Abstract
Forests contribute to livelihoods of rural people throughout the tropics. This paper adds to the emerging body of quantitative knowledge on absolute and relative economic importance, through both cash and subsistence income, of moist forests to households. Qualitative contextual information was collected in six villages in lowland Bolivia, followed by a structured survey of randomly selected households (n = 118) that included four quarterly income surveys. We employed a novel data collection approach that allows detailed estimation of total household accounts, including sources of forest income. We estimated the average forest income share of total annual household income (forest dependency) at 20%, ranging from 18 to 24%. Adding environmental income increased the average to 26%, being fairly constant across income quartiles at 24–28%. Absolute levels of forest income increased with total household income, while forest dependency was the highest in the best-off income quartile—the primary harvesters of forest products are better-off households. The pattern of high forest dependency among better-off households has also been reported from other countries, indicating that this pattern may be more common than advocated by conventional wisdom. Using ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions, we found significant determinants of absolute forest income to be household size, sex of household head and area of cultivated land; the significant determinants for forest dependency were level of education, whether household head was born in village and whether household was food self-sufficient. Better-off households were able to realise cash income from forests, while poorer households—in particular if headed by women—were more reliant on subsistence forest income. We argue that the differential patterns of forest income across income quartiles should be considered in future development interventions and that findings indicate a potential for forests to contribute to moving households out of poverty.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adhikari, B. (2005). Poverty, property rights and collective action: Understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management. Environment and Development Economics, 10, 7–31.
Angelsen, A., Larsen, H. O., Lund, J. F., Smith-Hall, C., & Wunder, S. (2011). Measuring livelihoods and environmental dependence: Methods for research and fieldwork. London: Earthscan.
Angelsen, A., & Wunder, S. (2003). Exploring the forest-poverty link: Key concepts, issues and research implications. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40.
Appiah, M., Blay, D., Damnyag, L., Dwomoh, F. K., Pappinen, A., & Luukkanen, O. (2009). Dependence on forest resources and tropical deforestation in Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11, 471–487.
Babulo, B., Muys, B., Nega, F., Tollens, E., Nyssen, J., Deckers, J., et al. (2008). Household livelihood strategies and forest dependence in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems, 98, 147–155.
Becker, C. D., & Leon, R. (2000). Indigenous institutions and forest condition: Lessons from the Yuracare. In C. Gibson, M. McKean, & E. Ostrom (Eds.), People and forests: Communities, institutions and the governance of forests (pp. 163–191). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bolivian Central Bank. (2007). Boletín Estadístico No. 335—September to December 2007. La Paz, Banco Central de Bolivia.
Cavendish, W. (2000). Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development, 28(11), 1979–2003.
Cavendish, W. (2002). Quantitative methods for estimating the economic value of resource use to rural households. In B. M. Campbell & M. K. Luckert (Eds.), Uncovering the hidden harvest: Valuation methods for woodland and forest resources (pp. 17–66). London: Earthscan.
Colchester, M. (2006). Justice in the forest: rural livelihoods and forest law enforcement. Forest Perspectives, 3. Bogor, Center for International Forestry Research.
Coomes, O., Barham, B., & Takasaki, Y. (2004). Targeting conservation-development initiatives in tropical forests: Insights from analysis of rain forest use and economic reliance among Amazonian peasants. Ecological Economics, 52, 47–64.
Dovie, D. B. K., Witkowski, E. T. F., & Shackleton, C. M. (2005). Monetary valuation of livelihoods for understanding the composition and complexity of rural households. Agriculture and Human Values, 22, 87–103.
Escobal, J., & Aldana, U. (2003). Are nontimber forest products the antidote to rainforest degradation? Brazil nut extraction in Madre de Dios, Peru. World Development, 31, 1873–1887.
Fisher, M. (2004). Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi. Environment and Development Economics, 9(2), 135–154.
Godoy, R., & Contreras, M. (2001). A comparative study of education and tropical deforestation among lowland Bolivian Amerindians: Forest values, environmental externality, and school subsidies. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 49, 555–574.
Godoy, R. A., O’Neill, K., Groff, S., Kostishack, P., Cubas, A., Demmer, J., et al. (1997). Household determinants of deforestation by Amerindians in Honduras. World Development, 25(6), 977–987.
Godoy, R., Overman, H., Demmer, J., Apaza, L., Byron, E., Huanca, T., et al. (2002). Local financial benefits of rain forests: Comparative evidence from Amerindian societies in Bolivia and Honduras. Ecological Economics, 40(3), 397–409.
Godoy, R., Wilkie, D., Overman, H., Cubas, A., Cubas, G., Demmer, J., et al. (2000). Valuation of consumption and sale of forest goods from a Central American rain forest. Nature, 406, 62–63.
INE. (2002). Cochabamba: Resultados finales del Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda 2001. La Paz: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.
Jodha, N. S. (1986). Common property resources and rural poor in dry regions of India. Economic and Political Weekly, 21, 1169–1181.
Kamanga, P., Vedeld, P., & Sjaastad, E. (2009). Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Ecological Economics, 68, 613–624.
Lund, J. F., Larsen, H. O., Chhetri, B. B. K., Rayamajhi, S., Nielsen, O. J., Olsen, C. S., et al. (2008). When theory meets reality—how to do forest income surveys in practice. Forest & Landscape Working Papers No. 29-2008. Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen, Forest & Landscape.
