Evaluating poverty–environment dynamics

Abstract

Developing indicators to more effectively evaluate poverty–environment dynamics and inform policy is an urgent research priority. It is critical that these indicators are used in ways that accurately represent the relationship they are meant to inform. This article evaluates the theory and use of poverty–environment indicators, a relatively new tool developed to aid in the design and evaluation of poverty reduction strategies in the context of environmental change. We argue that while they have great potential, in their current form and use, poverty–environment indicators may contribute to critical misunderstandings of processes on the ground. These issues stem from a problematic and largely unacknowledged process of simplifying particular poverty–environment relationships. This article lays out the problematic character of this simplification process, and suggests how we might address these problems to create more useful understandings of poverty–environment dynamics to inform policy.

Keywords:

• development policy
• poverty-environment assessment
• poverty–environment indicators
• sustainable development
• poverty reduction strategies

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dan Jones, Natalie Jensen, Matt Wingard, Sara Yorty, Mary Thompson, Justin Roberson, Sarah Schwartz, and several anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

1. While we are aware of the vast literature on indicators, including sustainable development indicators (Moldan et al. 1997; UN 2001; Henninger and Hammond 2002; Segnestam 2002; Parris and Kates 2003) this paper focus on PEIndicators. We therefore leave the discussion of these literatures aside.

2. Niemeijer and de Groot (2008) argue that this unilinear simplification is part of a larger trend in indicators that stems from their connection to ‘causal chain frameworks’, such as the Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) framework.

3. Significant recent work on poverty mapping (e.g., Davis and Siano 2001; Henninger and Hammond 2002; Chen and Sydor 2006) has already addressed many of the issues that we raise here with regard to the analytic subdivision of countries, and could be easily applied to the development of a national poverty–environment assessment.