Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The study examines the effects of declining forest resources on income inequality and poverty among indigenous people and the impact of forest-related income supplements. We conducted surveys and used the Gini index to compute the contribution of income earned from (1) agriculture, (2) forest-related resources, and (3) self-employment and wages, and to assess the income inequality of households in the study sites. The Gini index of the total income from three clusters of income generating activities was 0.45. Cluster 1: agricultural production was the largest source of income (Gini = 0.30). The share of income from Cluster 2 (Gini index = 0.49), from community forestry and sustainable resource management, including hunting, NTFP collection, selling low quality timber, and plantation farming, contributed an important supplement to reduce income inequality and poverty. Income from Cluster 3 (Gini = 0.93) was highly unequal across the study sites. The indigenous poor remain dependent on forest products for daily food consumption and for additional income. The study suggests that policy makers should urgently consider supporting community forestry and community protected areas by integrating them with payment for ecosystem services. This would help to halt deforestation, promote the welfare of indigenous people, and reduce income inequality in rural communities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nhem et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: