Table. 2.2 Diverse uses of environmental income
TABLE 2.2 DIVERSE USES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INCOME | |||
| Location | Ecosystem | Good or Services Used | Benefit to Households |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
| Shindi Ward, Southern Zimbabwe | Forests and grasslands | Wild fruits, timber, thatching grass, livestock fodder | Ecosystems contribute an average of 35% of total income. (Cavendish 2000) |
| Southern Malawi | Forest | Firewood, fruit, mushrooms, bushmeat, insects, honey | Forest income contributes up to 30% of total income. (Fisher 2004) |
| Gulf of Mannar, India | Reefs | Seaweed, shellfish, sea cucumber, medicines, lobster | Reefs are often the only source of cash income for poor families, providing up to $199 of income annually. (Whittingham et al. 2003) |
| Coquimbo Region, Chile | Semi-Arid | Pasture, fodder | 80–90% of poor households use common pool resources.(Bahamondes 2003) |
| Iquitos, Peru | Tropical forest | valign="top">Non-timber forest products, including fruits, latexes, medicines, tourism and carbon sequestration | Forests provide $422 of potential sustainable income per hectare annually. (Lampietti and Dixon 1995) |
| Budongo Forest, Uganda | Semi-deciduous tropical forest | Fuel wood, building materials, wood for furniture, food, medicinal plants | Biomass provides 90% of the energy needs for the country and between 6% and 25% of household income in Bundongo village. (Aryal 2002) |
| Bushbuckridge District, South Africa | Agriculture | All crops including maize, cassava, morogo, various fruits | Total value of wild and crop plants was US$269 per household per year. (High and Shackleton 2000) |
| Chimaliro Forest Reserve, Malawi | Agriculture | Maize, cassava, ground nuts, pulses, soy beans, potatoes | Food crops contributed between 45% and 55% of household income. (Botha et al. 2004) |
| Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh, India | Agriculture | Agriculture, fuelwood, timber, fodder for livestock | Environmental income (including agriculture and resource collection) was the largest household income source for the poorest 25%. (Narain et al. 2005) |
