Why Do Households Depend on the Forest for Income? Analysis of Factors Influencing Households’ Decision-Making Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using survey information of 150 randomly selected households across 21 villages of the forest-rich district of Swat, Pakistan, this study assessed households’ decision-making behaviors in depending on income from nearby forested land using socio-economic attributes. The evidence from the study may aid in making the existing policies be better targeted toward families that depend on the forest for income. Descriptive statistics and econometric techniques such as logit and tobit were used to analyze the data. Respondent households obtained the highest share of their income from off-farm activities (37%) and least from forest activities (16%). Fuelwood constitutes the biggest share (66%) of forest income, followed by medical plants (20%) and fodder (13%). We found that households with more physical assets, more family members working in off-farm jobs, and households earning more income from off-farm jobs were significantly and negatively associated with households’ decision to depend on forest income and total income obtained. We also found that households with less distance to the market and membership to joint forest management committees (JFMCs) were significantly and negatively associated with households’ total income obtained. However, household size was significantly and positively related to households’ decision of forest dependency. The study recommends the creation of off-farm opportunities and inclusion of local people in the management of forests through establishment of JFMCs, particularly for large and poor families.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".