|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|91736||159839||2015||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
این مقاله ISI می تواند منبع ارزشمندی برای تولید محتوا باشد.
- تولید محتوا برای سایت و وبلاگ
- تولید محتوا برای کتاب
- تولید محتوا برای نشریات و روزنامه ها
پایگاه «دانشیاری» آمادگی دارد با همکاری مجموعه «شهر محتوا» با استفاده از این مقاله علمی، برای شما به زبان فارسی، تولید محتوا نماید.
• Quantitative assessment of natural resource incomes in the Peruvian Amazon.
• Natural resource income contributions differ according to ethnic identification and wealth.
• Forest, agroforest, and fishery incomes are influenced by market and resource proximity.
• Policies and initiatives should safeguard key environments including agroforests and palm swamps
This paper highlights the economic contributions of natural resources to rural livelihoods and represents one of the first comprehensive income quantifications assessing household- and landscape-level determinants of resource use in the Amazon. Income data (n = 176) collected over one year quantified all subsistence and cash income generated by indigenous and non-indigenous residents in two locations within the Ampiyacu–Apayacu basin. Products harvested from unmanaged forests and agroforests contributed 42% of household income, while fishing contributed 14%, resulting in over 55% of household income derived from local resources. Poorer households are most reliant on forest products, particularly low value resources, while wealthier households benefit more from commercial harvest. Tobit regression analyses and general linearized models identified key determinants of (i) resource harvest engagement and (ii) absolute and relative incomes derived from natural resources. Basin location (East versus West), ethnic identification, distance to market/forest proximity, household wealth and access to non-farm/forest cash income sources were all significant. These determinants varied, however, depending on the specific resource harvested (e.g. palm heart versus timber). This relates to i) varying abundance of individual resources across the landscape, and ii) differences in harvest purpose (subsistence versus sale) and product type (low-value/low-return versus high-value/high return). Future policies and initiatives should promote the conservation and sustainable use of diverse environments which are critical to livelihoods (e.g., forests, palm swamps, agroforests, rivers and lakes).
Journal: Forest Policy and Economics - Volume 59, October 2015, Pages 35–46