4.7 Article

Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
Volume 33, Issue -, Pages 416-427

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006

Keywords

Equity; PES; REDD; Ecosystem services; Justice

Funding

  1. project, 'Safeguarding local equity as global values of ecosystem services rise' [NE/I00341X/1]
  2. Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation Programme (ESPA)
  3. Department for International Development (DFID)
  4. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
  5. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/I00341X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. NERC [NE/I00341X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Concern over social equity dominates current debates about payments for ecosystem services and reduced deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Yet, despite the apprehension that these initiatives may undermine equity, the term is generally left undefined. This paper presents a systematic framework for the analysis of equity that can be used to examine how local equity is affected as the global value of ecosystem services changes. Our framework identifies three dimensions that form the content (the what) of equity. The first, distributive equity, addresses the distribution of benefits and costs. The second, procedural equity, refers to decision-making. These are linked by the third dimension, contextual equity, which incorporates the pre-existing conditions that limit or facilitate people's access to decision-making procedures, resources and, thereby, benefits. The framework then asks how these dimensions are shaped by the scale and target group of concern (who), the framing of goals with respect to equity (why), and, crucially, how the decisions about the content, target and aims of equity are taken. By spurring debate around the fundamental ethical values at stake, this framework can guide analysts, policymakers and planners towards more open and inclusive processes for defining equity, along with affirmative efforts to engage marginalised people. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available