Income Inequality in Mountain Areas: The Case of Agroforestry Farming Systems in Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania

Abstract

Land degradation due to use of unsustainable agricultural practices has affected many communities in rural mountain areas rendering them to be more vulnerable to income poverty and inequality. In this case, agroforestry systems promise to offer great solutions as they can be developed in unfavourable conditions where other production systems would either rapidly degrade the land or otherwise would not be possible. However, little is known whether agroforestry can address issues of income inequality in mountain areas. Hence, we conducted a study to investigate the nature and determinants of income inequality in Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. Specifically, we used the cross-sectional research design and we calculated the income percentile shares, Gini coefficients and the coefficient of variation (CV), to pinpoint the nature of income inequality in the study area. The determinants of income inequality were analysed using the step by step multiple linear model. The results of analysis suggested prevalence of income inequality. Crop production was the main source of income in the agroforestry systems of the study area. Earnings from crops and timber were decreasing income-inequality amongst smallholder farmers. Our disaggregated analysis showed that offfarm income was also decreasing income-inequality for farmers with farmlands located close to homestead, for female-headed households, for farmers who did not access extension services, and those who were members of community-based financial institutions. Estimated incomes increased with household assets, size of farmland, and age of household head. However, the same decreased with household size. We found gender disparity to be one of the key issues that need attention in formulating future policies to reduce inequality. We recommend promotion of livelihood diversification as well as the designing and implementation of tailor-made training and farm financing How to cite this paper: Kadigi, R.M.J.

Evaluating Limitations of Agroecological Practices and Stakeholders’ Response: A Case of Uluguru Mountains Landscape in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania

“…The results imply that there are no coordinated ways among responsible stakeholders toward balancing ecology in the purview of wildlife conservation and food production needs. Their results corroborate those by Kadigi (2021) who established that agroforestry farming cannot fully support livelihoods of the farmers and lead to conserved ecology dimensions when the challenges related to its practices are not regulated or managed collectively by responsible stakeholders.…”

“…The areas had an average annual rainfall range of 550-1000 mm and annual average temperature, 26.7 o C (Morogoro Meteorological Station, 2022). The fertile soil and good climate along Uluguru Mountains are considered conducive for crop production under conservation agricultural practices (Kadigi, 2021). Majority of the natives (Waluguru) inhabiting the areas engage in agriculture, illegally extract forest natural resources for livelihoods as well as using water from catchment areas for irrigation and domestic utility.…”

The Role of Avocado Production and Trade in Major Producing Districts, Tanzania: Income Inequality Decomposition Approach

“…For example, Kadigi (2021) investigate the nature and determinants of income inequality in the agroforestry systems of Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania. He used the cross-sectional research design and calculated the income percentile shares, Gini coefficients and the coefficient of variation (CV), to pinpoint the nature of income inequality in the study area.…”

Trade, GDP value adding activities and income inequality in the East African community

“…The individual value adding activities were tested if they increase or decrease income inequality using the approach proposed by Adams [63]. This was useful because conventionally, most studies have often attempted to evaluate the distributional impact of certain types of GDP sources by merely comparing the individual shares or sizes of distribution of the sources with that of the total GDP as a whole [63,64]. Because it neglects the twin issues of GDP weights and covariance between its sources, any approach, which solely compares the size distribution of one particular source with that of total GDP, is likely to arrive at erroneous conclusions regarding the distributional impact of that particular source or value adding activity [64,65].…”