Income diversification, wealth, education and well-being in rural south-western Madagascar: Results from the Mahafaly region

Figures & data

Figure 1: Coverage of the Household Baseline Survey in the Mahafaly region.

Source: GADM (2009) for administrative areas and Brinkmann et al. (2014) for administrative unit locations

Table 1: Population totals for the study region Mahafaly Plateau and sample information for the Household Baseline Survey

	Item	Unit
Population	Administrative units	Number	59
	Households^a	Number	6811
	Individuals^b	Persons	40.866
HBS sample	Administrative units	Number	19
	Households	Number	665
	Population	Persons	4.080
	Population > 18 years	Persons	1586
	Replacement rate among households	%	24

Notes: ^aCalculated from data on individuals (see note b), assuming a mean household size of six persons.

^bAccording to commune statistics for 2010/11 collected by the SuLaMa Baseline Survey Team.

Table 2: Characteristics of the population aged over 18 years and households surveyed in the Mahafaly region

Item	Category	Total
Educational level	No formal education	86.97 (0.98)
	Primary school	5.00 (0.71)
	High school and higher	8.03 (0.87)
Literacy	Illiterate	72.64 (1.71)
	Literate	27.36 (1.71)
Female-headed households	Female	14.67 (1.44)
Religion of household head	Traditional	64.25 (3.79)
	Christian	14.38 (2.33)
	No religion	21.37 (2.38)
Ethnic group of household head	Vezo Sakalava	0.79 (0.19)
	Tanalana	29.90 (7.84)
	Mahafaly	64.25 (7.96)
	Other	2.55 (1.53)
	No ethnic group	2.51 (0.46)

Notes: Data presented as percentages on individuals; figures in brackets are standard errors. n = 665; weighting was applied. Educational level and literacy refer to persons 18 years or older; other items refer to household heads.

Table 3: Income-generating activities of households in the Mahafaly region per wealth category

Item	Unit	Poor	Average	Wealthy	Total	F-value^a
Wealth category	%	38.9 (2.2)	46.7 (2.5)	14.4 (2.0)	100
Farming	%	95.2 (1.4)	98.6 (0.8)	97.9 (1.0)	97.2 (0.8)	4.07*
Mean field size	ha	1.6 (0.12)	2.2 (0.13)	3.0 (0.27)	2.1 (0.12)
Mean number of crops	Number	5.7 (0.28)	6.5 (0.22)	7.4 (0.19)	6.3 (0.18)
Cassava	%	98.0 (1.4)	99.1 (0.8)	98.0 (1.5)	98.6 (0.9)	0.55
Sweet potatoes	%	54.3 (4.7)	62.7 (3.1)	79.7 (4.3)	62.0 (3.0)	10.34***
Maize	%	83.7 (3.6)	89.6 (3.1)	97.2 (1.4)	88.5 (2.6)	6.28*
Grains	%	10.3 (1.9)	4.0 (1.5)	13.3 (3.9)	7.7 (1.4)	6.24*
Beans	%	82.1 (2.8)	84.0 (2.0)	90.5 (2.4)	84.2 (1.4)	2.03
Pumpkins and melons	%	37.6 (4.7)	46.9 (4.1)	59.4 (4.1)	45.2 (3.4)	7.48***
Other vegetables	%	7.9 (2.4)	12.7 (2.5)	21.3 (3.8)	87.9 (1.3)	3.32
Peanuts	%	38.7 (7.0)	49.6 (5.3)	56.7 (10.0)	53.5 (5.8)	3.13
Other crops and fruits	%	2.6 (1.6)	5.6 (2.2)	14.0 (7.5)	5.6 (1.9)	3.02
Poultry keeping	%	45.8 (6.3)	66.9 (3.7)	83.9 (2.4)	61.1 (4.1)	32.0***
Livestock keeping^b	%	0 (0)	100	100	61.1 (2.2)
Zebu keeping^b	%	0	72.7 (3.2)	100	48.3 (2.1)
Mean zebu herd size^b	Number	0	6.3 (0.36)	42.0 (9.3)	16.9 (3.5)
Mean size of small ruminant herd^b	Number	0	13.4 (0.80)	57.4 (10.7)	25.1 (3.6)
Use of timber and non-timber forest products	%	97.2 (1.0)	98.6 (0.5)	99.0 (0.8)	98.1 (0.5)	1.96
Collection of alimentary plants	%	62.8 (2.9)	61.0 (5.9)	42.1 (5.8)	59.0 (3.1)	3.26
Collection of medicinal plants	%	83.3 (5.5)	94.0 (2.2)	93.1 (1.6)	89.7 (3.1)	10.39***
Collection of construction material	%	78.5 (3.4)	88.3 (2.5)	90.3 (4.6)	84.8 (2.4)	4.86*
Charcoal production	%	7.7 (2.1)	9.4 (2.3)	7.9 (5.9)	8.5 (1.9)	0.11
Hunting and collection of wild animals	%	22.4 (5.0)	24.9 (4.2)	19.9 (4.2)	23.2 (3.5)	0.42
Fishing and gathering of sea products	%	13.0 (2.4)	14.8 (2.6)	9.7 (4.0)	13.4 (2.4)	1.12
Gathering of sea products	%	12.5 (2.3)	13.9 (2.3)	8.3 (2.9)	12.5 (2.2)	1.99
Fishing	%	3.6 (1.5)	3.6 (1.7)	2.8 (2.5)	3.5 (1.6)	0.14
Other off-farm income sources	%	71.9 (6.6)	71.7 (4.2)	65.5 (4.3)	70.9 (3.7)	0.36
Permanent salaried work	%	4.0 (1.2)	3.8 (1.0)	8.7 (3.1)	4.9 (0.9)	1.73
Wage work (farm)	%	15.5 (3.7)	26.8 (6.0)	7.8 (2.5)	19.7 (3.1)	3.44
Wage work (non-farm)	%	3.0 (1.2)	1.9 (0.6)	3.4 (1.8)	2.9 (0.4)	0.32
Temporary migration	%	6.2 (2.0)	7.4 (2.8)	1.0 (0.8)	5.9 (2.0)	4.71*
Trade	%	16.7 (3.1)	12.4 (1.8)	23.3 (6.9)	15.1 (1.6)	1.78
Weaving of mats	%	42.3 (7.5)	46.4 (6.7)	35.4 (4.5)	44.0 (5.3)	0.92
Handicrafts	%	4.4 (1.4)	5.3 (1.4)	3.5 (1.4)	4.6 (0.7)	0.31
Renting of zebu carts	%	0.1 (0.1)	20.2 (2.4)	12.1 (5.1)	11.4 (1.9)	24.77***
Other forms of economic activities and remittances	%	5.9 (1.8)	2.5 (1.1)	1.7 (1.3)	3.7 (0.9)	2.31
Number of income sources	Number	5.1 (0.13)	6.9 (0.13)	6.4 (0.17)	6.1 (0.09)

Notes: n = 665; weighting was applied; figures in brackets are standard errors. Percentages and means for subcategories in the farming and livestock keeping section were calculated using data only from households that engage in this activity; other percentages were calculated from the total sample.

^aDesign-based F-value for chi-squared tests.

^bZebu and small ruminant possession is used to classify households into wealth categories (see Section 3 for definitions)

*Significance p < 0.05.

***Significance p < 0.001.

Figure 2: Share of households in the Mahafaly region that purchased staple foods in 2010/11, by month (solid line: cassava; dashed line: rice, maize and others)

Source: Authors’ own data

Table 4: Combination of income-generating activities of households in the Mahafaly region per wealth category

Income source category combination	Poor	Average	Wealthy	Total
F	0.2 (0.2)			0.1 (0.1)
R	1.1 (0.6)			0.4 (0.2)
O	0.3 (0.3)			0.1 (0.1)
LR	0.2 (0.1)	0.1 (0.0)	0.7 (0.7)	0.2 (0.1)
FL		0.6 (0.2)		0.3 (0.1)
FR	16.2 (5.0)			6.3 (1.9)
LO	0.1 (0.1)		0.7 (0.7)	0.1 (0.1)
FO	1.5 (1.1)			0.6 (0.4)
RO	2.1 (1.0)			0.8 (0.4)
FLR	10.4 (2.2)	27.6 (4.1)	33.8 (4.1)	21.8 (2.3)
FLO		0.8 (0.5)	0.3 (0.3)	0.4 (0.2)
LRO	1.0 (0.5)	1.3 (0.8)	0.7 (0.6)	1.1 (0.5)
FRO	32.8 (8.2)			12.8 (3.4)
FLRO	34.1 (4.6)	69.6 (3.7)	63.8 (4.4)	54.9 (2.7)

Notes: Data presented as percentages; figures in brackets refer to standard errors. n = 665; weighting was applied. F = farming, L = livestock and poultry keeping, R = use of natural resources (timber and non-timber forest products, fishing and seafood) and O = off-farm income sources.

Table 5: Self-assessment of well-being by households in the Mahafaly region

Well-being	Poor	Average	Wealthy	Total
Very good	3.7 (1.2)	1.8 (0.6)	10.0 (2.8)	3.7 (0.7)
Good	9.9 (2.5)	11.9 (2.8)	37.7 (8.5)	14.8 (2.8)
Average	25.4 (3.4)	39.8 (3.9)	33.9 (4.7)	33.4 (3.0)
Bad	60.9 (3.1)	46.5 (2.8)	18.4 (5.6)	48.1 (1.7)

Notes: Data presented as percentages; figures in brackets refer to standard errors. n = 665; weighting was applied.

Table 6: Relative ranking of constraints to the improvement of well-being in households of the Mahafaly region, by household wealth category

Constraint	Poor	Average	Wealthy	Total
Lack of rain/lack of drinking water	1.56 (0.24)	1.45 (0.22)	1.20 (0.16)	1.47 (0.17)
Lack of money	2.24 (0.15)	2.35 (0.18)	2.86 (0.17)	2.38 (0.12)
Other constraints	2.86 (0.38)	3.44 (1.04)	2.80 (1.05)	3.07 (0.51)
Lack of strength due to lack of food	3.85 (0.14)	3.81 (0.15)	4.09 (0.23)	3.87 (0.12)
Lack of tools	4.09 (0.20)	4.13 (0.21)	3.48 (0.34)	4.02 (0.19)
Lack of knowledge	4.39 (0.28)	4.44 (0.27)	3.56 (0.42)	4.29 (0.28)
Insecurity	5.28 (0.26)	4.84 (0.24)	4.44 (0.42)	4.94 (0.22)
Social obligations	5.43 (0.29)	4.80 (0.28)	5.03 (0.46)	5.08 (0.28)
Diseases	5.71 (0.39)	5.54 (0.33)	5.55 (0.27)	5.61 (0.31)
Government	7.69 (0.19)	7.70 (0.23)	8.02 (0.17)	7.74 (0.11)
Fate	7.85 (0.28)	7.76 (0.16)	8.10 (0.21)	7.85 (0.13)
Egoism of others	8.27 (0.13)	8.02 (0.14)	7.76 (0.21)	8.08 (0.11)

Notes: n = 665; weighting was applied; figures in brackets refer to standard errors. Relative ranking: 1 = most important constraint, 10 = least important constraint.

Table

Number of administrative unit	Location	Share of population in wealth classes
		Poor	Average	Wealthy
1	Plateau region	40.5 (2.1)	40.5 (2.1)	19.0 (1.7)
2	Plateau region	43.5 (4.2)	56.5 (4.2)	0.0 (0.0)
3	Plateau region	47.6 (4.3)	47.6 (4.3)	4.8 (1.8)
4	Plateau region	16.0 (2.9)	60.0 (3.9)	24.0 (3.4)
5	Plateau region	44.7 (3.2)	42.6 (3.2)	12.8 (2.2)
6	Plateau region	37.5 (2.9)	62.5 (2.9)	0.0 (0.0)
7	Plateau region	47.4 (5.1)	52.6 (5.1)	0.0 (0.0)
8	Plateau region	60.0 (4.9)	35.0 (4.8)	5.0 (2.2)
9	Plateau region	30.4 (4.9)	56.5 (5.3)	13.0 (3.6)
10	Plateau region	22.0 (2.3)	40.0 (2.7)	38.0 (2.7)
11	Plateau region	36.1 (3.4)	38.9 (3.4)	25.0 (3.1)
12	Plateau region	22.9 (3.6)	45.7 (4.2)	31.4 (4.0)
13	Plateau region	61.9 (5.3)	23.8 (4.6)	14.3 (3.8)
14	Coastal region	75.0 (5.7)	25.0 (5.7)	0.0 (0.0)
15	Coastal region	37.8 (3.4)	45.9 (3.5)	16.2 (2.6)
16	Coastal region	39.6 (3.3)	43.8 (3.3)	16.7 (2.5)
17	Coastal region	36.4 (5.9)	59.1 (6.0)	4.5 (2.6)
18	Coastal region	21.3 (3.5)	61.7 (4.1)	17.0 (3.2)
19	Coastal region	40.7 (5.0)	48.1 (5.1)	11.1 (3.2)

Note: n = 665; weighting was applied; figures in parentheses are standard errors.

GADM (Database on Global Administrative Areas), 2009. Global administrative areas – Madagascar shapefile. www.gadm.org Accessed 7 February 2014.

 Google Scholar

Brinkmann, K, Fanambinantsoa, N, Ratovonamana, RY & Buerkert, A, 2014. Deforestation processes in southwestern Madagascar over the past 40 years: What can we learn from settlement characteristics? Agriculture, Ecosystem & Environment 195(2014), 231–43. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.06.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar