The relative importance of community forests, government forests, and private forests for household-level incomes in the Middle Hills of Nepal
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
The relative importance of community forests, government forests, and private forests for household-level incomes in the Middle Hills of Nepal. / Oli, Bishwa Nath; Treue, Thorsten; Smith-Hall, Carsten.
In: Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 70, 2016, p. 155-163.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - The relative importance of community forests, government forests, and private forests for household-level incomes in the Middle Hills of Nepal
AU - Oli, Bishwa Nath
AU - Treue, Thorsten
AU - Smith-Hall, Carsten
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - To investigate the household-level economic importance of income from forests under different tenure arrangements, data were collected from 304 stratified randomly sampled households within 10 villages with community forest user groups in Tanahun District, Western Nepal. We observed that forest income contributed 5.8% to total household income, ranging from 3.8% in the top income quartile to 17.4% in the lowest quartile. Analyses of poverty indices and Gini decomposition showed that incorporating forest incomes in total household income reduces measured rural poverty and income inequality. Community forestry income constituted 49.7% of forest income, followed by 27.5% from government-managed forest, and 22.8% from private forests/trees. Community forestry income, however, contributed more than other sources of forest income to income inequality, indicating elite capture. We argue that a full realisation of community forestry's poverty reduction and income equalizing potential requires modifications of rules that govern forest extraction and pricing at community forest user group level.
AB - To investigate the household-level economic importance of income from forests under different tenure arrangements, data were collected from 304 stratified randomly sampled households within 10 villages with community forest user groups in Tanahun District, Western Nepal. We observed that forest income contributed 5.8% to total household income, ranging from 3.8% in the top income quartile to 17.4% in the lowest quartile. Analyses of poverty indices and Gini decomposition showed that incorporating forest incomes in total household income reduces measured rural poverty and income inequality. Community forestry income constituted 49.7% of forest income, followed by 27.5% from government-managed forest, and 22.8% from private forests/trees. Community forestry income, however, contributed more than other sources of forest income to income inequality, indicating elite capture. We argue that a full realisation of community forestry's poverty reduction and income equalizing potential requires modifications of rules that govern forest extraction and pricing at community forest user group level.
KW - Forest income
KW - Inequality
KW - Livelihoods
KW - Poverty
KW - South Asia
KW - Tenure
U2 - 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.026
DO - 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.026
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:84976904147
VL - 70
SP - 155
EP - 163
JO - Forest Policy and Economics
JF - Forest Policy and Economics
SN - 1389-9341
ER -
ID: 165442946