Considering all the sources of cash income, the Simpson index values show that –
contrary to our hypothesis above – the poor were significantly less diversified than the
non-poor (0.30 vs. 0.39, respectively; p < 0.01), though this finding appears plausible given that maize is also a very lucrative crop for poor farmers (cf. Sect. 5.4.2).
Together with the limited opportunities for the poor to diversify outside agriculture,
this may have led to a lower level of diversification than among the non-poor.
The crucial role of maize in generating income is reflected in its dominant
position in terms of land use in the area, as in 2007 both poor and non-poor
households allocated, on average, 73 % of their cultivatable area to the crop.
Table 5.6 also shows that with respect to the land area allocated to both rice and
fruit trees (the next most relevant crops in the area), there was no difference
between the poor and the non-poor. Consequently, in contrast to the Simpson
index of cash income diversity, the analogous index on cropping diversity did not
differ significantly between the two groups. It is worth noting that the two groups do
not differ in terms of total farm size, either, as can be seen from the table. In percapita terms, however, land endowment among the non-poor households exceeded
that of the poor households by 24 % on average (0.362 vs. 0.293 ha), and by as
much as 100 % when it came to irrigable land (0.042 vs. 0.021 ha).
5.4.1.2 Case Study on Forest Management and Poverty in Northern Thailand
A case study on forest management practices conducted in northern Thailand in
2011, provides further insights into the linkages that exist between poverty, natural
resource management and income diversification strategies (Birkenberg 2012).
Population growth, along with rising living standards, have kept the pressure on
Thailand’s forest resources at a high level, so that today, harvested forest products
make up about 1–5 % of the country’s GDP (Wichawutipong 2005). Forestry and
poverty reduction have thus been of central importance in recent Thai policies. In
the uplands of northern Thailand, forests are protected under different regimes,
such as top-down approaches (e.g., National Parks) or self-governed community
forestry projects.
The objective of this case study was to investigate the impact of these different
protection regimes (i.e., self-governance and restricted access to forest resources) on
people’s livelihoods. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from four Karen
villages selected to account for the diversity of forest protection regimes. Out of the
four villages selected, two are located inside National Parks (NP)
16 and two outside.
Furthermore, two villages (one located in a NP and one outside) have community
forestry systems (CF) in place. Ten households were randomly selected from each of
the selected villages, for household-level analyses. In addition to village- and
household-level structured interviews, participatory research methods were also
applied to investigate the relationship between livelihoods and forestry management.
16 Doi Inthanon NP and Doi Suthep-Pui NP.
198
C. Saint-Macary et al.
contrary to our hypothesis above – the poor were significantly less diversified than the
non-poor (0.30 vs. 0.39, respectively; p < 0.01), though this finding appears plausible given that maize is also a very lucrative crop for poor farmers (cf. Sect. 5.4.2).
Together with the limited opportunities for the poor to diversify outside agriculture,
this may have led to a lower level of diversification than among the non-poor.
The crucial role of maize in generating income is reflected in its dominant
position in terms of land use in the area, as in 2007 both poor and non-poor
households allocated, on average, 73 % of their cultivatable area to the crop.
Table 5.6 also shows that with respect to the land area allocated to both rice and
fruit trees (the next most relevant crops in the area), there was no difference
between the poor and the non-poor. Consequently, in contrast to the Simpson
index of cash income diversity, the analogous index on cropping diversity did not
differ significantly between the two groups. It is worth noting that the two groups do
not differ in terms of total farm size, either, as can be seen from the table. In percapita terms, however, land endowment among the non-poor households exceeded
that of the poor households by 24 % on average (0.362 vs. 0.293 ha), and by as
much as 100 % when it came to irrigable land (0.042 vs. 0.021 ha).
5.4.1.2 Case Study on Forest Management and Poverty in Northern Thailand
A case study on forest management practices conducted in northern Thailand in
2011, provides further insights into the linkages that exist between poverty, natural
resource management and income diversification strategies (Birkenberg 2012).
Population growth, along with rising living standards, have kept the pressure on
Thailand’s forest resources at a high level, so that today, harvested forest products
make up about 1–5 % of the country’s GDP (Wichawutipong 2005). Forestry and
poverty reduction have thus been of central importance in recent Thai policies. In
the uplands of northern Thailand, forests are protected under different regimes,
such as top-down approaches (e.g., National Parks) or self-governed community
forestry projects.
The objective of this case study was to investigate the impact of these different
protection regimes (i.e., self-governance and restricted access to forest resources) on
people’s livelihoods. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from four Karen
villages selected to account for the diversity of forest protection regimes. Out of the
four villages selected, two are located inside National Parks (NP)
16 and two outside.
Furthermore, two villages (one located in a NP and one outside) have community
forestry systems (CF) in place. Ten households were randomly selected from each of
the selected villages, for household-level analyses. In addition to village- and
household-level structured interviews, participatory research methods were also
applied to investigate the relationship between livelihoods and forestry management.
16 Doi Inthanon NP and Doi Suthep-Pui NP.
198
C. Saint-Macary et al.