Spatial analysis of livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Striga-infested maize-growing areas of Eastern and Southern Africa

H. Bouwmeester, V.M. Manyong, K.D. Mutabazi, C. Maeda, G. Omanya, H.D. Mignouna, and M. Bokanga

www.iita.org

Spatial analysis of livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Striga-infested maize-growing areas of Eastern and Southern Africa

H. Bouwmeester1, V.M. Manyong1, K.D. Mutabazi2, C. Maeda1, G. Omanya3, H.D. Mignouna3, and M. Bokanga3

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA 2 Sokoine University of Agriculture 3 African Agricultural Technology Foundation, AATF
1

January 2009

i

D. Omanya. and M. Mutabazi. Bokanga.© International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and African Agricultural Technology Foundation 2009 The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) hold the copyright to this publication but encourage duplication of these materials for noncommercial purposes. K. Maeda. Nigeria. C.. Carolyn House 26 Dingwall Road. Kenya. Prior specific permission is required to copy otherwise. Spatial analysis of livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Striga-infested maize growing areas of Eastern and Southern Africa. 114 pages. ii .M. UK PMB 5320. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.D. Croydon CR9 3EE. Oyo Road Ibadan. Oyo State ISBN 978-131-328-5 Publication layout and design by IITA Correct citation: Bouwmeester. Manyong. Mignouna. or to e distribute to lists. International mailing address: IITA. Nairobi. V. H. Proper citation is requested and modification of these materials is prohibited. to post on servers. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is hereby granted without fee and without a formal request provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. to republish. Copyright for components not owned by IITA and AATF must be honored and permission pursued with the owner of the information. H. 2009. Ibadan. G. and African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF).

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Share of owned and cultivated land ............................................................ 26 Share of land infested by Striga .... 30 Share of land infested by Striga 10 years ago...................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology .............................................................................................. 31 iii ............................Contents Acknowledgments ............................................... 12 Rainfall ............................................. 26 Maize yield............................................................................................................................................... 1 The study area............................................................... 21 Ill-health index ............................. 26 Share of land under intercropping ................................................................................................. 25 Maize and Striga... 12 Natural capital................................................................................................. 8 Ordinary Kriging......................................................................................... 19 Household productive asset index............................................................................................................ 23 Livestock ownership ........... 23 Composite liquidity index ......................................................... 10 Kriging accuracy ............................................ 6 Spatial pattern ......vii How to read this report ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................vi Executive summary ..................................... 4 Relation of households and administrative units .................vii Introduction ............................... 24 Household income ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Results I............................................................................................................................................. 31 Livelihood outcomes .................... 2 Sampling strategy ............................ 4 Background data .................................................................. 16 Area of land ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Human capital...................... 16 Physical capital ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Body mass index .............................................................................................................................................. 20 Number of yearly extension visits/household ......................................................................................... 26 Share of land under improved maize varieties ..... 22 Financial capital ............................................................................................ 12 Elevation ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Data collection and pre-analysis management...................................... 2 Character of data .... Spatial analysis in administrative units ........................................ 3 Plotting the data........................................................................................................................................ 2 Cleaning of data .................... 14 Roads ............................................................................................................

... Share of land under improved maize varieties in Tanzania .......... 21 Figure 17...... 15 Figure 10........ 18 Figure 14......................................... 37 Country wealth index ................. 22 Figure 18....................................... ......... 6 Table 6........ Share of owned... 15 Figure 11.. Distribution of composite liquidity index (CLI) in Malawi.................................... Tanzania..... Distribution of livestock (Tropical Livestock Units) in Tanzania...... .............................. 34 Results II. 24 Figure 20.................. ....................... Distribution of administrative units................................ Points A and B can be written in different formats........ 19 Figure 15................. 5 Figure 2...... Maize yield (t/ha) in Uganda..................................................................................... .. 17 Figure 12.......................................................................................................... ............... 11 Figure 6........................... . 35 Striga Infestation........ Location of roads in relation to the surveyed points................................. ..................................................................................... Histogram of mean annual rainfall. ................ 27 Figure 22.................................. Distribution of 880 sampled households............................................... ........ Example of map ............... Annual rainfall in the area of interest............. 7 Figures Figure 1................................ 25 Figure 21......................... 13 Figure 7............................................................... Household income acquired from various enterprises in Malawi......................... The different administrative units............... ............... ...... ......................................................... ............................ Coordinates can be written in several formats............... 8 Figure 3.... 6 Table 5..................................................................................................... .................... Distribution of surveyed households....................... 4 Table 4........................................ ............ High variability of households at short distance............. ............................................................ Share of land under intercropping in Malawi.............................................................................. Spatial analysis by interpolation ....................................... .......... ............. Altitude in the area of interest................... 18 Figure 13........................................... 43 References .......................... 10 Figure 5........................................... 23 Figure 19.......... Striga infestation as a percentage of total land under maize in Malawi........................................... Household productive asset index (PAI) for Malawi............... Clustered distribution of households in Handeni district............. ..... 45 Tables Table 1............................Country wealth index .......... 14 Figure 9......... Histogram of altitude of all households............. 9 Figure 4.... Statistics of the main indicators and variables... Area of cultivated land owned by the average household in Tanzania..... 29 Figure 24................... ....... Histogram of distance from households to the nearest road. 35 Maize yield..... 32 Regional wealth index ............................................................................................ managed land in Uganda....................... Distribution of ill-health index (IHI) for Uganda....... 20 Figure 16.... ........ ........................... Secondary data files used in the analysis.................... 13 Figure 8....................... .... 3 Table 3................. .......... 40 Conclusions and recommendations ........................ 28 Figure 23........................................ Administrative units............................................................................. 30 iv .... .................................................................................. ............. ...... Number of extension visits/household/year in Tanzania.................. 3 Table 2.................

... Striga infestation as percentage of total land area ............................. 55 Mean annual rainfall. Striga infestation as percentage of total land area 10 years ago ..................... 1951–2005 .......................................... .. ............................. 36 Figure 31............................................. 36 Figure 32............... 33 Figure 27.......................... 38 Figure 35............. 75 Tropical livestock units .................................. Distribution of body mass index (BMI) of adult women in Tanzania.... Annex IX............... Distribution of surveyed points ................ Predicted country wealth index in Uganda....................... Annex IV........................ 56 Area of land (acre) ............................. Annex XV.... ................................................ 112 Annex XXIV....................... Distribution of regional wealth index in the three countries...................................... 40 Figure 38.......... 84 Share of land under hybrid maize ................................................................ Annex VI.............. Annex X............................................................. Histogram of Striga infestation in Malawi................ 50 Distribution of administrative units ......... Predicted Striga infestation in Malawi... 39 Figure 37............................................... .... Confidence level of the predicted country wealth index in Uganda................................................... 72 Overall composite liquidity index .... 34 Figure 29......................... Annex XVI...................................................... 60 Share of owned cultivated land ......... Annex III............. Annex XII................. 46 Frequency of households per administrative unit .... 51 Altitude of surveyed households ....................................Figure 25.......... Country wealth index in Uganda.......... Striga infestation in Malawi........................... 39 Figure 36......................... ............. ....................... 102 Regional wealth index . 37 Figure 34.. Annex VIII............................................... Histogram of maize yield in Tanzania.................................................. 66 Number of extension visits ................ Predicted maize yield in Tanzania......... .................................... ......... 41 Figure 40........ Annex XI.............................................. Predicted maize yield ..... Annex XXI....................... 35 Figure 30.............. 40 Figure 39.......... Annex VII.................................................. 32 Figure 26.. .... Body mass index ........................................... 42 Annexes Annex I.............................................................................. Annex II......... Confidence level of the predicted Striga infestation...... Distribution of country wealth index in Tanzania................................................. 109 Annex XXIII............................ ............................. .......................................................... 96 Annex XIX................. Predicted country health index ......................... 99 Country wealth index ....... 114 v ............. 105 Annex XXII...................................... 33 Figure 28.. 37 Figure 33............... 63 Productive asset index ............................................ Maize yield in Tanzania..................................... Annex XIV............................................... ................... Predicted Striga infestation ...... Histogram of country wealth index in Uganda.................... ......................................................................... 90 Annex XVII...................... Striga infestation 10 years ago in Malawi.......................................................... Annex V........... 78 Enterprise income per capita (US$/yr) ........................ 69 Ill-health index ............................. 93 Annex XVIII.............................................................................................................................. Annex XIII... ....................................................... ................................... Confidence level of the predicted maize yield in Tanzania.... 81 Overall maize yield (t/ha) .................................. 87 Share of land under intercropping .......... Annex XX...........

