Journal of Agricultural Economics, Environment and Social Sciences 6(1):118 – 130 June, 2020 Copy Right © 2015. Printed in . All rights of reproduction in any form is reserved. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria Available on line: http://www.jaeess.com.ng ISSN: 2476 – 8423

Evaluation of Livelihood Status among Smallholder Cowpea Farmers in State, Nigeria

*A. S. Ahmed1 and A. L. Mustapha2 1Audu Bako College of Agriculture, Danbatta, , Nigeria. 2Centre for Dryland Agriculture, Bayero University Kano.

ABSTRACT The study examined livelihood status of smallholder cowpea farmers in Kano State, Nigeria using economic, food, health, education and empowerment indicators. Multistage sampling technique was used for the study. Primary data were collected from a sample of three hundred and eighty seven (387) smallholder cowpea farmers using structured questionnaire. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics such as frequency and percentage tables and Livelihood Security Index Model. Findings of the study indicated that locational disparity exists in terms of livelihood status among the locations under study. Specifically, LGA was found to be poor in terms of economic, health and educational conditions for livelihood status improvement. Generally, more than half (50.9%) of the cowpea farmers were found within a medium (less than 0.32) livelihood status category, a situation that is attributable to poor access and control of economic resources; inadequate health care and educational services among the smallholder cowpea farmers as indicated by the result in the study area. To reduce locational disparity in terms of standard living conditions of the targeted farmers’ rural development, policy makers need to prioritize improvement of economic, health and education conditions of the cowpea farmers in the study area.

Keywords: Cowpea, Evaluation, Farmers, Livelihood Status, Smallholder.

INTRODUCTION Cowpea is the most economically important indigenous African legume crop (Langyntuo et al., 2003) of vital importance to the livelihood of several millions of people in West and Central Africa. Rural families that make up the larger part of the population of these regions derive food, animal feed, alongside cash income (Gómez, 2004). Cowpea is mainly grown by millions of resource-poor farmers in northern Nigeria on a production capacity of 0.10 to 4.99 hectares (Federal Office of Statistics, 1999). The crop has a great potential to contribute to food security and poverty reduction in Nigeria for improvement of living condition among farming households (Abdullai, Etwire, Wiredu, Baributsa and Lowenberg-DeBoer, 2014). Furthermore, social and economic impact of cowpea on intra-household welfare was linked to increasing food security, fodder for animal feed and income availability to for household goods, petty trading of bean cakes and expansion of petty trading for livelihood status improvement (Tipilda et al., 2005). In many poor countries, agriculture accounts for at least 40 percent of GDP and 80 percent of employment. At the same time, about 70 percent of the world's poor live in rural areas and

*Corresponding Author email: [email protected]; Tel: +234

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020 most depend on agriculture for their livelihoods (World Bank, 2008). Over 214 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) suffer from poverty (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2014). Poverty incidence in Nigeria rose from 27.2% in 1980 to 42.7% in 1992 and 69% in 2010 (NBS, 2012). Therefore, there is an urgent need to face the growing problems of inadequate and unsustainable access to nutrition, health care, safe water, sanitation and access to resources that help the poor farming households to afford an acceptable standard of living. There is thus, the need for rigorous investigation of the nature and extent of livelihood status of smallholder cowpea farmers in the study area. Livelihood status, according to Frankenberger (1998) is the extent of ‘adequate and sustainable access to income and resources to meet basic needs (including adequate access to food, potable water, health facilities, educational opportunities, housing, time for community participation and social integration)’. Livelihoods can be derived from a range of on-farm and off-farm activities, which together provide a variety of procurement strategies for food and cash. Thus, each household can have several possible sources of entitlement, which constitute its livelihood. These entitlements are based on the household’s endowments and its position in the legal, political and social fabric of society. The risk of livelihood failure determines the level of vulnerability of a household to income, food, health and nutritional insecurity. Subsistence producers and small farm wage laborers in the rural areas of low-income countries constitute over two thirds of the global poor and food insecure populations (IFAD, 2010). Indices for economic and social status are composite indicators of the economic and social well-being at the community, state, national and international levels. These social indicators are used to monitor the social system and help in the identification of problem areas that need policy planning and require intervention to alter the course of social change (Frankenberger et al., 1998). In social indicators survey Land (1999) identified three main uses of social indicators: (i) monitoring, (ii) social reporting, and (iii) public enlightenment and social forecasting. There are several indices developed for measuring economic and social status of people for example, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) developed several other indices like Gender-related Development Index (GDI), which indicates the average achievement of each country in life expectancy and educational attainments of men and women; Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) which evaluate relative empowerment of women and Human Poverty Index (HPI) (UNDP, 1998). A comprehensive survey of different indicators of economic and social well-being has been provided by Sharpe (1999). The Quality of Life Index (QOL) developed by Diener (1995) is based on universal set of values. Apart from these, several international and cross-national indices have been developed based on time series data and data related to particular community, province and administrative boundaries. However, the best known composite index of social and economic wellbeing is Human Development Index (HDI), developed by UNDP (1989). The development of livelihood security index is one of the most important social indicators for assessing the quality of life, coupled with meeting the basic needs of human beings. The basic aim of this index for this study was to make cross-locational comparison. Taking the cognizance of the contributions of past studies, this study add to the existing body of knowledge by providing empirical information on the livelihood status of smallholder cowpea farmers in Kano state using five livelihood status indicators sated as follows economic status, health status, educational status, food status and empowerment status. It is believed that knowledge and understanding of households’ livelihood status will provide government and other relevant agencies the critical information for designing and implementing the appropriate policy and

119

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020 interventions to alter the course of social and economic changes to result in improved welfare status of farming households. It is also relevant to researchers for identifying other areas for further study.

METHODOLOGY Study Area The study was conducted in some selected Local Government Areas of Kano State. The state lies between 9030” and 10033” to 12037” North and longitudes 7034” to 9025” East. The state occupies a total land area of about 45,711.19 Km square with a total of 44 Local Government Areas (LGAs) with a projected population figure of 12,985,526.74 in the year 2019 (National Population Census, 2006). The area lies in the Sudan and Northern Guinea Savannah agro- ecological zone, which is characterized by long dry season starting from October to April and raining season that lasts from April to September. The annual rainfall varies from 600 mm to 1200 mm in the Guinea Savannah part of the State and 300 mm to 600mm in the Sudan Savannah. Agriculture is the dominant source of livelihood to the local people in which major crops grown are Cowpea followed by Soybean, Groundnut, Millet, Sorghum and Maize. Livestock reared are Cattle, Sheep, Goat, Poultry and Fish. These are supplemented by Rural Non-farm activities such as Blacksmith, Carpentry, Dyeing, Weaving, Thread making, Car and Tricycle driving, Vulcanizing, bricks laying, public and private service activities.

Sampling Technique Primary data was used for the study. The primary data was obtained from cowpea farmers using a structured questionnaire. The researcher and trained enumerators administered the questionnaires. The data collected include poverty status of the farmers, influence of socio- economic characteristics of cowpea farmers and livelihood status indicators of cowpea farmers in some selected LGA of Kano State. Multistage sampling technique was used for the study. Stage one involved the purposive selection of six (6) Local Governments Areas (LGAs) out of the forty four LGAs in the state base on the intensity of smallholder cowpea production. The selected LGAs are , , Tsanyawa, , Tofa, and Riming gado. Stage two involved purposive selection of two villages each from the selected LGAs based on the concentration of small scale cowpea farmers. The selected villages are Faragai and Sabon garin naira from Albasu LGA, Kausani and sayasaya from Wudil LGA, Kabagiwa and Yan’kamaye from Tsanyawa LGA, Dingin and Kazurawa from Minjibir LGA, Kwami and Doka villages from Tofa LGA, Yalwan danziyal and Riming gado from LGA. A list of nine hundred and twenty six (926) smallholder sole cowpea producing farmers were identified and listed during a preliminary survey conducted with the help of key informants and extension agents. The third stage involved a simple random selection of three hundred and eighty seven (387) small scale cowpea farmers selected out of list of sole cowpea farmers (sampling frame), using mathematical formula suggested by Robert and Daryle (1970). The calculated sample was proportionately distributed according to the estimated number of smallholder cowpea farmers in each of the selected villages. The formula used is given as follows:

120

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020

Where: S = calculated sample size X2 = Table value of chi-square at degree of freedom (df) = 1 for desired confidence level (0.10 = 2.71; 0.05 = 3.84; 0.01 = 6.64 and 0.001= 10.83). N = Population size P = Population proportion (assumed to be 0.50, since would provide maximum sample size) d = degree of accuracy expressed as proportion (0.05) Smallholder cowpea farmers sample size calculation X2 = 6.64, N = 926, P = 0.50 d = 0.05

Table 1: Sampling Table for Smallholder Cowpea Farmers LGAs Villages Sampling Frame Sample size Albasu Faragai 91 38 Sabongari naira 61 25 Wudil Kausani 78 33 Sayasaya 55 23 Tsanyawa Kabagiwa 67 28 Yan’kamaye 91 38 Minjibir Dingin 82 34 Kazurawa 86 36 Tofa Kwami 59 25 Doka 86 36 Rimin gado Yalwan Danziyal 91 38 Rimin gado 79 33 Total 926 387 Source: A preliminary survey, 2016.

Analytical Tools: The analytical tools used in the study include descriptive statistics and Livelihood Security Index (LSI) were used to achieve the objective of the study.

Descriptive statistics: Descriptive statistics is a scientific method used for analyzing, summarizing and presenting collected data. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage table was used for the present study.

121

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020

Livelihood Status Index (LSI): Following the work of Hahn, Riederer and Foster (2009), Rahman and Akter (2009) and Usman (2013), the Household Livelihood Status Index (HLSI) was constructed to estimate the livelihood status of cowpea farmers in Kano state. In this study eleven (11) livelihood status indicators were identified and broadly grouped across five (5) status domains stated as follows economic status, health status, educational status, food status and empowerment status (Lindenberg, 2002). The indices were calculated using equation adapted from the standardization of indicators comprising the Human Development Index (HDI)., Similar to other studies (Hahn, Riederer & Foster, 2009; Sullivan 2002) of LSI construct, a balanced weight average was assumed with each subcomponent contributing equally to the overall index. The computation of each indicator value was shown as follows:

= …………………………………………….. …………… (2)

Where;

Zj = standardized subcomponent J Xj = unstandardized subcomponents (X1, X2, X3, … X22)

Economic indicators

X1 = Annual income of cowpea farmers

X2 = Value of farmland owned by cowpea farmers

X3 = Value of livestock’s owned by cowpea farmers

X4 = Amount of current savings of cowpea farmers in naira

X5= Number of facilities owned by the cowpea farmers household (e.g. television, radio, refrigerator, handset, etc.)

X6 = Accessibility of cowpea farmers to portable water within 1km distance or 1 hour, scored as 1 = Accessible 0 = Not accessible Health status indicators

X7 = Affordability of cowpea farmers to healthcare services scored as 1 = Affordable 0 = Not affordable

X8 = Number of days member(s) of your household suffer from diarrhea in the last 30 days

X9 = Number of days member(s) of your household suffer from other sickness in the last 30 days,

X10 = Number of days cowpea farmers unable to work due to sickness

X11 = Frequency of antenatal consultation throughout the pregnancy period

Educational status indicators

X12 = Number of children sponsored to school (primary, secondary and tertiary levels)

X13 = Number of children between 7 to 14 years that can read and write (Literacy)

