IJGRP - Premier Publishers · PDF fileGhana IJGRP Shifting livelihood ... Faculty of Social Sciences, ... agricultural livelihood activities to small-scale mining in

Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu, Ghana

IJGRP


Daniel Buor* and Irenius Konkor Faculty of Social Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

Due to formal education potentials for development, African governments usually site tertiary institutions in agrarian communities without taking recourse to their effects on the livelihood activities of people living in such communities. The study explored the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification of people in Bamahu in the Upper West Region of Ghana. A sample of 130 was drawn from a community of 2498 using purposive and snowball samplings techniques. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 was used to analyze quantitative data. Interviews, focus group discussions and observations were instruments used to collect qualitative data which was analyzed thematically whiles questionnaire design was used to collect quantitative data. It was found that the economy had been transformed to a more monetized economy. Livelihood activities patronized as a result of the establishment of UDS include small-scale business, porterage, security services and hostel management. Income earnings of respondents had also improved over the years. Many problems including loss of farmlands by the community have been encountered. Entrepreneurial training and interest free loans are recommended to help ease diversification.

Keywords: Livelihood, Entrepreneur, UDS, diversification, loan INTRODUCTION African governments have realized the potentials of higher education for regional development (Teferra and Altbachl, 2004; Bloom et al., 2006). This has led to the siting of tertiary educational institutions in agrarian communities such as the case of Bamahu in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Land use change from agricultural livelihood activities towards service provision is evident in most parts of the developing world (Smith et al., 2001; Simon et al., 2004; Paavola, 2008). In India, land-based livelihoods of subsistence and marginal farmers are now predominantly and rapidly becoming unsustainable because their land is no longer able to meet the requirements of food production for the family and fodder for their livestock (Hiremath, 2007). A research by Mehar et al., (2016) on farmers coping strategies for climate shock indicated the unsustainability of agricultural sources of livelihood which gave rise to farmers search for alternative sources of livelihoods. As a result, rural households are

compelled to look for alternative and diverse sources of income. A study conducted by National Sample Study Organization (NSSO) on Indian farmers has revealed that, about 27 percent of the farmers do not like farming because it is not considered profitable and, given a chance, nearly 40 percent of the farmers would prefer to take up alternative livelihood activities other than farming (Kumar, 2006).

*Corresponding author: Daniel Buor, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. Email: [email protected], Co-author: Irenius Konkor: [email protected]

International Journal of Geography and Regional Planning

Vol. 3(1), pp. 027-042, August, 2016. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 1201-8904

Research Article

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Buor and Konkor 028 Belay and Bewket (2015) stated that, rural households could enhance their livelihoods through sustainable land and water management. A study recently conducted by Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) on poverty and farming systems has revealed that, diversification is central to poverty reduction efforts for subsistence farmers in South and South-East Asia (FAO and World Bank, 2001). Farmers are increasingly diverting from agricultural livelihood activities to small-scale mining in sub-Saharan Africa in order to maintain appreciable living standards (Hilson, 2016). A similar research conducted by Loison (2016) showed Sub-Saharan rural dwellers rapid diversion of their traditional sources of livelihoods. Ghana, in her quest to achieving Millennium Development Goal II (MDG II, 2009), now Sustainable Development Goal IV (ICSU, 2015), embarked on a massive restructuring in the educational sector coupled with massive infrastructural development. It is therefore not surprising that educational facilities are rapidly expanding throughout the country to meet the increasing enrollment numbers as evident in the establishment of UDS in the three Northern Regions including the Wa Campus. With particular reference to Bamahu, a farming suburb of Wa, the establishment of University for Development Studies (UDS) has over a decade resulted in significant growth and development in the area. The growth and development of Bamahu can partly be attributed to the educational functional role Bamahu has assumed and this is attracting people from all walks of life. As a result of this large number of people and students drawn there, there is an economic gap which draws business-minded people to the area. The increasing population has its associated development implications in the areas of housing, health facilities, environmental sanitation and water supply, social and most importantly livelihood strategies (Wa Municipal Assembly, 2012). As a community that used to engage in farming activities, there has been a great shift with respect to the livelihood opportunities available to the inhabitants of the area. Some of the livelihood opportunities within the grasp of the people of Bamahu include; porterage, security services, cleansing services, petty trading and shop ownership as well as hostel management. On the contrary, some inhabitants who were subsistence farmers have now lost their farm lands, hence, their source of livelihood. A key challenge to the establishment of UDS in Bamahu is the rapid conversion of prime agricultural lands into educational, residential and business facilities. Although livelihood diversification is an essential strategy by which rural people may work to achieve sustainable livelihoods, it is one that generally operates in conjunction with other strategies. As a community making transition from predominantly primary agricultural economic activities to service provision livelihood activities, it needs to be noted that diversification of livelihood would take center stage. As livelihoods are diversified, it would have its resultant effects. Cognizant of the fact that urban dwellers buy virtually everything they need and Bamahu is rapidly becoming peri-urbanized it is important to study how

these subsistence based survivors cope with a rapidly increasing monetized economy. This paper explored the relationship between the presence of UDS and livelihood diversification in Bamahu. Much research work has been undertaken with regard to livelihood diversification in developing countries but most of them are limited to other areas. For example, “Determinants and constraints of rural livelihood diversification in west Bengal” by Khatun and Roy (2012), is limited to only livelihood constraints and determinants and “Sustainable livelihood and livelihood diversification” by Hussein and Nelson (1998), aimed to explore alternative routes to sustainable livelihoods pursued by rural people in contrasting agro-ecological settings. No such work however has been done in Ghana, especially with regard to dislocation due to the establishment of educational institutions hence, this is a pioneering work. The main objective of this study is to explore the impact of UDS on the livelihoods of residents in Bamahu. The specific objectives are: identifying the specific livelihood opportunities created as a result of the establishment of UDS at Bamahu, examining if there had been an improvement in the living conditions of residents since diversification, and, identifying the challenges faced by residents as a result of the establishment of UDS at Bamahu. The following hypotheses were tested in the field: (a) There is a significant positive association between age and diversification. (b) Married people in agrarian communities diversify most due to limited land for agricultural activities (c) The educated diversify more than the non-educated in a sudden change of land use in agricultural communities. (d) Diversifiers earn proportionally higher income than non-diversifiers as a result of land use change in agrarian communities. Context of the study UDS was established in May 1992 by the government of Ghana. It has four campuses including the Wa-Campus. The Wa Campus was first located in Wa-Sombo but later relocated at Bamahu due to lack of sufficient land space for infrastructure. In an attempt to overcome this challenge, hundreds of acres of land were acquired, subjecting the then agrarian livelihood dependents to new and diverse paradigms of livelihoods. Because the landlords have not been duly compensated, some of them still farm on the school land which gives the authorities some challenges. The siting of UDS in Bamahu has consequently resulted in land use change in the community. The administrative region, Wa, can be located in the North-Western part of Ghana and bordered by Burkina Faso to the North, the Northern Region to the South, the Upper East Region to the East and La Cote D’Ivoire to the West. Wa municipality is one of the eleven districts in the Upper West Region. The municipality covers an area of 125km2, stretching between latitudes 1˚ 10 N to 2˚ 5 N and longitudes 9˚ 55 W to 10˚ 25 W and shares


Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 029

Figure 1. Wa Municipal Showing Bamahu Source: Survey DepartmentWa, 2015

administrative boundaries with the Nadowli District to the North, the Wa East District to the South-East and the Wa West District to South-West (WMA, 2014). The municipality has a population of 107,214 (WMA, 2014). Bamahu is a suburb of Wa and is also bounded to the North by Wa municipal, Piisi to the South, Kpongu to the West and Sing to the East as shown in Figure 1. Bamahu has a population of 2,498 (WMA, 2014). It is located in the Savannah high zone with high temperatures all year round and a rainfall duration of about five months. The remaining seven months is the dry season characterized by harmattan and high temperatures. The vegetation type is that of the savannah grassland. The concept and determinants of livelihood diversification Livelihood diversification is an essential strategy by which people in many parts of the world try to make ends meet and improve their well-being. Livelihood diversification refers to a continuous adaptive process whereby households add new activities, maintain existing ones or drop others, thereby maintaining diverse and changing livelihood portfolios (Ellis, 2004; Birwarup, 2010). Diversification as a livelihood strategy is further defined as a process by which the person or rural family unit builds a group of activities and goods seeking an improvement in living conditions (Ellis, 2000).

Diversification can be divided into two namely: diversification out of necessity and diversification by choice (Ellis, 2000; Vedeld et al., 2007). Diversification out of necessity refers to a situation whereby the income from one’s own farm production is not enough to meet acceptable and standard level of living. Diversification out of choice refers to voluntary reasons for diversification. This can be attributed to the desire to obtain higher returns available from non-farm activities. Different income sources can be seen as risk coping strategy. This is because diversified households are less susceptible compared to undiversified households (Dercon, 1996). In Kenya, households’ increasing access to non-farm employment has been identified as an important approach for reducing their vulnerability (Davis, 2003; Christiansen et al., 2005; Eriksen, 2007). When area access difficulties are eliminated and opportunities of means of subsistence are identified and extended, the farmer or the community develops the capacity to generate livelihood and improve their lives (Boserup and Kanji, 2007; Carolina et al., 2012). It must be emphasized that the ability of households to adopt more profitable diversification strategies depends on many factors. Livelihood diversification determinants are a function of a set of factors that include: dependency ratio, education, family size, asset value, membership of social groups and training/skill development (Atchoarena, 2003; Chun, 2011; Dilruba et al., 2012).

Map of Ghana Bamahu


Buor and Konkor 030 Dependency ratio is the ability of a household to meet its subsistence needs. With an increase in dependency ratio without a corresponding increase in family income, the ability of a household to meet its needs decreases and the probability of diversifying livelihood to non-farm activities increases (Barrett et al., 2001; Dilruba et al., 2012; Eneyew, 2012). A high dependency ratio puts stress on the limited financial resources. The relationship between livelihood diversification and dependency ratio is very high and cannot be underestimated as a high dependency ratio calls for a livelihood strategy that is more rewarding to address the needs of members (Owusu, 2005; Dilruba et al., 2012). Diversification as a result of high dependency ratio can be classified under diversification out of necessity (Ellis, 2000). Education is a gradual process of acquiring knowledge which can either be formal or informal. Research has shown that households with higher levels of educated individuals have greater chances to diversify livelihoods since they are open to greater opportunities. Education enhances the skills of members in a household hence, can enable them to venture into other lucrative livelihood opportunities (Bryceson, 2002; Dilruba et al., 2012). Family size is a key determinant in livelihood diversification according to Reardon (1997). He observed that family size affects the ability of a household to supply labour to the farm. In a large family, some members could remain engaged in farming while others could opt for non-farm activities. It will also reduce the risk of livelihood failure (Roy et al., 2012). An important factor determining the options available to households in relation to diversification is availability of assets. Individuals’ own asset base helps both directly and indirectly in livelihood diversification (Bebbington, 1998; Roy et al., 2012). Asset offers a store of wealth as well as provides an opportunity to invest in alternative enterprises. Several researchers have noted that the lack of asset base creates an entry level barrier for the resource-poor households in diversifying their livelihood options particularly towards high-end remunerative non-farm activities (Roy et al., 2012). Membership of a formal social organization like co-operative and village groups are important social capital in determining livelihood diversification. Membership of a cooperative elevates social status and increases access to common property resources as well as different government/NGO schemes which can be used as a stepping stone to diversify livelihood (Kelkar and Nathan, 2005; Dilruba et al., 2012). Membership of groups also enables individuals to take part in training programmes organized by government or NGOs and also improves access to financial assistance from financial institutions. With most of the non-farm activities being skill based, training increases the possibility of getting non-farm jobs. Farming at the local level is often non-skilled and training activities carried out by government agencies and NGO’s are mostly aimed at providing specialized skills (Roy et al., 2012). Training of individuals improves their capacities and their skills and this goes a long way to affect their ability to diversify their livelihoods (Rokadi,

2002; Dilruba et al., 2012). With little training the chance to diversify livelihood is slim and narrow, however, training opens up new horizons which individuals can tap into to improve their lives. Training is therefore an important determinant of livelihood as it has the power to create and pave way for new opportunities which would be more resistant to shocks and also more rewarding financially (Dilruba et al., 2012). In the current study, there was an interplay of these factors: dependency ratio, education, family size, marital status in determining participation in livelihood diversification. Constraints to livelihood diversification Livelihood diversification is an important survival strategy for the rural households in developing countries (Ellis, 1998; Hussein and Nelson, 2016). Most land based activities are increasingly under pressure because of increasing population size the world over and there is the urgent need for households to diversify to be able to cope in a world which has been monetized. However, there are several constraints to successful livelihood diversification (Angelsen and Kaimowitz, 1999). Available literature has identified some of the socio-economic, technological, institutional and policy constraints to livelihood diversification. These constraints have been found to vary across space and time as well as across livelihood groups (Devereux, 2001; Dilruba et al., 2012). Some of the constraints include poor asset base, lack of credit facilities and lack of infrastructure. The availability of assets enables individuals to venture into new areas. However, when no assets are available, it paints a blurry picture of the future as the individual would have to start from the bottom and build up. Therefore, without assets, the landless and small scale farmer would have constraints to diversification. Poor asset base therefore is a key determinant of diversification (Reardon et al., 2000; Dilruba and Roy, 2012). Lack of access to institutional credit is an impending factor to livelihood diversification (Islam et al., 2014). Many households in developing countries after completion of training provided by the private or government agencies in some self-employment activities cannot start their own businesses due to lack of finance. Since land is an important form of collateral, it limits access to credit which further results in limiting opportunities for rural dwellers, both for employment and for other income generating activities (Yawn et al., 1998; Khatun and Roy, 2012). Most rural dwellers are poor in one way or the other and have no collateral to secure loans from banks (Khatun and Roy, 2012). Infrastructural availability plays an influential role in the development of rural livelihoods. Improved communications help easy access to market which is important for both buying and selling of goods and services and for getting non-farm jobs (Khatun and Roy, 2012). To sum up, the principal constraints faced by the rural households are of different kinds. While most of them are



Figure 2. The Sustainable livelihoods Framework Source: DFID, 1999 socio-economic in nature, some constraints are agro-ecological in nature. Spatial variation leads to cross-sectional heterogeneity, thereby influencing livelihood diversification pattern. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework developed by the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Advisory Committee (DFID, 1999) is a tool for enhancing our understanding of livelihoods, particularly the livelihoods of the poor. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework as a tool for planning and assessing the contributions to sustainability presents the main factors that affect people’s livelihoods, and typical relationships between them. Vulnerability context presents grounds upon which livelihoods are disrupted which in the case of this study is represented by siting of an educational institution in an agrarian community. Livelihood assets on the other hand offer opportunities for affected individuals and households to build resilient livelihood pillars. Access to these assets by the study population will not only strengthen their resistance to livelihood risk but also improve their standards of living in a risk prone society. Effective enforcement of these strategies would, through the transforming structures and processes, build sustainable livelihood outcomes. Figure 2 shows the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. The Welfare Pentagon Theory The Welfare Pentagon Theory epitomizes the five central institutions that households use to satisfy current and future needs in a given society. These five institutions embody family, markets, social networks,

membership institutions and public authorities (de Neubourg, 2002). These five institutions are similar to Ellis’ (2000) various forms of capitals that can bring change in livelihood platforms. Despite the fact that historical and geographical appearances differ, these institutions are found in every society across time and space. Spatio-temporarily, the relevance of each institution to households may vary. The theory argues that diversification is an income generating as well as consumption smoothing strategy (Hoogeveen, 2001; Kochar, 2004). Fig. 3. Households and individuals use the institutions of the welfare pentagon in their livelihood strategies in an attempt to raise income but also to smooth consumption. Families, social networks and membership institutions help households to address the livelihood risk by means of various and different mechanisms of solidarity (Neubourg 2009). Social networks, membership of institutions and families serve as important source of capital and assets for diversification. Belonging to a family makes it possible to have access to capitals such as family land for the establishment of shops and building of hostels whereas membership of a group makes financial capital easily accessible which will bring about stress-free diversification. The large number of people in Bamahu greatly constituted by students serve as market for the sale of goods and provision of services. Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework (Fig. 4) adopted for the study was based on Ellis (2000) framework on initiatives of rural income improvement. In this framework, livelihood strategies have got activities that generate means of

SLF


Buor and Konkor 032

Figure 3. The Welfare Pentagon Source: de Neubourg, 2002

Figure 4. Conceptual framework on initiatives of rural income improvement Source: Ellis, (2000)

subsistence for the family unit and individuals divided into activities based on natural resources, and non-natural based resources, i.e. (a) activities based on natural resources including collection, nourishment cultivation, non- nourishment cultivation, cattle and flock, and non-rural activities such as brick production, weaving and (b) non-natural based resource activities

including rural products selling, inputs and goods, and other rural services like equipment maintenance and rural manufacturing. Ellis (2000), identified natural capital, social capital, financial capital, human capital and physical capital as livelihood platforms. From this framework, changes in any of the following; social relations, social class, age,



Figure 5. Livelihood Diversification Framework Source: Adapted, based on Ellis (2000)

institutions, state agencies and most especially land will bring a change in livelihood platforms. The link between Ellis’ framework on initiatives of rural income improvement and the adapted model is in land as an element that modifies access to livelihood platform and how land use change in the study area has modified livelihood strategies. It is important to state that, even though Ellis’ framework of rural income improvement has stated income strategies, it is also important to point out that, it did not explain how location of educational institutions offer opportunities and challenges and the means by which people can take advantage of these opportunities and also transform the challenges into opportunities to benefit their livelihoods. Ellis’ framework was also modelled to satisfy generalized livelihood modalities hence, failed to consider the specifics that could bring about livelihood diversification and the resultant impact. Ellis saw population as a factor that could interfere with access to livelihood platforms. In this study, population is seen as a causal factor of a new tertiary educational institution which serves as a market base for diversified residents. Fig. 5 was therefore adapted to fill the gaps in the original framework. The adapted framework (Livelihood Diversification Framework) assumes two main sources of livelihood namely; land based and non-land based livelihood activities indicated in Fig.5 as land based and non-land based resource activities. Most rural dwellers earn their livelihoods from land based resource activities by engaging in rural activities such as cultivation, livestock rearing, and collection whereas a small proportion earn their livelihoods from non-land based activities such as small scale food processing, blacksmithing, basket weaving and pottery. The siting of tertiary educational institutions in rural communities increases the population of such areas and land use change in general. The shrinking of agricultural land use as a result of siting tertiary educational institutions compels the people to

diversify their livelihoods. The large population serves as market base for diversifiers and the emergence of urban livelihood activities such as land sales, construction work, formal jobs, manufacturing and the provision of services are prominent. METHODOLOGY The study variables are age, sex, income, marital status, family size and employment status. The rationale was to identify how respondents within each category will respond to livelihood diversification as a result of the establishment of UDS in Bamahu. The main tool for the data collection was interview guide. Primary data was collected using interview guide, focus group discussion and observation. The interview guide was systematically and thematically organized under the following five subsections; demographic characteristics, socio-economic characteristics, evidence of shifting livelihoods, challenges and change in quality of life due to the establishment of UDS in Bamahu. The data for this study was collected using the cross sectional study design. The triangulation/mixed method or technique and the interactive model in the framework of concurrent triangulation were also used in this study (Maxwell, 1996). Mikkelsen (1995), identified two types of triangulation namely; between and within triangulations. This study however employed the between triangulation since it allows different methods to be used in a single study. The study employed both random and non-random sampling techniques. For the random sampling the community was first divided into two clusters (‘Dagaaba-yiri’ and ‘Yarihi-yiri’) due to its size and for adequate representation of the entire community in the sample. Secondary data source included information from various government institutions and documents that lend


Buor and Konkor 034 themselves to the study. The non-random technique comprised purposive and snowball as there were no records of those who had lost their farmlands due to the siting of UDS in the community. In the application of the snowball approach, the Assembly man (Law maker of the Local Area) was first contacted. He led the research team to the first respondent. After collecting the data from him, he in turn directed the team to subsequent respondents. A total of 130 respondents were selected

using the formula: n=Z-score 𝑥𝑆𝐷(1−𝑆𝐷)²

(ME)² cited in Scott

(2013), where, n is the sample size, Z-score is the confidence level (1.96) SD is the standard deviation (1.35) ME is the Margin of Error (0.05)

1.96 𝑥1.35(1−1.35)²

(0.05)²= 129.654. This figure was however

rounded to the nearest ten resulting in 130. The sample size was deemed adequate due to the homogeneity of the study population. Fifty percent (50%) of the sample was then collected from each cluster. Apart from the natives, the following respondents including the Municipal Assembly Planner, the Assembly man and the Dean of UDS, Wa Campus were selected purposively to respond to some specific questions. The researchers identified them as custodians of prime information hence, purposively selected them. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 was used in analyzing quantitative data. Data was coded into SPSS and results presented in tables for interpretation. Observations and direct quotations from respondents which constituted qualitative data were tape-recorded and transcribed which helped make findings clearer. Key concepts were organized into basic themes from which were identified organizing themes and global themes. The instruments were pre-tested for validation. Two field assistants were also trained for a week to assist in the data collection. The consent of the respondents was sought though five of them later refused to participate and had to be replaced. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Characteristics of the sample As indicated in Table 1, out of the one hundred and thirty (130) respondents interviewed, 50.8% were males while the remaining 49.2% were females. Per this statistics, the sample is male dominated. This however, was due to the fact that some females were not interested in responding to the questionnaire because they felt it was the domain of men. Age greatly influences the kind of work one can do especially occupations that need physical strength and so can affect diversification. As shown in Table 1, 83.9% of the respondents were between the ages of 15 and 45 constituted by 38.5% between the ages of 15-25 and 45.4% between the ages of 26-45. This implies that the sample is youthful. Exactly 10.7% of the respondents

were between the ages of 46-60 whereas respondents above 60 years constituted a paltry figure of 5.4%. Majority of the respondents representing 68.5% were married whereas 25.4% were single. Those who were widowed represented 4.6% whereas 1.5% of all respondents were divorced. On the other hand, 38.5% of all respondents had no formal education and only 12.3% had tertiary education. Whereas 15.4% had secondary education 33.8% of all respondents had basic education. This generally implies that literacy is low in the study community. Majority of the respondents representing 82.3% earned below GHs300 per month whiles 7.7% and 8.5% earned between GHs301-500 and GHs501-800 respectively. Respondents who earned above GHs800 constituted only 1.5%. This implies that most of the respondents might take advantage of new income opportunities so might be attracted to diversification. Fertility rate is also high among the respondents as 46.1% of all respondents had between 4-10 children. Respondents who had between 1-3 children constituted 38.5% whereas 15.4% of all respondents had no children. Characteristics of respondents who had diversified their livelihood As evident in Table 2, age greatly influences diversification as majority (88.9%) of diversifiers were between the ages of 15 and 45. This implies that the youth diversify more than the aged probably because they have the physical strength to do whatever job they want to do be it business or labour intensive. Non-diversifiers though paltry also constituted 13.1%. A chi-square test with a value of 26.137 and a probability value of 0.002 shows a significant association between age and diversification hence, we accept the hypothesis that there is a significant positive association between age and diversification. About 67.7% of all diversifiers earned regular income whereas non-diversifiers constituting 22.3% earned regular income. Majority of all regular income earners however, earned GHs300 and below. As shown in Table 2 at the chi-square value of 21.233 and a probability value of 0.047 we accept the null hypothesis that diversifiers earn proportionally higher than non-diversifiers as a result of land use change in agrarian communities since the probability value is less than the alpha value of 0.05. A chi-square value of 10.652 and a probability value of 0.559 show no significant association between education and diversification. This means that respondents’ level of education did not influence their diversification hence, we reject the hypothesis that the educated diversify more than the non-educated in a sudden change of land use in agricultural communities. As indicated in Table 2 majority of diversified respondents had no formal education. This was probably so because diversification was out of necessity and not by choice. Out of 67.7% of respondents who had changed their respective occupations 56.8% were males whiles the remaining 43.2% were females. This confirms Ellis’



Table 1. Characteristics of the sample

Variables

Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Age 15-25 years 50 38.5 38.5

26-45 years 59 45.4 83.9

46-60 years 14 10.7 94.6

above 60 years 7 5.4 100

Total 130 100

Sex Male 66 50.8 50.8

Female 64 49.2 100

Total 130 100

Marital status Married 89 68.5 68.5

Single 33 25.4 93.9

Widowed 6 4.6 98.5

Divorced 2 1.5 100

Total 130 100

Educational status primary school 22 16.9 16.9

JHS 22 16.9 33.8

SHS 20 15.4 49.2

Tertiary 16 12.3 61.5

not educated 50 38.5 100

Total 130 100

Income less than GHs 100 54 41.5 41.5

GHs 100-300 53 40.8 82.3

GHs 301-500 10 7.7 90

GHs 501-800 11 8.5 98.5

GHs 801-1200 2 1.5 100

Total 130 100

Number of children No child 20 15.4 15.4

1-3 50 38.5 53.9

4-6 41 31.5 85.4

7-10 19 14.6 100

Total 130 100

Source: Field data, 2016

(1999) assertion that, men are more opened to diversification opportunities than women. The reason for this occurrence is not farfetched. Women in that part of the country are directly under the control and submission of their husbands. Husbands are the heads of families and decision-making is controlled by them (Kabeer, 1999). Women would have to consult their husbands in whatever they intend doing. Women do not also own vital productive and economic resources such as land in the North (Kyei, 2008). In a discussion with a woman in her late forties, a question was asked, “if you were consulted personally at the time of land acquisition for the establishment of UDS would you have given them the land”? She replied; I do not know anything about land, go (referring to the researchers) and ask the men seated over there, they know about land (Focus Group Discussion, female respondent with basic education). This confirms Kyei’s (2008) findings that, women lack ownership of vital productive resources such as land in

the North. Table 2 summarizes the study variables with their respective chi-square values. A chi-square value of 20.399 and a probability value of 0.016 shows significant association between marital status and diversification hence, we accept the null hypothesis that married people diversify most in agrarian communities due to limited land for agricultural activities. Based on the probability values in Table 2, apart from sex and educational status, all the other variables had significant association with diversification. This means that, education and sex had little or no impact on diversification. This could however, be attributed to the fact that diversification in Bamahu is borne out of necessity and not by choice. Increasing employment in non-agricultural sector is a major source of livelihood to many in the community. An increase in non-agrarian employment avenues according to IFAD (2001, cited in Tacoli, 2002; Braun, 2007 and Adomako, 2013), are usually seen in traditional regional development theory as the outcome


Buor and Konkor 036

Table 2. Characteristics of diversifiers

Variable Category Diversifiers Non-diversifiers

Total p-values Chi-square

15-25 years 32 10 42

26-45 years 44 13 57

Age 46-60 years 10 3 13 0.002 26.137

above 60 years 2 3 5

Missing values - - 13

Total 13 88 29 130

Sex Male 50 17 67 Female 38 12 50 0.449 2.647


Total 13 88 29 130

Income < GHs 100 30 14 44

Per GHs 100-300 37 9 46

Month GHs 301-500 17 0 17 0.047 21.233

GHs 501-800 3 5 8

GHs 801-1200 1 1 2


Total 13 88 29 130

Married 62 16 78

Marital Single 28 5 33

Status Widowed 1 0 1 0.016 20.399

Divorced 2 3 5


Total 13 93 24 130

Primary 18 2 20

Educational JHS 16 4 20

Status SHS 14 7 21 0.559 10.652

Tertiary 6 5 11

No education 36 9 45


Total 13 90 27 130

Source: Field Data, 2016

Table 3. Occupational areas of diversifiers

Sex Farming Valid % Business Valid % Seamstress /tailor Valid % Labour work Valid %

Male 9 75 10 27 1 10 12 100

Female 3 25 27 73 9 90 0 0

Total 12 100 37 100 10 100 12 100


of the ‘vicious circle’ of rural urban development. In contrast to this theory, the growth of non-agrarian employment opportunities in the study community (Bamahu) is not as a result of agricultural growth but as a result of increasing difficulty in accessing land for farming purposes hence, acting as a push factor, and shifting people from agrarian based livelihood activities to non-agrarian based activities. Some of the livelihood opportunities within the grasp of the people of Bamahu include; porterage, security services, cleansing services, petty trading and shop ownership as well as hostel management. This finding satisfies the first specific objective of the study thus, identifying the specific

livelihood opportunities created as a result of the establishment of UDS at Bamahu. Women in the study community are into the most lucrative and less energy sapping job opportunities created as a result of the establishment of UDS in the community compared with men despite the limitations they faced as we will see in the system of inheritance and diversification. Out of 28.5 percent of the respondents who were into business, a staggering 73% constituted females whiles the remaining 27 percent are males as shown in Table 3. This justifies what Brook and Davila (2000), stated, cited in Adomako (2013), that, “women are more likely to go into business”. For those


Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 037 into fashion, 90% were seamstresses while the remaining 10% were tailors. Unlike around other tertiary educational communities, where catering services are common among men, no man among all the respondents was into catering. Considering the low level of education in the community, this may be due to the cultural notion that, the woman/girl child belongs to the kitchen. Men on the contrary dominate in the more energy demanding jobs like labour work, farming among others. This means that, though men are able to diversify most, women diversify into better and lucrative jobs. Reasons for diversification of livelihoods Several reasons accounted for diversification of livelihoods as it varied from person to person. For some, income security is the reason they had diversified. Agrarian source of income is no longer sustainable since agricultural lands are now small in size and any attempt at farming on the undeveloped school land could be unprofitable since the crops can be bulldozed at any point in time for the purposes of construction. This suggests that loss of farmland is the main factor influencing diversification. But it is also true that the laborious nature of farming coupled with non-ready income accounted for diversification as was suggested by some women respondents. Shifting their main source of livelihood is therefore the only way by which they could secure their livelihood. In reaction to the insecurity of farming on the school land, a man said; We have problem with the school authorities. When you farm on the school land the food crops can be bulldozed but some of the lecturers are farming on it (Focus Group Discussion, Male respondent in his early thirties with basic education). Some have diversified their sources of livelihood or added other sources of livelihoods for the purposes of earning more income. Bamahu has been monetized to such an extent that residents buy virtually everything. Diversifying is the ultimate way by which they can earn enough in order to buy all that they need. In a focus group discussion, a woman said; I earn enough to pay for my children’s school fees. I have eight children and my first child is in senior high school. Left with farming alone, my worries would have been nightmares. (Focus Group Discussion, Female respondent in her early fifties with basic education). Some respondents representing 12.5%, however, were satisfied with their current sources of livelihood. It must however be emphasized that some were conditional. A male respondent who was a shop owner said; I do not need another work if this one (referring to the shop) will ‘grow’. (Focus Group Discussion, Male respondent with basic education). The siting of tertiary institutions is central to the development of many communities in Africa. These institutions do not only play educational functional role, but also serve as a magnetic field attracting diverse economic activities. These institutions therefore serve as economic hubs as they assume the role of a nucleus in the development of towns. Converging economic activities is distinctive of siting tertiary institutions as these activities dogged them wherever they are located.

The siting of UDS in Bamahu has radically metamorphosed it from agrarian to a monetized economy. Farming as a source of livelihood is gradually giving way to other sources of livelihood especially the service sector. Services such as; ware-housing for building materials, banking, internet café, printing press, hostel managing, and transport services are common. Non-farming economic activities that were already there have also been intensified. Business currently is the single largest livelihood activity for majority of the people of Bamahu due to ready market largely constituted by students. Effects of diversification About 78.7% of all respondents believed that, it is easy earning a living now than previously though 20.6% were of the contrary view. This could be explained by what Adomako (2013) stated, that, “the changes in major economic activities and their negative implications are greatly felt by people whose livelihood depends on the natural environment whiles the emergence of a monetized economy serves as an opportunity for those who have the assets”. Some respondents particularly the women claimed that, the work they are doing now is less energy demanding and you can always be assured of getting money every day from whatever business one may be doing compared with occupations such as farming and quarrying where they had to wait for months before they could get their income. On the basis of this, one can confidently say that the second specific objective thus, examining if there had been an improvement in the living conditions of residents since diversification, has been achieved. Whereas some diversified for the purpose of gaining more experience, others do so for the purposes of maintaining or improving their standard of living. This could possibly be the reason why 84.6% of all respondents agreed there was an improvement in their living conditions. In a focus group discussion, a woman who was into ‘kenkey’ business said; My work was quarrying which was energy demanding and had no ready market as a trip of stones could lie there for months without any one coming to ask how much it even cost. Some buyers may come and pick it on credit in the name of coming back to pay in a day or two and will never come back. For now my employer pays me fortnightly (Focus Group Discussion, Female respondents, no formal education). Diversification out of necessity was the invisible hand pushing many to diversify their livelihood portfolios in order to maintain or improve their standards of living. Out of the 90% of all respondents who received regular monthly income, 75.2% represented diversifiers whiles 24.8% represented those who did not as shown in Table 4. A chi-square test of independence on occupational change and levels of income showed a significant association between the two variables. A probability value of 0.047 which is less than the alpha value of 0.05 means that there is a significant positive association between diversification and income as shown in Table 5.