and Uganda and from the GEO-spatial laboratory at Ibadan. Acronyms and abbreviations AATF ADM BMI CLI DEM EPA GEO GIS GPS IHI IITA TLU African Agricultural Technology Foundation Administrative District Body Mass Index Composite Liquidity Index Digital Elevation Model Economic Planning Unit Geographic Geographic Information System Global Positioning System Ill-health Index International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Tropical Livestock Unit vi . The livelihoods project was funded by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) and this financial contribution is acknowledged.Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) for providing secondary data from the livelihoods project in Malawi. Tanzania.

financial capital. the findings show that any economical study can profit from spatial analysis. The livelihood project was designed to understand the effects of Striga on the livelihoods of the poor. maize growing Striga infestation and livelihood outcomes. vii . Livelihood indicators considered and spatially mapped in this report are related to natural capital. Two methods of interpolation were applied that allow socioeconomic properties to be predicted for unvisited sites. the sampled households were always located in areas known to be heavily infested with Striga. Therefore.Executive summary This report presents results from a spatial analysis of selected data generated through a livelihoods project in Striga infested areas of Malawi. Expansion of areas of interest to areas not heavily infested to assess the effects on the researched indicators is recommended. In addition to mapping spatial patterns on livelihood indicators using Global Information Systems (GIS). This study indicates the power of GIS in exposing the socioeconomic consequences of a biological threat (Striga in this case) on smallholder farmers via a set of quantifiable indicators. Many other maps in Tanzania and Uganda seem to suggest a similar correlation in space as nearby administrative units tend to have similar values on indicators. it can be said that databases designed for socioeconomic purposes can be very useful in spatial analysis. Therefore. the study also compared two interpolation techniques (ordinary Kriging and averaging) of measured values to surrounding locations. Although the survey that generated data used for this report was set up according to socioeconomic criteria and not so much on spatial criteria. and Uganda. Results show that many variables and indicators are clearly related to space. Tanzania. The report also makes recommendations on how to improve on the collection and recording of geo-referenced data in the farmers’ fields. This is especially true in Malawi where many maps show a clear gradient from the “poor” south to the “rich” north. human capital. The results indicate that applying the two methods generate a spatial correlation in many of the economic indicators.

.

Johansson 2005.000 ha infested by Striga in Africa (Manyong 2008a). 2005. GIS offers many benefits that make it valuable in any agricultural survey. Interpolation can save costs in surveys by suggesting ways of optimizing sampling design. Results II shows a limited selection of these research themes that are subjected to spatial interpolation.000 ha of the Eastern Striga belt and 22% of the total area (2. GIS turns tables into attractive maps. They are part of the Eastern Striga belt of Africa. ● ● ● ● ● ● ● GIS allows the visualization of large tables. 2008a. Tanzania and Malawi. the last section provides conclusions and recommendations. how they were imported into a GIS. 2008a). It is a systematic constellation of spatial maps with critical livelihood indicators across the region covered in the survey. around 1. The first set is given in Results I where the survey results are compared to GEO-physical data and the most important research themes within the administrative units are mapped. 2005). the three countries account for 46% of the infested area. d). Legg et al. More details on the region and on the surveyed districts in each country are given in the regional report and in the individual country reports (Manyong et al. By clear and logic presentation of data GIS adds to the presentation of data. Spatial analysis allows the conversion from point-values to area-values Interpolation can be used to identify gaps in surveys. c. 2008a. 1 . Through GIS. b. Fais et al. The fact that the three study countries are Striga hotspots in Eastern and Southern Africa makes them ideal for this study. b. and how the analysis was done. Based on data reported by Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF 2006). results can be presented in a convincing way. GIS can help to identify errors. It describes how Geographical Information Systems (GIS) can be used in analyzing outcomes and should be read in relation to the regional and country technical reports of the Livelihood project (Manyong et al.Introduction This report is part of the results of a comprehensive study of livelihoods based on a baseline study (Manyong et al. and d). a maize growing area where Striga is a major biological threat to production. The study area This study was conducted in Uganda. c. The results of this report are divided into three sections. The aim is to demonstrate the strength of GIS in visualizing and analyzing livelihood surveys (Arbia 1993. How to read this report The second part of this report describes the methodology used and details on the input data.355. The annexes show all resulting maps.120. what other geographical data were used in the analysis. Finally.

were geo-positioned. these districts were purposively chosen as they rank maize as an important crop and are regarded as Striga hotspots (Manyong et al. the sampling strategy. These units are generally accurate within 100 m (horizontal) in the worse result.Methodology This section describes the targeted area. In the region some 900 households. 2008a). 2008b. Sampling strategy In each country. The spatial location of each sampled household in the survey was determined with a handheld global positioning system (GPS). and d). From this collection the most important were selected and used for further analyses (Table 1). based on the high importance of maize and high ranking of Striga as a major constraint to maize production. In addition it discusses the quality of the data and the techniques used that led to the results. The villages within districts were then listed. 300 in each of the three countries. Within each sampled village. Data collection and pre-analysis management During country-based methodology workshops. the village register from the village government office was used to list all the households. four districts were chosen and in each of these districts a random sample of 75 households was taken. Using an inbuilt ‘sample [%]’ command in STATA software. The coordinates of all questionnaires were determined using handheld GPS devices and were added manually on the questionnaires. 2008a). enumerators were trained on how to use GPS for taking coordinates and measuring areas of fields. Character of data Altogether there were 901 questionnaires. The enumerators interviewed members of the household extensively. The coordinates of the house were recorded and several measurements relating to farm households were made. and 10 m in the best result. at least one unit in each district. c. and how the data were collected. The coordinates of the households and the various field areas were manually entered into the database. trained enumerators used a random numbers table to select 15 households for interview and another five households for replacement if any of the households could not take part in this survey (Manyong et al. The industrial serial number of each unit was properly recorded when the unit was handed to a particular user. five villages from each district were randomly selected. The questionnaires consisted of a great quantity of variables or indicators. The shared use of the units in the field was overseen by the district-based extension officer and the IITA country research supervisor. Through literature and consultation with experts. all of which had a unique Questionnaire-ID. 2 . A minimum of 5 GPS units were distributed in each country. Then. The map datum used was WGS-84 and the coordinates are recorded in the degree-decimal format. A comprehensive description of the sampling strategy is found in the country reports where the exact procedures followed may vary slightly (Manyong et al.

0 100.0 100.0 0. All indictors are explained and mapped in Results I.decimal 3 .0 0.0 0.0 56.5 0.0 21. Coordinates can be written in several formats.8 86.18 degree (0.0 0.2 Mode Mean 0.1 2.7 0.2 35.1 33.decimal-format would be written as .9 1.0 96.44619N.0 100.0 0.0 0.5 3. Table 2 lists valid and acceptable ways to write geographic coordinates.3 14.8 –0.26) or roughly 20 km. Deviation Skewness Minimum Maximum Count 856 856 856 845 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 land owned (acre) share of cultivated land owned (%) productive asset index extension visits (no.6 8.0 32.0 0.9 9.2 0. for instance.0 0.0 0.9 77.44 – 0.Y-coordinates 40°26’21”N.5 2.2 4.2 6. resulting in large spatial differences of location X.9 4.44619.3 21. Statistics of the main indicators and variables.9 30.772.0 50.0 -16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 6.9 -1.8 –2.6 1464.Table 1.0 5.8 7.1 1.94886 40° 26. For instance. Median St.2 -11. 79d 58’ 36” W 40.0 0. there was bound to be some confusion. -79.4 44.3 10.0 0. -79° 56.3 7. As the coordinates were manually copied onto the questionnaires.0 0.5 –11.5 0.) household income (US$/yr) maize yield (t/ha) share of land under improved maize (%) share of land under intercropping (%) share of land under maize with Striga (%) share of land under maize with Striga 10 years ago (%) body mass index country wealth index region wealth index 1.94886W 40.3 1.7 –1. If interpreted incorrectly.0 0.2 0.931 Format Degree°minute’second Degree°minute’second Degree°decimal Degree°decimal Degree°minute.0 31. Table 2.5 28.0 100.0 –7.6 17.1 1. 1 degree corresponds roughly with 110 km of distance.1 40.0 0./yr) ill health index tropical livestock units (no. the method of how a coordinate was written depended on the settings of each individual GPS unit.0 0. The table shows that the same location can be written in several different ways.5 1.8 0.0 0. 79.1 1. 79°58’36”W 40d 26’ 21” N.0 12. this could cause a spatial difference of 0.0 0.0 100.6 11.0 0.44 in the degree°decimal-format.0 0.2 Cleaning of data As the coordinates were collected by many interviewers with different GPS-units.2 -2.0 12. 26 minutes in the degree°minute.0 0.0 0.The degree-values are the same in all systems but what comes after the degree varies.5 7.2 42.8 1.0 100.1 13. In Tanzania.0 100. Item Location X Location X Location X Location X Location X X.0 0.1 131.0 102.8 0.

000 S ydeg°decimal 6°25. it was assumed almost all of the coordinates were written in the degree-format except for 15. Background data A variety of background data was used for the various analyses and the necessary visualization. item Location A Location B xdeg°minute 37°30.333 S Of the 901 questionnaires six had no coordinates recorded and were deleted.000 E xdeg°decimal 37°50. Of the total 895 questionnaires 14 were geographically speaking far away from the researched locations. however. This assumption was backed because from all 895 Y-coordinates only 15 had decimal values greater than 60000. Points A and B can be written in different formats. Most of the remaining 895 questionnaires were written in degree°minute.000 E 34°16667 E ydeg°minute 6°15. The plotted households were compared with the shape-files of the district to explore this source of error in more detail.Table 3. If the survey points were randomly selected. For the previously described reasons.decimal-format. as one degree is made up out of 60 minutes. In Figure 1. Items 7 to 9 were used to represent the roads. remains a possible source of error.000 and 99. which were converted to the same system as the others. the remaining 881 households are plotted as black dots. one would expect about 60% of all values between 0 and 60. as this is the default setting of the GPS-units used in this survey. including the country maps of Malawi and Uganda. the purpose of use and their source. 4 .000 and 40% between 60. Item 10 was used to extract mean rainfall/district and item 11 to extract the altitude of the households.000 S 14°33. the full-sized maps can be viewed in Annex I.000 S 14°20. as 1 degree is divided into 100000 decimals (Table 3). Items 1 through 6 were used to represent the contours of the different administrative units.999. Only in degree°decimalformat can the decimal values be anywhere between 0 and 99999. This assumption. Table 4 lists these data. There appeared to be no typing errors and it was assumed these outliers were a result of writing errors and were deleted from the dataset. They were verified on the hard copy of questionnaires to exclude the possibility of typing errors. Plotting the data As the coordinates of the questionnaires were now in the same format they could be plotted on a map using GIS software. Statistically this points to the degree°minute-format since the decimal value cannot exceed values higher than 60000. This figure shows the regional map and the map of Tanzania as an example.000 E 34°10.

.5 Figure 1. Distribution of the households in the entire region (left) and in Tanzania (right).

Nigeria IITA. Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Filename Adm3 districts_2005 uganda_parish_july2006 national_boundaries tz_wards_2005_new Malawi_central uganda_ads_roads Roads Roald_line Pptnmean5105 tandem. No editing was necessary and further analysis on country-level seemed justified. One household in Kalulu. Ibadan. In principle. To validate the households on a district level. maldem Format shape-file shape-file shape-file shape-file shape-file shape-file shape-file shape-file shape-file Grid-file Grid-files Purpose contours of districts in Malawi contours of districts in Tanzania contours of parishes and districts in Uganda contours of countries contours of wards in Tanzania contours of EPA in Malawi roads in Uganda roads in Tanzania roads in Malawi mean rainfall from 1951 to 2005 Altitude in meters Source IITA. Nigeria IITA. Nigeria IGAD. adm2 is not used as it stands for province. Ibadan. Nigeria IITA. Nigeria IITA. parish for Uganda. (2) district. Item Country District Ward (Tanzania) Parish (Uganda) EPA (Malawi) New name adm1 adm3 adm4 adm4 adm4 Relation of households and administrative units To allow further analysis the surveyed households had to be linked to shape-files describing the various administrative units. Nigeria Table 5. 6 . Ibadan. Ibadan. and (3) ward for Tanzania. was deleted because it was not part of the target districts. Ibadan. Nigeria IITA. Kenya IITA. This paragraph describes the match between the household’s location and these three administrative units. Malawi. Nigeria IITA. On the country level a simple visual inspection revealed that all households appeared to spatially match the target countries as illustrated by the shape-file. Ibadan. three administrative units can be distinguished: (1) country. the following procedures were undertaken. ugdem. Ibadan. Table 6 lists the number of households/district in the three target countries. Ibadan. Ibadan. Ibadan. and economic planning units (EPA) for Malawi (Table 5). Nigeria IITA. Nigeria IITA. Secondary data files used in the analysis.Table 4. The different administrative units.

after the dataset was cleaned. while the households used only one name for the adm4. The resulting shape-file was spatially joined with the households. To validate the household dataset on the 4th administrative level. Country (ADM1) Uganda Uganda Uganda Uganda Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Malawi Malawi Malawi Malawi District (ADM3) Busia Namutumba Pallisa / Budaka Tororo Handeni Mkinga / Muheza Morogoro Rural Mvomero Dedza Kasungu Lilongwe Mchinji No. 7 . In the shapefile the adm4 Kaphuka in Malawi was split in two. The districts of the three countries were merged into one shape-file. the following procedure was undertaken. Sometimes. A frequency test was done to quantify how many of the household-locations were actually located within the appropriate districts.Table 6. one called Kaphuka and one called Mayani. with only seven out of 880 points not being in one of the 12 targeted districts. each with a different name. the adm4 of the households was renamed and in others. Some of the major reasons for the mismatch were spelling mistakes and households that were close to the border of two adjacent adm4s. not all instances are individually described. a spatial join between the two files was done. the adm4 had only the name Kaphuka. The mismatch of these seven points can be the result of recording errors. In the households. or errors in interpreting the coordinates and they were removed from the dataset. The match was quite good. there were 369 mismatches where the names of the households’ adm4 did not match the name of the shape-file’s adm4. As mentioned before. this seemed a satisfactory result that provided sufficient reason to do analyses on a district level. All these were handled individually and appropriate action was taken for them to match. Distribution of 880 sampled households. typing errors. Of the 873 households 369 did not match with the adm4 of the shapefile. the adm4 Mayani was renamed Kaphuka. the adm4 of the shape-file was renamed. sufficient points remained to allow further analysis. All in all. Extensive cleaning needed to be done to improve this match. To quantify the geographic match between the survey and the shape-files used to portray the districts. All 4th administrative units (adm4) were appended into one shape-file. This is illustrated in Figure 2. households 75 74 75 72 74 75 70 71 70 75 75 74 The number of households seems evenly distributed over the districts and. In this example. To save the reader a very long list. In some cases in the shape-file an adm4 was split in two.

