Determinants of peri-urban households' livelihood strategy choices: An empirical study of Bahir Dar city, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Ethiopia urbanization trend and projection to 2050. Source (Eastwood & Lipton, 2011)

Figure 2. Conceptual framework for the analysis of Bahir Dar city peri-urban household livelihoods. Source: Adopted from DFID's sustainable livelihood framework (DfID, UK, 1999) and sustainable rural livelihood framework (Tuyen, Lim, Cameron, & Huong, 2014)

Figure 3. Map of Bahir Dar City Administration and peri-urban areas

Table 1. Population and sample size of each peri-urban kebele

Peri-urban Kebele	Sample gote	Total number of households estimated	Estimated displaced households	Household % share for displaced	Sample for displaced	Sample for non-displaced
Weramit	Lumame	338	115	19	29	37
Zenzelima	Sesaberet	535	266	44	65	68
Addis Alem	Qutatina	351	169	28	42	44
Woreb Kola	Chorqa	141	54	9	13	12
Total	4 gotes	1,365	604	100	149	161

Source: Kebeles Administration offices (2017)

Table 2. Definition and measurement of independent variables in PSM and MNLM logit model

Variable	Definition	Measurement	Hypothesis
Definition and measurement of independent variables used in the PSM model
head-sex	Sex of household head	1 =Male, 0 otherwise	Positive
head_educ	Educational level of the household head	Level category	Positive
wor-educ	Average years of formal schooling of adult members who were employed in the last 12 months	Years	Positive
hhs-si	House hold family size	Number	Positive
mal-wor	Number of male adult members who were employed in the last 12 months	Number	Positive
dep-ratio	The ratio of unemployed to labor force	Ratio	Negative
hhslan_size	Household agricultural landholding size	Hectares	Positive
Lan-ada	Owned farm size per member aged 15 and over	Hector	Positive
totvalcur-ass	Value of all productive assets	Birr	Positive
gro-mem	Number of memberships in formal and informal groups and organizations	Number	Positive
(2) Definition and measurement of independent variables used in MNLM			Hypothesis
head-sex	Sex of household head	1 =Male, 0 otherwise	Positive
head-age	Age of household head	Years	Negative
head-educ	Educational level of the household head	Level category	Positive
hhs-si	Family size of household	Number	Positive
dep-rat	The ratio of unemployed to labor force	Ratio	Positive
gro-mem	Number of memberships in formal and informal groups and organizations	Number	Positive
hhslan- size	Household agricultural landholding size	Hectares	Negative
totvalcur-ass	Value of all productive assets	Ethiopian birr	Negative
Acc_cre	Access to formal and informal credit	Dummy (=1 if yes)	Positive

Table 3. Summary statistics and mean difference test on the continuous variable

	Non-displaced (N =161)		Displaced (N =149)		Total (N =310)		Mean difference
Explanatory variables	Mean	(SD)	Mean	(SD)	Mean	(SD)	Mean	(SD)	T-value
wor_edu	2.579	2.476	3.497	2.619	3.020	2.583	−0.918	−13.11	0.07 ***
hhs_si	5.267	1.749	5.718	1.725	5.484	1.749	−0.451	1.45	−0.31***
mal_wor	1.839	1.012	1.966	1.093	1.900	1.052	−0.128	−0.14	0.92*
dep_rat	64.93	50.06	55.95	42.68	60.61	46.80	8.99	26.44	0.34*
hhslan_size	1.769	0.938	1.126	0.785	1.460	0.925	0.643	−1.04	−0.62***
lan_ada	0.557	0.340	0.311	0.253	0.439	0.325	0.246	−0.34	−0.72
totval_curprass	75,307	45,471	78,860	75,377	77,015	61,604	−3554	−4442	0.08***
gro_mem	2.422	0.739	2.416	0.789	2.419	0.762	0.006	0.01	0.49

***, **, and * are significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively.

Source: survey result (2017).