Malky, H. A. (2005). Sector Forestal en Bolivia. Diagnósticos Sectoriales UDAPE. La Paz: Unidad de Análisis de Políticas Sociales y Económicas.
Mamo, G., Sjaastad, E., & Vedeld, P. (2007). Economic dependence on forest resources: A case from Dendi District, Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 916–927.
Matos, J. D. (2005). Análisis de ingresos de las comunidades que reciben asistencia del proyecto BOLFOR II. Documento Final 1/11/05. Santa Cruz: Bolfor.
McElwee, P. D. (2008). Forest environmental income in Vietnam: Household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use. Environmental Conservation, 35, 147–159.
McSweeney, K. (2002). Who is “forest-dependent”? Capturing local variation in forest-product sale, Eastern Honduras. The Professional Geographer, 54(2), 158–174.
McSweeney, K. (2003). Tropical forests as safety nets? The relative importance of forest product sale as smallholder insurance, Eastern Honduras. Paper presented at The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity. May 19–23, 2003, Bonn, Germany.
Narain, U., Gupta, S., & van’t Veld, K. (2008). Poverty and resource dependence in rural India. Ecological Economics, 66, 161–176.
Oksanen, T., & Mersmann, C. (2003). Forests in poverty reduction strategies—an assessment of PRSP processes in sub-Saharan Africa. In T. Oksanen, B. Pajari, & T. Tuomasjukka (Eds.), Forests in poverty reduction strategies: Capturing the potential (pp. 121–155). EFI Proceedings No. 47.
PEN. (2007a). PEN prototype questionnaire, version 4. Poverty Environment Network, http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/pen/_ref/tools/index.htm. Accessed June 16, 2008.
PEN. (2007b). PEN technical guidelines, version. Poverty Environment Network. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/pen/_ref/tools/index.htm. Accessed June 16, 2008.
Proyecto Agroforestal C-23. (2003). Informe del análisis multitemporal de imágenes satélites para la estimación de pérdida de cobertura forestal primaria y evaluación del cambio de uso de suelo en el bosque de uso múltiple del Trópico de Cochabamba. Cochabamba: FAO.
Proyecto Jatun Sach’a. (2005). Proyecto Jatun Sach’a: 10 años construyendo una cultura forestal. Cochabamba: FAO.
Reyes-García, V., Huanca, T., Vadez, V., Leonard, W., & Wilkie, D. (2006). Cultural, practical, and economic value of wild plants: A quantitative study in the Bolivian Amazon. Economic Botany, 60(1), 62–74.
Sjaastad, E., Angelsen, A., Vedeld, P., & Bojö, J. (2005). What is environmental income? Ecological Economics, 55, 37–46.
Stoian, D. (2005). Making the best of two worlds: rural and peri-urban livelihood options sustained by nontimber forest products from the Bolivian Amazon. World Development, 33(9), 1473–1490.
Svarrer, K., & Olsen, C. S. (2005). The economic value of non-timber forest products—a case study from Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 20(1), 17–41.
Tschakert, P., Coomes, O. T., & Potvin, C. (2007). Indigenous livelihoods, slash-and-burn agriculture, and carbon stocks in Eastern Panama. Ecological Economics, 60, 807–820.
Uberhuaga, P. (2009). Communal Notebooks. Technical Notes 1–6. Cochabamba: Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Económica y Social.
Uberhuaga, P., & Olsen, C. S. (2008). Can we trust the data? Methodological experiences with forest product valuation in lowland Bolivia. Scandinavian Forest Economics, 42, 508–524.
UDAPE. (2009a). Dossier de Estadísticas Sociales y Economicas. Sector Social, Datos Pobreza y Desigualdad. Indicadores de Pobreza y Desigualdad Estimados por el Método de Línea de Pobreza según Área Geográfica: 1996–2008. La Paz, Unidad de Análisis de Políticas Sociales y Económicas. http://www.udape.gov.bo. Accessed March 6, 2010.
UDAPE. (2009b). Dossier de Estadísticas Sociales y Economicas. Sector Social, Indicadores Municipales. .9.2 Indicadores de Pobreza y Desarrollo Humano según Municipio: 2001 y 2005. La Paz, Unidad de Análisis de Políticas Sociales y Económicas. Accessed March 6, 2010.
UMSS-PROGEO. (2005). Atlas del Trópico de Cochabamba. Cochabamba: Kipus.
Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Bojo, J., Sjaastad, E., & Kobugabe, G. (2007). Forest environmental incomes and the rural poor. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 869–879.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2006). Introductory econometrics—a modern approach. Mason: Thomson South-Western.
World Bank. (2011). GINI index. Washington, DC: World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI. Accessed February 22, 2011.
Acknowledgments
We thank all the households and communities that contributed to the study. The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Council for Development Research (FFU, Grant No. 104.Dan.8.L.714) and the Danish Council for Independent Research (Social Sciences, Grant No. 09-071350). Four anonymous reviewers provided useful inputs to development of the final manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 9.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Uberhuaga, P., Smith-Hall, C. & Helles, F. Forest income and dependency in lowland Bolivia. Environ Dev Sustain 14, 3–23 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-011-9306-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-011-9306-8