You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Table 20:<br />
Percentage of Ares Devoted to Perennials on<br />
Nearer and More Distant Lands<br />
Acreage under Total 0,10<br />
Perennials Acreage lO<br />
The more nearby family lands 12.7 125.3 10<br />
The more distant family lands 32.6 125.0 26<br />
Total 45.3 250.3 18<br />
While only 1OD,10 ofthe nearby family lands is used for the growing<br />
of such perennials as cocoa, citrus, oilpalm and coconuts, ofthe area of the<br />
more distant lands this amounts to as much as one-fourth (26D,10).<br />
Table 21:<br />
Percentage of Tenants on More Nearby<br />
and More Distant Lands<br />
No. of % N=<br />
Tenants<br />
The more nearby family lands 44 23 188<br />
The more distant family lands 23 37 63<br />
Total 67 27 251<br />
Hypothesis 5: Lastly, the more distant lands are indeed more often farmed<br />
by tenants than is the case with the more nearby family lands. While less<br />
than one-fourth of those farming on nearby lands (23 D,10) are tenants, this<br />
amounts to more than one-third (37 D,10) on distant family lands.<br />
It goes without saying that the statistical differences among family<br />
lands with regard to the allocation of farming rights and land use are not<br />
purely the result of differences in distance to the centre. One realizes this<br />
quite clearly when looking at the pattern of allocation for Osekyerew (See<br />
Appendix D, Table AI) which deviates very specifically from what one<br />
would expect on the basis of distance alone. The deviation is not so much<br />
101
Change language