Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Dec;64(Suppl 1):S12-S28.
doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006. Epub 2014 Apr 13.

Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis

Arild Angelsen  1 , Pamela Jagger  2 , Ronnie Babigumira  1 , Brian Belcher  3 , Nicholas J Hogarth  4 , Simone Bauch  5 , Jan Börner  6 , Carsten Smith-Hall  7 , Sven Wunder  8
Affiliations

Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis

Arild Angelsen et al. World Dev. 2014 Dec.

Abstract

This paper presents results from a comparative analysis of environmental income from approximately 8000 households in 24 developing countries collected by research partners in CIFOR's Poverty Environment Network (PEN). Environmental income accounts for 28% of total household income, 77% of which comes from natural forests. Environmental income shares are higher for low-income households, but differences across income quintiles are less pronounced than previously thought. The poor rely more heavily on subsistence products such as wood fuels and wild foods, and on products harvested from natural areas other than forests. In absolute terms environmental income is approximately five times higher in the highest income quintile, compared to the two lowest quintiles.

Keywords: forests; household income surveys; inequality; poverty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Timing of village and household surveys in PEN studies. Note: t, start of surveys (month); A1, A2, Annual household surveys; V1, V2, Annual village surveys; Q1–Q4, Quarterly household income surveys).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Location of the PEN study areas.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
The relationship between forest reliance (income share) and total income (a); and environmental reliance and total income (b). Note: CI = confidence interval.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
PEN study areas located by forest cover and population density. (Source: Dewi & Belcher, 2012)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adhikari B, Di Falco S, & Lovett JC (2004). Household characteristics and forest dependency: Evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics, 48(2), 245–257.
    1. Ambrose-Oji B (2003). The contribution of NTFPs to the livelihoods of the ‘forest poor’: Evidence from the tropical forest zone of south-west Cameroon. International Forestry Review, 5(2), 106–117.
    1. Angelsen A, & Wunder S (2003). Exploring the forest-poverty link: Key concepts, issues and research implications. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.
    1. Angelsen A, Larsen HO, Lund JF, Smith-Hall C, & Wunder S (Eds.) (2011). Measuring livelihoods and environmental dependence: Methods for research and fieldwork. London: Earthscan.
    1. Appiah M, Blay D, Damnyag L, Dwomoh FK, Pappinen A, & Luukkanen O (2009). Dependence on forest resources and tropical deforestation in Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(3), 471–487.

LinkOut - more resources