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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

72 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.7 Determinants of labor use (tobit regressions) a Family labor use (days/mz) b Hired wage labor (days/mz) Standard Standard Explanatory variable Coefficient error Coefficient error Livelihood strategy (cf. basic grains) Livestock producer –3.6100 6.3205 –10.2410* 5.7737 Coffee producer –7.9222 7.9934 –9.9206 8.2371 Basic grains/farmworker 0.9790 5.7601 –1.5032 5.1500 Basic grains/livestock/farmworker 4.4992 6.4382 –8.2507 5.0360 Natural capital Altitude 0.0000 0.0020 0.0036** 0.0016 Summer rainfall 0.0224*** 0.0086 –0.0097 0.0086 Rainfall deficit in secondary season 0.0236 0.0445 –0.0706* 0.0422 Soil fertility –0.0012 0.0029 –0.0009 0.0026 Owned land 0.0014 0.0813 –0.0814 0.0734 Physical capital Value of machinery/equipment –0.0003* 0.0002 0.0004*** 0.0001 Value of livestock –0.0001* 0.0000 0.0002*** 0.0000 Human capital Median years of schooling –0.7326 1.2437 1.4747 0.9697 Household size 2.1538*** 0.6154 –3.6721*** 0.6894 Dependency ratio –4.5176 3.3445 1.4636 2.6294 Female-headed household 21.9849** 10.2728 –1.7671 5.8047 Share of female adults –36.8114** 15.7084 –1.6982 12.6690 Age of household head –0.1752 0.1356 –0.1783 0.1176 Migration index –8.6723 8.4198 27.6126*** 7.3490 Geographic determinants of comparative advantage Travel time index to urban market –0.1512 0.2912 –0.1648 0.3387 Road density 2.8645** 1.2747 –0.0396 1.4126 Population density –0.0113 0.0207 0.0308 0.0196 Participation in programs and organizations Conservation training 6.1096 5.4900 –2.2017 5.7117 Agricultural training –8.2117 6.5839 3.2135 8.1599 Conservation extension 2.9481 6.5536 6.3576 5.8325 Agricultural extension 4.4464 7.1235 –19.3779** 8.2663 Producers’/campesino organization 0.5494 7.9785 11.4193 9.2664 Rural bank/caja rural –9.4726 7.2311 15.4300** 6.1757 NGO program 5.7011 4.5959 –0.8278 5.2728 Plot characteristics Area of plot (mz) –6.3779*** 1.8164 2.0685* 1.1181 Travel time to residence (minutes) –0.0273 0.0339 0.0675 0.0454 Travel time to road (minutes) –0.1288* 0.0733 0.2385*** 0.0797 Position on hill (cf. bottom) Top of hill –19.1856 13.3887 11.6028 9.4709 Hillside 10.0316* 5.3255 –9.9754** 4.8401 Position on slope (cf. flat) Moderate slope –6.3936 5.6521 3.6049 4.7771 Steep slope 1.1072 6.8305 –8.8178 5.9452 Land tenure Percentage of land with title –16.5949** 7.8756 1.4751 8.0345 Plot tenure (cf. usufruct ownership) Full title 12.7344 9.0516 11.9276 7.9424 Occupied communal land 7.5671 4.7140 –3.0546 8.2915 Borrowed –1.0708 5.6541 2.7660 4.1424 Rented or sharecropped –3.7512 5.5005 –2.3022 7.9656 Prior investments on plot Stone wall –10.0947* 6.0544 –7.9917 5.1394 Live barrier or fence –0.3419 4.3768 5.0433 3.7515 Trees planted –2.6454 5.7880 –6.5343 5.6434
ECONOMETRIC RESULTS 73 Table 5.7—Continued Family labor use (days/mz) b Hired wage labor (days/mz) Standard Standard Explanatory variable Coefficient error Coefficient error Land use—perennials –13.7584** 5.8836 –14.5078*** 4.5511 Season (cf. 2000 1st season) 2001 first season –0.4063 2.2118 –0.1287 1.8184 2000 2nd season –18.1700*** 3.3959 –3.2221 3.9658 2000 3rd season 5.6504 11.4525 –8.2231 5.7946 Intercept 49.5369** 21.0043 20.0737 14.9900 Number of positive observations/total 1,600/1635 665/1635 number of observations Hausman test of exogeneity of livelihood p = 1.0000 strategies and participation in programs/ organizations Hansen’s J test of overidentifying restrictions p = 0.0687 Note: *, **, *** mean statistically significant at 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively. a Coefficients and standard errors adjusted for sampling weights and stratification, and are robust to heteroskedasticity and non-independence of observations from different plots from the same household (clustering). b Exogeneity of livelihood strategies and participation in programs and organizations in the family labor regression was tested using a Hausman test comparing an OLS and IV version of the model (the instrumental variables for livelihood strategies and participation in programs and organizations were the same as those described in footnote b of Table 5.3), and was not rejected ( p = 1.000). ( postrera) than the first ( primera), also for a similar reason. Land tenure also affects labor use. Households with a larger share of their land titled use less family labor on a given plot, possibly because such households have more off-farm and nonfarm opportunities as a result of better access to credit, as mentioned previously. Physical assets affect labor use. Households that own more machinery/equipment or livestock use less family labor (significant for both variables at 10 percent level) but more hired wage labor. Wealthier households are apparently more able to substitute hired labor and equipment for family labor inputs. Human capital also affects labor use. Not surprisingly, larger households use more of their own family labor and less hired labor. Having a larger family labor supply reduces the need to hire labor. Female-headed households use more family labor than maleheaded households, but households with a larger share of female adults use less family labor. Apparently female-headed households must devote extra labor to food production, while male-headed households with more female labor may be able to diversify into other off-farm activities. These results are consistent with the findings (see Table 5.2) regarding the impacts of these variables on household livelihood strategies: femaleheaded households are less likely than male-headed households to be able to diversify into the category of basic grains/ livestock/farmworker, while households with a higher ratio of female adults are more likely to diversify into this livelihood strategy. Households with members spending more time migrating for employment use more hired labor (but not significantly less family labor) in crop production, probably because they can better afford to hire labor.
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 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?