Depending on the objective. However. After extensive cleaning. this was not the case and could have resulted from recording errors. 44. The results are shown graphically for Malawi in Figure 3 and at full size for all countries in Annex II. The minimum amount of households/adm4 was 1 and the maximum. copying errors. the renaming during cleaning. a variety of sampling designs are proposed that can be used to describe the most probable average (Arbia 1993. The black dots represent households.Figure 2. 8 . The map implies that the value of the theme reflects the average value of the administrative unit. One cluster of households is located in the north of Kaphuka District while another cluster is located just across the border in the adm4 formerly known as Mayani. Administrative units might be split in one file but not in another file. Spatial pattern In most maps in this report different themes of interest are displayed within an administrative unit. About two-thirds of all adm4 had 10 or more households within their borders (see table in Annex II). Theoretically. 17 out of the 369 households were left with no clear solution to the mismatch and were therefore deleted from the household survey. the removal of points. there should not have been adm4 with so few or so many points but the average should have been about 15. or because the coordinates of the points were in a different format than was assumed. What remained after this cleaning were 856 households in a total of 66 different adm4.

2007). Smith et al. Figure 4 shows 32 out of the total 74 households in the district of Handeni. Within these areas individual households were selected through a stratified random sampling technique (Manyong et al. adm3 for district. To illustrate this. and Parish in Uganda. 2008a). and adm4 for EPA in Malawi. The maps of Annex I reveal that the sampling pattern of the surveyed households is highly clustered.Figure 3. The clustering caused by this strategy is intensified by the clustering of settlements and by the clustering of households within the settlements. This strategy aims to sample households in areas with both maize and Striga concentration. for Ward in Tanzania. 2007. Tanzania. Adm1 stands for country. Distribution of surveyed administrative units in Malawi. Diggle et al. 9 . The reason for the spatial distribution is the sampling strategy adopted in the Livelihood project.

it should be noted that the robustness of the average values varies. Uganda. z(x. there might be only a very limited number of households within an adm4. where only one household appears to be located in adm4 Sapiri.y) = µ(xy) + e(x. 2007). The other 44 households in the district are not shown because they are located about 45 km to the east and would therefore obscure the figure. 10 . where the sampled households are often clustered in a small area within an adm4.Figure 4.y) Here Z denotes the realization at location x. with µ as the fixed but unknown mean and e being the variation around this mean (Smith et al. Clustered distribution of households in Handeni district. Although in all other examples the average value is based on more than one observation. selected households are spatially confined to a very small proportion of the district. It is therefore expected that variability/region will differ significantly and thus the relation between the value of each household and the district’s average. An example of this is given in Annex II. Tanzania. the average value for the entire adm4 is identical to the value of that one household. In Morogoro Rural and Mvomero in Tanzania. In some districts such as Busia and Namatumba in Uganda. selected households are relatively evenly distributed over the district (Annex I). Within the dataset there is a gradation of clustering. The same accounts for the smaller administrative units (adm4). Ordinary Kriging Ordinary Kriging (OK) assumes that the distance or direction between sample points reflects a spatial correlation that can be used to explain variation in the surface. All points are located within a 6-km range while some are as close as 40 m apart. While there were always at least 70 households in a single district. In this particular instance. It assumes a constant but unknown mean and fits a mathematical function to a specified number of points to determine the output value for all surrounding locations.y.

71 within a distance of 1 km (standard deviation is 7.Figure 5. This can cause strange looking maps as there often will be jumps between predicted and measured values. Figure 5 illustrates this phenomenon where a large difference in the wealth index occurs within a short distance (mean is 0 and standard deviation is 7. Kriging accuracy Kriging also predicts the accuracy of its prediction by calculating a level of confidence of every location on the map. For the remaining settings the default Arc-GIS settings were used. The bright yellow colors on the maps (Figures 32. To limit the importance of individual values the neighborhood search radius has been increased to a search radius of 50 points with a minimum of 5 points.9). especially in datasets with a high clustered spatial distribution. High variability of households at short distance of the country wealth index in Tanzania. and 40) indicate areas where the prediction standard error was low or. a map showing the standard error map was created using the same Kriging method and parameters that were used to generate the prediction map. with values as low as –8. the smaller the variation gets. 11 . the level of confidence in the results was high. It may not come as a surprise that all maps clearly show that the level of confidence decreases as the distance from the surveyed households increases. The standard error is the variation of the prediction.54 and as high as 7. The dark brown symbolizes areas of low confidence. meaning that at the location of the households the predicted value is equal to the measured value. the better the prediction. thus a small error corresponds with a small variation of the predicted value and a large error with a large variation. 36. With each prediction map. Ordinary Kriging is an exact interpolator. In other words.9). to state it another way.

The second chosen administrative unit is the adm4. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the altitude (m) of all households (Annex IV at a larger scale). most points are at 1100 m. and land quantity and quality. annual rainfall. Figure 6 is an example of the procedure followed. Natural capital Natural capital entails the stock of assets embodied in natural endowments. This shows how the adm4 is related to the bigger district by having the same legend. The legend is also the same for the different countries. The reader should bear in mind that the resulting maps suggest a certain value for a large area that is sometimes based on the knowledge of only a few households. The various spatial analyses are focused on socioeconomic indicators developed through the Livelihood study following the Livelihood framework. It is based on a much lower sample size. Spatial analysis in administrative units The survey consists of many quantitative physical. Each of the 12 districts has about 70 households (Table 6). c. as in Uganda. The households in Malawi are situated between 1000 and 1350 m and. These district-values are overlaid by the average values of the smaller adm4. It shows classes of the average area of land owned by households in the Eastern part of Tanzania. infrastructure.20 acres (below average for the district where it belongs). Kwedizinga with 13 households and Vibaoni with 44 households.08 acres (above average). and economic data from 856 households divided over three countries.61 acres (average).65 acres of land/household. and in Kwedzinga 3. in Vibaoni 2. This allows the visualization of the data as they are transformed from point (household) to surface (administrative unit). such as elevation. Elevation To determine the altitude of the households a digital elevation model (DEM) of a 90 m resolution was used. The second map covers the research area in Malawi. three adm4s are situated: Chanika with 15 households. A more elaborate explanation on each indicator is given in the region and country reports (Manyong et al. The households in Tanzania are more or less evenly distributed between 150 and 750 m. In this section these households are averaged within a certain administrative unit. the order in which the themes are presented is based on these reports. The first chosen administrative unit is the district. b. To allow the reader to capture the full extent of the indicators.Results I. and d). The first map is region-based and shows the entire targeted region. and this allows comparisons among these countries. On the maps the average values of the district are shown. 12 . The district of Handeni is represented by the average value of 72 households at 2. Within Handeni. ranging from 1 to 44 households (Annex II).000 and 1300 m in altitude with a majority of the points at around 1100 m. In Chanika. social. Usually. the third in Tanzania. The households in Uganda are positioned between 1. the average household owns 2. and the fourth in Uganda. 2008a. one theme of research is represented in four different maps.

2.20 acres in Chanika.61 acres in Vibaoni.08 acres in Kwedzinga.Figure 6. 13 . an average household owns 2. In the district of Handeni three adm4s are included. Figure 7. Altitude (m) of all households with max = 1348 m and min = 147 m. In the adm4 within this district. and 3.65 acres of land/household. The average area of land owned for the whole district is 2.

Figures 9 and 10 give an idea of the distribution of rainfall in the area of interest.Figure 8. a map is shown for each targeted country. Source: Distributed Active Archive Center (http://edcdaac. In Annex V.usgs. Altitude (m) in the area of interest. The eastern part of Uganda appears to be much wetter with annual minimum values of 1230 mm and maximum values of 1670 mm. Rainfall Within the studied area farmers mostly rely on rainfall as their source of water for agriculture because possibilities of irrigation are often limited.gov). The black dots represent the households. In Tanzania the range is a little wider with minimum values of 850 mm and maximum values of 1120 mm. the average annual rainfall of the households in that period was between 870 and 1050 mm. The amount of rainfall/ household is extracted from a 1 km resolution grid displaying the average annual precipitation in the period 1951 to 2005. 14 . In Malawi.

