2002
DOI: 10.17528/cifor/001099
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Household livelihoods in semi-arid regions: options and constraints

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, according to Neumann and Hirsch (2000), NTFPs are very important for the rural poor as a livelihood strategy, but they rarely provide the means for socioeconomic advancement. Campbell et al (2002) concur with Neumann and Hirsch (2000) when they state that they have found no evidence that NTFPs in woodlands are able to lift people out of poverty.…”
Section: I11 Pessimistic Thesis: Ntfps As a Poverty Trap Factorsupporting
confidence: 70%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Thus, according to Neumann and Hirsch (2000), NTFPs are very important for the rural poor as a livelihood strategy, but they rarely provide the means for socioeconomic advancement. Campbell et al (2002) concur with Neumann and Hirsch (2000) when they state that they have found no evidence that NTFPs in woodlands are able to lift people out of poverty.…”
Section: I11 Pessimistic Thesis: Ntfps As a Poverty Trap Factorsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…Theoretically, the role of NTFPs in poverty reduction has been the subject of controversy among researchers. According to Neumann and Hirsch (2000), Campbell et al (2002) and Angelsen and Wunder (2003), NTFPs are undoubtedly important in enabling many poor people to survive, but they are less important in helping people escape poverty. In contrast to this pessimistic view of the potential of NTFPs, other researchers such as Sunderlin et al (2005) and Shackleton et al (2007) believe that NTFPs can alleviate poverty (by supplementing incomes and functioning as safety nets) or reduce poverty (by providing high incomes).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The benefit provided by forests to the overall economic situation of marginalized rural households in the customary region of Sardasht is not inconsequential and is larger than the 12.5% of total household income observed in North Zagros [21] and smaller than the 25-30% observed in South Zagros [20,24]. In fact, the relative contribution of forest resources to household income in Central Zagros is broadly comparable to that of the 6-15% observed in southern Cameroon [48] and 15% in southern Zimbabwe [49] and Malawi [50] but lower than the 15-50% in southern India [51], 27% in northern Ethiopia [52], 30% in Hyrcanian forests in Iran [11], 31.5% in southern China [8], 39% in northern Benin [53], and 49% in Oca, Peru [10].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…The main use, however, has been in relation to forest products. Early work to quantify total rural household income in low-and middle-income countries (Angelsen and Wunder 2003, Campbell et al 2002, Cavendish 2000, Sjaastad et al 2005, Vedeld et al 2004) led to widespread use of the term environmental income: "income (cash or in kind) obtained from the harvesting of resources provided through natural processes not requiring intensive management" (PEN 2007: 19). While the term environmental products was not defined in this early work, resultant studies provided useful examples of the valuation of these products (e.g.…”
Section: The Definition Of Environmental Productsmentioning
confidence: 99%