Type of study:
Type of publication:
Peer-review published journal paper
Mechanism by which biodiversity affects poverty:
The harvesting of natural resources as previously defined. The growing of indigenous vegetables and high value NTFPs.
Measure of poverty impact used:
Contribution of natural resources to household income.
Assessment of impact on poverty:
Evidence assesses the scale of impact:
Scale of impact details:
US$85/year/household - Mountain villages. US$41/year/household - Hillside villages. US$23/year/household - Lowland villages. This represents 53, 27, and 18% respectively of total household cash income.
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
It generates income/tradeable surplus
Mechanism affects poverty precisely how:
The natural resources harvested are either consumed directly to meet subsistence needs which contributes to food security, or are sold to generate income which is then used to buy food during times of low rice availability which contributes to income and food security.
Evidence provides measure of poverty impact:
Evidence is site-specific:
Research method details:
Semi-structured interviews, questionnaire surveys, participatory observation, wealth ranking, market surveys. For the selection of test villages, a preliminary interview was conducted in 13 villages collecting basic socioeconomic data, 6 villages were then selected from these 13 (though no details on why they chose these particular 6 apart from ensuring that 2 from each agricultural system (Lowland, hills and montane) were present.
Unit of analysis and sample size:
Does the evidence mention the general biodiversity status of the country/region?:
General biodiversity status described:
Forest coverage in Laos was estimated to be greater than 50% of land area, compared to its neighbours the natural environment is relatively rich.
Does the evidence describe the biodiversity status of the site?:
Does the evidence mention the general poverty status of the country/region?:
Site poverty status described:
Wealth ranking is undertaken to given relative poverty status. Cash income per year is calculated and put into context my outgoing expenses. Additionally the rice production and consumption is calculated and used as a measure of relative poverty through its impact on food security.
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:
What is the land tenure regime?:
Land tenure regime details:
The state is continuing to allocate agricultural and forest land to households in order to try and curb environmental degradation.
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:
A wealth ranking exercise is used to split households into three groups, relatively rich, middle and poor. This was performed by the village headman in all villages. Next analysis of benefit, by these groups was conducted, and it was found that the poorest groups of each agricultural system type gain the most benefit (biggest contribution of natural resources to total cash income) from natural resources. It was also found that the types of natural resource utilised differs between groups.
Duration of impact details:
Short term, to help make up shortfall in rice availability usually before harvest.
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: