No abstract

Researchers recognize that society needs accurate and comprehensive estimates of the economic value of rain forests to assess conservation and management options. Valuation of forests can help us to decide whether to implement policies that reconcile the value different groups attach to forests. Here we have measured the value of the rain forest to local populations by monitoring the foods, construction and craft materials, and medicines consumed or sold from the forest by 32 Indian households in two villages in Honduras over 2.5 years. We have directly measured the detailed, comprehensive consumption patterns of rain forest products by an indigenous population and the value of that consumption in local markets. The combined value of consumption and sale of forest goods ranged from US$17.79 to US$23.72 per hectare per year, at the lower end of previous estimates (between US$49 and US$1,089 (mean US$347) per hectare per year). Although outsiders value the rain forest for its high-use and non-use values, local people receive a small share of the total value. Unless rural people are paid for the non-local values of rain forests, they may be easily persuaded to deforest.

Hunted wild animals (i.e., bushmeat) are a main source of protein for many rural populations in the tropics, and the unsustainable harvest of these animals puts both human food security and ecosystem functioning at risk. To understand the correlates of bushmeat consumption, we surveyed 1219 households in 121 rural villages near three newly established national parks in Gabon. Through the surveys we gathered information on bushmeat consumption, income, and material assests. In addition, we quantified land cover in a 5-km radius around the village center and distance of the village center to the nearest park boundary. Bushmeat was not a source of income for most households, but it was the primary animal protein consumed. Ninety-seven percent of households consumed bushmeat at least once during a survey period of 12 days. Income or wealth, land cover, distance of village to the nearest park boundary, and level of education of the head of the household were among the factors that significantly related to the likelihood of consuming any of the 10 most commonly consumed species of bushmeat. Household size was the predictor most strongly associated with quantities of bushmeat consumed and was negatively related to consumption. Total bushmeat consumption per adult male equivalent increased as household wealth increased and decreased as distance of villages to park boundaries increased. Bushmeat consumption at the household level was not related to unit values (i.e., price estimates for a good that typically does not have a market value; estimates derived from willingness to sell or trade the good for items of known price) of bushmeat or the price of chicken and fish as potential substitutes. The median consumption of bushmeat at the village level, however, was negatively related to village mean unit values of bushmeat across all species. Our results suggest that a lack of alternative protein sources motivated even the wealthiest among surveyed households to consume bushmeat. Providing affordable, alternative protein sources to all households would likely reduce unsustainable levels of bushmeat consumption in rural Gabon.

No abstract

Understanding the role that protected areas play in the livelihood security of local communities is essential to ensure that local people are not left shouldering the costs of what is a public good, and to help maintain robust local and national constituencies for biodiversity conservation. To provide baseline data for a longitudinal study on the effects of newly established national parks on human livelihoods in Gabon we conducted a cross-sectional study that compared livelihood indicators between communities that do, and do not, use natural resources within protected areas. We interviewed 2,035 households in 117 villages at four sites, recording income, consumption, education, health indicators and social capital, and village characteristics such as distance to markets, distance to park boundaries, and land cover within a 5-km radius. Our results indicated that closed rainforest coverage was greater around park than control villages and that this difference was associated with a greater reliance of park households on forest resources. However, we found no systematic differences in most livelihood measures between park and control households. Instead, the relationship between household livelihood measures and proximity to parks varied in idiosyncratic ways between sites, suggesting that determinants of human welfare are highly localized and cannot be generalized to larger spatial scales.

No abstract

No abstract