Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis

By A. Angelsen, P. Jagger, R. Babigumira, B. Belcher, N. Hogarth, S. Bauch, J. Börner, C. Smith-Hall, Sven Wunder. World Development, 2014

1,125 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Summary 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.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Global and Planetary Change, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2f38e2c2d8c353359840871fde8af579332e54c7

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

In Global and Planetary Change

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Ending Extreme Poverty and Sharing Prosperity: Progress and Policies (2015, background): “Their level of dependence is surprisingly large and often equal in magnitude to income obtained from agriculture (Shepherd 2012, Angelsen et al 2014).”
REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe (2014, background): “Nevertheless, the primary value of forests for many smallholders globally is in the form of land for agricultural expansion, despite the important direct contribution of forests to livelihoods (Angelsen et al. 2014).”
From famine foods to delicatessen: Interpreting trends in the use of wild edible plants through cultural ecosystem services (2015, background): “importance to income (Angelsen et al., 2014; Łukasz et al., 2013; Shumsky et al., 2014), nutrition (Mavengahama et al.”
Improving diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape (2015, background): “^ Income is an unlikely pathway: although forests and forest products may contribute to income that can support food security (Pimentel et al. 1997; Angelsen et al. 2014), most communities that live close to forests are poorer than those who live further away from forests (Angelsen and Wunder 2003; ”
Wild Edible Fruits: A Systematic Review of an Under-Researched Multifunctional NTFP (Non-Timber Forest Product) (2019, background): “It is estimated that, on average, a quarter of the rural household income in developing nations comes from NTFPs [4].”
Non-timber forest products and their contribution to households income around Falgore Game Reserve in Kano, Nigeria (2017, background): “In the developing nations, NTFPs are therefore considered a safety net that fills the gaps due to a shortfall in agricultural production or other forms of emergencies (Shackleton and Shackleton 2004; Paumgarten 2005; Angelsen et al. 2014).”
Poverty and climate change: introduction (2018, background): “…Angelsen use a unique and detailed pan-tropical sample of nearly 8,000 rural households in 24 developing countries from the Poverty Environment Network (PEN) project (see Angelsen et al., 2014, for details) to investigate the exposure and vulnerability of poor people to climate or weather shocks.”
Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base (2014, methodology): “…Network (PEN), a collaborative effort led by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), focused on socioeconomic data collection at the household and village levels, across rural areas of developing countries (see http://www.cifor.org/pen/ and Angelsen et al., 2014, this volume).”
Development goals in an era of demographic change (2015, background): “Their level of dependence on forests is surprisingly large and often equal in magnitude to income obtained from agriculture (Angelsen et al. 2014; Shepherd, Kazoora, and Müller 2013).”