Fieldwork clarifies the economic value of non-timber forest products in rural households, suggesting they aid poverty alleviation.
As long as assessed by conventional methods, part of the economic value of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) could be missed, with the result that policymakers would regard forests as being less important. This study clarifies the hidden economic value of NTFPs from the viewpoint of poverty alleviation based on three research questions, as follows: how much hidden economic value do NTFPs have?; does the value of NTFPs contribute to rural poverty alleviation?; and how important are NTFPs for responding to household vulnerability to poverty? Fieldwork was conducted in September 2015, March and April 2016 in Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary using participatory rural appraisals and structured questionnaire interviews with randomly selected 310 households. This study found that the combined value of subsistence use and cash income of NTFPs were US$768, US$296, US$767, US$126, US$180, US$28, US$98, and US$343 per household per year for liquid resin, solid resin, wild honey, orchids, bamboo poles, bamboo shoots, prich leaves, and fuel wood, respectively. NTFPs prevent households which collected NTFPs from falling into poverty. NTFPs also play the vital role of responding to the potential future vulnerability to poverty of some households.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Phanith CHOU (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: