Perception of Locals on Multiple Contributions of NTFPs to the Livelihoods of Forest Fringe Communities in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest-dwelling residents frequently collect non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for various reasons, such as food, medicine, firewood, religious reasons, or handicrafts. This study examines the multiple benefits derived from NTFPs and how they contribute to the livelihoods of Ghanaian communities to alleviate poverty. Resources and services provided by NTFPs have an essential role in providing economic, nutritional, medicinal, cultural, and environmental benefits. This study examines the diverse range of NTFPs locals collect, such as chewing sticks, games, herbs, honey, leaves, mushrooms, pestles, raffia and palms, snails, and straws. In addition to serving different purposes, these NTFPs contribute to income generation, food security, health care, cultural practices, and the protection of the environment. A qualitative research approach was used in this study to collect data through semi-structured interviews and focus groups with members on multiple collections of NTFPs and their multiple benefits. We interviewed 732 residents regarding their multiple NTFPs and their potential to improve the livelihood of the locals. The data for the study were analysed using descriptive statistics. As a result of the survey, the frequency and percentages of responses were analysed for each indicator related to multiple values of NTFPs. Both males and females collected a list of NTFPs during the survey. Regarding NTFPs used for sale, 275 were reported, representing 37.57% of the total. In addition to emphasising the importance of sustainable management practices and equitable distribution of benefits, the study explores the multiple benefits of NTFPs for poverty alleviation in Ghanaian communities. It is essential to ensure the conservation of forest ecosystems and promote inclusive policies to harness the potential of NTFPs and maximise their positive impact on livelihoods. NTFPs provide multiple benefits for Ghanaian communities, including income, nutrition, healthcare, cultural preservation, and environmental sustainability. To promote sustainable development, it is imperative to understand the role of NTFPs and implement appropriate strategies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".