On-farm diversification strategies and improved welfare of the immiserated rural smallholder farmer: Fallacy or realism?†

Figures & data

Figure 1. Asutifi North District in the Context of Ghana (source: IRC Ghana, 2020)

Table 1. Demographic details of participants of the study

Variable	Frequency
Sex/Gender
Male	7 (41.2)*
Female	10 (58.8)
Total	17 (100.0)
Age distribution (in years)
40 and below	3 (17.7)
41–45	4 (23.5)
Above 45 years	10 (58.8)
Total	17 (100.0)
Educational level
No formal education	5 (29.4)
Basic	6 (35.3)
Secondary	2 (11.8)
Post-secondary	4 (23.5)
Total	17 (100.0)

*Percentage in parenthesis

Table 2. Effect of the scheme as extracted and summarised from the focus group discussion (n = 17)

Nature of Impact	Frequency*
	Yes	No
Increased income	14 (82.4)^	3 (17.6)
Alternative source of income	13 (76.5)	4 (23.5)
Improved diet	11 (64.7)	6 (35.3)
Source of employment	10 (58.8)	7 (41.2)
Improved ability to make purchases and pay school fees	10 (58.8)	7 (41.2)
Reduction in the incidence of burning bushes to hunt for wild grasscutters	8 (47.1)	9 (52.9)
Derivation of pleasure and giftings	7 (41.2)	10 (58.8)
Increased assets and savings	7 (41.2)	10 (58.8)
Tourism	5 (29.4)	12 (70.6)
Formation of Grasscutter Farmers’ Association	3 (17.6)	14 (82.4)
Popularity	1 (5.9)	16 (94.1)
Regular attendance to meetings	1 (5.9)	16 (94.1)

*Percentage in parentheses

Table 3. Reasons for apparent dissatisfaction with the grasscutter domestication scheme (n = 17)

Nature of Challenge	Frequency*
Financial constraints	7
Sexually inactive males	5
Lack of refresher training and poor backstopping	5
Death due to, e.g., smoke, and cold	3
Lack of adequate housing facilities	2

*Based on multiple responses