It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Agricultural intensification and expanding protected areas are proposed sustainable development approaches. But, their consequences for mental health are poorly understood. This study aims to predict how forest conservation and contract farming may alter resource access and depression risk in rural Uganda. Residents (N = 695) in 11 communities in Masindi District were asked about their expectations under land management scenarios using scenario-based interviews, household characteristics and depression symptoms. Over 80% of respondents presented with a ‘business-as-usual forest access’ scenario expected reduced access to forest income and food over the next decade; this number climbed above 90% among ‘restricted forest access’ scenario respondents. Over 99% of those presented with two land access scenarios (‘business-as-usual land access’ and ‘sugarcane expansion land access’) expected wealthy households to gain land but poorer families to lose it, threatening to increase poverty and food insecurity among small-scale farmers. Bayesian structural equation modelling suggested that depression severity was positively associated with food insecurity (0.20, 95% CI = 0.12–0.28) and economic poverty (0.11, 95% CI 0.02–0.19). Decision-makers should evaluate the mental health impacts of conservation and agricultural approaches that restrict access to livelihood resources. Future research could explore opportunities to support mental health through sustainable use of nature.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Oxford, Department of Zoology, Oxford, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948)
2 University of Edinburgh, School of GeoSciences, Edinburgh, UK (GRID:grid.4305.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7988)
3 Medical Research Council/Uganda Virus Research Institute and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Uganda Research Unit, Entebbe, Uganda (GRID:grid.415861.f) (ISNI:0000 0004 1790 6116)
4 Budongo Conservation Field Station, Masindi, Uganda (GRID:grid.415861.f); Jane Goodall Institute, Entebbe, Uganda (GRID:grid.415861.f)