We investigate whether environmental reliance can be better understood if household categories are identified based on their level of reliance rather than the prevalent approaches based on what they earn (total household income) or own (assets). We conduct quantile regressions of environmental income and reliance (measured as the share of total household income from the environment) on different household and contextual variables, using a sample of 268 households from Hoima and Kibale districts in Uganda. We hypothesize that environmental reliance for the most reliant is a ‘survival-led’ coping mechanism resulting from low asset levels, while environmental reliance for the least reliant is ‘opportunity-led’, induced by the ease of access to environmental products and markets. The analysis shows that the most environmentally reliant households are driven by necessity, particularly low levels of agricultural farmland and other household assets, supporting the first hypothesis. We do not find strong evidence, however, for the second hypothesis, namely that market proximity induces the least reliant (and generally more asset-rich) households to increase their environmental income. We suggest that environmental policy interventions should be differentiated. In areas where environmental income is a major source of livelihood, law enforcement programs that regulate environmental extraction need to be complemented with alternative income sources. Small farm size is a major push factor into environmental reliance, hence enhancing land productivity and farm income is a potential policy towards the most reliant households. Farm size had no significant effect on environmental reliance among the least reliant households, while higher off-farm income is associated with less environmental reliance.

我们调查是否可以更好地理解环境依赖，如果根据他们的依赖程度而不是基于他们的收入（家庭总收入）或拥有（资产）的普遍方法来确定家庭类别。我们使用来自乌干达 Hoima 和 Kibale 地区的 268 个家庭的样本，对不同家庭和背景变量的环境收入和依赖（衡量为来自环境的家庭总收入的份额）进行分位数回归。我们假设最依赖者的环境依赖是由低资产水平导致的“生存主导”应对机制，而最不依赖者的环境依赖是“机会主导”，由获得环境产品和市场的便利性引起。分析表明，最依赖环境的家庭是由需要驱动的，特别是低水平的农田和其他家庭资产，支持第一个假设。然而，对于第二个假设，我们没有找到强有力的证据，即市场接近性会导致最不依赖（通常资产更丰富）的家庭增加他们的环境收入。我们建议环境政策干预应该有区别。在环境收入是主要生计来源的地区，监管环境采掘的执法计划需要与其他收入来源相辅相成。小农场规模是环境依赖的主要推动因素，因此提高土地生产力和农业收入是针对最依赖家庭的潜在政策。