Household Livelihood Strategies and Implication for Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas of Central Nepal
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Livelihood Concept and Analysis Framework
2.2. Study Area
2.3. Data and Sampling
2.4. Data Analysis
2.4.1. Income Source and Income Accounting
2.4.2. Determining Livelihood Strategy Cluster
2.4.3. Identifying a Higher Returning Livelihood Strategy
2.4.4. Determining Livelihood Strategy Determinants
3. Results
3.1. Description of Livelihood Strategies (LSs)
3.2. Which Livelihood Strategy Is Superior?
3.3. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Households by the Five Livelihood Strategy (LS) Clusters
3.4. Determinants of Livelihood Strategy
4. Discussion
4.1. Household Livelihood Strategy in Rural Nepal
4.2. Livelihood Strategy, Income, and Implication for Poverty Reduction
4.3. Determinants of Livelihood Strategy
5. Conclusions and Recommendation
Supplementary Materials
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Davis, B.; Winters, P.; Carletto, G.; Covarrubias, K.; Quiñones, E.J.; Zezza, A.; Stamoulis, K.; Azzarri, C.; DiGiuseppe, S. A cross-country comparison of rural income generating activities. World Dev. 2010, 38, 48–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank Group. Global Monitoring Report 2014/2015: Ending Poverty and Sharing Prosperity; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Rigg, J. Land, farming, livelihoods, and poverty: Rethinking the links in the rural south. World Dev. 2006, 34, 180–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixon, J.A.; Gibbon, D.P.; Gulliver, A. Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in a Changing World; Food & Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Thorbecke, E. Multidimensional poverty: Conceptual and measurement issues. In The Many Dimensions of Poverty; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, F. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. J. Dev. Stud. 1998, 35, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soltani, A.; Angelsen, A.; Eid, T.; Naieni, M.S.N.; Shamekhi, T. Poverty, sustainability, and household livelihood strategies in Zagros, Iran. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 79, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, Y.-P.; Fan, J.; Shen, M.-Y.; Song, M.-Q. Sensitivity of livelihood strategy to livelihood capital in mountain areas: Empirical analysis based on different settlements in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River, China. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 38, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, Ø.J.; Rayamajhi, S.; Uberhuaga, P.; Meilby, H. Smiththvelihood strategy to livelihood capital in mountain areas: Empirical analysng an activity choice approach. Agric. Econ. 2013, 44, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, D.R.; Stephens, E.C.; Ouma, J.O.; Murithi, F.M.; Barrett, C.B. Livelihood Strategies in the Rural Kenyan Highlands; Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Oumer, A.M.; de Neergaard, A. Understanding livelihood strategy-poverty links: Empirical evidence from central highlands of Ethiopia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2011, 13, 547–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansen, H.G.; Pender, J.; Damon, A.; Wielemaker, W.; Schipper, R. Policies for sustainable development in the hillside areas of Honduras: A quantitative livelihoods approach. Agric. Econ. 2006, 34, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, C.B.; Clark, M.B.; Clay, D.C.; Reardon, T. Heterogeneous constraints, incentives and income diversification strategies in rural Africa. Q. J. Int. Agric. 2005, 44, 37–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, C.B.; Reardon, T.; Webb, P. Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy 2001, 26, 315–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Berg, M. Household income strategies and natural disasters: Dynamic livelihoods in rural Nicaragua. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 592–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansoms, A.; McKay, A. A quantitative analysis of poverty and livelihood profiles: The case of rural Rwanda. Food Policy 2010, 35, 584–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iiyama, M.; Kariuki, P.; Kristjanson, P.; Kaitibie, S.; Maitima, J. Livelihood diversification strategies, incomes and soil management strategies: A case study from Kerio Valley, Kenya. J. Int. Dev. 2008, 20, 380–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babulo, B.; Muys, B.; Nega, F.; Tollens, E.; Nyssen, J.; Deckers, J.; Mathijs, E. Household livelihood strategies and forest dependence in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agric. Syst. 2008, 98, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.; Zhang, J.; Rasul, G.; Liu, S.; Xie, F.; Cao, M.; Liu, E. Household livelihood strategies and dependence on agriculture in the mountainous settlements in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4850–4869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stifel, D.C. The rural non-farm economy, livelihood strategies and household welfare. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2010, 4, 82–109. [Google Scholar]
- Alemu, Z.G. Livelihood strategies in rural South Africa: Implications for poverty reduction. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil, 18–24 August 2012; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, F. The determinants of rural livelihood diversification in developing countries. J. Agric. Econ. 2000, 51, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, D.R.; Gordon, A.; Meadows, K.; Zwick, K. Livelihood diversification in Uganda: Patterns and determinants of change across two rural districts. Food Policy 2001, 26, 421–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tesfaye, Y.; Roos, A.; Campbell, B.M.; Bohlin, F. Livelihood strategies and the role of forest income in participatory-managed forests of Dodola area in the bale highlands, southern Ethiopia. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Planning Commission. Nepal status paper—United Nations conference on sustainable development 2012 (Rio+20) synopsis. In United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development 2012 (Rio+20); National Planning Commission: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Central Bureau of Statistics. Agriculture Census, 2013; Central Bureau of Statistics: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2013.
- Blaikie, P.; Cameron, J.; Seddon, D. Understanding 20 years of change in west-central Nepal: Continuity and change in lives and ideas. World Dev. 2002, 30, 1255–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byg, A.; Herslund, L. Socio-economic changes, social capital and implications for climate change in a changing rural Nepal. GeoJournal 2016, 81, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhandari, B.; Grant, M. Analysis of livelihood security: A case study in the Kali-Khola watershed of Nepal. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 85, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rahut, D.B.; Ali, A.; Kassie, M.; Marenya, P.P.; Basnet, C. Rural livelihood diversification strategies in Nepal. Poverty Public Policy 2014, 6, 259–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattarai, B.; Beilin, R.; Ford, R. Gender, agrobiodiversity, and climate change: A study of adaptation practices in the Nepal Himalayas. World Dev. 2015, 70, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maraseni, T.N. Climate change, poverty and livelihoods: Adaptation practices by rural mountain communities in nepal. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 21, 24–34. [Google Scholar]
- Chambers, R.; Conway, G. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21 st Century; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Department for International Development. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Guidance Sheets; Department for International Development: London, UK, 1999.
- Carney, D. Approaches to Sustainable Livelihoods for the Rural Poor; ODI Poverty Briefing; Overseas Development Institute: Brighton, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Scoones, I. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A framework for Analysis; IDS Working Paper 72; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Carney, D. Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make? In Proceedings of the Department for International Development’s Natural Resources Advisers’ Conference, London, UK, 10–14 July 1998; Department for International Development (DFID): London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Rakodi, C. A capital assets framework for analysing household livelihood strategies: Implications for policy. Dev. Policy Rev. 1999, 17, 315–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khatiwada, J.R.; Ghimire, S.; Khatiwada, S.P.; Paudel, B.; Bischof, R.; Jiang, J.; Haugaasen, T. Frogs as potential biological control agents in the rice fields of chitwan, nepal. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 230, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Wildlife Fund Nepal. Chitwan Annapurna Landscape (CHAL): A Rapid Assessment; World Wildlife Fund Nepal: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Paudel Khatiwada, S.; Zhang, J.; Yi, S.; Paudel, B.; Deng, W. Agricultural land use intensity and determinants in different agro-ecological regions of central Nepal. In Land Cover Change and Its Eco-Environmental Responses in Nepal; Li, A., Wei, D., Wei, Z., Eds.; Springer: Chengdu, China, 2017; in press. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, H.E.; Ngau, P. Rural-urban relations, household income diversification and agricultural productivity. Dev. Chang. 1991, 22, 519–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, F.K.; Yang, Y.; Weckerle, C.S.; Seeland, K. Diversification of livelihoods in a society in transition: A case study of Tibetan communities in southwest China. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2014, 27, 706–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annabi, N.; Cockburn, J.; Decaluwe, B.; Khondker, B.; Raihan, S. Implications of WTO Agreements and Unilateral Trade Policy Reforms for Poverty in Bangladesh: Short versus Long-Run Impacts; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Menon, M.; Perali, F.; Rosati, F. The Shadow Wage of Child Labour: An Application to Nepal; Faculty of Economics, University of Rome: Rome, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Takane, T. Labor use in smallholder agriculture in malawi: Six village case studies. Afr. Stud. Monogr. 