking which types of values are associated with specific types of sustainable and unsustainable futures, as described by future scenarios and other types of futures-related works. This paper builds on a review of 460 future scenarios, visions, and other types of futures-related works in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Values Assessment, synthesizing evidence from academia, private sector, governmental and non-governmental strategies, science-policy reports, and arts-based evidence, to identify the types of values of nature that underlie different archetypes of the future. The results demonstrate that futures related to dystopian scenario archetypes such as Regional Competition, Inequality, and Breakdown are mostly underpinned by deeply individualistic and materialistic values. In contrast, futures with more sustainable and just outcomes, such as Global Sustainable Development and Regional Sustainability, tend to be underpinned by a more balanced combination of plural values of nature, with a dominant focus on nature’s contribution to societal (as opposed to individual) aspects of well-being. Furthermore, the paper identifies research gaps and illustrates the key importance of acknowledging not only people’s specific values directly related to nature, such as instrumental, intrinsic, and relational human-nature values and relationships, but also broad values and worldviews that affect the interactions between nature and society, with resulting impacts on Nature's Contributions to People and opportunities for a good quality of life.},

note = {Funding Information: Zuzana Harmáčková’s work was supported by the NPO "Systemic Risk Institute" number LX22NPO5101, funded by European Union — Next Generation EU (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, NPO: EXCELES), SustES — Adaptation strategies for sustainable ecosystem services and food security under adverse environmental conditions project (ref. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000797), and the project Science in Action: intersecting pathways to the SDGs across scales in the drylands (XPaths), funded by the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development — Formas (grant number 2020-00474 ). Yuki Yoshida was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists ( #19K13440 ) and the Climate Change Adaptation Research Program of the National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan. Lelani Mannetti was supported by United States National Science Foundation grant numbers SES-1444755 (Urban Resilience to Extremes Sustainability Research Network) and GCR-1934933 (SETS Convergence Network). Berbés-Blázquez was funded by United States National Science Foundation grant numbers DEB-1832016 and DEB-2224662 (Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Program) and SES-1444755 (Urban Resilience to Extremes Sustainability Research Network). Federica Ravera was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities through a “Ramón y Cajal” research fellowship (RYC-2018-025958-I). Isabel Ruiz-Mallén was supported by the Spanish State Research Agency through a “Ramón y Cajal” research fellowship (RYC-2015-17676). We would like to sincerely thank our co-authors in the IPBES Values Assessment as well as three anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful comments and guidance.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{fcb09fbdf5e84006a9aef957a61f916e,

title = {The pitfalls of plural valuation},

author = {Sander Jacobs and Eszter Kelemen and Patrick O’Farrell and Adrian Martin and Marije Schaafsma and Nicolas Dendoncker and Ram Pandit and Tuyeni H. Mwampamba and Ignacio Palomo and Antonio J. Castro and Mariaelena A. Huambachano and Anna Filyushkina and Haripriya Gunimeda},

doi = {10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101345},

issn = {1877-3435},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-10-01},

journal = {Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability},

volume = {64},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {This paper critically examines the current political context in which valuation studies of nature are undertaken. It challenges the belief that somehow, more and technically better valuation will drive the societal change toward more just and sustainable futures. Instead, we argue that current and proposed valuation practices risk to continue to overrepresent the values of those who hold power and dominate the valuation space, and to perpetuate the discrimination of the views and values of nondominant stakeholders. In tackling this politically sensitive issue, we define a political typology of valuations, making explicit the roles of power and discrimination. This is done to provide valuation professionals and other actors with a simple framework to determine if valuation actions and activities are constructive, inclusive, resolve injustices and enable systemic change, or rather entrench the status quo or aggravate existing injustices. The objective is to buttress actors in their decisions to support, accept, improve, oppose, or reject such valuations.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{c135804b0a0d43c2beee2009c2b25c30,

title = {Modes of mobilizing values for sustainability transformation},

author = {Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu and Ann-Kathrin Koessler and Adrian Martin and Julian Rode and Thais Moreno Soares},

doi = {10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101357},

issn = {1877-3435},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-10-01},

journal = {Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability},

volume = {64},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {There is broad agreement on the potential role of values to incite intentional transformative change toward sustainability. However, there is no proposed heuristic on how to mobilize values for sustainability transformation, especially in the context of multilevel decision-making. We aim to fill this gap based on a literature analysis conducted as part of Chapter 5 of the IPBES Values Assessment. We outline four modes of mobilizing values for sustainability transformation: enabling, including, shifting, and reflecting. They differ in terms of the mix of agency and conversely of outside steering needed for each value mobilization mode. We then explore key tensions and insights that emerge through this classification: interdependencies between the modes of mobilizing values, tensions between shifting versus enabling and including values, tensions between which values to shift and which values to enable, and tensions between levels of values intervention (individuals, community, and society).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1d26998628fe45f0bcc17b1a1f763465,

title = {Justice, sustainability, and the diverse values of nature: why they matter for biodiversity conservation},

author = {Dominic Lenzi and Patricia Balvanera and Paola Arias-arévalo and Uta Eser and Louise Guibrunet and Adrian Martin and Barbara Muraca and Unai Pascual},

doi = {10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101353},

issn = {1877-3435},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-10-01},

journal = {Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability},

volume = {64},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Aiming at just and sustainable futures for biodiversity conservation requires clarity concerning how justice relates to the diverse values of nature. By drawing upon and expanding on the recent Values Assessment of Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, this article discusses the implications of the diverse values of nature for different dimensions of justice. It also addresses how achieving transformative change that protects biodiversity requires the inclusion of diverse values of nature into valuation and decision-making processes, and how this imperative is interconnected with different dimensions of justice.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{667333d9861e4f74be528f9a6adfba66,

title = {Diverse values of nature for sustainability},

author = {Unai Pascual and Patricia Balvanera and Christopher B. Anderson and Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer and Michael Christie and David González-Jiménez and Adrian Martin and Christopher M. Raymond and Mette Termansen and Arild Vatn and Simone Athayde and Brigitte Baptiste and David N. Barton and Sander Jacobs and Eszter Kelemen and Ritesh Kumar and Elena Lazos and Tuyeni H. Mwampamba and Barbara Nakangu and Patrick O'Farrell and Suneetha M. Subramanian and Meine Noordwijk and Soeun Ahn and Sacha Amaruzaman and Ariane M. Amin and Paola Arias-Arévalo and Gabriela Arroyo-Robles and Mariana Cantú-Fernández and Antonio J. Castro and Victoria Contreras and Alta De Vos and Nicolas Dendoncker and Stefanie Engel and Uta Eser and Daniel P. Faith and Anna Filyushkina and Houda Ghazi and Erik Gómez-Baggethun and Rachelle K. Gould and Louise Guibrunet and Haripriya Gundimeda and Thomas Hahn and Zuzana V. Harmáčková and Marcello Hernández-Blanco and Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu and Mariaelena Huambachano and Natalia Lutti Hummel Wicher and Cem İskender Aydın and Mine Islar and Ann-Kathrin Koessler and Jasper O. Kenter and Marina Kosmus and Heera Lee and Beria Leimona and Sharachchandra Lele and Dominic Lenzi and Bosco Lliso and Lelani M. Mannetti and Juliana Merçon and Ana Sofía Monroy-Sais and Nibedita Mukherjee and Barbara Muraca and Roldan Muradian and Ranjini Murali and Sara H. Nelson and Gabriel R. Nemogá-Soto and Jonas Ngouhouo-Poufoun and Aidin Niamir and Emmanuel Nuesiri and Tobias O. Nyumba and Begüm Özkaynak and Ignacio Palomo and Ram Pandit and Agnieszka Pawłowska-Mainville and Luciana Porter-Bolland and Martin Quaas and Julian Rode and Ricardo Rozzi and Sonya Sachdeva and Aibek Samakov and Marije Schaafsma and Nadia Sitas and Paula Ungar and Evonne Yiu and Yuki Yoshida and Eglee Zent},

doi = {10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9},

issn = {0028-0836},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-08-24},

journal = {Nature},

volume = {620},

pages = {813–823},

publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},

abstract = {Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being, addressing the global biodiversity crisis still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, pandemic emergence and socio-environmental injustices. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.},

note = {Data availability: All the data are freely available online. The supplementary information provides links to Zenodo with specific DOIs where the data are stored for free use.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{56a60e2aee9d4f18adf5f38b29f476c0,

title = {Connected Conservation: Rethinking conservation for a telecoupled world},

author = {Rachel Carmenta and Jos Barlow and Mairon G. Bastos Lima and Erika Bereguer and Shofwan Choiruzzad and Natalia Estrada-Carmona and Filipe França and Giorgos Kallis and Evan Killick and Alexander Lees and Adrian Martin and Unai Pascual and Nathalie Pettorelli and James Reed and Iokine Rodriguez and Angela M. Steward and Terry Sunderland and Bhaskar Vira and Julie G. Zaehringer and Christina Hicks},

doi = {10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110047},

issn = {0006-3207},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-06-01},

journal = {Biological Conservation},

volume = {282},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {The convergence of the biodiversity and climate crises, widening of wealth inequality, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic underscore the urgent need to mobilize change to secure sustainable futures. Centres of tropical biodiversity are a major focus of conservation efforts, delivered in predominantly site-level interventions often incorporating alternative-livelihood provision or poverty-alleviation components. Yet, a focus on site-level intervention is ill-equipped to address the disproportionate role of (often distant) wealth in biodiversity collapse. Further these approaches often attempt to ‘resolve’ local economic poverty in order to safeguard biodiversity in a seemingly virtuous act, potentially overlooking local communities as the living locus of solutions to the biodiversity crisis. We offer Connected Conservation: a dual-branched conservation model that commands novel actions to tackle distant wealth-related drivers of biodiversity decline, while enhancing site-level conservation to empower biodiversity stewards. We synthesize diverse literatures to outline the need for this shift in conservation practice. We identify three dominant negative flows arising in centres of wealth that disproportionately undermine biodiversity, and highlight the three key positive, though marginalized, flows that enhance biodiversity and exist within biocultural centres. Connected Conservation works to amplify the positive flows, and diminish the negative flows, and thereby orientates towards desired states with justice at the centre. We identify connected conservation actions that can be applied and replicated to address the telecoupled, wealth-related reality of biodiversity collapse while empowering contemporary biodiversity stewards. The approach calls for conservation to extend its collaborations across sectors in order to deliver to transformative change.},

note = {Acknowledgements: RC is grateful to the support of the Frank Jackson Foundation that enabled this work. Data availability: Data will be made available on request.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{ab1c4d449af44d4fbd941809733ffdde,

title = {Rethinking entrenched narratives about protected areas and human wellbeing in the Global South},

author = {Emily Woodhouse and Claire Bedelian and Paul Barnes and Gisella S. Cruz-Garcia and Neil Dawson and Nicole Gross-Camp and Katherine Homewood and Julia P. G. Jones and Adrian Martin and Elisa Morgera and Kate Schreckenberg},

doi = {10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000050},

issn = {2632-0886},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-11-16},

journal = {UCL Open: Environment},

volume = {4},

publisher = {UCL Press},

abstract = {Attempts to link human development and biodiversity conservation goals remain a constant feature of policy and practice related to protected areas (PAs). Underlying these approaches are narratives that simplify assumptions, shaping how interventions are designed and implemented. We examine evidence for five key narratives: 1) conservation is pro-poor; 2) poverty reduction benefits conservation; 3) compensation neutralises costs of conservation; 4) local participation is good for conservation; 5) secure tenure rights for local communities support effective conservation. Through a mixed-method synthesis combining a review of 100 peer-reviewed papers and 25 expert interviews, we examined if and how each narrative is supported or countered by the evidence. The first three narratives are particularly problematic. PAs can reduce material poverty, but exclusion brings substantial local costs to wellbeing, often felt by the poorest. Poverty reduction will not inevitably deliver on conservation goals and trade-offs are common. Compensation (for damage due to human wildlife conflict, or for opportunity costs), is rarely sufficient or commensurate with costs to wellbeing and experienced injustices. There is more support for narratives 4 and 5 on participation and secure tenure rights, highlighting the importance of redistributing power towards Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in successful conservation. In light of the proposed expansion of PAs under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, we outline implications of our review for the enhancement and implementation of global targets in order to proactively integrate social equity into conservation and the accountability of conservation actors.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{04949493785745768137ca0cd951c4eb,

title = {Contradictory distributive principles and land tenure govern benefit-sharing of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Chiapas, Mexico},

author = {Santiago Izquierdo-Tort and Esteve Corbera and Adrian Martin and Julia Carabias Lillo and Jérôme Dupras},

doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/ac6686},

issn = {1748-9326},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-04-28},

journal = {Environmental Research Letters},

volume = {17},

number = {5},

publisher = {IOP Publishing Ltd},

abstract = {Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are incentive-based instruments that provide conditional economic incentives for natural resources management. Research has shown that when economic incentives are parachuted into rural communities, participation and benefits are collectively negotiated and shared. However, we know little about how benefit-sharing evolves over time in community-based PES. To address this gap, we examine distributional justice in four communities of the state of Chiapas, Mexico, which participate in a PES programme, and we assess how local justice principles compare with the programme's goals. Our analysis reveals patterns of both continuity and change in how communities share PES benefits, which reflect a suite of contradictory justice principles, including entitlement, merit, need, and equality. The studied communities distribute PES benefits by providing differentiated compensation to diverse groups of landholders via private cash payments, whilst also attending non-landed community members through public infrastructure investments. We show that benefit-sharing is strongly influenced by pre-existing land tenure features and associated norms, which in the study area include three different types of individual and common-property. Yet, we also show that communities continuously adjust benefit-sharing arrangements to navigate distributional challenges emerging from programme engagement. Overall, we provide novel insights on the evolution, diversity, and complexity of distributive justice in community-based PES and we advocate for a context-sensitive, nuanced, and dynamic account of justice in incentive-based conservation.},

note = {Data availability statement: The data generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available for legal/ethical reasons but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Funding: S I T and J D acknowledge the financial support of Ouranos (RF580003), Mitacs (IT10488), and the Canada Research Chair in Ecological Economics. S I T and E C acknowledge the funding of the 'Payment for Ecosystem Services: long-term effectiveness and motivations for the conservation of forest ecosystems' project (PID2019-109758GB-I00), Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. S I T and J C L acknowledge the financial support of Alianza WWF-Fundación Carlos Slim. S I T acknowledges the financial support of Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT). E C acknowledges that this work contributes to the 'María de Maeztu' Programme for Units of Excellence Innovation of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{8a2efeb334e94c1cbcaefae46c6e7d00,

title = {Explaining success on community forestry through a lens of environmental justice: Local justice norms and practices in China},

author = {Jun He and Adrian Martin and Rong Lang and Nicole Gross-Camp},

doi = {10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105450},

issn = {0305-750X},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-06-01},

journal = {World Development},

volume = {142},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {It is of global interest to understand under what conditions community forestry can be successful and sustainable in terms of environmental conservation and local livelihood benefits. Existing theories have explained several influential factors, including small groups of people with shared norms, sound institutions, high levels of decentralization, downward accountability, and security of tenure. This paper explores how local conceptions of environmental justice become closely linked to sustainable community forestry. Based on an in-depth case study in a highly populated and culturally heterogeneous village in southwest China, we examine an enduring example of community forestry, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The results show that village forest cover has increased significantly over the last 30 years, contributing to improvements in local livelihoods. It is argued that one of the important factors in this success has been villagers’ ability to align forest management with local justice norms and practices. Distributive, procedural, and recognition aspects of justice are considered, and we find that, in combination, these become integral to building effective institutions for collective action. To broaden the focus on successful factors in existing theories, this paper argues that the consideration of justice as an important condition for establishing effective and durable local institutions that will be effective for community forestry. The insights from this study suggest a need to consider justice dimensions in community forestry research to enable improved understanding of its dynamics and outcomes worldwide.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{23b6f53f395d4e23b4d362a22b5a305f,

title = {Response to Steven Kolmes},

author = {Iokine Rodriguez Fernandez and Adrian Martin},

doi = {10.1080/00139157.2021.1851566},

issn = {0013-9157},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-12-23},

journal = {Environment},

volume = {63},

number = {1},

pages = {31–32},

publisher = {Taylor and Francis},

abstract = {We very much appreciate this thoughtful and constructive response from Steven Kolmes. In most respects we agree with the ideas here and in particular the invitation to think more and think practically about the temporal dimensions of justice and injustice, which we also see as connected to the spatial ones. While consideration for future generations is a quintessential feature of environmental justice analysis, the environmental conflicts we see around the world today revolve around grievances that often have roots in the past. Those currently suffering from climate change impacts are harmed by past activities, mainly by people living far away from them. Many of those struggling for territorial integrity and cultural autonomy are dealing with harms that go back to colonialism},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{43be366a691c403890ca2ac2eda40ceb,

title = {Environmental justice and transformations to sustainability},

author = {Adrian Martin and Teresa Armijos Burneo and Brendan Coolsaet and Neil Dawson and Gareth A S Edwards and Roger Few and Nicole Gross-Camp and Iokine Rodriguez Fernandez and Heike Schroeder and Mark Tebboth and Carole White},

doi = {10.1080/00139157.2020.1820294},

issn = {0013-9157},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-11-16},

journal = {Environment},

volume = {62},

number = {6},

pages = {19–30},

publisher = {Taylor and Francis},

abstract = {Global carbon emissions continue to rise,1 rates of global biodiversity loss continue to increase,2 and social and economic inequalities continue to widen.3 Significant global social movements such as Fridays for Future are declaring thissituation an “emergency,” regarding it as a crime against humanity in which political and business leaders stand accused of ignoring the plight of current and future vulnerable people. This association between environmental crises and social injustice is now widely accepted. Many feel that time is running out for incremental approaches to prove effective and that there is an inescapable need for a radical, transformative change that combines sustainability and justice.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{851b1b11f157411880ceae4961b62889,

title = {Conservationists’ perspectives on poverty: an empirical study},

author = {Janet A. Fisher and Hari Dhungana and Janine Duffy and Jun He and Mirna Inturias and Ina Lehmann and Adrian Martin and David M. Mwayafu and Iokiñe Rodríguez and Helen Schneider},

doi = {10.1002/pan3.10098},

issn = {2575-8314},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-09-01},

journal = {People and Nature},

volume = {2},

number = {3},

pages = {678–692},

publisher = {Wiley},

abstract = {1. Biodiversity conservation interventions have long confronted challenges of human poverty. The ethical foundations of international conservation, including conservation’s relationship with poverty, are currently being interrogated in animated debates about the future of conservation. However, while some commentary exists, empirical analysis of conservation practitioner perspectives on poverty, and their ethical justification, has been lacking thus far. 2. We used Q methodology complemented by more detailed qualitative analysis to examine empirically perspectives on poverty and conservation within the conservation movement, and compare these empirical discourses to positions within the literature. We sampled conservation practitioners in western headquartered organisations, and in Bolivia, China, Nepal and Uganda, thereby giving indications of these perspectives in Latin America, Asia and Africa. 3. While there are some elements of consensus, for instance the principle that the poor should not shoulder the costs of conserving a global public good, the three discourses elicited diverge in a number of ways. Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism differentiate the perspectives, but beyond this, there are two distinct framings of poverty which conservation practitioners variously adhere to. 4. The first prioritises welfare, needs and sufficientarianism, and is more strongly associated with the China, Nepal and Uganda case studies. The second framing of poverty focuses much more on the need for ‘do no harm’ principles and safeguards, and follows an internationalised human rights-oriented discourse. 5. There are also important distinctions between discourses about whether poverty is characterised as a driver of degradation, or more emphasis is placed on overconsumption and affluence in perpetuating conservation threats. This dimension particularly illuminates shifts in thinking in the 30 or so years since the Brundtland report, and reflecting new global realities. 6. This analysis serves to update, parse and clarify differing perspectives on poverty within the conservation, and broader environmental movement, in order to illuminate consensual aspects between perspectives, and reveal where critical differences remain.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{16dfc488cf184834a939c96a68d1f83b,

title = {Sowing the seeds of sustainable rural livelihoods? An assessment of Participatory Forest Management through REDD+ in Tanzania},

author = {Esteve Corbera and Adrian Martin and Oliver Springate-Baginski and Adrián Villaseñor},

doi = {10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.037},

issn = {0264-8377},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-09-01},

journal = {Land Use Policy},

volume = {97},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Participatory forest management (PFM) initiatives have emerged worldwide for a range of aims including to improve forest governance, enhance resource conservation and to increase rural people’s access to and benefits from forest resources. Some of these initiatives have also received climate finance support to enhance their impact on mitigation. However, their effects on forest governance and livelihoods are complex and remain poorly studied. In this article, we address this gap by analysing governance and livelihood changes in a PFM initiative in Tanzania that has received funding as a REDD+ pilot site. Based on qualitative governance analysis and quantitative livelihood panel data (2011–2014) that compares villages and households within and outside the project, we find that improvements to forest governance are substantial in project villages compared to control villages, while changes in income have been important but statistically insignificant, and driven by a regional sesame cash crop boom unrelated to enhanced forestry revenues. Focusing on whether PFM had enhanced other wealth indicators including household conditions and durable assets, our analysis shows again no significant differences between participant and control villages, although the participant villages do have, on average, a greater level of durable assets. Overall, our findings are positive regarding forest governance improvements but inconclusive regarding livelihood effects, which at least in the short term seem to benefit more from agricultural intensification than forestry activities, whose benefits might become more apparent over a longer time period. In conclusion we emphasize the need for moving towards longer term monitoring efforts, improving understandings of local dynamics of change, particularly at a regional rather than community level, and defining the most appropriate outcome variables and cost-effective systems of data collection or optimization of existing datasets if we are to better capture the complex impacts of PFM initiatives worldwide.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{ab2b89a41ab4495b80bbb999bd26625c,

title = {Privatization or communalization: a multi-level analysis of changes in forest property regimes in China},

author = {Jun He and Bereket Kebede and Adrian Martin and Nicole Gross-Camp},

doi = {10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106629},

issn = {0921-8009},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-08-01},

journal = {Ecological Economics},

volume = {174},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Over recent decades, the Chinese government has invested heavily in improving the country’s forest tenure system through the Collective Forest Tenure Reform. This reform has primarily focused on privatization of collectively-owned forests, which has been perceived to improve effective forest management by providing incentives to farmers. This paper documents results of the Collective Forest Tenure Reform and the factors that have shaped these results through a multi-level analysis: at the national, regional, community and individual levels. It was found forest privatization implemented through the tenure reform was much less than what government expected. Instead, as shown in illustrative case-studies, people intend to retain the forest as common property in a way that creates a complex communal forest management system. The paper argued that while it is good the government is willing to improve forest tenure security for local people, there is a need to better consider the local perceptions of the tenure reform policy’s effectiveness and efficiency, and justice in forest management, and to understand the complexity of the pre-existing communal forest management system that exists throughout the country.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{6277edf317b84251a3a0269d5ea53b15,

title = {Why telecoupling research needs to account for environmental justice},

author = {Sebastien Boillat and Adrian Martin and Timothy Adams and Desiree Daniel and Jorge Llopis and Elena Zepharovich and Christoph Oberlack and Gabi Sonderegger and Patrick Bottazzi and Esteve Corbera and Chinwe Spiranza and Unai Pascual},

