Fig. 5.2 Forest collection activities in two villages in northern Thailand (Notes: N ¼ number of
products mentioned in each village respectively. PI ¼ mean of the villages multi-dimensional
Poverty Index describing relative poverty (Source: Data from household survey 2011 (Birkenberg
2012))
Table 5.7 Average number of forest products collected in two study villages in northern
Thailand, differentiated by wealth tercile
Wealth groups
Poor
(N ¼ 13)
Medium
(N ¼ 14)
Better-off
(N ¼ 13)
Asymp. sig.
(2-sided)
Single goods
Wood
0.15
0.50
0.38
0.161
Mushroom
0.23
0.50
0.69
0.061*
b
Bamboo shoot
0.31
0.57
0.62
0.234
Fire wood
0.23
0.36
0.23
0.695
Grouped goods
HVFP
0.69
1.57
1.69
0.004***
a
Hunted products
3
0.15
0.31
0.317
River Products
2
0.85
0.43
0.08
0.037**
Àa
NTFP
1
1.54
1.07
0.54
0.051**
Àb
Source: Data from household survey 2011 (Birkenberg 2012)
***, **, * Chi-square tests in combination with cross tabulation indicates a significance of dummy
variables at the 1 % and 5 % and 10 % levels. HVFP ¼ Higher Value Forest Products (wood,
mushrooms and bamboo shoots)
a
Spearman correlation test significant at the 1% level. Negative correlation indicated with a minus
b
Spearman correlation test significant at the 5% level. Negative correlation indicated with a minus
1
White taro, banana stems, banana flowers, eggplants, ferns, animal feed, herbs and other
vegetables;
2
Fish, crabs, frogs, shellfish.
3
Birds and squirrels
200
C. Saint-Macary et al.