Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorHutchinson, Charles F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorOrr, Barron Joseph
dc.creatorOrr, Barron Josephen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-04-25T10:03:34Z
dc.date.available2013-04-25T10:03:34Z
dc.date.issued2000en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/284291
dc.description.abstractLocal inhabitants risk the loss of ecological resources when land is cleared for cultivation as population densities and the demand for land resources increase. This dilemma is investigated through an interdisciplinary socioeconomic and ethnoecological assessment of 427 households in communities adjacent to four protected areas in Malawi. This study introduces a multidimensional approach that captures baseline socioeconomic information and resource utilization in a quantitative, integrated manner. Household income was derived from a "sum of the parts" aggregation of income elements including species-level agricultural production and resource utilization data. Regression analysis (R² = 0.84) demonstrated that poorer households are more reliant on protected area-based income than are wealthy households. Lorenz curve analysis demonstrated that income distribution equality improves when proceeds from protected areas are included in household income. Poverty threshold analysis indicates that exploitation of protected area resources is a livelihood strategy that halved the number of households that otherwise would have remained beneath a basic needs poverty threshold. Ecological resources are shown to meet demand for more people and for a longer time frame than converting the same lands to agriculture. However, conversion is more likely because per hectare values are 2 to 3.5 times greater for agriculture than for consumptive ecological resource use. Spatial analysis suggests points of negative land cover change (1984-94) were not associated with the proximity of population but with the agricultural suitability of the land. The results suggest the kinds of decisions people will make under extreme stress, when consideration of potential impacts is overwhelmed by the need to survive. This study demonstrates that protected area resources play a pivotal role in poverty alleviation, and by extension, efforts to make sustainable use and sustainable development compatible.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.subjectAnthropology, Cultural.en_US
dc.subjectBiology, Ecology.en_US
dc.subjectGeography.en_US
dc.titleMore users and more uses: Choosing between land and forest in Malawi's protected areasen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
dc.identifier.proquest9992123en_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineArid Lands Resources Sciencesen_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
dc.description.noteThis item was digitized from a paper original and/or a microfilm copy. If you need higher-resolution images for any content in this item, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.
dc.identifier.bibrecord.b41172383en_US
dc.description.admin-noteOriginal file replaced with corrected file July 2023.
refterms.dateFOA2018-08-20T08:56:52Z
html.description.abstractLocal inhabitants risk the loss of ecological resources when land is cleared for cultivation as population densities and the demand for land resources increase. This dilemma is investigated through an interdisciplinary socioeconomic and ethnoecological assessment of 427 households in communities adjacent to four protected areas in Malawi. This study introduces a multidimensional approach that captures baseline socioeconomic information and resource utilization in a quantitative, integrated manner. Household income was derived from a "sum of the parts" aggregation of income elements including species-level agricultural production and resource utilization data. Regression analysis (R² = 0.84) demonstrated that poorer households are more reliant on protected area-based income than are wealthy households. Lorenz curve analysis demonstrated that income distribution equality improves when proceeds from protected areas are included in household income. Poverty threshold analysis indicates that exploitation of protected area resources is a livelihood strategy that halved the number of households that otherwise would have remained beneath a basic needs poverty threshold. Ecological resources are shown to meet demand for more people and for a longer time frame than converting the same lands to agriculture. However, conversion is more likely because per hectare values are 2 to 3.5 times greater for agriculture than for consumptive ecological resource use. Spatial analysis suggests points of negative land cover change (1984-94) were not associated with the proximity of population but with the agricultural suitability of the land. The results suggest the kinds of decisions people will make under extreme stress, when consideration of potential impacts is overwhelmed by the need to survive. This study demonstrates that protected area resources play a pivotal role in poverty alleviation, and by extension, efforts to make sustainable use and sustainable development compatible.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_td_9992123_sip1_c.pdf
Size:
20.06Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record