Table 4. Summary statistics and proportional difference test between categorical variables

Variables	Category	Non-displaced (N =161)		Displaced (N =149)		Total (N = 310)		X^2
		N	%	N	%	N	%
head_sex	Male	144	89.44	123	82.55	267	86.13	0.742
	Female	17	10.56	26	17.45	43	13.87
head_educ	Illiterate	89	55.28	100	67.11	189	60.97	2.685*
	Primary	39	24.22	27	18.12	66	21.29
	Junior	22	13.66	11	7.38	33	10.65
	Secondary and above	11	6.83	11	7.38	22	7.10

***, **, and * are significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively.

Source: survey result (2017).

Table 5. Logistic regression model result for displacement status

Explanatory variable	Coefficients	Z-value
_cons	−.4075301	−0.51
head_sex	−.2516155	−0.56
head_educ	−.3107563	−1.93*
wor_edu	.257916	3.33***
hhs_si	.5138804	3.01***
mal_wor	−.3722243	−1.76*
dep_rat	−.0089635	−1.66*
hhslan_size	−2.07851	−4.31***
lan_ada	.7194893	0.58
totval_cur~s	9.11e-06	2.60***
gro_mem	.3051199	1.54
Number of observations 310; LR chi2(10) = 107.35 Prob> chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = −160.9686 Pseudo R^2 = 0.2501

***, **, and * significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively

Source: survey result (2017).

Table 6. Impacts of urban expansion displacement on the farming community

Outcome variables	Displaced	Controls	Difference	SE^B	T-value
Livelihood outcome	2.93758389	3.05590062	−.118316729	.044381367	−2.67

Source: Own result (2017).

Table 7. Households' past and current livelihood strategies

Change in current livelihood strategies of households
	Whole sample		Displaced households		Non-displaced households
Livelihood strategies	Past	Current	Past	Current	Past	Current
Farm work self-employment (A)	293	216	142	76	151	140
Non-farm self-employment (B)	11	54	4	42	6	12
Informal wage work (C)	3	10	1	6	2	4
Formal wage work (D)	4	30	2	25	2	5
Total	310	310	149	149	161	161

Source: own survey result, 2017.

Table 8. Households' past and current livelihood activities

Change in livelihood activities of households
Livelihood activities	Whole sample		Displaced households		Non-displaced households
	Past	Current	Past	Current	Past	Current
Agricultural only (1)	218	94	112	24	106	70
Agriculture + handcrafts, sale of wood or charcoal, sale of stone shops, etc. (2)	37	120	18	72	19	48
Agriculture + daily laborer (3)	26	28	7	13	19	15
Agriculture + office work and guard (4)	25	44	9	21	16	23
Agriculture + handcrafts, sale of wood or charcoal, sale of stone shops + daily laborer (5)	0	1	0	1	0	0
Agriculture + handcrafts, sale of wood or charcoal,sale of stone shops, etc., + office work and guard (6)	2	14	1	11	1	3
Agriculture + daily laborer + office work and guard, etc. (7)	1	5	1	3	0	2
Agriculture + handcrafts, sale of wood or charcoal, sale of stone shops, etc., + daily laborer + office work and guard (8)	1	4	1	4	0	0
Total	310	310	149	149	161	161

Source: Own survey (2017).

Table 9. Mean household income and percentage composition by current livelihood strategy

Displacement status		Income by livelihood strategies
		Total	A	B	C	D
Displaced	Mean	33,517.65	19,107.21	20,705.32	12,063.16	10,338.86
	SD	27,753.89	12,665.29	36,651.9	6441.55	5846.56
Non-displaced	Mean	33,850.82	26,647.3	14,108.16	11,094.12	10,764.08
	SD	15,166.94	14,175.76	9122.09	7633.19	5087.89
Total	Mean	33,690.68	23,048.62	18,139.76	11,605.56	10,520.1
	SD	22,092.45	13,973.08	29,311.15	6943.77	5495.54

Source: own survey result (2017).

Note: A = farm work self-employment; B =non-farm self-employment; C = informal wage work; D = formal wage work strategy.

