CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 57Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementAgricultural Innovations and PracticesLatin American rural development

Smallholder Specialization Strategies along the Forest Transition Curve in Southwestern Amazonia

Open access
Duchelle, Amy E., Almeyda Zambrano, Angélica M., Wunder, Sven, Börner, Jan, Kainer, Karen A.·2014·World Development
DOI 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Rural specialization strategies can be examined within the forest transition framework. We compared smallholder livelihood strategies between neighboring southwestern Amazonian sites at different stages along the forest transition curve. Surveys of 243 households in Pando, Bolivia and Acre, Brazil, within and outside of two major protected areas, confirmed a higher reliance on forest-based income in forest-rich Pando than in Acre. In Acre, forest reliance was higher in the protected area than outside, where forest cover was lower and households were more livestock-dependent. Country context and protected area status were critical to explaining different smallholder specialization strategies in similar biophysical environments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.001

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The highest forest reliance is found in one Bolivian site, where 63% of household income is derived from forest products, mainly Brazil nut.

    “The highest forest reliance is found in one Bolivian site, where 63% of household income is derived from forest products, mainly Brazil nut (Bertholletia excels) (see Duchelle, Zambrano, Wunder, Börner, & Kainer, 2014).”

    From Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Duchelle, Zambrano, Wunder, Börner, & Kainer, 2014

    The paper’s “Comparison of income” section reports that households in Pando, Bolivia, had the higher forest-income reliance and were particularly specialized in Brazil nut collection. It gives forest income as 64% of total household income, not the cited 63%. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Allegretti, M. (1990). Extractive reserves: An alternative for reconciling development and environmental conservation in Amazonia. In A. B. Anderson (Ed.), Alternatives to deforestation: Steps toward sustainable use of the Amazon rainforest (pp. 252-264). New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.
  2. Andam, K. S., Ferraro, P. J., Sims, K. E., Healy, A., & Holland, M. B. (2010). Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(22), 9996-10001.
  3. Angelsen, A., & Rudel, T. K. (2013). Designing and implementing effective REDD+ policies: A forest transition approach. Review of Environ- mental Economics and Policy, 7(1), 91-113.
  4. Ankersen, T., & Barnes, G. (2005). Inside the polygon: Emerging community tenure systems and forest resource extraction. In D. Zarin, F. E. Putz, M. Schmink, & J. Alavalapati (Eds.), Working forests in the tropics: Conservation through sustainable management? (pp. 156-177). New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.
  5. Barham, B., & Coomes, O. (1996). Prosperity's promise: The Amazon rubber boom and distorted economic development. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.
  6. Chhatre, A., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(42), 17667-17670.
  7. Chowdhury, R. R. (2010). Differentiation and concordance in smallholder land use strategies in southern Mexico's conservation frontier. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(13), 5785-5789.
  8. Cronkleton, P., & Pacheco, P. (2010). Changing policy trends in the emergence of Bolivia's Brazil nut sector. In S. Laird, R. McLain, & R. Wynberg (Eds.), Non-timber forest products policy: Frameworks for the management, trade and use of NTFPs (pp. 15-41). London, England: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
  9. Duchelle, A. E., Cronkleton, P., Kainer, K. A., Guanacoma, G., & Gezan, S. (2011). Resource theft in tropical forest communities: Implications for non-timber management, livelihoods, and conservation. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 4.
  10. Ehringhaus, C. (2006). Post-victory dilemmas: Land use, development, and social movement in Amazonian Extractive Reserves (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
  11. Faminow, M. D. (1998). Cattle, deforestation and development in the Amazon: An economic, agronomic and environmental perspective. Oxford, UK: CAB International.
  12. Hall, A. (1997). Sustaining Amazonia: Grassroots action for productive conservation. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
  13. Hoelle, J. (2011). Convergence on cattle: Political ecology, social group perceptions and socioeconomic relationships in Acre, Brazil. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment, 33(2), 95-106.
  14. Kaimowitz, D., & Angelsen, A. (1998). Economic models of tropical deforestation: A review. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.
  15. Ku ¨nhe, R. (2004). Conflictos entre uso y proteccio ´n de los recursos naturales, Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amazo ´nica Manuripi (RNVSAM). In W. De Jong (Ed.), Retos y perspectivas del nuevo re ´gimen forestal en el Norte Amazo ´nico Boliviano (pp. 123-136). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.
  16. Mather, A. (1990). Global forest resources. London, UK: Bellhaven Press.
  17. Morsello, C. (2002). Market integration and sustainability in Amazonian indigenous livelihoods: The case of the Kayapo ´(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
  18. Naughton-Treves, L., Alix-Garcia, J., & Chapman, C. (2011). Lessons about parks and poverty from a decade of forest loss and economic growth around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 13919-13924.
  19. Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. M., & Soares-Filho, B. S. (2013). Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 110(13), 4956-4961.
  20. Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 619-632.
  21. Perz, S., Brilhante, S., Brown, S., Caldas, M., Ikeda, S., Mendoza, E., et al. (2008). Road building, land use and climate change: Prospects for environmental governance in the Amazon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 368, 1889-1895.
  22. Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., Lima, E., Sandoval, C., & Herrera, L. D. (2013). Governance, location and avoided deforestation from protected areas: Greater restrictions can have lower impact, due to differences in location. World Development. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.world- dev.2013.01.011. · DOI
  23. Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29(2), 209-227.
  24. Sills, E., & Saha, S. (2010). Subsidies for rubber: Conserving rainforests while sustaining livelihoods in the Amazon?. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29, 152-173.
  25. Stoian, D. (2000). Shifts in forest production extraction: The post-rubber era in the Bolivian Amazon. International Tree Crops Journal, 10, 277-297.
  26. 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.
  27. Stoian, D., & Henkemans, A. B. (2000). Between extractivism and peasant agriculture: Differentiation of rural settlements in the Bolivian Ama- zon. International Tree Crops Journal, 10, 299-319.
  28. Vadjunec, J. M., Gomes, C. V., & Ludewigs, T. (2009). Land-use/land- cover change among rubber tappers in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre, Brazil. Journal of Land Use Science, 4, 1-26.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duchelle, A. E., Almeyda Zambrano, A. M., Wunder, S., Börner, J., & Kainer, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Center for International Forestry Research (PE)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • University of Florida (US)
ORCID
Venue
World Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-12
Volume
64
Pages
S149-S158
ISSN
0305-750X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.001
OpenAlex
W2141616986
Cited by
57
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • World Development (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Center for International Forestry Research Poverty and Environment Network (CIFOR PEN)
  • Rainforest Alliance Kleinhans Fellowship Program
  • William J. Fulbright Program
  • University of Florida NSF-IGERT “Working Forests in the Tropics,”
  • Stanford University Graduate Opportunity Funds Program
  • Stanford University O-Bie Schultz Fellowship Program
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Latin American rural development
Keywords
forest transition, smallholder livelihoods, protected areas, southwestern Amazon

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review