{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025617566331198535, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.058064516129032, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How to curb poverty-related deforestation?

ABSTRACT Drawing upon recent data from the Southeast Asian Mekong region, I study poverty-related drivers of deforestation (logging) activities by rural households. I do not find an environmental Kuznets curve-type relation between income and deforestation. Albeit I find a negative relation between income and the deforestation probability, this relation turns insignificant once I take into account specific socio-economic household characteristics: better education, higher relative affluence, younger age, self-employment, a higher value of nonproductive assets owned by the household as well as affiliation to an ethnic majority significantly reduce the deforestation probability. Received credits, remittances or (public) transfers do not significantly affect the deforestation probability. This implies for development policy that pure income-increasing financial support does not suffice for curbing poverty-related deforestation. Fostering education, social status, doing business and private ownership of assets are more promising options.