Adrian Martin

@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 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},

issn = {2398-9629},

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{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{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{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{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{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{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}

}

@article{16c0beb204f14531b77b90ef2185ebc1,

title = {Carbon offsets: accommodation or resistance?},

author = {Esteve Corbera and Adrian Martin},

doi = {10.1177/0308518X15611666},

issn = {0308-518X},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

journal = {Environment and Planning A},

volume = {47},

pages = {2023 – 2030},

publisher = {Pion Ltd.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{e5eab52f040042f595018367c52d4f13,

title = {The privatization of the Nyungwe National Park buffer zone and implications for adjacent communities},

author = {Nicole Gross-Camp and Adrian Martin and Shawn McGuire and Bereket Kebede},

doi = {10.1080/08941920.2014.948246},

issn = {0894-1920},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

journal = {Society and Natural Resources},

volume = {28},

number = {3},

pages = {296–311},

publisher = {Taylor and Francis},

abstract = {We present a case study on the privatization of the Nyungwe National Park's buffer zone in which we critically examine the potential implications of a shift in management practice for local people. We present empirical data describing household collection of natural resources from the park, buffer zone, purchased from local markets, and private lands from areas adjacent to the park and buffer. Results show heavy reliance on wood from the buffer zone, with a larger proportion of relatively poorer households' income being derived from wood. Furthermore, semistructured interviews used to depict local perceptions of access to the buffer zone preceding the New Forest Company (a United Kingdom-based timber company) operations describe increasing difficulty in accessing resources due to greater enforcement. We conclude that the change in management poses substantial loss for local communities, in particular for the poorest households, in terms of resources from and access to the buffer.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{e51624cff614435089ae838a2e286bac,

title = {Towards an explicit justice framing of the social impacts of conservation},

author = {Adrian Martin and Anne Akol and Nicole Gross-Camp},

doi = {10.4103/0972-4923.164200},

issn = {0972-4923},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

journal = {Conservation and Society},

volume = {13},

number = {2},

pages = {166–178},

publisher = {Sage Publications},

abstract = {This paper proposes that biodiversity conservation practice will benefit from assessment of environmental justice outcomes, especially in contexts of poverty and social marginalisation. Whilst there is an existing body of work that implicitly considers the justices and injustices arising from biodiversity conservation interventions, we suggest that a more explicit justice assessment might complement this work. We develop some general guidelines for such assessment, drawing on traditions of social and environmental justice, highlighting the importance of considering two types of justice outcome: distribution and recognition. We note the non-equivalence of these different justice values, implying that they cannot be traded-off against each other. We try out these guidelines through a case study of the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in Uganda. We find that the assessment helps us to identify intolerable social impacts of conservation, notably failures to adequately address the long-term impoverishment and domination of the indigenous Batwa people, and offers constructive insight for how conservation can better align with the need for environmental justice.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{f4b39fee3c704c7c8ee658de8d2253ff,

title = {Towards an empirical analysis of justice in ecosystem governance},

author = {Thomas Sikor and Adrian Martin and Janet Fisher and Jun He},

doi = {10.1111/conl.12142},

issn = {1755-263X},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-11-01},

journal = {Conservation Letters},

volume = {7},

number = {6},

pages = {524–532},

publisher = {Wiley},

abstract = {The 2010 Nagoya Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity and recent changes in the policies of major international conservation organizations highlight current interest in revisiting the moral case for conservation. Concerns with equity and human rights challenge well-established notions of justice centered on human responsibility toward nature, the common good or the rights of future generations. This review introduces an empirical approach to the analysis of justice and shows how conservation scientists can apply it to ecosystem services-based governance (or in short, ecosystem governance). It identifies dominant notions of justice and points out their compatibility with utilitarian theories of justice. It then discusses the limited appropriateness of these notions in many contexts in which conservation takes place in the Global South and explores how technical components of ecosystem governance influence the realization of the notions in practice. The review highlights the need for conservation scientists and managers to analyze the justice of ecosystem governance in addition to their effectiveness and efficiency. Justice offers a more encompassing perspective than equity for the empirical analysis of conservation governance.},

note = {©2014 The Authors Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{fbc9b064faee44fc8570b04f622ed777,

title = {Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services},

author = {Unai Pascual and Phelps Jacob and Eneko Garmendia and Kate Brown and Esteve Corbera and Adrian Martin and Eric Gomez-Baggethun and Roldan Muradian},