2008, 29, 183–200. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Simpson, E.H. Measurement of diversity. Nature 1949, 163, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, F. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Chilongo, T. Livelihood strategies and forest reliance in malawi. For. Trees Livelihoods 2014, 23, 188–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmore, G.A.; Findlay, M.C. Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision-Making under Risk; Lexington Books: Lanham, MD, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Valdivia, C.; Gilles, J. Gender and resource management: Households and groups, strategies and transitions. Agric. Hum. Values 2001, 18, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zakaria, H.; Abujaja, A.M.; Adam, H.; Salifu, W.Y. Does gender makes any difference in livelihoods diversification? Evidence from Northern Ghana. Int. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. Stud. 2015, 1, 36–51. [Google Scholar]
- Gautam, Y.; Andersen, P. Rural livelihood diversification and household well-being: Insights from Humla, Nepal. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 44, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khatun, D.; Roy, B. Rural livelihood diversification in West Bengal: Determinants and constraints. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2012, 25, 115–124. [Google Scholar]
- Reardon, T. Using evidence of household income diversification to inform study of the rural nonfarm labor market in Africa. World Dev. 1997, 25, 735–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maharjan, A.; Bauer, S.; Knerr, B. International migration, remittances and subsistence farming: Evidence from Nepal. Int. Migr. 2013, 51, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Finance. Nepal Economic Survey Report 2012–13; Ministry of Finance: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2013.
- Freeman, A.; Ellis, F. Implications of livelihood strategies for agricultural research: A Kenya case study. In Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Policies; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 198–212. [Google Scholar]
- Gartaula, H.; Niehof, A.; Visser, L. Shifting perceptions of food security and land in the context of labour out-migration in rural Nepal. Food Secur. 2012, 4, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paudel, K.P.; Tamang, S.; Shrestha, K.K. Transforming land and livelihood: Analysis of agricultural land abandonment in the Mid Hills of Nepal. J. For. Livelihood 2014, 12, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
- Massey, D.S.; Axinn, W.G.; Ghimire, D.J. Environmental change and out-migration: Evidence from Nepal. Popul. Environ. 2010, 32, 109–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Daw, T.; Brown, K.; Rosendo, S.; Pomeroy, R. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: The need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ. Conserv. 2011, 38, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castells-Quintana, D.; Lopez-Uribe, M.D.P.; McDermott, T. Coping with Climate Risk: The Role of Institutions, Governance and Finance in Private Adaptation Decisions of the Poor; Working paper No. 200; Centre for Climate Change Economics and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, University of Leeds and the London School of Economics and Political Science: London, UK, 2015; p. 54. [Google Scholar]
- Castells-Quintana, D.; Lopez-Uribe, M.d.P.; McDermott, T.K. Geography, institutions and development: A review of the long-run impacts of climate change. Clim. Dev. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallenborn, M. Skills development for poverty reduction (SDPR): The case of Tajikistan. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2009, 29, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, G.M.; Hoque, K.E.; Khalifa, M.T.B.; Siraj, S.B.; Ghani, M.F.B.A. The role of agriculture education and training on agriculture economics and national development of Bangladesh. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 4, 1334–1350. [Google Scholar]
- Eneyew, A.; Bekele, W. Determinants of livelihood strategies in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia. Agric. Res. Rev. 2012, 1, 153–161. [Google Scholar]
- Nepal, R.; Thapa, G.B. Determinants of agricultural commercialization and mechanization in the hinterland of a city in Nepal. Appl. Geogr. 2009, 29, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fafchamps, M.; Shilpi, F. The spatial division of labour in Nepal. J. Dev. Stud. 2003, 39, 23–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pender, J.; Nkonya, E.; Jagger, P.; Sserunkuuma, D.; Ssali, H. Strategies to increase agricultural productivity and reduce land degradation: Evidence from uganda. Agric. Econ. 2004, 31, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reardon, T.; Stamoulis, K.; Balisacan, A.; Cruz, M.; Berdegué, J.; Banks, B. Rural non-farm income in developing countries. State Food Agric. 1998, 1998, 283–356. [Google Scholar]
- Levine, N.E. Caste, state, and ethnic boundaries in Nepal. J. Asian Stud. 1987, 46, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aryal, J.P.; Holden, S.T. Caste, investment and intensity of production. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), Rome, Italy, 29 June–2 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Poudel, S.; Kotani, K. Climatic impacts on crop yield and its variability in nepal: Do they vary across seasons and altitudes? Clim. Chang. 2013, 116, 327–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Explanatory Variables | Definition | Literature Review | Expected Relationships with Livelihood Strategies (LSs) |
---|---|---|---|
Human capital | |||
Gender of household (HH) head | The gender of main decision maker of a HH (Dummy; if sex of HH head is female 1, otherwise 0) | [52,53] | HHs headed by males are more likely to be involved in higher returning LSs both in the farm and non-farm sector |
Age of HH head | Age of HH head (years) | [12,18] | HHs with a younger head are expected to adopt more profitable LSs |
Education of HH head | Schooling Years of HH head | [7,54] | HHs with a higher educated head are more likely to be involved in higher returning non-farm LSs |
Average education | Average education of total family members (years) | [23,55] | HHs having higher average education are supposed to be involved in non-farm based LSs |
Working age members | Numbers of HH members aged between 15 and 64 years | [20,55] | HHs having a higher number of working age members are more likely to engage in more diversified LSs |
Family size | Total HH members | [19,56] | HHs with a bigger family size are expected to adopt farm-based LSs |
Agricultural training | If HH head or other member have training related to agriculture (Dummy; if yes = 1, No = 0) | [12,22] | HHs having member/s with agricultural training are expected to be involved in commercial farm based LSs |
Skill-development training | If household head or any member have income generating training (Dummy; if Yes = 1, No = 0) | [55] | HHs having member/s with skill-development training are more likely to be involved in self-employed rural enterprise |
Natural Capital | |||
Total land holdings | Size of HH’s own land for agriculture (ha) | [19,22] | HHs with smaller size of agricultural land holdings are more likely to engaged in non-farm based LSs |
Physical capital | |||
Livestock value | Estimated value of total livestock owned by household in Nepalese Rupees (NPR) | [12,13] | HHs owning livestock with higher value are supposed to follow commercially oriented on-farm LSs |
Household Asset value | Estimated value of building, agricultural, and non-agricultural assets owned by HH (NPR) | [12,55] | HHs owning fixed assets with higher value are expected to follow commercially oriented LSs |
Financial capital | |||
Access to credit | If the household has a loan during the last 2 years (Dummy; Yes = 1, No = 0) | [10,22,37] | HHs having access to credit are more likely to start up rural enterprise |
Expenditure | HH’s total annual expenditure (except crop and livestock production expenditure) (NPR) | [9,21] | HHs having higher expenditure are more likely to engage in non-farm LSs |
Social capital | |||
Ethnicity | Household’s Ethnic affiliation (Dummy; 1 = Brahmin, 2 = Chhetri, 3 = Dalit, 4 = Tharu, 5 = Janajati) | [9,30] | HHs that belong to Brahmin and Chhetri are supposed to be involved in more remunerative non-farm LSs |
Membership in organization | Whether HH head or any member have been members of formal/informal groups/organizations (Dummy: yes = 1, No = 0) | [7,19,24] | HHs having member/s with membership in organization are expected to be involved in more profitable farm and non-farm LSs |
Infrastructures | |||
Home-road Distance | Distance to nearest vehicle passable road (KM) | [7,12,18] | HHs located closer to roads are more likely to follow commercial oriented farm and non-farm LSs |
Home-market Distance | Distance to nearest Market center the HH usually use (KM) | [7,18,24] | HHs located closer to market centers are expected to adopt market oriented farm and non-farm LSs |
Geographical factors | |||
Elevation | Elevation of each HH recorded by GPS (M) | [7,12] | HHs located at lower elevation are more likely to be involved in higher returning farm/non-farm LSs |
Agroecology | Dummy 1 = low-land terai, 2 = mid-hill, and 3 = high hill | [10,50,55] | HHs in low-land terrain are expected to be involved in higher returning farm and non-farm based LSs |
Income Variables | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Food crop | 0.157 | 0.084 | −0.046 | 0.813 |
Commercial crop | −0.058 | 0.806 | 0.06 | −0.255 |
Livestock | 0.035 | 0.652 | −0.017 | 0.422 |
Non-farm salary/wages | 0.889 | −0.261 | −0.238 | −0.147 |
Wage Labour Agriculture | 0.214 | 0.112 | 0.024 | −0.487 |
Remittance | −0.805 | −0.341 | −0.447 | −0.144 |
Business/enterprise | −0.082 | −0.209 | 0.95 | 0.044 |
Other | 0.036 | 0.133 | 0.286 | −0.07 |
Income Source | Total | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 | F Statistic | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cluster Name | Non-Farm Wage | Business/Enterprise | Commercial Farming | Remittance-Oriented | Diversified Subsistence | ||||||||
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
Food crop | 6.4 | 12.8 | 4.2 b | 6.5 | 3.9 b | 6.8 | 4.7 b | 6.2 | 2.3 | 4.1 | 333 a | 24.5 | 102.902 *** |
Commercial Crop | 7.9 | 17.3 | 2.5 b | 6.2 | 4.1 b | 8.5 | 43.8 a | 23.3 | 1.7 b | 4.7 | 1.7 b | 4.2 | 218.421 *** |
Livestock | 12.2 | 15.9 | 7.6 c | 8.1 | 8.5 c | 10.1 | 24.8 b | 19.0 | 6.4 c | 8.7 | 34.1 a | 25.0 | 58.568 *** |
Wage Non-farm | 26.6 | 32.6 | 75.2 a | 16.3 | 12.2 b,c | 18.7 | 11.1 b,c | 16.2 | 6.9 c | 11.6 | 17.2 b | 22.2 | 363.49 *** |
Wage-Agriculture | 1.7 | 7.2 | 2.8 a,b | 8.4 | 1.4 a,b | 4.9 | 4.2 a | 14.3 | 0.7 b | 2.4 | 0.0 b | 0.0 | 4.004 *** |
Remittance | 30.9 | 37.5 | 3.5 b | 9.3 | 5.1 b | 12.0 | 7.2 b | 15.2 | 77.3 a | 17.3 | 5.9 b | 13.2 | 684.849 *** |
Business/enterprise | 14.0 | 24.9 | 4.1 b | 9.3 | 63.9 a | 20 | 3.7 b | 9.2 | 4.5 b | 9.1 | 7.8 b | 15.0 | 360.899 *** |
Others | 0.3 | 2.0 | 0.2 a,b | 1.0 | 0.9 a | 3.4 | 0.6 a,b | 3.1 | 0.1 b | 0.8 | 0.0 a,b | 0.0 | 3.127 ** |
Simpson Diversity Index | 0.22 c,d | 0.16 | 0.25 b,c | 0.17 | 0.31 a,b | 0.19 | 0.16 d | 0.15 | 0.34 a | 0.20 | 15.19 *** | ||
Number of HH | 453 | 115 | 72 | 60 | 162 | 44 | |||||||
Percentage of HH | 25.4 | 15.9 | 13.2 | 35.8 | 9.7 | ||||||||
Percentage of extremely poor HH 1 | 38.3 | 2.80 | 13.3 | 22.2 | 38.6 | ||||||||
Percentage of poor HH 2 | 25.2 | 15.3 | 25.0 | 27.2 | 31.8 |
Survey Areas | Non-Farm Wage | Business/Enterprise | Commercial Farming | Remittance-Oriented | Diversified Subsistence | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low-terai | 71(32.7) | 34 (15.7) | 3(1.4) | 73(33.6) | 36(16.6) | 217 |
Mid-hill | 29(21.8) | 21(15.8) | 51 (38.3) | 27 (20.3) | 5(3.8) | 133 |
High-hill | 15(14.8) | 17(16.5) | 6(5.8) | 62(60.2) | 3(2.9) | 103 |
Explanatory Variables | Non-Farm Wage | Business/Enterprise | Commercial Farming | Remittance-Oriented |
---|---|---|---|---|
B (Std. Error) | B (Std. Error) | B (Std. Error) | B (Std. Error) | |
Male headed household | 0.923 ** (0.46) | 0.045 (0.516) | 0.422 (0.612) | 1.196 ** (0.461) |
HH head’s age | −0.013 * (0.019) | 0.03 (0.023) | 0.039 (0.025) | 0.003 (0.019) |
HH head’s education years | −0.006 (0.065) | 0.214 *** (0.072) | 0.242 ** (0.086) | −0.017 * (0.065) |
HH’s average education years | 0.207 ** (0.123) | 0.057 (0.14) | −0.032 (0.15) | −0.217 ** (0.122) |
Family size | 0.136 (0.175) | 0.071 (0.2) | 0.413 ** (0.231) | 0.122 (0.173) |
Working age family members | 0.088 ** (0.244) | 0.199 (0.277) | 0.136 (0.306) | 0.11 (0.242) |
Agricultural training a,c | −0.672 (0.537) | −1.216 * (0.652) | 2.083 *** (0.669) | −0.786 * (0.548) |
Skill-training a,d | 0.698 (0.463) | 1.68 *** (0.578) | −0.841 (0.593) | 0.649 (0.461) |
Total landholding | −1.963 *** (0.483) | −1.473 *** (0.453) | −1.053 ** (0.565) | −2.026 *** (0.441) |
HH’s access to credit a,e | 0.022 (0.45) | 1.321 *** (0.564) | 0.711 * (0.634) | −0.511 (0.446) |
HH’s expenditure | 0.04 (0.008) | 0.011 (0.006) | 0.01 (0.009) | 0.004 ** (0.008) |
Livestock value | −0.013 *** (0.005) | 0.021 (0.002) | 0.019 (0.003) | −0.008 ** (0.003) |
HH’s fixed asset value | −0.006 (0.011) | 0.021 (0.004) | 0.007 (0.005) | −0.006 (0.004) |
Membership in organization a,f | 0.572 (0.644) | 0.694 (0.74) | 1.039 * (0.803) | 0.308 (0.625) |
Ethnicity | ||||
Brahmin ethnic group a,g | 0.453 (0.714) | −1.71 ** (0.787) | −2.152 ** (0.878) | −1.68 ** (0.717) |
Chhetri ethnic group a,g | 2.247 (1.59) | 2.786 * (1.644) | 2.411 (1.566) | 2.052 (1.553) |
Dalit ethnic group a,g | 1.279 (1.051) | 1.05 (1.136) | 1.211 (1.147) | 1.018 (1.043) |
Tharu ethnic group a,g | −0.502 (0.762) | −1.624 ** (0.831) | −3.749 ** (1.77) | −0.431 (0.744) |
Home to road distance Km | −1.714 *** (0.422) | −3.147 ** (0.55) | −1.943 *** (0.473) | −1.932 *** (0.421) |
Home to market distance Km | −0.069 * (0.053) | −0.159 ** (0.086) | −0.715 *** (0.125) | −0.078 (0.055) |
Elevation (m) | 0.005 *** (0.001) | 0.007 ** (0.001) | 0.01 *** (0.002) | 0.005 *** (0.001) |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Paudel Khatiwada, S.; Deng, W.; Paudel, B.; Khatiwada, J.R.; Zhang, J.; Su, Y. Household Livelihood Strategies and Implication for Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas of Central Nepal. Sustainability 2017, 9, 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040612
Paudel Khatiwada S, Deng W, Paudel B, Khatiwada JR, Zhang J, Su Y. Household Livelihood Strategies and Implication for Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas of Central Nepal. Sustainability. 2017; 9(4):612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040612
Chicago/Turabian StylePaudel Khatiwada, Shanta, Wei Deng, Bikash Paudel, Janak Raj Khatiwada, Jifei Zhang, and Yi Su. 2017. "Household Livelihood Strategies and Implication for Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas of Central Nepal" Sustainability 9, no. 4: 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040612