ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT AND

SUSTAINABILITY OF LIVELIHOOD DIVERSITY STRATEGIES OF RURAL

WOMEN IN ZING LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF TARABA STATE,
NIGERIA
* Vosanka, I.P; * Tari, B; *Musa, H.Y and **Hammangabdo, J.J
* Department of Agricultural Extension and Management, Taraba State
College of Agriculture, Jalingo
* Department of Agricultural and Natural Resources, Zing Local
Government, Taraba State
Abstract
The objectives of the study include describing the socio-economic characteristics of the
respondents in the study area, to identify the major livelihood diversity strategies of the
respondents, to ascertain the socio-economic characteristics influencing the livelihood
strategies of the respondents and to assess the perception of the impact of the livelihood
strategies on the respondents. Data were collected with the aid of interview schedule from
120 respondents drawn through multi-stage random sampling technique. The data
collected were analyzed using frequency, percentage, mean, rank order and person
correlation (r) . (SPSS version 15). The findings of the study revealed that the rural
Women in the study area were involved in the following important livelihood diversity
strategies: firewood, kunu, cooked vegetables and groundnut oil processing. The
correlation result showed significant relationship between the socio-economic
characteristics such as age (r = 0.20), annual income (r = 0.25) and access to credit (r =
0.192) and the livelihood activities of the respondents at 5% 1% and 5% level of
significance respectively. The respondents disagreed in their perceptions that the
livelihood strategies had inpact on their living standard and well being. It was
recommended that capacity building and empowerment of Women in rural areas could
significantly enhance the livelihood activities of the rural women for sustainability.

Key words: Socio-economic, impact sustainability and livelihood diversity strategies,

rural women.
Introduction
It is very certain that in African countries women play a significant role in
the well being of a family and in the overall economic development of a nation.
According to Kwaghe (1999) a large proportion of the rural traders in West Africa
are women. They are involved in the trading of mainly food items and other
household items in the rural open market or in confined compounds, depending on
their religious and socio-cultural beliefs. Kwaghe (1999) further observed that

1
women process and market the crops as well as engage in range of small and off
farm enterprises earning vital income for their families. They participate in home
based businesses such as carving, weaving, knitting, sewing, etc. Thus, they are
farmers as well as wage workers.
According to Matthew-Njoku and Adesope (2007) the increasing pressure
on the income and assets of rural farm families have forced them to diversify into
non-agricultural activities as a way of improving livelihood. Ugboh (2006) also
stressed that women in Nigeria are involved in almost all phases of food
production such as cassava, maize and vegetable crop production. They have also
undertaken the rearing of small farm animals and execution of certain farm
operations. It is then evident that women involved in both agricultural and non-
agricultural activities as a sure means of generating income for sustainable
livelihood of the household.
What is sustainable livelihood?
The term sustainable livelihood was first used as a development concept in
the early 1990s. Chambers and Conway (1991) defined sustainable livelihood as
follows: a livelihood comprises peoples’ capabilities and their means of living,
including food, income and assets. A livelihood is environmentally sustainable
when it maintains or enhanced the local and global assets in which livelihood
depends and has net beneficial effect on other livelihoods. A livelihood is socially
sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stress and shock and provides
for future generation.
Sustainable livelihood approaches or strategies are centered on people and
their livelihood. They prioritize people’s assets ( Tangible and intangible), their
ability to withstand shocks ( the vulnerability context) and policies and institutions
that reflect poor people’s priorities, rather than those of the elite. Also, the concept
sustainable has been used by many scholars, more especially on development
issues. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, to sustain means to bear,
to maintain or to support the life of. (Undiandeye et al., 1999). Uyanga (2005)

2
stated that sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and
extending to all opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life.
On the other hand, a livelihood is defined by chambers (1988) as adequate
stocks and flows of food and cash to meet basics needs. Livelihoods are secure
when households have secure ownership of or access to resources and income-
earning activities, including reserves and assets to offsets risks, ease shocks and
meet contingencies (Chambers, 1988).
For a livelihood to be sustainable it must have some of the following
features:
 It must raise the standard of living of the people and must be
economically viable.
 It must result in the reduction of human suffering or alleviating human
sufferings;
 The livelihood strategy must be technically feasible, economically
viable, ecologically adaptable, socially acceptable and culturally
compatible (Undiandeye et a.l, 1999).
Livelihood Diversity Strategies of Rural Women
Women have been reported to be involved in various income generating
activities in order to sustain themselves and the family. Ogunbameru (2006) found
that women were involved in agricultural activities such as food processing,
marketing, milking of cow and keeping of poultry in order to combat poverty, as
source of income for home consumption, and recreation or hobby. Winters (2001)
reported that rural households obtain additional income from migrant remittances,
agricultural wage employment and by a range of agricultural activities including
livestock and crop production. On their part Matthews-Njoku and Adesope
reported the livelihood diversity strategies of rural women involved in to include
petty trading, tailoring, thrift savings, farming, cooking at occasions and hair
plaiting. The evidence from these studies suggest that not only is the rural sector

3
fairly diversified across activities, but also that households and individuals
especially women use a range of activities as part of their survival strategies.
Although empirical, studies on livelihood diversity strategies have been
reported elsewhere; little or no empirical studies on the livelihood diversity
strategies of rural women in Zing Local Government Area have been conducted
and/ or reported. A study of the livelihood diversity strategies of the rural women
could help to understand their major sources of income with a view to supporting
them raise and improve their standard of living in the many rural communities.
Equally, a study of the Women’s perception will help to empower them and to
have confidence and trust in their livelihood in the rural areas which can reduce
the incidence of rural urban migration in the country.
The objectives of the study:
The broad objective of this study is to analyze the socio-economic impact
and sustainability of livelihood diversity strategies of rural women in Zing Local
Government Area of Taraba State, Nigeria, while the specific objectives are to:
1. describe the socio-economic characteristics of the rural women in the study
area;
2. identify the major livelihood diversity strategies of the rural women in the
study area;
3. ascertain the socio-economic characteristics influencing the livelihood
strategies of the respondents.
4. asses the perception impact of the livelihood strategies of the respondents.

Methodology:
The Study area
The study was carried out in Zing Local Government Area of Taraba State,
Nigeria. The area consist of ten (10) council wards. Farming is the major
occupation of the people. The LGA shares common boundaries with Ganye LGA
of Adamawa State to the South, Mayo- Belwa in the east and Yorro LGA (Taraba

4
State) in the east. It is located between latitude 8° 40 1 and 9º North and longitude
11° 351 and 11º 871 East. The average rainfall of the area is approximately
1500mm per annum. The temperature ranges between 20-35°c, the vegetation is of
Guinea Savannah zone and it has a total population of 127,63 people (National
Population Commission, NPC, 2006) with land mass of 4,041, 123 square
kilometers.
Sources of data and sampling procedure
Data were obtained from primary and secondary sources. The primary
source involved the use of interview schedule designed by the researchers. The use
of journal, seminar proceeding and the internet source were some of the secondary
sources employed for the study. The population considered for the study was rural
women. Multi-stage random sampling techniques were used to draw respondents,
viz:- The first stage involved a purposive selection of six (6) council wards
namely:- Monkin A, Dinding, Bubong, Zing A1, Zing B and Bitako, based on their
rurality out of the ten council wards in the study area. The random selection of 12
villages in the six wards drawn was the second stage. Finally, 10 women were
selected at random in each of the villages drawn, giving a total sample size of 120
respondents in the third stage.
Method of data Analysis
The data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
The descriptive statistics include frequency, percentage and rank order. These
were used to describe the socio-economic characteristics, identify the major
livelihood diversity strategies and to assess the perception of the impact of the
livelihood strategies on the respondents (objectives, 1,2 and 4). Information on the
perception of the impact of the livelihood strategies on the respondents was
collected using closed ended question which contained 10 items were based on a
5- point rating scale of completely agreed = 5; agreed = 4; completely disagreed =
3; disagreed = 2 and no responses = 1. The respondents mean scores were obtained
for each response item such that any mean score equal or higher to 3.50 were

5
regarded as agreed, while a mean score below 3.50 implied disagreement on the
impact of the livelihood strategies on the respondents. The inferential statistics
used to compute the socio-economic characteristics influencing the livelihood
strategies of the respondents was correlation analysis (SPSS version 15). The
variables were measured as follows:-
Y = Livelihood activities involved (Number).
X1 = Age (years)
X2 = Formal schooling (Years)
X3 = Income from livelihood activities (Naira).
X4 = Members of household assisting in livelihood activities (Number)
X5 = Access to credit (dummy: yes = 1, No= 0)
Results and Discussion
Socio-Economic characteristics
The study revealed that most of the respondents (44%) were between 40-59
years, which showed that they are in the middle age. Mafimisebi (2007) observed
that respondents within this age limit are in the economically active age bracket to
undertake various livelihood activities. The result (Table 1) also indicated that
most (45%) of the respondents are married. This is in accord with Ogunbameru et
al, (2006), Matthews- Njoku and Adesope (2007) who reported that most of the
respondents were married women. Married women are involved in various
livelihood activities to solve numerous family problems and to assist in
supplementing the family income for sustenance.
Table 1 further showed that 40.83% of the respondents did not attend any
formal education and only 3.33% were observed to have had tertiary education.
With their little education, the women could lacked skills/training and knowledge
to improve on their livelihood activities. Imam (1998) observed that women with
little or no education have limited economic opportunities. The result (Table 1) on
the members of the family assisting in the livelihood activities of the respondents
indicated majority (73.33%) had between 1-4 members assisting in their livelihood

6
activities, 17.54 percent had between 6-10 members and those with 11 members
and above were 12.5%. Table 1 further shows the annual income (Naira) realized
by the respondents in their major livelihood activities. Those that earned between
N5000-N30, 000 were 9.17%, 55% of the respondents earned income in the range
of N31,000-N56,000 and the remaining 35.83% had income of N57,000 and
above. Sallau and Rahman (2007) reported an annual income of less than N100,
000 among rural women. If the income of the women in their livelihood activities
is small, it cannot sustain and maintain the family and hence could be
unsustainable.
Major Livelihood Activities of the Respondents
Analysis of the results in Table 2 showed that the most important livelihood
diversity strategies of the respondents were the sells of fire wood, which ranked 1 st
on the list with 19.2% of the respondents involved in. others were the sells of
Kunu (12.2%), the sells of cooked vegetables (10.3%) and the least important
activities in the order of hierarchy was selling of sweet pepper, that ranked the 11 th
position (0.3%). These livelihood activities are in contrast to Matthews- Njoku and
Adesope (2007) who found the important livelihood strategies of the respondents
as a petty trading, hair plating, thrift-saving, farming and cooking at occasions.
This is obvious as the activities are agricultural based and therefore, could only be
the means for livelihood in rural areas.

Correlation results of the relationship between the socio-economic

characteristics and the livelihood activities of the respondents.
Correlation results of the relationship between the socio-economic
characteristics and the livelihood activities of the respondents were determined
and the results presented in table 3. The results showed significant relationship in
age, access to credit and annual income at 5%, and 1% level of significance
respectively. This implies that age, annual income and access to credit contributes
to the respondent’s involvement in their livelihood activities.

7
Perception impact of the livelihood strategies on the women
The results of the differential ratings on the impact of livelihood strategies
on the rural women are shown in Table 4. Analysis of the results showed that all
the women disagreed in their perception with regard to positive impact of their
livelihood activities on their well being and living standard. This suggests that the
livelihood activities of the rural women in the study area are unsustainable.
Matthews- Njoku and Adesope (2007) however, reported most serious impact of
the various livelihood strategies to include the ability to feed adequately, buy or
rent land for farming, and access to improve health care and education.
Table 1, Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (n=120).
Variables Frequency Percentage(%)
1. Age. (Years)
20-39 43 36.00
40-59 53 44.00
60+ 24 20.00
2. Marital Status.
Married 56 45.00
Single 45 40.00
Divorced 19 15.00
3. Educational Level
No formal schooling 49 40.83
Primary education 28 23.33
Secondary education 16 13.33
Tertiary education 4 3.33
Adult education 23 19.17
4. Household Assisting in activities (Number)
1-4 88 73.33
5-7 21 17.54
8-1 11 9.12
5. Annual income (N)
5,000-30.000 = 11 9.17
31,000-56,000 = 66 55.00
57,000+ 43 35.83
Source: field Study, 2009

8
Table 2: Major Livelihood Activities of the respondents
Livelihood Strategies * Frequency Percentage Rank
Sells of fire wood 60 19.2 1st
Sells of kunu 38 12.2 2nd
Cooked vegetables 32 10.3 3rd
Processing of groundnut oil 30 9.6 4th
Daddawa (processing) 29 9.3 5th
Cake (frying) 28 9.0 6th
Yam (frying) 27 8.7 7th
Burkutu (local drinks) 27 8.7 7th
Hair plaiting 25 8.0 8th
Sells of fresh vegetables 18 5.8 9th
Farm labour 12 3.8 10th
Maize (roasting) 12 3.8 10th
Sweet pepper (retails) 1 0.3 11th
Source: Field study, 2009
* = Multiple responses

9
Table 3: Correlations results of the relationship between the socio-economic
characteristics and livelihood Activities of the respondents.
Group N Mean Standard AF-Value P-Value r-value
Decision Deviation
Livelihood 120 2.2692 0.6909
Activities
Age 120 41.533 11.205 0.05 0.028 0.201 S
Education 120 3.392 4.127 0.05 0.532 0.58 NS
Annual 120 52759.66 136009.299 0.01 0.005 0.257 S
Income
No
Household 120 3.183 1.720 0.05 0.175 0.125 NS
Access to 120 0.433 0.498 0.05 0.036 0.192 S
Credit
Source: Field study, 2009
S = Significant at 1% and 5% level
NS = Not significant at 5% level.

10
Table 4: Differential ratings of the perceptions of the impacts of livelihood
strategies on the respondents.
Impact/perception Mean Standard Deviation Remarks

Adequate food 3.2417 0.91666 D

Improved health care 2.6667 0.74848 D
Increased income 3.2333 0.63157 D
Better clothing 2.3500 0.69391 D
Provision if employment 3.0500 1.12160 D
Payment of Children school fees 2.4667 1.19476 D
More farm inputs 1.6250 0.89876 D
Means of transportation 2.9083 0.90745 D
Improved family welfare 3.3833 0.9365 D
Less dependence on people 3.4167 1.7632 D
Source: Field study, 2009
D= Disagreed.

11
 REFERENCES
Chambers, R. (1988), Sustainable rural livelihood; a key for people, environment
and development, in Uyanga, J and Ekop, O.B. (2005), Towards
sustainable livelihoods in recureent drought-prone areas of Africa. In
Uyanga et al; (eds) Towards A sustainable Environmental management,
paraclete publishers, Yola-Nigeria. PP 24-31.
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1991), Sustainable rural livelihoods. Practical
concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion paper 296 Brightain.
Imam, H. (1998), The challenges of Micro-finance in Africa. A Paper presented at
the 2nd Global Women Entrepreneurs trade fair and investment forum on
credit and private Direct investment for the enhancement of women
Entrepreneurs participation in the Global Economy held in Addis-Ababa,
Ethiopia, 15-23 Oct.
Kwaghe, P.V. (1999), Women Feed the Women Feed the World: prospects,
problems and solutions for sustainable Agriculture. In Undiandeye et al,
(eds), Sustainable Agricultural development, principles and case studies.
Mainasara publishing company Borno State Pp 86-98.
Mafimisebi, T.E. (2007), A comparative Economic Analysis of two-cassava Based
business Activities Exclusive of the female Gender in Oyo State, Nigeria.
Journal of Agricultural Extension, Vol. 10 Pp 1-8
Matthews-Njoku, E.C and Adesope, O.N. (2007), Livelihood Diversity Strategies
of rural women in Imo State Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural extension,
Vol. 10 Pp 117-123 NPc (2006), Http/en. Wikipedia. Org/wii/Taraba State.
Ogunbameru, B.O; M.M Gwary; Y.L. Idrisa; A.O Ani and A.B. Yero (2006),
Empowerment of women through Urban Agriculture Development in
Maiduguri Metropolitan, Borno – State. Proceedings 11th Annual national
conference of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON), 3 rd-
6th April, Pp 147-156.

12
Sallau, E.S, and S.A Rahman (2007), Gender Analysis of Accessibility of farm
resources among small scale farmers in Lafia area of Nassarawa State-
Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, Vol.10 Pp 102 – 108
Ogboh, O. (2006), Factors impeding Women Active Participation in Agricultural
and Rural Development. Proceedings, 11th Annual Conference of AESON
5th April, P 157.
Undiandeye, U.C. Bila, Y. and Kushwaha, S. (1999), Perspective in Sustainable
Agricultural Development in Nigeria. In Undiandeye, U.C Bila, Y. and
Kushwaha, S (eds), Sustainable Agricultural Development Principles and
case studies in Nigeria, Mainasara Publishing Company, Maiduguri-
Nigeria Pp 1-9.
Uyanga, J. (2005), Sustainable Development and Environmental Management: An
Overview, Uyanga, J.m; Galtima, M. and Ono, M. (eds), Towards
Sustainable Environmental Management. Paracelete Publishers, Yola-
Nigeria P13.
Winters, P; Corral, L and Gondillo, G. (2001), Rural Livelihood Strategies and
Social capital in Latin America. Implications for rural development
projects. Working paper series in Agriculture and resource economics in
Matthews-Njoku, E.C and Adesope, O.N. (2007), Livelihood Diversity
Strategies of Rural Women in Imo-State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural
Extension, Vol. 10 pp 117-123.3 9

13