DATA ANALYSIS - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/12694/15/15...each in pathapatnam mandal ascending order of the 92% seethampeta mandal, 90% in saluru mandal,85%

265

DATA ANALYSIS

Assessment of the Tribal on Girijan Corporation in the Study Area

The discussions if the earlier chapter envisages that the activities and

coverage of the service of the Girijan corporation not only reported wide

functioning of annually but also decline in the coverage of activities of the Girijan

Corporation in the study area. Further, the main objective of the study is to assess

the performance of the GCC in the study area. Keeping the above aspects under

consideration, an attempt is made in this chapter to analyze the attitude of the

tribals on the services of the GCC in the study area. For this purpose, the study

carried out a house hold survey in about 5 tribal mandals such parvathipuram,

Gummalakshmipuram, saluru, seethampet and pathapatnam. The study conducted

three categories of the survey namely beneficiary survey, public survey and

institutional surveys. The beneficiaries survey covers only the house holds which

utilized the services of GCC, while public survey covers the basically the

households which did not avail the service of GCC. The institutional survey

covers village official and employees of the GCC in the study area.

The survey covered about 500 households 35 village (representing 100

households in each mandal covering 10 villages in each mandal), under

beneficiaries survey. Similarly, the public survey covers about 350 households

which are not availing GCC services in 35 villages representing 10 households in

each and in 10 villages in each manadal. The institutional survey covered about

125 represents in the study area. The villages covered under this survey area

Pedamariki, Dokiseela , J.M Valasa, Vanja, and Mandal in Parvathipuram

Mandal, Yendabadra, Pedasekha, Kunuru,Beerupadu, and KumaradaMandal in

Parvathipuram, Tadikanda, Duddukallu, Dedaripuram, Gorada,Kondukuppa,

266

DummangiMandal in G L Puram, and Bibbidi, ValasaBallleru, Podi,

TompalaPadu, PallamLevidi, Mondukallu, in KurapumMandal, DuggeruKesali,

Kurkutti, Pudi,Tadilova, Thonam, Vetaganipalem in SuluruMandal, Bhamini,

Donibaai, Marripadu, Kusimi, in Seethampet Divisional Mandal and Singupurum,

Goppili, Bondikaru in PathapatnamMandal.

The information collected from the household survey is age, sex,

education, occupation family members, earner, and income per yearly, assets,

facilities available in the dwelling under social- economic and personnel

characteristics of the respondents. Attitude in the services of GCC, problems faced

by the respondents in the services of GCC, functional status of the GCC,

suggestions for the improvement of the services of the GCC. Besides, this, the

study carried out various significant and quantitative tests such chi-square, t-test,

F-test and factorial analysis for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries respondents.

This chapter is dividing into two sections such as section-I cover the

attitudinal survey of beneficiaries of GCC, while section-II presents the attitudinal

survey of public and non-beneficiaries of the GCC and presents the attitudes of

institutional survey. Similarly, the portrays the results of the above mentioned

quantitative tests. The details of the study area are as follow

Section -1

8. Assessment of the beneficiaries’ attitudes on GCC in the study area

a) socio-economic and personal characteristics of the respondents

1. Sex

Table 8.1 demonstrate its maximum percent of the respondents about 94 %

each in pathapatnam mandal ascending order of the 92% seethampeta mandal,

90% in saluru mandal,85% Gummalakshmi puram mandal and 79% in

parvathipuram sample as a whole are male and rest of remain female respondents.

267

We will test the following hypotheses about the Sex wise Distribution of

Beneficiary Respondents in the study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.1 Sex wise Distribution of Beneficiary Respondents in the study area

Sl. No Mandala Male Female Total

1 Parvathipuram 79

(79.0)

21

(21.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi puram 85

(19.3)

15

(25.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 90

(20.4)

10

(16.6)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 92

(20.9)

08

(13.3)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 94

(21.3)

06

(10.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 440

(88..0)

60

(12.0)

500

(100.0)

Table 8.1Group Statistics

Group N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

respondents male 5 88.0000 6.04152 2.70185

female 5 12.0000 6.04152 2.70185

Table 8.1Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality

of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std.

Error

Differen

ce

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Respond

ents

Equal

varian

ces

assum

ed

.000 1.000 19.890 8 .000 76.0000 3.82099 67.18877 84.8112

Equal

varian

ces

19.890 8.00

0 .000 76.0000 3.82099 67.18877 84.8112

268

As such the collected value of equal variances assumed‘ = 19.890. The p-

value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem was only

interested in the upper tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value =

.000/2 = .000. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent level of significance.

Hence the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

2. Age

Table 8.2 demonstrates that maximum proportion of respondents, inside the table

less than 20 age group is 3% of respondents in parvathipuram and pathapatnam,

remaining 4% in Gummalakshmi puram, 5% in saluru, and 6% in seethampeta

mandals. Then only for the age group 20% to 40% of maximum numbers

respondents in 86% in pathapatnam, minimum respondents in parvathipuram

mandal and also same sample as whole represents age group in between 20 to 40

years age followed by 40 to 60 years age group while relatively lower proportion

of respondents found above 60 years age groups.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Age-wise Distribution of

Beneficiary Respondents in the study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

269

8.2 Age-wise Distribution of Beneficiary Respondents in the study area

Sl.No Mandal <20 Years 20 to 40 40 to 60

60 and

above

Total

1 Parvathipuram 03

(3.0)

66

(66.0)

27

(27.0)

04

(40.0)

100

(20.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

04

(19.0)

76

(21.1)

19

(17.5)

01

(10.0)

100

(20.0)

3 Saluru 05

(23.8)

67

(18.5)

25

(23.1)

03

(30.0)

100

(20.0)

4 Seethampate 06

(28.5)

65

(18.0)

27

(25.0)

02

(20.0)

100

(20.0)

5 Pathapatnam 03

(14.2)

86

(23.8)

10

(9.2)

1

(10.0)

100

(20.0)

Total 21

(4.2)

361

(72.2)

108

(21.6)

10

(2.0)

500

(100.0)

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 <20 years 4.2000 5 1.30384 .58310

20-40 72.0000 5 8.97218 4.01248

Pair 2 20-40 72.0000 5 8.97218 4.01248

40-60 21.6000 5 7.26636 3.24962

Pair 3 40-60 21.6000 5 7.26636 3.24962

60 above 2.2000 5 1.30384 .58310

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 <20 years & 20-40 5 -.577 .308

Pair 2 20-40 & 40-60 5 -.997 .000

Pair 3 40-60 & 60 above 5 .749 .145

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 <20 years - 20-

40 67.8000 9.78264 4.3749 79.9467 -55.6532 15.497 4 .000

Pair 2 20-40 - 40-60 50.4000 16.2265 7.2567 30.2521 70.5478 6.945 4 .002

Pair 3 40-60 - 60 above 19.4000 6.34823 2.8390 11.5176 27.28237 6.833 4 .002

270

By way of such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 15.497, Pair 2‗t‘ = 6.945, Pair

3‗t‘ = 6.833. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our

problem was only interested in the upper tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2.

The p-value for Pair1 = .000/2 = .000, Pair 2 = .002/2=

.001, Pair 3= .002/2=.001. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent level of

significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for Pair 1, 2, 3 is accepted.

3. Education

Table 8.3 describes that the maximum proportion of respondents, about

74%in saluru mandal, 73% in pathapatnam mandal, 70%in Gummalakshmi

puram, 67% in seethampeta and 61% in parvathipuram mandal respondents in the

sampleasa whole part of the study illiterates.The mandal such as saluru and

pathapatanmmandals18% and 14% in parvathipuram, seethampeta 12% of

primary education, 9% pathapatnam and 5% in Gummalakshmi puram and in the

sample as a whole 15% in parvathipuram reported more than 13% pathapatnam

and Gummalakshmi purum respondents have primary education, similarly, except

parvathipuram mandal and the sample as whole reported than 10% respondents

0 20 40 60 80 100

Parvathipuram

Gummalakshmi puram

Saluru

Seethampate

Pathapatnam

60 andabove40 to 60

20 to 40

271

possess secondary education. In respect of college education only seethampeta,

Gummalakshmi puram and parvathipuram more than 10% respondents possess

college education, further, the respondents having formal education is only two

mandals and remaining three mandals is totally absent.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Education levels of Distribution

of Beneficiary Respondents in the study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.3 Education levels of Distribution of Beneficiary Respondents in the

study area

Sl.No Mandal Illiterate

Primary Secondary College Formal Total

1 Parvathipuram 61

(17.6)

14

(14.0)

15

(15.0)

07

(7.0)

03

(3.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

70

(20.2)

05

(5.0)

13

(13.0)

09

(9.0)

03

(3.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 74

(21.4)

18

(18.0)

06

(6.0)

02

(2.0)

- 100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 67

(77.3)

12

(12.0)

11

(11.0)

10

(10.0)

- 100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 73

(21.1)

09

(9.0)

13

(13.0)

05

(5.0)

- 100

(100.0)

Total 345

(69.0)

58

(11.6)

58

(11.6)

33

(6.6)

06

(1.2)

500

(100.0)

272



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 illiterate 68.2000 5 5.06952 2.26716

primary 11.6000 5 4.92950 2.20454

Pair 2 primary 11.6000 5 4.92950 2.20454

secondary 11.6000 5 3.43511 1.53623

Pair 3 secondary 11.6000 5 3.43511 1.53623

college 6.6000 5 3.20936 1.43527

Pair 4 college 6.6000 5 3.20936 1.43527

formal 2.0000 5 1.00000 .44721


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 illiterate & primary 5 -.096 .878

Pair 2 primary & secondary 5 -.602 .282

Pair 3 secondary & college 5 .594 .291

Pair 4 college & formal 5 .701 .187

Paired Samples Test


Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Illiterate -

primary 56.6000 7.40270 3.31059 47.4083 65.7916 17.09 4 .000

Pair 2 primary -

secondary .00000 7.51665 3.36155 -9.3331 9.33315 .000 4 1.000

Pair 3 secondary -

college 5.00000 3.00000 1.34164 1.27501 8.72499 3.727 4 .020

Pair 4 college -

formal 4.60000 2.60768 1.16619 1.36214 7.83786 3.944 4 .017

273

As per such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 17.09, Pair 2‗t‘ = .000, Pair

3‗t‘ = 3.727, Pair 4 t‘ = 3.944. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test.

Since our problem was only interested in the upper second tail, we can divide the

SPSS value by 2. The p-value for Pair1 = .000/2 = 000, Pair 2 = 1.000/2 = 0.5,

Pair 3 = 0.20/2 =0.1, Pair 4 = 0.17/2 =0.085. As such the sig-value is lower at 5

percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for all Pair is

accepted.

4. Caste

Table 8.4 describe that maximum proportion of respondents about 35%

belong to kondadora followed by 30.6%Bhagatha, porja(26.2%).valmiki( 8.2%)

while lowest found in others in the sample as whole. Regarding mandals,

maximum proportion of respondents in almost all mandal except salurumandal

belongs to kondadora. However, about40% of respondents in salurumandal,

37% in seethmpet, 35% in parvathiprammandal belong to kondadora, while

about 36% in pathapatnammandal, 35% in seethampet, followed 30%, 27%,

25% saluruBhagatha. A consider proportion of respondents about 30% in

parvathipuram mandal 29% in Gummalakshmipuram, 25% in saluru, 24% in

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

illiterature Primary Secondary College Formal

Parvathipuram

Gummalakshmi puram

Saluru

Seethampate

Pathapatnam

274

seethampet, and 23% followed by pathapatnam mandal .while about 10% of

respondents in saluru and pathapatnam , 9% Gummalakshipurum , 8% in

parvathipuram, and 4%in seethampetmandal belongs to valmiki.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Caste-wise of Distribution


8.3 Caste -wise Distribution of Beneficiary Respondents

Sl.No Mandal Kondadora Bhagatha Porja Valmiki Total

1 Parvathipuram 35

(35.0)

27

(27.0)

30

(30.0)

08

(8.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

32

(32.0)

30

(30.0)

29

(29.0)

09

(9.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 40

(40.0)

25

(25.0)

25

(25.0)

10

(10.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 37

(37.0)

35

(35.0)

24

(24.0)

04

(4.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 31

(31.0)

36

(36.0)

23

(23.0)

10

(10.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 175

(35.0)

153

(30.6)

131

(26.2)

41

(8.2)

500

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 < 20 years 35.0000 5 3.67423 1.64317

20-40 30.6000 5 4.82701 2.15870

Pair 2 40-60 26.2000 5 3.11448 1.39284

60 and above 8.2000 5 2.48998 1.11355


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 < 20 years & 20-40 5 -.550 .337

Pair 2 40-60 & 60 and above 5 .090 .885

275

Paired Samples Test


Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 < 20 years -

20-40 4.4000 7.50333 3.3555 4.9166 13.716 1.31 4 .260

Pair 2 40-60 - 60

and above 18.00000 3.80789 1.7029 13.271 22.728 10.570 4 .000

In place of such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 1.31, Pair 2‗t‘ = 10.570,

the p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem was only

interested in the lower tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value for

Pair1 = .260/2 = 0.13, Pair 2 =.000/2 =000. As such the sig-value is both the

above at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for Pair

1, 2 is accepted.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

pathapatnam

seethampet

saluru

G.Lpuram

parvathipuram

276

5. Occupation

It may be observed from table 8.5 that maximum proportion of

respondents about 71% in Gummalakshmi puram, 68% in parvathipuram, 67% in

saluru, 56% in seethampet and 52% in pathapatnam mandal, 62.8% of respondents

in the sample as a whole are doing cultivation and collection of Minor Forest

Produce. However, relatively proportion of respondents about 7.8% in five

mandals indicate business, while 5.8% employee in five mandal in the sample

areas, maximum number of respondents in seethampetmandal, while about 38% in

pathapatnam, 25% in seethampet, 23% saluru, 20% in parvthipuram and 15% in

Gummalakshmi puram mandals in the beneficiaries in the sample as a whole are

labour, however, the total mandals are 121% of all are labours.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Main Occupation of Distribution


H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.5 Main-Occupation Distribution of Beneficiary Respondents

Sl.

No

Mandal Business Cultivation&

M.F.P

collection

employees Labors

&

others

Total

1 Parvathipuram 08

(8.0)

68

(68.0)

04

(4.0)

20

(20.0)

100

100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

09

(9.0)

71

(71.0)

05

(5.0)

15

(15.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 04

(4.0)

67

(67.0)

06

(6.0)

23

(23.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 11

(11.0)

56

(56.0)

08

(8.0)

25

(25.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 07

(7.0)

52

(52.0)

03

(3.0)

38

(38.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 39

(7.8)

314

(62.8)

26

(5.2)

121

(24.2)

500

(100.0)

277



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Business 7.8000 5 2.58844 1.15758

MFP 62.8000 5 8.28855 3.70675

Pair 2 Employee 5.2000 5 1.92354 .86023

labor 24.2000 5 8.58487 3.83927


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Business & MFP 5 -.212 .732

pair 2 Employee & labor 5 -.336 .580

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Business -

MFP 55.000 9.19239 4.1109 66.413 43.586 13.37 4 .000

Pair 2 Employee

- labour

-

19.000 9.40744 4.2071 30.680 7.3191 4.516 4 .011

For instance such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 1.31, Pair 2‗t‘ =

10.570,. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem

was only interested in the upper tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-

value for Pair1 = .000/2 = 000, Pair 2 =.011/2 = . As such the sig-value is both the


1, 2 is accepted.

278

6. Subsidiary occupation

Table 8.6 shows that maximum proportion of respondents of about 39.4%

of forest productions in pathapatnam mandal,34.8% cultivation of the

parvathipuram mandal,6.8% of fishing in saluru mandal, 4% of respondents

hunting in Gummalakshmi puram and other private employee parvathipuram

mandal in sample as a whole subsidiary occupation.

The maximum proportions of respondents of about forest produce in five

mandals, in the sample as whole proportion respondents of pathapatnam number

of respondents in forest products. 75% in parvathipuram mandal, 95% in

Gummalakshmi puram mandal,63% in saluru,48%in seethampet and 9% of other

employee in maximum of the respondents in saluru, products in the sample as a

whole have more than the other works.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Subsidiary Occupation of

Distribution of Beneficiary Respondents in the study area

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Labors & others

employees

Cultivation& M.F.P collection

Business

279

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.6 Subsidiary occupation Distribution of Beneficiary Respondents

Sl.No Mandal Forest

product

collection

cultivation Fishing

Hunting Private

or other

employee

Total

1 Parvathipuram 25

(25.0)

45

(45.0)

03

(3.0)

11

(11.0)

16

(16.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

35

(35.0)

38

(38.0)

05

(5.0)

09

(9.0)

13

(13.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 37

(37.0)

36

(36.0)

08

(8.0)

05

(5.0)

14

(14.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 52

(52.0)

28

(28.0)

06

(6.0)

06

(6.0)

08

(8.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 48

(48.0)

27

(27.0)

12

(12.0)

04

(4.0)

09

(9.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 197

(39.4)

174

(34.8)

34

(6.8)

35

(7.0)

60

(12.0)

500

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 forest 39.4000 5 10.78425 4.82286

culivative 34.8000 5 7.46324 3.33766

Pair 2 fishing 6.8000 5 3.42053 1.52971

hunting 7.0000 5 2.91548 1.30384

Pair 3 forest 39.4000 5 10.78425 4.82286

other 12.0000 5 3.39116 1.51658


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 forest & cultivate 5 -.983 .003

Pair 2 fishing & hunting 5 -.902 .036

Pair 3 forest & other 5 -.978 .004

280

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 forest -

cultivate 4.6000 18.17416 8.1277 -17.966 27.166 .566 4 .602

Pair 2 fishing -

hunting -.20000 6.18061 2.7640 -7.8742 7.4742 -.072 4 .946

Pair 3 forest -

other 27.400 14.11737 6.3134 9.8709 44.929 4.34 4 .012

As per such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = .566, Pair 2‗t‘ = .072, Pair 3‗t‘ =

4.34, Pair. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem

was only interested in the upper and lower tail, we can divide the SPSS value by

2. The p-value for Pair1 =.602/2 = 0.301, Pair 2 = .946/2 =0.473, Pair 3 = 0.12/2

=0.06. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the

alternative hypothesis for all Pairs is accepted.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Forest product collection cultivation Fishing

Hunting Private or other employee

281

7. Labor classification work

We will test the following hypotheses about the Classification of works

Respondents in the study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.7. Classification of the work in tribal village’s respondent of the study area

Sr.no

Divisions

Classification of the labour works

( road work, house, coffee, general, and others)

Labor

work

Mandal

Daily Weekly Monthly

Yearly

Total

Road

work

Parvathipuram 56

(56.0)

26

(26.0)

13

(13.0)

5

(5.0)

100

(100.0)

House

work

Gummalakshmi

puram

68

(68.0)

22

(22.0)

8

(8.0)

2

(2.0)

100

(100.0)

Coffee

work

Saluru 78

(78.0)

16

(16.0)

4

(4.0)

2

(2.0)

100

(100.0)

General

work

Seethampeta 69

(69.0)

23

(23.0)

7

(7.0)

(11.0) 100

(100.0)

Other

works

Pathapatnam 81

(81.0)

14

(14.0)

4

(4.0)

1

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 352

(70.4)

101

(20.2)

36

(7.2)

11

(2.2)

500

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 labor work 70.4000 5 9.81326 4.38862

weekly 20.2000 5 5.01996 2.24499

Pair 2 monthly 7.2000 5 3.70135 1.65529

yearly 2.2000 5 1.64317 .73485

282


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 labor work & weekly 5 -.961 .009

Pair 2 monthly & yearly 5 .855 .065

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 labor work –

weekly 50.2000 14.70374 6.5757 31.9428 68.45 7.634 4 .002

Pair 2 monthly -

yearly 5.00000 2.44949 1.0954 1.95856 8.041 4.564 4 .010

As Such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ =7.634, Pair 2‗t‘ = 4.564. The p-


interested in the upper and lower tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-

value for Pair1 =.002/2 = 0005, Pair 2 = .010/2 = 0.05. As such the sig-value is

lower at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for all

Pairs is accepted.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

ParvathipuramGummalakshmi puramSaluru Seethampate Pathapatnam

Road work House work Coffee work General work Other works

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Yearly

283

8. Family size

Table 8.8 exhibit that maximum proportion of respondents about 26%

respondents has family size of five members followed by four members (24.4%),

six members (19.2%), three members (18.8%),and above six member 19.2%

whole lowest found is 1 member (0.2%), while lowest found is a one member

0.2% in the sample as a whole. Maximum proportion of respondents in 36% of the

seethampeta mandal, respondent‘s family 26% in parvathipuram, 28% in five

members‘ pathapatnam, six members 21% in parvathipuram mandals and 26.0% if

the respondents in the sample as a whole have more than four family members.

Overall the total quantity of the family has risen in the four family members.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Size of the family Beneficiary


H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.8 Distribution of beneficiary respondents as per size of the family in

the study area

Sl. No Mandals

1

2 3 4 5 6 6 and

above

total

1 Parvathipuram -

04

(4.0)

22

(22.0)

26

(26.0)

25

(25.0)

21

(21.0)

02

(2.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

01

(1.0)

11

(11.0)

15

(15.0)

22

(22.0)

25

(25.0)

23

(23.0)

03

(3.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru -

14

(14.0)

17

(17.0)

22

(22.0)

25

(25.0)

19

(19.0)

03

(3.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate -

12

(12.0)

16

(16.0)

36

(36.0)

19

(19.0)

18

(18.0)

01

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam -

04

(4.0)

24

(24.0)

26

(26.0)

28

(28.0)

15

(15.0)

03

(3.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 1

(0.2)

45

(9.0)

94

(18.8)

130

(26.0)

122

(24.4)

96

(19.2)

12

(2.4)

500

(100.0)

284



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 one 1.0000 1(a) . .

two 11.0000 1(a) . .

Pair 2 three 18.8000 5 3.96232 1.77200

four 26.4000 5 5.72713 2.56125

Pair 3 five 24.4000 5 3.28634 1.46969

six 19.2000 5 3.03315 1.35647

Pair 4 one 1.0000 1(a) . .

6 and above 3.0000 1(a) . .

Pair 5 six 19.2000 5 3.03315 1.35647

6 and above 2.4000 5 .89443 .40000

The correlation and t cannot be computed because the sum of case weights is less

than or equal to 1


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 2 three & four 5 -.062 .921

Pair 3 five & six 5 -.135 .828

Pair 5 six & 6 and above 5 .055 .930

Paired Samples Test


Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 2 three - four -

7.60000 7.16240 3.20312 -16.4933 1.29330 -2.373 4 .077

Pair 3 five - six 5.20000 4.76445 2.13073 -.71585 11.1158 2.440 4 .071

Pair 5 six - 6 and

above 16.8000 3.11448 1.39284 12.9328 20.6671 12.06 4 .000

285

As such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 2.373, Pair 2‗t‘ = 2.440, Pair 3‗t‘

= 12.062, Pair. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our

problem was only interested in the upper middle and lower tail, we can divide the

SPSS value by 2. The p-value for Pair 1 =.077/2 =00385, Pair 2 = .071/2 =.0.355

Pair 3 = 000/2 =000. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent level of

significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for all Pairs is accepted.

Note: The correlation not calculate of sum of case weights is less than or

equal to one.

9. Earners:

Table 8.9 portrays that maximum proportion of respondents of about 71%

in Gummalakshmi puram mandal,64 % in seethampeta mandal , and 54.4%in the

sample as a whole have two earners in their families, while 55% of respondents in

parvathipuram mandal, have one earner in family. Further, about 92 % of

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

2

3

4

5

6

6 and above

Pathapatnam -

Seethampate -

Saluru -

Gummalakshmi puram 1

Parvathipuram -

286

respondents in Gummalakshmi puram, 74% in saluru mandal, 83 % in seethampeta

mandal, 78 % in pathapatnam mandal74.4 % in the sample as a whole have more

than one earner in their families.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Earner of the family Respondents

in the study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 5.9 Earner number of family respondents in the study area

Sl. No Mandals

One

Two

Three

More

Than three

Total

1 Parvathipuram 55

(55.0)

34

(34.0)

07

(7.0)

04

(4.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

08

(8.0)

71

(71.0)

19

(19.0)

02

(2.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 26

(26.0)

62

(62.0)

10

(10.0)

02

(2.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 17

(17.0)

64

(64.0)

14

(14.0)

05

(5.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 22

(22.0)

41

(41.0)

25

(25.0)

12

(12.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 128

(25.6)

272

(54.4)

75

(15.0)

25

(5.0)

500

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 one 25.6000 5 17.75669 7.94103

two 54.4000 5 15.97811 7.14563

Pair 2 three 15.0000 5 7.17635 3.20936

more than three 5.0000 5 4.12311 1.84391


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 one & two 5 -.813 .094

Pair 2 three & more than three 5 .684 .202

287

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 one - two -28.800 32.12787 14.3680 -68.69 11.092 -2.04 4 .116

Pair 2 three - more

than three 10.0000 5.29150 2.36643 3.4297 16.570 4.226 4 .013

As such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ =-2.004, Pair 2‗t‘ = 4.226. The p-


interested in the upper and lower tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-

value for Pair1 =.116/2 = 0.058, Pair 2 = .013/2 = 0.065. As such the sig-value is

lower at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for all

Pairs is accepted.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

More Than three

Three

Two

One

288

10. Income

Table 8.10 portrays almost all the respondents are small change of earning

in the parvathipuram maximum income per annum in the respondent, 87% in

seethampet, 82% in Gummalakshmi puram, 81% in pathapatnam mandal, and

also78% in saluru mandal, that come under utterly some poverty, while only22% in

saluru, 19% in pathapatnam, 18% in Gummalakshmipururm, 13% in seethampet

and 10% in parvathipuram a whole have an income between 30,000 and 50,000 per

annum who come under below poverty line.

We will test the following hypotheses about the income distribution of


H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.10 income distribution of beneficiaries as per in the study area

No of the respondents

Sl.No Mandals

Less than

30,000

30,000 to 50, 000 per

year

Total

1 Parvathipuram 90

(90.0)

10

(10.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

82

(82.0)

18

(18.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 78

(78.0)

22

(22.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampeta 87

(87.0)

13

(13.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 81

(81.0)

19

(19.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 418

(83.6)

82

(16.4)

500

(100.0)

289


Mean N

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 <30.000 83.6000 5 4.82701 2.15870

30000 to 50000 16.4000 5 4.82701 2.15870


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 <30.000 & 30000 to

50000 5 -1.000 .000

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 <30.000 –

30000 to

50000

67.20000 9.65401 4.3174 55.212 79.187 15.56 4 .000

In place of such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ =-15.565, the standard

deviation of the value in the mean value is 1.00 the mean value4, which is

difference income level indicate. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis

test. Since our problem was only interested in the tail, we can divide the SPSS

value by 2. The p-value for 000/2 = 000. As such the sig-value is lower at 5

percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for only one Pairs

is accepted.

290

11 House holders

Table 8.11 shows demonstrates that all the maximum respondents owner

of the houses, some may be living in tenant, while, in the sample as a whole have

own houses. Number two indicate lot of houses. While, pathapatnam maximum

number of houses is living tenant in the study area.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Number of households having of


H0: μ = 0,

Ha: μ ≠ 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Less than 30,000

30,000 to 50, 000 per year

291

Table 8.11 Number of the respondents having households in the study area

No of the respondents Having house in the study area:

Sl.No Mandal Owner tenant Total

1 Parvathipuram 92

(92.0)

08

(8.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

94

(94.0)

06

(6.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 92

(92.0)

08

(8.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 82

(82.0)

18

(18.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 81

(81.0)

19

(19.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 441

(88.2)

59

(11.8)

500

(100.0)

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

owner 5 88.2000 6.18061 2.76405

tenant 5 11.8000 6.18061 2.76405

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

owner 31.910 4 .000 88.20000 80.5258 95.8742

tenant 4.269 4 .013 11.80000 4.1258 19.4742

For example such the collected value of one sample ‗test owner of the

house and 4.269 tenant, the standard deviation of the value in the mean value is

difference the mean value 60.52, which is difference income level indicate. The

292

p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem was only

interested in the tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value for owners

000/2 = 000, then tenant is 0.13/2 = 0.065. As such the sig-value is lower and

upper at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis one and

two Pairs is accepted.

12. Land cultivate

Table 8.12 describes that almost all the respondents have land assets.

Maximum proportion of respondents of about 73.6 % have land in between 2-5

acres, followed by less than 1 acre19.2%, 5 -10 acres 5.6% and above 10

acrea.1.6% in the sample as a whole maximum proportionrespondents of about

76% inparvathipuram mandal, and 74% in the sample as a whole have land

between 2-5 acres. Moreover, more than 10% of households inseethampeta

mandal and pathapatnam mandal have between 5-10 acres, similarly, about 1% of

respondents in three mandal, 3% in pathapatnam mandal 2% 3, %parvathipuram,

pathapatnam mandal have more than 10 acres land. Further, 82%of the

respondents in parvathipuram mandal, 69% in Gummalakshmi puram mandalas,

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Parvathipuram

Gummalakshmi puram

Saluru

Seethampate

Pathapatnam

12

34

5

Owner

tenant

293

83% in saluru mandal, 80% in seethampeta and 90% in pathapatnam mandal in

the sample as a whole have more than one acre.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Land cultivate of Respondents in

the study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.12 Land cultivate in agriculture of respondents in the study area.


Sl.No

Mandal

Less than

one

2-5 5-10 Above Total

1 Parvathipuram 18

(18.0)

76

(76.0)

04

(4.0)

02

(2.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

31

(31.0)

62

(62.0)

06

(6.0)

01

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 17

(17.0)

80

(80.0)

02

(2.0)

01

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 20

(20.0)

76

(76.0)

03

(3.0)

1

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 10

(10.0)

74

(74.0)

13

(13.0)

03

(3.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 96

(19.2)

368

(73.6)

28

(5.6)

08

(1.6)

500

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 < one 73.6000 5 6.84105 3.05941

two to five 19.2000 5 7.59605 3.39706

Pair 2 Five to ten 5.6000 5 4.39318 1.96469

Ten Above 1.6000 5 .89443 .40000

294


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 < one & two to five 5 -.749 .145

Pair 2 Five to ten & Ten Above 5 .840 .075

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t

d

f

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 < one - two

to five 54.400 13.50185 6.0382 37.635 71.164 9.009 4 .001

Pair 2 Five to ten -

Ten Above 4.0000 3.67423 1.6431 -.5621 8.5621 2.434 4 .072

For instance such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 9.001, Pair 2‗t‘ =

2.434,. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem

was only interested in the upper tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-

value for Pair1 = .001/2 = 005, Pair 2 =.072/2 = 0.036. As such the sig-value is

both the above at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis

for Pair 1, 2 is accepted.

295

13. Live stocks

It may be observer form table 8.13 that maximum proportion of

respondents of about 86% in parvathipuram mandal, 84% in Gumma Lakshmi

purammandal,98% in salurumandal,93% seethampeta manadal,pathapatnam

mandal 61% of the sample as whole have livestock asset.

Maximum proportion of respondents of about 23.6% have about 27

animals lo livestock followed by 2 animals 17.4%, three animal have 14.4%

four animals10.4% while the lowest have one animals in the sample area as a

whole maximum proportion of respondents of about28% in

Gummalakshmipuram, three have 28% of respondents while maximum

proportion of respondents of about 30% in seethampeta mandal, 26%

pathapatnam have more than two animals. Further, in the sample as a more than

five animals of live stocks.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Above

10-May

5-Feb

Less than one

296

We will test the following hypotheses about the Livestock of Respondents in the

study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.13 Livestock respondents’ distribution in the study area


Sl.

No

Mandal

One Two

Three

Four

Five

Above

five

Nil

Total

1 Parvathipuram 22

(22.0)

09

(9.0)

09

(9.0)

10

(10.0)

34

(34.0)

02

(2.0)

14

(14.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshm

i puram

01

(1.0)

12

(12.0)

28

(28.0)

15

(15.0)

21

(21.0)

07

(7.0)

16

(16.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 03

(3.0)

26

(26.0)

11

(11.0)

14

(14.0)

28

(28.0)

16

(16.0)

02

(2.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 01

(1.0)

14

(14.0)

12

(12.0)

09

(9.0)

30

(30.0)

27

(27.0)

07

(7.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam - 26

(26.0)

12

(12.0)

04

(4.0)

05

(5.0)

14

(14.0)

39

(39.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 27

(5.4)

87

(17.4)

72

(14.4)

52

(10.4)

118

(23.6)

66

(13.2)

78

(15.6)

500

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 one 6.7500 4 10.21029 5.10514

two 15.2500 4 7.45542 3.72771

Pair 2 three 14.4000 5 7.70065 3.44384

four 10.4000 5 4.39318 1.96469

Pair 3 five 23.6000 5 11.41490 5.10490

Above 13.2000 5 9.52365 4.25911

Pair 4 Above 13.2000 5 9.52365 4.25911

Nil 15.6000 5 14.22322 6.36082

297


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 one & two 4 -.481 .519

Pair 2 three & four 5 .526 .362

Pair 3 five & Above 5 -.034 .957

Pair 4 Above & Nil 5 -.226 .714

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 one -

two -8.50000 15.2643 7.63217 32.7889 15.78897 -1.114 3 .347

Pair 2 three -

four 4.00000 6.55744 2.93258 -4.14214 12.14214 1.364 4 .244

Pair 3 five -

Above 10.4000 15.1096 6.75722 -8.36105 29.16105 1.539 4 .199

Pair 4 Above

- Nil -2.40000 18.8228 8.41784 25.7716 20.97167 -.285 4 .790

As such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = -1.114, Pair 2‗t‘ = .1.364, Pair

3‗t‘ = 1.539, Pair 4 t‘ = -285. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test.

Since our problem was only interested in the upper tail, we can divide the SPSS

value by 2. The p-value for Pair1 = .347/2 = 0.1735, Pair 2 =.244/2 = 0.122, Pair 3

= .199/2 =0.0995 Pair 4 = .790/2 =0.395. As such the sig-value is lower, middle,

and upper are at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis

for all Pair is accepted.

298

14, Economic status

We will test the following hypotheses about the Earner of Respondents in the

study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.14 Respondents as per earners in the study area


Sl.No

Mandal

Earner Non-earner

Dependent

Others

Total

1 Parvathipuram 61

(61.0)

32

(32.0)

07

(7.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

47

(47.0)

42

(42.0)

11

(11.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 37

(37.0)

31

(31.0)

32

(32.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 48

(48.0)

41

(41.0)

11

(11.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 51

(51.0)

29

(29.0)

20

(20.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 244

(48.8)

175

(35.0)

81

(16.2)

500

(100.0)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Two Three Four Five Above five Nil

Parvathipuram 22 Gummalakshmi puram 1 Saluru 3

Seethampate 1 Pathapatnam -

299



Std. Error

Mean

Earner 5 48.8000 8.61394 3.85227

Non earner 5 35.0000 6.04152 2.70185

Dependent 5 16.2000 10.03494 4.48776

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Earner 12.668 4 .000 48.80000 38.1044 59.4956

Non earner 12.954 4 .000 35.00000 27.4985 42.5015

Dependent 3.610 4 .023 16.20000 3.7400 28.6600

As such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 12.668, Pair 2‗t‘ = .12.954, Pair

3‗t‘ = 3.610, Pair. The p-value given is for the sample 2-tailed hypothesis test.

Since our problem was only interested in the upper, middle and lower tail, we can

divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value for Pair1 =000/2 = 000, Pair 2 = 000/2

=000, Pair 3 = .023/2 =0.0115. As such the sig-value is all the respondents at 5

percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for all Pairs is

accepted.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Earner Non-earner Dependent Others

300

15 Dwelling

Table 8.15 portrays that maximum proportion of respondents of about 40% in

saluru mandal 38% in pathapatnam mandal, 37% in Gummalakshmi puram mandal

and 35% in parvathipuram in whole sample are residing in small hut roof dwellings.

Relatively lower proportion of respondent of about 21% in tailed, 22.4% living in

slabs in various five mandals, however, about 33.2% living in whole tribes of five

mandals. Small huts are maximum respondents in seethampeta mandal, and 8% of

saluru tribes living tailed in study area.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Dwelling of Respondents in the

study area

H0: μ = 0,

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.15 Dwelling of the respondents, where someone live in the dwelling place


Sl. No

Mandal

Small

hut

Tilled Thatched

Slab

Total

1 Parvathipuram 35

(35.0)

10

(10.0)

30

(30.0)

25

(25.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

29

(29.0)

21

(21.0)

37

(37.0)

13

(13.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 37

(37.0)

08

(8.0)

40

(40.0)

15

(15.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 27

(27.0)

18

(18.0)

24

(24.0)

31

(31.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 38

(38.0)

14

(14.0)

20

(20.0)

28

(28.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 166

(33.2)

71

(14.2)

151

(30.2)

112

(22.4)

500

(100.0)

301



Std. Error

Mean

Small hut 5 33.2000 4.91935 2.20000

Tailed 5 14.2000 5.40370 2.41661

Thatched 5 30.2000 8.43801 3.77359

Slab 5 22.4000 7.98749 3.57211

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Small hut 15.09 4 .000 33.20000 27.0918 39.3082

Tailed 5.876 4 .004 14.20000 7.4904 20.9096

Thatched 8.003 4 .001 30.20000 19.7228 40.6772

Slab 6.271 4 .003 22.40000 12.4822 32.3178

By way of such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 15.091, Pair 2‗t‘ = 5.876,

Pair 3‗t‘ = 8.003, Pair 4 t‘ = 6.271. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis

test. Since our problem was only interested in the all tails, we can divide the SPSS

value by 2. The p-value for Pair1 = 000/2 = 000, Pair 2 =..004/2 = 0.002 Pair 3 =

0.001/2 =0.005 Pair 4 = .003/2 =0.015. As such the sig-value is lower, middle, and

upper are at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for

all Pairs is accepted.

302

16. Size of the family

We will test the following hypotheses about the Size of the family Respondents in

the study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.16 size of the family respondents in the study area

Respondents for the study area

Sl. No

Mandal

Less than

5

5-8 8-11 Above 11

Total

1 Parvathipuram 74

(74.0)

13

(13.0)

11

(11.0)

02

(2.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

81

(81.0)

14

(14.0)

05

(5.0)

01

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 78

(78.0)

17

(17.0)

04

(4.0)

01

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 71

(71.0)

24

(24.0)

05

(5.0)

01

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 87

(87.0)

09

(9.0)

04

(4.0)

01

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 391

(78.2)

77

(15.4)

29

(5.8)

03

(0.6)

500

(100.0)

0 10 20 30 40

Slab

Thatched

Tilled

Small hut

303



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Less than 5 77.8000 5 5.76194 2.57682

Five to 8 15.2000 5 5.21536 2.33238

Pair 2 Eight to 11 5.8000 5 2.94958 1.31909

Eleven to above 1.2000 5 .44721 .20000


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Less than 5 & Five to 8 5 -.814 .094

Pair 2 Eight to 11 & Eleven to

above 5 .986 .002

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Less than 5

- Five to 8 62.600 10.4546 4.67547 49.61882 75.5811 13.389 4 .000

Pair 2 Eight to 11

- Eleven to

above

4.6000 2.50998 1.12250 1.48345 7.71655 4.098 4 .015

As such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ 13.389, Pair 2‗t‘ = 4.098,. The p-


interested in the two tails, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value for

Pair1 = .000/2 = 000, Pair 2 =.015/2 =0.075. As such the sig-value is both the


1, 2 is accepted.

304

17. Functional status

Table 8.17 exhibits that of about 10% of respondents in parvathipuram

mandal. 26% n gummalaksnmipuram, 11%in saluru 77% in seethampeta mandal

5% in pathapatnam and 25.8% in sample as a whole expressed that the functional

status of the Girijan corporation is good while 80% in pathapatnam 73% in

gumma Lakshmi puram, 79% in salurumandal 22% in seethampet mandal,91% in

pathapatnammandal and 74.2% in the sample as a whole have respondent that the

functional status of the Girijan Corporation satisfactory. However, relatively

lower proportion of respondents about two mandals 10% is parvathipuram

mandal, 4% in pathapatnam mandal in each 1% of the all the sample areas in the

study. Further, 5.2% in sample area have expressed that the functional status of

the Girijan Corporation is not satisfactory.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Functional attitude of Respondents

in the study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

305

Table 8.17 Attitude of the respondents on the functional status of the society


Sl. No

Mandal

Good

Satisfactory Not

satisfactory

Total

1 Parvathipuram 10

(10.0)

80

(80.0)

10

(10.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

26

(26.0)

73

(73.0)

01

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 11

(11.0)

79

(79.0)

10

(10.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 77

(77.0)

22

(22.0)

01

(1.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 05

(5.0)

91

(91.0)

04

(4.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 129

(25.8)

345

(69.0)

26

(5.2)

500

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Good 25.8000 5 29.67659 13.27177

Satisfy 69.0000 5 27.06474 12.10372

Pair 2 Satisfy 69.0000 5 27.06474 12.10372

Notsatisfy 5.2000 5 4.54973 2.03470


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Good & Satisfy 5 -.991 .001

Pair 2 Satisfy & Notsatisfy 5 .518 .372

Paired Samples Test


Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Good -

Satisfy

-

43.200 56.618 25.32

-

113.50 27.101 -1.706 4 .163

Pair 2 Satisfy –

Not satisfy 63.800 25.014 11.18 32.741 94.858 5.703 4 .005

306

18. Selling of Minor forest produce

Table 8.18 describes that about 20% of respondents in parvathipuram

mandal,7% in Gamma Lakshmi puram mandal,11% in saluru mandal,10% in

seethampeta mandal, 30% in pathapatnam mandal and 15.6% in the sample as

a whole faced as the problem that Girijan corporation doesn‘t come to tribals

villages for purchases of MFP, whole about 24% of respondent in

parvathipuram and 16% of the pathapatnam mandal and 15.6% in the sample

as a whole have reported about underweight regarding quantity of produces in

weighment and measurement of MFP, similarly 4% of respondents each in

parvathipuram and GummaLakshmipurampuram mandals.8% in

pathapatnam,7% in seethampeta, and 5% in saluru mandals and 5.6% in the

sample as a whole expressed of not buying the producers of MFP due to low

quality.

0102030405060708090

100

Par

vath

ipu

ram

Gu

mm

alak

shm

i pu

ram

Salu

ru

Seet

ham

pat

e

Pat

hap

atn

am

1 2 3 4 5

Good

Satisfactory

Not satisfactory

307

Relatively, lower proration of respondents about 5% in

parvathipuram, 3% of in G.L.puram mandal, 9% in seethampeta mandal, 4%

in pathaptnam 4.2% in the sample as a whole reported about Girijan

Corporation is offering lower prices to the Minor Forest Produce.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Problems facing in

selling ofMinor forest Produceof Respondents in the study area

Table 8.18 Nature of the Problems facing in selling of Minor forest produce

Nature of the Problems facing in selling of Minor forest produce

Sl.

No

Problems Parvathi

puram

G.L

Puram

Saluru Seethampeta Patha

patnam

Total

1 Society doesn‘t

come to the tribal

villages

20

(20.0)

07

(7.0)

11

(11.0)

10

(10.0)

30

(30.0)

78

(15.6)

2 Low quantity of

products in

measurement of

MFP.

24

(24.0)

12

(12.0)

08

(8.0)

18

(18.0)

16

(16.0)

78

(15.6)

3 Not buying of MFP

due to low quality

04

(4.0)

04

(4.0)

05

(5.0)

07

(7.0)

08

(8.0)

28

(5.6)

4 Offering lower

price to the MFP

05

(5.0)

03

(3.0)

-

09

(9.0)

04

(4.0)

21

(4.2)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Not buying MFP 8.0000 3 3.00000 1.73205

offer price to MFP 11.6667 3 5.68624 3.28295

Pair 2 Does t ‗come to

villages 13.2500 4 10.24288 5.12144

measure quality 6.5000 4 4.04145 2.02073

308


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Not buying MFP & offer

price to MFP 3 .264 .830

Pair 2 Doesn‘t come to villages‘

& measure quality 4 .922 .078

Paired Samples Test


d

f

Sig.

(2-

taile

d)

Mean

Std.

Deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Not buying

MFP - offer

price to MFP

-3.6666 5.68624 3.282 -17.7920 10.4587 -1.17 2 .380

Pair 2 Doesn‘t come

to village‘s -

measure quality

6.7500 6.70199 3.350 -3.91436 17.4143 2.014 3 .137

Equally such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = -1.117, Pair 2‗t‘ = 2.014, the


interested in the lower tail, upper tail .we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-

value for Pair1 = .380/2 = 0.19, Pair 2 =.137/2 =0.0685, as such the sig-value is

both the above at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis

for Pair 1, 2 is accepted.

309

19. Problems faced by the tribals

Table8.19 portrays that about 35% of respondent in parvathipuram

mandal, 17% in Gummalakshmipurammandal, 23% in saluru37% in the sample

as a whole have reported about facing problems in selling of MFP to the Girijan

corporation, while about 32% of respondents in parvathipuram mandal, 51% in

seethampeta mandal 33% in seethampeta mandal and 27% in the sample as a

whole have reported of facing problems in purchases of daily requirement of

Girijan corporation, similarly about 26% of the respondents in each

parvathipuram and saluru mandal 48% in Gummalakshmi puram, 12% in

seethampeta mandl, 7% in pathapatnam and 23.8% in the sample as a whole have

reported of facing problems in drawing loans from GCC.

Relatively lower proportion of respondents about 7% each in

parvathipuram and saluru mandals 6% in pathapatnam mandal and 16% in the

sample as a whole have reported to facing problems in other aspects from Girijan

Corporation.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Problems facing in selling of

Minor forest produce. And purchase of Daily requirements of Respondents in the

study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

310

Table 8.19 Problems faced by the respondents in the study area on GCC

Sl. No

Mandal

Selling of the

minor forest

produces

Purchase of

daily

requirements

Loans

1 Parvathipuram 35

(35.0)

32

(32.0)

26

(26.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

17

(17.0)

- 48

(48.0)

3 Saluru 23

(23.0)

44

(44.0)

26

(26.0)

4 Seethampate 37

37.0

51

(51.0)

12

(12.0)

5 Pathapatnam 54

(54.0)

33

(33.0)

7

(7.0)

Total 166

(33.2)

135

(27.0)

119

(23.8)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Sell MFP 37.2500 4 12.76388 6.38194

Purc DRs 40.0000 4 9.12871 4.56435

Pair 2 Purc DRs 40.0000 4 9.12871 4.56435

Loans 17.7500 4 9.74252 4.87126


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Sell MFP &Purc DRs 4 -.455 .545

Pair 2 Purc DRs & Loans 4 -.079 .921

311

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviatio

n

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 SellMFP –

PurcRs -2.7500 18.7683 9.3841 -32.6145 27.114 -.293 3 .789

Pair 2 PurcDRs -

Loans 22.250 13.8654 6.9327 .18702 44.312 3.20 3 .049

As such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = -293, Pair 2‗t‘ = 3.209, the p-


interested in the upper tail. We can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value for

Pair1 = .789/2 = 0.3945, Pair 2 =.049/2 =0245, as such the sig-value is both the


1, 2 is accepted.

20. Purchases of Daily Requirement

It may be observed from table 8.20 that about 12% of respondents in

parvathipuram mandal, 10% each in G.L.puram, sethampeta and pathapatnam,

15% of seethampeta mandal and 11.8% in the sample as a whole have reported of

getting low quantity of produce due to defects in weighment and measurement

systems of GCC, while about 10% of respondents each in parvathipuram and

saluru mandal, 7% I G.L. puram, 12% in seethampeta mandalas, 8% in

pathapatnam mandal and 11.2% in the sample as a whole reported about shortage

of stocks at GCC,DRs depot. Similarly about 8%of the respondents each in

parvathipuram and pathapatnam mandal,10% in G.L.puram 12% in saluru

mandal,18% in seethampeta mandal and 6.6% in the sample as a whole reported

312

that GCC Depots are located at far away distance from the villages, while about

2% of respondents in parvathipuram mandal,10% in saluru mandal, 6% in

seethampeta mandal 7% in pathapatnam mandal and 6.6% in the sample as a whole

reported of being given lower quality of produces by the Girijan Corporation.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Problems facing in the

Daily requirements ofRespondents in the study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.20 Nature of the problems faced in purchase of the daily requirement in the area

S.No problems Number of the respondents

Parvthi

puram

G.L.Puram saluru Seetham

pet

pathapatnam Total

1 Getting low

quantity of DRs

due to defects

in measurement

12

(12.0)

10

(10.0)

12

(12.0)

15

(15.0)

10

(10.0)

59

(11.8)

2 Shortage of

stocks at GCC

depot

10

(10.0)

7

(7.0)

10

(10.0)

12

(12.0)

8

(8.0)

47

(9.4)

3 GCC depot far

away from our

village

8

(8.0)

10

(10.0)

12

(12.0)

18

(18.0)

8

(8.0)

56

(11.2)

4 Given lower

quality of daily

requirements

2

(2.0)

8

(8.0)

10

(10.0)

6

(6.0)

7

(7.0)

33

(6.6)

313



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Defects 11.8000 5 2.04939 .91652

storage 9.4000 5 1.94936 .87178

Pair 2 GCCdepot 11.2000 5 4.14729 1.85472

DRsdepot 6.6000 5 2.96648 1.32665


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Defects & storage 5 .964 .008

Pair 2 GCCdepot&DRsdepot 5 .211 .733

Paired Samples Test


d

f

Sig.

(2-

tailed

)

Mean

Std.

Deviati

on

Std. Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair

1

Defects -

storage 2.40000 .54772 .24495 1.71991 3.08009 9.798 4 .001

Pair

2

GCCdepot

- DRsdepot 4.60000 4.56070 2.03961 -1.06286 10.2628 2.255 4 .087

By means of such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 9.798, Pair 2‗t‘ =

2.255, the p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem was

only interested in the upper tail. We can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value

for Pair1 = .001/2 = 0.005, Pair 2 =.087/2 =0.435, as such the sig-value is both the


1, 2 is accepted.

314

21. Loans

Table 8.21 exhibit that about 15% of the respondents in parvathipuram

mandal, 18% in G.L.puram mandal, 12% id saluru mandal, 5% in seethampeta 7%

in pathapatnam mandal and 11.4% in the sample area of whole reported of not

getting adequate loans from Girijan corporation, while about 1% of respondent in

parvathipuram mandal, 12% in G.L. puram mandal 3% in seethampeta mandal

and 3.2% in the sample as a whole expressed that Girijan corporation is granting

loans only for certain purposes.

Further, about 10% of respondents in parvathipuram mandal, 18% in

G.L.puram mandal, 14% in saluru mandal,4% in seethampeta mandal and 9.2% in

the sample as a whole shows that Girijan corporation doesn‘t grant loans in

appropriate time.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Problems facing in

purchase of daily requirement of Respondents in the study area

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

315

Table 8.21 Nature of the problems faced at purchase of daily requirement in the study area

S.No problems Number of the respondents

Parvthi

puram

G.L.Puram saluru Seethamp

eta

pathapatnam Total

1 Not getting

adequate loans

from GCC

15

(15.0)

18

(18.0)

12

(12.0)

5

(5.0)

7

(7.0)

57

(11.4)

2 GCC granting

loans only for

certain purpose

1

(1.0)

12

(12.0)

- 3

(3.0)

- 16

(3.2)

3 GCC doesn‘t

grant loan in

appropriate

time

10

(10.0)

18

(18.0)

14

(14.0)

4

(4.0)

- 46

(9.2)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Not get 12.5000 4 5.56776 2.78388

specify 5.2500 4 4.78714 2.39357

Pair 2 specify 5.2500 4 4.78714 2.39357

in time 11.5000 4 5.97216 2.98608


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Not get & specify 4 .544 .456

Pair 2 specify & intimae 4 .775 .225

316

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tail

ed)

Mean

Std.

Deviati

on

Std. Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Not get -

specify 7.25000 4.99166 2.49583 -.69284 15.1928 2.905 3

.06

2

Pair 2 specify –

In time -6.2500 3.77492 1.88746 -12.25674 -.24326 -3.311 3

.04

5

As per such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 2.905, Pair 2‗t‘ = -3.311, the



Pair1 = .062/2 = 0.031, Pair 2 =.045/2 =0.0225, as such the sig-value is both the


1, 2 is accepted.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 Not getting adequate loansfrom GCC

2 GCC granting loans only forcertain purpose

3 GCC doesn’t grant loan in appropriate time

317

22. Suggestions

Table 8.22 demonstrates that about 5% of respondents in parvathipuram

mandal, 25% in G.L.puram mandal, 10% in saluru mandal,75% in seethampeta

mandal, 3% in pathapatnam mandal and 23.6% in the sample as a whole gives

suggestions in sales of MFP,while about 80% of respondents in parvathipuram

mandal, 71% in G.L, puram mandal 83% n saluru mandal ,21% in seethampeta

92% in pathapatnam mandal and 69.4% in the sample as a whole gives

suggestions to the purchase of similarly, about 11% respondents in

parvathipuram mandal, 1% each in G.L.purum and pathapatnam mandals and

2.6D% in the sample as a whole gives suggestions in granting of loans, while

about 4% of respondents in parvathipuram and pathapatnam mandals, 3% in

G.L.puram mandals 7% in saluru mandals, and 4.4% in the sample as a whole

gives suggestion for other aspects.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Improve of the services on


H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

318

Table 8.22 Improvements of the services given by the respondents


Sl.No

Mandal

Sale of

minor

forest

produce

Purchase of

daily

requirement

Loans Others Total

1 Parvathipuram 5

(5.0)

80

(80.0)

11

(11.0)

4

4.0)

100

(100.0)

2 Gummalakshmi

puram

25

(25.0)

71

(71.0)

1

(1.0)

3

(3.0)

100

(100.0)

3 Saluru 10

(10.0)

83

(83.0)

- 7

(7.0)

100

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 75

(75.0)

21

(21.0)

- 4

(4.0)

100

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 3

(3.0)

92

(92.0)

1

(1.0)

4

(4.0)

100

(100.0)

Total 118

(23.6)

347

(69.4)

13

(2.6)

22

(4.4)

500

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Sale MFP 23.6000 5 29.99667 13.4149

Purc DRs 69.4000 5 28.07668 12.5562

Pair 2 Loans 4.3333 3 5.77350 3.33333

Others 3.6667 3 .57735 .33333


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Sale MFP &Purc

DRs 5 -.989 .001

Pair 2 Loans & Others 3 .500 .667

319

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Sale MFP –

Purc DRs -45.8000 57.91977 25.9025 -117.7169 26.116 -1.768 4 .152

Pair 2 Loans -

Others .66667 5.50757 3.17980 -13.01490 14.348 .210 2 .853

For instance such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = -1.768, Pair 2‗t‘ = .210,

the p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem was only


Pair1 = .152/2 = 0.076, Pair 2 =.853/2 =0.4265, as such the sig-value is both the


1, 2 is accepted.

320

Section II

ATTITUDE OF THE NON-BENEFICIARIES ON THE GCC IN THE STUDY AREA

23.Socio-economic, personal characteristic of respondents

1.Sex it may be observed from table 8.23 that maximum proportion of

respondents about 92% in parvathipuram mandal, 82% in Gumma Lakshmi

puram mandal, 86% in saluru mandal, 88% in seethampeta mandal, 84% in

pathapatnam in the sample as a whole are male and remaining respondents are

female.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Sex wise Distribution of non-Beneficiary

Respondents in the study area;

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.23 Distribution of non-beneficiaries as per sex-wise

Sl. No Mandala Male Female Total

1 Parvathipuram 46

(92.0)

4

(8.0)

50

(100.0)

2 Gumma Lakshmi puram 41

(82.0)

9

(18.0)

50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 43

(86.0)

7

(14.0)

50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 44

(88.0)

6

(12.0)

50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 42

(84.0)

8

(16.0)

50

(100.0)

Total 216

(86.4)

34

(13.6)

250

(100.0)

321



Std. Error

Mean

Male 5 43.2000 1.92354 .86023

Female 5 6.8000 1.92354 .86023

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Male 50.219 4 .000 43.20000 40.8116 45.5884

Female 7.905 4 .001 6.80000 4.4116 9.1884

As such the collected value of male‘s‘ = 50.219, female‘s‘ = 7.905. The p-


interested in the upper tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2.The p-value for

male = .000/2 = .000, female p = .001/2= 0.005. As such the sig-value is lower at

5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for male and

female is accepted.

322

24. Age

Table 8.24 demonstrates that maximum proportion of respondents of about 66%

each in parvathipuram and Gumma lakshmipuram mandals, 82% in saluru

mandals, 86% in seeethampet mandal, 74% in pathapatnam mandal and 74.8% in

the sample are aged in between 19 to 45 years, followed by 46 to 60 years age

group, while lowest proportion of respondents age is above 60 years.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Age-group Distribution of non-

Beneficiary Respondents in the study area;

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

1 7%

2 -14%

3 6%

4 -13%

5 7%

6 -13%

7 7%

8 -14%

9 6% 10

-13%

Sex-wise Distribution of respondents

323

Table 8.24 Distribution of non- beneficiaries respondents per age group

Sl. No Mandala Less

than18

19-45 46-60 Above

60

Total

1 Parvathipuram - 33

(66.0)

15

(30.0)

2

(4.0)

50

(100.0)

2 Gumma Lakshmi

puram

- 33

(66.0)

13

(26.0)

4

(8.0)

50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 41

(82.0)

7

(14.0)

2

(4.0)

50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate - 43

(86.0)

5

(10.0)

2

(4.0)

50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam - 37

(74.0)

7

(14.0)

6

(12.0)

50

(100.0)

Total - 187

(74.8)

47

(18.8)

16

(6.4)

250

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 less than one . 0(a) . .

19 to 45 . 0(a) . .

Pair 2 46 to 60 9.4000 5 4.33590 1.93907

60 and above 3.2000 5 1.78885 .80000

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed

)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair

2

46 to 60 - 60

and above 6.2000 4.81664 2.1540 .21935 12.18065 2.87 4 .045

324

The standard deviation is indicate that, as such the collected value of Pair

2‗t‘ = 2.878. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our

problem was only interested in the upper tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2.

The p-value for Pair 2 =0.045/2=0.225. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent

level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for Pair 2 is accepted.

There is no significant mean different pair 1 value point of the level of age group

with the study area.

25. Caste

Table 8.25 exhibits that maximum proportion of respondents of about 24.2%

belongs to porja caste followed by kondadora and kotiya 20% each and bhagatha

19.6%, while lowest are found in valmiki caste 18% in the same sample as a

whole. In respect of mandals, maximum proportion of respondents of about 30%

belongs to kondadora, bhagatha 30% in seethampeta mandalporja 30% in

pathapatnammandal, valmiki 24% in salurumandal and kotiya 34% in

pathapatnam among castes. Relatively higher proportion of respondents being to

kondadora are found in parvathipuram and Gummalakshmipurammandal, while

bhagatha in G.L. purammandal , porja in almost all mandals, valmiki in

G.L.puram and seethampeta mandal and kotiya in parvathipuram mandal among

caste.

325


Mandal kondadora Bhagatha Porja valmiki kotiya Total

Parvathipuram 10

(20.0)

8

(16.0)

12

(24.0)

8

(16.0)

12

(24.0)

50

(100.0)

G.L.puram 15

(30.00

10

(20.0)

7

(14.0)

10

(20.0)

8

(16.0)

50

(100.0)

Saluru 12

(24.0)

8

(16.0)

10

(20.0)

12

(24.0)

8

(16.0)

50

(100.0)

Seethampate 8

(16.0)

15

(30.0)

12

(24.0)

10

(20.0)

5

(10.0)

50

(100.0)

Pathapatnam 5

(10.0)

8

(16.0)

15

(30.0)

5

(10.0)

17

(34.0)

50

(100.0)

Total 50

(20.0)

49

(19.6)

56

(22.4)

45

(18.0)

50

(20.0)

250

(100.0)

We will test the following hypotheses about the caste wise Distribution of non-


H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0



Std. Error

Mean

Kondadora 5 10.0000 3.80789 1.70294

Bhagatha 5 9.8000 3.03315 1.35647

Porja 5 11.2000 2.94958 1.31909

Valmiki 5 9.0000 2.64575 1.18322

Kotva 5 10.0000 4.63681 2.07364

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Kondadora 5.872 4 .004 10.00000 5.2719 14.7281

Bhagatha 7.225 4 .002 9.80000 6.0338 13.5662

Porja 8.491 4 .001 11.20000 7.5376 14.8624

Valmiki 7.606 4 .002 9.00000 5.7149 12.2851

Kotva 4.822 4 .009 10.00000 4.2426 15.7574

326

As such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 5.872, Pair 2‗t‘ = 7.225, Pair 3‗t‘ =

8.491, pair 4 t‘ value=7.606 pair 5t‘ value 4.822. The p-value given is for the 2-

tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem was only interested in the upper tail, we

can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value for Pairs one to five is pair1 = .004/2

= .000, Pair2 = .002/2= .0.055, Pair 3= .001/2=.0.0005,pair 4= .002/2=0.055,pair 5

is 0.009/2=0.0045. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent level of

significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for Pair 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is accepted.

26.Educations

Table 8.26 portrays that maximum proportion of respondents of about 78% in

parvathipuram mandl, 74% in G.L puram mandal, 78% in saluru mandal, 80% in

seethampeta mandal and also 70% in pathapatnam mandal and 76% of the sample

area as a whole are illiterates. Regarding respondents having literacy, maximum

proportion of respondents of about 8% each in parvathipurammandals. 16% in

G.L.Puram mandal have primary education among mandals. Further, the 6% of

respondents each in pathapatnam mandal and 6.4% in the sample as a whole have

collection.

327

Sl.No Mandal illiterate Primary Secondary College Formal Total

1 Parvathipuram 39

(78.0)

4

(8.0)

4

(8.0)

3

(6.0)

- 50

(100.0)

2 G.L.puram 37

(74.0)

8

(16.0)

2

(4.0)

3

(6.0)

- 50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 39

(78.0)

3

(6.0)

6

(12.0)

2

(4.0)

- 50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 40

(80.0)

3

(6.0)

4

(8.0)

3

(6.0)

- 50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 35

(70.0)

2

(4.0)

8

(16.0)

5

(10.0)

- 50

(100.0)

Total 190

(76.0)

20

(8.0)

24

(9.6)

16

(6.4)

- 250

(100.0)

We will test the following hypotheses about the Education wise Distribution of

non-Beneficiary Respondents in the study area;

H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Illiterate 38.0000 5 2.00000 .89443

Primary 4.0000 5 2.34521 1.04881

Pair 2 Primary 4.0000 5 2.34521 1.04881

Secondary 4.8000 5 2.28035 1.01980

Pair 3 Secondary 4.8000 5 2.28035 1.01980

College 3.2000 5 1.09545 .48990

Pair 4 College . 0(a) . .

Formal . 0(a) . .


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Illiterate& Primary 5 -.053 .932

Pair 2 Primary & Secondary 5 -.841 .074

Pair 3 Secondary & College 5 .520 .369

328

Paired Samples Test


Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Illiterate -

Primary 34.000 3.16228 1.4142 30.073 37.926 24.042 4 .000

Pair 2 Primary -

Secondary -.8000 4.43847 1.9849 -6.311 4.7110 -.403 4 .708

Pair 3 Secondary -

College 1.6000 1.94936 .87178 -.8204 4.0204 1.835 4 .140

For example such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 24.042, Pair 2‗t‘ =

.403, Pair 3‗t‘ = 1.835. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since

our problem was only interested in the upper tail, we can divide the SPSS value by

2. The p-value for Pair1 = .000/2 = .000, Pair 2 = .708/2= .354, Pair 3=

.140/2=0.07. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent level of significance.

Hence the alternative hypothesis for Pair 1, 2, 3 is accepted.

