Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Which components or attributes of biodiversity influence which dimensions of poverty?

Roe, Dilys, Fancourt, Max, Sandbrook, Chris, Sibanda, Mxolisi, Giuliani, Alessandra, Gordon-Maclean, Andrew·2014·Environmental Evidence
DOI 10.1186/2047-2382-3-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: There is an explicit assumption in international policy statements that biodiversity can help in efforts to tackle global poverty. This systematic map was stimulated by an interest in better understanding the evidence behind this assumption by disaggregating the terms and asking - as our review question - which components or attributes of biodiversity influence which dimensions of poverty? Methods: We employed a search strategy that covered peer-reviewed and grey literature. Relevant studies included in the map were those that described an interaction by poor people with biodiversity in non-OECD countries and documented some kind of contribution (positive or negative) to different aspects of their well-being. Results: A total of 387 studies were included in the final systematic map. Of these 248 met our additional criteria that studies should include a measure of the contribution to poverty alleviation. The studies were widely distributed geographically. Ecological distribution was less well spread, however, with the largest number of studies focussed on forests. We found studies addressing 12 different dimensions of poverty/well-being – although the most commonly studied was income. Similarly we found studies addressing all levels of biodiversity from genes to ecosystems. The largest number of studies was focussed on groups of resources – particularly non-timber forest products. In most cases, abundance was the attribute that made biodiversity important for poverty alleviation/well-being, while diversity was the least frequently noted attribute. Conclusions: The map highlights a number of apparent gaps in the evidence base. Very few studies documented any causal link between use of biodiversity and an impact on poverty. In the majority of the studies biodiversity was framed in terms of its value as a resource– in the form of specific goods that can be used to generate tangible benefits such as cash, food fuel. Very few studies explored the underpinning role of biodiversity in ecosystem service delivery for poverty alleviation, and fewer investigated the benefits of diversity as a form of insurance or adaptive capacity. This is where we suggest research should be prioritised.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/2047-2382-3-3

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Conceptual framework for reviewing biodiversity-poverty linkages.
Figure 1 Conceptual framework for reviewing biodiversity-poverty linkages.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 The number of articles retrieved in the initial search, and the numbers passing each subsequent stage of screening.
Figure 2 The number of articles retrieved in the initial search, and the numbers passing each subsequent stage of screening.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Trends in number of published studies per year (blue columns represent total dataset meeting primary inclusion criteria (n = 387); red columns represent subset with a measure of contribution of biodiversity to poverty (n = 248).
Figure 3 Trends in number of published studies per year (blue columns represent total dataset meeting primary inclusion criteria (n = 387); red columns represent subset with a measure of contribution of biodiversity to poverty (n = 248).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Geographical distribution of studies (NB some studies covered more than one location hence total number exceed n = 387 studies).
Figure 4 Geographical distribution of studies (NB some studies covered more than one location hence total number exceed n = 387 studies).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 Distribution of studies in different ecological habitats (blue columns represent total dataset meeting primary inclusion criteria (n = 387); red columns represent subset with a measure of contribution of biodiversity to poverty (n = 248).
Figure 5 Distribution of studies in different ecological habitats (blue columns represent total dataset meeting primary inclusion criteria (n = 387); red columns represent subset with a measure of contribution of biodiversity to poverty (n = 248).CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 6
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 7 Dimensions of poverty studied (blue columns represent total dataset meeting primary inclusion criteria; red columns represent subset with a measure of contribution of biodiversity to poverty).
Figure 7 Dimensions of poverty studied (blue columns represent total dataset meeting primary inclusion criteria; red columns represent subset with a measure of contribution of biodiversity to poverty).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 8 Mechanisms for linking biodiversity and poverty (blue columns represent total dataset meeting primary inclusion criteria; red columns represent subset with a measure of contribution of biodiversity to poverty).
Figure 8 Mechanisms for linking biodiversity and poverty (blue columns represent total dataset meeting primary inclusion criteria; red columns represent subset with a measure of contribution of biodiversity to poverty).CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 9
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. SCBD: Decision VI/26: Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 2002.
  2. SCBD: Decision X/2: Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 2010.
  3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing – Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington DC: World Resources Institute; 2005.
  4. Tekelenburg A, ten Brink BJE, Witmer MCH: How do Biodiversity and Poverty Relate? An Explorative Study. Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; 2009.
  5. Clapton J, Rutter D, Sharif N: SCIE Systematic mapping guidance. UK: Social Care Institute for Excellence; 2009.
  6. Lincoln Fishpool: Pers Comm. 2011.

Cited by

See all 38

Metadata

Authors
Roe, D., Fancourt, M., Sandbrook, C., Sibanda, M., Giuliani, A., & Gordon-Maclean, A.
Venue
Environmental Evidence
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-02-19
Volume
3
Issue
1
ISSN
2047-2382
DOI
10.1186/2047-2382-3-3
Cited by
38
References
33
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.