A Socio-Economic Profile of the Rufiji Floodplain and Delta.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Socio-economic profile of Rufiji flood plain and Delta - Vol. 1 Table 36: Items/statements and their factor loadings, measuring positive attitude towards the environment. Item A1.In order to make some money and survive I have to do some things which are not good for the environment A2.We are required to conserve the environment in order to have higher yields (Fish, forest products, etc) A3.The way we are fishing now is not good and cannot last for ever A4.There will be plenty of opportunities for our children as far as the environment is concerned A5.We need to make changes in our farming practices for the benefit of the future A6. Involvement of the villagers in wildlife management is the best way of controlling poaching A7.Growing trees in our farms is one way of protecting our forests A8. I worry that the land will not produce much when our children will take over farming A9.I cannot afford to worry about preparing for the future Researchers’ Outcome from Factor hypothesis respondents Loading a Disagree Disagree -0.4 Agree Agree 0.3 Agree Agree 0.7 Disagree Agree* 0.6 Agree Agree 0.6 Agree Agree 0.3 Agree Agree 0.6 Agree Agree 0.4 Disagree Agree* 0.4 a Un-rotated factor loading (rounded up) * Means that there is a difference between the researchers’ expectations and the respondents actual answers Extraction Method: is Principal Component Analysis. The Eigen Value shows the total variance explained. Eigen Value was used as a measure of variability of the factors. Selection of the items/variables was based on the Eigen Value of the extracted factor. Items falling under the factor with the highest Eigen Value have their respective factor loading. The higher the factor loading the more that item contributes to the total score of that factor. Eigen Value and factor loading are generated directly by SPSS/PC+ during factor analysis (Norusis, 1992). The factor with the highest Eigen Value (normally >1.0) was selected to give the score for the attitudinal concept depending on the relative factor loading of the items. A factor loading of items of at least 0.4 is preferred. According to Kim and Muller (1978:10), a factor loading of < 0.3 is not normally considered as substantial Table 36 shows the results of factor analysis as well as the researchers’ and farmers’ opinions on the items. The highest selected extracted factor accounted for 24.7% of the variations. All the items in the selected factor have the recommended factor loading of at least 3.0, and are therefore considered as reliable measures of the attitudinal concept (Table 36). There is a difference between the researchers’ hypotheses and the outcome of the survey in items A4 and A9, i.e. farmers agree that there will be plenty of opportunities for their children and they agree that they cannot afford to worry about the future (Table 36). This shows that there is poor/negative attitude towards ‘intergeneration equity’. 36
Socio-economic profile of Rufiji flood plain and Delta - Vol. 1 Table 37: Respondents showing positive attitude towards environment (Agree or disagreeing to various items) by AEZ Item Inner Delta Inner Delta Delta Delta South North South Flood West Total North South North Flood Plain Plain Valley Percent of respondents A1 (Disagree) 40.9 23.3 46.2 37.9 27.2 23.1 53.4 39.7 A2 (Agree) 93.2 93.3 88.5 93.1 100.0 100.0 96.6 94.4 A3 (Agree) 44.2 53.3 65.4 55.1 50.0 77.0 52.0 54.4 A4 (Disagree) 40.5 53.4 18.0 48.1 52.4 69.2 33.3 40.6 A5 (Agree) 86.1 86.7 92.4 82.7 95.2 92.6 79.3 87.0 A6 (Agree) 64.7 73.3 79.2 89.2 68.4 84.6 82.4 77.3 A7 (Agree) 81.8 80.0 84.6 86.2 68.2 92.3 86.7 82.7 A8 (Agree) 70.4 60.0 65.4 78.6 63.6 84.7 63.4 68.8 A9 (Disagree) 48.8 66.7 42.3 35.7 45.5 46.2 57.2 44.6 Overall 63.4 65.5 64.7 67.4 63.4 74.4 67.2 65.5 Source Survey data (2000) The respondents do not put much emphasis on what will happen in the future as far as the environment is concerned. However there are mixed feelings as indicated in table 37. The percentage of respondents who disagree with items A4 and A9 are 40.6% and 44.6% respectively, implying that more than 50% of the respondents have negative attitude towards these items (i.e. either disagree or not decided). This calls for a need to link the environment and future generations when undertaking environmental education. However, in Inner Delta south, and west valley AEZ, they indicate a higher numbers of respondents disagreeing with item A9 and South flood plain and inner Delta south have high numbers of respondents disagreeing with A4 (Table 37). This shows that in these zones there is a good linkage between the environment now and what will happen in the future. The majority of the respondents in these zones perceived the state of the environment as ‘bad’ (Table 35). Generally, respondents in the survey areas show a positive attitude towards the environment (more than 60% of the respondents table 37). This indicates a positive sign that interventions related to environmental management are likely to be accepted in the area. When asked to compare the availability of natural resources for household use now and ten years ago, the majority of the respondents indicated that it is not easy now (88.5%, Table 38) Table 38: Respondents indicating easiness of availability of natural resources today compared to 10 years ago by AEZ Inner Delta Inner Delta Delta North Delta South North Flood South Flood West Total North South (n=26) (n=30) Plain Plain Valley (=182) (n=44) (n=15) (n=24) (n=13) (n=30) Percent of respondents Yes 4.5 13.3 3.8 20.0 20.8 15.4 10.0 11.5 No 95.5 86.7 96.2 80.0 79.2 84.6 90.0 88.5 Source: Survey data (2000) The results indicate that as years pass, the availability of natural resources to households is becoming more difficult. The main reasons for this are a combination of the following: • Overexploitation/uncontrolled harvesting • Population growth • Unreliable weather/climatic conditions • Poor technologies for example in agriculture • Poor management strategies • Illegal harvesting • Presence of large scale fishing companies and • Uncontrolled bush fires 37
Page 1 and 2: Rufiji Environment Management Proje
Page 3 and 4: Socio-economic profile of Rufiji fl
Page 43: Socio-economic profile of Rufiji fl

A Socio-Economic Profile of the Rufiji Floodplain and Delta.

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?