Buor and Konkor 038

Table 4. Income Levels of Diversifiers and Non Diversifiers

Income per month Diversifiers Non-diversifiers Total

< GHs 100 30 14 44

GHs 100-300 37 9 46

GHs 301-500 17 0 17

GHs 501-800 3 5 8

GHs 801-1200 1 1 2

88 29 117


Table 5. Chi-Square Tests on diversification and income

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 21.233a 12 .047

Likelihood Ratio 20.034 12 .066

Linear-by-Linear Association .930 1 .335

N of Valid Cases 92

Source: Field Data 2016

Table 6. Chi-Square Tests on level of education and income


Pearson Chi-Square 12.579a 4 0.014

Likelihood Ratio 12.112 4 0.017

Linear-by-Linear Association 4.601 1 0.032

N of Valid Cases 130

Source: Field Data, 2016 Diversifiers earn higher regular incomes than non-diversifiers. This evidence corroborates the qualitative evidence of improved living conditions among respondents, hence, re-emphasizing the satisfaction of the second objective of examining if there had been an improvement in the living conditions of residents since diversification. Effects of socio-demographic variables on income There is a significant relationship between income and number of years in schooling as shown in Table 6. The Pearson chi-square recorded a value 12.579 and a probability value of 0.014 which is less than the alpha value of 0.05. This means that a person’s level of income is significantly influenced by the number of years in education. People with higher levels of education are more likely to earn higher income than those with little or no education. Similarly, gender has a significant impact on level of income as shown in Table 7. At the Pearson chi-square of 3.961 the probability value was 0.047 for income and gender. This means that there is a significant

relationship between gender and income and the amount one earns is greatly influenced by his or her gender status. The males earn slightly higher than the females as no female respondent earned above GHs800 though only 4.4% of all males who earn regular income earn above GHs800. The probability value for both associations which respectively are 0.014 and 0.047 are less than the alpha value which means that, there is a strong association between years of schooling and income and between gender and income. Other variables such as number of children and marital status which were expected to have impact on income proved otherwise as both of them had their probability values respectively as 0.494 and 0.249 are far greater than the alpha value of 0.05. This means that there is no significant relationship or association between these variables and income. Negative impacts of the presence of UDS in Bamahu Challenges and opportunities are the manifestations of transformational changes in livelihood activities presented



Table 7. Chi-Square Tests on gender and income


Pearson Chi-Square 3.961a 1 0.047 Likelihood Ratio 4.011 1 0.045 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.935 1 0.047

N of Valid Casesb 130


presented to the people of Bamahu as a result of the establishment of UDS. The relationship between the farmer and that of his farmland are inseparable. Loss of farmland is therefore the greatest setback that could ever happen to the people of Bamahu as far as livelihood is concerned. According to Afriyie et al., (2013) “the sale of farmlands for non-agricultural purposes to urban developers deprive farmers of their livelihood by shrinking the natural capital base”. A valid percent of eighty (80%) of all the respondents said that, their farmlands had been taken for non-farm activities precisely for the construction of the school infrastructure. This therefore poses a great threat to their livelihoods since most of them depended entirely on the land for primary economic activities. To minimize the brunt of loss of lands, some respondents suggested training on small-scale businesses in order to ease diversification. Related to loss of farmlands are diverse land-related problems. It was observed from the field that, apart from agricultural land use value of lands as a natural commodity and probably for quarry and putting up their own houses, land had no other use to them. The coming of UDS has, however, enlightened them on other uses of land apart from these traditional land uses. They now know how to sell land and this has culminated into multiple sales of land by land and non-land owners alike. The people are therefore sitting on a time bomb considering the potentials it holds for conflicts and its resultant impact on peace and livelihood activities of people not only in the community but the region as a whole. In a focus group discussion, a man in his early forties asserted; Bamahu as it stands now depends on the mercies of our judicial system to survive independently as a community as it stands the risk of being divided among three other communities who claim to have owned some parts of Bamahu. This peculiar problem never existed in the history of Bamahu until now where these communities are anticipating some form of compensation from the government and therefore want to be part of it. (Focus Group Discussion, Male respondent with basic education) Closely related to land problems is ownership of land. Patrilineal system of inheritance is the culture in that part of the country, implying that women cannot own land. Considering the central role of women for the survival of the family, if they had access to such a vital productive commodity, the 70.8% level of poverty in the study region as stated by the Ghana Living Standard Survey (2012), could have been very much lower. This probably is one of the reasons why more women are into business than men. Women play a central role in rural development through non-farm activities. Diversification can improve the income acquisition potentials of women and in so

doing metamorphose into improved nutritional, educational and the general well-being of the family particularly children since it has been proven by Todaro and Smith (2009), that women spend relatively higher proportion of their income on their families compared with their male partners. Increase in room occupancy is yet another worry observed from the field as husband and wife/wives and children now have to share the same room. This is done just to rent out the remaining rooms because of the high demand for accommodation in the community and the anticipated returns expected from subletting. This was not the case a few years back. In a focus group discussion a gentleman in his early twenties said; One of my uncles has rented out his own room and is now in the same room with his wife and children. (Focus Group Discussion, Male respondent with secondary education). Other problems identified by the respondents include: Pressure on limited social amenities such as water and public latrines. Though new ones have been added they do not meet demand. Exactly 77.3% of all responded that security in the community was worse than before. Stealing of motorbikes and electrical gadget are common among students and natives alike. Indecent dressing and promiscuity is now high in the community. In an interview with the assembly man he said; One native boy of about 15 years in junior high school was sent to a distant village by his parents because some student ladies found pleasure in him. The ladies found him to be naturally endowed and could satisfy them sexually. It came to light when one student lady tried to outsmart her next door neighbour who had brought the boy to her room (Interview with the Assembly man). Coping strategies An agrarian economy that has been transformed into a monetized economy presented a number of challenges. The people, however, have adopted a number of coping strategies to overcome some of these challenges. Temporal migration is a strategy that a number of them have adopted in an attempt to overcome these challenges particularly the farmers. They migrate to near and distant places where there are still vast tracks of land for large scale farming. They return to the community with their food crops which they use to feed their families and also sell some to earn revenues that can be used to undertake a business venture. This confirms the findings of Cekan (1992) in Gallo a village in Mali. But unlike Gallo where the people reduce their calorie intake, migrate to cities and some undertaking cash crop production, the people of Bamahu move to other villages


