Towards Sustainable Livelihood Practices in the Indigenous Forests of Zambia’s Central Province: Barriers and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed with the aim of establishing a comprehensive picture of the problems and needs of local communities in upholding sustainable livelihoods in the face of forest degradation and recommending how their livelihoods may be improved in the short and long term. Thus make them self-reliant by enhancing their resilience. Study Methodology: included a literature review and a household survey for a total of 443 household interviews. In addition, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted with the rural population and other stakeholders respectively. Field visits were made to all the 8 sites in the two districts Serenje and Chitambo. The main constrain of sustainable livelihood in the communities, included, low levels of education and skills, low levels of asset holding, weak local institutions and unfavorable legal and institutional frameworks. But the respondents registered a wide variety of NTFPs based livelihoods obtained from forests resources (15). Most important usage includes land for cultivation, fuelwood, poles for construction, charcoal production and use of NTFPs (collection of mushrooms, wild fruits and nuts, caterpillars, honey production and medicinal plants). The livelihood activities remains largely subsistence and for safety net functions. Trade resulting into incomes generation is minimal, unstructured and therefore unsustainable. In conclusion: commercialization of NTFPS and PES activities may be the solution to sustainable livelihood and forest conservation. A range of specifically forest sector elements would also need to be addressed, including, entrepreneurship, market and skill development for forest product and services delivery; embracing these elements will also require new kinds of enhanced institutional arrangement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".