Using this graphic and referring to it is encouraged, and please use it in presentations, web pages, newspapers, blogs and reports.
For any form of publication, please include the link to this page and give the cartographer/designer credit (in this case Hugo Ahlenius, UNEP/GRID-Arendal)
Based on graphic in World Resources Institute. 2005. World Resources Report 2005 – The Wealth of the poor. Washington DC: World Resources Institute
Data source - Campbell, B., S. Jeffrey, W. Kozanayi, M. Luckert, M. Mutamba, and C. Zindi. 2002. Household Livelihoods in Semi-Arid Regions: Options and Constraints.Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. Online at http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/ publications/pdf_files/Books/Household.pdf.
Uploaded on Tuesday 21 Feb 2012
Household income by source, Masvingo province, Zimbabwe
Hugo Ahlenius, UNEP/GRID-Arendal
A study of households (rich and poor) in the Masvingo Province in southeastern Zimbabwe provides a good example of how agricultural income complements wild income and how it compares with other income sources such as wages and remittances. Agricultural income—from crops and home gardens—contributed 30 percent of total household income (cash and subsistence income combined). Livestock rearing—a modified form of agriculture that relies on wild forage—contributed another 21 percent. Wild products from woodlands contributed 15 percent. Together, these elements of environmental income sum to 66 percent of total income. In other words, goods and services from ecosystems contribute twothirds of family incomes in rural Zimbabwe. The remaining 34 percent came from wage labor, income from home industries, and remittances. For the poorest of these rural households, dependence on these different kinds of environmental income is even higher, providing a full 70 percent of total income when combined.