X14 = Number of adult male 15 and above years that can read and write (Literacy)

122

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020

X15 = Number of adult female 15 and above years that can read and write (Literacy). Food status indicators

X16 = Number of food groups consumed per day

X17 =Number of times the cowpea farmer can feed his/her family per day

X18 = Value of crop stock’s own by cowpea farmers

X19 = Number of months food was convenient to the household in a year. Empowerment status indicators

X20 = Number of times household participated in community activities

X21 = Access to organizations that offer services (yes=1, no = 0)

X22 = Household participation in planning process (yes=1, no = 0)

Minj = minimum value of the indicator obtained from the study area

Maxj = maximum value of the indicator obtained from the study area Once each indicator representing major components is standardised, then the relevant household livelihood status index for each of the major component was constructed by averaging the standardised indicators as follows:

= …………………………………………… (3)

Where; J = number of subcomponents used to construct the index Once each LS index for each major component is constructed, then the composite overall livelihood status index for the household was constructed using the following formula as follows:

= …………………………………………. (4)

Where;

Wi = weights determined by the number of indicators used to construct each LS index. The sum of the weight of economic status, food status, health status, educational status, and empowerment status was equal to 1.00. Thus;

W1 = Economic status = 0.2

W2 = Food status = 0.2

W3 = Health status = 0.2

W4 = Education status = 0.2

W5 = Empowerment status = 0.2 Total weight = 1.0.

123

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Socio-economic Characteristics of Cowpea Farmers in Kano State: Socio-economic status is a combined measure of economic and social position of an individual or a group of farmers in relation to others in the sample. It has a profound role in determining farmers' accessibility to the common resources, livelihood pattern, household food & nutritional security etc. descriptive statistics of socio-economic characteristics of cowpea farmers using frequency and percentages were presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Distribution of cowpea farmers according to socio-economic characteristics, n=387

Parameters Variables Minimum Maximum Mean Std. error Age (years) 15.0 70.0 38.0 0.6 Household size (Number) 1.0 26.0 10.0 0.3 Farm size devoted for cowpea production (ha) 0.2 2.0 1.2 0.03 Frequency Percentage Gender Male 376 97.2 Female 11 2.8 Marital status Married 329 85 Single 58 15 Level of education Islamic education 90 23.3 Primary education 82 21.2 Secondary education 124 32.0 Tertiary education 91 23.5 Source: Field survey, 2017.

Age of cowpea farmers: The result of the study revealed that cowpea farmers had a mean age value of 38 with minimum and maximum age of 15 and 70 years with and standard error of 0.6. This implies that majority of the cowpea farmers were young within their active age. Farmers with this average age are believed to be more flexible in decision making toward diversification of livelihood into more income returning non-farm employment activities compared to older farmers. Farmers in this average age group are not often averse to diversification are therefore able to generate additional sources of income in order to improve their living condition.

124

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020

Household size of cowpea farmers: The result of the study shows that cowpea farmers had a mean house hold size of 10 members with minimum and maximum of 1 and 26 members. This implies family labour availability among cowpea farmer households to supplement hired labour. Availability of family labout reduces cost of farm and non-farm operations to increase household income level and improve living standard of cowpea farmers. Farm size devoted to cowpea production: Findings of the study show that the cowpea farmers had a mean farm size for cowpea production of 1.5 ha with a minimum and maximum value of 0.2 and 2.0ha. Limited size of farm holding could compel farmers to diversify livelihood sources into market-oriented farm and non-farm activities to generate higher income to improve their welfare status (Khatiwada, Deng, Paudel, & Khatiwada, 2017). Sex of cowpea farmers: Findings of this research established dominance of male (97.2%) cowpea producers in the study area, while only 2.8% of the farmers were reported to be female. This could be attributed to cultural barriers which influence low participation of women into farm and non- farm activities in the study area. This is because women where left indoor busy with Childbearing and caring together with other home-based activities. Furthermore, this also affects their day to day household decision making roles as well as access to production assets in the study area. The findings are also in line with that of Modu and Putai (2010) who reported a dominance of male farmers in cowpea production. Marital status of cowpea farmers:

