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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4.8 Mean household net income and percentage composition, by livelihood strategy Cluster number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Livelihood strategy name Basic Mixed Annual crops/ Basic grains basic grains/ Permanent intensive Total Livestock Coffee grains farmers/ livestock/ crops livestock Variables sample producers producers farmers farmworkers farmworkers producers producers 46 CHAPTER 4 Number of households 376 59 28 68 85 116 12 8 Total household income a 12,310 20,915 12,536 5,134 13,799 10,798 16,225 9,777 Standard error 1,646 7,531 2,646 1,125 2,491 2,089 3,665 3,499 Per capita income b 0.35 0.58 0.33 0.15 0.42 0.29 0.66 0.38 Standard error 0.04 0.18 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.18 0.24 Composition of household income: Percentage income from basic grains 34.3 30.4 0.0 79.2 17.5 30.0 22.3 41.4 Standard error 8.0 8.1 20.9 29.4 6.5 13.0 10.2 10.5 Percentage income from annual cash crops 1.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.3 Standard error 0.8 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 Percentage income from coffee 0.0 4.1 –22.9 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 Standard error 4.2 2.8 51.6 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 Percentage income from other permanent crops 6.9 2.4 4.0 24.4 0.5 4.5 5.2 1.1 Standard error 4.3 1.7 3.6 21.0 0.4 3.9 2.7 1.5 Percentage income from livestock –3.5 31.0 83.2 –91.2 1.4 0.6 1.3 27.9 Standard error 27.6 8.6 75.4 135.6 1.8 29.6 1.4 7.0 Percentage income from off-farm agricultural work 38.9 13.6 16.7 9.4 76.1 55.5 38.7 4.3 Standard error 8.9 5.5 9.0 7.1 7.3 25.8 17.3 4.8 Percentage income from off-farm nonagricultural work 20.5 16.9 20.1 72.9 2.5 2.9 24.4 13.7 Standard error 14.6 8.2 9.2 77.1 1.2 1.0 9.3 15.1 Percentage income from transfers 34.7 6.6 1.1 103.3 14.0 33.5 19.7 13.0 Standard error 19.1 5.5 10.8 107.8 1.8 12.7 13.8 1.6 Percentage income from patio production –1.0 1.3 –0.5 –4.1 0.5 –1.8 1.1 0.1 Standard error 1.0 1.4 0.4 2.1 0.3 2.2 0.9 0.3 Percentage net-rent income –18.1 -8.8 0.0 –49.3 –7.0 –19.5 –0.3 –0.3 Standard error 13.0 7.5 0.0 64.0 3.0 13.2 0.2 0.5 Percentage of poor households c 92.6 77.1 99.1 97.3 94.4 95.8 95.2 86.2 Standard error 2.4 10.8 1.0 2.8 4.0 1.5 4.7 14.4 Percentage of extremely and desperately poor households d 92.3 75.5 99.1 97.3 91.8 88.4 94.5 77.0 Standard error 2.4 10.9 0.0 0.0 4.6 1.4 17.3 14.6 Note: Because household income is net of costs of production, income from particular sources may be negative (e.g., livestock losses greater than revenues), and the share of total net household income from a particular source may be less than zero or greater than 100%. a In Lps per year. b In US$ per day. c Percentage of households with less than US$1.50 per capita per day. d Percentage of households with less than US$1.00 per capita per day.
ASSET DISTRIBUTION AND LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES IN THE HILLSIDES OF HONDURAS 47 of land on average, which is slightly more than households in cluster 4, but they are the poorest group among all households, earning an average of just US$0.15 per person per day (Table 4.8). The explanation lies in the fact that these households rely nearly exclusively on basic grains production that has low profitability (partially caused by limited natural assets in terms of quantity and quality). They tend to be located at high elevations and on steep slopes, and have little in terms of other productive assets (Table 4.9). These households also have relatively low physical assets and work little outside their own farms, despite somewhat above-average market access. The probability of a female head is highest for this cluster (see also Box 4.2). The livelihoods strategy of households in cluster 4 includes basic grains and offfarm employment. These households have the smallest landholdings, with less than 2 ha of farmland of which less than 20 percent is owned, on average. Thus, they need to rent land, but overall land access is limited. By working off-farm they are able to earn more than double (US$0.41 per person per day; see Table 4.8) the income of cluster 3 households, in spite of an above-average dependency ratio and below-average education (Table 4.9). It seems that limited access to land “pushes” these households to be more entrepreneurial and seek out alternative employment opportunities, in or out of agriculture. On the other hand, differences between the cost of buying food and the price received by farmers for food crops sold may mean that this group may be worse off than cluster 3 in terms of food security, despite higher calculated income per capita. Households in cluster 5 on average have over 10 ha of land, of which nearly two thirds is kept either fallow or under forest. Their livelihood strategy is similar to households in cluster 4 but with considerably more land, so they hire (rather than sell) labor and devote a larger share of their time to livestock activities (which are less labor intensive than crop activities). However, their average daily per capita income of US$0.29 is about 30 percent less than that of households in cluster 4, but higher than households in cluster 3, which produce just basic grains. Apparently by working their own farms, these households have lower incomes than those seeking off-farm employment. On the other hand, these households may be less vulnerable to risks than those in cluster 4, as they have greater wealth and more diversified income sources. Education is slightly above average for this cluster, whereas both physical and natural assets, other than land, are about average (Table 4.9). Households in cluster 6 represent a small group of permanent crop producers with small landholdings (2.4 ha on average) who devote most of their land and labor to intensive tree crop production such as fruits, oil palm, and so forth. These households have the highest average incomes in the sample (US$0.66 per capita per day). Table 4.9 shows that they have smaller than average household sizes and are located in favorable agroecological areas with high population densities, high rainfall, and good access to paved roads and public transportation, all of which are important for diversification into higher-value permanent crop production. Finally, most households in cluster 7 are vegetable producers who allocate most of their labor to working on their own farms. Despite being relatively far from a paved road in areas with relatively low population densities, these households are close to a nonpaved road (Table 4.9), which gives them a sufficient degree of market access to specialize in vegetable production. Somewhat surprising is the fact that their average daily income during the survey year (US$0.38 per capita) was only slightly above average despite an average farm size of about 4.5 ha, good market access, and the relatively high educational level of the household heads. A possible explanation for the low incomes of this group is their dependence on middlemen for the marketing of their vegetables.
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 44 and 45: 32 CHAPTER 3 of years of formal sch
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 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?