doi = {10.1093/biosci/biu146},

issn = {0006-3568},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-11-01},

journal = {Bioscience},

volume = {64},

number = {11},

pages = {1027–1036},

publisher = {American Institute of Biological Sciences},

abstract = {Although conservation efforts have sometimes succeeded in meeting environmental goals at the expense of equity considerations, the changing context of conservation and a growing body of evidence increasingly suggest that equity considerations should be integrated into conservation planning and implementation. However, this approach is often perceived to be at odds with the prevailing focus on economic efficiency that characterizes many payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes. Drawing from examples across the literature, we show how the equity impacts of PES can create positive and negative feedbacks that influence ecological outcomes. We caution against equity-blind PES, which overlooks these relationships as a result of a primary and narrow focus on economic efficiency. We call for further analysis and better engagement between the social and ecological science communities to understand the relationships and trade-offs among efficiency, equity, and ecological outcomes.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{53b161a3caf646978d28ff50811d3d4f,

title = {Measuring effectiveness, efficiency and equity in a Payments for Ecosystem Services trial},

author = {Adrian Martin and Nicole Gross-Camp and Bereket Kebede and Shawn McGuire},

doi = {10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.003},

issn = {0959-3780},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-09-01},

journal = {Global Environmental Change},

volume = {28},

pages = {216–226},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {There is currently a considerable effort to evaluate the performance of payments for ecosystem services (PES) as an environmental management tool. The research presented here contributes to this work by using an experimental design to evaluate PES as a tool for supporting biodiversity conservation in the context of an African protected area. The trial employed a 'before and after' and 'with and without' design. We present the results of social and ecological surveys toinvestigate the impacts of the PES in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency and equity. We find the PES to be effective at bringing about additional conservation outcomes. However, we also found that increased monitoring is similarly effective in the short term, at lower cost. The major difference - and arguably the significant contribution of the PES - was that it changed the motives for protecting the park and improved local perceptions both of the park and its authority. We discuss the implications of these results for conservation efficiency, arguing that efficiency should not be defined in terms ofshort-term cost-effectiveness, but also in terms of the sustainability of behavioral motives. This insight helps us to resolve the apparent trade-off between goals of equity and efficiency in PES.},

note = {Copyright 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{aff56e70fb4a41bc8a02e39005d04faa,

title = {Whose environmental justice? Exploring local and global perspectives in a payments for ecosystem services scheme in Rwanda},

author = {Adrian Martin and Nicole Gross-camp and Bereket Kebede and Shawn Mcguire and Joseph Munyarukaza},

doi = {10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.02.006},

issn = {0016-7185},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-07-01},

journal = {Geoforum},

volume = {54},

pages = {167–177},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Distribution and procedure, two core social justice concepts, are central concerns for the design and practice of payments for ecosystem services (PESs). This paper explores the relationship between local conceptions of justice and the more globally referenced justice principles embedded in the design of PES schemes. The importance of this is that perceptions of justness are powerful determinants of human behaviour and, consequently, many environmental conflicts arise from contested visions of what constitutes ‘just’ environmental management. With that in mind we propose that PES schemes built on conceptions of justice that broadly align with those of prospective service providers will be better received than those that do not. In order to explore differences in justice conceptions, we specify three commonly defined dimensions of environmental justice: distribution, procedure and recognition. We predict that there will be differences in the importance different actors place on these different dimensions of justice and also differences in how each particular dimension is conceived. We interview 80 randomly selected respondents from a PES case in Rwanda and relate their views about justice to the design of the PES. Our findings challenge the implicit universalism in many market-based conservation interventions: that imposed framings of justice will resonate with local ones. They also challenge the assumption that different dimensions of justice are always mutually supporting – the fallacy of the rising tide that lifts all boats. We also conclude that an environmental justice framing provides a fruitful new analytical approach for research into global forest conservation efforts.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{bb6bf2b49fcd421f8007fd6b41365abb,

title = {Global environmental in/justice, in practice: introduction},

author = {Adrian Martin},

doi = {10.1111/geoj.2013.179.issue-2},

issn = {0016-7398},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-06-01},

journal = {The Geographical Journal},

volume = {179},

number = {2},

pages = {98–104},

publisher = {Wiley},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{71ff76970d9949d798bc713970fdac33,

title = {Global environmental justice and biodiversity conservation},

author = {Adrian Martin and S. Mcguire and S. Sullivan},

doi = {10.1111/geoj.12018},

issn = {0016-7398},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-06-01},

journal = {The Geographical Journal},

volume = {179},

number = {2},

pages = {122–131},

publisher = {Wiley},

abstract = {This paper explores the potential for an environmental justice framing to shed new light on conservation controversies. We argue that, in order to make such progress, environmental justice analysis will need to provide a 'difference-friendly' conception of justice and that this will necessarily involve moving beyond dominant liberal conceptions of distributional fairness. We are largely welcoming of global deployments of distributive justice principles. However, we also explore the dangers of focusing on distribution alone, questioning the assumption of positive relationships between benefit sharing and more culturally defined dimensions of justice such as recognition. The limits of access and benefit sharing for delivering justice writ large is that it can disenfranchise people who are less well equipped or less willing to navigate its prevailing system of knowledge. We argue that, especially in the context of resource poverty, efforts to improve distribution can require potential beneficiaries to assimilate to dominant discourses of society and nature. Such conditionality can contract the opportunities for local and autonomous constructions of 'different' ways of knowing nature, and in doing so may also contract possibilities for flourishing biodiversities.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{ed74815320f54c1fb69fac0e90fba6b0,

title = {Is sustainable development sustainable?},

author = {Andrew Blowers and Jan Boersema and Adrian Martin},

doi = {10.1080/1943815X.2012.666045},

issn = {1943-815X},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-01},

journal = {Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences},

volume = {9},

number = {1},

pages = {1–8},

publisher = {Taylor and Francis},

abstract = {This journal proclaims its concern with “the relationships between science, society and policy and a key aim is to advance understanding of the theory and practice of sustainable development”. We have certainly endeavoured to publish research articles, from scholars in the natural and social sciences, which put forward what our title calls an “integrative” approach. This integration is intended to be at once interdisciplinary, crossing not only disciplinary divides but also bringing together science and policy and policy and practice. And this integration is to be achieved through a focus on sustainable development as the integrating concept. But, it may be asked, has this concept any validity or utility as the leitmotif of a journal? Is it merely a routine recognition of a normative concept that is now pretty much axiomatic for environmental scientists and policy makers alike? Or, does the concept still retain sufficiently positive, purposive and practical connotations to fulfil its presumed role as an overarching goal of scientific understanding and political policy-making? The answer is, we suspect, a bit of both of these. It all depends on perspective, on value and viewpoint; in short, on what we think we mean by sustainable development.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{a5f8aaf7a71942c0a848e4889525ddf5,

title = {Just deliberation: Can communicative rationality support socially just environmental conservation in rural Africa?},

author = {Adrian Martin and E. Rutagarama},

doi = {10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.02.001},

issn = {0743-0167},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-01},

journal = {Journal of Rural Studies},

volume = {28},

number = {3},

pages = {189–198},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {This article evaluates the use of deliberative methods for filling the democratic deficit arising from the shift to management through partnerships in conservation in developing countries. We ask whether deliberative approaches are feasible in a rural African context and the extent to which they can form a basis for socially just environmental decision making. In answering these questions we focus on two main concerns: the possibility of achieving satisfactory representation and the possibility of constructing counter-factual spaces of deliberation in which identity-based bias is suspended in favour of reasoned argument. Our survey data suggests that participants are themselves satisfied that representation is fair, and that the consensus attained at the end of deliberative events is not the result of domination of more powerful interests. Nevertheless, our more qualitative observations of individuals involved in deliberative events provide stronger cause for caution. It is not possible to leave power and prejudice out of deliberative processes, though well managed spaces of deliberation can temporarily mitigate these and in doing so provide some empowerment to normally marginalised participants.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1634834581394bfbbf03b644ab44ac2d,

title = {Payments for ecosystem services in an African protected area: exploring issues of legitimacy, fairness, equity and effectiveness},

author = {Nicole Gross-Camp and Adrian Martin and Shawn McGuire and Bereket Kebede and Joseph Munyarukaza},

doi = {10.1017/s0030605311001372},

issn = {0030-6053},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-01},

journal = {Oryx},

volume = {46},

number = {01},

pages = {24–33},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

abstract = {We explore the potential for payments for ecosystem services (PES) to reconcile conservation and development goals, using a case study of an experimental PES intervention around the Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda. The scheme involves the purchase of biodiversity conservation services from local communities in four selected locations. Although a portion of the payment is awarded at the household level, it is the collective action of the community that determines the level of the payment. Contracts are negotiated annually and include performance indicators within each participating community. We examine the ability of PES to achieve conservation and development objectives, through three sub-questions: Is the PES scheme effective? Is it legitimate and fair? Is it equitable? Our findings indicate that the relationship between these evaluation criteria is complex, with both trade-offs and synergies. In this case study the effectiveness of PES is dependent on the equitable distribution of the payment, participants’ belief and acceptance of the service being paid for, institutional histories that aid in the establishment of legitimacy and fairness, and the complementary nature of PES to more conventional enforcement methods.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}