Buor and Konkor 040 to undertake food crop production. Women practice what is locally called “dag bila” literary translated as ‘small box’ in which they put money periodically for each to take in turns. This was what some of them used to start their business and those who were into business already plough it back into their business in order to expand it. This probably explains why women are into business more than men. DISCUSSION Inference drawn from the study has shown that diversification by the people of Bamahu was motivated by necessity. Diversification was necessary because their previous sacrosanct sources of livelihood were curtailed by the presence of UDS. This type of diversification is similar to Ellis’ (2000) diversification out of necessity. This justifies the third specific objective, i.e. identifying the challenges faced as a result of the establishment of UDS in Bamahu. All three specific objectives have been achieved with the findings of specific livelihood opportunities created, challenges faced and improved living conditions among respondents as a result of the presence of UDS in Bamahu. There is a significant positive association between age and diversification, marital status and diversification and income and diversification. This implies, we accept the hypotheses related to them as earlier stated. The hypothesis that, the educated diversify more than the non-educated in a sudden change of land use in agricultural communities was not satisfied. Diversification out of necessity and not by choice could have explained this occurrence. This was contrary to research findings by Bryceson, (2002) and Dilruba et al., (2012) which stated that, households with higher levels of educated individuals have greater chances of diversifying livelihoods since they are open to greater opportunities. Out of 67.7% of respondents who had changed their respective occupations 56.8% were males whiles the remaining 43.2% were females. This confirmed Ellis’ (1999) assertion that, men are more opened to diversification opportunities than women. This was however, explained by the fact that women lack ownership of vital productive resources such as land (Kyei, 2008).Women in the study community however, are into the most lucrative and less energy sapping job opportunities created as a result of the establishment of UDS in the community compared with men. This justifies what Brook and Davila (2000), stated, cited in Adomako (2013), that, “women are more likely to go into business”. An improvement in living conditions of diversifiers is partly due to the increase in the population of the community as a result of the establishment of the university which serves as a large market base for economic activities as indicated in the adapted conceptual framework. The central government through the Municipal Assembly has therefore provided more social services such as a clinic, boreholes, refuse containers to the community. According to Ohene-Kyei

(2008), District Assemblies’ involvement in poverty alleviation and development is mainly centered on the provision of social service infrastructure. The gap between availability and accessibility of these services has been bridged. The growth of non-agrarian employment opportunities in the study community (Bamahu) was not as a result of agricultural growth but as a result of increasing difficulty in accessing land for farming purposes as in the findings of IFAD (2001) cited in Tacoli, (2002) and Braun, (2007) and Adomako,(2013)hence, acting as a push factor, and shifting people from agrarian based livelihood activities to non-agrarian based activities .Diversification from an agrarian based economy into a more monetized economy is asset driven. Those with assets are able to make transition with ease and efficiency compared with those who lack it (Dilruba and Roy, 2012). Any efforts at empowering the asset poor would be an attempt at enhancing their diversification. Lack of access to institutional credit is an impeding factor to livelihood diversification (Islam et al., 2014). Hence, the practice of ‘dag bila’ where moneys are contributed and given to individuals of the group periodically formed the sources of their capital. This confirms Dilruba et al., (2012) finding of increased access to common property and resource by membership of such groups. According to Kelkar and Nathan, (2005), membership of a cooperative elevates social status and increases access to common property resources. Since there is strength in unity, membership of such groups enables members diversify into business. Most rural dwellers are poor in one way or the other and have no collateral to secure loans from banks ( Khatun and Roy, 2012). Hence, this practice is the source of capital for some diversifiers. This means that, the specific objective of identifying specific livelihood opportunities created has been achieved. In fulfillment of identifying challenges faced by residents due to the establishment of UDS, shrinking agricultural lands for farming purposes which formed the basis of their livelihoods did not go unnoticed. According to Afriyie et al., (2013) “the sale of farmlands for non-agricultural purposes to urban developers deprive farmers of their livelihood by shrinking the natural capital base”. This was evident when 80% of all respondents acknowledged a rapid conversion of their farmlands into non-farm activities precisely for the construction of the school infrastructure. Loss of farmland, multiple sales of land, increased cost of living and moral degradation were also identified. Given the results which relate to the conceptual framework and theoretical perspective, it is expected that more members of the study community will get involved in alternative livelihoods which will improve their quality of life. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION UDS authorities in collaboration with the National Board for Small Scale Industry are recommended to provide the community with trained skills in order to ease diversification processes since some respondents identified it as a necessary condition for non-land based diversification. Skills coupled with low or interest free


Int. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 041 loans would enable them overcome the brunt of lost sources of livelihood due to the presence of UDS. Further research especially on areas such as the impact of UDS on sustainable livelihood activities and the impact of UDS on gender and diversification using more thorough, sophisticated and in-depth methods is also recommended. Lastly, government and UDS authorities should speed up with the compensation process to enable beneficiaries venture into other livelihood portfolios. It was realized from the study that, diversification is a bi-gender phenomenon, but men diversify most though women diversify into less energy sapping job fields compared with men. Education, however, had little or no impact on diversification as most of those who diversified were those with little or no formal education. There are numerous livelihood opportunities created as a result of the establishment of UDS in Bamahu and those that were already there have also been intensified. Some of them include: food vending, internet café operation, printing, cleaning, porterage, security services, hostel management etc. Moreover, the data confirmed that living conditions of diversifiers have improved over the past few years. Most respondents preferred their current sources of livelihood to their previous sources of livelihood even though there were some socio-economic problems such as theft, multiple sale of land, and increase in room occupancy. The sustainable livelihood framework and the pentagon theory have been reflected in the results whiles the conceptual framework which links diversification to loss of farmlands and non-land based activities in rural and urban areas have been justified. REFERENCES Adomako JA (2013). Urbanisation Of The Rural

Landscape: Assessing The Effects And Coping Mechanisms In Peri-Urban Kumasi.Canadian Center for Science and Education.

Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D (1999). Rethinking the Causes of Deforestation: Lessons from Economic Models. The World Bank Research Observer, 14(1):73-98.

Atchoarena D, Wallace I, Green K, Gomes CA (2003). Strategies and Institutions for Promoting Skills for Rural Development. Education for rural development: towards new policy responses, p.239. California, NFPE

Barrett CB, Reardon T, Webb P (2001). Non-farm Income Diversification and Household Livelihood Strategies in Rural Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food policy, 26 (4):315-331.

Bebbington A (1999). Capitals and Capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World development, 27(12):2021-2044.

Belay M, Bewket W (2015). Enhancing Rural Livelihoods Through Sustainable Land and Water Management.in Northwest Ethiopia. Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 8,79-100.

Boserup E, Kanji N (2007). Woman's role in Economic Development. Earthscan.

Bryceson DF (2002) ―The Scramble in Africa: Reorienting Rural Livelihoods.‖ World Development. 30(5):725-739.

Bryceson DF (2002). Multiplex Livelihoods in Rural Africa: Recasting the terms and conditions of gainful employment. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 40 (01):1-28.

