Type of study:
Non-experimental research
Type of publication:
Peer-review published journal paper
Mechanism by which biodiversity affects poverty:
Biodiversity component details:
NTFPs defined as forest products collected outside households' private lands, in both communal lands and mountain reserves e.g. fuel wood.
Mechanism details:
NFTPs such as fuel wood are collected, used and/ or sold for cash to supply subsistence needs.
Measure of poverty impact used:
Annual income received from forest, non farm, private forest and agriculture activities.
Assessment of impact on poverty:
Evidence assesses the scale of impact:
Scale of impact details:
Income is annualised for all the groups (poor, medium and less poor).
Sustainability of biodiversity use:
Attribute of biodiversity affecting poverty:
Does the evidence relate to a specific intervention?:
How does the mechanism affect poverty?:
It supports immediate subsistence needs
Mechanism affects poverty precisely how:
NFTPs including fuel wood, fodder, soil for the floor and thatch grass are collected for subsistence use and selling to others to generate income where possible.
Evidence provides measure of poverty impact:
Location of primary author:
Evidence is site-specific:
Research method details:
2 Villages with access to Chiradzulu mountain reserve; and, 2 without access to Chiradzulu mountain reserve. Collected income information associated with the different household products and activities.
Unit of analysis and sample size:
Does the evidence mention the general biodiversity status of the country/region?:
Does the evidence describe the biodiversity status of the site?:
Does the evidence mention the general poverty status of the country/region?:
General poverty status described:
6th poorest country 'less than USD1 per day' income.
Site poverty status described:
Records number of Female headed households, education level, household size, worker/ consumer ratio, access to or no access to forest.
Does the evidence discuss the governance regime at the site?:
Does the evidence describe the poverty/socioeconomic status of the site?:
What is the resource rights regime?:
Resource rights regime details:
The reserve is under government tenure with access for the community.
What is the land tenure regime?:
Land tenure regime details:
Reserve under government tenure with communal access to resources.
Does the evidence mention the power relations?:
Does the evidence consider possible trade-offs/costs as well as benefits?:
Measure of poverty impact tag:
Distribution impacts considered:
Yes Detail on Specifics Provided
Duration of impact considered:
Distribution impacts details:
'Less poor households report very high non-farm income share (54%), while poor have the lowest share (21%).
Duration of impact details:
Short term - the harvested material / income is used for current consumption.
Outcome replicable elsewhere considered:
Thresholds/boundary limits/tipping points of achieving the outcome considered:
How costs and benefits/impacts might vary across different spatial scales considered:
Presence of possible confounding factors acknowledged:
Yes acknowledged and taken into account in study design
Confounding factors details:
Study ran a multiple regression with total household income against socio-economic variables of the household and some contextual variables like age, sex of household head, education level of HH head, wealth, land size and land quality.