Histogram of mean annual rainfall in mm in the period 1951 to 2005 of all households. worldclim. Figure 10. The black dots represent the households. the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). and the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) (http://www. Annual rainfall in the area of interest. Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). with a mean of 1104 mm. 15 . a max of 1628 mm and a min of 851mm.org).Figure 9.

the districts of Dedza and Lilongwe score in the lowest category.0 acres and no obvious trend becomes apparent as some parishes are below and some above this average. To save time and costs a standard road shape-file is used. Handeni is noteworthy.6 km and in Uganda. The roads of the three countries (Table 4) were merged into one shape-file. where most of the households are near roads. In Malawi households in the north own up to 2. where farmers generally own less than 80% of their farmed land. Therefore all roads were regarded as being of the same quality. In Uganda. 2000). Tanzania seems not to score well in this category.4 km.5 km. Figure 12 shows a very skewed distribution with a mean distance of 2. only a few parishes in Namutumba own less than 70%. in Tanzania. as most farmers own more than 90% in this district. Area of land The area of land/household represents the total area of land used for agricultural purposes owned by the household. To verify this assumption the distance from each household to the nearest road was determined. In Malawi.2 km. there seems to be a strong spatial correlation with the surveyed points and the location of the roads. 1.5 to 2. the average distance is 3. This indicator may explain the shortage of land where ideally a household owns 100% of the land it cultivates.Roads In principle roads are positively correlated with farmers’ welfare as this type of infrastructure improves market access (Staal et al. As becomes apparent from Figure 11. Figure 13 illustrates the distribution of this land area in Tanzania. In Tanzania the households in the district of Handeni seem to own most of the land. In the south. as infrastructure coincides with market access. In Uganda. the average is raised by the ward Kwedizinga where households own more than 3 acres of farmland. This distance between a household and the nearest road ranges from 0 to 11. 1. Getting good and updated geo-referenced data on road location remains a major problem in this region of Africa.5 times more land than in the south. This share is depicted for Uganda in Figure 14 and for all countries in Annex VII. Figure 11 shows maps of Tanzania and Malawi. Share of owned and cultivated land The share of owned and cultivated land shows how much of the land that is cultivated during the reference season is actually owned by the household. The attributes of the road-shape-files did not allow a differentiation in road type. 16 . Annex VI shows the entire region of interest. the average size of land owned in all four districts is 1. It can be assumed that many of the indicators are somehow related to the roads. This could be the result of policies that encouraged households to settle near roads for ease of access to social and health infrastructure.1 km. only the EPA Mkanda scores are very low. Farmers in Malawi seem to own most of their farmed land.

Location of roads in relation to the surveyed points in Tanzania (left) and Malawi (right). . Source: ESRI’s Chart of the world.17 Figure 11.maproom. (http://www.edu/dcw).psu.

Figure 13. 18 .Figure 12. Histogram of distance from households to the nearest road. Area of cultivated land (acres) owned by the average household in Tanzania.

Annex VIII shows the resulting maps of the entire region at a bigger scale. and consumable durables. managed land in Uganda. As opposed to natural capital. Share of owned. 19 . physical capital can be influenced by the household.Figure 14. Physical capital Physical capital refers to man-made assets such as productive assets. Household productive asset index A composite productive asset index (PAI) was developed by combining the number and the working status of all combined productive assets/household. housing qualities. The index therefore expresses the tools and their quality at hand. Figure 15 shows how this index varies within Malawi.

Since this study was on smallholder farmers. Uganda seems to be worse off. with two entire districts below average. sources and levels of accessibility to know-how and human quality were quantified. Human capital Human capital concerns the people who are both the objects and subjects of development. 20 . Household productive asset index (PAI) for Malawi.Figure 15. The difference between the south and the north of Malawi seems prominent where the PAI in the north is generally higher than in the south. On a regional level Tanzania has the most even distribution of the PAI with all households scoring on or above average.

Number of extension visits/household/year in Tanzania.Number of yearly extension visits/household The number of extension visits is defined as the annual number of visits to a household by an extension officer. In Tanzania. In Uganda. households appear to have little contact with extension officers. 21 . In Malawi. the distribution for all countries. Figure 16. Figure 16 illustrates the distribution in Tanzania and Annex IX. Visits are expected to introduce more know-how to farmers and bring more productivity and market information which might result in higher income. only in the district of Mvomero and especially in the ward of Melela do households frequently consult extension officers. Only in the west of Mamutumba do farmers make use of these services where the parish of Nabitula looks like a hotspot. the distribution is irregularly divided and no clear pattern emerges.

the higher the value of IHI. Figure 17. Isolated lowscoring parishes seem to have a big negative influence on the district’s average. In Tanzania. measles. only the farmers in the district of Handeni appear to be in a comparatively healthy condition. An example of the distribution of this index for Uganda is presented in Figure 17 and for all three countries in Annex X. typhoid fever. accidents causing injury and lifetime diseases/disorders. for example. respiratory system-related illnesses. HIV/AIDS. undernutrition. The IHI includes 10 diseases. 22 . In Uganda the IHI looks more or less randomly distributed. Malawi scores comparatively well with the majority of the EPAs below average. The more health problems the interviewees experienced during the reference period of one year preceding the survey. dysentery/diarrhea. On a regional scale. Naboa.Ill-health index Health as an indicator of human capital was conceptualized through a morbidity composite illhealth index (IHI). Nawansagwa. tuberculosis. and Masaba. Distribution of ill-health index (IHI) for Uganda. fever/malaria.

Financial capital

This section describes the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives and is a function of cash or equivalent resources. For the spatial analysis three indicators were considered: the composite liquidity index (CLI), the livestock ownership, and household income.

Composite liquidity index
The CLI describes access to a variety of liquidity assets, the ordinal ranks of their magnitude and ease of raising, commanding and spending cash. These are the most important factors underlying any form of financial/liquidity capital in the context of livelihood security. Relative ease in commanding and spending explains, in a given situation, how easily and quickly money can be raised and spent to meet a financial obligation. This index is mapped for Malawi in Figure 18 and for all three countries in Annex XI.

Figure 18. Distribution of the composite liquidity index (CLI) in Malawi.

23

In Tanzania, despite the occasional ward with a high CLA, all districts score on or below average. In Malawi access to cash appears to be easier; here only about 25% of the EPAs score below average. There seem to be large differences, however, while in Tanzania, the distribution seems to be more even. In Uganda also, the distribution of the CLA appears to be widely dispersed.

Livestock ownership
Farmers can easily sell their livestock to acquire financial resources. To measure this asset a common unit to describe livestock numbers of various species in a single figure has been developed. To do this, the concept of an “Exchange Ratio” has been created, where different species of different average sizes can be compared and described in relation to a common unit, the Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU). The distribution of this TLU in Eastern Tanzania is illustrated in Figure 19 and for all three countries in Annex XII.

Figure 19. Distribution of livestock (Tropical Livestock Units) in Tanzania.

24

Farmers in Malawi own comparatively few cattle. In the south of the studied area this becomes even more apparent than in the north. In Tanzania, only in the district of Handeni does the TLU rise above 1 although this can be entirely contributed to the ward of Vibaoni. The TLU in both countries is significantly lower than in Uganda where about 50% of the farmers in the parishes have TLUs above 1.

Household income
The household income is the estimated income the household gets from various enterprises. Ten enterprises were considered in the computation of the total enterprise income through simple summation. These were crop production, livestock, business, salaried employment, casual wage-work, technical work, artisan work/handcrafts, natural resources, traditional medicine/healing and resource rent out. All enterprise incomes were converted into US dollars. The differences in this income are shown in Figure 20 for Malawi and for all three countries in Annex XIII.

Figure 20. Household income acquired from various enterprises in Malawi.

