• shareshare
  • link
  • cite
  • add
auto_awesome_motion View all 5 versions
Publication . Part of book or chapter of book . 2018

Land use intensification:The promise of sustainability and the reality of trade-offs

Martin, Adrian; Coolsaet, Brendan; Corbera, Esteve; Dawson, Neil; Fisher, Janet; Franks, Phil; Mertz, Ole; +3 Authors
Open Access
Published: 01 May 2018
Publisher: Routledge
Land use intensification is widely considered to be an essential strategy for achieving global goals to eliminate poverty and to avoid damaging losses of ecosystem services. This chapter investigates whether current land use intensification activities are achieving these twin goals. To do so, it reviews a body of academic literature that reports on case studies in which both social and ecological outcomes of intensification are reported. There are two main findings. First, there are relatively few cases in which land use intensification is clearly succeeding in these twinned objectives. There are many more cases in which, for example, short-term income or productivity gains from land use intensification are resulting in long-term diminution of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Studies with longer-term perspectives are already seeing how such trade-offs are leading to negative feedbacks for human wellbeing, especially for marginalised social groups. Secondly, we learn most from those studies that a) go beyond measuring production and income to measure multiple dimensions of wellbeing and ecosystem services, b) monitor dynamics of outcomes across longer time periods and across landscapes and c) disaggregate outcome measures to identify outcomes for different social groups.
Subjects by Vocabulary

ACM Computing Classification System: ComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUS


[SHS.SCIPO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Political science

Related Organizations
52 references, page 1 of 6

Alkire S and Seth S. (2016) Identifying destitution through linked subsets of multidimensionally poor: an ordinal approach. OPHI Working Paper 99. University of Oxford. [OpenAIRE]

Aragona FB and Orr B. (2011) Agricultural intensification, monocultures, and economic failure: the case of onion production in the Tipajara watershed on the eastern slope of the Bolivian Andes. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35: 467-492.

Börner J, Mendoza A and Vosti SA. (2007) Ecosystem services, agriculture, and rural poverty in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon: interrelationships and policy prescriptions. Ecological Economics 64: 356-373.

*Broegaard RB, Rasmussen LV, Dawson N, et al. (2017) Wild food collection and nutrition under commercial agriculture expansion in agriculture-forest landscapes. Forest Policy and Economics 84: 92-101. [OpenAIRE]

Cohn AS, Mosnier A, Havlík P, et al. (2014) Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 7236-7241. [OpenAIRE]

Dahal BM, Nyborg I, Sitaula BK, et al. (2009) Agricultural intensification: food insecurity to income security in a mid-hill watershed of Nepal. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7: 249-260.

*Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, et al. (2011) Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation 38: 370-379.

*Dawson N. (2015) Bringing context to poverty in rural Rwanda: added value and challenges of mixed methods approaches. In: Roelen K and Camfield L (eds) Mixed Methods Research in Poverty and Vulnerability: Sharing Ideas and Learning Lessons. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 61-86.

*Dawson N, Grogan K, Martin A, et al. (2017a) Environmental justice research shows the importance of social feedbacks in ecosystem service trade-offs. Ecology and Society 22: 12.

*Dawson N, Martin A and Danielsen F. (2017b) Assessing equity in protected area governance: approaches to promote just and effective conservation. Conservation Letters.

Related to Research communities