The majority (85%) of the cowpea farmers were married, while only 15% were reported as single. Married farmers are expected to make more reasonable decisions for the benefit of the entire household and cowpea farmers are more likely to have children to participate in farm and non-farm activities to contribute to the household livelihood in the study area. In addition, being married could imply a farmer has responsibilities of providing for the household members and thus, likely to engage in other income generating activities in order to earn more income and cater for the livelihood of his household. This finding is in line with the work of Modu & Putai, (2010) that reported 74% of cowpea farmers as married.

Level of education of cowpea farmers: Findings of this study revealed that majority (76.7%) of the farmers acquired western type of education while only 23.3% of the farmers were reported to have no formal education. This implies that formal education serves as a valuable resource to formally educated cowpea farmers. It could also help cowpea farmers access information that will enable them participate in market-oriented farm activities secure farm and non-farm wage employment, diversify into non-farm self-employment activities to earn more income in order to smoothly discharge there social obligation to improve the livelihood status of the entire household. Furthermore, level of formal education attained goes a long way in shaping cowpea farmers' personality, attitude and influence adoption of improved farm practice (Sulumbe, 2004).

125

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020

Livelihood Status of Cowpea Farmers in Kano State: The study measures livelihood status of cowpea farmers in 6 selected LGA in Kano State, using 5 livelihood status domains such as economic, food, health, education and empowerment. Indices of each were computed based on a number of components under each domain. The value of status index is non-negative and lies between 0 and 1. The index value close to one indicates the higher level status while index value close to 0 indicates the lower level status. The result of the analysis is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Estimated livelihood status of cowpea farmers in Kano State

Livelihood Status Index State Indicators/Location Albasu Wudil Tsanyawa Minjibir Tofa R/gado index Economic status 0.18 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 Health status 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Educational status 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.18 Food status 0.38 0.39 0.35 0.42 0.37 0.40 0.39 Empowerment status 0.50 0.43 0.44 0.51 0.59 0.47 0.49 Overall livelihood status 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.28 Source: Field survey, 2017.

Table 3 provides the status of Albasu, Wudil, Tsanyawa, Minjibir, Tofa, and Rimingado with respect to different sub-indices and Overall Livelihood Status Index. Economic Status Index (ECSI) revealed that Wudil LGA has the highest (0.20) economic status and Tsanyawa LGA was found to be the least (0.15). This may be due to the better access and control to economic resource such as income, savings, farmland, livestock and household facilities among farmers in wudil. The results also showed that Albasu, Minjibir, Tofa and Rimingado LGAs all have the highest (0.17) Health Status Index (HSI) whereas Wudil LGA was found with the least (0.15). This implies that Albasu, Minjibir, Tofa and Rimingado LGAs had some comparative advantage in term of basic access to health care services and facilities in the study area. Educational Status Index (EDSI) result revealed that Rimingado LGA was found with higher (0.22) educational status and Wudil LGA as the least (0.15). Higher value of EDSI in Rimingado LGA could be attributed to availability of educational facilities in addition to number of students sponsored to attend primary, secondary and tertiary education. Food Status Index (FSI) indicated Minjibir LGA to be highly developed in terms of food security status (0.42) and Tsanyawa LGA to be least (0.35). This could be attributed to number of times cowpea farmers are able to feed their family a day, number of food groups household members consumed a day and number of months food was found to be convenient to the household members. Based on Empowerment Status Index (EMSI), Tofa LGA was found to be the highest (0.59) empowered area whereas Wudil LGA was found to be the least (0.43) empowered. The higher EMSI in Tofa LGA could be attributed to having better access to governmental and non-governmental agricultural services followed by the opportunity of household members to participate in community planning process. The findings of the study revealed that Overall Livelihood Status of Tofa LGA was found to be highest (0.3), followed by Minjibir (0.29) and Rimingado (0.29) LGA, respectivelyund to