Bloom DE, Canning D, Chan K (2006). Higher Education and economic development in Africa (Vol. 102). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Carolina Bilibio OH JFS, (2012). Sustainable Water Management in the Tropics and Subtropics - and case studies in Brazil.. Vol. IV ed. India, por David Rotbard: Unipampa.

Cekan J (1992), ‘Seasonal Coping Strategies in Central Mali: five villages during the "soudure"’

Disasters, 16 (1): 66-73. Chun N, Makiko W (2011). Can Skill Diversification

Improve Welfare in Rural Areas? Evidence from the Rural Skills Development Project in Bhutan.

Davis JR (2003). The Rural Non-Farm Economy, Livelihoods and their Diversification. Issues and Options. Department for International Development. London de Neubourg C, Sigg R, Behrendt C (2002). The Welfare Pentagon and the Social Management of Risks. Social security in the global village, 8.

Dercon S (1996). Risk, Crop Choice, and Savings: Evidence from Tanzania. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 44(3):485-513.

Devereux S (2001). Livelihood Insecurity and Social Protection: A re‐emerging issue in rural development. Development policy review, 19(4):507-519.

Dilruba K, Roy B (2012). Rural Livelihood Diversification in West Bengal. Agricultural Economic Research Review, 115-124.

Ellis F (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis F (2004). Occupational Diversification in Developing Countries and Implications for Agricultural Policy. Hot topic paper-Programme of Advisory and Support Services to DFID (PASS) Project No. WB0207.

Ellis F (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. The journal of development studies, 35(1):1-38.

Eriksen SH, O'brien K (2007). Vulnerability, poverty and the need for sustainable adaptation measures. Climate policy, 7(4):337-352.

FAO and Worldbank. (2001). Farming Systems and Poverty. Rome and Washington DC.

GSS (2010). 2010 Population and Housing Census. Ghana Statistical Service.

Hilson G (2016). Farming, Small Scale Mining and Rural Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: A critical overview. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3, 547-563.

Hiremath BN (2007), December. The Changing Faces of Rural Livelihoods in India. In National Civil Society Conference on What it takes to Eradicate Poverty, New Delhi (pp. 4-6).

Hoogeveen JGM (2001), 'Risk and Insurance in Rural Zimbabwe', Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam.


Buor and Konkor 042 ICSU ISSC (2015): Review of the Sustainable

Development Goals:The Science Perspective. Paris: International Council for Science (ICSU).

Kabeer N (1999). Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment. Development and change, 30(3):435-464.

Kabila A, Kwadwo A, Janet AAA (May, 2013). Household Responses to Livelihood Transformation in Peri-Urban Kumasi. Canadian Center of Science and Education 6: 6.

Kelkar G, Nathan D (2005). Strategic Gender Interventions and Poverty Reduction: Principles and Practice. IFAD-UNIFEM Gender Mainstreaming Programme in Asia.

Kochar A (2004). Ill-health, Savings and Portfolio Choices in Developing Economies. Journal of Development Economics, 73(1):257-285.

Kumar P, Singh NP, Mathur VC (2006). Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods: A synthesis. Agricultural Economics Studies, 32(6):850-75.

Kyei PO (2008). Crawling out of Poverty: Nadowli Women and Poverty Alleviation under the Decentralized System of Ghana. Bulletin of the Ghana Geographical Association, 3(25) :129-148.

Loison SA, Loison SA (2016). Rural livelihood Diversification in Sub_Saharan Africa: ALiterature Review.The Journal of Development Studies,51, 1125-1138.

Maxwell JA (1996). Qualitative Research Design. An Interactive Approach. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications.

Mehar M, Mittal S, Prasad N (2016). Farmers Coping Strategies for Climate Shock: Is it differentiated by gender? Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 123-131.

Mikkelsen B (1995). Methods for development work and research: a guide for practitioners. Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.

Neubourg CD (2009). A Livelihood Portfolio Theory of Social Protection. Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, Maastricht University, Brussels, December, 9, pp.1-5.

Owusu F (2005). Livelihood Strategies and Performance of Ghana's Health and Education Sectors: Exploring the Connections. Public Administration and Development, 25(2):157-174.

Paavola J (2008). Livelihoods, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Morogoro, Tanzania. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(7):642-654.

Rakodi C (2002). A Livelihoods Approach–Conceptual Issues and Definitions. Urban Livelihoods: A people-centred approach to reducing poverty, pp.3-22.

Reardon T (1997). Using Evidence of Household Income Diversification to Inform Study of the Rural Nonfarm Labor Market in Africa. World Development, 25(5):735-747.

Reardon T, Taylor JE, Stamoulis K, Lanjouw P, Balisacan A (2000). Effects of Non‐farm Employment on Rural Income Inequality in Developing Countries:

An investment perspective. Journal of agricultural economics, 51(2):266-288.

Scott S (2013). Determining Sample Size: How to ensure you get the correct sample size. Provo, Utah: Qualtrics.

Karim H, John N (1998), 'Sustainable Livelihoods and Livelihood Diversification', IDS Working Paper 69.

Simon D, McGregor D, Nsiah-Gyabaah K (2004). The changing urban-rural interface of African cities: definitional issues and an application to Kumasi, Ghana. Environment and Urbanization, 16(2):235-248.

Smith DR, Gordon A, Meadows K, Zwick K (2001). Livelihood Diversification in Uganda: Patterns and determinants of change across two rural districts. Food Policy, 26(4), pp.421-435.

Tacoli C (2002). Changing Rural-Urban Interactions in the Sub-Saharan Africa and their Impact on Livelihoods: A summary (Vol. 4). IIED. Teferra D, Altbachl PG (2004). African Higher Education: Challenges for the 21st century. Higher education, 47(1):21-50.

Todaro MP, Smith SC (2009). Economic Development. 10th Edition. Pearson

United Nations. Department of Economic and United Nations. Department of Public Information, (2009). The millennium development goals report 2009. United Nations Publications.

Vedeld P, Angelsen A, Bojö J, Sjaastad E, Berg GK (2007). Forest Environmental Incomes and the Rural Poor. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(7):869-879.

WMA (2014). The Composite Budget of the Wa Municipal Assembly. Wa: Wa Municipal Assembly.

Yawn J, Benjamin M, Charitonenko S (1998). Promoting Efficient Rural Financial Intermediation. The World Bank Research Observer, 13(2):147-70.

Accepted 24 June, 2017. Citation: Buor D, Konkor I (2016). Shifting livelihood: Exploring the relationship between the presence of University for Development Studies (UDS) and livelihood diversification in Bamahu, Ghana. International Journal of Geography and Regional Planning 3(1): 027-042.

Copyright: © 2016 Buor and Konkor. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited.

Documents

IJGRP - Premier Publishers · PDF fileGhana IJGRP Shifting livelihood ... Faculty of Social Sciences, ... agricultural livelihood activities to small-scale mining in