Abstract
Poor people living in developing countries are reliant on forest resources for their livelihoods, which is influenced by the extent of the use in supporting the socio-ecological system. Though the forest is recognized as one of the important resources, particularly for the rural poor, how and to what extent forest resources are utilized and translated to generate cash and subsistence incomes to sustain and/or improve forest-based livelihoods has not yet been well explored. Forest-derived income can particularly be important for the poor in meeting their subsistence needs, bridging the seasonal gaps, providing a more diversified livelihood base, and reducing and spreading agricultural risks over space and time. Moreover, community institutions played a prominent role in sustaining the livelihoods. Building on forest-based livelihood perspectives and socio-ecological resiliency, this chapter analyses the importance of forest and environmental resources to the income of rural livelihoods. An analysis is based on the data collected from 276 randomly selected households, using a structured forest income survey questionnaire. Forest-based livelihood is linked with forest dependence, meaning that the households who derive a greater share of their income from forests and related activities are relatively more dependent on forests than others. Results show that fodder/grasses, firewood, timber, soil and stones, forestry wages and other non-timber forest products constitute the main sources of forest and environmental income. Most of them support current consumption and constitute an average of approximately 22% of total household income, ranging from 16 to 37% to the lower- to higher-income quartile households. Forest and environmental incomes decrease with increasing household income and serve as an important source for daily livelihood activities. The study concludes that forests and environmental income remain one of the dominant sources of income among the poor and marginalized households who do not have alternative source of income and, therefore, their customary rights need to be protected along with developing appropriate institutional mechanism for ensuring their equitable access to forest resources for ensuring their socio-ecological resiliency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
One US$ equivalent to approximately 80 NRs in 2012.
References
Adhikari B (2005) Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management. Environ Dev Econ 10(1):7–31
Adhikari B, Di Falco S, Lovett JC (2004) Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecol Econ 48(2):245–257
Angelsen A, Wunder S (2003) Exploring the forest-poverty link. CIFOR Occas Paper 40:1–20
Asfaw A, Lemenih M, Kassa H, Ewnetu Z (2013) Importance, determinants and gender dimensions of forest income in eastern highlands of Ethiopia: the case of communities around Jelo Afromontane forest. Forest Policy Econ 28:1–7
Ashley C, Carney D (1999) Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience, vol 7, no 1. Department for International Development, London
Baral S, Chhetri BBK, Baral H, Vacik H (2019) Investments in different taxonomies of goods: what should Nepal’s community forest user groups prioritize? Forest Policy Econ 100:24–32
Baral S, Sekot W, Vacik H (2009) Does community forestry contribute to poverty reduction? An evidence from Nepal. In: the proceeding on conference on international research on food security, natural resource management and rural development, Tropentag. http://www.tropentag.de/2009/abstracts/full/316.pdf
Baumann P (2006) Forest-poverty linkages in West and Central Asia: the outlook from a sustainable livelihoods perspective. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) Working Paper (WP), 34
Babulo B, Muys B, Nega F, Tollens E, Nyssen J, Deckers J, Mathijs E (2008) Household livelihood strategies and forest dependence in the highlands of Tigray Northern Ethiopia. Agricul Syst 98(2):147–155
Babulo B, Muys B, Nega F, Tollens E, Nyssen J, Deckers J, Mathijs E (2009) The economic contribution of forest resource use to rural livelihoods in Tigray Northern Ethiopia. For Policy Econ 11(2):109–117
Bhandari PK, Bhusal P, Paudel G, Upadhyaya CP, Khanal Chhetri BB (2019) Importance of community forestry funds for rural development in Nepal. Resources 8(2):85
Cavendish W (2012) Quantitative methods for estimating the economic value of resource use to rural households. In: Uncovering the hidden harvest. Routledge, pp 33–81
CBS (2011) Nepal living standard survey, vol II. Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu
Chhetri BBK, Lund JF, Nielsen ØJ (2012) The public finance potential of community forestry in Nepal. Ecol Econ 73:113–121
Chhetri BBK, Larsen HO, Smith-Hall C (2015) Environmental resources reduce income inequality and the prevalence, depth and severity of poverty in rural Nepal. Environ Dev Sustain 17(3):513–530
DFO (2008) Community forestry development program, annual monitoring and evaluation report. District Forest Office, Gorkha
Ellis F (2000) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press
FAO (2018) ‘State of the World’s forests 2018: forest pathways to sustainable development. https://bit.ly/2zhrs7e
Fisher M, Shively G (2005) Can income programs reduce tropical forest pressure? Income shocks and forest use in Malawi. World Dev 33(7):1115–1128
Gauli K, Hauser M (2011) Commercial management of non-timber forest products in Nepal’s community forest users groups: who benefits? Int for Rev 13(1):35–45
Gautam AP (2009) Equity and livelihoods in Nepal’s community forestry. Int J Soc for 2(2):101–122
Giri BR, Xie Y, Baral P, Bikram R (2018) Significant contribution of community forests to users’ household income in far-West Mid-Hill of Nepal. Int J Sci 7:36–55
Harbi J, Erbaugh JT, Sidiq M, Haasler B, Nurrochmat DR (2018) Making a bridge between livelihoods and forest conservation: lessons from non timber forest products’ utilization in South Sumatera, Indonesia. For Policy Econ 94:1–10
Kamanga P, Vedeld P, Sjaastad E (2009) Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District Malawi. Ecol Econ 68(3):613–624
Kanel KR, Niraula DR (2004) Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community forestry? Banko Janakari 14(1):19–26
Larsen HO, Olsen CS (2006) Unsustainable collection and unfair trade? Uncovering and assessing assumptions regarding Central Himalayan medicinal plant conservation. Plant Conserv Biodivers: 105–123
Larsen HO, Rayamajhi S, Chhetri BBK, Charlery LC, Gautam N, Khadka N, Walelign SZ (2014) The role of environmental incomes in rural Nepalese livelihoods 2005–2012: contextual information. IFRO Doc 4
Melles G, Perera ED (2020) Resilience thinking and strategies to reclaim sustainable rural livelihoods: cascade Tank-Village System (CTVS) in Sri Lanka. Challenges 11(2):27
Neumann RP, Hirsch E (2000) Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: review and analysis of research
Oli BN, Treue T (2015) Determinants of participation in community forestry in Nepal. Int for Rev 17(3):311–325
PEN (2007) PEN prototype questionnaire version 4. Poverty-Environment Network. www.cifor.cgiar.org/pen. Accessed 12 July 2012
Pyhälä A, Brown K, Adger WN (2006) Implications of livelihood dependence on non-timber products in Peruvian Amazonia. Ecosystems 9(8):1328–1341
Rayamajhi S, Olsen CS (2008) Estimating forest product values in Central Himalaya-methodological experiences. In: Scandinavian forest economics: proceedings of the biennial meeting of the scandinavian society of forest economics, vol 2008, no 1331-2016-103755, pp 468–488
Rayamajhi S, Smith-Hall C, Helles F (2012) Empirical evidence of the economic importance of Central Himalayan forests to rural households. For Policy Econ 20:25–35
Rigg J (2006) Land, farming, livelihoods, and poverty: rethinking the links in the rural South. World Dev 34(1):180–202
Rijal A, Smith-Hall C, Helles F (2011) Non-timber forest product dependency in the Central Himalayan foot hills. Environ Dev Sustain 13(1):121–140
Shackleton C, Shackleton S (2003) Value of non-timber forest products and rural safety nets in South Africa. In: International conference on rural livelihoods, forests and biodiversity, pp 19–23
Sjaastad E, Angelsen A, Vedeld P, Bojö J (2005) What is environmental income? Ecol Econ 55(1):37–46
Singh A, Bhattacharya P, Vyas P, Roy S (2010) Contribution of NTFPs in the livelihood of mangrove forest dwellers of Sundarban. J Hum Ecol 29(3):191–200
Thoms CA (2008) Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: a critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 39(3):1452–1465
Vedeld P, Angelsen A (2004) Counting on the environment forest incomes and the rural poor (no 33328 Caja (531)). The World Bank
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chhetri, B.B.K., Rayamajhi, S., Baral, S. (2022). Importance of Forest and Non-forest Environmental Resources to Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Insights from a Case Study in Nepal. In: Melles, G.B. (eds) Designing Social Innovation for Sustainable Livelihoods. Design Science and Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8452-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8452-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-8451-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-8452-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)