Socio-economic or environmental benefits from pondscapes? Deriving stakeholder preferences using analytic hierarchy process and compositional data analysis.

Ponds occupy a large share of standing water worldwide and play an important role in providing various ecosystem services. There are concerted efforts of the European Union either to create new ponds, or to restore and preserve existing ponds as nature-based solutions to provide benefits to ecosystem and human well-being. As part of the EU PONDERFUL project, selected pondscapes (i.e. landscapes of ponds) in eight different countries - hereafter "demo-sites", are studied to comprehensively understand their characteristics and their efficiency to provide ecosystem services. In addition, the needs and knowledge of stakeholders who own, work, research, or benefit from the pondscapes are also important, because of their capabilities to create, manage and develop the pondscapes. Therefore, we established connection with stakeholders to study their preferences and visions on the pondscapes. Using the analytic hierarchy process, this study shows that in general stakeholders in the European and Turkish demo-sites prefer environmental benefits to economic benefits, while stakeholders in the Uruguayan demo-sites rank the economic benefits higher. More specifically, in the European and Turkish demo-sites, the biodiversity benefits, i.e. life-cycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection, receive the highest ranking among all groups. On the other hand, stakeholders at the Uruguayan demo-sites rank provisioning benefits as the most important, because many ponds in Uruguayan demo-sites are being used for agricultural purposes. Understanding those preferences helps policy makers to address the needs of stakeholders more correctly, when considering any action or policy for the pondscapes.

Bringing classes back into poverty discussions.

The 1980s saw a shift in the emphasis of discourse on poverty from production relations to consumption relations, with levels of consumption and purchasing power used to define poverty. Based on this concept, much of the research establishes absolute poverty lines or develops relative indicators to distinguish between "poor" and "non-poor." This paper makes the case that such poverty measurement, while useful for assessing trends over the long term or taking into account relative dynamics, distorts our knowledge of poverty by hiding its root causes and results in overly optimistic interpretations. These discussions also decontextualize poverty from its political and economic context by uncritically accepting and promoting neoliberal regime. Moreover, the article questions the meaning of the "eradication of poverty" and suggests that the nominal rise in PPP income obscures historical capitalist accumulation processes (such as dispossession, proletarianization and depeasantization). As a result, the study suggests to recenter the analysis on the material causes of poverty, which are rooted in the functioning of the capitalist system, its antagonistic character, and the class-based contradictions of production itself.