CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,147Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementForest Ecology and ConservationIncome, Poverty, and Inequality

Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis

Open access
Angelsen, Arild, Jagger, Pamela, Babigumira, Ronnie, Belcher, Brian, Hogarth, Nicholas J., Bauch, Simone, Börner, Jan, Smith-Hall, Carsten +1 more·2014·World Development
DOI 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006PMC PMC7220182
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper presents results from a comparative analysis of environmental income from approximately 8000 households in 24 developing countries collected by research partners in CIFOR's Poverty Environment Network (PEN). Environmental income accounts for 28% of total household income, 77% of which comes from natural forests. Environmental income shares are higher for low-income households, but differences across income quintiles are less pronounced than previously thought. The poor rely more heavily on subsistence products such as wood fuels and wild foods, and on products harvested from natural areas other than forests. In absolute terms environmental income is approximately five times higher in the highest income quintile, compared to the two lowest quintiles.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This global-comparative PEN analysis of 7,978 households in 24 developing countries finds that environmental income accounts for 27.5% of total household income, with forests supplying most of it. Environmental income shares are higher for poorer households, but absolute environmental income is much larger among richer households.

Key findings

  • Environmental income averages 27.5% of total household income ($US 508 per adult equivalent/year), comprising forest income at 22.2% ($US 440) and non-forest environmental income at 6.4% ($US 86); forest plantations contribute only 1% of total income.
  • Regional variation is substantial: forest income shares are 28.6% in Latin America, 21.4% in Africa, and 20.1% in Asia; environmental income shares are 32.1% in Latin America, 30.1% in Africa, and 22.0% in Asia.
  • Reliance is higher among low-income households but less pronounced than previously thought: global forest Relative Kuznets Ratio is 0.88, subsistence forest RKR is 0.65, forest cash RKR is 1.63, non-forest environmental RKR is 0.90, and subsistence non-forest environmental RKR is 0.58.
  • In absolute terms, the richest 20% have about five times more forest and environmental income than the poorest 40%; subtracting environmental income raises the Gini coefficient by an average of 4.7 percentage points.

Methods

  • PEN used standardized village and household questionnaires across 58 sites, 333 villages, and 7,978 households in 24 tropical/subtropical countries, with quarterly household income surveys using 1–3 month recall periods over 12 months.
  • Income was defined as value added; forest income followed the FAO forest definition, environmental income covered non-cultivated sources, and comparisons used adult equivalent units and PPP-adjusted $US.
  • Analyses included descriptive Kuznets ratios, a Gini simulation, and two-level multilevel regressions with varying site intercepts for absolute and relative forest/environmental income and total income; absolute incomes were log-transformed and proportions modeled with fractional logit.

Limitations

  • Stated: case selection was somewhat opportunistic, guided by PEN partner interests and opportunities; the authors assert representativeness only for smallholder-dominated tropical/subtropical landscapes with moderate-to-good forest access.
  • Stated: the paper focuses on current consumption, not safety nets or poverty pathways; the latter is best addressed with panel data, which are scarce. It also lacks geo-referenced extraction-density data, so sustainability of extraction is not assessed, and causality may run both ways in income-quintile relationships.
  • Evident from the text: the observational, cross-sectional design and reliance on recall-based income surveys limit causal inference and may leave measurement error; tenure findings are noted as open to different interpretations and requiring more detailed analysis.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

3 of 43 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingcitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Duchelle, Zambrano, Wunder, Börner, & Kainer, 2014 source

      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
  • Premisecitation

    A common finding among case-studies is that poor households rely more on forest and environmental income sources than better-off households, with reliance measured in relative terms.

    “A common finding among case-studies presented in the literature is that poor households rely more on forest and environmental income sources than better-off households, with reliance measured in relative terms as its share in total household income (e.g., Campbell & Luckert, 2002; Cavendish, 2000; Yemiru et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Campbell & Luckert, 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Cavendish, 2000 source
    • cites Yemiru et al., 2010 source
  • Findingown data

    Differences in environmental income shares across income quintiles are less pronounced than previously thought.

    “Environmental income shares are higher for low-income households, but differences across income quintiles are less pronounced than previously thought.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    77% of environmental income comes from natural forests.

    “Environmental income accounts for 28% of total household income, 77% of which comes from natural forests.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Environmental income accounts for 28% of total household income in the PEN sample.

