We use cookies to imporve your experience. By using our site, you consent to our cookie policy Learn more
arrow arrow_up breadcrumb-chevron-right breadcrumb-home dropdown-arrow-down loader GALogoWUNEP GALogo2018 GALogo2019 menu read-more-plus rrss-email rrss-facebook rrss-flickr rrss-instagram rrss-linkedin rrss-twitter rrss-vimeo rrss-youtube rrss_google_plus rrss_skype rrss_web pdf search share Completed In Process Ideas In Develpment Toogle Toogle Thumbnail View List View play close filter-collapse filter edit media_photo_library media_video_library graphics pictures videos collections next

Household income by source, Masvingo province, Zimbabwe

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% of total household income (cash and subsistence income combined). Livestock rearing—a modified form of agriculture that relies on wild forage—contributed another 21%. Wild products from woodlands contributed 15%. Together, these elements of environmental income sum to 66% of total income. In other words, goods and services from ecosystems contribute twothirds of family incomes in rural Zimbabwe. The remaining 34% 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%t of total income when combined.

Year: 2011

From collection: Pro-poor Growth and Natural Resources – The Economics and Politics

Cartographer: Hugo Ahlenius

Tags: collection Graphic Natural poverty Recources

Graphics included in same album

View all media