28.01.2015 Views

The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

was used to estimate the proportion <strong>of</strong> land occupied by various resources. This allocation was<br />

then compared to the resource allocation <strong>in</strong>1981. <strong>The</strong> data was then subjected to the Wilcox<br />

Sign-Rank test to determ<strong>in</strong>e whether there were significant trends across all 22 communities.<br />

<strong>The</strong> results are shown <strong>in</strong> the table below.<br />

Table 2. Test <strong>of</strong> Significance for Trends <strong>in</strong> Natural Resource Area<br />

Area Now Past Sign Rank Test Significance<br />

Lake 19% 15% z = 1.481 Prob > |z| = 0.1386<br />

Swamp 10% 12% z = -1.287 Prob > |z| = 0.1980<br />

Trees 14% 19% z = -2.879 Prob > |z| = 0.0040<br />

Farm Land 32% 29% z = 0.915 Prob > |z| = 0.3600<br />

Graze Land 13% 11% z = 1.363 Prob > |z| = 0.1730<br />

Rocks 5% 5%<br />

Other 8% 9%<br />

Not tested – too few observations<br />

100% 100%<br />

<strong>The</strong> only significant trend that was observed across the entire sample is the decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> forested<br />

area due to over utilization. Clearly this trend is result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> reduced habitat for wildlife and a<br />

result<strong>in</strong>g loss <strong>in</strong> bio-diversity as seen later <strong>in</strong> the decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> hunt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> all communities. <strong>The</strong><br />

community members were then asked to def<strong>in</strong>e what they thought were the important elements <strong>of</strong><br />

“QUALITY” for each <strong>of</strong> the natural resources and then to rank them aga<strong>in</strong>st this def<strong>in</strong>ition <strong>of</strong><br />

quality on a scale <strong>of</strong> 0 to 5, with zero be<strong>in</strong>g the worst, and 5 be<strong>in</strong>g the best.<br />

Quality Now Past Sign Rank Test Significance<br />

Lake 2.56 4.44 z = -3.292 Prob > |z| = 0.0010<br />

Swamp 2.65 3.76 z = -1.964 Prob > |z| = 0.0496<br />

Trees/Forests 1.94 4.29 Z = -3.041 Prob > |z| = 0.0024<br />

Farm Land 2.41 4.24 z = -2.995 Prob > |z| = 0.0027<br />

Graze Land 2.86 4.14 z = -2.256 Prob > |z| = 0.0241<br />

Rocks 3.00 2.50 Not tested – too few observations<br />

<strong>The</strong> perception <strong>of</strong> reduction <strong>in</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> the natural resources is significant at the 5% level for<br />

swamp and graz<strong>in</strong>g resources and at the 1% level for lake, forests, and farm<strong>in</strong>g land. Clearly<br />

there is a common perception that natural resource quality has deteriorated significantly <strong>in</strong> the<br />

entire study area over the last 20 years.<br />

5.2.2 Trends <strong>in</strong> Income Sources<br />

To capture the trends <strong>in</strong> sources <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>come, communities were asked to identify the proportion <strong>of</strong><br />

the households <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> various types <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>come generation, now and <strong>in</strong> the past. <strong>The</strong> results<br />

across all communities are presented <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g figure.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!