126

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020 be the least (0.25). The Overall Livelihood Status score of 0.3 and 0.29 in Tofa LGA f. These are followed by Albasu LGA (0.28) and Wudil LGA (0.27). Only Tsanyawa LGA was followed by Minjibir and Rimingado LGAs implied that smallholder cowpea farmers’ household in the LGAs have better access to empowerment training, availability of food, access and control to economic resources together with limited availability and access to health care and educational facility in the study area. State Livelihood Status Indicators (SLSI) result revealed that Empowerment Status Index (0.49), which was followed by Food Status Index (0.39) were found to be the major Livelihood Status Indicators and only Health Status Index (0.17) was found to be the least in the study area.

Categorization of livelihood status of cowpea farmers in Kano State: This study followed the work of Rai, Sharma, Sahoo & Malhotra (2008), to categorize livelihood status of cowpea farmers in the study area into low, medium, and high livelihood status using percentiles. In this study livelihood status index (LSI) of cowpea farmers below 0.24 (0 to 25th percentiles) was considered low, whereas LSI of 0.32 and above (75th and above percentiles) was considered high while the remaining livelihood status index below 0.32 (26th to 74th) was considered as medium livelihood status in the study area. Result of the analysis is presented in Table 4. Table 4 specifically revealed that 50.9% equivalent to 197 cowpea farmers were found with medium LSI (less than 0.32) with dominance (19.29%) of cowpea farmers from Albasu LGA. This could be attributed to poor economic resources base such as income, farm land, livestock, savings and other household facilities in addition limited access to health care and educational services in the study area.

Table 4: Distribution of Cowpea Farmers’ Base on Livelihood Status Livelihood status category using Percentiles Low (25th) Medium (less than 75th) High (75th and above) Location/LSI Less than 0.24 Less than 0.32 0.32 and above Tofa 10(11.24) 26(13.20) 25(24.75) R/gado 16(17.98) 33(16.75) 22(21.78) Tsanyawa 19(21.35) 35(17.77) 12(11.88) Albasu 14(15.73) 38(19.29) 11(10.89) Wudil 17(19.10) 28(14.21) 11(10.89) Minjibir 13(14.61) 37(18.78) 20(19.80) Total 89(23.0%) 197(50.9%) 101(26.1%) Source: field survey, 2017; Number in parenthesis are percentages.

About 26.1% of the cowpea farmers were observed with high LSI (0.32 and above) with dominance (24.75%) of cowpea farmers from Tofa LGA. Lastly, 23.0% of the cowpea farmers were reported with least LSI (below 0.24) with a relatively higher percentage (21.35%) of cowpea farmers from Tsanyawa LGA.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study measures livelihood status of cowpea farmers in 6 selected LGA in Kano State, using economic, food, health, education, and empowerment indicators. Findings of the study

127

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020 indicated that locational differences exist among areas under study due to differences in implementation of policy planning in the study area. Specifically, Tsanyawa LGA requires special attention of the policy makers in term of better access economic resources, health care and educational services. Generally, more than half (50.9%) of the cowpea farmers were found within a medium (less than 0.32) livelihood status category which attributed to low access to economic resources, health care and educational services in the study area.

The study therefore recommended the following: i) To reduce locational differences in terms of standard conditions of living among farming household policy makers need to formulate appropriate planned development policies for balanced development among cowpea farmers in the study area. ii) To make a meaningful change on the livelihood status of the targeted farming household, rural development policy needs to prioritize improvement on better access to economic resources, health care and educational services which were suitable to every area under study.

REFERENCES Abdullai, M., Etwire, P. M., Wiredu A. N., Baributsa, D. and Lowenberg-DeBoer J. (2014). Cowpea storage practices and factors that influence choice in Ghana. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2(7), pp. 177-185. Chege, A. C. (2004). Cowpea productivity improvement in Africa. Pesticides News, 61: 12- 13. Diener, E.D. (1995) A value-based index for measuring national quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 36:107-127. FAO, IFAD and WFP (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Fund for Agricultural Development and World Food Programme). (2014). State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014: Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. FAO, Rome. Federal Office of Statistics (1999). Poverty and agricultural sector in Nigeria. Federal office of statistics, Abuja, Nigeria. Food and Agricultural Organisation (2006). Proper food report in: Wagenigen, A quarterly magazine from University of Wagenigen, Netherlands: issue 2. Frankenberger, T. R., & McCaston, M. K. (1998). The household livelihood security concept. Food Nutrition and agriculture, 30-35. Gomez, C. (2004). Cowpea: Post Harvest Operations, Post-harvest Compendium, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome, Italy. Hahn, M.B., Riederer, A.M. & Foster, S.O., (2009), ‘The livelihood vulnerability index: A pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change – A case study in Mozambique’, Global Environmental Change 19(1), 74–88. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.11.002. 4th August, 2016.

128

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020

Hahn, M.B., Riederer, A.M. & Foster, S.O., (2009), ‘The livelihood vulnerability index: A pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change – A case study in Mozambique’, Global Environmental Change 19(1), 74–88. IFAD, (2010). Rural Poverty Report. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome. Khatiwada, S. P., Deng, W., Paudel, B., & Khatiwada, J. R. (2017). Household Livelihood Strategies and Implication for Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas of Central Nepal, 1– 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040612, retrieved on September, 25, 2016. Land, E.D. (1999) Social indicators, In: Encyclopedia of Sociology, Eds: Edgar F. Borgatta and Rhonda V. Montgometry, revised edition, New York: MacMillan. Lindenberg, M. (2002). Measuring household livelihood security at the family and community level in the developing world. World Development, 30(2): 301-318. Modu, Y., & Putai, A. J. (2010). An economic analysis of cowpea production among women farmers in Askira / Uba Local Government Area Borno State Nigeria, African Journal of General Agriculture 6(1), 7–17. National Bureau of Statistics, (2012), Nigerian poverty profile report 2010. Proshareng.com retrieved on September 26, 2016. NPC (2006): National Population and Housing Census. Federal Republic of Nigeria. Rahman, S. and Akter, S. (2009). Determinants of livelihood security in poor settlements in Bangladesh. International Working Paper Series 2010. University of Plymouth–UK. http://economia.unipv.it/naf/. Retrieved 23rd July, 2016 Rai, A., Sharma, S. D., Sahoo, P. M., & Malhotra, P. K. (2008). Development of livelihood index for different agro-climatic zones of India, Agricultural Economics Research Review. 21: 173–182. Robert, V.K. and Daryle, W.M. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement. Pp 607-610. Sharpe, A. (1999) A Survey of Indicators of Economic and Social Well-being., Canada: Center for Study of Living Standard. Sullivan, C. (2002): ‘Calculating a water poverty index’, World Development 30, 1195– 1210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X (02) 00035-9. 12th September, 2016. Sulumbe, I.M. (2004): Resources use efficiency in cotton production under Sole cropping system in Adamawa State of Nigeria. A Dissertation submitted to the School of Postgraduate Studies of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria. Tipilda, A., Alene, A., Manyong, V. M., & Singh, B. (2005). Intra-household impact of improved dual-purpose cowpea on women in Northern Nigeria. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (1989) Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

129

Ahmed & Mustapha JAEESS 6(1) June, 2020

Usman, R. K (2013). Economic analysis of maize processing into flour and popcorn in Niger state. Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis submitted to the department of agricultural economics and extension. Bayero University, Kano Nigeria. Pp45-48. World Bank (2008): World development report: agriculture for development, in: www.econ.worldbank.org (15.06.2015).

130