In this latest publication, Matt Fortnam and coauthors from the SPACES team compiled evidence from across the SPACES datasets to illustrate how people’s engagement with ecosystem services are fundamentally gendered…
See this Stockholm Resilience Centre news item for a summary of the paper:
and in the blog below Kate Brown discusses the paper in the context of the emerging literature on the structures that determine who can benefit from ecosystem services, and how:
The methodology used to explore whether people meet their basic human needs is presented and discussed in this new paper. The paper proposes this as a way to monitor the impact of conservation actions on people to prevent serious harm.
Chaigneau, T., Coulthard, S., Brown, K., Daw, T.M. and Schulte‐Herbrüggen, B., 2018. Incorporating basic needs to reconcile poverty and ecosystem services. Conservation Biology https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.13209
See this news item on the Stockholm Resilience Centre website:
And Kate Brown’s reflections on the paper on her blog:
Ecosystem services: The past, the pitfalls and the potential for supporting wellbeing of people in the Western Indian Ocean
Tim Daw’s keynote presentation at the 10th WIOMSA symposium.
What has the science of ecosystems services got to offer the people and policymakers of the WIO region? And what are the opportunities to use this now widespread concept to sustainably support human wellbeing through these turbulent times. I outline key insights, challenges and opportunities from ecosystem services and wellbeing research.
First, Daw reviews where the term ‘ecosystem services’ comes from. He outlines the different usages and some pitfalls and critiques. Then draws on examples from WIO and around the world to illustrate three key insights from research using the concepts of ecosystem services and human wellbeing: 1. The importance of trade-offs 2. The ‘co-production’ of ecosystem services by people and nature, and 3. The complexity of the relationship between humans’ wellbeing and their environment. This leads to two key challenges and research frontiers: How can we interpret and understand change? And how can we navigate hard choices and tradeoffs?
Finally, Daw focuses on two opportunities for this research to contribute in WIO. The first opportunity is to use greater understanding of how ecosystems are linked to wellbeing to generate interventions for sustainably improving people’s lives. The second is for scientists to leap out of our comfort zone into transdisciplinary research with coastal people, policy makers and other disciplines. The insights from research shows that management of ecosystem services is messy, political and uncertain. As, scientists we cannot be expected to provide simple solutions, but we have a responsibility to engage, inform and provoke decision makers at all
levels as they navigate through uncertain futures.
This working paper investigates place attachment in Kenya and Mozambique. Place attachment can be defined as “the emotional bonds between people and a particular place or environment” (Seamon, 2014, p.11). The SPACES project survey included questions on place attachment in 7 different coastal communities in Kenya and Mozambique. The 2280 surveys that had valid records were used to produce a single quantitative measure of place attachment. We analyzed both countries together and each country as a separate sample (Kenya, n=1638; Mozambique, n=642) because the questions were asked differently for each country. Two methods for generating a place attachment score were applied, one In general, the place attachment value was lower in Mozambique than in Kenya although this could be due to methodological differences in each country. We also explored the distribution of responses across the place attachment index. The majority of the respondents are strongly place attached–i.e. strongly agree with many or all of the statements. Thirty percent of respondents considering the whole data set gave the maximum score to all the scale items. We have tried to operationalize the concept of place attachment as an affective bond, acknowledging that this measurement reflects only one aspect of relationships to place (William, 2014). Two different methods for constructing a numerical score of place attachment were tried and the results were highly correlated. Although the data were highly skewed towards maximum place attachment scores, some evidence exists for differences between the sites. In particular, the most urban Kenyan site (Kongowea) had the least positive median scores.
SPACES findings on the different dimensions of poverty have been highlighted in a recent article on Rethink.Earth. Fishers in Kenya occupy one of the more lucrative jobs along the coast, but many of them still miss meals and live in basic house made with mud walls and mangrove poles. To find out why, read the full story!