HOW TO FREQUENTLY AND ACCURATELY MEASURE …



How to frequently and accurately measure poverty and forest dependence?Emilie Perge, and Raisa BehalSeptember 2019AbstractThe relationship between forest dependence and welfare remains partially explored, partially due to a lack of data. Data collection of household consumption and poverty correlates has been constrained by time consuming and costly tools, such as multipage household and community surveys. Forest-SWIFT is a complementary tool to a traditional household survey, developed to simultaneously measure poverty as well as forest dependence, using a 15-question country-specific mini-survey. Forest-SWIFT was piloted in Turkey, where the forest-dwelling population is also the poorest. The tool used recent data from the Household Budget Survey 2013 as well as the Socio-Economic Household Survey 2016 tracking poverty and forest-dependence across 100 forest villages in Turkey in 2017. Forest-SWIFT estimated poverty at 23.2 percent in rural forest villages, and forest dependence as 15 percent, the latter echoing findings from previous literature. Forest-SWIFT is efficient to bring more data on the relationship between poverty and forest activities and to monitor how this relationship evolves with the goal to have a tangible effect on policymaking. IntroductionPoverty reduction features amongst the goals of the largest multilateral and bilateral development institutions such as the World Bank, the UN, the IMF, even dominating the list of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Besides identifying clear goals to reduce poverty, it is equally vital to measure it. Tracking changes in poverty incidence can help us measure impact of programs, improve activities and inform policy. A fifth of countries receiving assistance from the World Bank do not have a single poverty estimate and another fifth only have one, decreasing the likelihood to measure improvements (OPHI, 2014; Serajuddin et al., 2015). Forest villages, which are most often remote and difficult to reach, are easily marginalized from national development programs, excluded from surveys, and underrepresented in samples despite the high incidence of poverty (Chomitz 2007). Large-scale, nationally representative, household surveys such as the Living Standards Measurement Surveys (LSMS) conducted by national statistics offices to assess poverty and livelihoods, usually under-sample households in remote, low-density areas. As a result, there is little quantitative information to guide the design and implementation of national policies for poverty reduction among rural forest-villages (Oksanen and Mersman, 2005). Although poverty within forests has often been assessed using case studies, such indicators are often not comparable to national measures and satellite images (Sunderlin et al., 2005; Sunderlin et al., 2007), or representative of forest households. Recent studies (Vedeld et al., 2007; Angelsen et al., 2014), have gained valuable insights about the pervasive role of forests in rural poverty, strengthening the case for improving measurements of forest income and gathering more granular data on forest use and dependence. More data can help monitor the implications of natural resource degradation on welfare and help design effective interventions and strategies to improve development and conservation (Angelsen et al., 2014). In addition, information on forest activities is often missing from traditional household surveys used by national statistics office to measure poverty, while household incomes can be hard to measure from the Forestry Modules created by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the Center on International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the International Forestry Resources and Institutions Research Network (IFRI), and the World Bank. As explained below, these modules allow governments, practitioners, and researchers to robustly assess the livelihoods of forest households (forest income, consumption of forest products), forest tenure, and access to forest resources (Bakkegaard et al., 2017; FAO et al., 2016).The Poverty Environment Network (PEN) at the Center of International Forestry Research (CIFOR) collected the most comprehensive dataset to date, composed of household and community-level observations collected from 58 sites across 24 developing countries from January 2005 to May 2010 (Wunder et al., 2014). The team found that despite variation across geographic regions, the average share of forest income, coming from collection of forest products, forest wages, payments from forest ecosystem services, was 22.2 percent for the entire sample, at times even greater than agricultural income. Moreover, poorer households had higher relative levels of forest income (i.e. share of total