Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Standard
Environmental income and rural livelihoods : a global-comparative analysis. / Angelsen, Arild; Jagger, Pamela; Babigumira, Ronnie; Belcher, Brian; Hogarth, Nicholas J.; Bauch, Simone; Börner, Jan; Smith-Hall, Carsten; Wunder, Sven.
In: World Development, Vol. 64, No. Supplement 1, 2014, p. S12–S28.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Environmental income and rural livelihoods
T2 - a global-comparative analysis
AU - Angelsen, Arild
AU - Jagger, Pamela
AU - Babigumira, Ronnie
AU - Belcher, Brian
AU - Hogarth, Nicholas J.
AU - Bauch, Simone
AU - Börner, Jan
AU - Smith-Hall, Carsten
AU - Wunder, Sven
N1 - Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006
DO - 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006
M3 - Journal article
VL - 64
SP - S12–S28
JO - World Development
JF - World Development
SN - 1873-5991
IS - Supplement 1
ER -
ID: 136799433