27.Occupations

Table 8.27demonstrates that maximum proportion of respondents of about 98%

each in percent in parvathipuram, seethampeta and pathapatnam mandals, 100% in

each G.L. puram and saluru mandals and 98.8% in the sample area whole

occupation is cultivation and MFP collection. Relatively, lower proportion of

respondents about 2% in parvathipuram and seethampeta mandal of respondents

in parvathipuram mandal islabour.

We will test the following hypotheses about the occupation of non-Beneficiary


H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

329

Table 8.27 Occupation of the respondents on non-beneficiaries in the study area.

Sl.

No

Mandal Business Cultivation&

M.F.P

collection

employees Labors

&

others

Total

1 Parvathipuram 49

(98.0)

1

(2.0)

50

(100.0)

2 G.L.puram 50

(100.0)

- 50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 50

(100.0)

- 50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 49

(98.0)

1

(2.0)

50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 49

(98.0)

- 1

(2.0)

50

(100.0)

Total 247

(98.8)

2

(0.8)

1

(0.4)

250

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Cultivate 5 49.4000 .54772 .24495

Employ 2 1.0000 .00000(a) .00000

Lobour 1(b) 1.0000 . .

a t cannot be computed because the standard deviation is 0.

b t cannot be computed because the sum of caseweights is less than or equal 1.

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Cultivate 201.675 4 .000 49.40000 48.7199 50.0801

In place of such the collected value of the pairs and the p-value given is for

the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem was only interested in the all cases,

we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value for can‘t define. As such the sig-

330

value is lower at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis

is accepted.

28. Family size

Table8.28 demonstrates that maximum proportion of respondents about

25.6% have a family size of 4 members followed by 6 persons21.6% 3 person

19.6% 5persons 18.8% and 2 persons 12.8% , while lowest found in 1 person and

above 6 person 0.8% each in the sample as whole. Regarding mandals, maximum

proporation of respondents f about 26% in parvathipuram mandal.,32% in

seethampeta mandal family size is 4 persons , 3 persons in pathapatnam mandal

24% , 5persons 28% in G.L.puram mandal and 6 person in saluru mandal 38%

among mandals. Furthers, about 28% in parvthiputam ,40% inG.L.puram

mandal60% in saluru mandal, 40% in seethampeta mandal 38% in pathapatnam

mandal and 41.21% in the sample as a whole have more than 4 persons

We will test the following hypotheses about the Family wise Distribution of non-


H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

331

Table 8.28Family-wise non-beneficiaries of respondents in the study area.

Sl. No

Mandals

1 2 3 4 5 6 Above

6

total

1 Parvathipuram 1

(2.0)

10

(20.0)

13

(26.0)

12

(24.0)

7

(14.0)

7

(14.0)

50

(100.)

2 G.L.puram 1

(2.0)

7

(14.0)

12

(24.0)

10

(20.0)

14

928.0)

6

(12.0)

50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 1

(2.0)

12

(24.0)

7

(14.0)

11

(22.0)

19

(38.0)

50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 6

(12.0)

16

(32.0)

8

(16.0)

7

(14.0)

11

(22.0)

2

(4.0)

50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 8

(16.0)

11

(22.0)

12

(24.0)

8

(16.0)

11

(22.0)

50

(100.0)

Total 2

(0.8)

32

(12.8)

64

(19.6)

49

(25.6)

47

(18.8)

54

(21.6)

2

(0.8)

250

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 one 1.0000 2 .00000 .00000

Two 8.5000 2 2.12132 1.50000

Pair 2 Three 12.8000 5 1.92354 .86023

Four 9.8000 5 2.28035 1.01980

Pair 3 Five 9.7500 4 3.40343 1.70171

Six 10.7500 4 5.90903 2.95452


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 one & Two 2 . .

Pair 2 Three & Four 5 -.410 .493

Pair 3 Five & Six 4 -.004 .996

332

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair

1

one -

Two -7.5000 2.12132 1.5000 -26.55 11.559 -5.000 1 .126

Pair

2

Three -

Four 3.00000 3.53553 1.5811 -1.389 7.3899 1.897 4 .131

Pair

3

Five -

Six -1.0000 6.83130 3.4156 -11.87 9.8701 -.293 3 .789

For instance such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = -5.000, Pair 2‗t‘ =

1.897, Pair 3‗t‘ = -293. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since

our problem was only interested in the lower tail, we can divide the SPSS value by

2. The p-value for Pair1 = .126/2 = .0.063, Pair 2 = .131/2= .050, Pair 3=

.789/2=.394. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent level of significance.

Hence the alternative hypothesis for Pair 1, 2, 3 is accepted.

29. Earners

Table 8.29portrays that maximum proportion of the respondents of about 48.4%

have earner only one followed by 2 earner 40.8% 3earners 6.4% and more than 3

earner4.4% in the sample as a whole, in respect of mandals, maximum proportion

of respondents of about 100% in pathapatnam mandal have 80% in seethampeta

mandal and 50% in parvathipuram mandal have seven earner while more than

three earner 78% in G.L.puram mandal and 2 earner saluru mandal have2 earner

among mandals. Further, about 20% seethampeta mandal and 50% in

parvathipuram 98% in G.L.puram 51.6% in the sample as a whole have more than

on earner.

333

We will test the following hypotheses about the Earner of non-Beneficiary


H0: μ = 0

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.29 portrays that maximum proportion of the respondents

Sl.No Mandals

One

Two

Three

MoreThan

three

Total

1 Parvathipuram 25

(50.0)

18

(36.0)

- 7

(14.0)

50

(100.0)

2 G.L.puram 2

(4.0)

39

(78.0)

9

(18.0)

- 50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 4

(8.0)

36

(72.0)

7

(14.0)

3

(6.0)

50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 40

(80.0)

9

(18.0)

- 1

(2.0)

50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 50

(100.0)

-

- - 50

(100.0)

Total 121

(48.4)

102

(40.8)

16

(6.4)

11

(4.4)

250

(100.0)



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 one 24.2000 5 21.31197 9.53100

two 20.4000 5 16.89083 7.55381

Pair 2 three 3.2000 5 4.43847 1.98494

morethan 2.2000 5 2.94958 1.31909


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 one & two 5 -.998 .000

Pair 2 three &morethan 5 -.271 .659

334

Paired Samples Test


Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviatio

n

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 one - two 3.8000 38.17984 17.074 -43.60 51.206 .223 4 .835

Pair 2 three -

more than 1.0000 5.95819 2.6645 -6.398 8.3987 .375 4 .726

As per such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = .223, Pair 2‗t‘ = .375. The p-


interested in the upper tail and lower tail we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The

p-value for Pair1 = .835/2 = .0.4175, Pair 2 = .726/2=0.363. As such the sig-value

is lower at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for

Pair 1, 2, is accepted.

30.Income

Table 8.30 exhibit that maximum proportion of respondents about 100% each in

seethampeta mandal and 98% each in G.L.puram,saluru mandal parvathipuram

and pathapatnam 44% in the sample as a whole 94.4% have an income of less

than30.000 per Annum and the rest of the households income is in between

Rs.30.000 to 50.000 rupees.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Income of non-Beneficiary


H0: μ = 0,

Ha: μ ≠ 0

335

Table 8.30 Income exhibit that maximum proportion of respondents


Sl.No Mandals

Less than

30,000

30,000 to 50,

000 per year

Total

1 Parvathipuram 44

(88.0)

6

(12.0)

50

(100.0)

2 G.L.puram 49

(98.0)

1

(2.0)

50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 49

(98.0)

1

(2.0)

50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 50

(100.0)

- 50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 44

(88.0)

6

(12.0)

50

(100.0)

Total 236

(94.4)

14

(5.6)

250

(100.0)


Mean N

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Less than 30,000 47.2000 5 2.94958 1.31909

Above 30,000 2.8000 5 2.94958 1.31909


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Less than 30,000 &

Above 30,000 5 .000 -1.000

Paired Samples Test


Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviatio

n

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Less than

30,000 -

Above

30,000

44.400 5.89915 2.6381 37.075 51.724 16.83 4 .000

336

By way of such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 16.830. The p-value

given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem was only interested in

the lower tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value for Pair1 = .000/2

= .000. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the

alternative hypothesis for Pair 1is accepted. Because the pair one data is not given

the real value of the income earned.

31.House assets

Table 8.31describes that almost all the respondents except pathapatnam mandal

have own house and the rest of the respondents reside in rented houses.

We will test the following hypotheses about the House assets of non-Beneficiary


H0: μ = 0,

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.31describes the house assets of the respodents


Sl.No Mandal Owner tenant Total

1 Parvathipuram 50

(100.0)

- 50

(100.0)

2 G.L.puram 50

(100.0)

- 50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 50

(100.0)

- 50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 50

(100.0)

- 50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 35

(70.0)

15

(30.0)

50

(100.0)

Total 235

(94.00)

15

(6.0)

250

(100.0)

337



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Owner 47.0000 5 6.70820 3.00000

Tenant 3.0000 5 6.70820 3.00000


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Owner & Tenant 5 -1.000 .000

Paired Samples Test


d

f

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviatio

n

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Owner -

Tenant 44.00000 13.41641 6.0000 27.341 60.658 7.333 4 .002

Equally such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 7.333. The p-value given is

for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem was only interested in the only

one tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value for Pair1 = .002/2 =

.001. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the

alternative hypothesis for Pair 1 is accepted.

32.Land Size

Table 8.32 exhibit that maximum proportion of respondents of about 80% have

land in between 2 to 5 acres followed by 5 to 10 acres and less than one acre6.8%

while lower proportion of respondents have above ten acres in the sample as a

whole. In respect of mandals maximum proportion of respondents of about 72% in

338

parvathipuram mandal 82% in G.L.puram and saluru mandal 84% in seethampeta

mandal in the sample as awhole have land inbetween 2 to 5 acres. Further, 26% of

respondents in parvathipuram mandal, 10% in G.L.puram 12% each in saluru and

seethampeta mandal 6% in pathapatnam mandal and 13.2% in the sample as a

whole have more than 5 acres.

We will test the following hypotheses about the land having of non-Beneficiary


H0: μ = 0,

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.32 Land size exhibit that maximum proportion of respondents


Sl.No

Mandal

Less than

one

2-5 5-10 Above10 Total

1 Parvathipuram 1

(2.0)

36

(72.0)

- 13

(26.0)

50

(100.0)

2 G.L.puram 4

(8.0)

41

(82.0)

2

(4.0)

3

(6.0)

50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 3

(6.0)

41

(82.0)

6

(12.0)

- 50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 2

(4.0)

42

(84.0)

6

(12.0)

- 50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 7

(14.0)

40

(80.0)

3

(6.0)

- 50

(100.0)

Total 17

(6.8)

200

(80.0)

17

96.8)

16

(6.4)

250

(100.0)

339


Mean N

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 less than one 3.4000 5 2.30217 1.02956

two to five 40.0000 5 2.34521 1.04881

Pair 2 five to ten 3.4000 5 2.60768 1.16619

above ten 3.2000 5 5.63028 2.51794


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 less than one & two to five 5 .324 .595

Pair 2 five to ten & above ten 5 -.824 .086

Paired Samples Test


Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lowe

r Upper

Pair 1 less than one

- two to five

-

36.60 2.70185 1.208 -39.95 -33.24

-

30.29 4 .000

Pair 2 five to ten -

above ten .2000 7.91833 3.541 -9.63 10.03 .056 4 .958

In place ofthe collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = -3029, Pair 2‗t‘ = .056. The p-


interested in the upper tail and lower tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The

p-value for Pair1 = .000/2 = .000, Pair 2 = .958/2= 0.475. As such the sig-value is

lower at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for Pair 1

and 2 is accepted.

340

33. Amenities

Table 8.33 exhibit that maximum proportion of respondents about 94% in

parvathipuram mandal, 96% in G.L.puram mandal 62% in saluru mandal, 50% in

seethampeta mandal, 98% in pathapatnam and 80% in the sample as a whole are

residing in tailed roof dwellings. The remaining households except in G.L.puram

mandal are residing in thatched roof dwelling. Relatively lower proportion of

respondents of about 2% each in G.L.puram and pathapatnam mandals and 0.8%

in the sample as a whole are residing in the slab roofed dwellings.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Amenities of non-Beneficiary


H0: μ = 0,

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Sl. No Mandal Thatched Tilled Slab Total

1 Parvathipuram 3

(6.0)

47

(94.0)

50

(100.0)

2 G.L.puram 1

(2.0)

48

(96.0)

1

(2.0)

50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 19

(38.0)

31

(62.0)

50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 25

(50.0)

25

(50.0)

50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam - 49

(98.0)

1

(2.0)

50

(100.0)

Total 48

(19.2)

200

(80.0)

2

(0.8)

250

(100.00



Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Tached 9.6000 5 11.56719 5.17301

Tailed 40.0000 5 11.18034 5.00000

Pair 2 Tailed 40.0000 5 11.18034 5.00000

slab .4000 5 .54772 .24495

341


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Tached& Tailed 5 -.999 .000

Pair 2 Tailed & slab 5 .694 .194

Paired Samples Test


Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviatio

n

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Tached -

Tailed -30.40 22.74423 10.171 -58.64 -2.159 -2.989 4 .040

Pair 2 Tailed -

slab 39.600 10.80740 4.8332 26.180 53.019 8.193 4 .001

In position of the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = -2.989, Pair 2‗t‘ = 8.193.

The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our problem was only

interested in the upper tail and lower tail, we can divide the SPSS value by 2. The

p-value for Pair1 = .040/2 = 0.02, Pair 2 = .001/2= 0.05. As such the sig-value is

lower at 5 percent level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for Pair 1

and 2 is accepted.

34.Facility

Table 8.34 demonstrate that about 60% of respondents in parvathipuram mandal,

50% in G.L.puram mandal, 58% in salurumandal70% in seethampeta mandal 62%

in pathapatnam, and 60% in the sample as a whole have electricity connection for

their dwellings, while about 60% maximum of the respondents in seethampeta

mandal, minimum of the respondents having toilets parvathipram to pathapatnam,

342

overall 30% of the respondents in the sample as a whole have toilets. The bath

room facility is total maximum respondent 8% of the respondent in parvathipuram

all most in the sample as a 6.0% of the respondents.in all the ways. Regarding the

motor vehicle respondents in three mandalas out of fivemandals, having motor

cycle and also having TVand radiofacility, while about 1.2% of respondents in

parvathipuram and saluru mandal.

We will test the following hypotheses about the Facilities of non-Beneficiary


H0: μ = 0,

Ha: μ ≠ 0

Table 8.34 demonstrate of the facility having in the study


Sl.

No

Mandal

Having

Electricity

Having

Toilets

bathroom Cycle

Motor

T.V,

Radio,

1 Parvathipuram 30

(60.0)

16

(32.0)

8

(16.0)

3

(6.0)

2

(4.0)

2 G.L.puram 25

(50.0)

11

(22.00

2

(4.0)

2

(4.0)

-

3 Saluru 29

(58.0)

13.

(26.0)

4

(8.0)

2

(4.0)

1

(2.0)

4 Seethampate 35

(70.00

30

(60.0)

1

(2.0)

- -

5 Pathapatnam 31

(62.0)

5

(10.0)

(10.0)

- - -

Total 150

(60.0)

75

(30.0)

15

(6.0)

7

(2.8)

3

(1.2)

343


Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Electricity 30.0000 5 3.60555 1.61245

Toilets 15.0000 5 9.30054 4.15933

Pair 2 Bathrooms 3.0000 5 3.16228 1.41421

cycle.motor 2.0000 5 1.58114 .70711

Pair 3 Electricity 30.0000 5 3.60555 1.61245

T.V.Radio .6000 5 .89443 .40000


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Electricity & Toilets 5 .649 .236

Pair 2 Bathrooms &cycle.motor 5 .750 .144

Pair 3 Electricity &T.V.Radio 5 -.078 .901

Paired Samples Test


Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Std.

Deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of

the

Difference

Lowe

r

Uppe

r

Pair 1 Electricity -

Toilets 15.00 7.48331 3.346 5.708 24.29 4.482 4 .011

Pair 2 Bathrooms -

cycle.motor 1.000 2.23607 1.000 -1.77 3.776 1.000 4 .374

Pair 3 Electricity -

T.V.Radio 29.40 3.78153 1.691 24.70 34.09 17.38 4 .000

By way of such the collected value of Pair 1‗t‘ = 4.482, Pair 2‗t‘ = 1.000,

Pair 3‗t‘ = 17.385. The p-value given is for the 2-tailed hypothesis test. Since our

problem was only interested in the upper tail, middle tail and lower tail, we can

divide the SPSS value by 2. The p-value for Pair1 = .011/2 = .055, Pair 2 =

344

.374/2=.0.187, Pair 3= .000/2=.000. As such the sig-value is lower at 5 percent

level of significance. Hence the alternative hypothesis for Pair 1, 2, 3 is accepted.

35. Selling of MFP

Table 8.35 it may be observed from the table about 6% of the respondents

in G.L.puram mandal, 10% each in saluru and seethampeta mandal, 8%in

pathapatnam mandal and 6.8% in in the sample as awhole are not able to sell MFP

to GCC not making purchases in their own villages, while about 4% of

respondents in G.L.puram mandal, 8% in saluru mandal,10% in seethampeta

mandal, 6% in pathapatnam and 5.6% in the sample as a whole doesn‘t sell their

MFP. Similarly, 10% of respondents each in saluru and seethampeta mandal, 8%

in pathapatnam mandal and 5.6% in the sample as whole villages purchasing point

located far away from their villages, while about 4% of the respondents in

G.L.puram mandal,1% each saluru and seethampeta mandal 8% in pathapatnam

mandal and 6.4% in the sample as a whole are not able to sell their MFP to GCC

offers lower prices than private traders. The rest of the respondents are not

reported any reason.

Table 8.35 Selling of Minor Forest Produce no of the respondents

Sl.

No

problems

parvathip

uram

G.L.

puram

saluru Seetham

peta

Patha

patnam

Total

1 GCCdoes‘t making

purchase in the own

village

- 3

(6.0)

5

(10.0)

5

(10.0)

4

(8.0)

17

(6.8)

2 GCCdoes‘t dealing on

barter stems by DRs to

MFP

- 2

(4.0)

4

(8.0)

5

(10.0)

3

(6.0)

14

(5.6)

3 GCC purchase point

far away from village

- - 5

(10.0)

5

(10.0)

4

(8.0)

14

(5.6)

4 GCC offer lower price

than private traders

- 2

(4.0)

5

(10.0)

5

(10.0)

4

(8.0)

16

(6.4)

345

36.Purchase

Table 8.36 describe that about 24% of the respondents each in

parvathipuram andpathapatanmmandals,40% in G.L.puram mandal,26% in saluru

mandal,20% in seethampeta and 26.8% in the sample as a whole reported they are

not able to purchase DRs due to GCC DR depots being located at a

farawaydistance from their village, while about 16% parvathipuram,pathapatanam

and seethampeta mandals 20% in G.L.puram mandal, 18% in saluru mandal and

17.2% in the sample as a whole are not able to purchase DRs because GCC

doesn‘t supply DRs on credit basis and about 16%of respondents in

parvathipuram mandal, each 18% in G.L.puram and pathapatnam mandals, 20% in

seethampeta ,14% in saluru mandal and 17.2%in the sample as a whole reported

that GCC doesn‘t supply DRson barter system. The reaming respondents are not

reporting of any reason.

Table 8.36Purchase of Domestic Requirement no of the respondents

Sl.

No

problems

parvathip

uram

G.L.

puram

saluru Seetham

peta

Patha

patna

m

Total

1 DR depots are far away

from village

12

(24.0)

20

(40.0)

13

(26.0)

10

(20.0)

12

(24.0)

67

(26.8)

2 GCCdoes‘t supply of

DRs on credit basis

8

(16.0)

10

(20.0)

9

(18.0)

8

(16.0)

8

(16.0)

43

(17.2)

3 GCCdoes‘t supply of

DRs on Barter system

8

(16.0)

9

(18.0)

7

(14.0)

10

(20.0)

9

(18.0)

43

(17.2)

37. Loans

Table 8.37demonstrates that about 16% of the respondents in

parvathipuram mandal,2% each in saluru and seethampeta mandals,4% in

pathapatnam mandal and 4.8% in sample as a whole are not able to take owns

346

from GCC due to lack of awareness regarding loan facilities provided by GC,

while about 20% of respondents in parvathipuram mandal 6% in G.L.puram

mandal ,2% in each respondents saluru and seethampeta mandals4% in

pathapatnam mandal and 6.8% in the sample as a whole reported that GCC

doesn‘t grant loans in appropriate crop seasons and about 8% of respondent in

parvathipuram mandal, seethampeta 1% of the respondents and 20% in faraway,

2% in pathapatnam mandal and 2% in the sample as a whole expressed GCC

grants loans for certain purpose. The remaining respondents did not express any

option in this regard.

Table 8.37 problems faced by the non-beneficiaries the respondents

Sl.

No

problems

parvathip

uram

G.L.

puram

saluru Seetha

m

peta

Patha

patnam

Tota

l

1 GCCdoes‘t making

purchase in the own

village

8 5 0 11 0 24

2 GCCdoes‘t dealing on

barter stems by DRs to

MFP

10 14 0 0 2 26

3 GCC purchase point

far away from village

10 12 0 20 0 42

38. Awareness

Table 8.38 awareness of the respondents all most all the mandasl have awareness

on the services of GCC.

347

Table8.38 Awareness of the GCC services for the non-beneficiaries respondents


Sl.No

Mandal

Yes No Total

1 Parvathipuram 50 - 50

(100.0)

2 G.L.puram 50 - 50

(100.0)

3 Saluru 50 - 50

(100.0)

4 Seethampate 50 - 50

(100.0)

5 Pathapatnam 50 - 50

(100.0)

Total 250 - 250

(100.0)

348

Findings and suggestions

Effective functional strategies of Girijan Corporation in the study area

The discussion in the earlier chapters indicates that there are wide

fluctuations reported in the coverage and activates of the GCC, Particularly in the

Purchases and Sales of MFP, loans disbursement and purchases and sales of DRs

over the period. Besides this, the beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries survey and

institutional survey results are also envisage that several problems and

deficiencies exist in organizational, functional activity, marketing and

infrastructural aspects of reorganization. Apart from this, the respondents of

various surveys had given suggestions for the improvement of the functional

status of the organization, in the above mentioned aspects. Keeping the above

aspects under consideration, an attempt is made in this chapter; the study

formulated several strategies in various spheres for the effective functioning of the

organization at grass root levels. The details of the study are following

Functional Coverage of activities in the Corporation

1. The study imagines that the existing numbers of GCC depots are

inadequate and not able to cover all the tribal villages. Hence, the study

suggested that the GCC should start their depots for every 500 population

or for every 5 villages with in a distance of 5 kms. This kind of network of

GCC depots should cover every village in the study area.

2. Strategies for the fixing of minimum supportive price. The study traced out

very wide price fluctuations exists in the purchases of MFP from the

tribals by GCC as well as by private traders. As a result, the tribals are not

able to get even minimum prices for the produces. At this function, the

study suggested to fix minimum supportive price t the MFP of the tribals

349

in the manner of regulated marketing and rhythu bazar systems. The fixed

price should adopt by the private traders also, this kind of price fixing

system is helped to get reasonable prices for their produce.

3. Strategies for the introduction of digital weighment equipment, is

contributed for low quantity of the produces and much error is reported in

this equipment. Hence, the study suggested to introduce digital weighment

equipment is every GCC depot.

4. Strategies for the mitigation of variations n the offering prices of MFP

between private traders and GCC, frequently, the prices offering by GCC

to MFP produces is relatively lower contrast to the prices offered by

private traders as a result, the majority of the tribals sell their products to

the private traders. Hence, the study suggested that the minimum price

ixation should be equal to the MFP products offering prices of the traders.

5. Strategies for the distribution of the loans for the MFP collectors, the result

of the survey and several research students expressed that the private

traders in tribal areas given advances against the MFP produces collected

by the tribals in almost all the villages. Intern majority of the tribals are

come to the clusterof the private traders. Further, this phenomenon create

platform for the exploitation of the tribals. Apart from this, the role played

by the GCC restricted to the greater extent. Moreover, the activity of the

GCC is also decline at grassroots levels. Hence, the study suggested

providing credit facility to the every MFP collector in every village. The

loan can be recovered when getting MFP to the GCC, the rate of interest

should be fixed in the manner of DWACRA. These measures will be

significantly contributing for the mitigation of exploitation of private

350

traders in the tribals‘ areas. Further, the study suggested

appointingacclimates to check out feasibility of the execution of loan

disbursement program in the above mentioned manner. The study also

recommended that adequate grant should be allocated for these purpose in

their annual plans of the Girijan Corporation.

6. strategies for the introduction of mobile MFP collection in the GCC; the

finding of the study envisages that there is great difficult and also paid

high transport cost to bring the MFP to the GCC depot and also these

depots located distant distances of their villages. Due to this phenomenon

majority of the tribals sell their products to the private traders because they

come to their own villages for the collection centers and covered every

village in every day to collect MFP from the tribals. This measure will be

significantly contributed for the development of accessibility between

GCC and tribal villages. Moreover, the coverage of GCC activities is also

substantially enhanced to a greater extent.

7. Strategies for introduction of barter system for the purchase of MFP by

GCC. The barter system plays a vital role and also derives lo of advantages

to the tribals in the scenario of their living conditions and lifestyles.

Moreover, the private traders adopted barter system in the collection

process of MFP in every tribal village. As a result, the private traders more

benefits and intern the tribals are becoming exploited by the traders. Lack

of adoption of barter system in GCC becomes one of the major barter and

huddle to improve the activities of the GCC. Hence, the study suggested to

appoint a committee and chalked out advantages and disadvantages of the

barter system. Moreover, the quantitative fixed to the products by the GCC

351

should be non-profitable basis. Moreover, the study strongly recommends

introducing barter system in the collection of MFP by the GCC with

immediate effect. This measure will be significantly helpful to improve the

performance of the GCC as well as too mitigate exploitation of the tribals

by private traders to the certain extent.

8. Strategies for the provision of storage and processing facilities for the

MFP by GCC: the study suggested conducting a deep study for the

requirement of storage and processing facilities for the MFP in the

jurisdiction of GCC depots. At the same time financial benefits derived by

MFP to the storage facilities is also worked out in every region. The

locations of the storage and processing facilities should be identified by

the involvement of the local people. Apart from this the storage and

processing facilities development by GCC should be fulfill the actual

requirements of the MFP collection.

9. Strategies for the introduction of improved methods for the increase of the

quantum of MFP: the quantum of collection of MFP produces is declining

due to deforestation. As a result, this phenomenon should affect the social

economic and living conditions of the tribals in the existing and future

scenario. Hence, the study suggested to introduce improved methods for

the collection of MFP as well as to develop culture spice plantations to

increase the production of MFP. For this purpose the study chalked out a

comprehensive and integrated plan for the introduction of improved

cultivation methods as per product wise. Further, the study involved the

other related tribal agencies such as Division, forest department,

Agriculture and relating research and developments. Thismeasure will be

352

significantly helpful to the protection as well as development for the tribal

economy.

10. The strategies for involvement of NGOs in the activities of GCC: the vital

role played in the tribal development in many reasons for instance

SAMATHA, AWARE, CARE, GUIDE, VSS, and other NGOs and help

self-help groups. Hence, the study suggested involving the above

mentioned agencies in the activities of the GCC particularly in collection

of MFP, loan disbursement and distribution DRs. Moreover, these

agencies will be chalked out the clear cut frame will be significantly

helpful to create awareness and mobilization among tribes and intern the

levels of the utilization of the GCC is improved at grassroots level.

Improvement of purchase of daily requirement

1. Strategies for the introduction of the purchase of DRs: the finding and

observations of the study portrays those maximum proportion tribals

availing the facility of DRs in almost all villages. Generally the tribes are

purchased DRs mainlyrice, kerosene, edible oil, sugar, anddhal every

month on cash payment basis. Majority of the tribals demanded to

introduce barter system particularly to MFP instead of money payment.

Moreover, the private traders adopting barter system to given above

mentioned products, with higher prices. Further, majority of the tribals

getting DRs Depot Form the private traders even though they getting loses

regularly. Hence, the study suggested introducing barter system in the

purchase of daily requirements.

2. Strategies for the introduce of mobile system for the distribution of DRs:

353

1. The tribal villages located very faraway distances and more inaccessible

area. As a result, majority of tribals face difficulties to getDRs from the

GCC depot. Further, the tribals visited two or three times every month to

get DRs Due to non-availability of stocks. Hence, the study suggested to

introduce mobile system in the distribution of DRs and prepared fixed time

scheduled to visit the every village.

2. Strategies for the improvement of the quality of the DRs Products: the

survey findings reported that the quality of DR products is not up to the

mark and frequently changed the varieties of the food products. Hence, the

study strongly recommends that better quality of DR product should be

distributed to the tribals.

3. Strategies for the introduction of digital weighment system: the findings of

the survey envisage that there is a considerable error exists in the

weighment equipment in the GCC depots. As a result, the quantum of DRs

is reducing for every kilogram. Hence, the study recommended that to

introduce digital weighment system in every DRs Depot to avoid this

problem.

4. Strategies for the maintained of adequate DR stock: the study finding

envisages that almost all the depots are not maintaining adequate stock for

the requirements of the tribals. As a result, the tribals are not able to get

DRs from the depts. Due to this phenomenon. Hence, the study suggested

to maintain adequate stock based on the requirements of the jurisdiction of

the depot.

5. Strategies for the maintainedoftime scheduled for the distribution of DRs:

354

6. The supply of DRs is not maintained fixed time scheduled for the

distribution of DRs. As a result, the tribals are come to depots repeatedly

three or four times to the longer distances. Further, due to lack of time and

expensive to reach depot a considerable proportion of tribals are not taking

DRs. Hence, the study suggested maintaining perfect time scheduled for

the distribution of DRs.

7. Strategies for improvement of the tribals disbursement of loans

1. Strategies for moderation of variations in the grants sanction for the loans;

The findings of the study both in primary and secondary data envisages

that the amount sanction for loans drastically decline in some of the years. These

fluctuations show adverse effect on the socio-economic conditions of the tribals.

Moreover, the activities of money lender grow rapidly and intern the tribals were

exploited by the traders taking higher interest rates. Hence, the study suggested

sanctioning grants substantially towards increase side compared to the previous

years.

2. Strategies for the introduction of group loans: so far, the GCC sanctions loans

for individual person. As a result, the sanctioned loans are not adequate to the

activities of the tribals. Moreover, the loan recovery is also very difficult. At

present under the rural development and other relating programmes, the loans are

sanctioned as per groups instead of individual. Hence, the study recommenced to

follow the group loan procedures in the GCC to the sanctions.

3. Strategies for the introduction of signal window system for the sanction of

loans: the single window system for the disbursement of loans getting good result

particularly in the disbursement of loans, hence, the study suggested the Division,

of ITDA,GCC and other relating agencies should adopt single window system is

355

loan disbursement. This measure will be significantly contributed to disburse

relatively higher amount in more systematic manner.

4. Strategies for the increase the coverage of the loan facilities: the GCC

sanctioning loans for certain purposes particularly crop loans to extent some of the

crops. The tribal area is very predominant to various coops such as coffee

plantations, turmeric, ginger, cashew and MFP. As a result, the tribals particularly

growing above mentioned crop are not getting loans and intern the private lenders

interference is very high. Hence, the study suggested granting loans for these

crops also.

5. Strategies for the sanction of loans n appropriate time: the findings of the

survey envisage that the tribals are not able to get loans in right time particularly

in harvesting seasons. Intern again the tribals approached to the private money

lenders. Hence, the study suggested arranging loans in appropriate time to avoid

financial problems of the tribals.

Strategies for the improvement of the loan recovery system: the result of the

study indicates that the amount of loan recovery is very low in almost all the

years. Hence, the study suggested recovering the loans in reasonable installments

at the time of the payment of MFP purchase. Further, the result of the institutional

survey is also envisages that the staff of the loan recovery is also very low. Hence,

the study suggested providing adequate staff on contract basis to recover loans in

peak seasons.

Strategies for the effective functioning of the organization

1. Strategies for the increase in the quantum of sales in GCC. The result of

the study indicates that the quantum of sales of MFP products is showing

decline over the period. Hence, the study suggested fixing sales targets for

356

every products of GCC in their action plan based on the purchase of the

products.

2. Strategies for the involvement of NGOs: the NGOs play a role in tribal

development. Hence, the study suggested involving NGOs organization in

the activities of GCC particularly the purchase and sales of MFP, loan

disbursement and recovery and distribution of DRs. Further, the study

suggested allotting one or two mandals for each NGO organization which

have good track record. This measure will be helpful to strengthen the

activities of the GCC.

3. Strategies for the improvement of the sales of the GCC products: at present

the natural herbal products, dry fruits, and MFP have lot of demand in

urban and rural areas. The public is also interested to use of natural

products in spitefulness of synthetic products through adopting door to

door selling system. These kinds of systems are more suitable for the

products of dry fruits and MFP. This measure will be helpful to increase

the quantum of sales of the products in GCC.

4. Strategies for the increase of processing facility of the products of the

GCCThe quality of the products in mainly depends upon the processing

systems adopted for different products. The processing systems in the

GCC is not up to the mark and also responsible the lower quality of the

products. Hence, the study suggested adopting effective processing

systems. The self-help group system should more suitable to use in the

process of the products of GCC. Moreover, this activity provides

employment avenues particularly to tribal women. Further, the study

suggested providing each product to each self-help groups. This measure

357

will be significantly helpful to improve the processing system at gross root

level.

5. Strategies for the creation of access to the public for GCC products: the

GCC products have good quality. However, the availability of the GCC

products to the public are very limited and confined to very few places.

Hence, the study suggested keeping the products in the exhibitions

corporate departmental storages. This will be significantly helpful for the

population of the products.

6. Strategies for the publicity to the GCC products: the publicity for GCC

products is not up to the mark. Hence, the study suggested giving publicity

in Government and private television channels, print media, banners,

mobileshort message services to give product value for tribals and public

places to plug the boards. Hence, the study suggested opening stall in

major movement places in cities, towns and junctions.

7. Strategies for the utilization of the express services; the GCC products

have unique quality compared to the company products. Hence, the study

suggested creating awareness among public by using nutrition, doctors and

beauticians to highlight the benefits and advantages of the GCC products

to the public.

8. Strategies for the involvement of private sector: the result of the study

envisages that the organizational efforts are not up to the mark in almost

all the activities of the organization. Further, the volume of transportation

is also decline rapidly. This phenomenon continues further the

organizational activities to be absent. Hence the study suggested involving

358

private sector and outsourcing concepts in the organization to achieve

better performance.

9. Strategies for the development of infrastructure of the organization: there

is a paramount need to strengthen the infrastructure base of the

organization. For this purpose a committee should be nominated t chalk

out infrastructure plan for the effective functioning of the organization

considering the short term long term prospective.

An attempt is made all the chapters the study which formulated several strategies

for execution in various spheres for the effective functioning of the organization at

grass root levels.

1. The strategies influencing formulate coverage of the activities suggested

that the GCC should start their depot for every 500 population for every two

to three villages with in a distance five kilometers.

2. The fix the minimum supportive price to the MFP of the tribals in the

regulated marketing and rhythm bazar systems. The fixed price should

adopt by the private traders.

3. To introduce to the digital weighment equipment in every GCC depot.

4. Minimum price fixation should be equal to the MFP products offering

prices of the traders.

5. To provide credit facility to the every MFP collector in every village.

6. The loan can be recovered when getting MFP to the GCC, the rate of

interest should be foxed in the manner of DWCRA.

7. The study recommended that adequate grant should be allocated for this

purpose in their annual plans of the GCC.

359

8. The study suggested to mobile collection centers and covered every village

in every day to collect minor forest produce from the tribals.

9. One committee should identify the quantities fixed to the products by the

GCC non profitable basis, the strongly recommended to introduce barter

system in the collection of MFP in the GC with the immediately change.

10. The financial benefit derived by MFP to the storage facilities is worked out

in every region. The storage processing facility should identified by the

involvement of the local people.

11. The introduce improved methods of the collection of spices plantation

products to increase the MFP. To involve the tribal agencies such as ITDA

forest department, agriculture and relating research and development.

12. Suggest to involvement of NGOs in the activities of the GCC particularly in

the collection of Minor produce, loan disbursement and distribution

Domestic requirements. These agencies will be acted as bridge between

tribals and Girijan Corporation.

13. Introduce barter system in the purchase of daily requirements

14. To fix time scheduled to visit the every village mobile marketing of

products.

15. It should better quality of daily requirements of products distributed to the

tribals.

16. The study suggested sanctioning grants substantially towards increasing

side compared to the previous years.

17. The sanction loan of tribals should recommend to group loan procedures in

the Girijan Corporation to sanction of the loans.

360

18. It should adopt single window system in loan disbursement of ITDA, GCC

and other agencies.

19. To keep products in the exhibitions, corporate departmental storages (like,

Big Bazar,Relience fresh, Magna, More, Shopping malls and other public

meetings of within areas)

20. The awareness of the Girijan products among the public using the

nutrition, doctors beauticians to highlight the benefit of the products.

21. The suggested to give publicity in Government and private television

channel, print media, banner and boards at public places.paricularely

temples, bus stations, railway stations, airports. Moreover, to open the stalls

in major public movement places in cities.

22. To involve private sector and outsourcing concepts in the organisation to

achieving better performance.

23. The study suggested adopting effective processing systems. The self-help

groups systems more suitable to use the products of Girijan Corporation.

Moreover, its activity provides employment particularly to the tribal

women.

24. The suggested to appoint salesman to market the products through adopting

door to door selling system. It‘s kind of system are more suitable for dry

fruits of products.

25. To fix the target sales for every products of GCC in their action plan of the

purchase of the products.

26. The suggested to recover the loans to provides adequate staff on contract

basis in busy seasons.

361

27. The recovery of the loans instalment reasonable price at the time of

payment of MFP purchase.

28. The suggestion for tribals to arrange loans time to avoid financial problems

of the tribals.

Conclusion

The above suggested strategies are significantly contributed for the

effective functioning of the organization as well as to improve the coverage of the

services of the GCC at gross root level. Moreover, the suggested strategies are

solved problems in organization, functional, and ground level exists in various

spheres. Apart from this, the suggested policy frame will be fulfill the objectives

of the organization and also cater the basic needs of the tribal people to achieve

development in optimum manner.

Documents

DATA ANALYSIS - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/12694/15/15...each in pathapatnam mandal ascending order of the 92% seethampeta mandal, 90% in saluru mandal,85%