    “Environmental income accounts for 28% of total household income, 77% of which comes from natural forests.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • May combine two claims. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The literature identifies three primary roles for environmental income in supporting rural livelihoods: supporting current consumption, providing safety-nets in response to shocks and gap-filling of seasonal shortfalls, and providing means to accumulate assets and a pathway out of poverty.

    “The literature identifies three primary roles for environmental income in supporting rural livelihoods: (i) supporting current consumption, (ii) providing safety-nets in response to shocks and gap-filling of seasonal shortfalls, and (iii) providing means to accumulate assets and providing a pathway out of poverty (Angelsen & Wunder, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Angelsen & Wunder, 2003 source

      Section 4.2.2 describes forest products meeting subsistence needs, filling seasonal gaps and helping households during emergencies. Section 4.2.4 says converting forest capital into other assets can sometimes help people escape poverty, but also stresses that non-timber forest products rarely enable socioeconomic advancement. The claim presents these as three general roles of environmental income, whereas the paper discusses forest-based income and treats the pathway out of poverty as conditional. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    Separate analyses not reported suggest significant correlation between asset values and inter- as well as intra-site differences in income.

    “Separate analyses (not reported) suggest significant correlation between asset values and inter- as well as intra-site differences in income.21”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Forests provide an average annual household income of US$440 at the sample sites, representing 22.2% of total household income.

    “Forests provide an average annual household income of $US 440 at our sample sites, representing 22.2% (21.1% from forest environmental income, 1.1% from forest plantations) of total household income.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Households in the sample use a wide variety of products, many of which are non-timber forest products (NTFPs).

    “The households in our sample use a wide variety of products, many of which are “non-timber forest products” (NTFPs) that are likely to help meet nutritional, medicinal, utilitarian, and ritual needs (Belcher, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Belcher, 2003 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of annual forest income, $US 422 comes from natural forests and $US 18 from plantation forests.

    “In absolute terms, annual forest income averages $US 440 (i.e., $US 422 from natural forests and $US18 from plantation forests) for the global sample (99.6% forest product, 0.4% forest service incomes), but we observe large and systematic regional variation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Non-forest environmental income is $US 86 or 6.4% of total household income for the full sample.

    “We estimate non-forest environmental income of $US 86 or 6.4% of total household income for the full sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Gini coefficient is negatively correlated with absolute and relative forest and environmental incomes.

    “We find that inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient is negatively correlated with forest and environmental incomes (both absolute and relative ones), but positively correlated with total income.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Larger households have higher relative forest and environmental incomes, although the latter is not significant.

    “However, larger households have higher relative forest and environmental incomes (although not significant for the latter), possibly because the high-labor intensity of many extractive activities make these relatively more attractive to large households.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Wood fuel and structural and fiber products account for about 60% of all forest products in value terms.

    “However, in value terms, wood fuel and structural and fiber products (timber, poles, building materials, etc.) are the dominant forest products, accounting for about 60% of all forest products in value terms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Non-forest environmental income adds US$86 (6.4%), bringing total environmental income contribution to US$508 or 27.5%, excluding forest plantation income.

    “Non-forest environmental income adds another $US 86 (6.4%) bringing the total environmental income contribution to $US 508 or 27.5% (i.e., not including forest plantation income).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Older households have accumulated more assets and tend to have higher reliance on crop and livestock income.

    “A simple analysis of correlations suggests that older households have accumulated more assets and tend to have higher reliance on crop and livestock income.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Distance to forest is not significantly associated with absolute or relative forest income in regression.

    “Surprisingly, households located close to forests do not have significantly higher absolute or relative forest income.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Asia and Africa forest income shares are 20.1% and 21.4%, respectively.

    “For example, in the 10 Latin American sites, forest income constitutes 28.6% of average household income, whereas in Asia and Africa forest income shares are 20.1% and 21.4%, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Non-forest environmental income elasticities are 0.74 (total), 0.70 (cash), and 0.50 (subsistence).

    “For non-forest environmental income, the elasticities are much lower: 0.74 (total), 0.70 (cash), and 0.50 (subsistence).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Africa sites have higher shares of non-forest environmental income, averaging 9.6%, roughly half of forest income.

    “The Africa sites stand out with higher shares of non-forest environmental income, averaging 9.6%, or roughly half of forest income, reflecting the value and diversity of products collected from open savannahs, bushlands, and other non-forest wildlands.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Latin America, forest income shares are slightly higher for the top income quintile, with an overall RKR of 1.07.