25

even below 25 USD. and water stress accentuate the severity of Striga damage to the hosts. and Annex XV shows this adaption in the studied countries. Share of land under intercropping Another technique used to solve the Striga problem is intercropping. From the maps it becomes clear that there are large regional differences in the adoption of improved maize varieties. The proportion of land under improved maize varieties is calculated as the area where improved varieties are grown. In Malawi. Striga has a greater impact on human welfare than any other parasitic angiosperm as its hosts are subsistence crops in marginal agricultural areas (Manyong et al. divided by the area where all maize varieties are grown. Intercropping involves planting legumes. This is especially true for Tanzania where only the district of Mkinga/Muheza has a higher yield. In Tanzania.In Tanzania. fluctuates greatly in the study area. 2008a). no parasitism is expressed and the Striga seedbank is decreased. In Uganda only the farmers in the district of Namutumba have a comparatively high income while Busia had a very low enterprise income. As the legumes are not a host to Striga.5 t/ha. all districts with the exception of Morogoro have a yearly enterprise income of more than 50 USD. does relatively well. On the whole. income is generally below 50 USD and in the ward of Mikese. The northern part of the study area seems to be better off than the south. the distribution appears dispersed. Striga is a root-parasitic flowering plant that causes a considerable loss in growth and yield of many food and fodder crops. Share of land under improved maize varieties Farmers produce local and improved maize varieties. well-drained soils. Maize yield The yield of maize. Improved varieties are expected to produce higher yields than local varieties. more than half of the adm4 score below average. In general. In Uganda. not susceptible to Striga. where more than 40% of farmers make use of these varieties in the western part of the country. The distribution is illustrated in Figure 21 for Uganda and in Annex XIV for all countries. 26 . expressed as hectare/ha. on the other hand. Uganda seems to have consistently lower production. low soil fertility. the average yield of maize is 1. the pattern seems more erratic with EPAs scoring above and below this average. In Malawi. In Morogoro. nitrogen deficiency. The Handeni district. It is a very important staple food for the entire population as well as a source of income. In Malawi. The crop is mainly produced by smallholder farmers on small-scale farms of less than 3 ha. in rows alternately with maize.0 to 1. only the farmers in the district of Mvomero frequently use improved seeds. although the improved varieties appear to be unpopular in the district of Busia. it appears to be an accepted and widespread technique. but this is the result of only two out of six parishes. Figure 22 shows how households in Malawi adapt this technology. Only the district of Budaka/Pallisa has average yields. Maize and Striga Maize ranks first of the major cereal grains in many countries of Eastern and Southern Africa.

Figure 21. 27 . Maize yield (t/ha) in Uganda.

Share of land under improved maize varieties in Tanzania.Figure 22. 28 .

Share of land under intercropping in Malawi. intercropping emerges as very popular in the south of the researched area where more than 75% of Figure 23. 29 . In Tanzania. In Malawi. The adoption of this technique is illustrated in Figure 23 for Malawi and in Annex XVI for all three countries. This could be related to the presence of Striga as it appears to show the same spatial pattern and might confirm expectations that the parasite is combated with intercropping. the technique is generally disliked except in the district of Morogoro where more than 25% of cultivated land is farmed using intercropping.The share of land under intercropping is calculated by determining the area of land under intercropping divided by the total land under maize.

30 . In Malawi. the situation is rather severe where almost the entire targeted area is facing Striga on more than 40% of land under maize plots. but considering the fact that they are surrounded by more diseased EPAs they too will probably be swiftly infected. provided no appropriate Figure 24. Striga infestation as a percentage of total land under maize in Malawi. Figure 24 shows the distribution of Striga in Malawi and Annex XVII shows this for the entire region. Share of land infested by Striga The share of land infested by Striga is calculated by determining the area of land under maize affected by Striga divided by the total land under maize.farmed land is intercropped. Also in Uganda the method seems popular with all districts on average and the parishes scoring below or above are more or less equally distributed. In the south there are a few EPAs that seem to escape the threat.

an individual is underweight and possibly malnourished. the district average is normal. In Uganda. It might therefore well be that Striga spread from that ward or a neighboring ward not sampled. Striga was a relatively limited problem 10 years ago.action is taken. Ten years ago only the ward of Kisemu within this district had a problem. This pattern also arises in Uganda where the women in all districts are clearly underweight. expressing the health effects of body weight relative to height. Both underweight and overweight individuals have increased relative risks relative to morbidity and mortality compared to those of “normal” weight. The problem seems to be concentrated around the district of Morogoro where up to 60% of farmland under maize is infected. especially in the central and northern parts of the researched area where values between 20% and 40% are not uncommon. women are overweight in Handeni but underweight in two of the other districts. A BMI score between 22 and 24 is considered normal. In Uganda the situation seems very serious with more than 60% of land infected in two districts. 2008a). In Malawi. Share of land infested by Striga 10 years ago Farmers were asked to estimate the percentage of their land area under maize that was infested with Striga 10 years ago. 31 . such as improved varieties and intercropping. In the southern district of Busia. despite the fact that a few adm4 have normal values. Below 22. Striga infestation was already a problem in Malawi 10 years ago. When compared to the situation at this moment the spread of Striga is very serious and has increased strongly in virtually all administrative units. As becomes clear from Figure 25 for Malawi and from Annex XVIII for all countries. For the spatial analysis. despite the fact women in the wards of Hembeti and Mvomero are underweight. Striga occupied more than 20% of total farmland only in the ward of Kisemu. women are generally underweight as the BMI is at normal levels only in four adm4. Above 24. probably because they have not been exposed to these technologies. Livelihood outcomes Different forms of capital ultimately result in a series of outcomes. this legend was used to allow comparisons with the Striga situation at this moment. Results for Tanzania are shown in Figure 26 and in Annex XIX for all countries. two parishes even have infection values higher than 80%. The BMI was recorded for the mother or the guardian of each household. the body mass index and the wealth index of the households were considered. Body mass index The body mass index (BMI) is a measure of the nutritional status of adults. Nevertheless these farmers do not seem tempted to use combating methods. It is noticeable that Striga is not as common in Tanzania as in Malawi and Uganda. only the eastern part of the area of interest seems to experience problems with Striga. In Mvomero. In Tanzania. The exact composition of these outcomes is discussed in the regional report (Manyong et al. an individual is overweight or obese. Nevertheless. In Tanzania.

based on the method of principal components. The index is mapped for Tanzania in Figure 27 and for all countries in Annex XX. motorbike and bicycle) making the total of 20 variables. cell phone. communication means (television. iron. landline. spongy mattress and watch/wall clock). The asset variables considered in the analysis were related to main building quality (roofing.Figure 25. 32 . sofa. Striga infestation 10 years ago as a percentage of total land under maize in Malawi. radio) energy and water source (energy for cooking. floor. The index is normalized for each country so comparisons are possible only within the three countries. consumable durables (iron/wooden bed. energy for lighting and source of water) and transport means (car. toilet. wall. Country wealth index A wealth index was computed by aggregating the various asset ownerships and housing characteristics variables. and extra house).

Distribution of country wealth index in Tanzania. Distribution of body mass index (BMI) of adult women in Tanzania.Figure 26. Figure 27. 33 .

the only difference is that the index is normalized over the entire area of interest. Unlike in Malawi. Morogoro and Mkinga/Muheza appear to be the poorest districts. In Tanzania. In Uganda. although three out of four districts score above the regional average. Regional wealth index The regional wealth index is the same as the wealth index described earlier. the richer part of the studied area appears to be in the south of Uganda. the wealth index seems to differ over the country. Even the poor district of Morogoro scores above average in this respect. Tanzania is clearly the wealthiest of the three countries. Malawi is undoubtedly the poorest.In Malawi. Distribution of regional wealth index in the three countries. This allows comparisons between the three researched countries (Figure 28 and Annex XXI). Figure 28. the northern part of the studied area is clearly wealthier than the south. 34 . with the southern part of the country in the worst position. In Uganda. wealth also seems rather dispersed with poorer and richer parishes divided over the country.

