Rural Development Policies and Sustainable Land Use in the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

32 CHAPTER 3 of years of formal schooling of household members older than 7 years, 30 the total number of household members, the share of dependents in the household (members younger than 12 years or older than 70 years are considered dependents), the age and gender of the household head, the share of female adults in the household, and an index of the share of household labor time involved in migration. Participation in programs and organizations (P ht ) is measured by whether anyone in the household participated during the year of the survey in conservation training programs (e.g., formal training related to soil and water conservation measures such as use of compost, mulching, and minimum or zero tillage), conservation extension programs (receiving shorter-term and more informal extension advice on such conservation practices), other agricultural training and extension programs (receiving training or extension on crop or livestock production practices other than conservation practices), membership in a producers’ association or campesino organization, membership in a rural bank or caja rural, and participation in activities of nongovernmental organizations. 31 Prior participation in training programs (P ht0 ) is measured by whether the household had participated in conservation or agricultural training programs prior to the survey year. 32 The presence of organizations within the village is measured by whether there are any producer or campesino organizations, rural banks or cajas rurales, or NGO programs within the village. The village-level factors influencing comparative advantages (X vt ) included access to markets and roads, measured by an ordinal index of travel time to the nearest large urban market (index is developed by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture [CIAT] using a GIS and based on geographical distance, road quality, slope, and natural barriers); the density of roads in the village (km/km 2 ); and the population density of the village in 2001 (persons/km 2 ). Key Relationships The key relationships investigated include the impacts of population pressure, access to markets and roads, participation in technical assistance programs and organizations, education, natural capital, physical capital, and land tenure on land management, agricultural production, and income. In the context of imperfect markets, most of these factors have ambiguous potential impacts on these responses and outcomes, depending on the market context. For example, while better market access may promote production of higher-value crops and raise the value of crop production, the latter may be reduced by lower labor use resulting from higher opportunity cost of labor. Population pressure may increase the pressure on fragile lands and increase land degradation but may also stimulate investments in land improvements. While education can be expected to have a 30 Our use of the median number of years of formal schooling, rather than the more commonly used measure of schooling of the head of household, was motivated by a study by Joliffe (1997), who found using a living standards survey from Ghana that the average or median level of education in the household was a better predictor of farm and off-farm income than the education of the household head. We chose to use the median rather than mean level of schooling because the mean estimator is more sensitive to outliers and missing data problems. 31 Participation decisions in these types of programs and organizations are not mutually exclusive; for example, a household may participate in more than one type of program. Also, the definitions of some of these variables involve some overlap; for example, households may participate in an NGO program providing agricultural or conservation training or extension. Nevertheless, these variables are reflecting different things—the variable for participation in an NGO program reflects the impact of the type of program (whether by the government or NGO), controlling for the program emphasis (whether conservation, more general agriculture, or something else). 32 The questionnaire did not collect information on prior participation in extension programs or other organizations.
METHODS AND MODELS 33 Figure 3.2 Location of the 9 provinces and 19 counties included in the sample La Ceiba Jutiapa Bonito Oriental Iriona Santa Rita Naranjito Lepaera San Manuel de Colohete Candelaria Victoria Yorito Sulaco Lepaterique Curarén Morolica Apacilagua El Corpus Guaimaca Güinope positive effect on household income, its net impacts on land management and crop production are ambiguous. Better educated households may be more aware of the benefits of conservation practices but also face higher opportunity costs of labor which discourage labor-intensive practices. While households with more education may have better access to credit which may stimulate high-value crop and livestock production and raise output value, they may also opt to work more outside the own farm. For a more detailed discussion of hypotheses about impacts of these and other factors in the context of imperfect markets, see Pender (2001), Nkonya et al. (2004), and Pender and Gebremedhin (2004). Data The preceding model is estimated using econometric analysis of survey data collected from 376 households in 95 villages during late 2001 and early 2002, supplemented by information on climate, market access, and population density provided by CIAT. Our research covers 9 provinces (departamentos) and 19 counties (municipios) (Figure 3.2). These were selected purposively based on several criteria including representation of agroecological conditions, dominant land use, population density, market access, and the presence of projects and programs. In addition, the importance of a number of counties in the northeast of the country as recipient areas of migrants (extending the agricultural frontier) warranted their inclusion in the study. The remainder of the sampling process was done in a fully randomized manner. In each county, five communities (aldeas, more or less equivalent to villages) were randomly selected, on the basis of a list of communities obtained from the 2000–01 population census (INE 2002). Subsequently for the household survey, two hamlets (caserios) were selected in each community, again randomly and on the basis of the latest population census. Finally, two households (hogares) were randomly selected in each hamlet on the basis of an inventory of households made in the field for each hamlet. The survey sample contains a total of 376 households, 1,066 parcels (defined as a contiguous piece of land based on tenure status), and 2,143 plots (subparcels defined on the basis of land use).