    “In Latin America, forest income shares are slightly higher for the top income quintile, with an overall RKR of 1.07.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    FUG membership has no significant association with absolute or relative forest or environmental income.

    “We do not find any significant association between FUG membership and absolute or relative forest or environmental income.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Wage incomes are higher in Latin America (22.6%) and Asia (17.6%) than in Africa (10.7%).

    “Active labor markets generate higher wage incomes in the Latin American (22.6%) and Asian samples (17.6%) than in Africa (10.7%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    The income analysis used 58 sites, 333 villages, and 7978 households.

    “Larger PEN study area with distinct geographical sub-areas were split into “sites”, yielding a total of 58 sites, 333 villages, and 7978 households9 used in the income analysis in this paper.10”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Asset shocks and labor shocks have no significant impact on forest and environmental incomes.

    “We found no significant impact of assets or labor shocks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The negative effect is higher for forest income than for environmental income, and the coefficient is not significant for environmental reliance.

    “We note, however, that the negative effect is higher for forest income than for environmental income (and the coefficient is not significant for environmental reliance), suggesting that non-forest environmental income is relatively more accessible and/or attractive to female-headed households, as compared to forest income.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Increasing age of the household head reduces total income as well as absolute forest and environmental income (and relative forest income).

    “All else being equal, increasing age of the household head reduces total income as well as absolute forest and environmental income (and relative forest income).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Forest environmental income represents 21.1% and forest plantations 1.1% of total household income.

    “Forests provide an average annual household income of $US 440 at our sample sites, representing 22.2% (21.1% from forest environmental income, 1.1% from forest plantations) of total household income.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Environmental income shares are higher for the poorest households more so for subsistence uses and non-forest environments.

    “Overall, we find that environmental income shares are higher for the poorest households; more so when we look at subsistence uses and incomes from non-forest environments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Multilevel models allow simultaneous and efficient estimation of group-level effects and predictors.

    “In contrast to a standard cross-sectional regression approach, where varying intercepts or coefficients are introduced through dummy variables and interaction terms, multilevel models allow us to simultaneously and efficiently estimate group-level effects and predictors (Gelman, 2006).17, 18”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gelman, 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Individual and aggregated indicators of site-level well-being may exert different and independent effects on environmental income and reliance outcomes.

    “The rationale for doing this is that individual and aggregated indicators of site-level well-being may exert different and independent effects on environmental income and reliance outcomes (Enders & Tofighi, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Enders & Tofighi, 2007 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Case selection was to some degree opportunistic, guided by PEN partner interests and opportunities.

    “However, case selection was to some degree opportunistic, guided by PEN partner interests and opportunities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Households were sampled randomly based on household rosters or pre-existing censuses.

    “Within villages, households were sampled randomly based on household rosters or pre-existing censuses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    PEN used standardized state-of-the-art definitions and methods allowing for systematic comparisons across studies and regions.

    “It used standardized state-of-the-art definitions and methods allowing for systematic comparisons across studies and regions.6”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The lack of an observed negative relationship between environmental reliance and total income across sites may be explained by the sites included: several high-income sites in Latin America have valuable commercial forest products, and some poorer African sites have limited access to forests.

    “This may, in part, be explained by the sites included in the PEN sample: several of the high-income sites in Latin America have valuable commercial forest products, and some of the poorer African sites have limited access to forests.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Large households are likely to have higher consumer to worker ratios, and income per adult equivalent is therefore likely to be lower.

    “Large households are also likely to have higher consumer to worker ratios, and income per adult equivalent is therefore likely to be lower.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Davis et al. (2010) recommend mean of shares if households are the main unit of analysis.

    “We follow Davis et al. (2010) who recommend “mean of shares” if households are the main unit of analysis, as in our case.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Davis et al. (2010) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Older people may be less able physically to access forest and wild resources.

    “In addition, older people may be less able physically to access forest and wild resources.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The literature suggests that absolute environmental income rises with total income.

    “The literature suggests that absolute environmental income rises with total income, while relative environmental income (i.e., the share of environmental income in total household income) decreases—i.e., household’s environmental “dependence” or “reliance” decreases with higher incomes (Cavendish, 2000; Escobal & Aldana, 2003; Mamo et al., 2007; Neumann & Hirsch, 2000; Vedeld et al., 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cavendish, 2000 source
    • cites Escobal & Aldana, 2003 source
    • cites Mamo et al., 2007 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The high-labor intensity of many extractive activities makes these relatively more attractive to large households.

    “However, larger households have higher relative forest and environmental incomes (although not significant for the latter), possibly because the high-labor intensity of many extractive activities make these relatively more attractive to large households.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The lower total wage share in the PEN sample may be because PEN sites tend to be located in more remote areas with lower market integration.

    “The total wage share in the PEN sample is lower (15.2% compared to 25.3%) than in the Davis et al. (2010) sample, possibly because our sites tend to be located in more remote areas with lower market integration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The PEN sample is representative of smallholder-dominated tropical and sub-tropical landscapes with moderate-to-good access to forest resources.

    “We assert that our sample is representative of smallholder-dominated tropical and sub-tropical landscapes with moderate-to-good access to forest resources.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Households living close to forest have higher absolute and relative forest income, but this effect disappears once controlling for other characteristics that change with location.

    “This suggests that households living close to forest have higher absolute and relative forest income, but that this effect disappears once controlling for differences in other characteristics that change with location.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Failing to account for environmental income would give a misleading picture of rural livelihoods and provide an inadequate basis for policy design.

    “Failing to account for this contribution would give a misleading picture of rural livelihoods, and provide an inadequate basis for policy design.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The reduction in forest income from agricultural expansion is an aggregate effect of individual household expansion and will only be observed at higher levels of aggregation.

    “This reduction is an aggregate effect of individual household expansion, and will therefore only be observed at higher levels of aggregation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Forest income losses from agricultural expansion could in some cases be larger than previously assumed.

    “Yet, while we have not gathered any geo-referenced data on extraction densities from specific areas, the corresponding forest income losses could in some cases be larger than previously assumed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Assets play a key role in the choice of livelihood strategies.

    “Assets play a key role in the choice of livelihood strategies (Ellis, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ellis, 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

42 of 42

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Market access is exogenous to the household.

    “Factors such as market access are exogenous to the household, suggesting that the “safety net” interpretation is more appropriate than the “poverty trap” interpretation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most studies on environmental income are from dry-land sub-Saharan Africa, with Latin America underrepresented in the literature.

    “Finally, most studies are from dry-land sub-Saharan Africa, with Latin America in particular being underrepresented in the literature.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The PEN sample sites are representative of rural areas in developing countries with similar characteristics.

    “In terms of rural areas in developing countries, with similar characteristics to those included in the PEN study, ignoring environmental income in socioeconomic surveys and in rural development planning is quantitatively analogous to ignoring the fact that rural people grow crops.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Degradation of forest and other environments is determined by absolute volumes of environmental goods harvested, not relative reliance.

    “To the extent that degradation of forest and other environments are the result of local forest use, it is the absolute volumes of environmental goods that are of interest.”
4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Dewi, S., & Belcher, B. (2012). Extrapolation domain and cross-scale analysis of the Poverty and Environment Network. Presentation to Consortium Research Program of Forests, Trees and Agroforestry – Sentinel Sites Symposium, Nairobi, Kenya (Unpublished).
  2. Dewi, S., Belcher, B., & Puntodewo, A. (2011). PEN study in wider geographical context: Data explorations and tentative results. Presentation to PEN Symposium, UEA, Norwich, UK (Unpublished).
  3. Rayamajhi, 2008, Estimating forest products value in Central Himalaya: Methodological experiences, Scandinavian Forest Economics, 42, 468
  4. Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., Babimigura, R., Ickowitz, A., Paumgarten, F., et al. (2014). Myths and truths about men, women, and forest resources: A global comparative study. World Development, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X14000692.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., Börner, J., Smith-Hall, C., & Wunder, S.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Royal Roads University (CA)
  • Charles Darwin University (AU)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • Center for International Forestry Research (PE)
ORCID
Venue
World Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-12
Volume
64
Issue
Suppl 1
Pages
S12-S28
ISSN
0305-750X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006
PMC
PMC7220182
OpenAlex
W2170853760
Cited by
1,147
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 120 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 113 · 2019: 121 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 91 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 1
FWCI
57.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • World Development (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, 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)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • VIUSpace (Vancouver Island University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • ESRC-DFID
  • DANIDA
  • USAID (BASIS-CRSP)
  • IFS
  • CIFOR
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Forest Ecology and Conservation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
Keywords
environmental income, rural livelihoods, household income, natural forests, fuelwood, wild foods, income inequality, low-income households, poverty, developing countries

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-03.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-03.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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