Histogram of the percentage of farmland infested with Striga of 287 households in Malawi (mean = 47. 29) shows that between 0 and 100% of farmland is infested with Striga in the targeted area. a great number of research themes were converted from points to areas by averaging households over administrative units (Results I). This method shows the spatial spread of the researched themes but does not say anything about the distribution and density of points within the administrative units. The map also shows that the level of confidence is higher in between households than at the outer edges of household clusters. maize yield and the country wealth index. Striga infestation In this section Striga infestation will be explored using the data collected in 287 households in Malawi. Figure 31 shows the Striga infestation based on the values of the same 287 households averaged over the administrative units. 35 . In this section. Figure 30 shows the results of applying the spatial interpolation technique ordinary kriging on 287 households in Malawi. or (in other words) a higher error in prediction. Spatial analysis by interpolation In the previous section.Results II. This suggests the sampling design is important and a lower prediction error can be reached by optimizing this design.3 and skewness = -0. It appears farmers in the Northwestern part of Malawi suffer more from Striga than those in the Southeast. the spatial interpolation technique Ordinary Kriging will be used to assess the spatial distribution of Striga infestation. The histogram (Fig. In Figure 32. The technique itself is described in Methodology. the level of confidence clearly decreases as the distance to the households increases. The distribution appears to be normal and there are no values that are considered to be outliers. Although the legends are slightly different. A darker color means a lower level of confidence.2). For cosmetic reasons the map extent taken into consideration is the entire country of Malawi. the same pattern emerges as in Figure 30. Annex XXII shows both the prediction and its confidence. Figure 29. The households themselves are shown on the map as black dots.

Striga infestation in Malawi based on 287 households (black dots). Predicted Striga infestation in Malawi based on 287 households (black dots). 36 .Figure 30. Figure 31.

Figure 32. Maize yield This explores maize yield using the data collected in 281 households in Tanzania. 37 . Histogram showing the distribution of maize yield (t/ha) of the 271 households in Tanzania (mean = 1.9).0 t/ha. Figure 33.1 and skewness = 0. The histogram (Fig. Ten households have unrealistically high maize yields of over 7.0 t/ha and are therefore omitted from further analysis. 33) shows that the maize yield of the remaining 271 households in Tanzania ranges from 0 to 7. Confidence level of the predicted Striga infestation.

Predicted maize yield (t/ha) in Tanzania. It also suggests that the prediction error is lower in a location surrounded by households. 38 . As in Figure 32. 34) can also be distinguished here.Figure 34. There appears to be a region of high production in the center of the studied area. Annex XXIII shows the predicted maize yield and its confidence level at a larger scale. Figure 35 shows the maize yield based on the values of the same 271 households averaged over the administrative units. The prediction is based on 271 households. The center area with high production might be the result of the households in Mvomero that have relatively high yields. shown on the map as black dots (Annex XXIII). 36) shows that the level of confidence depends on the distance to the households. The pattern that appeared in the predicted map (Fig. Figure 34 shows the predicted maize yield of the target area in Tanzania in t/ha. the prediction error increases with distance from the households. The map (Fig.

Confidence level of the predicted maize yield in Tanzania. 39 .Figure 35. Figure 36. Maize yield (t/ha) in Tanzania based on 271 households (black dots).

Figure 38.0 and is normally distributed. The histogram (Fig.0 to 14.0 and skewness = –0. 40 . Figure 38 predicts the country wealth index of the Southeastern part of Uganda based on 287 households. It seems that the Southern part of the country (in particular the Southwest) is richer than the Northern part. Country wealth index In this section the country wealth index is analyzed using the data collected from 287 households in Uganda. 37) shows the wealth index ranges from –12. Predicted country wealth index in Uganda based on 287 households (black dots).2). shown on the maps as black dots (Annex XXIV).Figure 37. Histogram showing the distribution of the country wealth index of 287 households in Uganda (mean = 0.

41 . the Southwest appears to be richer. Country wealth index based on 287 households in Uganda. Figure 40 illustrates the level of confidence of the predicted country wealth index.Figure 39. As in Figure 38. Figure 39 shows the distribution of the country wealth index in Uganda. The error in prediction increases with increasing distance from the households and is strongly influenced by the spatial design of the study. The influence of the high average values in the south of the district of Namutumba is clearly visible on the predicted map.

Figure 40. Confidence level of the predicted country wealth index in Uganda. 42 .

This trend can be used to forecast something of a neighboring. In the second method. the relationship between roads (Results I) and the country wealth index seems of interest. Therefore. The maps of Malawi show an attached area. This is especially true in Malawi where many maps show a clear gradient from the ”poor” south to the ”rich” north. For instance. especially because of the apparently strong link between socioeconomics and GEO-statistics. This report can be viewed as a pre-analysis of the dataset that fits very well in a multistep process. The confidence maps generated in Results II provide a useful tool to optimize future surveys. as nearby administrative units tend to have similar values or indicators. In the first method.and indicatorspecific conclusions are drawn in Results I and II. the maps of Tanzania and Uganda show isolated districts. This could have been achieved by spatially optimizing the survey design. Another example is a quantification of the spatial relationship between maize yield and Striga infestation. The report proves that it is certainly possible to expose patterns and trends spatially in a database that is designed for socioeconomic purposes. Kriging is used to predict the values of locations not visited. Several general conclusions can be made. such as Kriging. 43 . Many variables and indicators are clearly related to space. In this study. spatial statistics can be used to predict socioeconomic properties of unvisited locations by using the interpolation techniques presented. 45 were omitted from the analysis because the locations of these households were improbable. From the original 901 households. the household values are averaged within an administrative unit. two methodologies are presented that allow visualizing and analyzing socioeconomic data spatially. Many of the maps allow a quick impression of the status of the studied area without extensive study of literature and tables. An important subject that has not adequately been covered is the spatial correlation of features and indicators.Conclusions and recommendations The aim of this report is to demonstrate the strength of GIS in visualizing and analyzing economic surveys and to link them to geophysical datasets. The advantage of an attached area is that it looks better and it exposes a gradient (trend) of an indicator across the whole area of interest. It is likely that the same number of surveyed households and/or of a larger area could have produced similar results with greater accuracy. area. This report produced results interesting enough to justify further research. The methods are comparable since they both interpolate from the point-level (households) to the surface level (area of interest). A visual inspection seems to suggest the two interpolation methods (averaging and Kriging) produce similar results. The remaining 856 households were assumed to be at the correct location. The theme. Many other maps in Uganda and Tanzania seem to suggest a similar correlation in space. The methodology of Kriging seems especially promising (Results II). not sampled.

To decrease possible errors. Via the unique ID. Because of the unique ID. any economic study can profit from spatial analysis. In this survey the coordinates of the households were copied manually by the enumerators from the GPS to the questionnaires. the fields could be easily linked to the households. a course on the proper use of GPS units is strongly recommended for enumerators before they go into the field. The measurement of the area of the fields was not possible on all the GPS units. Ideally. Coordinates should always be recorded using the WGS-84 map datum and in the degree°decimal-format.To avoid misinterpretation of coordinates and the resulting spatial error. Mapping Striga distribution in the Eastern Striga belt would be worthwhile. these could have added value to this socioeconomic study. Therefore. the coordinates can be linked to the questionnaires. 44 . up-to-date GPS devices should be used that can record not only the area of separate fields but can also store the shape of these fields. The sampled households were. This would allow many additional analyses. The coordinates of these fields were recorded only in Tanzania and Malawi. a unique ID should be designated for each household and the coordinates of this household should be stored on the GPS. however. The findings of this report show that the survey was set up more according to socioeconomic criteria rather than spatial criteria. Coordinates in doubt can be validated on the appropriate questionnaires. At a later stage. a more multidisciplinary approach is emphasized in which the sampling design allows spatial analysis. It might even be said that if extra spatial data had been collected. Nevertheless. especially on the subject of spatial projection. the coordinates can be exported via a cable from the GPS to a computer. It would be interesting to expand the area of interest to locations that are not heavily infested and see if this has any effect on the researched indicators. always located in areas known to be heavily infested with Striga. This study aims to understand the effects that Striga has on the livelihoods of the poor. Every household owned one cultivated field or more. such as market locations and road networks on the village level.

Delgado. Mutabazi. A.M. 2007. G. M. et al. Nigeria. 2008d. Nairobi. Aster Digital Elevation Model.M. Kormawa.maproom. and M. E. Diggle. Kruska. edu/dcw. Department of Mathematics and Statistics. Fais.. Smith. Livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Striga-affected maize growing areas of Eastern and Southern Africa... Regional report. and A.. Ibadan. Country report. http://www.F. Maeda. A Report on Mapping Livelihoods and Nutrition in Nigeria using data from the National Rural Livelihoods Survey and the National Food Consumption and Nutrition Survey. Geospatial Analysis — a comprehensive guide to principles. 2008c. Alene et al. Livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Striga-infested maize growing areas of Central Malawi. GEO-data Elevation model: Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC).D. Roads of Malawi. IITA. and M. Spatial aspects of producer milk price formation in Kenya: A joint household GIS-approach. Ibadan. Rainfall data: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). supplied by the GIS-laboratory. AATF. online version . Arbia. 2008a. Chart of the world (DCW). Bokanga. AATF/IITA Baseline Study. H. K. Second edition. IITA. Tanzania.php?page=Data+Archive Uganda. Legg.ox. V. Kenya.http://www.J. J. International Statistical Review. A.gov. The Use of GIS in Spatial Statistical Surveys. Mutabazi. Rutto. Issue version: 2. Country report. Mignouna.16. P. AATF/IITA Baseline Study. Lancaster University.D. Giampaolo. University of Umea. Omanya. Empowering African farmers to eradicate Striga from maize croplands. H. V. Ribeiro.J. C.D. 2005.psu. A. K. Mutabazi. Livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Striga-infested maize growing areas of Eastern Tanzania. V. Alene. Maziya-Dixon. Improving Access to Geographic Information Systems. 2000.. UK.uk/igadweb/tiki-index. Nigeria. P. supplied by the GIS-laboratory. Manyong.. zoo. Omanya. P. Mutabazi. 2005. P. Sweden. supplied by the GIS-laboratory.J. Goodchild. http://www. Manyong. Italy. G. Staal. ILRI/IFPRI. 2008b.D. B. C. 2007.D. Bokanga.org. Nigeria.usgs. Tanzania and Uganda: created by ESRI from US Operational Navigation Chart (ONC) series. Manyong. 1993.ac. Nigeria. National Institute for Agricultural Economics. Model-based Geostatistics.. IITA. Johansson. worldclim. http://edcdaac. IITA. and R. V. techniques and software tools.M.D.References AATF (African Agricultural Technology Foundation). Manyong. the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). Microeconomic and GEO-Physical Data Integration for Agri Environmental Analysis. A.J. Nino. 45 . Ibadan.D. and P.D. resolution 30m. Longley. IITA. S. K.spatialanalysisonline. et al. Tanzania. M. C. Lancaster. Mignouna. Ibadan. Alene. AATF/IITA Baseline Study.. AATF/IITA Baseline Study. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA).D. Livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Striga-infested maize growing areas of Eastern Uganda.. Parishes Uganda: Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). resolution 1 km. GEO-referencing FADN Data: A Case Study in Italy. Great Britain.A. Tanzania. G. 2006. IITA. K. Kenya. IITA a. I. http://ergodd. 2005.M.com. Country report. Baltenweck.

Distribution of the surveyed points 46 .Annex I.

47 .

48 .

49 .

country (adm1) MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI MALAWI TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA district (adm3) DEDZA DEDZA DEDZA DEDZA DEDZA KASUNGU KASUNGU KASUNGU KASUNGU KASUNGU LILONGWE LILONGWE LILONGWE LILONGWE LILONGWE LILONGWE MCHINJI MCHINJI MCHINJI MCHINJI MCHINJI HANDENI HANDENI HANDENI MKINGA/MUHEZA MKINGA/MUHEZA MKINGA/MUHEZA MOROGORO RURAL MOROGORO RURAL MOROGORO RURAL MVOMERO MVOMERO MVOMERO MVOMERO BUSIA BUSIA BUSIA BUSIA BUSIA BUSIA BUSIA BUSIA BUSIA BUSIA BUSIA NAMUTUMBA NAMUTUMBA NAMUTUMBA NAMUTUMBA NAMUTUMBA NAMUTUMBA NAMUTUMBA NAMUTUMBA PALLISA PALLISA PALLISA PALLISA PALLISA PALLISA TORORO TORORO TORORO TORORO TORORO TORORO TORORO adm4 CHAFUMBWA KABWAZI KAPHUKA LINTHIPE LOBI CHULU KALULUMA KASUNGU LISASADZI SANTHE CHILEKA CHITEKWER CHITSIME KAWAMBA MLOMBA MPINGU CHIOSHYA KALULU MIKUNDI MKANDA MSITU CHANIKA KWEDIZINGA VIBAONI LUSANGA MARAMBA MUHINDURO KISEMU MIKESE MKUYUNI HEMBETI MELELA MVOMERO MZUMBE BUSIKHO BUTANGASI JINJA KUBO LUMINO LUNYO MASABA NAGABITA NALWIRE SAPIRI SIKUDA BUWAGA IVUKULA KISOWOZI NABITULA NAKALOKWE NAMUTUMBA NAWANKOFU NAWANSAGWA CHALI JAMI KAMONKOLI LYAMA NABOA SAPIRI AMONI KALAIT KUITANGIRO MAGOLA MELLA NYAMALOGO PABONE FREQUENCY 8 15 15 14 15 14 15 13 15 15 15 14 15 14 2 14 15 14 15 15 15 15 13 44 29 29 17 11 42 14 14 26 12 15 7 4 2 7 7 14 10 5 7 1 8 8 6 7 15 8 7 7 15 6 7 18 21 7 14 6 8 13 16 7 7 13 50 50 . Frequency of households per administrative unit This table lists the amount of points which are located in each adm3.Annex II. Frequency of households per administrative unit II. The value of Vibaoni in Tanania is for example the average of 44 households while the adm3 Mpingu in Malawi only has 3 households within its boundary. These points determine the average of the district and are therefore of great importance.

Distribution of administrative units 51 .Annex III.

52 .

53 .

54 .

Annex IV. Altitude of surveyed households

55

Annex V. Mean annual rainfall in the period 1951 to 2005

56

57

58 .

59 .

Annex VI. Area of land (acre) 60 .

61 .

62 .

Annex VII. Share of owned cultivated land 63 .

64 .

65 .

Productive asset index 66 .Annex VIII.

67 .

68 .

Number of extension visits 69 .Annex IX.

70 .

71 .

Annex X. Ill-health index 72 .

73 .

74 .

Overall composite liquidity index 75 .Annex XI.

76 .

77 .

Annex XII. Tropical livestock units 78 .

79 .

80 .

Enterprise income per capita (US$/yr) 81 .Annex XIII.

82 .

83 .

Overall maize yield (tonnes/ha) 84 .Annex XIV.

85 .

86 .

Annex XV. Share of land under hybrid maize 87 .

88 .

89 .

Annex XVI. Share of land under intercropping 90 .

91 .

92

Annex XVII. Striga infestation as percentage of total land area

93

94

95 .

Annex XVIII. Striga infestation as percentage of total land area 10 years ago 96 .

97 .

98 .

Body mass index 99 .Annex XIX.

100 .

101 .

Country wealth index 102 .Annex XX.

103 .

104 .

Annex XXI. Regional wealth index 105 .

106 .

107 .

108 .

Annex XXII. Predicted Striga infestation 109 .

110 .

Annex XXIII. Predicted maize yield 111 .

112 .

Predicted country health index 113 .Annex XXIV.

114 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful