Conservation vs. livelihoods: spatial management of non‐timber forest product harvests in a two‐dimensional model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Areas of high biodiversity often coincide with communities living in extreme poverty. As a livelihood support, these communities often harvest wild products from the environment. But harvest activities can have negative impacts on fragile and globally important ecosystems. This paper examines trade-offs in ecological protection and community welfare from the harvest of wild products. With a novel model and empirical evidence, I show that management of harvest activity does not always resolve these trade-offs. In a model of continuous harvests in a two-dimensional landscape, managed harvest activity improves welfare, but is uniformly bad for other ecosystem services that are sensitive to the presence (as opposed to the intensity) of human activity. Empirical results from a unique dataset of mushroom harvesters in Yunnan, China suggest more experienced, poorer, and more vulnerable individuals tend to rely on more distant harvests. Thus, policies that limit the extent of forest travel, such as protected areas, may protect fragile ecosystems but can have a disproportionately negative effect on those most vulnerable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".