Table 10. Mean household livelihood outcome and percentage composition by current livelihood strategy

	Livelihood strategies
Variables	Total	Displaced	Non-displaced	A	B	C	D
Livelihood outcome	2.999	2.938	3.056	3.098	2.733	2.78	2.837
SD	0.394	0.403	0.378	0.348	0.399	0.385	0.417
Number of displaced household	149	149	-	76	42	6	25
Number of displaced household	161	-	161	140	12	4	5
Total number of household	310	149	161	216	54	10	30

Source: own survey result (2017).

A = farm work self-employment; B =non-farm self-employment; C = informal wage work; D = formal wage work strategy.

Table 11. Summary statistics of independent variables for household strategy choice

	Current livelihood strategies
	The whole sample (A +B +C +D)		Farm work (A)		Non-farm self-employment (B)		Informal wage wok (C)		Formal wage work (D)
Explanatory variable	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
head_age	48.55	12.40	49.23	11.56	46.46	15.14	44.1	12.11	48.87	12.87
head_sex	0.86	0.35	0.89	0.31	0.82	0.39	0.7	0.48	0.77	0.43
head_educ	1.64	0.93	1.60	0.87	1.78	1.11	1.6	1.08	1.7	0.99
hhs_size	5.48	1.75	5.51	1.67	5.5	1.87	4.6	2.63	5.53	1.78
dep_rat	60.61	46.80	60.38	47.22	70.33	47.03	41.3	34.08	51.27	44.81
gro_mem	2.42	0.76	2.50	0.68	2.15	0.81	2.1	1.10	2.47	0.97
hhslan_size	1.46	0.93	1.79	0.86	0.60	0.44	0.87	0.49	0.81	0.68
totval_curpra	77,015	61,604	80,759	52,954	78,434	92,557	36,333	31,674	61,061	52,320
acc_creser	0.93	0.26	0.94	0.25	0.83	0.38	1	0	1	0
Observation	310		216		54		10		30

Source: own survey result (2017).

Note: Means and standard deviations (SD) are adjusted for sampling weights.

Table 12. MNLM estimation with a relative risk ratio for households’ livelihood strategy choices

	Non-farm self-employment vs farm work			Informal wage work vs farm work			Formal wage work vs farm work
Explanatory variables	Coef	P-value	Marginal effect	Coef	P-value	Marginal effect	Coef	P-value	Marginal effect
head_age	0.049	0.028*	0.002	−0.001	0.983	0.000	0.044	0.062*	0.001
head_sex	−0.566	0.417	−0.030	−0.307	0.747	−0.002	−0.932	0.088*	−0.022
head_educ	0.566	0.034*	0.026	0.057	0.893	0.000	0.573	0.020*	0.010
hhs_si	0.412	0.014*	0.019	0.266	0.473	0.001	0.445	0.001**	0.007
dep_rat	0.000	0.944	0.000	−0.020	0.103	−0.000	−0.014	0.027*	−0.000
gro_mem	−0.160	0.599	−0.008	0.168	0.790	0.001	0.335	0.435	0.006
hhslan_size	−4.474	0.000***	−0.209	−2.269	0.011*	−0.011	−3.754	0.000***	−0.061
totval_curpr	0.001	0.094*	0.000	0.000	0.276	0.000	0.000	0.464	0.000
acc_creser	−0.843	0.235	−0.060	14.30	0.000***	0.016	14.822	0.000***	0.051
intercept	−1.20	0.505		−13.90	0.000***		−17.33	0.000***
Wald chi^2 = 2323.85 Prob> chi^2 = 0.0000 Pseudo R^2 = 0.3753 Observations = 310

***, **, and * are statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% of the significance levels, respectively.

Source: own survey result (2017).

Eastwood, R., & Lipton, M. (2011). Demographic transition in Sub Saharan Africa: Accounting and economics. Population Studies, 65(1), 9–35. doi:10.1080/00324728.2010.547946

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DfID, UK. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: DFID.

 Google Scholar

Tuyen, T. Q., Lim, S., Cameron, M. P., & Huong, V. V. (2014). Farmland loss and livelihood outcomes: A microeconometric analysis of household surveys in Vietnam. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 19(3), 423–444. doi:10.1080/13547860.2014.908539

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar