Household wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat River valley, South Africa

By C. Shackleton, S. Shackleton. 2006

276 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0b411ff261e7a5d060bb755bc7edc9459d866443

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

From Subsistence to Safety Nets and Cash Income: Exploring the Diverse Values of Non-timber Forest Products for Livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation (2011, background): “Moreover, the poor often sell locally to the more wealthy, thereby distributing local cash more widely from rich to poor (Shackleton and Shackleton 2006; Paumgarten and Shackleton 2009).”
Wealth differentiation in household use and trade in non-timber forest products in South Africa (2009, methodology): “According to Shackleton and Shackleton (2006) the associated cost-saving is more important to poor households than wealthy ones although both groups benefit.”
The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa (2007, unknown): “These local markets transfer cash resources from wealthier households to poorer ones (Shackleton and Shackleton, 2006).”
The importance of local forest benefits: Economic valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products in the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania (2014, unknown): “Most people living in rural Tanzania depend to some degree on the collection of NTFPs, a situation that can also be found in many other African countries (e.g., Shackleton and Shackleton, 2000, 2006; Ambrose-Oji, 2003; Mamo et al., 2007; Kamanga et al., 2009; Palmer and MacGregor, 2009).”
An analysis of institutional and technical factors influencing agricultural marketing amongst smallholder farmers in the Kat River Valley, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa (2009, background): “Kat River Valley’s altitude increases from approximately 600 to 1600 m at the top of the escarpment (Shackleton and Shackleton, 2006).”
Forest environmental income in Vietnam: household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use (2008, background): “When comparing forest use in South Africa, poor, average and rich households did not differ in terms of the number of NTFPs used or the proportion of households using them (Shackleton & Shackleton 2006).”
Ecosystem Services and Food Security: Economic Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability (2010, background): “fuelwood sometimes or regularly, and 48 percent of wealthy households did so [46].”
Role of Forest Resources to Local Livelihoods: The Case of East Mau Forest Ecosystem, Kenya (2016, background): “It is estimated that 20–25% of rural peoples’ income is obtained from environmental resources in developing countries [3] and act as safety nets in periods of crisis or during seasonal food shortages [4, 5].”
The Socio-Economic Contribution of Non-Timber Forest Products to Rural Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: Knowledge Gaps and New Directions (2010, background): “As a proportion of all income streams, incomes derived from NTFPs have been shown to make a greater contribution to the overall livelihoods of poor households (Arnold 2001, Shackleton and Shackleton 2006).”
Contribution of forest provisioning ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in the Miombo woodlands of Zambia (2013, background): “Because the value of vegetation to rural livelihoods is socially constructed and contested (Kepe 2008), the direct-use value of FPES in households is a key determinant of their value, both in consumption and as a source of income (Mamo et al. 2007; Shackleton and Shackleton 2006; Sunderlin et al. 20”
Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa (2013, background): “Poor households are more likely to be involved in the sale of charcoal and other forest products, in part because of material deprivation and the lack of alternative livelihoods (Shackleton and Shackleton, 2006).”
Mapping social–ecological systems: Identifying ‘green-loop’ and ‘red-loop’ dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use (2015, background): “…poverty–environment literature (Cavendish, 2000; Reddy and Chakravarty, 1999; Vedeld et al., 2007), and has been documented in numerous South African case studies, though only at the local scale (Jogo and Hassan, 2010; Shackleton and Shackleton, 2006; Thondhlana et al., 2012; Twine et al., 2003).”