income), and non-poor households had higher absolute levels (Angelsen et al., 2014). This paper presents findings from Forest-SWIFT (Survey of Well-being via Instant and Frequent Tracking), a new data collection method to measure both poverty and forest dependence in a timely and more frequent manner, which was piloted in Turkey in 2017. Forest-SWIFT is an extension of an existing poverty estimation tool SWIFT (OPHI, 2014), which uses baseline household data on welfare to develop a short country-specific household survey to estimate current poverty incidence as per the national poverty definition. These two tools complement traditional multitopic household surveys to track poverty and welfare between two rounds of more comprehensive household surveys. Forest-SWIFT additionally allows researchers to estimate forest dependence, which is the share of income from forest-related activities out of households’ total income (Angelsen et al., 2014), requiring data on value gained from forests and on total welfare (income or consumption). Both data on consumption and forest income were available for Turkey’s forest areas, which made it the ideal location for a pilot. Turkey has 22.34 million hectares of forest area, which is approximately 30 percent of the country’s land cover. The majority of the state-owned forests are productive resources, supporting large scale processing and export of non-timber forest products (NTFPs). According to official statistics, poverty in Turkey has been declining over the past decade. Extreme poverty, constructed using a $1.90 per day in 2011 PPP poverty line, fell from 1.7 percent in 2002 to 0.3 percent in 2013 and to 0.2 percent in 2016. In 2013rural extreme poverty remained higher than the national average at 0.8 percent. Moderate poverty, using a $7 per day in 2011 PPP poverty line, was also higher among rural populations at 34.9 percent compared to the country average of 19 percent in 2013. Using the data from the Forestry modules in Turkey and nationally representative data on poverty, we developed models to measure both consumption and forest income with a set of only 20 questions and administered the survey across a sample of 1000 households, representative of all households living in forest villages. The poverty model was built using data from rural households in the 2013 Household Budget Survey (HBS) and a consumption-based poverty line of $7 a day (in 2011 PPP). Poverty incidence among the rural HBS sample was estimated at 34.9 percent. The forest-dependence model was constructed using the 2016 Socio Economic Household Survey (SEHS) of Turkey’s Forest Villages in which forest income is defined as the sum of values of forest extraction, wages from forest employment, and payments for forest services. Forest-dependence was 28 percent among the lowest income quintile, and only 8 percent among the highest quintile in 2016.The poverty and forest models selected 14 and 10 variables respectively to confidently predict consumption and forest income. When applied to the pilot data, poverty incidence in forest villages is 23.2 percent with a $7 a day (in PPP of 2011) and forest dependence 15 percent. The Forest-SWIFT pilot provided what we believe to be strong estimates of poverty and forest-dependence in a timely and cost-effective manner. Although data more recent than 2014 were not available for comparison, the reduction in poverty observed through our analysis is plausible. Turkey reduced poverty headcount ratio from 11.5 percent in 2015 to 9.9 percent in 2016 using a $5.50 a day poverty line in 2011 PPP. This pilot sheds light on areas for further improvement of the tool and for recommendations for the design of baseline questionnaire. The following section describes the Forest-SWIFT methodology. Section three provides the final consumption and forest-income models. Section four highlights main results and forest household characteristics, while section five summarizes the project and proposes avenues for further improvements. Forest-SWIFT Methodology Forest-SWIFT is a data collection method developed to provide timely, quick, and accurate data on poverty and forest dependence through a small set of country-specific questions. As an extension of the Survey of Wellbeing via Instant and Frequent Tracking (SWIFT), a methodology developed by the World Bank to estimate poverty incidence between consecutive comprehensive household surveys (Ahmed et al., 2014; Yoshida et al., 2015), Forest-SWIFT additionally tracks forest dependence, defined as the forest income share of permanent household income. These two survey tools complement traditional household surveys which are collected on average every five years by providing more frequent poverty measurements to monitor poverty changes. Although the model can use either consumption