Estimating Forest-Based Livelihood Strategies Focused on Accessibility of Market Demand and Forest Proximity
- Publisher:
- SPRINGER
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Small-scale Forestry, 2023, 22, (3), pp. 537-556
- Issue Date:
- 2023-09-01
Closed Access
| Filename | Description | Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s11842-023-09542-2.pdf | Published version | 2.53 MB |
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
Forests have an important role in the ecosystem and many people depend on it for their income and livelihood. Here, we analyzed the forest dependency of rural households in West Bengal, India and evaluated the role of the proximity of forest and remoteness of the market in their livelihood patterns. Based on forest proximity and road accessibility, we classify the villages on the basis of four criteria - (a) high forest proximity with high road access (HFHA); (b) high forest proximity with low road access (HFLA); (c) low forest proximity with high road access (LFHA); and (d) low forest proximity with low road access (LFLA). Subsequently, we collected socioeconomic, demographic and forest product data of 200 households in the forest fringe of the Jhargram district in West Bengal via a door-to-door survey. Forest income is very significant to household income contribution in this study area. About 46.84% of income has been acquired through fuel wood and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as Mahua, Kendu leaf and Sal (Shorea robusta) seeds. Forest products comprise of about 30% of overall household income in the study area, with fuelwood being the most relevant forest product (46.8% of households income) followed by agroforestry (18.8%), fodder (12.0%), Sal leaf made plate (9.6%) and bamboo (8.1%). Forest proximity is positively correlated with increased income from forests as predicted, but remote villages have less income than villages with higher accessibility. The people of HFLA and LFLA zones have comparatively low incomes from the forest due to inaccessibility of markets for selling forest products and the value of products is also low (HFHA = Rs. 7815 ± 29,326, HFLA = Rs 5752 ± 17,450, LFHA = Rs 3357 ± 14,831, LFLA = Rs 572 ± 12,278). The inhabitants of the LFHA zone are more dependent on daily wages (Rs 7788) and agricultural activities (Rs 3540) as forest density is low. The HFHA zone households’ benefit is greater than absolute forest income compared to other zones (HFHA > HFLA > LFHA > LFLA). The lower income group households’ absolute forest income is less than higher income group households’ (low income group < middle income group < higher income group). However, relative forest income differs from lower income groups and is more dependent on the forest (low income > middle income > higher income). Proximity of villages from the forest edge influenced the business, trade and also the wage rate of labourers. Market proximity and accessibility significantly affected to total income. Hence, this study portrays evidence that the forest provides an enormous potentiality for the development of rural livelihood and minimizing poverty. The analysis also highlights synergies that the importance of forest resources, forest proximity, rural livelihood, and market accessibility and help achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: