Abdul Hassan

Abstract

The study assessed rural livelihood assets possessed by farm households in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. Multistage sampling technique was applied for data collection. Primary data were collected from 349 small farm households, from Central Valley Plains, using a pretested questionnaire. After cleaning the collected data through removing nonsensical responses and influential outliers, the total observations in this study reached to 307 small farm households. Sustainable livelihood framework was used to study the relationship between livelihood asset, its outputs and strategies. The study started with measuring the worth of livelihood asset through composite index, followed by identification of the factors influencing livelihood outcomes using regression model. It calculated the Ginevičius Diversification Index of the sampled farm houses, which was followed by factors that affect the livelihood strategies using a multinomial logit model. A number of variables, some from the earlier studies, have been used to determine multiple asset by the study. The average value of all capitals of livelihood asset of a small farm household in the study area was 0.297. On average, the sampled farmers were at a premium in livelihood resources/assets consequently having low level of living standard and insufficient economic development prospects. The empirical results from the regression model revealed that household’s active labor and their education level of human capital; family’s owned land of natural capital; access to public services of physical capital; livestock and formal financial support of financial capital; and institutional membership and access to service providers of social capital had positive and significant effect on the livelihood output. The livelihood diversification index for the study area was 0.63. The empirical findings of multinomial logit model revealed that human capital, financial capital and social capital had positive and significant effect on the choice of farm households’ livelihood strategy in both Livelihood Strategy II and Livelihood Strategy III household models, taking Livelihood Strategy I households as the reference. Natural capital had insignificant influence on the choices of farm households’ livelihood strategies both in Livelihood Strategy II and Livelihood Strategy III households, taking Livelihood Strategy I households as the reference. Physical capital had insignificant influence on the choices of farm household livelihood strategies in the Livelihood Strategy II household xiii model. However, their influence had been positive and significant on the choices of farm household of livelihood strategy in Livelihood Strategy III households model. Following the array of results, the study has opined that the livelihood asset were highly in demand of up-gradation in all forms of capitals. It accentuated a reformed plan of human capital development through training addressing the needs of diverse backgrounds and areas. It categorically emphasizes on changing the approaches of various agriculture departments and other allied stakeholders by maximally focusing on the rural communities while planning developing agriculture sector and rural economy, at large. All government programs need to be sustainable, prioritizing rural economy and its environment.