or income as the welfare measure, the country preference takes precedence to maintain comparability. Forest-SWIFT develops country-specific models for each indicator, which often requires different variables per model. Each model assumes a linear relationship between household total consumption/income, or forest income yh and their correlates xh with a projection error uh. The inclusion of this error term differentiates this model from other predictive toolslnyh=xh'β+uh (1)Forest-SWIFT estimates the log transformation of the dependent variable to smooth asymmetries and normalize the distribution of the variable, making it easier to estimate. Forest-SWIFT controls for issues linked to over-fitting – when a model performs well within the sample but poorly outside the dataset – by cross-validating the model (Kuhn and Johnson, 2013). The purpose of cross-validation in Forest-SWIFT is to identify the optimal level of significance- or p-value- in the model, which would balance the number of determinants and the goodness of fit across the sample. Cross-validation consists of two steps: (a) splitting the sample in n-folds and running the model in n-1 folds and testing it on the nth fold and (b) running multiple models per fold, testing various thresholds of significance for model variables. This process of ‘stepwise’ selection entails adding variables to the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) model sequentially if they bring enough information, and simultaneously removing them if they do not. Each fold has a chance to be the testing data and this process is repeated n times by changing the nth fold each time. The optimal p-value performs best in terms of mean-squared errors between actual and projected welfare, and the absolute value of the difference between the actual and projected poverty (or forest-dependence) rates. This concludes the cross-validation process and the stepwise OLS regression is run a final time on the full sample of data using the selected p-value. The resulting regression is the SWIFT poverty model. To ensure the quality and robustness of the models, Forest-SWIFT carries out two tests (if data are available): backward imputation and validity test. The former applies the final model to a previous round of data to check the stability of the model over time. The latter tests whether the error term follows a normal distribution using a simulation method developed by Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (2002, 2003). The result is a small set of questions that considerably simplifies data collection and encourages teams to collect data quicker and more frequently than traditional lengthy household surveys. Forest-SWIFT data are collected through CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviews) to ensure quick analysis and results. Having similar questionnaire designs for baseline and Forest-SWIFT surveys is essential. Differences in questionnaire design, recall periods, and labeling of questions, can bias estimates and require re-estimations of models with fewer variables that can be selected since there are fewer variable options once the survey is rolled out. After creation of the questionnaire, the last phase of Forest-SWIFT is to predict consumption and forest income based on the coefficients from the models. In this final prediction phase, Forest-SWIFT utilizes multiple imputation estimations to apply the coefficients from the respective models to the variables in the new dataset. Random error is simultaneously introduced by adding 1000 imputations with error per household estimate.A household is identified as poor if its consumption is below a poverty line. As we have estimated 1000 imputations per household, we had 1000 estimates of consumption, and therefore poverty status per household. To compare poor and non-poor households, we used a multiple imputation (mi) command that split the sample in two and provide sample means for the two different samples. Constructing the models for Turkey Turkish forests cover 22.34 million hectares, close to 30 percent of Turkey’s total land cover, and are spread across the coastal mountain ranges along the Black, Marmara and Mediterranean seas. More than half of Turkish forests are primarily coniferous with pine trees, while 60 percent of the remainder is oak. About 40 percent of Turkish forests are productive forests: on average, productive forests provide 7 million m3 of timber logs and 8 million m3 of fuelwood (Sirtioglu, 2010). In 2016, about 7 million people in Turkey lived in or near forests, depending on them for their livelihoods (Sirtioglu, 2010; PROFOR, 2017).Baseline data Turkey recently collected forest income data in the 2016 Forest Socio-Economic Household Survey (SEHS), which made the country a likely candidate to pilot Forest SWIFT, especially since consumption data were also available in the 2013 Household Budget Survey (HBS). The 2016 SEHS collected data on forest participation, income, and products from a of 2, 037 households, which was a representative sample of forest dwelling households. The 2013 HBS, on the other hand, is nationally representative sample of 10,058 households and collected information about household composition, consumption, assets, employment categories, and education. Although the data includes urban-rural classification, regions remain unidentified. In the 2016 SEHS, forest income is measured as the total of monetary values of forest product extractions, wages from forest employment, and payments from forest services. Although the survey had questions on a wide range of product, forest income analysis is limited to products collected by at least 10 households, which left 16 forest products: firewood, mushroom, herbs, thyme, sage, hazelnut, linden, sting nettle, walnut, rosehip, pinecone, chestnut, industrial wood, blackberry, trefoil, opium. Forest payments only included 15 observations. On average, households diversify their livelihoods with 60% of households having three or more sources of revenue (PROFOR, 2017). At the same time, 15 percent of households specialize, in agriculture or livestock raising, 10 percent solely in forest-related activities, while 11 percent of households combine forest-related activities and agriculture or livestock raising (PROFOR, 2017). Researchers in this report find that using a relative poverty line equal to 60 percent of the median income in the villages (TL 480 per capita per month in 2016 about $12 per capita per day in 2011PPP), 40 percent of their sample has households’ total income per capita below this line (PROFOR, 2017). Comparing the average values for rural households in the 2013 HBS and the whole sample in the 2016 SEHS, these values differ for some characteristics. First, forest households tend to be larger than rural households, due to a larger share of prime age adults (i.e. fewer dependents such as children and elders). Second, forest household heads are mostly men and better educated than their rural counterparts. Third, labor force participation of household heads or adults is lower in forest villages (table 1 in appendix). However, these differences are not significant and the observations in these two datasets are comparable. We can confidently develop the model with these two surveys. Consumption model with HBS 2013 The consumption model was designed to estimate the log per-capita expenditures (including all frequent food and non-food expenditures, including health expenditures, imputed rents and estimated depreciation of durable goods) on household characteristics, such as household composition, assets, employment categories, and education for the rural sample. The poverty rate among rural households was estimated at 34.9 percent using a poverty line of $7 (in terms of 2011 PPP). Following the SWIFT methodology, an evaluation of the mean-squared errors of the consumption estimates, and the absolute differences in the poverty estimates yields an optimal p-value of 0.005 for the consumption model. The final stepwise regression selects 14 out of 23 potential explanatory variables. Table 2 lists the final regression for the poverty model. The kernel density plots for both original and measured values confirm that the estimated consumption density across the population is similar to the original (Figure 1).Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC1 Forest-SWIFT modelsConsumptionForest incomeAge of HH head0.006 (0.001)HH head is married (=1; 0 if not) -0.133 (0.046)HH head education is primary (=1; 0 if not)0.137 (0.048)HH head education is secondary (=1; 0 if not)0.231 (0.056)HH head education is tertiary or higher (=1; 0 if not)0.393 (0.075)Head is employed (=1; 0 if not)0.312 (0.047)Number of retired0.347 (0.04)HH head is an employer (=1; 0 if not)0.264 (0.091)HH head employed in agriculture (=1; 0 if not)-0.139 (0.029)HH with members working as unpaid worker in family business-0.995 (0.296)HH receiving forest wages2.617 (0.184)Household size-0.071 (0.01)-0.261 (0.034)Dependency ratio -0.423 (0.044)Household having central heating system (=1; 0 if not)0.305 (0.051)Non-overcrowding (=1; 0 if not)0.23 (0.041)HH owns computer (=1; 0 if not)0.272 (0.028) HH owns tractor0.359 (0.112)HH owns chainsaw0.292 (0.114)HH owns car/truck-0.229 (0.110)Village electrical network0.249 (3.47)Village water network0.143 (-4.14)Village with net migration and high poverty0.279 (-3.96)Village with no net migration and high poverty0.127 (-4.85)Constant8.15 (0.11)5.304 (0.285)Number of obs30061155R-squared0.4390.352Root MSE0.5241.535Note: non-overcrowding is defined as less than 1.5 persons per room. Standard errors in parenthesis. All variables are significant at 0.005 in consumption model and at 0.01 in the forest income model. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC1 Kernel density distribution for consumption Forest income model with SEHS 2016The forest income model was designed to estimate the log of per capita forest income on a similar set of household characteristics. For cross-validation purposes, the median per capita forest income serves as the threshold in place of a poverty line. The model only includes households who report non-zero, positive, forest-related income from any source, which represents around 60 percent of the original sample. The final model selects 10 variables out of 25 using a p-value 0.01 (table 2). The following kernel density plots confirm the matching distribution of the income estimates.Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC2 Kernel density distribution for forest income Results and discussion Using the two models from above, we piloted a questionnaire including a household roster and 20 questions on forest collection and wage, dwellings and assets. We conducted the survey in 100 of the 202 villages surveyed in 2016 SEHS creating an unbalanced panel dataset with the re-survey of 1000 households from the original sample. The sample is representative of national forest villages. The survey took place over a three-week period, enumerators spending less than 20 minutes with each household. GPS coordinates, cell phone numbers from respondents were recorded to monitor survey progresses and to check quality of answers on collection of forest products. Questions in this questionnaire focused on the determinants identified in the models, on participation in forest and non-forest related activities, and participation in associations and groups. When doing the last phase of Forest-SWIFT, the modeling appears to be more complicated than expected because of issues during the collection of SEHS 2016 and Forest-SWIFT 2017 data. Issues in questionnaire design arouse: while in SEHS 2016, the team collected data on more than 90 products, Forest-SWIFT questions were only for 9 products which increased response rate for those questions dramatically. Moreover in 2016, if a household admitted to collection of a product, such as firewood or pinecones, the 13 further questions about each product were asked. Collecting data on a smaller set of forest products possibly encouraged villagers to answer to more questions. Participation in forest extraction in 2017 increased on average by 12-percentage points. For these reasons, indicators on forest collection were excluded from the post-survey revisions of the forest income model. In addition, when collecting Forest-SWIFT data, Turkish households received selected assets through social assistance program. As such the presence of assets such as freezers and solar panels no longer correlated with wealth and could not be included in the consumption and forest income models.The Forest-SWIFT data bring the following results. Participation in forest related activities is high (95 percent) with 83 percent of households generating income values from these activities and 77 percent extracting forest products for their home-consumption (table 2). The most important source of forest income remains forest-wage activities. The forest products collected the most were walnut, hazelnut, linden, and herbs, while hazelnut and walnut were the most likely to be commercialized (table 2 in appendix). On average, 37 percent of households collect between 4 and 9 different forest products but only 14 percent of households sell 1 forest product; households mainly collect forest products for their home-consumption (table 3 in appendix). Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 2 Participation in forest and non-forest activities (percent)Participation (percent of households)FOREST-RELATED94.78%Income from Forestry and/or NTFP Production83.20%Wage82.35%Market Sales from Collections14.06%Other, Unidentified0.34%Subsistence Value from Collections76.85%NON-FOREST RELATED INCOME96.57%WageAgricultural Income59.12%Pensions70.68%Other, Unidentified47.99%Source: authors’ estimations using 2017 Forest-SWIFT.Note: Results are weighted at the household level Forest households in 2017 are better-off than rural households in 2013 but one out of four households are poor. Predicted consumption values with SWIFT 2017 data are higher than consumption values in 2013 (table 3). Over time poverty has reduced which has been the case when looking at national poverty rates. It is true that this level of poverty is different from the one reported in PROFOR (2017) but one cannot compare these two as we are using a different poverty line than the PROFOR report, and a consumption aggregate rather than income. Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC3 Results for imputed poverty rate and consumption per capita (Rural)HBS 2013 (original)SWIFT 2017Poverty rate (percent)34.923.2Mean per capita Consumption 5,9066513.206Source: authors’ estimations using HBS and Forest-SWIFT data. Note: Consumption values in HBS 2013 and in Forest-SWIFT 2017 are all in Turkish Lira 2013. The poverty line equal of US$ 7 per capita per day was converted to TL 2013 using 2011 PPP.Forest income is greater in 2017 than in 2016. In 2017, forest income is on average equal to TL 1223.82 in value of 2016 (table 4). Households are more likely to participate in forest-related activities in 2017. This difference in participation is accounted for by the fact that response rates were higher in 2017 than in 2016. This higher response rate can be attributed to the change in questionnaire design and length. While the original questionnaire (2016 SEHS) had forest-related questions about 90 items, our follow up survey focused on a subsample of forest items, potentially reducing respondents’ fatigue. Higher response rate results in increased accuracy and this increase in forest income over time. Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC4 Results for Imputed Forest Income and ratio below median forest incomeSEHS 2016Forest-SWIFT 2017Ratio below median forest income (percent)50.0246.70Mean log per capita forest income 4.6315.003Mean per capita income 893.491223.82Forest dependence (percent)n.a.19.2Note: Forest incomes with SEHS 2016 and Forest-SWIFT 2017 are in Turkish Lira 2016Suggested formula for inverse natural log = exp(m+ sigma (m)^2/2) Forest dependence is equal to the average household forest income over household average consumption that is a proxy of permanent income. Using the predicted values of consumption and of forest income, the average relative contribution of forests to total income is approximately 19 percent. Consumption represents households’ permanent income. This result is comparable to the levels of forest dependence reported by Angelsen and colleagues (2014) in their global study. Although forest may not be perceived as their main source of income, households depend on this source for their livelihoods. Households who are highly dependent on forest resources are more likely to be poor. These households have a lower share of members working in wage activities but more households working for their own account. In addition, forest dependent households hold fewer assets and except for chainsaw that is used for forest-related activities. These households are less likely to own agricultural land.Table 5 Differences across engagement in forest activities and by povertyVariableNon-PoorPoorNot engaged in forestEngaged in forestHigh Forest DependenceLow Forest dependence Household Size3.463.902.903.603.72.9Share of prime aged members (%)74.063.362.072.272.767.0Sex ratio (%)45.447.247.345.745.846.1Share of employed members (%)31.027.79.131.431.226.1Share of retired members (%)22.218.037.620.319.429.5Share of members working on own account (%)31.429.85.832.432.026.5Share of housewives (%)30.229.233.729.829.233.3Share of members that attended school (%)90.287.887.189.889.988.6Household head age (years)54.153.556.153.953.556.0Household head is male (%)97.495.995.297.197.097.3Household head is married (%)90.591.985.091.191.189.7Household head attended school (%)95.993.990.295.795.694.8HH Owns Car/Truck (%)61.355.427.661.863.444.8HH Owns Chainsaw (%)57.652.834.057.857.154.2HH Owns tractor (%)44.842.022.145.445.239.6HH Owns water pump (%)17.915.93.118.219.010.5HH Owns color tv (%)99.299.298.499.299.399.0HH Owns computer (%)18.07.814.715.916.811.5HH owns Agricultural Land (%)77.378.029.680.172.562.5Forest dependence (%)16.030.5n.a.19.23.26 117.37Forest Income per capita (2013 TL)1,047.4747.2 n.a.981.2194.55819.8Poverty rate (%)n.a.n.a.18.5622.2120.6927.90Consumption (2013 TL)7,621.6 2,585.17,237.86,473.3 6,640.6 5,951.7 *Weighted at the household level**Above/below forest dependence average of 19 percent. Poor forest households are more dependent on forest income for their livelihoods than non-poor forest households. On average, poor forest household generate 30.5 percent of their income through forest-related activities. In absolute terms, poor households benefit less from forest related activities but are more dependence (Angelsen et al., 2014). Forest-related activities appear to be a complement to agricultural activities; forest-dependent households are engaged in agriculture but to a lower extent than other households. Forest-dependent households have less diversified livelihood activities. Differences between poor and non-poor are striking with respect to asset ownership, internet access, and employment rates. On average, poor households have fewer assets although some differences are not large for televisions. On average, poor households are bigger with more dependents and more female members. Poor households have lower rates of employment, and a smaller number of retired members who receive pensions. Household heads are slightly less likely to have attended school. On average poor households have less access to internet than others.Poverty in Turkey is then higher in forest areas than in the rest of the country. Forest-SWIFT methodology provides a measure comparable to the national poverty measure. The results are well in line with measures on forest dependence at the global level. As found in earlier studies in Turkey, households actively engaged in forest activities are less educated (Atmi? et al., 2007). Although not reported here, women and youth play an important role in forest management (Atmi? et al., 2007). Often these groups of population are the most exposed to poverty emphasizing the importance of forest products for their livelihoods. Households who are poor and forest dependent present similar characteristics; forest investments to improve the livelihoods of forest dependent people are likely to improve the living conditions of the poor if targeting is well done. Forest-SWIFT can help teams to target forest-dependent poor households at baseline with a simple questionnaire asking only the questions used here. A follow-up questionnaire can easily be implemented to gather more evidence throughout the projects. In addition, Turkey National Statistics Office could design a questionnaire to have all questions to predict forest income as part of their national household budget survey to accurately measure forest dependence. Although sampling might remain an issue, an oversampling of forest areas could be a good solution for Turkey to gather more evidence on forest households and bring development policies tailored to their needs. Considering the rapid exodus of forest households towards urban areas (Atmi? et al., 2007), it is important to find solutions to Government of Turkey is very concerned with this issue as forest households provide ecosystem services that are very costly to replace. Forest-SWIFT can be used to see if incentives given to forest households to provide ecosystem services are enough to ensure such provision and to take households out of poverty. Such an analysis could be done using distributional impact analysis in which one can establish a monetary amount to be given and see the impact on consumption status, assuming everything else remains constant. ConclusionForestry Modules and Forest-SWIFT bring more evidence on poverty and forest income in forest environments. In Turkey, the Forestry Module was designed to be representative of forest villages and to measure forest income. Forest activities are an important source of income for forest villagers, especially since poor households depend more on these activities than non-poor ones. Using Forest-SWIFT data, we have a robust measure of poverty based on consumption projections without having to collect data on consumption. Collecting consumption data is costly and time-intensive; Forest-SWIFT allows us to track poverty using a small cost-effective survey. With our data from 2017, we the poverty rate among forest villagers in Turkey is 22 percent. This poverty rate is in line with poverty reduction observed in Turkey in the last decade. Forest participating households generate about 15 percent of their livelihoods from forest-related activities, which is not a negligible part. Households are highly engaged in forest-wage activities and use NTFPs for their home consumption. One out of ten households sell forest products, mostly hazelnuts. Upon the first application of both surveys in Turkey, the Forestry Module and Forest-SWIFT emphasize the importance and power of having such data. The issues identified during the modeling do not undermine the fact that these datasets provide detailed evidence on households’ livelihoods. The resulting poverty rate is representative at the forest level and additional data collection should be conducted on a regular basis to map changes in poverty. Future research could exploit the panel structure of the datasets to analyze trends and roots of these changes. Up to date data could help government and practitioners improve the design of programs and policies to pull households out of poverty, besides improving targeting of households and monitoring impact of interventions. References Ahmed F., C. Dorji, S. Takamatsu, and N. Yoshida. 2014. “Hybrid Survey to Improve the Reliability of Poverty Statistics in a Cost-Effective Manner” World Bank Policy and Research Paper 6909. World Bank, Washington D.C. Angelsen A., H.O. Larsen, J.F. Lund, C. Smith-Hall, S. Wunder (Eds.). 