doi = {10.1080/1747423X.2020.1737257},

issn = {1747-423X},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-04-01},

journal = {Journal of Land Use Science},

volume = {15},

number = {1},

pages = {1–10},

publisher = {Taylor and Francis},

abstract = {Engaging with normative questions in land system science is a key challenge. This debate paper highlights the potential of incorporating elements of environmental justice scholarship into the evolving telecoupling framework that focuses on distant interactions in land systems. We first expose the reasons why environmental justice matters in understanding telecoupled systems, and the relevant approaches suited to mainstream environmental justice into telecoupled contexts. We then explore which specific elements of environmental justice need to be incorporated into telecoupling research. We focus on 1) the distribution of social-ecological burdens and benefits across distances, 2) power and justice issues in governing distantly tied systems, and 3) recognition issues in information flows, framings and discourses across distances. We conclude our paper highlighting key mechanisms to address injustices in telecoupled land systems.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{a5a77d535b94460b95b10670c6b2520e,

title = {Fair ways to share benefits from community forests? How commodification is associated with reduced preference for equality and poverty alleviation},

author = {Adrian Martin and Bereket Kebede and Nicole Gross-Camp and Jun He and Mirna Inturias and Iokine Rodriguez Fernandez},

doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/ab114f},

issn = {1748-9326},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-05-22},

journal = {Environmental Research Letters},

volume = {14},

number = {6},

publisher = {IOP Publishing Ltd},

abstract = {This research is concerned with the trend towards commodification of forestry, in the context of community forest governance for sustainable development in the tropics. In these contexts, commodification takes different forms, including sales of certified timbers and sales of carbon credits. In addition to the general aim to enhance income, these market-based forestry interventions typically aim to align with sustainable development agendas, including a) safeguarding ecological integrity and b) promoting poverty alleviation. Our concern here is that the process of forest commodification might lead to a shift in local norms of benefit-sharing, in ways that can hinder these key components of sustainable development goals. We report the results of a survey (N=519) conducted across sites in Bolivia, China and Tanzania that shows that switching from non-monetary to monetary benefits is associated with changes in preferences for distributional fairness in ways that may be detrimental to the poor. In particular, we show that forest commodification is associated with a lower likelihood of of selecting pro-poor or egalitarian approaches to benefit sharing and higher likelihood of selecting to distribute benefits in a way that rewards individual contributions or compensates losses.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{5f2790fea9fc4fe2a8e06501cc92b38e,

title = {Can agricultural intensification help attain Sustainable Development Goals? Evidence from Africa and Asia},

author = {Neil Dawson and Adrian Martin and Laura Camfield},

doi = {10.1080/01436597.2019.1568190},

issn = {0143-6597},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-05-04},

journal = {Third World Quarterly},

volume = {40},

number = {5},

pages = {926–946},

publisher = {Routledge},

abstract = {Market-oriented agricultural intensification is a major development strategy, yet its alignment with sustainable development goals (SDGs) is unclear. We apply indicators for SDG 2 (eradicate hunger) regarding income, food production, food security and land tenure to recent intensifications in Rwanda and Laos to reveal their disaggregated impacts. We find while market-oriented intensification may generate poverty reduction, it also exacerbated marginalisation and poverty through various forms of land tenure insecurity. Ethnicity and gender were influential factors in Rwanda, and post-conflict resettlement policies in Laos. We discuss implications for development practice and selection of suitable indicators to reflect the ambition of the SDGs.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{c9ec9f18f72b4b88b2a2b92111ba2759,

title = {The type of land we want: Exploring the limits of community forestry in Tanzania and Bolivia},

author = {Nicole Gross-Camp and Iokine Rodriguez Fernandez and Adrian Martin and Mirna Inturias and Glory Massao},

doi = {10.3390/su11061643},

issn = {2071-1050},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-03-19},

journal = {Sustainability},

volume = {11},

number = {6},

publisher = {MDPI AG},

abstract = {We explore local people’s perspectives of community forest (CF) on their land in Tanzania and Bolivia. Community forest management is known to improve ecological conditions of forests, but is more variable in its social outcomes. Understanding communities’ experience of community forestry and the potential benefits and burdens its formation may place on a community will likely help in predicting its sustainability as a forest and land management model. Six villages, two in Tanzania and four in Bolivia, were selected based on the presence of community forestry in varying stages. We found that communities were generally supportive of existing community forests but cautious of their expansion. Deeper explorations of this response using ethnographic research methods reveal that an increase in community forest area is associated with increasing opportunity costs and constraints on agricultural land use, but not an increase in benefits. Furthermore, community forests give rise to a series of intra- and inter-community conflicts, often pertaining to the financial benefits stemming from the forests (distribution issues), perceived unfairness and weakness in decision–making processes (procedure/participation), and also tensions over cultural identity issues (recognition). Our findings suggest that communities’ willingness to accept community forests requires a broader consideration of the multifunctional landscape in which it is embedded, as well as an engagement with the justice tensions such an intervention inevitably creates.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{5a3d90a8be7848f8a883d26220ebb22f,

title = {Why should ecosystem services be governed to support poverty alleviation? Philosophical perspectives on positions in the empirical literature},

author = {Ina Lehmann and Adrian Martin and Janet A. Fisher},

doi = {10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.003},

issn = {0921-8009},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-07-01},

journal = {Ecological Economics},

volume = {149},

pages = {265–273},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {In light of trade-offs related to the allocation of ecosystem services we investigate the prevalent norms that are drawn upon to justify why ecosystem governance should prioritise poverty alleviation. We are specifically concerned with poverty alleviation because we consider this an urgent problem of justice. We review empirical literature on social trade-offs in ecosystem services governance in order to identify the prevalent conceptions of justice that inform scholarly assessments of current practice. We find that empirical studies do present specific notions of justice as desirable benchmarks for ecosystem services governance but that they rarely attempt to spell out the precise meaning of these notions or what makes them desirable. For those notions of justice that we identify in this literature - sufficientarianism, egalitarianism and participatory approaches - we draw on philosophical justice literature in order to better articulate the normative arguments that could support them and to be more precise about the kind of actions and expectations that they invoke. Moreover, we point to some striking normative silences in the ecosystem services literature. We conclude that the ecosystem services justice discourse would benefit from more conceptual clarity and a broader examination of different aspects of justice.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{ca05c759cb8e4d2da4f5b73f48da122c,

title = {Social-ecological outcomes of agricultural intensification},

author = {Laura Vang Rasmussen and Brendan Coolsaet and Adrian Martin and Ole Mertz and Unai Pascual and Esteve Corbera and Neil Dawson and Janet A Fisher and Phil Franks and Casey M. Ryan},

