Secure property rights are widely understood as critical for socio-economic development and sustainable land management in forested areas. Policies and programs, ranging from devolution of specific resource rights to formal land titling, have therefore been implemented to strengthen forest tenure and property rights in countries around the world. Despite the prevalence and importance of these efforts, however, systematic understanding of their effects on poverty remains lacking. We address this gap by systematically reviewing evidence on the impact of forest property rights interventions on poverty worldwide. We drew from a systematic map of evidence on forest-poverty links (Cheng et al., 2019) and used a population-intervention-comparator-outcome (PICO) framework to identify relevant studies. Our final dataset included 61 articles published from 2002 to 2016 comprising 91 case studies across 24 countries. Of these, only 11 articles (22 cases) used quasi-experimental methods to control for confounders. We find that almost all studied interventions (n = 88; 97%) focused on rights to access a forest area or withdraw resources from it. Relatively few studied interventions supported the more extensive property rights of exclusion (32%) and alienation (10%). Overall, reported impacts on both income/consumption and capital/assets dimensions of poverty were generally positive or mixed. Results from more robust quasi-experimental assessments showed greater variation, with case studies as likely to report negative as positive impacts on both poverty dimensions. We find tentative support for the economic theory that more secure property rights yield positive welfare effects. However, the paucity of evidence from more robust impact assessments constrains our ability to draw generalizable conclusions about the poverty impacts of different kinds of forest property rights interventions.

Additional file 3. Data extraction form and codebook for coding data from studies.

We develop a framework to conceptualize the multiple ways forests contribute to poverty reduction and inform development interventions in forest landscapes. We identify five key strategies for reducing poverty in forest landscapes: a) improvements in productivity (P) of forest land and labor; b) governance reform to strengthen community, household and women's rights (R) over forests and land; c) investments (1) in institutions, infrastructure and public services that facilitate forest-based entrepreneurship; d) increased access to markets (M) for timber or non-timber forest products; and e) mechanisms that enhance and enable the flow of benefits from forest ecosystem services (E) to the poor. We test the utility of the framework through a review of the forestry portfolio of the World Bank Group, the largest public investor in forestry. Many of these projects include several, but not all, PRIME components. We devote particular attention to forest-related investments in two contrasting countries, Vietnam and Mexico, to examine synergies among the pathways. Results suggest that each strategy in the PRIME framework may play an important role in alleviating poverty, but pronounced impacts may require multiple pathways to be jointly pursued. The PRIME framework can guide research to address knowledge gaps on pathways to prosperity in forest landscapes, serve as an easily remembered checklist for managers, and nudge forest program designers in government and development organizations, who are interested in poverty reduction, to focus on the importance of both a comprehensive framework and synergies across different pathways. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Additional file 2. Codebook and data extraction questionnaire.

Additional file 5. Full coded data for systematic map.

This paper develops a broad framework to conceptualize the multiple ways forests contribute to poverty reduction and inform interventions in forest landscapes. The paper identifies five key strategies for reducing poverty in forest landscapes: (a) improvements in the productivity of forest land and labor; (b) strengthened community, household, and women's rights over forests and land; (c) regional complementary investments in institutions, infrastructure, and public services that facilitate poverty reduction for the forest poor; (d) increased access to markets for timber or non-timber forest products; and (e) mechanisms that enhance and enable the flow of benefits from forest ecosystem services to the poor. The practical utility of the framework is tested through a portfolio review of forestry lending by the World Bank Group, the largest public investor in the forestry sector. The paper concludes with a discussion of some key issues that need to be addressed for forest-related investments in poverty reduction to succeed.

A growing number of countries is setting up natural capital accounts (NCA) based on the system of environmental-economic accounting (SEEA); however, actually using them for better policy making turns out to be complex. This paper synthesises lessons on the institutional mainstreaming of the SEEA and its use in improving policy decisions affecting natural capital. It draws on discussions held at two Policy Forums organised by the World Bank Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services program and the United Nations Statistical Division. Practical examples of how the SEEA helps to improve policy making are explored. Emerging from the Forums were ten principles for making NCA fit for policy. These principles promote a comprehensive NCA organisation, a purposeful use of accounts, trustworthy methods and institutionalisation of NCA mechanisms in government. To put these principles into practice, six strategies are outlined: (1) assure credibility of the accounts; (2) align supply and demand for NCA; (3) assure high level support for NCA; (4) encourage cooperation between institutions so NCA and policy are mutually constructive; (5) provide evidence that natural capital is economically important and; (6) assure policy-relevant communication of NCA results.

Background Forests provide an essential resource to the livelihoods of an estimated 20% of the global population. The contribution of forest ecosystems and forest-based resources to poverty reduction is increasingly emphasized in international policy discourse and conservation and development investments. However, evidence measuring the effect of forest-based activities on poverty outcomes remains scattered and unclear. Lack of systematic understanding of forest-poverty relationships, in turn, inhibits research, policymaking, and efficient financial resource allocation. Methods To identify relevant studies for inclusion in this systematic map we searched six bibliographic databases, 15 organizational websites, eight systematic evidence syntheses (reviews and maps), and solicited information from key informants. Search results were screened for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria at title, abstract, and full text levels, according to a published protocol. Included articles were coded using a predefined framework. Trends in the evidence, knowledge gaps and relatively well-researched sub-topics are reported in a narrative synthesis. Occurrence and extent of existing evidence about links between interventions and outcomes are presented in a visual heatmap. Data are available through the open access Evidence for Nature and People Data Portal ( http://www.natureandpeopleevidence.org ). Results A total of 242 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects of 14 forest-based intervention types on 11 poverty dimensions. The majority of the evidence base (72%) examined links between productivity-enhancement strategies (e.g. forest management, agroforestry, and habitat management) and monetary income and/or social capital outcomes. Other areas with high occurrence of articles include linkages between interventions involving governance, individual rights/empowerment or linked enterprises/livelihood alternatives with impacts on monetary income from direct sale of goods. A key knowledge gap was on the impacts of investment-based interventions (i.e. enhancing produced, human, and social capitals). Another was the impacts of forest-based interventions on financial capital (savings, debt), non-monetary benefits, and health. Conclusions The evidence base on forest-based productive activities and poverty alleviation is growing but displays a number of biases in the distribution of articles on key linkages. Priorities for future systematic reviews and evaluations include in-depth examinations into the impacts of rights-based activities (e.g. governance, empowerment) on poverty dimensions; and productivity-enhancing activities on social capital. More comprehensive and robust evidence is needed to better understand the synergies and trade-offs among the different objectives of forest conservation and management and variation in outcomes for different social groups in different social-ecological contexts.

Water has a special role in the context of green growth, with important links to economic activity, ecosystem functioning and social well-being. There are three key pillars of planning that can be used to include water in green growth strategies – embracing risk, embracing uncertainty and embracing water allocation reform opportunities. One such method that has engaged these pillars is the natural capital accounting, used by the WAVES programme of the World Bank to look at the role of water use in Botswana and Guatemala. In each case water intensity and value added are separated into key economic sectors, informing policies that more effectively encourage development and sustainable water use. The realization of a green growth agenda necessitates looking at water as a core part of larger scale planning, enabling the effective pursuit of more robust pathways of economic growth and development.

In environmental impact assessment of policies and product design results need to be presented in a comprehensible way to make alternatives easily comparable. One way of doing this is to aggregate results to a manageable set by using weighting methods. Valuing the environmental impacts can be a challenging task that can also be quite time-consuming. To the aid of practitioners, several weighting sets with readily available weights have been developed over the last decade. The scope and coverage of these sets vary, and it is important to be aware of the implications of using different valuation methods and weighting sets.The aim of this paper is to map valuation and weighting techniques and indicate the methods that are suitable to use, depending on the purpose of the analysis. Furthermore, we give an overview over sets of generic values or weights and their properties, and give an illustration of how different sets may influence the results. It is very useful to use several weighting sets, and discuss the results thoroughly. It is often a very interesting and fruitful exercise to see if and how the results differ, why they differ, and which one seems to be the best alternative to base any recommendation on.The example provided in this article demonstrates that looking at aggregate results is not enough. Since many weighting sets are not sufficiently transparent as to how they are constructed and what their impact categories actually include, a general recommendation is to provide weighting sets with a declaration of content, providing a clear picture of what is included and what is not, and a recommendation of suitable uses of the weighting set. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

In environmental systems analysis tools like Life Cycle Assessment, strategic environmental assessment, cost–benefit analysis and environmental management systems, results need to be presented in a comprehensible way to make alternatives easily comparable. One way of doing this is to aggregate results to a manageable set by using weighting methods. In this paper, we explore how weighting methods are used in some selected Environmental Systems Analysis Tools (ESATs), and suggest possible developments of their use. We examine the differences in current use patterns, discuss the reasons for and implications of such differences, and investigate whether observed differences in use are necessary. The result of our survey shows that weighting and valuation is broadly used in the examined ESATs. The use of weighting/valuation methods is different in different tools, but these differences are not always related to the application; rather, they are related to traditions and views on valuation and weighting. Also, although the requirements on the weights/values may differ between tools, there are intersections where they coincide. Monetary weights, using either endpoint or midpoint methods, are found to be useful in all the selected tools. Furthermore, the inventory shows that that there is a common need for generic sets of weights. There is a need for further research focusing on the development of consistent value sets derived with a wide range of methods. In parallel to the development of weighting methods it is important with critical evaluations of the weighting sets with regard to scientific quality, consistency and data gaps.

In environmental systems analysis tools such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA), life-cycle assessment (LCA) and Environmental Management Systems (EMS), weighting is often used to aggregate results and compare different alternatives. There are several weighting sets available, but so far there is no set that consistently use monetary values based on actual or hypothetical market valuation of environmental degradation and depletion.In this paper, we develop a weighting set where the values are based on willingness-to-pay estimates for environmental quality, and market values for resource depletion. The weighting set is applied to three case studies and the outcome is compared with the outcomes from three other weighting sets. Ecotax02, Ecoindicator99 and EPS2000. We find that the different sets give different results in many cases. The reason for this is partly that they are based on different values and thus should give different results. However, the differences can also be explained by data gaps and different methodological choices. If weighting sets are used, it is also important to use several to reduce the risk of overlooking important impacts due to data gaps. It is also interesting to note that though Ecovalue08 and Ecotax02 give different absolute values, the results are very similar in relative terms. Thus the political and the individual willingness-to-pay estimates yield a similar ranking of the impacts. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Valuation of environmental impacts in monetary terms is a both difficult and controversial undertaking. However, the need to highlight the value of ecosystem services in policy decisions has become ...

A number of different tools for analysing environmental impacts of different systems have been developed. These include procedural tools such as strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and environmental management systems (EMS) as well as analytical ones such as life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC), cost–benefit analysis (CBA) and the system of economic and environmental accounts (SEEA) including input–output analysis (IOA). Descriptions or scenarios of the future are typically relevant elements in these tools, since they are often used to describe impacts in the future. For futures studies a number of different approaches and techniques have been developed. In an earlier paper we have presented a typology of different types of scenarios that respond to different types of questions. These include predictive scenarios, explorative scenarios and normative scenarios. The aim of this paper is to explore connections between selected tools for environmental systems analysis and different scenario types. Although there is a clear need for futures studies in several tools for environmental systems analysis, it is interesting to note that the literature on methodologies for and case studies of combinations of futures studies and environmental systems analysis tools is rather limited. This suggests that there is a need for further research in this area including both methodology and practical case studies.

How do results from the sustainability research world of backcasting relate to the macroeconomic scenarios used for policy evaluation and planning? The answer is that they don't, mostly - they come from different scientific traditions and are not used in the same contexts. Yet they often deal with the same issues. We believe that much can be gained by bringing the two systems of thinking together. This paper is a first attempt to do so, by making qualitative comparisons between different scenarios and highlighting benefits and limitations to each of them.Why are the pictures we get of the energy future so different if we use a macroeconomic model from when using a backcasting approach based on sustainable energy use? It is evident that the methods for producing those two kinds of scenarios differ a lot, but the main reason behind the different results are found in the starting points rather than in the methods. Baseline assumptions are quite different, as well as the interpretations and importance attached to signals about the future. in this paper, it is discussed how those two types of scenarios differ and how they approach issues such as energy prices and growth. The discussion is based on a comparison between Swedish economic and sustainability scenarios. The economic scenarios aim at being forecasts of the future and are used as decision support for long-term policies. But are the assumptions in the economic scenarios reasonable? The sustainability scenarios are explicitly normative backcasting scenarios. They do not take the issue of growth and consumption fully into account. Could they be developed in this respect? The comparison between the scenarios is also used to look closer at the issue of energy prices in a society with sustainable energy use. One of the questions raised is if a low energy society calls for high energy prices. Moreover, the effects of tradable permits versus energy taxes is analysed in the context of how energy use could be kept low in a growing economy. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Resource accounting involves complementing conventional national accounts with changes in environmental and natural resource capital valued in monetary terms. By adopting the Ramsey device of “Bliss”, we derive a theoretically consistent environmentally adjusted NDP (Net Domestic Product) measure. The measure indicates sustainable future consumption that an economy can support along the optimal path approaching “Bliss”, or “sustainability” determined by national environmental goals. The goals accepted by the Swedish parliament are used to show the applicability of the contingent valuation method to elicit non-market benefits of an economy approaching the sustainability targets. We investigate the compatibility of marginal willingness to pay measures derived on hypothetical markets with market prices used in national accounts. Finally, we raise certain issues of survey design, e.g. to take advantage of the CVM as a democratic device for value estimation over time. Keywords : Sustainability goals, Ramsey device, Contingent valuation, Environmental budget, Marginal willingness to pay, Survey design.

The theoretical and the practical studies in the field of environmental accounting are often two separate lines of work. In this study, we develop an optimal control theory model for adjusting NDP for the effects of SO2 and NOx emissions, and subsequently insert empirically estimated values. The model includes correction entries for the effects on welfare, real capital, health and the quality and quantity of renewable natural resources. In the empirical valuation study, production losses were estimated with dose‐response functions. Recreational and other welfare values were estimated by the contingent valuation (CV) method. Effects on capital depreciation are also included. For comparison, abatement costs and environmental protection expenditures for reducing sulfur and nitrogen emissions were estimated. The theoretical model was then utilized to calculate the adjustment to NDP in a consistent manner. The estimated damage value of sulfur is close to the Swedish sulfur tax.