community and household-level income & asset status baseline

More documents

Recommendations

Info

equipment reduces probability to participate in both agriculture and NRM and health organizations. This may be due to high opportunity cost of labor of wealthy farmers. Market integration increases probability to participate in organizations that focus on agriculture and NRM and health but reduces probability to participate in social and mutual support organizations. This suggests that the agriculture and NRM and health organizations appear to be in concentrated in high market access areas. Social/mutual organizations, most of which are CBOs, appear to be concentrated in remote areas. Being in Kisoro rather than Kabale increases the probability to participate in agriculture, NRM, and social/mutual support organizations. Being in Ntungamo rather than Kabale decreases the probability to participate in agriculture, NRM and health organizations but increases the probability to participate in social/mutual support organizations. The probability to participate in agriculture, NRM and health organizations is higher in the Rukungiri watershed than in the Kabale watershed. As expected, presence in the community of organizations that focus on health, and agriculture and NRM increases the probability to participate in activities of these organizations. However, presence of organizations that offer credit do not appear to influence participation in programs and organizations that focus on agriculture, NRM, health but increases probability to participate in social/mutual support organizations. The major sources informal credits are friends, relatives and neighbors, who usually form a large social capital through social/mutual support organizations. It appears membership to these CBOs serve as credit intermediation for members. Primary source of income does not appear to have much influence on participation in programs and organizations. However, only livestock appears to reduce probability to participate in programs and organizations that focus on agriculture and NRM. 27
Determinants of Income Strategies The primary sources of household income reported by the sample households include crop production; livestock production; forestry activities; non-farm activities such as brewing beer; petty trade, masonry, butchery, etc. In general, most households in rural Uganda have diversified income sources, regardless of their reported primary income source. Crop production as a whole is the largest source of income, followed by non-farm activities, which are quite important for most households in the SWH region. Acquiring primary education increases the probability to have livestock rather than crop production as the primary source of income. Acquiring post-primary education has no impact on choice between livestock and crop production. Post-primary education has a positive and significant impact on probability to have non-farm activities as the primary source of income. This is consistent with the findings of studies that covered the entire country (Nkonya, et al., 2004) and much of the literature on determinants of rural non-farm income in Africa, which note the barriers to entry (such as limited education) into higher income occupations (e.g., Barrett, et al., 2001). Age of household head is negatively related with the probability to choose livestock production as primary source of income, suggesting that older farmers tend to choose crop production. Female-headed households are less likely to choose livestock as their primary source of income. Livestock keeping may involve a considerable amount of time away from home as farmers graze and water their animals. This may not be attractive to women who always want to be around the home to take care of children and cook food for the family. Household size also has a positive impact on probability to choose livestock keeping rather than crop production as the primary source of income. This may be due to the ability of large households to have labor to manage cattle. For example, small children always take care 28
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 and 34: Household size significantly increa
Page 35: more evidence that extension and tr
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?