Institutional economics of sustainable land: The case of smallholder the                        eastern Africa highlands  ...
Overview•This paper forms part ofa study on the “scalingup of sustainable landmanagement in theeastern Africa highlands”•S...
Scale perspectives  Systems             International treaties, food security and climate change                          ...
A work in progressInstitutional economics of sustainable land management research   has produced the following outputs (pa...
Rural household energy poverty and natural resourcedegradation effects under intense land pressure: the case  of smallhold...
Understanding the poverty environment nexus• Smallholders as duo economic agents facing simultaneously  the following majo...
Poverty environment nexus• Rural household energy costs are predominant in household  decision making (Hosier and Kipondya...
Poverty manifestation in East Africa• Widespread failures in soil fertility replenishment and soil and  water conservation...
Conceptual framework• The study utilizes the notion of sustainable land management  as a framework for examining link betw...
Conceptual frameworkFrom Figure (next slide):• The deployment of assets into flows of welfare  constitute a household deci...
Energy poverty definitions• Fuel poverty has been named and defined broadly by at least  early 80s (Bradshaw and Hutton, 1...
Study methodologyA cross-section household survey involving a stratified random sampling  procedure is undertaken in Vihig...
Sampling framework• Village lists of households were made up based on the 2009  national census lists• From the list every...
Developing a household energy poverty line
Econometric model specification
Econometric model specification
Percentage of farmers that practise specific off farm income source                          Firewood                     ...
Average incomes from off farm                         50000                                                               ...
•   Iteration   0:   log   likelihood   =   -202.50971•   Iteration   1:   log   likelihood   =   -143.44867•   Iteration ...
Probit regressionVariable                    Description                              CoefficientHousehold Characteristics...
Discussions• Polygamous household had a negative significant influence on  the index• The older the household head, the mo...
Reference• abubo-Mariara, J., 2007. Land conservation and tenure security in Kenya:  Boserups hypothesis revisited. Ecolog...
Rural household energy poverty and natural resource degradation effects under intense land pressure
Rural household energy poverty and natural resource degradation effects under intense land pressure
Rural household energy poverty and natural resource degradation effects under intense land pressure
Rural household energy poverty and natural resource degradation effects under intense land pressure
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Rural household energy poverty and natural resource degradation effects under intense land pressure

1,932 views
1,720 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,932
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
478
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rural household energy poverty and natural resource degradation effects under intense land pressure

  1. 1. Institutional economics of sustainable land: The case of smallholder the eastern Africa highlands Joseph Tanui Dr Rolf Groeneveld Dr Jeremiahs Mowo Dr Jeroen Klomp Prof Ekko
  2. 2. Overview•This paper forms part ofa study on the “scalingup of sustainable landmanagement in theeastern Africa highlands”•Specifically the studycontributes towardsunderstanding of “theinstitutional economicsof sustainable landmanagement insmallholdercommunities”.
  3. 3. Scale perspectives Systems International treaties, food security and climate change perspectives Vertical and horizontal integration of the biophysical and socialLandscapes economicWatershed Local governance, biodiversity , common property regimes Farm Agricultural productivity, land tenure , income and expenditure flows Plot Crop productivity, nutrient cycling, soil (fertility, depth, slope) Tree Tree tenure, Niche compatibility and multipurpose use
  4. 4. A work in progressInstitutional economics of sustainable land management research has produced the following outputs (papers):1. Rural household income diversification effects on sustainable land management in smallholder farming systems: The case of the eastern Africa highlands2. Rural household energy poverty and natural resource degradation effects under intense land pressure: the case of smallholder farming systems from Vihiga district of western Kenya3. Social networks and investments in sustainable land management practices by smallholder farmers of the east African highlands: A spatial analytical approach4. Role of poverty in constraining investments in sustainable land management: Modelling an institutional perspective through GAMS
  5. 5. Rural household energy poverty and natural resourcedegradation effects under intense land pressure: the case of smallholder farming systems from Vihiga district of western Kenya
  6. 6. Understanding the poverty environment nexus• Smallholders as duo economic agents facing simultaneously the following major objectives (Shiferaw et al., 2009b): – Improving productivity – Sustaining the natural resource base• Rural households and village incomes, land use and investment strategies determine the links between environment and poverty (Reardon and Vosti, 1995)• Poverty is usually treated as a single concept, rarely asked is how particular poverty types influence the poverty – environment link• The combination of rural poverty and natural resource degradation has become a big problem world wide (Kaygusuz, 2011)
  7. 7. Poverty environment nexus• Rural household energy costs are predominant in household decision making (Hosier and Kipondya 1993); – Biomass fuels are becoming scarce and conventional fuels expensive• Decreasing land asset base has increasingly made rural household energy costs a predominant limiting factor (Wamukunya,2004)• Smallholder agricultural development is considered essential for food security and poverty reduction(Janvry, 2010)• Smallholder production depends heavily on environmental production conditions that are largely exogenously determined (Sherlund et al., 2002)
  8. 8. Poverty manifestation in East Africa• Widespread failures in soil fertility replenishment and soil and water conservation are characteristic of majority of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (Reardon, 2001; Sanchez, 2001; World bank, 2003);• Increasing population and reduced farm productivity has over time elicited a culture of agricultural expansionism with disastrous effects;• In most rural areas, communities predominantly depend on a dwindling supply of wood and other biomass fuels for most of their household and income generating activities(Kaygusuz, 2011).
  9. 9. Conceptual framework• The study utilizes the notion of sustainable land management as a framework for examining link between poverty and environment• It addresses a specific type of poverty attributed to specific environmental changes for guiding food security, poverty and environmental policies• Describes various household energy uses amongst households for indications of fuel transitions based on a diminishing land resource base
  10. 10. Conceptual frameworkFrom Figure (next slide):• The deployment of assets into flows of welfare constitute a household decision making strategy• Each strategy maps a stock of assets into flows of welfare based on underlying production, exchange mechanism, market and non market resource allocation arrangement
  11. 11. Energy poverty definitions• Fuel poverty has been named and defined broadly by at least early 80s (Bradshaw and Hutton, 1983);• Defined specifically to cover households whose fuel expenditure on all energy services exceed 10% of their income (Boardman,1991);• Energy poverty defined as the lack of access of households in developing countries to modern energy sources and their consequent reliance on solid biomass fuels for cooking (Temilade,2012);• The definition of fuel poverty line as the average energy consumption of all households whose overall per capita consumption expenditure level falls within 10% of the official expenditure poverty line (Foster,et. al.,2000).
  12. 12. Study methodologyA cross-section household survey involving a stratified random sampling procedure is undertaken in Vihiga district.
  13. 13. Sampling framework• Village lists of households were made up based on the 2009 national census lists• From the list every 9th household member was interviewed• Total number of households interviewed were 320• Plot level soil sampling and analysis were undertaken in 490 farm plots• A structured survey questionnaire was used to collect biophysical and social economic data• Community level and district level information was collected through focus group meetings• Desk top research was also undertaken
  14. 14. Developing a household energy poverty line
  15. 15. Econometric model specification
  16. 16. Econometric model specification
  17. 17. Percentage of farmers that practise specific off farm income source Firewood 59.87% Charcoal Firewood Fishing Fodder Charcoal Forest honey Fodder 5.92% 7.24% Quarrying Fishing, 0.66% Sand Harvesting Timber Timber 15.79%Tree Nurseries Tree Nurseries Forest honey 3.95% 1.32% Quarrying Sand Harvesting 3.95% 1.32%
  18. 18. Average incomes from off farm 50000 46,655 40000 33,902 30000Average Incomes in KSH 23,267 20000 16,458 13,222 10000 6,250 3,200 3,183 1,000 0 Charcoal Firewood Fishing Fodder Forest honey Quarrying Sand Timber Tree Harvesting Nurseries Non farm income sources
  19. 19. • Iteration 0: log likelihood = -202.50971• Iteration 1: log likelihood = -143.44867• Iteration 2: log likelihood = -137.20523• Iteration 3: log likelihood = -137.08014• Iteration 4: log likelihood = -137.0801• Iteration 5: log likelihood = -137.0801•• Probit regression Number of obs = 320• LR chi2(21) = 130.86• Prob > chi2 = 0.0000• Log likelihood = -137.0801 Pseudo R2 = 0.3231•• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------• energypove~1 | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]• -------------+----------------------------------------------------------------• houtyp1 | -.4132279 .4990427 -0.83 0.408 -1.391334 .5648778• houtyp3 | -.990162 .4531941 -2.18 0.029 -1.878406 -.1019178• houtyp4 | -.0988006 .1616808 -0.61 0.541 -.4156891 .218088• houtyp5 | -.0447391 .1726639 -0.26 0.796 -.3831542 .293676• age_of_hou~d | .0095144 .0025852 3.68 0.000 .0044476 .0145812• distanceto~t | -.0024877 .0157836 -0.16 0.875 -.0334229 .0284475• Annualliab~y | 9.74e-06 .0000309 0.32 0.752 -.0000508 .0000702• bankaccount | .161946 .2738648 0.59 0.554 -.3748192 .6987112• transpmeans | -.0517002 .2126315 -0.24 0.808 -.4684502 .3650499• ln_ConserM~e | -.0287324 .0629331 -0.46 0.648 -.152079 .0946142• ln_Totalfe~t | .0117501 .0341482 0.34 0.731 -.0551793 .0786794• ln_Labourc~t | -.0163353 .030041 -0.54 0.587 -.0752146 .042544• ln_Totalot~t | .0007071 .0748632 0.01 0.992 -.146022 .1474362• ln_butaneg~t | .0667856 .1163831 0.57 0.566 -.1613212 .2948923• ln_paraffi~t | -.0303671 .041268 -0.74 0.462 -.111251 .0505168• ln_charcoa~t | -.0016212 .031774 -0.05 0.959 -.0638971 .0606546• ln_firewoo~t | -.980223 .1582336 -6.19 0.000 -1.290355 -.6700908• ln_cropres~t | -.21957 .1082903 -2.03 0.043 -.431815 -.0073249• ln_nrmincome | -.0231404 .018847 -1.23 0.220 -.0600798 .013799• ln_offfarm~e | .1466268 .0202787 7.23 0.000 .1068812 .1863723• ln_Totalfa~e | .057411 .0967658 0.59 0.553 -.1322465 .2470686• _cons | 8.246764 1.550185 5.32 0.000 5.208457 11.28507• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------• Note: 0 failures and 1 success completely determined.•
  20. 20. Probit regressionVariable Description CoefficientHousehold Characteristicshoutyp1 Dummy Female headed household -0.4132279houtyp3 Dummy Male headed Polygamous household -0.990162***houtyp4 Dummy Male headed one wife household -0.0988006houtyp5 Dummy Male headed widower household -0.0447391age_of_hou~d Age of household head 0.0095144**distanceto~t Distance of the farm to nearest market -0.0024877bankaccount Dummy bank account ownership 0.161946transpmeans Dummy Means of transport -0.0517002Farm input costsln_ConserM~e Log of SLM maintenance costs -0.0287324ln_Totalfe~t Log of fertilizer costs 0.0117501ln_Labourc~t Log of labour costs -0.0163353ln_Totalot~t Log of other farm inputs 0.0007071Household energy costsln_butaneg~t Log of butane gas cost 0.0667856ln_paraffi~t Log of paraffin cost -0.0303671ln_charcoa~t Log of charcoal cost -0.0016212ln_firewoo~t Log of firewood cost -0.980223***ln_cropres~t Log of crop residue cost -0.21957**ln_nrmincome Log of NRM based off-farm income -0.0231404ln_offfarm~e Log of Nonfarm income 0.1466268ln_Totalfa~e Log of value of crop produced 0.057411Constant 8.246764Asterisks (*, **, ***) indicate significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% respectively.
  21. 21. Discussions• Polygamous household had a negative significant influence on the index• The older the household head, the more likelihood he had enough biomass fuel at household level• Firewood income streams was negatively correlated to the poverty index• Crop residue income streams were also negatively correlated• Those dealing with nonfarm income activities were significantly above the energy poverty line• Though not very significant involvement in NRM based off- farm was mainly from those below energy poverty line
  22. 22. Reference• abubo-Mariara, J., 2007. Land conservation and tenure security in Kenya: Boserups hypothesis revisited. Ecological Economics 64, 25-35.• Kanagawa, M., Nakata, T., 2007. Analysis of the energy access improvement and its socio-economic impacts in rural areas of developing countries. Ecological Economics 62, 319-329.• Kaygusuz, K., 2011. Energy services and energy poverty for sustainable rural development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, 936-947.• Lélé, S.M., 1991. Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development 19, 607-621.• Otsuka, K.A., Place F. (Ed), 2001. Land tenure and natural resource management: A comparative study of agrarian communities in Asia and Africa. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD USA.• Paul, S., 1989. A model of constructing the poverty line. Journal of Development Economics 30, 129-144.• Pender, J.L., Kerr, J.M., 1998. Determinants of farmers indigenous soil and water conservation investments in semi-arid India. Agricultural Economics 19, 113-125.• Perrings, C., 1989. An optimal path to extinction? : Poverty and resource degradation in the open agrarian economy. Journal of Development Economics 30, 1-24.

×