community and household-level income & asset status baseline

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 9: Determinants of Choice of Major Source of Income of the Household Head Determinant Livestock Non-farm Forest Level of education (cf no formal education) Direction & magnitude of impact 0 Primary education 0 0 Post primary education 0 ++ 0 Age of household head -- 0 0 Dependency ratio 0 0 0 Sex of household head 0 0 +++ Household size +++ +++ +++ Membership to organizations: --- Agriculture & NRM 0 0 Health organization --- --- Social/mutual support organization 0 0 0 Square root (Farm size (acres)) 0 0 0 Value of equipment (Ush) 0 +++ -- Value of livestock (Ush) +++ 0 -- Distance from home to land parcel (miles) +++ 0 0 Potential market integration +++ 0 --- Watershed (cf Kabale) 1 : Kisoro +++ ++ --- Ntungamo --- 0 0 Rukungiri +++ 0 +++ Received any training (yes=1, no=0) +++ 0 ++ Number of contact hours with extension ++ 0 ++ Access to credit 0 0 -- Constant Note: (i) Control group is crop production 0 --- 0 (ii) +, ++, +++ mean associated variable has a positive and statistically significant impact at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. -, --, --- mean the associated variable has negative and statistically significant impact at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. 0 means the associated variable is not statistically significant at 10% or it is significant at 10% but not robust, i.e. it is significant under only one specification among the three models estimated (see Table A5.3 and appendix 1 for details). 25
more evidence that extension and training efforts are important in poverty reduction efforts. Contrary to expectations, access to credit has limited impact on value of equipment and livestock. This may be due to the small and short-term nature of the credits given, mostly from informal sources. Such loans may not be useful for long-term investment such as buying livestock and equipment. However, access to credit increases marginally the size of the farm. Primary source of income has a significant impact on stock of assets. As expected, having livestock rather than crop production as primary source of income significantly increases the value of livestock. Non-farm activities increase significantly the value of equipment suggesting that farmers use earnings from non-farm activities to finance procurement of agricultural equipment. Determinants of participation in programs and organizations. Level of education has limited impact on participation in programs and organizations with focus on agriculture and NRM, health and social/mutual support (Table 10). Only post- primary education appears to reduce probability to participate in social/mutual support organizations. This suggests that less educated farmers seem to seek more mutual support than more educated farmers. Older farmers are more likely to belong to agriculture and NRM organizations than younger farmers. However, age does not have a significant impact on participation in health and social/mutual support organizations. Human and physical endowments also have a large influence on participation in programs and organizations. Size of household increases probability to participate in agriculture and NRM organizations. This may be due to the labor requirement for adopting labor-intensive agriculture and NRM technologies promoted by these organizations such as soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies. Farm size appears to increase probability to participate in programs and organizations that focus on health. Value of agricultural 26
Page 1 and 2: SOUTHWESTERN UGANDA SUSTAINABLE NAT
Page 3 and 4: Table 9: Determinants of Choice of
Page 5 and 6: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AFRENA A
Page 7 and 8: Participation in non-farm activitie
Page 9 and 10: increase the low access to formal c
Page 11 and 12: component is implemented under the
Page 13 and 14: 1) A well documented database of co
Page 15 and 16: Determinants of major sources of in
Page 17 and 18: Dairy production and other intensiv
Page 19 and 20: irrelevant. On the other hand, cred
Page 21 and 22: markets are poorly developed (Binsw
Page 23 and 24: Table 1: Survey Enumeration Area an
Page 25 and 26: RESULTS This section is organized i
Page 27 and 28: Source of Income Kabale (N=49) Kanu
Page 29 and 30: Determinants of Income, Asset, Choi
Page 31 and 32: Table 8: Determinants of Household
Page 33: Household size significantly increa
Page 37 and 38: Determinants of Income Strategies T
Page 39 and 40: Primary activity of household head
Page 41 and 42: CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Page 43 and 44: enhances forest-based livelihoods.
Page 45 and 46: REFERENCES Appleton, S. 2001. What
Page 47: Project Purpose: To support sustain
Page 50 and 51: Table A2.2 - Characteristics of Wea
Page 52 and 53: APPENDIX 4: DETAILED TABLES OF DESC
Page 54 and 55: Table A4.7 - Main Food Crops Grown
Page 56 and 57: Table A4.9 - Commercial Woody Trees
Page 58 and 59: Table A4.12 - Restrictions on Priva
Page 60 and 61: Table A4.15 - Level of Enforcement
Page 62 and 63: Table A4.18 - Type of Markets Mainl
Page 64 and 65: Table A4.22 - Farmer Willingness to
Page 66 and 67: Table A4.26 - Perceptions of Change
Page 68 and 69: Table A5.2 - Determinants of househ
Page 70 and 71: Livestock MLE 2 Stage MLE Forest Le

community and household-level income & asset status baseline

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?