Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 317–328 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Rural household incomes and land grabbing in Cambodia Xi Jiao ∗ , Carsten Smith-Hall, Ida Theilade University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science, Department of Food and Resource Economics, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 26 June 2014 Received in revised form 17 May 2015 Accepted 9 June 2015 Keywords: Environmental income Environmental reliance Income inequality Land concessions South-east Asia a b s t r a c t This paper empirically quantifies environmentally augmented rural household incomes in Cambodia and analyzes how economic land concessions (ELCs) affect such incomes. Data is derived from a structured survey of 600 randomly selected households in 15 villages in three study sites in Cambodia, where local livelihoods are highly reliant on access to land and natural resources, supported by qualitative data from focus group discussions. Gini coefficient decomposition, multiple regression models, and propensity score matching (PSM) models were employed to analyze the composition of income portfolios, determinants of major income sources, and the impacts of land grabbing on incomes. Results documented high reliance on environmental income (32–35% of total household income) and farm income (51–53%) across income quartiles; demonstrated the variation in product composition across quartiles and the contribution of each major product to income inequality; and identified the main household characteristics influencing absolute and relative incomes. ELCs were found to consistently have negative impacts on household total income, environmental income, size of available cultivable land and livestock holdings, and increasing the distance to forests. The total household annual income subjects to ELCs were estimated to decrease by 15–19%. While providing some employment opportunities, we find no evidence of positive income effects of ELCs on households in the areas where ELCs are located. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The acquisition of land and resources by central authorities, such as governments, has a long history throughout the world. Examples include royal appropriation of timber and game on pri- vate and communal lands in 11th century England (Aberth, 2013), the European scramble for land in Africa in the New Imperial- ism period (Pakenham, 1992), allocation of lands to commodity producers in the colonial era such as Dutch coffee growers on Suma- tra (Potter, 2008), and post-colonial government facilitated land reforms such as corporate pulpwood plantations on former com- munal land in Lao PDR (Barney, 2008). Much recent literature on privatization and enclosure in the south has focused on land grab- bing; a popular term for the large-scale acquisition of land or land related rights and resources by corporate (business, non-profit or public) entities (White et al., 2012). Land grabbing has increased rapidly in countries in the south in recent years (Borras and Franco, 2012; Cotula, 2012; Deininger and Byerlee, 2011; GRAIN, 2008). The main drivers are international food security concerns, invest- ment opportunities in response to rising agricultural prices, and demand for biofuels (Cotula and Vermeulen, 2009; Zoomers, 2010). ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: xj@ifro.ku.dk (X. Jiao). While such land investments may raise prospects for macro-level benefits in recipient countries, they may also lead to appropriation of land and natural resources from local people reliant on these assets (Vermeulen & Cotula, 2010). In the words of Borras et al. (2011:209) “. . .land seen officially as marginal or empty is set aside for commodity production”. Yet, as also noted by White et al. (2012), there are very few household-level studies, of which almost none are quantitative, on land grabbing and the consequences of land grabbing for the welfare of affected households. Quantifying the impact of land grabbing on local welfare requires an understanding of the economic importance of land and natural resources to local incomes, including incomes from non-agricultural land areas such as forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Products from such land areas, here termed environmental products, include timber, poles, fire- wood, rattan, bamboo, wild fruits and vegetables, medicinal plants, game meat, latex, and resins. Products may be sold, consumed directly or used as inputs into domestic production processes. Such products are usually not registered with high level of detail in stan- dard household economic surveys conducted by national bureaus of statistics; the number of products is large and each product is typically traded or consumed in low volumes, making it diffi- cult and time consuming to estimate their values. For instance, a survey of environmental product income among households in lowland Bolivia registered 151 environmental products, most of which were irregularly used for subsistence purposes (Uberhuaga http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.008 0264-8377/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.