doi = {10.1038/s41893-018-0070-8},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-06-14},

journal = {Nature Sustainability},

volume = {1},

pages = {275–282},

publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},

abstract = {Land-use intensification in agrarian landscapes is seen as a key strategy to simultaneously feed humanity and use ecosystems sustainably, but the conditions that support positive social-ecological outcomes remain poorly documented. We address this knowledge gap by synthesizing research that analyses how agricultural intensification affects both ecosystem services and human well-being in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, we find that agricultural intensification is rarely found to lead to simultaneous positive ecosystem service and well-being outcomes. This is particularly the case when ecosystem services other than food provisioning are taken into consideration.},

note = {Publisher correction available at dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0104-2},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{07bee6e1df3b4a1d9662b997b1c735de,

title = {Assessing equity in protected area governance: Approaches to promote just and effective conservation},

author = {Neil Dawson and Adrian Martin and Finn Danielsen},

doi = {10.1111/conl.12388},

issn = {1755-263X},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-04-01},

journal = {Conservation Letters},

volume = {11},

number = {2},

publisher = {Wiley},

abstract = {With the inclusion of equity concerns in Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, equitable management has become an important objective for the world's protected areas. The way equity is defined and operationalised influences whether this strategic shift can help identify pathways commensurate with conservation effectiveness. We examined equity around a protected area in Laos, combining quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the three dimensions of procedure, recognition and distribution. Local understandings of equity depended on discrete, evolving issues, with attention to informal decision making and dynamic values required to uncover suitable solutions. We show that equity definitions focused on material distribution and assessments reliant on standardised indicators may result in inadequate responses that sustain local perceptions of inequitable management and miss opportunities for effective conservation. Equity should be considered a management goal to continually adapt towards, informed by stakeholder dialogue.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{7cd146ec36bb4670bc9101463f768390,

title = {The park is ruining our livelihoods. We support the park! Unravelling the paradox of attitudes to protected areas},

author = {Adrian Martin and Rodd Myers and Neil M. Dawson},

doi = {10.1007/s10745-017-9941-2},

issn = {0300-7839},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-02-01},

journal = {Human Ecology},

volume = {46},

number = {1},

pages = {93–105},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {Despite considerable field-based innovation and academic scrutiny, the nexus between conservation approaches, local support for parks and park effectiveness remains quite puzzling. Common approaches to understanding notions of environmental justice are to understand distributional and procedural issues, representation in decision making, and recognition of authorities and claims. We took a different approach and analysed environmental justice claims through institutional, ideational and psychological lenses. We sought to understand how the national park could have such broad support from local communities despite their acknowledgement that it severely curtailed their livelihoods. We conducted 100 household interviews in three villages that border Nam Et-Phou Louey National Protected Area. Our study found that villagers 1) hold on to broken promises by the State for agricultural activities and alternative revenues without fully changing forest use behaviours; 2) were influenced heavily by the ‘educational’ programmes by the State; 3) accepted the authority of the State and lack of participation in decision-making based on historical experiences and values; 4) justified their burdens by over-emphasising the positive aspects of the park. Our findings present a complementary framework to explain environmental justice claims, allowing for a nuanced analysis of how people respond to justices and injustices, and specifically how injustices can be identified through proven social science concepts.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{11ac6e7fa4474f7bb0bde5fcc9f0580a,

title = {Trade-offs in linking adaptation and mitigation in the forests of the Congo Basin},

author = {Roger Few and Adrian Martin and Nicole Gross-Camp},

doi = {10.1007/s10113-016-1080-6},

issn = {1436-3798},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-03-01},

journal = {Regional Environmental Change},

volume = {17},

number = {3},

pages = {851–863},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {Recent discussions on forests and climate change have highlighted the potential for conservation of tropical forests to contribute synergistically to both mitigation (reducing emissions of greenhouse gases) and adaptation (increasing capacity to cope with changing climate conditions). Key mechanisms through which adaptive advantages might be gained include the potential for forest resources to support livelihoods in the context of climatic strains on agriculture and the protection that intact forest ecosystems might provide against landslides, flash floods and other hazards related to extreme weather. This paper presents findings from field research with forest communities in three areas of the Congo Basin in Central Africa, in which the adaptive role and potential of forests in these respects is critically analysed. The investigation was carried out through a combination of structured and semi-structured qualitative techniques within six villages in Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda. The findings of the research highlight the need to understand both the limits of synergy, and the constraints and trade-offs for rural livelihoods that may be associated with a forest conservation agenda driven by the additional impetus of carbon sequestration. The search for synergy may be conceptually laudable, but if forest management actions do not take account of on-the-ground contexts of constraints and social trade-offs then the result of those actions risks undermining wider livelihood resilience.},

note = {© The Author(s) 2016 Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{5d2fa68c9faf497da7b90a0e7c56efba,

title = {From food to pest: Conversion factors determine switches between ecosystem services and disservices},

author = {Laura Vang Rasmussen and Andreas E. Christensen and Finn Danielsen and Neil Dawson and Adrian Martin and Ole Mertz and Thomas Sikor and Sithong Thongmanivong and Pheang Xaydongvanh},

doi = {10.1007/s13280-016-0813-6},

issn = {0044-7447},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-03-01},

journal = {AMBIO},

volume = {46},

number = {2},

pages = {173–183},

publisher = {Allen Press Inc.},

abstract = {Ecosystem research focuses on goods and services, thereby ascribing beneficial values to the ecosystems. Depending on the context, however, outputs from ecosystems can be both positive and negative. We examined how provisioning services of wild animals and plants can switch between being services and disservices. We studied agricultural communities in Laos to illustrate when and why these switches take place. Government restrictions on land use combined with economic and cultural changes have created perceptions of rodents and plants as problem species in some communities. In other communities that are maintaining shifting cultivation practices, the very same taxa were perceived as beneficial. We propose conversion factors that in a given context can determine where an individual taxon is located along a spectrum from ecosystem service to disservice, when, and for whom. We argue that the omission of disservices in ecosystem service accounts may lead governments to direct investments at inappropriate targets.},