2011. Measuring livelihoods and environmental dependence: Methods for research and fieldwork, Earthscan, London Angelsen A., P. Jagger, R. Babigumira, B. Belcher, N. J. Hogarth, S. Bauch, J. Borner, C. Smith-Hall, and S. Wunder. 2014. “Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis.” World Development. Vol 64Atmi?, E., S. ?zdenb, and W. Lise. 2007. “Public participation in forestry in Turkey.” Ecological Economics. Vol. 62(2007), pp 352-359.Atmi?, E., H. Batuhan Gün?en, B. Bayramo?lu Lise, and W. Lise. 2009. “Factors Affecting Forest Cooperative’s Participation in Forestry in Turkey.” Forest Policy and Economics 11 (2): 102–8. , N., Arnold, M., 1999. “What futures for the people of the tropical forests?” World Development 27, 789–805.Deaton, A. 1997. The Analysis of Household Surveys: A Microeconometric Approach to Development Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank.Elbers C., J.O. Lanjouw and P. Lanjouw, 2002. “Micro-Level Estimation of Welfare,” Policy Research Department Working Paper No. WPS2911, The World Bank.Elbers C., J.O. Lanjouw and P. Lanjouw, 2003. “Micro-level estimation of poverty and inequality.” Econometrica, Vol. 71, No. 1 (January, 2003), 355–364FAO, CIFOR, IFRI and World Bank. 2016. National socioeconomic surveys in forestry: guidance and survey modules for measuring the multiple roles of forests in household welfare and livelihoods, by R.K. Bakkegaard, A. Agrawal, I. Animon, N. Hogarth, D. Miller, L. Persha, E. Rametsteiner, S. Wunder and A. Zezza. FAO Forestry Paper 179. Kuhn, Max and Kjell, Johnson. 2013. “Applied predictive modeling” SpringerOxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), 2014. “Towards frequent and accurate poverty data”, Briefing Paper. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UNSDSN), Bank. 2017. “Poverty, forest dependence, and migration in the forest communities of Turkey. Evidence and policy impacts” PROFOR Report. Washington D.C. Serajuddin U., H. Uematsu, C. Wieser, N. Yoshida, and A. Dabalen. 2014. “Data Deprivation. Another Deprivation to End” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper7252/ 1-22. Vedeld, Paul, Arild Angelsen, Jan Boj?, Espen Sjaastad, and Gertrude Kobugabe Berg. 2007. “Forest Environmental Incomes and the Rural Poor.” Economic Perspectives and Analyses of Multiple Forest Values and Sustainable Forest Management 9 (7): 869–79. , B., C. Wildburger and S. Mansourian. 2015. “Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. A Global Assessment Report.” IUFRO World Series. Volume 33. ViennaWunder, S., Angelsen, A., & Belcher, B. (2014). Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base. World Development, 64, Supplement 1, S1–S11. Yildirim H. T. and Kose M. 2013. “Non-Wood Forest Products Production Policy and Marketing in Turkey.” Conference Paper. Forest Products Society's 67th International Convention Forest Products in a Global Sustainable Economy. Yoshida, N., R. Munoz, A. Skinner, C. Kyung-eun Lee, M. Brataj, W. Durbin and D. Sharma. 2015. “SWIFT Data Collection Guidelines version 2”, World Bank. Washington D.C. Appendix Table 1 Summary statistics for SEHS 2016 and HBS 2013HBS 2013 (rural)SEHS 2016Household size3.884.52Dependence ratio0.6070.532Head CharacteristicsAge52.0853.35Male87.33%96.48%No school19.70%9.06%Primary school80.30%90.06%Employed71.81%65.48%Prime aged adults’ characteristicsNo school18.49%9.85%Primary school81.51%90.04%Employed61.01%49.60%Neither student, nor employed (15-29 yrs)29.45%21.16%Unemployed2.74%48.89%Labor force participation61.01%56.71%Female labor force participation38.67%26.30%HH CharacteristicsaHousehold with access to gas1.82%0.00%Household with access to piped water inside or outside house98.43%89.42%HH AssetsHH Assets: Total out of 53.273.94Household with access to refrigerator97.84%97.50%Household with fixed or at least one cell phone96.66%98.53%Household with access to internet at home16.44%7.64%Household with access to washing machine92.29%94.27%Observations 3,006 1,256 Source: authors’ computation using SEHS 2016 and HBS 2013. Weights applied. Note: All statistics are at the HH level. a SEHS 2016 collected this data at the community levelTable 2 Most important forest products and salesProductsExtraction (percent)Sales (percent)Hazelnut50.19%12.93%Industrial wood41.95%0.32%Linden 58.13%0.03%Opium 0.95%0.33%Pinecone15.91%0.31%Sting nettle37.14%0.00%Trefoil 21.68%0.11%Walnut76.84%4.12%Herbs56.87%0.07%Note: Weighted at the household levelPercent of households extracting and selling forest products measured on sample of households extracting at least one forest product (970 of 1256 HH). Table 3 Total forest products collected Total (of 9)CollectedFor Sale Only022.5885.94116.5414.01210.760.05312.5449.16512.1269.3176.2480.7290.03End notes ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download