View in EDS

Unpacking Natural Resource Reliance and Poverty in Northern Botswana.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Unpacking Natural Resource Reliance and Poverty in Northern Botswana.
Authors: Cassidy, Lin1 (AUTHOR) lincassidyconsulting@gmail.com, Gaughan, Andrea2 (AUTHOR), Stevens, Forrest R.2 (AUTHOR), Pricope, Narcisa3 (AUTHOR), Salerno, Jonathan4 (AUTHOR), Murray-Hudson, Mike1 (AUTHOR), Parry, David5 (AUTHOR), Hartter, Joel6 (AUTHOR)
Source: Society & Natural Resources. Mar2025, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p209-234. 26p.
Subject Terms: *Climate change, *Natural resources, *Environmental risk, *Arid regions, Rural poor
Geographic Terms: Africa
Abstract: Natural resources use exposes households to environmental stressors. But high usage is different than high proportional contribution to livelihood; the degree of reliance is critical for identifying vulnerable households. We contrasted differences between number of resource types harvested and their proportional contribution against wealth and vulnerability indices using 1995 and 2017 household data. In 1995, poorer households collected fewer NR types but had higher proportional contribution, and proportional contribution was positively correlated with vulnerability. In 2017, poorer households collected more NRs, but proportional contribution remained higher but its correlation with vulnerability was unexpectedly negative. By 2017, poorer households sold more NRs. Sale of NRs switched from negative correlation with proportional contribution (1995), to positive (2017). Households are vulnerable through NRs' proportional contribution to livelihood, not through range of NR types harvested. Proportional contribution highlights households at risk from environmental shocks. Market access for sustainably harvested NRs could buffer poor households. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Society & Natural Resources is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: GreenFILE
Description
Abstract:Natural resources use exposes households to environmental stressors. But high usage is different than high proportional contribution to livelihood; the degree of reliance is critical for identifying vulnerable households. We contrasted differences between number of resource types harvested and their proportional contribution against wealth and vulnerability indices using 1995 and 2017 household data. In 1995, poorer households collected fewer NR types but had higher proportional contribution, and proportional contribution was positively correlated with vulnerability. In 2017, poorer households collected more NRs, but proportional contribution remained higher but its correlation with vulnerability was unexpectedly negative. By 2017, poorer households sold more NRs. Sale of NRs switched from negative correlation with proportional contribution (1995), to positive (2017). Households are vulnerable through NRs' proportional contribution to livelihood, not through range of NR types harvested. Proportional contribution highlights households at risk from environmental shocks. Market access for sustainably harvested NRs could buffer poor households. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:08941920
DOI:10.1080/08941920.2024.2440922