note = {This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{13cd55f03a5f407cac5433e022bf24c9,

title = {Environmental justice research shows the importance of social feedbacks in ecosystem service trade-offs},

author = {Neil M. Dawson and Kenneth Grogan and Adrian Martin and Ole Mertz and Maya Pasgaard and Laura Vang Rasmussen},

doi = {10.5751/ES-09481-220312},

issn = {1708-3087},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-01-01},

journal = {Ecology and Society},

volume = {22},

number = {3},

publisher = {The Resilience Alliance},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{439e74a8f5fb4075a5dc5175293f69c1,

title = {Unpacking equity for protected area conservation},

author = {Kate Schreckenberg and Phil Franks and Adrian Martin and Barbara Lang},

doi = {10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.PARKS-22-2KS.en},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-11-11},

journal = {PARKS},

volume = {22},

number = {2},

pages = {11–26},

abstract = {There have been numerous calls to ensure that protected areas are governed and managed in an equitable manner. While there has been progress on assessing management effectiveness, there has been less headway on defining the equitable part of the equation. Here we propose a framework for advancing equity in the context of protected area conservation that was developed through a process of expert workshops and consultation and then validated at three sites in East Africa. The framework comprises three key dimensions (recognition, procedure and distribution) and 16 principles embedded in a set of enabling conditions, which we illustrate with reference to case studies. We go on to present the case for shifting the framing of protected area conservation from a livelihoods framing to an equity framing, justifying this from both a moral (normative) and instrumental perspective. Finally, we show how equity relates to a number of other key concepts (management effectiveness, governance and social impact) and related assessment tools in protected area conservation, before outlining a step-wise process for using the framework to advance equity in protected area conservation.},

note = {The International Journal of Protected Areas and Conservation is published by IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). It is published twice a year as an online (www.iucn.org/parks), open-access and peer reviewed journal.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{5e56bdb45829480dba9383f43259f384,

title = {Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate recognition},

author = {Adrian Martin and Brendan Coolsaet and Esteve Corbera and Neil Dawson and James Fraser and Ina Lehmann and Iokine Rodriguez},

doi = {10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021},

issn = {0006-3207},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-05-01},

journal = {Biological Conservation},

volume = {197},

pages = {254–261},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {In light of the Aichi target to manage protected areas equitably by 2020, we ask how the conservation sector should define justice. We focus in particular on ‘recognition’, because it is the least well understood aspect of environmental justice, and yet highly relevant to conservation because of its concern with respect for local knowledge and cultures. In order to explore the meaning of recognition in the conservation context, we take four main steps. First, we identify four components of recognition to serve as our analytical framework: subjects of justice, the harms that constitute injustice, the mechanisms that produce injustices, and the responses to alleviate these. Secondly, we apply this framework to explore four traditions of thinking about recognition: Hegelian inter-subjectivity, critical theory, southern decolonial theory, and the capabilities approach. Thirdly, we provide three case studies of conservation conflicts highlighting how different theoretical perspectives are illustrated in the claims and practices of real world conservation struggles. Fourthly, we finish the paper by drawing out some key differences between traditions of thinking, but also important areas of convergence. The convergences provide a basis for concluding that conservation should look beyond a distributive model of justice to incorporate concerns for social recognition, including careful attention to ways to pursue equality of status for local conservation stakeholders. This will require reflection on working practices and looking at forms of intercultural engagement that, for example, respect alternative ways of relating to nature and biodiversity.},

note = {Available under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{48f85cb79500416395daa39f79bfd86b,

title = {Green revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications of imposed innovation for the wellbeing of rural smallholders},

author = {Neil Dawson and Adrian Martin and Thomas Sikor},

doi = {10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.008},

issn = {0305-750X},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-02-01},

journal = {World Development},

volume = {78},

pages = {204–218},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Green Revolution policies are again being pursued to drive agricultural growth and reduce poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. However conditions have changed since the well-documented successes of the 1960s and 1970s benefited smallholders in southern Asia and beyond. We argue that under contemporary constraints the mechanisms for achieving improvements in the lives of smallholder farmers through such policies are unclear and that both policy rationale and means of governing agricultural innovation are crucial for pro-poor impacts. To critically analyze Rwanda’s Green Revolution policies and impacts from a local perspective, a mixed methods, multidimensional wellbeing approach is applied in rural areas in mountainous western Rwanda. Here Malthusian policy framing has been used to justify imposed rather than ‘‘induced innovation”. The policies involve a substantial transformation for rural farmers from a traditional polyculture system supporting subsistence and local trade to the adoption of modern seed varieties, inputs, and credit in order to specialize in marketable crops and achieve increased production and income. Although policies have been deemed successful in raising yields and conventionally measured poverty rates have fallen over the same period, such trends were found to be quite incongruous with local experiences. Disaggregated results reveal that only a relatively wealthy minority were able to adhere to the enforced modernization and policies appear to be exacerbating landlessness and inequality for poorer rural inhabitants. Negative impacts were evident for the majority of households as subsistence practices were disrupted, poverty exacerbated, local systems of knowledge, trade, and labor were impaired, and land tenure security and autonomy were curtailed. In order to mitigate the effects we recommend that inventive pro-poor forms of tenure and cooperation (none of which preclude improvements to input availability, market linkages, and infrastructure) may provide positive outcomes for rural people, and importantly in Rwanda, for those who have become landless in recent years. We conclude that policies promoting a Green Revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa should not all be considered to be pro-poor or even to be of a similar type, but rather should be the subject of rigorous impact assessment. Such assessment should be based not only on consistent, objective indicators but pay attention to localized impacts on land tenure, agricultural practices, and the wellbeing of socially differentiated people.},

note = {
2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{9dfd8d5b5c844940a280a57af7beb2e8,

title = {Implications on equity in agricultural carbon market projects: a gendered analysis of access, decision making, and outcomes},

author = {Jean Lee and Adrian Martin and Patti Kristjanson and Eva Wollenberg},

doi = {10.1177/0308518X15595897},

issn = {0308-518X},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-10-01},

journal = {Environment and Planning A},

volume = {47},

number = {10},

pages = {2080–2096},

publisher = {Pion Ltd.},

abstract = {Carbon market projects have focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, often at the expense of achieving sustainable development goals. A central pillar in sustainable development is equity, yet most projects pay little attention to equity implications for underrepresented farmers, especially women. Agricultural carbon market projects that explicitly seek to promote sustainable agricultural land management practices are quickly gaining attention worldwide for their promise to deliver the ‘triple-win’: adaptation, food security, and mitigation. Previous experience with other payment for ecosystem services projects indicate that women often are marginalized and their needs ignored. To address this gap, this case study examined the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project with a focus on gender equity in access, decision making, and outcomes. Results show that women had less access to joining the project than men, because they did not have the same level of influence in decision making at a household level. At the project level, both men and women had little influence in establishing project requirements and potential benefits, as these were decided upon prior to farmer recruitment. Regarding outcomes, women tended to participate in more project activities, and would in return reap more nonmonetary benefits than men. However, the costs involved in achieving these benefits was nontrivial: women's farm labor time increased significantly due to the substantial time and effort required to implement sustainable agricultural land management practices. If agricultural soil carbon market projects are to achieve better outcomes by addressing equity issues, they need to pay special attention to gender and the differing needs of farmers—male, female, young, old, poor, and less poor—by involving them at the project design stage. Our findings show the importance of additional project benefits unrelated to carbon income for addressing the requirements of equity perceived by both the implementing agency and women themselves.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{f581ed08b5664c2ea187d0520fb18a45,

title = {When Participatory Forest Management makes money: insights from Tanzania on governance, benefit sharing, and implications for REDD+},

author = {Kaysara Khatun and Nicole Gross-Camp and Esteve Corbera and Adrian Martin and Steve Ball and Glory Massao},

doi = {10.1177/0308518X15595899},

issn = {0308-518X},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-10-01},

journal = {Environment and Planning A},

volume = {47},

pages = {2097–2112},

publisher = {Pion Ltd.},

abstract = {Participatory Forest Management (PFM) and the more recent framework for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) are two resource management strategies that were introduced in part for their cobenefits, including forest protection, employment opportunities, and added income for forest adjacent communities. In this paper we examine the early implementation of PFM in Tanzania's Kilwa District, led and promoted by the nongovernmental organisation Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI). This organisation has also recently received support to design a REDD+ project that could potentially realise additional financial benefits for local communities through the sale of carbon offsets in PFM-supported villages. We explore the ways in which MCDI has established a PFM scheme in four villages, how it has supported the emergence of more robust local governance structures, and what villagers perceive to have been the main outcomes and pitfalls of PFM to date. MCDI has managed to reduce many of the challenges that have characterised PFM schemes in other contexts, such as conflicts arising from forest governance restructuring, elite capture, and illegitimate benefit sharing, but has been less successful in addressing some aspects related to participation, such as involving village hamlets and women more effectively in decision making due to spatial configuration of landscapes and settlements and to existing cultural norms. These insights suggest that well-implemented PFM can provide a solid foundation for REDD+ implementation but that full realisation of REDD+'s equitable benefit-sharing principle, particularly at the intracommunity level, may take time and will be dependent upon prevailing local cultural norms.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{b41c7037c0d140dbb9ffc763bb133e16,

title = {Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human wellbeing: A disaggregated study in western Rwanda},

author = {Neil Dawson and Adrian Martin},

doi = {10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.018},

issn = {0921-8009},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-09-01},

journal = {Ecological Economics},

volume = {117},

pages = {62–72},

publisher = {Elsevier},

note = {This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{c1e3e54aa2ea4f0688e8181a6342110f,

title = {Perceptions of and adaptation to environmental change in forest-adjacent communities in three African nations},

author = {Nicole Gross-Camp and Roger Few and Adrian Martin},

doi = {10.1505/146554815815500615},

issn = {1465-5489},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-06-01},

journal = {International Forestry Review},

volume = {17},

number = {2},

pages = {153–164},

publisher = {Commonwealth Forestry Association},

abstract = {Semi-structured interviews were used to explore how rural communities near forests are responding to environmental change in three African nations – Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda. The study first recounts people's perception of environmental change – what are the issues of greatest concern identified by local communities? Second, it explores people's responses to identified environmental problems and in particular the role of forests in these processes. Finally, it concludes with a discussion of changing land management practices, and how their implementation may affect the future adaptation strategies of such communities. Results suggest that people's current and potential responses and adaptation to environmental change are influenced by the availability and access to forests and forest resources, and the degree to which their livelihood strategies have diversified away from forest dependence. Thus we conclude that forest policies such as REDD+ will need to be responsive to diverse forest-based adaptation needs, rather than assuming a 'one size fits all' relationship between forest conservation and adaptation to climate change.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{71043ccc684940c4b26737146e6632bd,

title = {Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: a closer look at effectiveness and equity},

author = {Laura Calvet-Mir and Esteve Corbera and Adrian Martin and Janet Fisher and Nicole Gross-Camp},

doi = {10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.001},

issn = {1877-3435},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-06-01},

journal = {Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability},

volume = {14},

pages = {150–162},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {We undertake a review of academic literature that examines the effectiveness and equity-related performance of PES initiatives targeting biodiversity conservation in tropical and sub-tropical countries. We investigate the key features of such analyses as regards their analytical and methodological approach and we identify emerging lessons from PES practice, leading to a new suggested research agenda. Our results indicate that analyses of PES effectiveness have to date focused on either ecosystem service provision or habitat proxies, with only half of them making explicit assessment of additionality and most describing that payments have been beneficial for land cover and biodiversity. Studies evaluating the impact of PES on livelihoods suggest more negative outcomes, with an uneven treatment of the procedural and distributive considerations of scheme design and payment distribution, and a large heterogeneity of evaluative frameworks. We propose an agenda for future PES research based on the emerging interest in assessing environmental outcomes more rigorously and documenting social impacts in a more comparative and contextually situated form.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}