Forest dependence and income inequality in rural Ethiopia: evidence from Chilimo-Gaji community forest users

Abstract

The aim of the study was to examine the determinants of forest dependence and the role of community forest on income inequality in rural Ethiopia. Regression results, using Heckman's two-stage estimation method, suggest that the probability of households' participation in low-return forest activities is determined by farm size, number of male members in the household and distance from the forest plot to the household's homestead. Further, the likelihood of households' participation in high-return forest activities is determined by the number of male household members, the distance from the households' homestead to the community forest block and being a member of the forest user group's executive committee. Using instrumental variable method, we found that, in relative terms, households with more non-forest income are less likely to depend on forest commons for their livelihood. Further, wealthier households are less dependent on forest products for their livelihood. We also found that forest products play a crucial role in reducing income inequality in the study area. Income inequality increases by 24% when we exclude forest income from the calculation of inequality measure (Gini coefficient).

Households’ dependence on community forest and their contribution to participatory forest management: evidence from rural Ethiopia

“…Rural households in the developing world derive significant part of their livelihoods from forest resources (Adhikari et al 2004;Adhikari 2005;Sunderlin et al 2005;Mamo et al 2007;Babulo et al 2008Babulo et al , 2009Appiah et al 2009;Gobeze et al 2009;Gatiso and Wossen 2014;Wunder et al 2014;Dash et al 2016).…”

“…1 It is also well documented that the rural poor obtain major part of their household income from natural resources than their better-off counterparts (Narain et al 2008;Gatiso and Wossen 2014). Moreover, studies show that the major part of the forest income comes from natural forests .…”

“…Thus, taking the resource away and restricting or denying access to the resource may adversely affect the welfare of the local communities (e.g. West and Brechin 1991;Kapoor 2001;Narain et al 2008;Babulo et al 2008;Gatiso and Wossen 2014;Wunder et al 2014;Angelsen et al 2014), and hence, these approaches may be considered as inhumane and unethical (Brechin et al 2002). Further, exclusionary measures may resent the local communities and deepen the conflict between the conservation authorities and the local communities (Wang et al 2006;Andrade and Rhodes 2012).…”

Impacts of the Hara Biosphere Reserve on Livelihood and Welfare in Persian Gulf

“…In their study carried out in 24 developing countries, Angelsen et al (2014) found that environmental incomes account for 28% of the total household income. Moreover, the importance of environmental and non-environmental incomes on reducing poverty and income inequality have been investigated in many developing countries, including South Africa (Thondhlana and Muchapondwa 2014b), Ethiopia (Gatiso and Wossen 2015), Cambodia (Nguyen et al 2015), Zimbabwe (Cavendish 2000), and Nicaragua (Ravnborg 2003).…”

“…The results of the case studies have varied because of the diversity of social, economic, ecological, and political contexts. Nevertheless, environmental incomes have been shown to contribute to poverty alleviation and to reducing income inequality (Gatiso and Wossen, 2015;Thondhlana and Muchapondwa, 2014a). Environmental income is also expected to be a safety net against poverty (Shackleton et al, 2008).…”