Livelihood diversification in Uganda: patterns and determinants of change across two rural districts

Smith, David Rider; Gordon, Ann; Meadows, Kate; Zwick, Karen

doi:10.1016/s0306-9192(01)00012-4

Cited by 165 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To comprehend whether poor people's livelihood is sustainable or not, the Sustainable Livelihood Analysis Frameworks (SLF) have been proposed [34][35][36]. Several studies related to rural livelihood have used SLF [14,16,17,19,23,29]. SLF encompasses five interacting elements namely; vulnerability context, asset pentagon, mediating factors, livelihood strategy, and outcomes that jointly create the livelihood of poor people [34].…”

Section: Livelihood Concept and Analysis Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Average education of total family members (years) [23,55] HHs having higher average education are supposed to be involved in non-farm based LSs…”

Section: Average Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is also increasing evidence of the contribution of business or rural enterprises and commercial farming for minimizing rural poverty [7,10,12]. A number of authors have explored the influencing factors on the choice of a household's livelihood strategies [8,18,22,23]. The overall conclusion is that households' livelihood strategy choices mainly depend on differential access to and control over five type of livelihood capital/assets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Household Livelihood Strategies and Implication for Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas of Central Nepal

Khatiwada

Deng

Paudel³

et al. 2017

Sustainability

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Understanding household livelihood strategies is pivotal to minimize rural poverty in the least developed countries like Nepal. This study is an attempt to assess livelihood strategies pursued by rural households, investigate the most remunerative strategy, and identify the factors that influence a household's choice of better strategies in rural Nepal. Primary data collected in 453 households from three villages of central Nepal are analyzed quantitatively within a sustainable livelihood framework. This study categorized households into five main livelihood strategy groups. The results showed that the majority (61%) of the households diversified their income to non-farm sources. Livelihood diversification to business/enterprise strategies adopted by 16% of the households is the most remunerative strategy followed by commercial farming that includes 13% of the sample and are more relevant to poverty reduction. Land holding, education, agriculture and skill training, access to credit, and proximity to the road and market center are the major influencing factors on the adoption of higher returning livelihood strategies. Stimulating poor households to follow market-oriented farm and non-farm activities by improving access to education, vocational training, rural credit, and rural infrastructures is momentous for reducing poverty in the rural areas of central Nepal.

show abstract

Section: Livelihood Concept and Analysis Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Average education of total family members (years) [23,55] HHs having higher average education are supposed to be involved in non-farm based LSs…”

Section: Average Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Household Livelihood Strategies and Implication for Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas of Central Nepal

Khatiwada

Deng

Paudel³

et al. 2017

Sustainability

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• the effects of power and gender relations on the lives of specific groups of people (e.g., women) (Canagarajah et al 2001;Mandel 2004;Oberhauser and Pratt 2004), • the diversity of the strategies used by the rural poor to make a living (Abdulai and CroleRees 2001;Batterbury 2001;Smith et al 2001;Manvell 2006;Yaro 2006), • the success of climate change adaptation strategies Jones et al 2010;Osbahr et al 2010), • the effects of policies on the lives of the poor (Rakodi 1999;Barrett et al 2001), • issues of food security (Sutherland et al 1999;Gladwin et al 2001;Hesselberg and Yaro 2006;Codjoe and Owusu 2011), and • the effects of global environmental change on the poor (Hahn et al 2009). …”

Section: Sustainable Livelihoodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change, food security, and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sub-Saharan Africa is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Multiple biophysical, political, and socioeconomic stresses interact to increase the region's susceptibility and constrain its adaptive capacity. Climate change is commonly recognized as a major issue likely to have negative consequences on food security and livelihoods in the region. This paper reviews three bodies of scholarship that have evolved somewhat separately, yet are inherently interconnected: climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, food security, and sustainable livelihoods. The paper develops a conceptualization of the relationships among the three themes and shows how food security's vulnerabilities are related to multiple stresses and adaptive capacities, reflecting access to assets. Food security represents one of several livelihood outcomes. The framework shows how several research paradigms relate to the issue of food security and climate change and provides a guide for empirical investigations. Recognizing these interconnections can help in the development of more effective policies and programs. The framework is applied here to synthesize findings from an array of studies in subSaharan Africa dealing with vulnerability to climate change, food security, and livelihoods.

show abstract

“…I-1, asks to what extent there is deliberation among stakeholders and decision makers on important issues. Deliberation is important because without it participation proceeds as if interests, positions, and knowledge are fixed (Miller 1992, Smith et al 2001, Smith 2003, functioning only as inputs to decision making with no possibility for mutual learning. Deliberation is a key element of meaningful multilevel participation, contributing to effective feedback and decision-making mechanisms, enabling the coproduction of knowledge, and contributing ultimately to empowerment (Robinson and Berkes 2011).…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional linkages and landscape governance systems: the case of Mt. Marsabit, Kenya

Robinson¹,

Kagombe²

2018

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The desire to overcome fragmented management of the natural ecosystems on which human beings depend has contributed to a growing interest in landscape approaches and to deeper questions about landscape governance systems. We assessed the emergent governance system that corresponds to the Mt. Marsabit landscape ecosystem in northern Kenya, applying a framework that includes 17 different indicators. We found that in this governance system, the most important spaces where coordination and joint planning took place were district level coordination committees, within which representation of communities and voices from the grassroots was poor. Institutional and organizational linkages were such that those parts of the governance system for which legitimacy and accountability were strongest were the parts for which ability to generate resources was weakest, while the parts of the governance system that had the best access to resources was where accountability was weakest or the most indirect. In this paper we use the Mt. Marsabit case study to explore the role that organizational and institutional linkages play in the strengths and weaknesses of landscape governance systems, and consider the implications for governance design at landscape level. Institutional linkages play a critical role in determining how landscape governance systems function across scales and levels, and their degree of fit. Appropriate linkages can help to create connections among key dimensions of effective governance within the system, dimensions such as use of knowledge, capacity to generate resources, fit, learning, legitimacy, accountability, and responsiveness, strengthening the system as a whole. Of the various linkages that characterize a governance system, it is those that give community-level actors a meaningful voice at higher levels and in spaces where key decisions are being made that are most critical for enabling effective landscape governance.

show abstract

Livelihood diversification in Uganda: patterns and determinants of change across two rural districts

Cited by 165 publications

References 10 publications

Household Livelihood Strategies and Implication for Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas of Central Nepal

Household Livelihood Strategies and Implication for Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas of Central Nepal

Climate change, food security, and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa

Institutional linkages and landscape governance systems: the case of Mt. Marsabit, Kenya

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About