Forest environmental incomes and the rural poor

By P. Vedeld, A. Angelsen, J. Bojö, E. Sjaastad, Gertrude Kobugabe Berg. 2007

589 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf8d886001616de43ae0c37e57f3e240ffe163a7

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

1. A. Angelsen
2. P. McElwee
3. J. Börner
4. Sven Wunder
5. B. Belcher
6. Maike Hamann
7. Belinda Reyers
8. R. Kozak

In Global and Planetary Change

1. A. Angelsen
2. P. McElwee
3. Sven Wunder
4. B. Belcher
5. J. Börner
6. R. Babigumira
7. S. Bauch
8. Maike Hamann

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. P. McElwee
2. A. Angelsen
3. J. Börner
4. Sven Wunder
5. Reinette Biggs
6. S. Engel
7. E. Gómez‐Baggethun
8. S. Pagiola

Citations in the corpus

• Mapping social–ecological systems: Identifying ‘green-loop’ and ‘red-loop’ dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use (2015, background): “This pattern of declining dependence on locally available natural resources as income rises is commonly observed in the poverty–environment literature (Cavendish, 2000; Reddy and Chakravarty, 1999; Vedeld et al., 2007), and has been documented in numerous South African case”
• Quantifying rural livelihood strategies in developing countries using an activity choice approach (2013, background): “Other studies emphasize that there are certain sources of income that are relatively more important to rural poor households than others, e.g., income from crop production and environmental resources (Homewood, 2005; Vedeld et al., 2007).”
• Forest environmental income in Vietnam: household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use (2008, background): “Following Vedeld et al. (2004), Sjaastad et al. (2005) and Vedeld et al. (2007), environmental income was defined as ‘value added’, in other words ‘gross benefit net the costs of capital consumption and intermediate inputs’ (Vedeld et al. 2004, p. 6).”
• The importance of local forest benefits: Economic valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products in the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania (2014, unknown): “…accounts on average for 20% of total household income, which is comparable to the results of a meta-analysis of over 50 NTFP studies worldwide by Vedeld et al. (2007), which estimated that forest environmental income represented 22% of the total income of communities living near forest in…”
• Poverty and resource dependence in rural India (2008, background): “With this recognition has come a growing empirical literature (recently reviewed by Beck and Nesmith, 2001; Vedeld et al., 2004; Kuik, 2005) attempting to quantify this dependence.”
• Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014, background): “, household’s environmental “dependence” or “reliance” decreases with higher incomes (Cavendish, 2000; Escobal & Aldana, 2003; Mamo et al., 2007; Neumann & Hirsch, 2000; Vedeld et al., 2007).”
• Livelihood strategies and forest dependence: New insights from Bolivian forest communities (2013, background): “Millions of people around the world depend on forest products and services for their daily income (Vedeld et al., 2007).”
• The Socio-Economic Contribution of Non-Timber Forest Products to Rural Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: Knowledge Gaps and New Directions (2010, result): “A substantial variation in the actual estimations of forestproduct incomes also constrains comparisons of case results (Vedeld et al. 2007).”