Safety Nets, Gap Filling and Forests: A Global-Comparative Perspective
Gerald Shively () and
World Development, 2014, vol. 64, issue S1, S29-S42
In the forest–livelihoods literature, forests are widely perceived to provide both common safety nets to shocks and resources for seasonal gap-filling. We use a large global-comparative dataset to test these responses. We find households rank forest-extraction responses to shocks lower than most common alternatives. For seasonal gap-filling, forest extraction also has limited importance. The minority of households using forests for coping is asset-poor and lives in villages specialized on forests, in particular timber extraction. Overall, forest resources may be less important as a buffer between agricultural harvests and in times of unforeseen hardship than has been found in many case studies.
Keywords: livelihoods; risk; shocks; coping strategies; income; diversification (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (61) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:64:y:2014:i:s1:p:s29-s42
Access Statistics for this article
World Development is currently edited by O. T. Coomes
More articles in World Development from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().