INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF

CONTINUING EDUCATION

YOUTH LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES AND ITS DETERMINANT FACTORS,

THE CASE OF GUBALAFTO WOREDA, NORTH WOLLO, AMHARA
REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA

BY

TESHOME SISAY

MAY, 2016

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

i
YOUTH LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES AND ITS DETERMINANT FACTORS,
THE CASE OF GUBALAFTO WOREDA, NORTH WOLLO, AMHARA
REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA

A Thesis Submitted to Indira Gandhi National Open University School of

Continuing Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Masters of Art in Rural Development

By Teshome Sisay Mekonen

Advisor: Wondimagegne Chekol (PhD)

May, 2016

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

ii
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the Dissertation entitled YOUTH LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES AND ITS
DETERMINANT FACTORS, THE CASE OF GUBALAFTO WOREDA, NORTH WOLLO,
ETHIOPIA Submitted by me for the partial fulfillment of the M.A. in Rural development to
Indira Gandhi National Open University, (IGNOU) New Delhi is my own original work and has
not been submitted earlier to IGNOU or to any other institution for the fulfillment of for the
requirement for any course of study. I also declare that no chapter of this manuscript in whole or
in part is lifted and incorporated in this report from any earlier work done by me or others.

Place: Woldiya, Ethiopia

Signature---------------------------

Date: May, 2016

Name: Teshome Sisay Mekonen

Enrolment No: ID1219714

Address: Addis Ababa,Ethiopia

iii
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. Teshome Sisay student of M.A. from Indira Gandhi National Open
University, New Delhi was working under my supervision and guidance for his project work for
the course MRDP-001.

His work entitled: YOUTH LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES AND ITS DETERMINANT

FACTORS, THE CASE OF GUBALAFTO WOREDA, NORTH WOLLO, ETHIOPIA, which
he is submitting is his genuine and original Work.

Place:--------------------------------------------------

Date:---------------------------------------------------

Signature:----------------------------------------------

Name: Wondimagegne Chekol (PhD)

Address of supervisor: St. Mary’s University Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Tele: +251911380475

iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and for most I would like to thank the almighty GOD who gave me interest to start my
study and who gave me commitment and energy for the finalization of this research.

I would like to express my heart felt gratefulness to my advisor Dr. Wondimagegne Chekol for
his invaluable advice and critical comments throughout my proposal, research work. Thank you
very much for your patience and desire to see me succeed in this research. This work would have
not been successful without his unreserved guidance, advice and comments in all the course of
this research.

I appreciate the commitment of Dr. Wondimagegne of his comment of line by line of each line
and paragraph of my thesis and I would like to thank for this.

My sincere gratitude extends to my wife Alemaya Gashaw, who strongly encouraged and
inspired me to pursue this study and who shouldered the entire family affairs in the course of my
study.

It would be unfair if I failed to express my appreciation to my brother MekonnenYimam who

supported and encourage me throughout the courses of my study. Once again thank you very
much my brother and friend for the economic support you provide me and your valuable advices.

I would like to thank my friends Melaku Debela who supported me and gave me valuable
comments for the entire analysis of my research. I would like thank also my friend Mitiku Gelaw
who provides me comment, advices and suggestions in the courses of my research.

Finally I would like to thank IGNOU and St. Merry universities for the chances of distance
learning for adults who have no chance for face to face learning in which I am the one who
benefited for this opportunity

v
Table of Contents
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................................... i
CERTIFICATE ............................................................................................................................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT............................................................................................................................... v
ACRONOMY .............................................................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................ xii
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1 .1.Background of the Study ................................................................................................................... 1
1 .2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................................... 2
1 .3.Objectives of the Study ...................................................................................................................... 4
1 .3.1 General Objective ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2. Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 4
1 .4.Research Questions ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.5. Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................... 5
1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study ..................................................................................................... 6
1.7. Determinants of Livelihood Diversification ...................................................................................... 7
1.8. Organization of the study ................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................................... 9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Livelihood and Livelihood Strategies ................................................................................................. 9
2.2. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework ........................................................................................ 10
2.2.1Assets .......................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.2. Vulnerability Context ................................................................................................................ 13
2.2.3. Transforming Structures and Processes .................................................................................... 14
2.2.4. Livelihood Strategies ................................................................................................................ 15
2.2.5. Livelihood Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 15
2.3Rural youth and its definitions ........................................................................................................... 16
2.4. Rural Youth and policy .................................................................................................................... 17
2.4.1. The National Employment Policy and Strategy of Ethiopia ..................................................... 17

vi
 2.4.2. The Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) ........................................................................... 18
2.4.3. Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment Framework (PIF) ................................. 18
2.4.4. National Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) ............................................. 18
2.5 Key Features of Rural Youth Livelihoods ........................................................................................ 19
2.5.1. Income Diversification and Off-Farm/Non-Farm Development .............................................. 19
2.5.2. Off-farm activities (agricultural wage labour) .......................................................................... 20
2.5.2. Non-farm activities ................................................................................................................... 20
2.6. Conceptual Framework for Livelihood Strategy Analysis ............................................................... 21
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................... 23
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 23
3.1 Description of The Study Area ......................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Materials and methods ...................................................................................................................... 24
3.2.1Universe of the study .................................................................................................................. 24
3.2.2 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques ..................................................................................... 24
3.2.3 Types and methods of data collection ........................................................................................ 25
3.3 Methods of Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 26
3.3.1. Data quality management.......................................................................................................... 26
3.3.2 Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 26
3.3.3. Econometric model ................................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................................................... 29
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 29
4.1. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents ......................................... 29
4.1.1. Respondents Sex, Age and Marital Characteristics of respondents .......................................... 29
4.1.2. Youth EducationStatus and Level ............................................................................................. 30
4.2 Youth Livelihood Resources Possession .......................................................................................... 32
4.2.1Youths physical Capital .............................................................................................................. 32
4.2.2. Youths Natural Capital in the Study area .................................................................................. 33
4.2.2.2 Major Cropes Grown by Youth in Different Agro-ecological Zones of the Study Area ........ 36
4.2.2.3. Youths and Their Sstatusof Llivestock production ................................................................ 37
4.3. Human Capital ................................................................................................................................. 37
4.4. Financial Capital .............................................................................................................................. 38
4.4.1 The Sstatus of Youth Saving ...................................................................................................... 38

vii
 4.4.2 Accesses of youths for credit and credit institutions .................................................................. 40
4.5 Social Capital .................................................................................................................................... 41
4.6Major Challenges of Youths in Rural Areas of Gubalafto Woreda ................................................... 42
4.7 The Status of Food gap of Rural Youths and Their Copping Mechanism ........................................ 43
4.8Cash Income Sources and Expenditure Sources of Rural youths in The Study Area ........................ 44
4.8.1 Cash Income Sources ................................................................................................................. 44
4.9. YouthLivelihood Activities.............................................................................................................. 48
4.10. Factors or determinants of youth Livelihoods Diversification....................................................... 51
4.10.1. Econometric Analysis of Determinants of Livelihoods strategies .......................................... 51
4.10.2. Interpretation of Econometric Model Results ................................................................... 55
CHAPTER EIVE ........................................................................................................................................ 59
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 59
5. 1. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 59
5.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 60
8. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Annex 1: Survey questionnaire to know the livelihoods strategies and determinants of livelihood
strategies ................................................................................................................................................. 65
Annex II. Conversion factor used to estimate Tropical Livestock unit .................................................. 70

viii
ACRONOMY

ACSI-----------------------------------------------------Amhara Credit and Saving Institutions

CFW------------------------------------------------------Cash for Work
DFID-----------------------------------------------------Department for international Development
ETB-------------------------------------------------------Ethiopian Birr
FAO-------------------------------------------------------Food and Agriculture organizations
FFW------------------------------------------------------Food for Work
GTP------------------------------------------------------Growth and Transformation Plan
IFAD-----------------------------------------------------International fund for agricultural development
LA--------------------------------------------------------Livelihood Approach
LEISA---------------------------------------------------Low External Input Agriculture
MASL---------------------------------------------------Meters above Sea Level
MOA----------------------------------------------------Ministry of Agriculture
MoLSA--------------------------------------------------Ministry of Labour and Social Affaires
MSE------------------------------------------------------Micro and Small Enterprise
PIF--------------------------------------------------------Policy Investment Frame Work
PRA------------------------------------------------------Participatory Rural Appraisal
PSNP-----------------------------------------------------Productive Safety net Program
SNNPP--------------------------------------------------Southern Nations Nationalities Peoples Party
SLF------------------------------------------------------Sustainable Livelihood Frame Work
SSA------------------------------------------------------Sub-Saharan Africa
TLU------------------------------------------------------Tropical Livestock Unit
TVET----------------------------------------------------Technical Vocational Education and Training
WB-------------------------------------------------------World Bank
WOA----------------------------------------------------Woreda Office of Agriculture

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of Independent variables that affect livelihood strategies of rural youths ............................... 8
Table 2: Definitions of Dependent variables, Independent variables and unit of measurement of livelihood
strategies if the choices of youth HH lies. .................................................................................................. 27
Table 3: Respondents age, marital status and family size in relation to agroecology of the study area ..... 30
Table 4: Educational level and educational status of rural youth in the study area .................................... 31
Table 5: Asset ownership of rural youths in the study area ........................................................................ 32
Table 6: The status of youth access to physical capital in the study area ................................................... 33
Table 7: Youth farm land sources in the study area .................................................................................... 34
Table 8: Land holding size of youths in the study area............................................................................... 35
Table 9: Major crops grown in the study area by youths ............................................................................ 36
Table 10: Youth livestock production system in the study area ................................................................. 37
Table 11: Skills of youths in the study area ................................................................................................ 38
Table 12: The status of savings of youths versus agro ecological zones .................................................... 39
Table 13: Saved money by rural youths in the study area .......................................................................... 39
Table 14: Purpose of saving of youths in the study area............................................................................. 40
Table 15: Sources of loan .......................................................................................................................... 40
Table 16: Collaterals used by youths for the access of credit by youths .................................................... 41
Table 17: The level of support of youths by relatives in the study area ..................................................... 41
Table 18: Participation of youths in social institutions ............................................................................... 42
Table 19: Youth livelihood Challenges in the study area ........................................................................... 43
Table 20: Youths food gap status in the study area .................................................................................... 43
Table 21: Copping strategies of youths in the study area ........................................................................... 44
Table 22: Youths annual cash income sources ........................................................................................... 45
Table 23: Average cash income of youths in the study area ....................................................................... 46
Table 24: Youth total cash income sources in the study area ..................................................................... 47
Table 25: Youths expenses in the study area .............................................................................................. 47
Table 26: Livelihood strategies of rural youths analyzed with descriptive statics cross reference with
agroecology ................................................................................................................................................. 49
Table 27: Youths participation in non- farming activities .......................................................................... 51
Table 28: Definition of variables used for the models ................................................................................ 52
Table 29: Estimate of variables of youth livelihood strategies of agriculture only, agriculture and off-
farming, agriculture and non-farming and agriculture, off-farming and non-farming respectively ........... 53

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sustainable livelihood frame work .............................................................................................. 22
Figure 2: Location of Gubalafto Woreda and location of study Kebeles.................................................... 23
Figure 3: Youth livelihood strategies in the study area............................................................................... 50

xi
ABSTRACT

This study investigates the livelihood strategies of rural youths of Gubalafto Woreda of north Wollo
zone of Amhara regional State in Ethiopia. The main objective of the study was to identify livelihood
strategies of rural youths, to identify the determinant factors which affect rural youth livelihood
strategies and to know major challenges and opportunities of youths in the study area of
GubalaftoWoreda. The study employed mixed method of data collection and analysis (qualitative and
quantitative). Focus group discussion, survey and youth house hold interview were carried out at
community, district, and Kebel levels. The descriptive statics were used to identify the livelihood
strategies of rural youths and youth livelihood assets. In this regard the major assets of youths are
identified and assessed and model was used to identify the determinant factors of youth livelihood
strategies in the study area.

Based on the descriptive analysis the major livelihood activities identified in the study area are
agriculture, the combination of agriculture and off-farming, the combination of agriculture and non-
farming and the combination of agriculture, off-farming and non-farming. In line with this 43% of
youths mainly those living in Kolla-agro-ecological zones are using agriculture only, 16% of youths
living in Dega and Woyina-Dega are using the combination of agriculture and off-farming, 28% of
youths living in Dega and Woyina-Dega agro ecological zone are depending on the combinations of
agriculture, and non-farming the remaining 12% uses the combination of agriculture, off-farming
non farming activities.

The involvement of youths on non-farming activity was analyzed separately and 69% of youths told
that they are engaging on non-farming activities. The major non-farming activities of rural youths in
the study area are pity trading, daily laboring, remittances and migration. In line with this 45% of
rural youths are generating income from daily laboring, 37.5% of them from pity trading and 11%
from remittances.

The determinants of livelihood strategies of rural youths of the study area was analyzed with
multinomial regression model and out of 16 independent variables 7 of them are significantly
determinants of rural youth livelihood strategies. The dependent variables which are significant for
the determinants of livelihood strategies are agroecology, marriage status of youths, youth total
annual cash income, challenge of food gap, ownerships of youths of own house, farm tools and
distances of nearest market.

xii
CHAPTER ONE

1 INTRODUCTION

1 .1.Background of the Study

CTA( 2010) found that the flow of low level of production and entrepreneurship as well as
decreasing involvement of youth in agriculture to be resulted from low level of agriculture skills
and limited access to financial resources. Rural Households worldwide engaged in a variety of
non-farming activities to generate income (Meludu et al, 1999, World bank 2003). In Ethiopia
agriculture is the primary means of rural household’s livelihoods which contributes 45% of GDP,
more than 80% of employment opportunities and over 90% of the foreign exchange earnings of
the country (MOA, 2010). However, farming as a primary source of income has become failed to
guarantee sufficient livelihood for most farming households in Sub-Saharan African countries
(Babatunde, 2013). This is because the agricultural sector in Sub-Saharan African countries is
highly characterized by decreasing farm size, low levels of output per farm, and high degree of
subsistence farming (Jirstrom et al., 2011). The agricultural activities in rural Ethiopia is also
dominated by smallholders, the majority cultivating less than 0.5Ha and producing mostly basic
staples for the subsistence of their households. Furthermore, their agricultural activities are
characterized by backward agricultural technologies, small fragmented land size, irregular
rainfalls, increasing soil erosion, land degradation, aridity in some regions and high incidences of
tropical diseases( Arega et al.,2013). In this cases in rural Ethiopia there are youths who are
living independent of their family and their agriculture is characterized as of mentioned above.

SosinaBezu and Stein Holden, 2013 explained that Access to agricultural land is constitutional
right in Ethiopia where it has also served a safety net in Ethiopia. But increasingly it has become
difficult to fulfill this right for the young generation.

Sosina and stein (2013) explained that Ethiopia faces land scarcity in parts of high lands where
population densities have become very high and farm sizes very small. As a result, land as safety
net is eroding and landless emerging among the youth who are unable to stay on their parents
land. The children there for either have to co- manage the land with their parents or leave the

1
farm. The institutional responses to the challenge include distribution of communal land to youth
and voluntary resettlement.

Azeneand ChilotYirga (2014) explained that the majority of the youth in Ethiopia live in rural
areas where farming has been traditionally the main livelihood of the people. As the state owns
all land in Ethiopia, rural residents have been guaranteed access to land through a law that grants
them a right to obtain agricultural land for free. However, it has become increasingly more
difficult to fulfill this right for the young generation. Ethiopia currently faces severe land scarcity
in parts of the highlands where population densities have become very high and farm sizes have
become very small. As a result, land as a safety net is eroding and landlessness is emerging
among the youth who are unable to stay on their parents’ land.

(Adal 2000, Adal 2003, Rahmato 2004, Teklu and Lemi 2004) stated that land distribution was
implemented in 1990. In much of the Amhara region, however, land was distributed following
the Rural Land Administration Proclamation of 1997. After the land distribution of 1997 in
Amhara region there was no land redistribution due to the fear of land fragmentation and low
productivity of land. However after 1991 land distribution in areas of Amhara region like north
Wollo , large number of people are emerged in which those who were young during land
distribution now becomes above 42 years and even the age of the proclamation is 24 years. In
this case there are large numbers of people including youths who are without land ownership.
And even after the proclamation of land distribution of 1997 there are large numbers of youths
that are without land ownership. In this case it is important to know how new generation and
young people are living and what livelihood strategies are they employing in order to survive.
Besides it is important to understand the opportunities and challenges of youths in fulfilling their
livelihood so that policy makers can have evidence for designing of appropriate policies and
strategies for the survival of the poor in particular and youths in general.

1 .2 Statement of the Problem

Rural areas are the center of the economy of developing countries and contribute to theoverall
economic growth for creation of jobs and supply of food and raw materials for the growth of
other sectors of the economy. It is known that rural areas are the most marginalized and
characterized by poverty (Alemu, 2012). Hence poverty remains the predominantly the rural

2
phenomenon despite rapid urbanization observed in most developed and transition countries
(IFAD, 2001).

In developing countries agriculture provides a base for a major share of employment and
constitutes the main sources of livelihoods for a large portion of the population (Vargas-lundius
and Lanly, 2007). However in Ethiopia it is before 25 years where land distribution was made
youths have the access of land and now youths do not have land access.

Agriculture plays significant role for majority of the rural population’s livelihood in developing
countries. It has been the predominant activity for most rural households in sub-Saharan Africa
which offers a strong option for stimulating growth, overcoming poverty and enhancing food
security (World Bank, 2008) in this case in rural area there are large number of youths who are
coming to agriculture sector to use as livelihood strategy the problem is it is more than 25 years
where land was distributed to the rural people (Adal 2000, Adal 2003, Rahmato 2004, Teklu and
Lemi 2004).

Khan (2003) explains the role of formal and informal institutions in livelihood strategies of the
poor. Khan concluded that formal institutions both governmental and nongovernmental, neglect
the poor. The poor are usually unaware of their rights to benefit from formal institutions and as
such largely dependent on informal institutions for their livelihoods. In this case the researcher is
highly interested to know the role of formal and informal institutions for the livelihood strategies
of youths.

Based on USAID Comprehensive Youth and Work force Development Assessment Report in
Rural Ethiopia, of June, 2012 rural youth in Ethiopia commonly face a number of challenges,
including narrow skills sets, high levels of illiteracy, restricted access to land and other
productive assets, and limited formal sector employment. While agriculture is clearly prioritized
as the engine for overall economic development in Ethiopia, the sector is still characterized by
small-scale farming with low levels of productivity, and most rural youth have poor prospects of
working on their own land.
On top of this now a day’s food security studies and researches are mainly focusing at household
level however there are youths who are living by themselves which needs attention. With the
intension of these the researcher is intended to know the livelihood strategies of youths and what

3
determines for their choices of livelihoods. Now a days different government institutions and
non-government agencies are approaching youths to solve their problems. But there are little
evidences on youth food security and livelihood strategies. Hence there is a need to investigate
and document the food security and livelihood strategies, opportunities and challenges of rural
youths so that there will be evidence for the development practitioners to work with rural youths
in general.

1 .3.Objectives of the Study

1 .3.1 General Objective

The overall objective of the research is to examine the livelihood strategies of rural youths and to
analyse determinants of livelihoods strategies in the study area.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the research are summarized as follows:

1. To asses livelihood strategies pursued by rural youth households in the study area,
2. To identify the determinant factors of rural youth livelihood strategies in the study area
3. To identify challenges of rural youths in attaining their livelihood strategies

4. Assess the youth households coping strategies in meeting their livelihood needs;

1 .4.Research Questions

The overall aim of this study was to assess the livelihood strategies pursued by youths in rural
Ethiopia in particular in rural areas of GubalaftoWoreda of north Wollo zone. Besides, the study
focuses to identify challenges of youths in fulfilling their livelihood strategies. More specifically,
the study sought to answer the following key questions:
1. What are the leading livelihood strategies pursued by rural youths in the study area?
2. What are the demographic, socio-economic and institutional factors that determine their
choice of livelihood strategies?
3. What are the challenges and opportunities of rural youths in addressing their livelihoods
4. What are youth households copping strategies in meeting their livelihood strategies

4
5. What are the opportunities and challenges in the study area in view of current and future
youths’ livelihood goals?

1.5. Significance of the Study

USAID Comprehensive Youth and work force development assessment report of June of
USAID, 2012 approximately 20% the population of rural Ethiopia is youths between the age of
18 and 24.

North Wollo plan and Economy office of Amhara region (2015) states that 4.6 million people of
the region are in the age category of 15-29 from this 359 382 youth exists in north Wollo and
40,175 of them are in GubalaftoWored. In line with this evidence there are large number of
youths in the country whereas the problem of youth is un touched in which it needs to know the
way of living of this portion of the population. Besides apart from the standard definitions of
youth, in north Wollo it is locally agreed that those portions of the population who are born after
the land redistributions which was conducted in 1997 who are now above 40 years of age and
those without land and other natural assets are considered as youth. This definition is given by
local leaders and the communities of the area just to differentiate those people who have land and
who have no land for farming.

Researching of rural livelihood in particular livelihood diversification in rural t areas is help full
in designing of policies and strategies that promote resource effective livelihood diversification
(Ellis, 1999). Therefore, the findings of this study will provide valuable information to
researchers, policy makers and development institutions working in the area of designing and
developing effective and sustainable rural youth livelihood strategies.

Researching of rural youth livelihood strategies help to develop locally appropriate, acceptable
and feasible strategies to minimize the problem of livelihood insecurity based on the
recommendations of the research. Notably, the finding of this study suggests possible
mechanisms in reducing thefood insecurity of rural youths of the study area.

The researcher strongly believes that understanding the livelihood strategies of the strategies to
rural youths, as well as the potentials and constraints associated with youth livelihoods strategies
will be a contribution to potent planning, monitoring and evaluation process of local

5
development programs and ultimately for a wider dissemination of the approach for similar
programs elsewhere in other problem areas.

Besides, the outcome of the research will have a contribution to the existing knowledge of rural
youths by showing opportunities, challenges and options of rural youths in perusing their food
security. In this regard the study contributes in filling the gap in knowledge of rural youth
livelihood strategies. Moreover, this research will demonstrate the importance of micro-level
enquiry to properly understand how rural youths are living in drought prone areas like north
Wollo particularly GubalaftoWoreda.

1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study has been conducted in GubalaftoWoredea of north Wollo zone of Amhara region
Ethiopia. Due to time and budget limitations the research has been carried out in three Kebeles
which includes all the agro-ecological zones of the area which traditionally includes Kolla for the
hot areas, Woyina-Dega which has medium temperature and Dega for the cold areas.

Based on north Wollo and Gubalafto agricultural offices there are limited livelihood
opportunities of rural youths in which land is the main livelihood opportunity for rural people in
the study area but it is in 1984 E.C where land was distributed with the fear of land
fragmentation. In this case it is more than 20 years where the land is distributed in which youths
who were living with their parents are now more than 40 years of age and they are trying their
choices with limited opportunities in the study area. As the result of this one of the major
limitations of this study was delineating the age of youths. In the study area traditionally those
people who are above 18 years of age and who have no farm land are considered as youth,
besides in some literature the age of youths is between the age of 14 to 24, in others it is from 19
to 29 and in others it reaches up to 35 years of age. In this case age delineation was one of the
challenging taskfor the study.

The other limitations of the study were: time constraint that hinders the researcher to make
repeated and staged field survey because of distance of the study area from the researcher;
some sampled households were not cooperative , transport problem to go to remote Kebeles
and financial constraint faced to sample more number of household.The study mainly focuses the

6
livelihood strategies of rural youths and the determinant factors of rural youth’sinfluencing
livelihood diversification practices.The study examines selected alternative livelihoods that can
help to enhance the livelihood opportunities of rural youths in terms of their contribution towards
income generating and wellbeing and reducing poverty and vulnerability and the determinant
factors of livelihood strategies.

1.7. Determinants of Livelihood Diversification

Hussein and Nelson 1999, Ellis 2000 in their livelihood literature suggested that though
exogenous trends and shocks play an important role in pushing rural people towards diversified
livelihood strategy diversification choices are also firmly rooted in the microeconomic logic of
farming households.

Different researchers such as (Dercon and Krishan 1996; Abdulai and Crole Rees 2001)
mentioned that availability of key-assets (like that of savings, land, labor, education and/or
access to market or employment opportunities, access to common property natural resources and
other public goods) is a an evident requisite in making rural households and individuals more or
less capable to diversify.

The dependent variables of the research are:

Y=0, AG Agriculture alone

Y=1, AG+OFF Agriculture and off farm combination

Y=2, AG+NF Agriculture and nonfarm combination

Y=3, AG+OFF+NF Agriculture, off farm and non-farm

Some of the possible variables of livelihood strategies are age, sex, education, marital status,
family size, agroecology, livestock size, family size, access to credit, market distances, bank
savings, access to communication materials, own land in hectare, accessibility to technology,
and total cash income.

7
Table 1: List of Independent variables that affect livelihood strategies of rural youths

Effect /Hypothesis of
Variable
S/N List of independent variables variables
characteristics

1 Youth age Continues +

2 Youth Sex Dummy +

3 Educational status Continues +

4 Marital status of youth Dummy +

5 Youth family size Continues +

6 Agro ecology Continues +

7 Having own farm land Dummy +

8 Having own house Dummy +
9 Having farm tools Dummy +
11 Livestock Size TLSU +

11 Access To Credit Dummy +

12 Market distances Dummy +

13 Bank saving Dummy +
14 Having Mobile Dummy +

15 Own land in Hectare Continues +

16 Input utilization Dummy +

17 Total Cash income Continues +

18 Own skills for livelihood Dummy +

19 Facing food gap of youths Dummy +

8
1.8. Organization of the study

This study is organized into five chapters which include introduction in which it justifies the
study and it shows the objective of the study, methodology and significant of the study. The
other section is literature review in which it sights outcomes related to the study and the results
of the study was summarized and shown in detail. Finally the study shows conclusion of the
study and possible recommendations for rural youth’s livelihood strategies.

CHAPTER TWO

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Livelihood and Livelihood Strategies

According to (Degefa 2005), a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources,
claims and access) and activities required for a means of living. He stated that a livelihood is
sustainable if it can cope with and recover from disaster and shocks, maintain or enhance its
capabilities and assets and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation,
and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in short
and long terms.
Livelihood strategies are strategies that peasants undertaken to maintain the viability and food
security of their households in a sustainable fashion (Chambers 1989). Chambers and Conway
(1992) define a livelihood system as comprising the capabilities, assets (including both material
and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. The chosen combination of
assets and activities, undertaken usually at the household level, is often referred to as the
household’s ‘livelihood strategy’. A livelihood strategy encompasses not only activities that
generate income but many other kinds of elements, including cultural and social choices (Ellis
2000).
Livelihoods approaches illustrate how, in different contexts, sustainable livelihoods can be
achieved through access to a range of livelihood assets (e.g. natural, social, financial, physical
and human capital) which, within the context of personal, institutional and environmental
provisions and constraints, are combined in the pursuit of different livelihood strategies. Within

9
the sustainable livelihoods framework (Chambers and Conway 1992; Scoones 1998) context is
framed within the ‘vulnerability context’ which includes issues of ‘seasonality’, ‘trends’ and
‘shocks’.

A livelihoods approach allows the examination of a plurality of dimensions of wellbeing

whereby noneconomic dimensions such as social and human indicators are given equal emphasis
to economic indicators. However, as Beall (2002, 73-74) has recently emphasized, livelihoods
analysis should pay attention to gender and generation differences in determining individual
household member’s access to various assets and capability to use those assets. Since the asset
status and livelihood strategies of individual household members are subject to gendered
differences wellbeing too becomes gendered.

Carney (1998) explains that “a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from
stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the
future, while not undermining the natural resource base”. This interpretation of sustainability
relates strongly to definitions that consider the ‘resilience’ of social-ecological systems.

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and
activities utilized by a household for a means of living. A household livelihood is secure when it
can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and
productive asset base.
Livelihood strategies are often based on a set of assets available and accessible to households.
These assets are both tangible (e.g, land, labour, credit, and livestock) and intangible (e.g., skills,
knowledge, social networks). Through a combination and transformation of these assets,
households are able to pursue different strategies that can, in principle, improve their household
welfare (Integrating “Livelihoods” into Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (Initial
Guidance, ODAV (VAM) – WFP, Rome, and January 2005).

2.2. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Sustainable rural livelihoods are not solely dependent on income obtained from agricultural
activities, but are often supplemented by non- and off-farm activities (Reardon, 1997; Ellis,
1998, 2000; Carswell, 2000).

10
Based on SustainableLivelihood framework (SL), a livelihood is defined as ‘the activities, the
assets, and the access that jointly determine the living gained by an individual or households’.
Rural livelihood diversification is then defined as ‘the process by which households construct a
diverse portfolio of activities and social support capabilities for survival and in order to improve
their standard of living (Ellis, 1998; Ellis, forthcoming).

Sustainable Livelihoods Approach was developed by the UK Department for International

Development (DFID), which provided a framework for studying livelihoods of the poor.

In the livelihood framework the key objective is to increase the sustainability of poor people’s
livelihoods by strengthening their assets to respond to opportunities and risks, minimize
vulnerability and maintaining, smoothing or improving wellbeing.

As an analytical framework, DFID’s Sustainable Livelihood Framework appears to be the most

comprehensive, putting emphasis equally on vulnerability, livelihood assets, structures and
processes, livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes. In Chambers’ argument, an external
and internal dimensions of vulnerability and indicate that no effective policy or program can be
drafted without a sound understanding of the factors affecting “people’s asset status and the
options that are open to them in pursuit of beneficial livelihood outcomes” (DFID, 1999).
DFID’s guidance sheets stress the importance of achieving a good understanding of how
structures (levels of government and private sector) and processes (laws, policies, culture and
institutions) shape the vulnerability context and condition people’s access to assets (tangible and
intangible) and claims.

This section will take up an in-depth look to the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) on
which this study hinges as constructive information to draw out key linkages in urban livelihood
systems of youth households.

2.2.1Assets
The sustainable livelihoods approach proposes new thinking in terms of viewing people as
having strengths or assets as conceptual remedy to traditional paradigms which view poor people
as ’deprived’ or ‘passive’. The proponents of the approach put forward that for more conceptual,
empirical and practical understanding of livelihoods of poor people, it would be appropriate to

11
start with an analysis of strengths as opposed to an analysis of needs in order for spotting what
opportunity they may offer or where limitation may lie (DFID 1999). Accordingly, though they
may not have financial capital poor people may have vital material and non-material assets: the
quality and quantity of labor (the knowledge, skills, physical and mental health), the social ties
and networks, and other physical resources to draw and build their livelihoods.

The SL approaches is concerned first and foremost with seeking accurate and realistic
understanding of how people combine and nurture assets or capital endowments and convert
them into livelihood outcomes. Thus, the approach has identified five categories of assets
(human, financial, social, physical, and natural) and presented them visually in the framework as
a pentagon to bring to life the inter-relationships between the assets.

Ellis (1999) assets in SLF include a list of human capital (the education, skills and health of
household members); physical capital (e.g. farm equipment or a sewing machine); social capital
(the social networks and associations to which people belong); financial capital and its
substitutes (savings, credit, cattle, etc.); and natural capital (the natural resource base).

2.2.1.1. Human capital:

The human capital represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labor and good health that together
enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives.
The human capital refers to the labor resources available to households, which have both
quantitative and qualitative dimensions. The former refers to the number of household members
and time available to engage in income-earning activities. Qualitative aspects refer the level of
education and skills and the health status of household members.

2.2.1.2. Social capital:

The social resources (networks, membership of groups, relationships of trust and reciprocity,
access to wider institutions of society) on which people draw in pursuits of livelihoods. ‘Social
capital’ is defined as the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively. Several
useful measures suggested by researchers are: membership of informal and formal associations
and networks; interpersonal trust and changes over time; norms and values that facilitate
exchanges, reduced transaction costs, reduced cost of information, the ability to trade in the

12
absence of contracts, and the encouragement of responsible citizenship; and the collective
management of resources ( Woodcock and Narayan 2002).

2.2.1.3. Natural capital:

The natural resource stocks from which resource flows useful for livelihoods are derived,
including land water, and other environmental resources, especially common pool resources.
Natural capital is the term used for the natural resource stocks from which resource flows and
services useful for livelihoods are derived. These refer to endowments with natural resources and
institutional arrangements controlling access to common property resources. Natural assets are
probably the most valuable asset in rural livelihood context. Although the question of land rights
and tenure security are essential determinants of livelihood security, land is highly contested and
politicized physical asset as well as political tool in some contexts.

2.2.1.4. Physical capital:

Physical or produced capital refers to basic infrastructure (transport, housing, water, energy,
communication etc.) and production equipment and means which enable people to pursue their
livelihoods. For our purpose, physical capital comprises the basic infrastructure and producer
goods needed to support livelihoods. Infrastructure in our context may include affordable
transport, access to health service (free or low cost), adequate water supply and sanitation,
affordable energy, and access to communication.

2.2.1.5. Financial capital:

The financial resources available to people, (saving, credit, remittances, and pensions) which
provide them with different livelihood outcomes (Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones 2002). Financial
capital denotes the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives.
There are two main sources of financial capital: available stocks (savings, stocks) and regular
inflows of money.

2.2.2. Vulnerability Context

Implicit within the vulnerability is the responsiveness and ability to mobilize resources to resist
risks households face during such negative changes (Chambers and Conway 1992, Moser 1998).
The main threat to livelihoods includes shocks, stresses, trends, and seasonality. Shocks refer to
unpredictable, sudden, and traumatic impacts; stresses are predictable, continuous, cumulative
pressures; trends are frequent changes in macroeconomic variables, population, and technology;

13
while seasonality refers to recurring changes of employment opportunities and prices (Chambers
and Conway 1992, Moser 1998, Rakodi& Lloyd-Jones 2002).
The vulnerability context is usually external and out of people’s immediate control. People’s
ability to respond to external changes and resist or recover from the negative effects of the
changing environment depends on the asset base and opportunities open to them (Rakodi&
Lloyd-Jones 2002). Therefore, vulnerability is closely linked to asset base and capabilities; thus
the weaker the asset base the higher the vulnerability and vice versa (Moser 1998, Rakodi&
Lloyd-Jones 2002). In other words, the stronger the asset status over which people have control
and the more the options open for them, the better the capacity to avoid or reduce vulnerability.
Furthermore, the ability to cope and reduce vulnerability depends on private action composed of
positive competence, the ability to perceive, predict and adopt and mobilize resources, exploit
opportunities, and transform assets (Chambers and Conway 1992). Thus vulnerability depends
on the stock of human capital available in order to make use of the other types of assets
(Rakodi& Lloyd-Jones 2002).

2.2.3. Transforming Structures and Processes

Transforming structures or organizations public and private formal and informal institutions and
processes such as policies, norms, and laws are identified in the livelihoods framework as
incentives or barriers that shape access, control and use of livelihood assets and influence
livelihood systems (Rakodi& Lloyd-Jones 2002). They operate at household, local, national, as
well as international arena, and in all spheres (DFID 1999). Processes are what influence or
transform how organizations and individuals interact which embody power relations and have a
significant impact on the access of the poor to all types of assets.

Processes also influence entitlements and may open incentives or constrain access thus
influencing people’s ability to manage their portfolio, take advantage of opportunities and cope
with stresses and shocks (DFID 1999, Rakodi& Lloyd-Jones 2002). Moreover, processes such as
markets and legal restrictions determine what livelihood opportunities and activities are available
and influence access and the effective value as well as return of the assets (DFID 1999). Gender
relations and social capital are also important elements closely twined to structures and processes
(Rakodi& Lloyd- Jones 2002). In a nutshell, transforming processes and structures have direct

14
impact to the vulnerability context; can restrict people’s choice of livelihood strategies thus
having detrimental impact on livelihood outcomes (DFID 1999).

2.2.4. Livelihood Strategies

Thus livelihood strategies can be defined as activities people carry out and choices they make in
order to achieve their livelihood goals (DFID 1999). People’s livelihood strategies are dynamic
thus change with the context of the external environment over which they have little control
(Cahn 2002). ‘Livelihood strategies are composed of activities that generate the means of
household survival’ (Ellis, 2000:40). Livelihood strategies change as the external environment
over which people have little control changes. Economic Livelihood strategies refer to income
earning strategies that seek to achieve economic goals (increased income/asset growth, etc) by
engaging in income generating activities. Thus alternative livelihoods would include those
economic activities that provide households with alternative income sources from their
predominant means of livelihoods.

Livelihood strategies in rural setting are pronominally based on natural resource where
agriculture and animal keeping are two broad categories. Carney (1998) lists these categories of
livelihood strategies as natural resource based, non- natural resource based and migration, while
Ellis (2000), in his framework, categorizes livelihood strategies as natural resource based
activities or non -natural resource based activities and income sources (including remittances and
other transfers).

Scoones (1998) identifies three types of rural livelihood strategies: agricultural intensification,
livelihood diversification including both paid employment and rural enterprises, and migration
(including income generation and remittances).

Understanding the dynamics and outcomes of people’s livelihood strategies is important to trace
back their impact on the resource and assets the household and the community call for (Rakodi&
Lloyd-Jones 2002). In this study, the researcher will explore activity portfolios, how and why
they change over time, by using a range of quantitative methods. What are the ways land-
constrained youth households make (or not make) to secure income, what activities do these
people pursue to compose their livelihoods and maintain or enhance their asset base.

2.2.5. Livelihood Outcomes

15
(Rakodi& Lloyd-Jones 2002) within the SLF, livelihood outcomes are identified as the end
results or achievements of people’s livelihood strategies, affected by the livelihood strategies that
they adopt and the available opportunities. Positive outcomes of the livelihood strategies adopted
by the poor should improve incomes, reduce vulnerability, increase well-being and be socially
and environmentally sustainable.

On the other hand, the outcomes of livelihood strategies may be ineffective for example if long
tern consumption declines, assets are lost permanently, or if they are socially or environmentally
unsustainable (Rakodi& Lloyd-Jones 2002).

2.3Rural youth and its definitions

Age and location are the two key defining characteristics of rural youth. Age definitions of youth
vary quite considerably. The United Nations defines youth as all individuals aged between 15
and 24. The 2007 World Development Report, which focuses on the next generation, expands
the definition of youth to include all young people aged between 12 and 24. Similar definitional
variations exist with regard to location. Distinguishing between who is rural and urban is
increasingly difficult, especially with the expansion of ‘per-urban’ areas where large proportions
of the population rely on agricultural activities to meet their livelihood needs (Promoting
Livelihood Opportunities For Rural Youth, Paul Bennell, February 2007).

Kevin Waldie in LEISA magazine 2004 defined youth as every culture or society has its own
concepts of youth and he explained that it is determined by traditions, roles and status rather than
physical age. Based on the above definition currently in north Wollo zone people are using
accesses of land for the definition of youths in which those people who have no land regardless
of their age are considered and defined as youths.

(World Bank, 2008) for landless youths with labor as the main asset of the poor, landless and
near-landless households have to sell their labor in farm and nonfarm activities or leave rural
areas. Making the rural labor market a more effective pathway out of poverty is thus a major
policy challenge that remains poorly understood and sorely neglected in policy making.

Paul Bennell (February 2007) the global population of young people aged 12-24 is currently 1.3
billion. The youth population is projected to peak at 1.5 billion in 2035 and it will increase most

16
rapidly in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South East Asia (by 26 percent and 20 percent
respectively between 2005 and 2035).
FAO estimates that around 55 percent of youth residing in rural areas, but this figure is as high as
70 percent in Sub Saharan Africa and South Asia. In Sub Saharan Africa, young people aged 15-
24 comprise 36 percent of the entire labour force, 33 percent in the Near East and North Africa
and 29 percent in South Asia.

2.4. Rural Youth and policy

In Ethiopia, the current food security policies and “sustainable poverty reduction” strategies
acknowledge the importance of non- and off-farm activities to ensure livelihoods security.
However, the implementation of these intervention measures varies from place to place. Studies
done in some parts of Ethiopia suggest different outcomes. Some perceive non- and off-farm
activities as potential areas of growth that can link agriculture to the non- agricultural sector
(Tegegne, 1995) while others treat them with reservation or consider them as mere survival
strategies at best (Mulatu and Teferi, 1996).

To address these challenges, the Government of Ethiopia has instituted various strategies
focusing on poverty alleviation for youth, with a particular focus on the equitable integration of
women and girls into income-generating opportunities, micro and small enterprise development
(MSE) and general investment promotion within the agricultural sector. The Micro and Small
Enterprise Development Strategy was first formulated in 1997 and revised in 2010/11 with
renewed interests and more ambitious targets on employment and number of entrepreneurs and
transition to medium size level. The direct policy support includes access to markets, access to
finance, access to industrial extension, access to training and technological support (Berihu
Assefa, et al, 2014).

2.4.1. The National Employment Policy and Strategy of Ethiopia

The 2009 national employment policy and strategy of Ethiopia i emphasizes the growing labor
supply and limited employment-opportunity generation as the main causes for unemployment
and underemployment. The document also acknowledges the need to guide and implement
strategies to increase labour productivity, integrate women and youth and other vulnerable
populations (i.e., HIV+ populations) in a coordinated manner.

17
2.4.2. The Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP)
The GTP of Ethiopiarecognizes the importance of the agricultural and industrial sectors as major
opportunities for economic and inclusive growth. Though the plan does not explicitly incorporate
specific strategies regarding youth employment in rural areas, it recognizes the importance of the
promotion of gender and youth empowerment as key factors for the country’s economic and
equitable development.For instance, the plans in GTP I (2010/11-2014/15) was to create three
million new jobs in the MSE sector in the five years growth and transformation period.

In rural Ethiopia, public works are implemented in the form of food-for-work (FFW), and cash
for-work (CFW) programs. As part of a major food security program popularly known as the
Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), public work programs already play an important role in
employing the rural poor in building roads and other infrastructure during times of food
shortages. About 5 million impoverished farmers were targeted public works such as
afforestation, road construction, soil and water conservation activities.

2.4.3. Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment Framework (PIF)

The PIF of Ethiopiaidentifies priority areas for investment that will result in increased incomes
for those involved in the agricultural sector. Priority areas for investment include transitioning
agricultural activities from subsistence farming to larger scale and more commercial farming
practices through increased production and productivity, rural commercialization, natural
resource and disaster risk management, and food security.

2.4.4. National Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET)

Launched in 2000, the TVET program is aimed at encouraging and equipping youth (through a
strong skills-based training program) to become self-employed is an important way to reduce
youth unemployment. The TVET Strategyfocuses on the relevance and quality of TVETs to
develop the workforce based on labour market needs. To achieve this objective, the Ethiopian
Government has identified a number of guiding principles including: (i) a demand-orientation;
(ii) equal access and opportunity; (iii) pathways; (iv) flexibility; (v) life-long learning; (vi)
gender sensitivity; (vii) contributing to the fight against HIV/AIDS; and (viii) contribution to
environmental protection.

18
Though the number of technical and vocational schools has increased considerably in Ethiopia
the outcome of the program is not fully documented. According to Guarcello and Rosati (2007)
the impact of having participated in a training program appears to be very large.

2.5 Key Features of Rural Youth Livelihoods

Bennell,(1999) explained that most rural youth are either employed (waged and self-employed)
or ‘not in the labour force’. The issue, therefore, is not so much about unemployment, but serious
under-employment in low productivity, predominantly household-based activities. Rural youth
tend to be poorly educated, especially in comparison to urban youth. The extent of ‘urban bias’
in the provision of publicly funded education and training services is large in most low-income
developing countries.

2.5.1. Income Diversification and Off-Farm/Non-Farm Development

Ellis (2000), the term off-farm refers to income from wage or exchange labor on others’ farms. It
includes labor payments in kind such as harvest share systems, income obtained from local
environmental resources such as firewood, charcoal, house building materials, and wild plants.
On the other hand, non-farm income refers to non- agricultural income sources and these include
non-farm rural wage or salary employment, non-farm rural self-employment, rural income
obtained from leasing land or property, urban-to-rural remittances arising from within national
boundaries, and other urban transfers to rural households such as pension payments to retirees
and international remittances arising from cross border and overseas migration (Gesese S. Kune
and Ignatius Mberengwa 2012,Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa ).

Increased landlessness in rural areas and a very poor private sector to absorb the urban youth and
rural migrants, employment in agriculture is the prime means of employment in rural Ethiopia
where 84% of the total population resides and land is owned by the state. However, in most parts
of Ethiopia land distribution was made before two decades. This excludes today’s youth as only
those who attained majority in the early 1990s benefited from land distribution.

Reardon (1997) income diversification in rural Africa, off-farm and non-farm activities provide
up to 30 to 50 per cent of the total rural household income , In Ethiopia, compared to other
African countries, off-farm and non-farm activities contribute only in a limited way to the overall
income of rural agricultural households as a recent study has shown.

19
The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA,1996) 43.9 per cent for all five regions (
Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, Tigiray and Afar) are generating income from off-farm and non-farm
activities and in Amhara region 54.2 per cent of income is generated from off-farm and non-
farm activities. The higher percentage in the Amhara Region is presumably connected to the
lower agricultural incomes of this region.

(MoLSA, 1996 ) conclude the share of agricultural wage employment and non-farm income in
the country is only 10.2 per cent; in the case of the Amhara region, the share is slightly higher
which is 11.3 per cent.

2.5.2. Off-farm activities (agricultural wage labour)

This form of activity deals with agriculture (including livestock), but takes places outside the
person’s own farm. According to the MoLSA survey, only 15.4 per cent of the households in the
five regions of Ethiopia (Amhara, Oromiya, Tigray, and SNNPP) included persons who in the
year prior to 1997 involved in agricultural wage labour. In the Amhara Region, the percentage is
slightly higher, 16.4 per cent (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 1997).

The category includes in the main two types of activities: local wage labour / sharecropping, and
migratory labour. According to the MoLSA survey, local wage labour is the most common kind
of wage labour. Thus, 80.5 per cent of the household selected in the five regions participating in
agricultural wage labour indicated that they were working locally, whereas the remaining 18.5
per cent of household members migrated (or stayed outside their home more than one week) in
order to search for wage labour.

In the Amhara Region, local wage labour was even more important, thus 87.3 per cent of the
households involved in agricultural wage labour indicated that they were working locally . These
sorts of wage labour do, however, play a minor role compared to the agricultural wage labour on
smallholder farms. In the Amhara Region, smallholder farms are in 83.6 per cent of the cases the
employer of the labourers compared to 6.7 per cent for government establishments and 2.5 per
cent for NGOs.

2.5.2. Non-farm activities

This form of activity takes place outside the agricultural sector, and includes the following
activities: handicraft, petty trade, transport, small industry, services, and assorted non-farm

20
activities (collection of fuel wood, collection of water for payment, production and sale of
charcoal, the collection and sale of timber, stones, etc.) (The Impact Study Group of the Joint
Ethio-Danish Development Programme in North Wollo Copenhagen August 2004).Literature
indicates in Africa, non-farm sources account for 40-45 % of average household income.

2.6. Conceptual Framework for Livelihood Strategy Analysis

The livelihoods framework provides a comprehensive, and complex, approach to understanding
how people make a living. It can be used as a loose guide to a range of issues which are
important for livelihoods or it can be rigorously investigated in all its aspects (Kanji et al, 2005).
Livelihood Approaches (LA) emphasizes understanding of the context within which people live,
the assets available for them, livelihood strategies they follow in the face of existing policies and
institutions, and livelihood outcomes they intend to achieve (DFID, 2000).

The key question to be addressed in any analysis of livelihood is given a particular context(of
policy setting, politics, history, agro ecology and socio-economic conditions), what combination
of livelihood resources(different types of ‘capital’) result in the ability to follow what
combination of livelihood strategies(agricultural intensification/ intensification, livelihood
diversification and migration) with what outcomes? (Scoones, 1998).

21
 Liveli Key: N –natural, S- social F- Livelihood out
Financial capital
puts
hood assets
H-Human capital P- physical
capital

Policies, institutions, More income

H
Vulnerability processes
N-Natural capital S- Social capital
F Livelihood Improved
context food security
S Levels of Strategies
 Shocks Reduced
Government
 Trends vulnerability
N
 Seasonality P
Private Increased
welfare
Sector laws
Sustainable
Culture use of NR

Policies

Institutions

Source: Adapted from DFID, 2000.

Figure 1: Sustainable livelihood frame work

22
CHAPTER THREE

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of The Study Area

GubalaftoWoreda is located in north east of Ethiopia which is 520 Km from Addis Ababa and
420Km from Bahrdar which is the capital city of Amhara regional state. Gubalfto is one of the
nineWoredasin North Wollo and lies between 110 36’ and 110 58’ North latitude and 390 12’’ to
390 50’’ East longitude. It is bounded by Raya-Kobo District in the north, HabruWoreda in the
south and southeast, Gidan in the northwest and Meket in the west (Figure 2). The administrative
town of GubalaftoWoreda, Woldeya, is also the administrative town of North Wollo. The
Woredais divided into 34 kebelesof which 3 of them is included in this research. The Woreda has
an estimated total population of 161,691 people, of which about 51% are male and 49% are
female (GubalaftoWoreda Office of Agriculture, 2014).

Source: own data with GPS

Figure 2: Location of GubalaftoWoreda and location of study Kebeles

23
The agro-ecological zones range from extremely cold (Dega) which lies above 2500 meters
above sea level (masl) and receives more than 2500 millimeters (mm), to temperate
(woyinadega) which lies within 1501-2500 masl and receives 1501-2500 mm to hot lowland
(Kola) region which is within 500-1500 masl and receives 500 1,500 mm of rainfall (Gubalafto
Woreda office of Agriculture, 2014).

3.2 Materials and methods

3.2.1Universe of the study

The study is conducted in Gubalafto Woreda which is located in north Wollo zone of Amhara
regional state located 520KM from Addis Ababa north east of the country. The Woreda is one of
the drought prone area in which there is recurrent drought. According to Gubalafto Woreda
Office of Agriculture, (2014) the Woreda is divided into 34 kebeles of which 3 of them is
included in this research. The Woreda has an estimated total population of 161,691 people, of
which about 51% are male and 49% are female and 25% are youths.

3.2.2 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

This study was employed with multi-stage sampling technique in which both purposive and
random sampling was used. In the first stage Gubalafto Woreda is selected purposely to
represent the three agro ecological zone of Kolla, Dega and WoyinaDega of north Wollo. In the
second stage the 34 Kebeles of GubalaftoWoredawas clustered with agro ecological zones of
Dega, Woyina-Dega and Kolla. From the clustered Kebeles with agro ecological zone 3
Kebeleswas selected randomly from Dega, Kolla andWoyina-Dega clusters. The selected
Kebeles was Hara-Siblkay from Kolla agro-ecological zone, Zewer-Gotera from Woyina-Dega
agro-ecological zone and Ahun-Tegegn from Dega-agroecological zones.

Finally a list of youths of each Kebele was prepared and samples of youths for this research were
selected with systematic random sampling technique.

24
To determine the minimum number of sample enumeration areas and youth households needed
to be able to identify impacts of the food security programs. A number of food security survey
sample size are based on power calculations. The 2006 and 2008 Ethiopian Food Security
Surveys used 22 to 30 households per kebele. Gilligan et al. (2007) give extended description of
the baseline sample and the survey instruments and according to the authors, taking 20-30
households per enumeration area or kebele is suffice to estimate study variables. Based on the
literature mentioned above, a total of 120 youth respondents was selected from 3 kebeles which
is 40 youths from each kebele.

Inclusion Criteria

 Youths who are living in rural area was included.

 Besides the age of youths should be between 18-35 years, they can be married, single,
windowed or divorced and they could be literate or illiterate.

Exclusion criteria

 Youths of urban areas will not be included

 Youths below, 18 years of old and above 35 years, was not included in this study.

3.2.3 Types and methods of data collection

3.2.3.1 Types of data and data sources

Primary data on youth household socioeconomic characteristics, youth household capital which
includes human capital, natural capital, physical capital, social capital and financial capital were
collected from sample youths using structured interview. Besides the livelihood strategies and
determinants of youth livelihood strategies were collected with questionnaire developed for this
purpose.

3.2.3.2. Methods of Data Collection

For the collection of data detailed questionnaire on youth livelihood strategies and youth
livelihood assets was prepared and with the support of the questionnaire surveys was conducted
and quantitative data was collected.

25
Frank Ellis recommends Smaller-scale sample surveys relating to particular communities or
regional populations are of rather more use. He also advocates various different PRA methods
(key informants, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, Venn diagrams, etc.).
Based on Frank Ellis recommendation Key-informant interview was facilitated with youth
families, elders and youth leaders to know the history of the research area in relation to the trends
of rural youth livelihoods.

3.3 Methods of Data Analysis

The study has employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The data collected
quantitatively was entered to excel sheet. In addition the questionnaire was coded and entered to
excel sheet and exported to SPSS software and analyzed.

3.3.1. Data quality management

Data collection was carried out by data collectors who have knowledge and experience of
working with rural community. The researcher providedtwo days training for data collectors on
data collection methods and discussion was made on questioners developed for data collection.
The questionnaire was properly designed and pre-tested. Supervisors will follow and over-see
interviewers. They review the completed questionnaire and ensure its completeness. The
questionnaire was properly coded and double entered by two data encoder. Double data entry
was conducted, checked for its consistency and cleaned. Prior to actual survey, pre-test on non-
sample respondents was conducted under the supervision of the researcher and necessary
modifications were made on the basis of the results obtained. The data was collected from
August to October of 2015.

3.3.2 Data analysis

Descriptive techniques were employed to analyses the data collected. Descriptive analytical tools
such as the frequency distribution, percentages, mean, mode, standard deviation and standard
error were used to analyses the socio – economic and demographic characteristics of the
households in the study area. The livelihood activities engaged by the households were
determined by ensuring that each member of the household supply information on the type of
activities during the 2014/2015 farming season and income generated. The descriptive data

26
analysis was conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 and
Microsoft office excel spread sheet were used.

3.3.3. Econometric model

Dependent variable with more than two alternatives in which youths will choose (i.e. unordered
qualitative or polychromous variables), multi nominal logit or multi nominal probit regression
model can be used. In this study, a multi nominal logit model specification was employed to
analyze factors influencing youths chooses of livelihood strategies in the context of multiple
chooses.
The dependent variable in this study was the selection of different livelihood strategies by youth
households that it was identified by categorizing the sample youths in to livelihood strategy
groups based on their choose. Therefore, the polytomous dependent variable for multi nominal
logit was hypothesized to have the following values:

Table 2: Definitions of Dependent variables, Independent variables and unit of measurement of livelihood
strategies if the choices of youth HH lies.

Dependent variables

Y=0, AG Agriculture alone

Y=1, AG+OFF Agriculture and off farm combination

Y=2, AG+NF Agriculture and nonfarm combination

Y=3, AG+OFF+NF Agriculture, off farm and non-farm

Independent variables

Age: Age of youth Households in years

Sex: Sex of youth households head (1=Male 2=Female)
Agro ecology: Agro ecology of the youth household (1=Dega (high land), 2=Woyina-Dega (mid
land), 3=Kolla (low land))
Educational status:Educationstatusof youths (0=Not joining school, 1=Joining school)
Marital status:Marital status of youth household (1=Single, 2=Married, 3=Divorced,
4=Widowed)

27
Having own house: Having own house (0=No, 1=Yes)
Having farm tools: Having farm tools (0=No, 1=Yes)
Distance to Market: Distance to market in Kilometer
Bank Savings: Bank savings (0=no, 1=Yes)
Having mobile: Having Mobile (0=No, 1=Yes)
Having radio: Having radio (0=No, 1=Yes)
Land size: Land size owned by the youth Household in Hectares
Own skills: Own skills for livelihood (0=No, 1=Yes)
Facing food shortage: Facing food gap of youths ( 0=No, 1=Yes )
Here the variable relationship can be explained as follows Uij= Zijβ + εij .................. ………. (1)

If the respondent makes choice j in particular, then we assume that Uij is the maximum among
the j utilities. So the statistical model is derived by the probability that choice j is made, which is:

Prob (Uij>Uik) for all other K ≠ j ………………………………..……………………………. (2)

Where, Uij is the utility to the ith respondent form livelihood strategy jUik the utility to the ith
respondent from livelihood strategy k

If the household maximizes its utility defined over income realizations, then the household’s
choice is simply an optimal allocation of its asset endowment to choose livelihood that
maximizes its utility (Brown et al., 2006). Thus, the ith household’s decision can, therefore, be
modeled as maximizing the expected utility by choosing the jth livelihood strategy among J
discrete livelihood strategies, i.e. ……………………………………………….(3)

In general, for an outcome variable with J categories, let the jth livelihood strategy that the ith
household chooses to maximize its utility could take the value 1 if the ith household choose jth
livelihood strategy and 0 otherwise. The probability that a household with characteristics x
chooses livelihood strategy j, Pijis modeled as: J=0... 3............................................................ (4)

With the requirement that for any I Where: Pij= probability representing the ith respondent’s
chance of falling into category jX = Predictors of response probabilities Covariate effects
specific to jth response category with the first category as the reference.

Appropriate normalization that removes an indeterminacy in the model is to assume that (this
arise because probabilities sum to 1, so only J parameter vectors are needed to determine the J +

28
1 probabilities), (Greene, 2003) so that, implying that the generalized equation (4) above is
equivalent to for j = 0, 2…J and…………………………………………………..……………. (5)

Where: y = A polychromous outcome variable with categories coded from 0… J. Note: The
probability of Pi1 is derived from the constraint that the J probabilities sum to 1. That is, Similar
to multi nominal logit model it implies that we can compute J log-odds ratios which are specified
as; …………………………………………………………………………….…… (6)

CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents

4.1.1. Respondents Sex, Age and Marital Characteristics of respondents

In this section effort has been made to discuss about the demographic and socio-economic
characteristics of the sample respondents. The main characteristics focused here are sex, age, and
marital status of the sample youth households.In line with this 86.7% of the respondents are male
youth households and 13.3% of the respondents are female youths.

The other independent analyzed is age of respondents. In this case respondents are youths and
the age category rages from 18 to 35 years. Based on the below table 29% of the respondents are
below 24 years of age, 65% of respondents are between 25 to 29 years of age and the remaining
6% are 30 to 35 years of age. It is therefore concerning the ageof respondents majority of them
are between the age group of 25 to 29 which is under the definition of youths.

29
 Table 3: Respondents age, marital status and family size in relation to agroecology of the study area

Agro ecology Total

Respondents Woyina responde Percentage
Dega Kolla nts
Dega
male 35 29 40 104 86.67%
Sex female 5 11 0 16 13.33%
Total 40 40 40 120 100%
less than 24 age 8 15 12 35 29.17%
25 to 29 age 29 21 28 78 65.00%
Age
30 to 35 age 3 4 0 7 5.83%
Total 40 40 120 120 100%
Single 13 12 1 26 21.67%
Marital married 23 28 36 87 72.50%
status Divorced 4 0 3 7 5.83%
Total 40 40 40 120 100%
With 1 family
12 11 4 27 22.50%
member
Youth HH with 2
11 14 14 39 32.50%
Househol families
d Size Youth HH with 3
17 11 17 45 37.50%
families
Youth HH with 4
0 4 5 9 7.50%
families
Total 40 40 40 120
Source: own survey

Concerning the marital status 72% of respondents are married, 22% of respondents are single
and the remaining 6% is divorced. Having marriage is one the determinant factor in which
youths started their own of life and generating income from different sources. As stated above 72
percent of the respondents are married in which in one way or another they have their own livelihood
strategies. Besides as majority of youths have no their own land their alternative livelihood strategy is
diversification rather depending on farming only.

The family size of youth households is analyzed and 22.5% of youths are living alone, 32.5% of youths
have 2 families which means they are married, 37.5% have 3 family members which means they have one
children and 7.5% of them have 4 family members which means they have two children.

4.1.2. Youth EducationStatus and Level

Education is one of the major strategies to make youths reliant by themselves. In line with this
the government is highly recognized and expanded education from primary to university level in

30
all parts of Ethiopia from urban to rural. However in this research 35% of youth respondent told
that they are not joining any education, the problem is very serious in Kollakebeles of the
research area in which out of 40 respondents 30 respondents (75% of KollaKebele) are not
joining any education. Relatively in Dega and Woyina-DegaKebeles out of 80 respondents 68 of
them are joining and attending education from primary to high school(Table4).
Table 4: Educational level and educational status of rural youth in the study area

Agro ecology

Total
Woyina-
Educational status Respondents education Dega Dega Kolla Percent
are not joining any
education 5 7 30 42 35%
Education status of Going to school for
youths education 35 33 10 78 65%
Total 40 40 40 120 100%
Level of education not educated 5 7 30 42
of youths 35%
Grade 1 to grade 4 4 3 3 10
8%
Grade 5 to grade 8 27 14 5 46
38%
Grade 9 to grade 10 3 16 2 21
18%
Grade 11 to Grade 12 1 0 0 1
1%
Total 40 40 40 40 120

Source: own survey

The level of education of youths relativelyis higher in Dega and Woyina-Dega areas in which 27
youths out of 40 youths are joining primary education and in Woyina-DegaKebls 14 out of 40
youths are joining primary education (grade 5 to grade 8) as compared to 5 youths in
KollaKebele of GubalaftoWoreda. Generally even though the government of Ethiopia is
expanding education the participation of youths in education is very limited. Among money
reasons the major reason why youth are not joining education are majority of youths are busy in
supporting families in different house responsibilities and some of them told that the capacity of
the family is very low to make youths attending school.

31
4.2 Youth Livelihood Resources Possession
In this study youth livelihood resources are labeled as capitals. Capitals are of different types,
and categorized into different categories these are: Human capital, Social Capital, Natural
Capital, Financial Capital and Physical Capital. IFAD classify capital into more than that, by
adding other capitals, for instance, includes: Personal capital to those capitals mentioned above.
This study uses the IFAD’S categories to explain the availability and the ownership of the
livelihood resources in the study area.

4.2.1Youths physical Capital

Physical capital includes hard infrastructure (e.g. roads, telecommunications, power, and water
supply) as well as production equipment and buildings that are most likely individually owned
(Ann Gordon and Cathrine Craig, 2001). Infrastructure is the most important physical capital for
household livelihood sustainability. It includes roads, market, agricultural inputs, distance from
town and public services.

In the study area 58% of respondents have their own house in which they are living independent
of their family. Whereas it is only 29% of youths had their own farm tools. Farm tools are one of
the important implement to make their own agricultural practices but only 29% of youths had
their own farm tools and implements. Having mobile and radio is very important to access
communications to get information for the diversification of livelihoods and livelihood
strategies. In line with this 80% of youths have mobiles in which they can communicate people
in different parts of the country to access different sources of livelihood strategies where as 34%
of respondents have radio and they can access information from radios which support them to
have information on day to day situation of the country (Table5).
Table 5: Asset ownership of rural youths in the study area

Assets of youth Status Frequency Percent

Having own house No 50 41.7%
Yes 70 58.3%
Total 120 100%
Having farm tools No 85 70.8%
Yes 35 29.2%
Total 120 100%
Having radio No 79 65.8%
Yes 41 34.2%

32
 Total 120 100%
Having mobile No 23 19.2%
Yes 97 80.8%
Total 120 100%
Source: own survey

The other physical capital analyzed was youth access to market, health extension services,
medical services, mill services, shopping facilities and access to tea houses.In line with this
100% of respondents in the study area told that they had access to physical capital

Table 6: The status of youth access to physical capital in the study area

Description of physical capital Status Frequency Percent

Market facility yes
120 100%
Health extension services yes
120 100%

Medical services yes

120 100%
Mill services yes
120 100%
Shopping facility yes
120 100%
Access to tea houses yes
120 100%

Source: own survey

4.2.2. Youths Natural Capital in the Study area

4.2.2.1. Youth ownerships of land fromdifferent sources for farming

The majority of youths in Ethiopia live in rural areas where farming is still the main livelihood
option of the people. However it has been long where Ethiopia has been. Gebiru, (2013)
indicated that issues like access to land, land transfer rights and other tenure security issues have
long been problems and points of serious controversy in Ethiopia. Thus, answering the question
that whether problems related to access to land and tenure security are drivers of youth
unemployment and outmigration would have great policy relevance.Based on this research
youths farm land sources are own farm land, land from inheritance, land from local leaders, land
with share cropping and farming with co-farming of families. Accordingly it is 30% of the
respondents ( N=36) who own their own farm land, 26% of the respondents (N=32) are
accessing land through inheritance which means youths getting after the death of their families (

33
father and mothers), 15.8% of the contacted youths ( N=19) told that Kebele leaders provided
farm land when some elders die and if they do not have family who inherited the farm land, 19%
of youths ( N=23 ) told that they are getting farm land through share cropping and they are
getting farm land from Kebele leaders and 21.7% of them ( N=26) told that they are farming with
their family to share the harvest. The detail for youth’s farm land sources is summarized with
table 7.

Table 7:Youth farm land sources in the study area

Sources of data own survey

Land sources of Youths Responses Frequency Percent

No 84 70%

Yes 36 30%

Own Farm land Total 120 100%

No 88 73.3%

Yes 32 26.7%

Accessing land with inheritance Total 120 100%

No 101 84.2%

Yes 19 15.8%

Accessing land from local leaders Total 120 100%

No 97 80.8%

Yes 23 19.2%

Accessing land with share cropping Total 120 100%

No 94 78.3%

Yes 26 21.7%
Accessing land from family with co-
farming Total 120 100%
Source: own survey

34
In this research 30% of the interviewed youths have their own farm land. The average land size
of youths is 0.2146Ha which is much below the average land holding of households of the area
of 1.03 Ha which was confirmed by Anteneh, etal, (2000). Adal (2000), Adal (2003), Rahmato
(2004) and Teklu and Lemi (2004) which sates land distribution was implemented in 1990 and
there was no land distribution after the land proclamation of the Rural Land Administration
Proclamation of 1997 that is why the current land holding size of youths is very minimal.

In this reach it is concluded that youths are getting land from different sources. Based on the
findings of this research 26.7% of youths are accessing land through inheritance, 15.8% of
youths are getting land from the local leaders whenever elders who have no inheritors are died ,
19.2% of youths are accessing land through share cropping and 21.7% of youths are farming
with their parents to share the produce.

As shown in the table8 50.8% of youths do not have farm land in which they are expected to
generate their livelihood by share cropping or using other livelihood strategies other than
farming. Based on the finding of this research 45.8% of youths have less than 1Ha of land it is
3.4% of youths who have 1 to 1.25Ha of land. The average land holding of youth in the study
area is 0.214Ha.

Table 8: Land holding size of youths in the study area

Youth land holding in Hectare Frequency Percent

Youth with no land ( 0 Ha) 61 50.8
Youths with 0.13 to 0.75 Ha of land 55 45.8

Youths with 1 to 1.25 Ha of land 4 3.4

Total 120 100.0

Youth average land holding(Mean) 0.2146
Youth Minimum land holding 0.00
Youth maximum land holding 1.25
Source from own survey

35
4.2.2.2 Major Cropes Grown by Youth in Different Agro-ecological Zones of the Study Area

As shown in the following table the major crops grown by youths in the study area are Teff,
sorghum, Maize, barley, pulses and wheat. In Kolla and Woyina-Deg areas Teff, sorghum and
Maize are the major crops grown in which Teff is considered as a cash crop and in Dega areas
pulse, barley and wheat are the major crops grown and pulses are as a cash crop and wheat and
barley are used for family consumption and if they have extra they used for generating cash
however youth in the study area 100% of youths do not use sell of crops as sources of cash
income.

Table 9: Major crops grown in the study area by youths

Agro ecology
Woyina-
Crop type Dega Dega Kolla Total Percent
Teff No 40 22 3 65 54%
yes 0 18 37 55 46%
Total 40 40 40 120 100%
Sorghum No 40 21 3 64 53%
yes 0 19 37 56 47%
Total 40 40 40 120 100%
Maize No 40 23 40 103 86%
yes 0 17 0 17 14%
Total 40 40 40 120 100%
Barely No 9 40 40 89 74%
yes 31 0 0 31 26%
Total 40 40 40 120 100%
Wheat No 39 24 40 103 86%
yes 1 16 0 17 14%
Total 40 40 40 120 100%
Source: own survey

In the study area of Woyina-Dega areas Teff and sorghum grows in major proportion which is
46% and 47% respectively grown in Kolla and Woyin-Dega areas. Barley and wheat are the
major crops grown in Dega and Woyin-Dega areas but barely is preferred in Dega areas in which
the agroecology supports the growth of barely where as in Woyina-Dega areas youths prefer, 17
%( N=40) wheatthan barely, 0% (N=40).

36
4.2.2.3. Youths and Their Sstatusof Llivestock production
As shown in table 10 youths in the study area are engaging with their own livestock and by
having livestock from the better of people with share cropping as that of share cropping. In this
case 41.8% of youths have their own lives tock. The average ownership of livestockwas 1.0439
TLU which is similar to owning of 2 sheep or 1 cow plus 3 chickens. In this case the current
status of livestock ownership of youths in the study area was very insignificant to take as one of
the livelihood strategies or income sources.However in order to diversify the income sources
youths in the study area are using share livestock as that of share cropping which means youths
who are taking share livestock have a stake to share the off-springs and livestock by-products
like butter and milk. However enough owning of livestock with share livestock was one of the
strategy for livestock ownership. The proportions of youths who are using share livestock
production is very small it was only 10.8% of the study populations was were. The major reason
for they are not engaging in livestock production in general was they have no land for livestock
feed production and they have no money to start livestock production.

Table 10: Youth livestock production system in the study area

Sources of livestock production Status Frequency Percent

Own livestock production participation No 70 58.3
Yes 50 41.7
Total 120 100.0
Share livestock production No 107 89.2
Yes 13 10.8
Total 120 100.0
Average own livestock in TLU 1.0493
Maximum livestock ownership in TLU 7.97
Source: Own survey

4.3. Human Capital

Ellis, ( 1999) confirmed that the human capital represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labor
and good health that together enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve
their livelihood objectives.The human capital refers to the labor resources available to
households, which have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions. In line with these in the
study area 65% of youths were joining school. In this regard it is 19% of youths of the study
areawere grade 9 to 12, this is the level where rural youths can get capacity to engage to different
livelihood strategies. As shown in table 4 the level of education is better in Dega and Woyina-

37
Dega areas than Kolla area. In Kolla area the attitude to education is very low in which from 40
youths 30 were out of school.

Table 11: Skills of youths in the study area

Skills of youths Frequency Percent (%)

Skills for livelihood No 96 80%
Yes 24 20%
Total 120 100%
Skills on carpentry No 116 96%
Yes 4 3.3%
Total 120 100%
Skills on Masonry No 104 86.7%
Yes 16 13.3%
Total 120 100%
Skills on barberry No 114 95%
Yes 6 5%
Total 120 100%
Source: own survey

As shown in table11 in the study area 24% of youths have skills for their livelihoods. In this
regard the skills that youths have are carpentry, masonry and barberry. Based on this 3.3 %
(N=4) youths have skills on Carpentry, 13.3 %( N=16) on masonry and 5 %( N=6) of them had
skills on barberry. The study shows that there is huge gap of skills of youths in which having
skills for livelihood strategy is one of the major potential,however, in the study areait shows that
youths have limited and low proportion of skills. Hence, there is a need to improve the capacity
of youths in different skills so that they can use for the diversification of livelihood strategies.

4.4. Financial Capital

4.4.1 The Sstatus of Youth Saving

Financial resources available to people, (saving, credit, remittances, and pensions) which provide
them with different livelihood outcomes (Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones 2002). World development
report in (2008: 143) explained that ; financial services are delivered to rural populations by
organizations that exist along a continuum from informal to formal, formal financial
institutions are licensed and supervised by a central authority. In the study area the main

38
indicator for financial capital werethe status of saving and purposes of saving money. Based on
this the status of saving money is very much dependent on agroecology in which youths who are
living in Dega and Woyina –Dega areas were very much involved in saving. Accordingly, 100%
and 92% of respondents who are residences of Dega and Woyina-Dega respectively involved in
saving. Saving in Kolla areas were at zero percent. The major reason for not involved in saving
was mainly religious related in which youths in Kolla area are mainly Muslims and their religion
is not supporting savings which is very damaging for youths. Inthe study area 67% of (N=80)
youths having savings. The problem was all 40 youths who are living in Kola agroecology are
not involved in saving which is very critical in which saving, contributes for the improvements
of financial capital of youth.

Table 12: The status of savings of youths versus agro ecological zones

Agro ecology Participants

The status of savings Woyina Total of Saving in
Dega Kolla %
Dega
Do not have
0 3 37 40 33%
The status of savings
saving
67%
Have savings 40 37 3 80
Total 40 40 40 120 100%
Source: own survey

As shown intable12 the average annual saving of rural youths in Gubalafto Woreda was ETB of
3122with a maximum annual saving of ETB 20,000 birr and minimum saving is 0.
Table 13: Saved money by rural youths in the study area

Measurements Saving status in birr

Mean 3121.67
Std. Deviation 4107.468
Minimum 0
Maximum 20000
Source: own survey

Most of youths who had saving were using the money for livestock production and pity-trading were the
major purposes of saving of rural youths. In this case 35% (N=42) of them are saving money for livestock
production, 15.8% (N=19) of them are saving money for agricultural inputs like fertilizer and improved
seed purchase and 32%, N= (38) of rural youths in Gubalafto Woreda are saving for pity-trading.

39
Table 14: Purpose of saving of youths in the study area

Purpose of saving Frequency Percent

Saving for Livestock production No 78 65.0
Yes 42 35.0
Total 120 100.0
Saving for Input purchase No 101 84.2
Yes 19 15.8
Total 120 100.0
Saving for pity trading No 82 68.3
Yes 38 31.7
Total 120 100.0
Source: own survey

4.4.2 Accesses of youths for credit and credit institutions

In the study area youths were getting credit access from 2 major sources own family and Amhara
Credit and Loan associations (ACCI). Based on this 51% (N=61) of youths are generating loan
from ACCI and 38% (N=46) of youths are getting credit from own families.

Table 15: Sources of loan

Sources of loan Frequency Percent

From family No 74 61.7
Yes 46 38.3
Total 120 100.0
From ACCI No 59 49.2
Yes 61 50.8
Total 120 100.0
Source: own survey

In the study area ACCI was the main sources of credit institutions. ACCI has its own modalities
to access youths credit services among those having collateral is the major once. As shown in
table 16, 17.5% of youths were using their own land for collateral, 47% of youths told that they
are using family assets as a collateral and 15% of youths told that they were used own home for
collateral. As mentioned earlier the major proportions of youths were using family assets to get
credits from credit institution. However if the family of youths do not have assets they do not
have access for credit; hence; it is necessary to design appropriate credit modalities for youths so
that they can have access of financial institutions.

40
Table 16: Collaterals used by youths for the access of credit by youths

Sources of collateral for credit aces Frequency Percent

Land is used for collateral No 99 82.5
Yes 21 17.5
Total 120 100.0
Family asset for collateral No 64 53.3
Yes 56 46.7
Total 120 100.0
Own home for collateral No 102 85.0
Yes 18 15.0
Total 120 100.0
Source: own survey

4.5 Social Capital

Member ship to Iddir, Iqub, religious associations, self-help groups and support of relatives were
the most important social assets in the study area. With regard to this 95% of interviewed youths
confirmed that they have got support from relatives. The support generated is mainly support of
oxen for farming, seed support, getting farm land for share cropping, and getting farm for share
livestock production and sometimes they are also getting food for the family consumption. Key
informant interview also told that youths are getting support from relatives of rural areas. Based
on the responses of key-informant interviews some rural youths had support from relative who
are living in urban areas.

Table 17: The level of support of youths by relatives in the study area

Youth support Frequency Percent

Support of No support 6 5.0

relatives
Have support
114 95.0

Total 120 100.0

Source: own survey

With relation to Idir, Iqub and rural saving groups 59% of youths told that they are members of
Idir in the village and they are getting services like supports during funerals, economic support
whenever they face problems. Besides 67% of youths are a member of Equbs and apart from
economic benefits they generate social supports from Equb members in the village. In the study

41
area 30% of youths are members of village saving and loan groups in which it create an
opportunity to strengthen their financial assets.

Table 18: Participation of youths in social institutions

Types of social services Frequency Percent

Youths participation in No 61 50.8

Idir Yes 59 49.2
Total
120 100.0

Youths participation in No 53 44.2

Iqub Yes 67 55.8
Total 120 100.0
Youths participation in No 83 69.2
Saving groups Yes 36 30.0
Total 120 100.0
Source: own survey

4.6Major Challenges of Youths in Rural Areas of Gubalafto Woreda

In the study area challenges of rural youths in fulfilling livelihood strategies was analyzed. In
this case shortage of land and youth employment opportunities in rural areas was among the
major livelihood challenges. Among the study participants of youths N= 96, (80%) of them told
that they have shortage of land and N= 61, (51%) of them told that they face employment
opportunities in rural to full fill their livelihood strategies. Regardless of shortage of land and
employment opportunity skills and credit access was the issues raised by the researcher;but most
of them didn’t consider as a problem. This is may be because of youths are thinking that the
opportunities which need skills are very limited and it is only 12(10%) who consider low skill as
a challenge for their livelihoods.

42
Table 19: Youth livelihood Challenges in the study area

Livelihood challenges Frequency Percent

Shortage of land Not 24 20.0
Yes 96 80.0
Total 120 100.0
Employment opportunity Not 59 49.2
Yes 61 50.8
Total 120 100.0
Low skills Not 108 90.0
Yes 12 10.0
Total 120 100.0
Credit Access Not 110 91.7
Yes 10 8.3
Total 120 100.0
Source: own survey

4.7 The Status of Food gap of Rural Youths and Their Copping Mechanism
In the study area one of the challenges of rural youths was shortage of food. In this regard among
the study participants 81 of them which are 67% of rural youths told that they are facing shortage
of food for 3 to 12 months. The period and time of food gap of youths in different agro ecology
is different in which youths in Dega and Kolla have high proportion of food gap than youths in
Woyina-Dega which is 39 in Dega, 2 in Woyina-Dega and 40 in Kolla. The main reason of
youths in Woyina-Dega are not susceptible for shortage of food was the agroecology supports
them to diversify their production in which agroecology is one of the determinantfactor for the
diversification of livelihood strategies.

Table 20: Youths food gap status in the study area

Agro ecology

Food gaps Dega WoyinaDega Kolla Total Percent

No 32.5%
1 38 0 39
Yes 67.5%
39 2 40 81
3 months 16 0 4 20 16.7%

6 months 36.7%
21 1 22 44
9 months 11.7%
2 0 12 14
12 months 2.5%
0 1 2 3
Source: own survey

43
Based on table 20 large proportion of youths in rural Gubalafto have food gaps for 6 months
which is 36% of the respondents, 16% have food gaps for 3 months , 12% of youths in the study
area have food gaps for 9 months and there are youths who had food gaps for 12 months which is
3% of the respondents. Those youths who had food gaps for 12 months are entirely dependent on
different coping mechanisms which is summarized in table 21 or they are completely dependent
on their family for their entirely and livelihoods.

To mitigate food gaps youths in the study area uses different copping mechanism. Among the
major copping strategies in which youth uses were accessing credits from formal and informal
institutions for the purchase of food items, reducing consumptions, seeking support from
relatives, migration and generating income outside their villages and relief aid were the major
coping mechanisms employed by youths. In the study area the major copping strategies were
food aidwhich was54 % (N=65), use of credit which was 32.5% (N=39), getting support from
relatives which is 30% (N=36), reducing consumption which is 27% (N=33) and labor migration
17% (N=21).

Table 21: Copping strategies of youths in the study area

Copping strategies Frequency Percent

Credit Yes 39 32.5
Reducing consumption Yes
33 27.5

Support of relatives Yes

36 30.0

Labor migration Yes

21 17.5
Relief Yes 65 54.2
Source: own survey

4.8Cash Income Sources and Expenditure Sources of Rural youths in The Study Area

4.8.1 Cash Income Sources

As shown in table 22 the major sources of cash identified in the study area was sell of crops, sell
of animals, sell of animal products, participating in daily labor, sell of fuel wood, participating in
pity trading, formal employment, sources from remittances which is relative from towns and
migrants who are living in Arab countries, food for work activities, cash sources from PSNP and
cash sources from food aid.

44
As shown in table 22 below cash income sources of sell of animals, sell of animal products, daily
labor, sell of fuel wood, pity trading and cash sources from remittances have larger proportion
than the other cash income sources.

Table 22: Youths annual cash income sources

Agro ecology
Percent
Sources of cash income Woyina Total
Dega Kolla (%)
Dega

Sell of crops Yes 3 1 7 11 9

Sell of animals Yes 31 3 7 41 34

Sell of animal products Yes 30 2 0 32 27

Daily labor Yes 33 22 1 56 47

Sell of fuel wood Yes 1 26 0 27 23

Pity trading Yes 28 24 0 52 43

Formal employment Yes 1 9 2 12 10

Remittances Yes 1 8 25 34 28

Food for work Yes 6 3 0 9 8

PSNP Yes 5 10 11 26 22
Food aid Yes 31 6 15 52 43
Source: own survey

Youth cash income sources in Dega agro ecology wasmaximum (N=31) from sell of animals
(N=30) from sell of animal products, (N=33) from daily laborand (N=31) from food aid. In
Woyina-Dega agro-ecological zone the major cash sources were daily labor (N=22), sell of fuel
wood (N=26) and pity- trading (N=24). In Kola agro-ecological zone remittances (N=25) is the
major sources of cash income. In line with this in GubalaftoWoreda livestock production, daily

45
labor and pity-trading were the major sources of cash income which can be considered as the
major livelihood strategies of youths.In Woyina-Dega areas daily labor, sell of fuel wood and
pity-trading are the major sources of cash income and the researcher conclude that these are the
major livelihood strategies of rural youths. In Kolla agro-ecological zone the income sources of
rural youths are very limited in which most of them generated cash from remittances that are
living in Arab countries.

As shown in table 23 youth cash income is categorized and 14% ( N=17) of youths had annual
income of 0 to 1000 birr, 16% ( N=19) of youths have annual cash income of 1001 to 5000 birr,
22 % ( N=27) of youths had annual cash income of 5001 to 10000, 35% (N=42) of them have
annual cash income of 10001 to 20000 and 13% (N=15) of youths had annual cash income
sources of above 20000 annually.

Table 23: Average cash income of youths in the study area

Youth cash income Frequency Percent

income category 0 to 1000 17 14.2

1001 to 5000 19 15.8

5001 to 10000 27 22.5

10001 to 20000 42 35.0

above 20000 15 12.5

Total 120 100.0

Source: own survey

As indicated in table24youths in the study area had an average annual cash income of 11274
(N=120), with maximum cash income of 110000 ETB. In the study area rural youths generate
average income from daily labor which is ETB of 3020 (N=120) and maximum cash income was
from daily labor which is 65000 birr per annum, this shows that daily laboring is considered as
one of the major livelihood strategies of rural youths in the study area.

46
Table 24: Youth total cash income sources in the study area

Mean
Income sources N Minimum Maximum
Cash income from sale of crops 120 113.3 0 2500
Cash income from sale of animals 120 1159.6 0 11000
Cash income from sale of animal products 120 387.1 0 5000
Cash income from daily labor 120 3020 0 65000
Cash income from sale of fuel wood 120 1567.6 0 17360
Cash income from pity trading 120 2377.5 0 45000
Cash income from formal employment 119 415.1 0 8000
Cash income from remittances 120 981.7 0 10000
Cash income from food for work 120 132.5 0 4000
Cash income from PSNP 120 428.1 0 8500
Cash income from food aid 120 695.5 0 4000
Mean of Total cash income 120 11274.5 0 110000
Source: own survey

Generally in the study area cash income from sale of animals, daily labor, sell of fuel wood, pity
trading and cash income from remittances were relatively better with average income from each
source birr are 1159, 3020, 1567, 2377 and 981 respectively in which the detail is shown in table
24.

Table 25: Youths expenses in the study area

Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Types of expenses
Expenses of school fee 17.1667 38.34131 0.00 150.00
Expenses of Medical 278.4167 398.52458 0.00 2500.00
Expenses of clothing 1476.5000 1129.67285 0.00 5000.00
Expenses of Transport 261.7917 215.88278 0.00 700.00
Expenses of fire wood 233.9167 525.13191 0.00 2500.00
Expenses of kerosene 58.0833 97.53513 0.00 500.00
Expenses of Marriage 149.2500 238.53250 0.00 1000.00
Expenses of Funeral 43.6667 148.40855 0.00 1500.00
Expenses of House items 492.2083 841.01999 0.00 4500.00

47
 Expenses of jewelry for
148.1250 664.60769 0.00 6000.00
wife
Expenses for Taxation 49.8000 105.94359 0.00 1000.00
Expenses of food grain
1468.4167 1409.88035 0.00 6000.00
purchase
Expenses of salt 124.4167 245.81128 0.00 2400.00
Expenses of paper 453.3333 336.62520 0.00 2500.00
Total expenditure 5221.9917 3801.07052 0.00 17450.00
Source: own survey

As shown in table 25 the major expenses of rural youths in the study area are expenses of school
fee, medical expenses, expenses for clothing, expenses for transport, expenses for fuel, fire
wood, traditional practices like marriage and funeral, expenses for jewelry, expenses for tax ,
expenses for food grain purchase, expenses for salt and paper. Totally in rural Gubalafto youths
have an average expense of 5221 birr and youths expends maximum on food grain purchase
which is an average of 1468 birr annually this shows that youths are very much dependent on
non-agricultural activities for their livelihood in which they cost maximum for the purchase of
agricultural products. Rural youths minimum expenses was school fee which is an average of 17
birr annually which means either they are terminating or completing their education or they have
children which are not ready for schooling or the school of the study area is minimum. As
compared to other expenses transport expense is also significant in which it shows that they are
moving from places to place to pursue their livelihood strategy on daily laboring which is true
for youths who are living in Dega agro-ecological zone which discussed earlier.

4.9. YouthLivelihood Activities

Chambers (1989); state that Livelihood strategies are strategies that peasants undertaken to
maintain the viability and food security of their households in a sustainable fashion. Chambers
and Conway (1992) define a livelihood system as comprising the capabilities, assets (including
both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. The chosen
combination of assets and activities, undertaken usually at the household level, is often referred
to as the household’s ‘livelihood strategy’. A livelihood strategy encompasses not only activities
that generate income but many other kinds of elements, including cultural and social choices
Ellis (2000).

48
In the study are the major livelihood activities identified were agriculture only, the combination
of agriculture and off-farming, agriculture and non-farming and the combination of agriculture,
off-farming, and non-farming. With regard to livelihood strategies of youth 43.3% of youths told
that they are depending on agriculture in all respondents of Kolla area are depending on
agriculture only. Besides 16.7(N=20) told that they are pursuing their livelihood with the
combinations of agriculture and off-farming activities in this case respondents of Dega and
Woyina-Dega youths use this combination. Besides there were youths who are using the
combination of agriculture and non-farming in this case also 28.35% (N=34) of youths living in
Dega and Woyina-Dega are using this combination. Youths who use the combination of
agriculture, non-farming and off-farming are very limited which is 11.7% of the respondents.

Table 26: Livelihood strategies of rural youths analyzed with descriptive statics cross reference with
agroecology

Agro ecology
Livelihood
strategy Dega Proportion WoyinaDega Proportion Kolla Proportion Total Proportion
Agriculture
1 2.5% 11 27.5% 40 100% 52 43.30%
only
Agriculture
and off- 12 30.0% 8 20.0% 0 0% 20 16.70%
farm
Agriculture
and non- 19 47.5% 15 37.5% 0 0% 34 28.30%
farming
Agriculture
+Non-
farming 8 20.0% 6 15.0% 0 0% 14 11.70%
+off-
Farming
Total 40 100.0% 40 100.0% 40 100% 120 100.00%
Source: own survey

49
 Proportion of livelihood strategies of rurl youths

11.70% Agriculture only

Agriculture and off-farm

43.30%
28.30%
Agriculture and non-
farming
Agriculture +Non-farming
+off-Farming
16.70%

Figure 3: Youth livelihood strategies in the study area

Source: own survey

In this research the level of participation of youths on non-farming activity was measured and 69
%( N=83) told that they are engaging on non-farming activity. In this regard the research
identified pity trading, remittance; daily laboring and migration were the major non-farming
activities in the study area. The participations of youths in the identified non-farming activity
was measured and 37.5% (N=45) are participating on pity-trading, 45% on daily laboring, 11%
on remittances and 48% on migration. The level of participation on non-farming activity was
different in different agro-ecologicl zones in which it is higher Dega and Woyin-Dega agro-
ecological zones. In this case when we see the level of participation of pity trading above 50% of
respondents in Dega and Woyina-Dega agro-ecological zone whereas; youths in Kolla agro-
ecological zone none of the respondents were participating which is the same in daily laboring.

50
Table 27: Youths participation in non- farming activities

Agro ecology
Participation on non-farming
activities Dega WoyinaDega Kolla Total
Status of Not 31%
0 6 31 37
participations
Yes 69%
40 34 9 83
Total 40 40 40 120
Participation of pity Not 62.5%
18 17 40 75
trading
Yes 37.5%
22 23 0 45
Total 40 40 40 120
Participation of daily Not 55%
10 16 40 66
laboring
Yes 45%
30 24 0 54
Total 40 40 40 120
Participation on Not 89%
39 36 32 107
remittances
Yes 11%
1 4 8 13
Total 40 40 40 120
Participation on Not 52%
17 33 12 62
migration
yes 48%
23 7 28 58
Total 40 40 40 120
Source: own survey

4.10. Factors or determinants of youth Livelihoods Diversification

4.10.1. Econometric Analysis of Determinants of Livelihoods strategies

Multinomial Logistic Regression Model was used to identify determinants of livelihood

strategies. The model was selected based on the justification illustrated earlier. Therefore, in this
section, procedures followed to select independent variables (continuous and dummy) and results
of logistic regression analysis conducted to identify determinants of livelihood strategy choice by
rural youth households is presented.

51
Table 28: Definition of variables used for the models

Dependentvariable Variables definitionandunitofmeasurement

Livelihood strategies if the choice of the HH lies in

Y=0,AGAgriculture alone

Y=1, AG+OFF Agriculture and off- farm combination

Y=2, AG+NF Agriculture and non- farm combination

Y=3, AG+OFF+NF Agriculture, off farm and non-farm

Independentvariables

AGE Age of youth Household Head in years

SEX Sexof youth HouseholdHead (1=Male 2=Female)

AGROECO Agro ecology of the youth household reesidencese (1=Dega (high land),
2=Woyina-Dega (mid land), 3=Kolla (low land))

EDUCATS Educationstatusof youth HouseholdHead (0=Not joining school, 1=Joining school)

MARITALS Marital status of youth household head (1=Single, 2=Married, 3=Divorced,

4=Widowed)

HAVINGOWH Having own house (0=No, 1=Yes)

HAVINGFT Having farm tools (0=No, 1=Yes)

DISTANCETM Distance to market in Kilometer

BANKSAV Bank savings (0=no, 1=Yes)

HAVINGM Having Mobile (0=No, 1=Yes)

HAVINGR Having radio (0=No, 1=Yes)

OwnLA Own land size owned by the youth Household in Hectares

52
OWNSKIFLIVEL Own skills for livelihood (0=No, 1=Yes)

TotalCashIncome Total cash income

FACINGOFFOODGA Facing food gap of youths (0=No, 1=yes)

Table 29: Estimate of variables of youth livelihood strategies of agriculture only, agriculture and off-farming,
agriculture and non-farming and agriculture, off-farming and non-farming respectively

95% Confidence
Interval for Exp(B)

Livelihood Std. Lower

strategies Variables B Error Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Bound Upper Bound
Agriculture Intercept -20.14 10.81 3.47 1 .063
only TotalCashIncome -0.06 1.20 0.00 1 0.96** .95 .09 10.02
[AgroE] -2.75 120.31 0.00 1 0.99*** .06 .00 16382482.00
[Sex] -3.41 3.10 1.21 1 .271 .03 .00 14.34
[Marital] 0.46 5.02 0.01 1 0.93* 1.58 .00 29856.87
[EducationaalStatus] -0.60 1.62 0.14 1 .712 .55 .02 13.06
[HavingownHouse] -0.22 1.77 0.02 1 0.90* .80 .03 25.44
[Havingfarmtools] -0.97 1.81 0.29 1 .589 .38 .01 13.02
[DistancToMarke] -4.15 3.80 1.19 1 .275 .02 .00 27.24
[BankSaving] -2.38 3.14 0.57 1 .449 .09 .00 43.67
[HavingRadio] -0.74 2.62 0.08 1 .777 .48 .00 80.63
[HavingMobile] 0.99 1.87 0.28 1 .598 2.68 .07 105.10
[OwnLA] -1.04 2.30 0.20 1 .652 .35 .00 32.18
[Ownskilsforlivelihood] -2.91 3.27 0.79 1 .374 .05 .00 33.02
[Facingoffoodgap] -0.48 120.33 0.00 1 0.99*** .62 .00 164888691.00
***, **,* Significant at <1%, 5% and 10% probability level respectively.

Source: own survey

53
 95% Confidence
Interval for Exp(B)

Livelihood Std. Lower

strategies Variables B Error Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Bound Upper Bound
Agriculture Intercept 32301.42 10.64 9208432 1 0.000
and off arm TotalCashIncome -0.43 1.28 0.11 1 .735 .65 .05 8.01
[AgroE] 10.77 55.88 0.04 1 0.90* 47554 .00 17464210.00
[Sex] -2.67 3.22 0.68 1 .408 .07 .00 38.50
[Marital] 1.55 4.94 0.10 1 .753 4.72 .00 75505.60
[EducationaalStatus] -0.86 1.86 0.21 1 .646 .43 .01 16.28
[HavingownHouse] -1.50 1.96 0.59 1 .442 .22 .00 10.29
[Havingfarmtools] 0.02 1.96 0.00 1 0.99*** 1.02 .02 47.93
[DistancToMarke] 3.74 3.92 0.91 1 .339 .02 .00 51.17
[BankSaving] -1.72 3.05 0.32 1 .572 .18 .00 70.70
[HavingRadio] -2.24 2.62 0.73 1 .393 .11 .00 18.16
[HavingMobile] 0.92 2.28 0.16 1 .688 2.50 .03 218.78
[OwnLA] -2.07 2.45 0.72 1 .398 .13 .00 15.35
[Ownskilsforlivelihood] -3.77 3.31 1.29 1 .255 .02 .00 15.27
[Facingoffoodgap] -11.72 55.93 0.04 1 .834 .00 .00 332123277.00

***, **,* Significant at <1%, 5% and 10% probability level respectively.

Source: own survey

95% Confidence Interval

for Exp(B)
Livelihood Std. Lower
strategies Variables B Error Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Bound Upper Bound
Agriculture Intercept -22.02 10.40 4.48 1 .034
and non- TotalCashIncome -0.01 1.25 0.00 1 0.99*** .99 .08 11.50
farming
[AgroE] 0.42 68.86 0.00 1 0.99*** 1.52 .00 62791925.00
[Sex] -4.80 3.13 2.34 1 .126 .01 .00 3.85
[Marital] 0.76 4.94 0.02 1 0.90* 2.13 .00 33943.77
[EducationaalStatus] -1.10 1.69 0.93* 1 .514 .33 .01 9.09
[HavingownHouse] 1.11 1.81 0.37 1 .541 3.03 .09 105.83
[Havingfarmtools] -0.26 1.94 0.02 1 0.90* .77 .02 34.50
[DistancToMarke] -4.90 3.88 1.59 1 .91* .01 .00 15.09
[BankSaving] -2.18 3.08 0.50 1 .479 .11 .00 47.09
[HavingRadio] -1.14 2.56 0.20 1 .657 .32 .00 48.72
[HavingMobile] 1.03 2.09 0.24 1 .624 2.79 .05 169.23
[OwnLA] -0.86 2.43 0.13 1 .722 .42 .00 49.58

54
 [Ownskilsforlivelihood] -2.06 3.24 0.40 1 .526 .13 .00 73.44
[Facingoffoodgap] -1.17 68.87 0.00 1 0.99*** .31 .00 1289062.00

95% Confidence Interval

for Exp(B)

Livelihood Std. Lower

strategies Variables B Error Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Bound Upper Bound
Agriculture+ Intercept -32.55 11.16 8.50 1 .004
Non- TotalCashIncome 0.97 1.34 0.52 1 .471 2.64 .19 36.68
farming+
off-Farming [AgroE] -6.42 1204.89 0.00 1 0.99*** .00 .00 .c
[Sex] -1.98 3.47 0.33 1 .568 .14 .00 123.63
[Marital] 1.76 5.60 0.10 1 .754 5.79 .00 340033.58
[EducationaalStatus] -0.88 1.84 0.23 1 .631 .41 .01 15.11
[HavingownHouse] 0.90 1.85 0.24 1 .627 2.47 .07 93.40
[Havingfarmtools] -0.76 2.01 0.14 1 .705 .47 .01 23.96
[DistancToMarke] 4.40 3.92 1.27 1 .96** .01 .00 26.30
[BankSaving] -2.82 3.26 0.75 1 .388 .06 .00 35.78
[HavingRadio] -0.31 2.63 0.01 1 0.610 .73 .00 126.58
[HavingMobile] 0.68 2.42 0.08 1 .777 1.98 .02 225.58
[Ownskilsforlivelihood] -4.22 3.27 1.66 1 .197 .01 .00 8.97
[Facingoffoodgap] 3.38 1204.89 0.00 1 0.99*** 29.37 .00 .c

***, **,* Significant at <1%, 5% and 10% probability level respectively.,

Source: own survey

4.10.2. Interpretation of Econometric Model Results

Youth Cash Total Income (TotalCashIncome): As expected on hypothesis, youth income has
significant (p<0.05 and p<0.1) and positive correlation with household livelihood diversification
choosing agriculture alone and agriculture and non-farm activities respectively. The results of
this econometric model analysis suggest that households have more income tend to follow only
agricultural (animal raising and crop farm) rather than diversifying from agriculture since they
draw incentives of their farming productivity. This implies the chances of choosing agriculture in
the context of having income from their regular activitiesdecrease the probability of diversifying
to off-farm and non-farm activities by 6.0 percent and 1.0 percent respectively. This supports the
view that on-farm and non-farm activities compete over the limited youth household resources. It
also implies that thoseyouth households who expect secured agricultural income stay on
agriculture and lower off-farm intensity. The implication is that youth just switch away from off-

55
farm activities when the agricultural activity is promising; and hence, this supports the necessity
argument as opposed to the choice argument. Households consider off-farm activities as a last
resort income source if farm production fails.

Agro-ecology (AgroE): As expected, this variable has a positive and significant (P<0.10)
correlation with the likelihood of choosing agriculture pulse off-farm livelihood strategy. This
means the tendency that the youth households diversify livelihoods into agriculture plus off farm
increase as we go from high lands to low lands. Hence, the probability of diversifying into
agriculture plus off farm increased by 107percent for lowland households by keeping others
constant. And the youth household choose agriculture alone or agriculture plus none farm
significant (P<0.01) but negative for agriculture alone and positive for agriculture plus non-farm
livelihood strategies. Thus, the probability of youth diversifying from agriculture alone to off-
farm, non-farm or combination of all livelihood strategies will be decreased by 27.5 percent by
keeping other variables constant. While the probability youth diversify from agriculture alone
livelihood to agriculture pulse non-farm activities will increase by 42 percent. The result is in
line with that of Jansen et el., (2004). This might be due to differences in the quality and size of
land, the amount and distribution of rainfall, population densities and population practice that
influence between highlands and lowland. For instance, climatically the latter is wormer than the
former and in low the population density is lower where youths can access farm land in which
youths of high and mid land areas investigate additional options than relying on agriculture only.
On top of these in this research it was found that youths in mid land and high land high better
access for credit institutions than low land areas and youths of high land and mid land have a
better access for education in which youths of mid and high land have an opportunity of
increasing their financial and human capital which supports for the diversification of their
livelihood strategies other than agriculture.

Youth marriage status (Marital): The Youth marriage status influenced the decision of
livelihood diversification participation. According to the model analysis, the youth household,
marriage status positively affect the participation on agriculture alone and non-farm livelihood
activities significantly (<10%). Keeping other factors constant; married household increases by 46
percent engaging on agriculture alone and 76 percent for agriculture and non-farm livelihood
activities for married youth. This is because of married youth having additional human resource

56
that can help to increase agricultural productivity and participated on different livelihood
activities and also there is pushing factors (having of children) of family responsible to diversify
livelihood activities.

Youth Household facing food gaps (Facingoffoodgaps): food secured household may not
accept livelihood diversification as coping mechanism for household insurance. Thus
econometric model analysis also showed that household being food secured is found to have a
significant (p<0.05) negative impact on the likelihood of livelihood diversification. This show
that household livelihood diversification directly related with household food security status. If
the household is not food secured, it leads to accept livelihood diversification. Keeping the
influence of other factors constant, household food secured has decreases involvement of
agriculture, non-farm and off-farm activities participation by 57.4 percent, 34.6 percent and 62.2
percent respectively.
Youth having own house (Havingownhouse):-The youth having own house has a significant
(P<0.01) and negative correlation with the likelihood of choosing agriculture alone. The results
of this study suggest that youth with own house tend to choose agricultural plus other activities
to diversify from agriculture since they should participate to increase household income. This
implies the chances of choosing agriculture alone in the context of having own house decreases
the probability of diversifying to off farm and non-farm activities by 22 percenton fixing other
constant. On the other hand the probability of diversifying livelihoods decreases by 22 percent
by having own house as youth with more stabled to stay on farm and stimulates farming. This
supports the view that off-farm and on-farm activities compete over the limited household
resources. It also implies that those households who expect secured agricultural income stay on
farm and lower off-farm intensity.

Youth having farm tools (HavingFarmTools):According to Galab et al; (2002)

culturallydefined gender roles, social mobility limitations and differential ownership ofaccess to
assets affect livelihood diversification. Contrary to expectation, having of farm tools was found
to be negative and significantly affect the rural households’ decision to choose agriculture plus
non-farm livelihood strategy at (P<10%) level of significance and decreases by 26 percent by
fixing other variables constant. The probable reason for this is that due to improvement of
productivity of farm through farm tools use the farmer youth might affect go for non-farm

57
activities. Having farm tools was positively and significantly affects at (P<1%) significant level
of the youth decision to participate on agriculture plus off-farm activities by 2.0 percent of
participating from agriculture alone to agriculture plus off-farm activities. This suggests that
those who are better-off can afford to buy farm tools as farm input and those who are poor may
not. As a result, those who use farm tools may produce more per unit area than non-users and can
have access to large quantity of food and diversify income sources for accumulation.

Distance from nearest market (DistanceToMarket):

Distance from market center usually affects the livelihood strategies employed by rural
households. Households near to market centers tend to have easier market access to dispose their
production. The distance to market places increases the agriculture group disincentives to go out
of their area for selling of their agricultural produce Berhanu (2007). In this study it was found
that the variable has positive rewards for household’s livelihood strategy diversification. The
econometric analysis indicated that keeping that the influence of other factors constant, the youth
choice decision to participate in agriculture plus off-farm activities increases by about 37.4
percent at less than10 percent probability level and increases the participation of youth in to
combination of agriculture, off-farm and non-farm activities by 44 percent. This implies nearness
to market center motivate youth to engage in agriculture plus nonfarm plus off-farm. This result
is in line with the findings of Berhanu (2007) and Tatek (2012).

58
CHAPTER EIVE

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5. 1. Conclusion
In rural areas it is simple that agriculture is the dominant economic activity and the primary
sources of income. In this study it is concluded that the major economic activities and the major
livelihood strategy of youths is agriculture. In this regard 43% of the study participants told that
their livelihood strategy is agriculture. In line with those proportions of youths who are using
agriculture as major sources of livelihood are residences of Kolla.

Nevertheless the average land holding of youths in the study area is 0.21Ha which is below the
average household land holding size of 1.03 Haof the study area.In this regard as shown earlier
the land holding size of youth is very minimal which is below average and it is expected that
youths should diversify their livelihood strategies other than using agriculture but with the
minimum land holding of 0.21Ha however most of youths which is 43% of them are depending
on agriculture. In this case it is important to support youths to use different livelihood strategies
other than agriculture by improving the livelihood assets of rural youths.

In Dega and Woyina-Dega agro ecological zones youths diversified their livelihood
opportunities and 16.7% of youths are using the combinations of agriculture and off-farm
activities and 28.35% of youths are using the combination of agriculture and non-farming
activities. On top of this 11.7% of youths of the study area told that they are using diversified
livelihood strategy which is agriculture, off-farming and non-farming activities.

In this study it is shown that youths who are using diversified livelihood strategy and income
sources are very minimal and pity-trading and daily labor are the main livelihood strategies of
youths which support agriculture and farming. In this case youths of Dega and Woyina-Dega are
using pity-trading and daily laboring for the diversification of their livelihood but there has to be
effort for the access of credit institutions which have simple and appropriate for resource poor of
rural youths of the study area other than ACSI which requires collateral. Even though pity
trading is the major sources of non-farm income sources the status of saving of youth is very

59
small in which youths who are living in Dega and Woyina-Dega have small saving and those
living in Kolla-agro ecological zone are at zero level of savings.

In this case to improve the participation of youths on pity trading and other non-farming
livelihood strategies saving behavior should have to be improved. For this government and non-
government organizations need to support and work together with rural youths. Education has
significant impact for the improvement of human capital of the people particularly youths.
However in the study area it is only 19% of rural youths who enrolled to high school specifically
in Kolla agro-ecological zone the status of youths joining education is 25% this needs to be
improved otherwise rural youths are not in a position of diversifying their livelihood strategies
other than farming.In the study area the major livelihood challenges are shortage of land, low
employment opportunities, low credit access and most youths are without skills for the
diversification of livelihoods. To tackle those problems and challenges of rural youths there has
to be effort of development actors so that rural youths can have opportunities and tackle their
problem in a sustainable way.

5.2. Recommendations
In this study area rural youths have a lot of challenges in fulfilling their livelihood strategies and
in boosting their income sources. The major challenges of rural youths in the study area are
shortage of land, low employment opportunities, low skills for the diversification of livelihood
strategies and the access of credit institutions and saving is very limited. In this regard the
following major issues are recommended by this research.

 The major livelihood strategy of rural people is agriculture which is the same for rural
youths in this the government should have to design an option for rural youths in which
they can have the opportunity of getting farm lands.
 The important of education for the diversification of livelihood strategy should have
recognized and there has to be opportunity for rural youths to get trainings and skills on
some important skills like masonry and carpentry so that they engage in the development
process of their village.
 The financial capital of rural youths should have to be improved by accessing appropriate
and accessible financial institutions and effort has to be made for the improvement of
youth saving behaviors.

60
 There has to be strategy in which participation of rural youths in livestock production
should be improved this should be done by accessing credit of, training opportunities and
access of grazing land for rural youths.

61
8. REFERENCES
 Adal 2000, Adal 2003, Rahmato 2004, Teklu and Lemi 2004 Land reform in Ethiopia
study in Ethiopia
 Antenh et al, 2000,. Smallholder Farming Systems and their Potential for Optimum
Utilization of Resources in North Wollo, Ethiopia: a Case of Meket District
 AregaB,Woldeamlak B, Melanie N (2013), Rural household livelihood, assets, strategies
and outcomes in drought prone areas of the Amhra region, Ethiopia: Case study in
Laygayint district.
 Babatunde Ro, (2013). On-farm and off-farm works, complement or substitute, Evidence
from rural Nigeria
 Carney (1999) Sustainable Livelihood frame work, adopted from Daiana
 ChilotYirga, Land tenure security and adoption of natural resource management
technologies in Ethiopia
 Comprehensive Youth and work force development assessment in rural Ethiopia, June,
2012, submitted to USAID.
 DFID2009, Sustainable Livelihoods frame work guide line
 Galabetal, (2002), Diversification in Rural Andhra Pradesh: Household asset portfolios
and implications for poverty reduction
 Gilligan, D., J. Hoddinott, A. S. Taffesse, S. Dejene, N. Tefera, and Y. Yohannes. 2007.
Ethiopia Food Security Program: Report on 2006 Baseline Survey. International Food
Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. Photocopy
 Green HW(2003), Economic analysis , fourth edition, New York, University Macmillan
publishing company
 Gujjirati D (2003), Basic econometrics. 4thedition, McGraw Hill Book Company, New
York.
 ICF International. 2012. Demographic and Health Survey Sampling and Household
Listing Manual. MEASURE DHS, Calverton, Maryland, U.S.A.: ICF International,
February 2013.
 ICF International. 2012. Demographic and Health Survey Sampling and Household
Listing Manual. MEASURE DHS, Calverton, Maryland, U.S.A.: ICF International,
February 2013.

62
 Jirstrom M, Anderson A, Djurfeldtg( 2011 ). Smallholders caught in poverty-flickering
sign of agriculture dynamism. In African Smallholders: food crops, market and policy.
 Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa (Volume 14, No.5, 2012 by Gesese S.
Kune and Ignatious Mberengwa
 Kebede Manjur, Haileselassie Amare, Gebrehiwot HaileMariam and LuchiaTekle 2014:
livelihood diversification strategies among men and women rural households: Evidence
from two watersheds of Northern Ethiopia,
 Labour and social affairs (MoLSA, Federal democratic of Ethiopia 1997) study reports
on off-farm, farm and nonfarm activities in Amhara, Tigray, Afar and southern nations
and nationalities, Ethiopia.
 Metasebia Solomon Mulugeta, 2009: Determinants of Livelihood strategies of urban
Women: The case of Female Household heads in Wolenchiti town, Ethiopia,
 Meludu et al, (1999, World bank 2003), Factors Influencing Involvement in Nonfarm
Income Generating Activities Among Local Farmers: The Case of Ughelli South Local
Government Area of Delta State, Nigeria
 MoA, (2010), Ethiopian animal health year book. Addis Ababa, federal ministry of
agriculture, Animal and plant health regulatory.
 Mohammed Seraje( 2007): Livelihood strategies and their implications for rural-urban
linkages: The case of Wolenkomi town and the surrounding rural Kebeles Working
papers on population and land use change in central Ethiopia.
 Odav (Vam) –WFP, (2005), Rome, and January 2005Integrating “Livelihoods” into Food
Security and Vulnerability Analysis: Initial Guidance,.
 Paul Bennell (2007 )in Promoting Livelihood Opportunities For Rural Youth
 Paul Benn ell, Knowledge and skill for development
 Promoting Livelihood Opportunities for Rural Youth, Paul Bennell, and February 2007
 PernilleSørensen, 2001, Food Security and Non-Farm Development: Policies,
Programmes, and Prospects in North Wollo, the Amhara Region, Ethiopia, Part of
theImpact Study of the Joint Ethio-Danish Development Programme in North Wollo,
Ethiopia.
 SosinaBezu and Stein Holden, land access and youth livelihood opportunities in southern
Ethiopia).

63
 Tesfaye Lema Tefera, 2003, Livelihood strategies in the context of population pressure:
A case study in the Harerghe high lands , eastern Ethiopia.
 Tesfaye Woldegiorgis, 2007 Livelihood and copping strategies a study of female
households in Mekelle, Ethiopia
 USAID Youth Livelihood development program guide 2008 by David James –Wilson
 USAID youth program guide which was developed in 2008
 Yenesew Sewnet et al, 2015 Determinants of livelihood diversification strategies: The
case of smallholder rural farm households in Debre Elias Woreda, East GojamZone,
Ethiopia.
 YishaK Gecho, etal, 2014 Rural Household Livelihood Strategies: options and
Determinants in the case of Wolaita zone, Southern Ethiopia, Social science. Vol 3, No 3.
 Youth Livelihood Toolkit: Preparing Out-of-School Youth for Livelihood, A publication
of EQUIP3 / Youth Trust First Draft, November 2005.
 Zemen Haddis Gebeyehu: Rural-urban migration and land and rural development policies
in Ethiopia USAID/ETHIOPIA,2014
 Zemen Haddis Gebeyehu: Land policy implications in rural-urban migration: the
dynamics and determinant factors of rural-urban migration in Ethiopia.

64
Annex 1: Survey questionnaire to know the livelihoods strategies and determinants of
livelihood strategies
I, Demographic data of youths and youth households

1. Kebele-------------------
2. Agroecology: 1.Dega, 2.Woyina-Dega, 3.Kolla
3. Sex, 1. Male 2, Female
4. Age--------------------
5. Ethnicity, 1, Amhara, 2, Tigray, 3,Afar, 4, Oromo, 5,Other
6. Marital status, 1, Single, 2,Married, 3,Divorced, 4,Widowed
7. Youth Household size-------------------------

II, Physical capital situations

1. Do you have your own house( 0=No, 1=Yes)

2. If yes what is the condition of your house(1= Small hut, 2=Medium hut, 3=Big hut, 4=
Corrugated , 5= Other Specify---------)
3. Living situation of youth Living with parents, 1, Living with partner, 2, Living alone,
3,Other mention------------
4. Do you have radio,( 0=No, 1=Yes)
5. Do you have mobile,( 0=No, 1=Yes)
6. Do you have your own house, (0=No, 1Yes)
7. Do you have your own farm tools ( 0-No, 1=Yes)
8. Value of your asset in Birr---------
9. Do you have farming land? (0=No,1= Yes)
10. Amount of land in Hectar---------------------
11. Do you access land with inheritances(0=No,1= Yes)
12. Have you got land from local leaders (0=No,1= Yes)
13. Have you got land with share cropping (0=No,1= Yes)
14. Have you got land from family (0=No,1= Yes)
15. Where do you farm( 0= Not farming, 1= own farm land, 2=family farm land, 3=Co-
farming with family, 4=Share farming who have no lbour)

65
 16. Size of land managed with family ( 0= do not manage land with family , 1=land managed
with family is 0.25 ha, 2 =land managed with family is 0.5 Ha, 3=land managed with
family is 0.75 Ha. 4=land managed with family is 1 Ha)
17. Size of land with share cropping ( 0= no land for share cropping , 1=land for share
cropping is 0.25 ha, 2 =land for share cropping is 0.5 Ha, 3=land for share cropping is
0.75 Ha. 4=land for share cropping is 1 Ha)
18. Own land in hectare------------------------------------
19. Size of Land managed with family in hectare-----------------
20. Size of land managed with share cropping in hectare-----------------------------
21. Type of land you access ( 0=No farm land, 1= irrigable, 2= rain fed, 3= other)
22. Do you grow growing Teff ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
23. Do you grow Sorghum (0=No, 1=Yes)
24. Do you grow Maize (0=No, 1=Yes)
25. Do you grow Barely (0=No, 1=Yes)
26. Do you grow Wheat (0=No, 1=Yes)
27. Do you practicing of livestock production( 0=No, 1=Yes)
28. Do you have share livestock production( 0=No, 1=yes)
29. The number of own livestock in tropical Livestock unit---------------------------
30. Do you use input to increase your production( 0=No, 1=Yes)
31. Getting road facilities ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
32. Getting Market facilities ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
33. Getting Health extension services ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
34. Getting Medical services ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
35. Getting Milling facilities ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
36. Getting shopping facilities ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
37. Getting Tea house ( 0=No, 1=Yes)

III, Human capital situations

38. Have you ever been to school, 0, No, 1, Yes

39. If yes what is the highest grade you completed-------------------,

66
 40. If no please mention the reason you are not attending school, 1,Family support , 2,School is
very far, 3,Health problem, 4,Marriage, 5,Financial problem , 6,Others mention----------

IV, Financial capital

1. Do you have bank savings( 0=No, 1=Yes)

2. Family loan for off-farming ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
3. Own saving for off-farming ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
4. Loan from ACSI for off-farming ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
5. The status of saving money ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
6. Save money in ACSI ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
7. Save Money in Cooperatives ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
8. Save money in youth groups ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
9. Amount of saved money ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
10. Saving for livestock production ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
11. Saving for input purchase ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
12. Saving for pity -trading ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
13. Request of collateral for credit access ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
14. Land as a collateral for credit access ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
15. Family accest as a collateral for credit access ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
16. Home for collateral for credit access ( 0=No, 1=Yes)

V, Livelihood strategies

17. What are your livelihood strategies(0=Agriculture, 1=Agriculture &off-farming,

2=Agriculture &non-farming, 3=Agriculture +non-farming +off-farming)
18. Do you participate in non-farming activities ( 0=No, 1=Yes )
19. Participation in pity-trading ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
20. Participation of daily laboring ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
21. Participation on remittances ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
22. Participation on migration ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
23. Do you have Skills for livelihoods ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
24. Having skills on carpentry ( 0=No, 1=Yes)

67
 25. Having skills on Masonry ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
26. Having skills on Barberry ( 0=No, 1=Yes)

VI, Social capital

27. Participation of Idir for social network ( 0=No, 1=Yes)

28. Participate in Equb as social service ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
29. Participate in Saving groups as social service ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
30. Support of relatives in full filling livelihoods ( 0=No, 1=Yes)

VII, Livelihood challenges and copping mechanism

31. Shortage of farm land for livelihood challenge ( 0=No, 1=Yes)

32. Low employment as livelihood challenge ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
33. Low skills for livelihood challenges ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
34. Low credit access for livelihood challenge ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
35. Food gap facing ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
36. food gap for 3 months ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
37. food gap for 6 months ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
38. food gap for 9 months ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
39. food gap for 12 months ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
40. Copping by using credit ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
41. Copping by reducing consumption ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
42. Copping by support of relatives ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
43. Copping by labor migration ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
44. Copping by relief ( 0=No, 1=Yes)

VIIII, Cash income sources and expenditure of youths

45. Cash income from sale of crops ( 0=No, 1=Yes)

46. Cash income from sale of animals ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
47. Cash income from sale of animal products ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
48. Cash income from daily labor ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
49. Cash income from sale of fuel wood ( 0=No, 1=Yes)

68
50. Cash income from pity -trading ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
51. Cash income from formal employment ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
52. Cash income from remittances ( 0=No, 1=Yes)
53. Cash income from food for work--------------
54. Cash income from PSNP----------------------
55. Cash income from food aid ----------------------
56. Total cash income ----------------------
57. Expenses of school fee ----------------------
58. Expenses of Medical ----------------------
59. Expenses of clothing ----------------------
60. Expenses of Transport ----------------------
61. Expenses of fire wood ----------------------
62. Expenses of kerosene ----------------------
63. Expenses of Marriage----------------------
64. Expenses of Funeral----------------------
65. Expenses of House items----------------------
66. Eexpences of jewelry for wife ----------------------
67. Expenses for Taxation----------------------
68. Expenses of food grain purchase ----------------------
69. Expenses of salt ----------------------
70. Expenses of paper ----------------------
71. Total expenses ---------------------

69
Annex II. Conversion factor used to estimate Tropical Livestock unit

S/N Tropical livestock Unit (TLU) TLU

1 Calf 0.2
2 Heifer 0.75
3 Cows/Oxen 1
4 Horse/Mule 1.1
5 Donkey 0.7
6 Donkey (Young) 0.35
7 Sheep/Goat 0.13
8 Sheep/Goat (young) 0.06
9 Camel 1.25
10 Chickens 0.01
Source: Storck et al, (1991) cited in Mulu, (2008)

70
71