Page 1 and 2: Rural Development Policies and Sust
Page 3 and 4: Contents List of Tables iv List of
Page 5 and 6: TABLES v 5.6 Determinants of extern
Page 7 and 8: Boxes 1.1 Defining “Hillsides,”
Page 9 and 10: Acknowledgments The authors acknowl
Page 11: SUMMARY xi the adoption of sustaina
Page 14 and 15: 2 CHAPTER 1 Box 1.1 Defining “Hil
Page 16 and 17: 4 CHAPTER 1 will allow Honduras to
Page 18 and 19: 6 CHAPTER 1 In addition to providin
Page 20 and 21: 8 CHAPTER 1 econometric analysis to
Page 22 and 23: 10 CHAPTER 2 1998 and the coffee cr
Page 24 and 25: 12 CHAPTER 2 Box 2.1 Land Issues in
Page 26 and 27: 14 CHAPTER 2 Table 2.3 Yield of pri
Page 28 and 29: 16 CHAPTER 2 Table 2.7 Intersectora
Page 30 and 31: 18 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.2 Terms of tr
Page 32 and 33: CHAPTER 3 Methods and Models In thi
Page 34 and 35: 22 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.1 Sustainable
Page 36 and 37: 24 CHAPTER 3 financial organization
Page 38 and 39: 26 CHAPTER 3 decide the number of c
Page 40 and 41: 28 CHAPTER 3 The reduced form versi
Page 42 and 43: 30 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.1 Variables in
Page 46 and 47: 34 CHAPTER 3 Key socioeconomic elem
Page 48 and 49: 36 CHAPTER 3 although we report the
Page 50 and 51: 38 CHAPTER 4 Table 4.1 Natural capi
Page 52 and 53: 40 CHAPTER 4 Box 4.1 Remittances Re
Page 54 and 55: 42 CHAPTER 4 Table 4.6 Access to pu
Page 56 and 57: 44 CHAPTER 4 strategy (clusters 1 a
Page 58 and 59: Table 4.8 Mean household net income
Page 60 and 61: 48 CHAPTER 4 Table 4.9 Summary stat
Page 62 and 63: 50 CHAPTER 4 Box 4.2 Gender in the
Page 64 and 65: 52 CHAPTER 5 The socioeconomic expl
Page 66 and 67: 54 CHAPTER 5 explanatory variables
Page 68 and 69: 56 CHAPTER 5 technology training) a
Page 70 and 71: 58 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.3 Determinants
Page 74 and 75: 62 CHAPTER 5 the basic grains/lives
Page 76 and 77: 64 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.5—Continued
Page 78 and 79: 66 CHAPTER 5 ambiguous effects, dep
Page 82 and 83: 70 CHAPTER 5 more livestock focus m
Page 86 and 87: 74 CHAPTER 5 Geographic determinant
Page 92 and 93: 80 CHAPTER 5 when they purchase it
Page 94 and 95:
82 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.10 Summary of
Page 96 and 97:
84 CHAPTER 5 able to compensate for
Page 98 and 99:
86 CHAPTER 5 On the other hand, edu
Page 100 and 101:
88 CHAPTER 5 and wage labor. Nevert
Page 102 and 103:
90 CHAPTER 5 productivity. 62 Incre
Page 104 and 105:
CHAPTER 6 Summary of Findings, Conc
Page 106 and 107:
94 CHAPTER 6 zero/minimum tillage,
Page 108 and 109:
96 CHAPTER 6 Develop and promote yi
Page 110 and 111:
98 REFERENCES Boucher, S., B. Barha
Page 112 and 113:
100 REFERENCES Hornby, A. S. 1974.
Page 114 and 115:
102 REFERENCES Pino, H. N., P. Jim
show all

Rural Development Policies and Sustainable Land Use in the ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?